Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: Israeli settlements in an Eventual Soveriegn Palestine

Israeli settlements in an Eventual Soveriegn Palestine

Victor has been having a discussion withHussein Ibish about Israeli settlers remaining in Palestine once there is such a state. (If there is, might be more accurate, though I'm certainly in favor if it can be done). Surprisingly, or perhaps not, Ibish and Victor both seem to agree that leaving settlers to be citizens of the Palestinians state would be a fine thing.

I'm theoretically agnostic, but practically against. Were there ever to be a free and democratic Palestine that operated along, say, Belgian lines, or Danish ones: fine, let there be some Jews there, too. But there's no chance of there being such a state anytime this century, as far as I can see, so it's not relevant. Bar that possibility, what's much more likely is just another Arab state. Can anyone imagine Jews living freely in an Arab state, as they can in the UK, or even post-junta Argentina? No? I didn't think so.

Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: Israeli settlements in an Eventual Soveriegn Palestine

Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: Israel Joins the OECD

Israel Joins the OECD

The 31 members of the OECD today voted today to accept Estonia, Israel and Slovenia, which will thus become country members 32, 33 and 34. (The list of the other 31 is here).

The Economist often characterizes the OECD as "a rich-country think tank". While I doubt Israel's accession will make any difference in anyone's immediate day-to-day life, it's a nice club to belong to, and being inside is nicer than being outside.

The Palestinians did their best to prevent Israel being accepted, on the principle that anything that's good for Israel must be very bad. It seems however that the decision reflected actions and their expression in numbers, not ideology, so the Palestinian efforts didn't make any difference. The OECD press release announcing the decision (linked above) notes that "Israel’s scientific and technological policies have produced outstanding outcomes on a world scale."

Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: Israel Joins the OECD

Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: Don't Divide Jerusalem: Context

Don't Divide Jerusalem: Context

Jerusalem cannot be divided without havoc and bloodletting. I hope to offer a series of posts to demonstrate why. Today's post looks at the geography and at borders.

I'm assuming anyone who knows how to read a blog also knows how to use Google Earth, so the images I've downloaded should be merely a guide to your own viewing. Let's start with a screen-shot of central Israel, an area smaller than Los Angeles.

You can see (sort of) that Jerusalem sits on the top of a north-south ridge of hills. Directly to its north is the town of Ramallah, directly to its south the town of Bethlehem. Directly to its east is the Judean Desert. Since Google has helpfully added the Green Line of 1949-1967 (in red), to the west of the city you can see the Jerusalem Corridor, a finger of territory that connects the city to the rest of Israel, while jutting into the West Bank. Before 1967 Jerusalem was not only divided, it was surrounded on three sides by hostile enemy territory. From its vantage points on the high peaks of Nabi Samuel to the north, and Beit Jallah to the south, the Jordanian army could see just about the entire city below.

Let's get closer to the city itself.
I've marked two significant points. To the north is the Atarot airstrip (circled in light blue), and down to the right, the Holy Basin. Each plays a different role in the story. First, the airstrip.

Between 1949 and 1967 West Jerusalem was the capital of Israel, and it grew significantly. East Jerusalem wasn't the capital of anything, and didn't grow. In June 1967 when Israel took over the entire town, the Jordanian "half" of it was a small area, almost completely inside the yellow frame. To the north, well outside town, was a small airstrip, near where there had been a Jewish village of Atarot until it was conquered by the Jordanians in 1948. In June 1967 a team of three Israeli generals - Uzi Narkis, Shlomo Lahat, and retired general Moshe Dayan - were told to draw a new municipal line. They felt the airstrip had to be inside it, and so they invented a new definition of the city which had no history and not very much logic.(Source for the map) This artificial town had a population of about 250,000, 70,000 of them Palestinians from the Jordanian side, many of whom did not know they were in Jerusalem until the Israelis told them. Had you asked them they'd have said they lived in Um Tuba, or Kfar Akeb, and so on. Israel then proceeded to annex the area inside the line, to offer citizenship to it's populace (they mostly didn't take it), and to "force" upon them the benefits of permanent residents such social security and later universal health care, when we all got it. (Those they did take).

Since 1967 the city has roughly trebled in size, to about 800,000, of them some 250,000 Palestinians. The Palestinians spread out from their villages, some of which connected to each other and to the center. The Jews spread out in the west, and added 10 new neighborhoods in the new areas beyond the old border. Nine of them appear on the above map, and one (Ramat Shlomo), the most recent, doesn't. They are, north to south: Neve Yaakov, Pisgat Zeev, Ramot, Ramat Shlomo, Ramat Eshkol (including Sanhedria), French Hill, the Jewish Qurter of the Old City, East Talpiot, Gilo, and Har Homa. There's also an industrial area of mostly Jewish-owned companies way to the north, next to the airstrip, but no-one lives there. The airstrip, by the way, is defunct. So much for that miscalculation.

The historical heart of Jerusalem is called the Holy Basin. It's a new name, which first entered the political discussion in the Camp David discussions of summer 2000: Ehud Barak was willing to consider handing over the outer Palestinian neighborhoods, the Um Tubas and the Kfar Akebs which probably should never have been defined as Jerusalem in the first place, but was loth to divide the truly historical heart of Jerusalem. There is no official definition of what precisely fits into the Holy Basin, but it's more or less the area between Mount Scopus to the north and the Hill of Evil Council to the south, or perhaps less, depending upon whom you ask. (The Hill of Evil Council, by the way, is a New Testament name, upon which the British built their government house, and the UN sits until this very day. I spoof you not).The center of the Holy Basin is the Old City, which actually isn't the oldest part of town. To it's north I've marked the Sheikh Jarrah area, and to its south I've marked the City of David-Silwan area - which is the oldest part of the city, predating the wrongly named Old City by about 2,000 years.
I've marked five sections of the Old City. Green for the Muslim Quarter, red for the Christian Quarter, blue for the Armenian Quarter, fuchsia for the Jewish Quarter, and yellow for the Temple Mount, called Haram el-Shariff by the Muslims. Jerusalem not being New York, the resolution offered by Google Earth becomes less helpful when you get closer than this altitude above the city, but maybe in a future post, when I try to show the silliness of dividing the city, I'll try none-the-less.

Proposed borders: Jerusalem hasn't been divided, nor has anyone ever officially agreed on how to divide it. Yet since 2000 there has been much discussion of such a division, and of course a total international consensus that it must happen (except for those who disagree). For the purpose of my future posts on the matter, in which I shall try to show why the city cannot feasibly be divided, I'm following the contours of this international consensus. Its principles were formulated by President Bill Clinton on Dec. 24th 2000, and they're very simple: areas where Jews live in will be in Israel, areas where Palestinians live in will be in Palestine. The Temple Mount-Haram elSharif will be in Palestine because the Palestinians really really want it and there are mosques on it. Where possible - open areas, for example - the border will be the Green line of 1949-67.

The folks who agreed on the Geneva Initiative have gone to a lot of effort to make detailed maps of the various sections of town and who they'll belong to; compare their polished output to my slap-dash ones and you'll be impressed, I assure you. The whole 10-piece series is here. Their lines are pretty much what Clinton had in mind, and I expect his wife and her boss agree. So my task in the coming posts will be to show what the reality will look like, and why you wouldn't want anyone you know to have to live in it.

Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: Don't Divide Jerusalem: Context

Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: Another One Bites the Dust

Another One Bites the Dust

Remember how last August Robert Malley and Hussain Agha, the world's two most effective apologists for the Palestinians, came out and said explicitly that peace between Israel and Palestinians was not realistic? At the time I noted that while they still weren't exactly Zionists, they were essentially admitting the truth of what most Israelis have been saying for a decade.

Now it's the turn of Aaron Miller, a professional peace-processor rather high in all American administrations since the 1980s, and not famous for his warmth towards Israel. Well, he now admits not only that peace can't be had, but also that the dogmas that motivated him, his bosses and colleagues, and the current president, were only that: dogmas. Articles of faith. And false ones, to boot.

He never manages to come out and say: peace is impossible because the Palestinians won't accept it in any form any rational Israelis can offer. He's not that far gone yet. Short of that, however, he basically says what a majority of Israelis have been saying for a decade (and a minority, myself not included, said even earlier). Which of course begs the question: OK, so you've been wrong all along and only now admit it. What would have happened if we'd listened to you and your bosses, various presidents of the United States, only later to learn that you'd been wrong? Why should we take the current one any more seriously?

Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: Another One Bites the Dust

Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: Don't Divide Jerusalem

Don't Divide Jerusalem

Just about everyone who makes utterances on the topic assures everyone else that an essential part of reaching peace between Israel and Palestine must include the division of Jerusalem.

I am convinced a division of Jerusalem will lead to war, for reasons I have described elsewhere. Yet no matter how optimistic or starry eyed one chooses to be, decision makers have the responsibility to prepare for negative outcomes of their actions. Telling yourself everything will work out fine is OK for a story-teller, a rejected lover, or investment bankers. Political leaders must relate to the possibility their actions might not have the hoped-for result. Dividers of Jerusalem are welcome to hope for the best, but must also prepare for less than the best. They must explain what will happen if their rosier expectations prove misguided. Put more bluntly, they must explain what will happen if the line of division deteriorates into a hostile border.

In this new series of blogposts it is my intention to show pictures and short films from the city, demonstrating what it looks like right now, with a call to explain what will happen if that hostile border is inserted into it.

Here are two films from the area of the Jaffa Gate.

Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: Don't Divide Jerusalem

Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: Palestinian Opinion Poll Data

Palestinian Opinion Poll Data

Noah Pollak cites a recent poll. Palestinians, it appears, are ever less enthusiastic about Hamas. That's good. They're also not particularly interested in peace alongside Israel. Not surprising.

I continue to say it's not my job to tell about what the Palestinians think: I don't speak their language, and am not closely familiar with their culture. I may be better informed than, oh, 94% of Western media types who regularly pontificate on the matter, but that's not saying much. These numbers, however, come from a Palestinian pollster, and they fit into other long-term findings that Israelis can disregard only by making an effort.

Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: Palestinian Opinion Poll Data

Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: The American President and Israeli Settlements

The American President and Israeli Settlements

C-Span seems to have a new online video library. A valuable resource indeed.

For example, here's an American president publicly going on record with positions the present president pretends never existed.

Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: The American President and Israeli Settlements

Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: Has Obama Given Up?

Has Obama Given Up?

Greg Sheridan, in far-away Australia, reads the tea leaves and learns that Obama has reconciled himself to Iran's going nuclear; his wild over-reaction to Israeli building in East Jerusalem is a ploy to isolate Israel to such an extent it won't even dream of attacking Iran's nuclear facilities.

US President Barack Obama has decided to abandon any serious effort to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. He is determined instead to live with a nuclear Iran, by containment and, if possible, negotiation.

This is the shifting tectonic plate in the Middle East.

This is the giant story of the past few weeks which the world has largely missed, distracted by the theatre of the absurd of Obama's contrived and mock confrontation with Israel over 1600 apartments to be built in three years' time in a Jewish suburb in East Jerusalem.

Iran is the only semi-intelligible explanation for Obama's bizarre over-reaction against the Israelis.

I don't know if this is true - how could I? Except the part about how Obama calculated his over-reaction to Israeli actions which his administration had previously agreed to: that part everyone could see without recourse to classified documents and secret discussions. Still, it's as likely as any other interpretation swirling around.

Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: Has Obama Given Up?

Think Tanks as a Continuation of Politics

Think Tanks as a Continuation of Politics

Barry Rubin has a story about how the Obama administration is preparing to change American policy on Hizballah and engage them in talks; he himself has been invited to participate in preparing the ground, but prefers to spill the beans.

I'm not enough of an insider to know. The interesting part of the story is actually the glimpse it gives us regular folks about how such policy changes are engineered, and the role played by think tanks, which are given a goal which needs to be academically justified, and duly produce a report coincidentally recommending just what someone was hoping for.

Do you think that's possible?

Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Fayyad on Palestinian Independence

Fayyad on Palestinian Independence

Akiva Eldar, always certain the Arabs are eager for peace and the Israeli Right is against, interviews West-Bank Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. As you'd expect, it's all nice and positive. True, Eldar asks no hard questions except one ("what about the incitement"), so Fayyad has no need to respond to them (and his response to the incitement question is, how to put it, inadequate).

Still, were it possible to have a peaceful sovereign Palestine in less than two years, alongside Israel, who'd argue? If, mind you.

Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: Tactic or Strategy?

Tactic or Strategy?

Barak Ravid reports that the Obama administration is seeking a 4-month building freeze in East Jerusalem, in return for direct talks between Israel and the PA, rather than the silly proximity talks that had or had not been about to start.

If it's a tactic, I'm in favor. Four months isn't very long, and in real talks it will take less than that to demonstrate that the Palestinians have no interest in reaching an agreement, which is the fundamental fact of the matter. (Though it would also allow them the opportunity of proving us wrong, which would be great).

However, Ravid's report also includes this

Haaretz reported on Monday that the U.S. administration had further demands regarding East Jerusalem including the reopening of a Palestinian commercial office there, as well as an end to both the razing of Palestinian homes and the evacuation of Palestinians from their homes.

No homes have been razed for many months, so that demand smacks of the "when did you last beat your wife" trick, except that municipalities enforcing zoning laws are not quite as pernicious as beating one's wife. The reopening of a Palestinian office in Jerusalem, however, is the exact opposite of a freeze. In a freeze everything stops so as to allow negotiators to examine the issue calmly. Opening Palestinian offices where they currently aren't is precisely the opposite.

This raises the issue of the American agenda. If it's getting talks started once again, so as to see where they lead, that's one thing. If it's to force the Palestinian agenda on Israel, that's another matter.

Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: Tactic or Strategy?

Peace With Whom, Exactly?

Peace With Whom, Exactly?

Sulzman, a recent reader who attributes positions to me which I don't hold, comments:

What exactly don't you think Obama doesn't get about Israelis? I think he gets Israelis exactly right, which is that they've become complacent about the peace process, and perhaps understandably so, given developments over the last 10 years. But for the U.S. that's a big problem. I thought this article by Tom Friedman today pretty much got it right.

The Friedman column is here, and indeed makes a similar point: that Israelis no longer care about making peace.

In a truly weird development, Fake Ibrahim supplies the answer, though of course his intentions were rather the opposite:

One year after the Israeli invasion of Gaza, people you were acquainted with continue to die at the border. In the past two weeks a foreign worker and three soldiers were killed: compare that to less than 30 Israeli deaths in the whole Qassam years. It looks like Cast Lead was a failure. How many Peretz's are you prepared to sacrifice before you admit that force alone won't bring you security?

Whether the Gaza Operation was successful or not, it's still too early to know. It brought a year of calm, that's beyond argument; what happens now we don't know, but can hope that the calm will return. In either case, the answer to your question, Fake Ibrahim, is that we'll sacrifice as many people as we need to sacrifice, and for as long as it takes even if it be another century or two, but we won't give up. Or to put it more bluntly, we'll make every reasonable effort not to sacrifice anyone, but if needs be, we'll keep at it until the Palestinians decide the conflict is no longer worth the sacrifices it demands of them.

Yet the mystifying part of the story is that uninformed and malicious Fake Ibrahim gets it, while Sulzamn, who was here not long ago, and Friedman, whose profession it ought to be to know better, don't. Fake Ibrahim understands that we can't be enjoying the lack of peace and the losses of life this requires, while Friedman thinks

To put it another way, the collapse of the peace process, combined with the rise of the wall, combined with the rise of the Web, has made peacemaking with Palestinians much less of a necessity for Israel and much more of a hobby. Consciously or unconsciously, a lot more Israelis seem to believe they really can have it all: a Jewish state, a democratic state and a state in all of the Land of Israel, including the West Bank — and peace.

Does the name Ehud Olmert ring a bell? He won an election here in 2006 by promising we'd leave the West Bank even without peace, and then in 2008 (September 2008: that's all of 18 months ago) offered the "moderate" Palestinians not only 100% of the West Bank but even East Jerusalem. The response? There never was one. Abu Mazen never responded, hoping (correctly, as it turned out) that Obama would be elected and he'd wring more concessions from Israel. (Well, he was right about Obama. It remains to see if Obama manages to deliver: I expect not).

Friedman's column - like most of the discourse about all the things the Israelis "must understand", is arrogant, uninformed, unintelligent, and coming from someone with his pay-grade, offensive. Israeli cab drivers and tomato merchants are better informed about the details of this area: and they have to be, since it's their lives, or the lives of their children, which will be lost if the wrong decisions are made - or more accurate, whenever the wrong decisions are made.

Newsflash for the ignoramusi, from the White House down: we understand our situation, and don't much like it. Sadly, all possible alternatives at this stage are worse. Those of you with true power, if there are any of you, might try to help by convincing the Palestinians to make a deal. But if you don't have that power - and you probably don't - then at least stop preachifying. It makes you look unserious.

As a former Lefty and current centrist, it pains me that you've got to go all the way to The Weekly Standard to find thoughtful descriptions of how destructive the Obama policies are, and how dangerous for the people who live here, but there you have it. Here. Then again, perhaps you don't need to go to the Weekly Standard. Simply read the mainstream, PA- ("Moderate")-controlled press. Here, translated into English.

Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: Petraeus Clarifies

Petraeus Clarifies

General Petraeus called Gabi Ashkenazi, his Israeli counterpart, to deny the reports of his blaming Israel or Israeli policies for endangering Americans.

"But I think people inferred from what that said and then repeated it a couple of times and bloggers picked it up and spun it," he added. "And I think that has been unhelpful, frankly."

Petraeus was referring to blogging activity surrounding his comments on Israel, and apparently it was important for the general not to be seen as hostile to Israel, for Israeli consumption but also for the American public.

The two decisions Petraeus made, to call Ashkenazi and publicize the conversation, are important. CENTCOM is responsible for all the Arab states east of Egypt, and tends to shy away from making public its contacts with the IDF. Petraeus told the press that he did not seek to bring the West Bank and the Gaza Strip into the realm of CENTCOM responsibility, as they, along with Israel, fall under the responsibility of the European Command.

Hmmm. Bloggers.Who might he have in mind, do you think?

Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: Petraeus Clarifies

Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: An Israeli Perspective on Obama

An Israeli Perspective on Obama

Quite a number of people, including readers of this blog, feel Obama is an antisemite and hates Israel. I don't. He clearly isn't enamored of us, that's true, but his problem is broader than animosity towards Israel: the man doesn't understand the world. Being the president of the United States means he can call in whatever experts he wishes, and his lack of understanding of the world is so comprehensive he doesn't recognize that the folks feeding him data and interpretations are inept. As I've repeatedly said, it takes two years to learn the job of president of the US, so perhaps he may yet learn - though time is running out, and he's making things worse as he goes (not only on our subject).

Here's an article in Hebrew about how he's screwing up Israel-Palestine. There's nothing particularly new in it, and the reason I'm linking is the identity of the author: prof. Eitan Gilboa, perhaps Israel's most prominent scholar on the US and on Israeli-American relations. He's a centrist, like most of us, not a firebrand. When he writes a column flatly declaring "Obama is tripping-up Netanyahu" (whom Gilboa probably didn't vote for), and it appears on Y-net, it reinforces the commonly accepted version around here in a way that an op-ed in Haaretz never will.

I fail to see how forging an Israeli consensus that America is not to be trusted can remotely promote peace. Someday, should an agreement ever be reached, Israel will be required to take enormous, life-endangering risks. We won't take the risks because of our love and trust in the Palestinians; if we can't trust the Americans, it will be all that harder to convince us. This may not be just, but it's the real world.

Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: An Israeli Perspective on Obama

Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: Screw-up, Second Round

Screw-up, Second Round

Jackson Diehl at the Washington Post describes how Obama is running his Israel-Palestine act all wrong. Worse: he's refusing to learn from his mistakes, preferring to repeat them.

The facts of the case are not complicated. When Obama was elected there was a significant Israeli proposal on the table, which the Palestinians were studiously averting their faces from, pretending not to see. 15 months into Obama's term, the animosity on all sides is stratospheric, and the Palestinians and Israelis can't even find their way into the same room. Not all of this is because of American missteps - but most of it is.

Way to go!

Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: Screw-up, Second Round

Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: Schadenfreude

Schadenfreude

The Economist, no less, takes on the silliness of Juan Cole and Andrew Sullivan, who've been touting this Ministry of Truth map of a faraway land they know nothing about. Ouch!

H/t Judeosphere

Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: Schadenfreude

Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: Three Periphal Comments to Obamacare

Three Periphal Comments to Obamacare

Over the past few weeks we've had the need for a number of medical interventions a notch more serious than sniffles and sore throats. Nothing major, thankfully, but the sort of things that happen in life. In each case we were struck by the degree to which the level of service is improving over time. The intelligent application of technology to health service in a universal system makes life better, it's that simple.

Over the past 18 months or so I've made the mistake, three or four times, of putting a toenail in the general proximity of the American health care discussion. I was pleased to see that there are readers of this blog from both sides of the Great Political Divide of American politics, so in each case I was treated to torrents of - well, it wasn't abuse, but it certainly was reprimands for having got it all wrong. I should probably simply shut up this morning, the day after Obama passed a health insurance law, or Congress did at his behest, or something. But we bloggers, we talk too much by definition, else we wouldn't blog.... so here goes.

1. A rich society - and America is - should be able to protect its members from the harm of not having reliable health insurance. There are different ways of reaching that goal, but since I'm an firm believer in democracy, my fundamental belief is that democratic societies mostly figure out reasonably correct means to achieve the common goals. So if the United States is now a bit closer to being a good society (no society is ever near perfection), in the long run this should make America stronger. Given the alternatives, a strong America based on a healthy American society is good for the world (and good for Israel). So yesterday's legislation, I hope, is more a good thing than a bad thing.

2. It is hugely ironic that on the day of his historic achievement, Obama is being compared favorably to Lyndon Johnson. I'm old enough to remember how LBJ was literally drummed out of town by the political forebears - indeed, in many cases, by the very same individuals - who today are crowing over Obama's political victory. What can I say? Hee hee hee.

3. World history and the Jewish question. After all, at the end of the day we all ask ourselves what world history does for us. There can be no doubt that when Netanyahu meets Obama tomorrow, the meeting will be different for the outcome of yesterday's vote. Perhaps even dramatically so. Yet if there was one irrevocable thing I learned from the disintegration of my worldview in late 2000, when the political positions I had believed in and preached for my entire adult life came crashing down about me, it was that reality is stronger than any conceivable spin machine. The president has just had a political victory at home. This doesn't make his ineptitude in the Middle East any different than it was last week. Many Americans may or may not be impressed by his ability; the rest of the world is still the same complicated world.

Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: Three Periphal Comments to Obamacare

Illegal Settlements

Illegal Settlements

Veteran reader David Sigeti wonders if I'd like to comment on this article, in which former US ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer writes about the illegality of the West Bank settlements. Kurtzer's thesis is that much of the settlement activity is illegal - and has been throughout - even by the standards of Israel's legal system.

It's an interesting read, mostly for the quick and truncated glimpse it gives us behind the scenes of the American-Israeli relationship; on one level, the American ambassador has routine access to top-level Israeli officials to a degree unmatched by most regular Israeli citizens. (There's also an amusing anecdote, when Kurtzer and some Israelis are trying to agree on where the settlements end, and Kurtzer has relevant secret American intelligence data he's not able to share with the Israelis: because it came from satellites? From Palestinian farmers? From American moles in Israel's officialdom? He doesn't say, alas).

The most interesting thing I come away from the article with is how fiendishly complex the matter really is, with almost no ability to reach agreements about the simplest facts of almost any part of the story. What is the legal case? Who owns which land? How does anyone know? When is a legal document "right", if at all, ever? If an attorney states a legal position, how do you decide if it's law, or politics, or both, or neither?

For a number of years I've been idly telling myself that once Israel leaves the West Bank, I'd like to write a book about the settlement project and Israeli society. The book can't be a book of history until after the story is over, of course, which is one reason I never started working on it; Kurtzer's article indicates that long before writing about the project and Israeli society, it will first be necessary to figure out what the project was. The simple facts. Because something like 90% of what people think they know to be facts, are actually little more than ideologically-driven hearsay.

Take the fundamental question: who owns the land. I don't know the answer, which in any case would differ according to whichever plot of it you're standing on. I do know, however, that contrary to everything the media ever tells you, most of the West Bank is barren hill-sides or dessert, and has been forever. It's not fertile farmland, not olive groves nor vineyards, and certainly not towns and villages. Thorny hillsides, dry and dusty ravines. Before you determine who owns pieces of it, you're going to have to figure out how they may have come to claim that ownership.

Back to Kurtzer's thesis, however: I expect he's roughly right. Much of the settlement project happened in murky gray zones on the edge of legality, some of it on the outside parts of it. This is not the reason the settlements need eventually to be disbanded, most of them: that's a matter of politics. As regular readers will recognize, I'm of the opinion that in matters of international relations politics, power relations and national interests generally trump legality. When they don't, it's often because the power brokers managed to have the law written to fit their purposes. Sorry if that makes me sound like a cynic.

Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

More in Anger than in Sorrow

More in Anger than in Sorrow

The Economist ponders the motivations for Obama's anger at Israel:

One school of thought holds that Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton escalated their reaction to the Biden insult in order to make Mr Netanyahu abandon his rightist allies and tread the American path to peace; some say the president was waiting for a chance to destabilise him to force his replacement by someone more emollient. A rival theory is that there is no plan: Ramat Shlomo simply ignited the rage that has smouldered in Mr Obama’s breast since Mr Netanyahu refused his call last year for a total freeze on settlements, forcing Mr Mitchell to waste nearly a year niggling for a temporary compromise.

Forgive me if I've gotten my narratives mixed here, but wasn't unflappability one of the many things that had people so swooning about Obama? He's never ruffled, the gushing pundits told us, a rational fellow who stands above the weaknesses of mere mortals who are controlled by their emotions, their prejudices and their animosities.

So were they wrong? Or were they right, but there's something uniquely aggravating about Jews living in their homeland which makes otherwise stoic Obama lose his cool? Wouldn't that be odd?

The report then concludes with this parting shot:

In testimony to a Senate committee this week, General David Petraeus, hero of Iraq and America’s commander in the wider Middle East, said the unsolved conflict in Palestine was fomenting anti-Americanism in the wider region. An obvious point, perhaps; but yet another reason why the love is draining out of a special relationship.

Set aside the question as to the love which is or isn't draining. The fundamental point is the contention that since the "wider region" (the Muslim world, perhaps?) isn't willing to live with a Jewish state, America's interests would best be served by jettisoning Israel. Now I know that's not what Petraeus said, but it is a logical oversimplification of what he reportedly did say. If the Muslims really really don't like having a Jewish state in their midst, perhaps America ought to try harder to mollify them.

Interesting, isn't it.

Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: Jerusalem in the News

Jerusalem in the News

The events in Jerusalem this week demonstrate the insignificance of blogging. Had I been here I would have spluttered and fumed; this way, all I have to do is point you to Yossi Klein Halevy's fine article, which says it all.

On a related point, I heard a comment yesterday about how at the moment, Israel is more popular in the United States than Obama. Walter Russel Mead tries to take a long view on this, to the extent a contemporary can: it's the Christian Jacksonians who are supporting Israel, more than the (numerically insignificant) Liberal Jews; this underlying structure of American politics is not going to change anytime soon, though it may well add its two bits to shorten the political career of Barack Obama.

And note Mead's article on the Jacksonian tradition, here.

Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: Jerusalem in the News