[NYTr] After Annapolis, Part 2

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

sent by MichaelP - activ-l

Part 2 - After Annapolis


Tikkun - Nov 25, 2007
http://files.tikkun.org/current/article.php?story=20071125065746428

The pieces begin with Rabbi Lerner's --

RABBI LERNER ON ANNAPOLIS:

Negotiations will resume between Israel and Palestine. But
there is no particular reason to believe that they will lead to a
resolution of the conflict.  There has been no breakthrough in
consciousness on either side of the struggle.

What would a breakthrough look like? Well, it could take the form of
some actions. Israel could dismantle the checkpoints in the West Bank
and free the thousands of Palestinians kidnapped by the Israeli army
and held without charges, sometimes tortured, in Israeli detention
camps. Palestinians could disarm the various militias in the West Bank
and put on trial suspected terrorists against Israel.

Or a breakthrough could take the form of a statement from either side
that spoke to the fundamental needs on the other side. Israelis could 
acknowledge that the creation of the State of Israel led to the 
unjustified expulsion of tens of thousands of Palestinians by the
Israeli army and the fleeing of hundreds of thousands from their homes
in fear of being caught in a war zone, and that this created a
Palestinian refugee population for which Israel has some (though not
total)  responsibility, and that Israel would participate in an
international agreement to provide reparations for the loss of land and
homes and employment caused by this unjustified displacement (though
only in conjunction with Arab states and the international community
also taking major responsibility for reparations). Israel could further
acknowledge that the Palestinian people have a legitimate claim on the
West Bank and Gaza, and that any settlement would include Palestinians
getting control over at least 95% of that land, and that human rights
abuses by Israel had taken place during the Occupation that would and
should be prosecuted. And Israeli leaders could express remorse at the
loss of lives of Palestinian civilians and visit the graves of
Palestinians killed in Israeli military actions. The Palestinians could
similarly express remorse at the lives of Israeli civilians lost during
terorrist raids into Israel and visit the graves of those Israelis who
had been murdered in these attacks. The Palestinians could present on
Palestinian t.v. an account of the history of the conflict that helped
their people understand why Jews thought they had a right to the land
of Israel and what Palestinian leadership had done in the pre-1948
period that made Jews so angry at Palestinians (in the period when it
was Jews, not Palestinians, living in detention camps). And the
Palestinians could announce the intention to begin to teach the values
of non-violence both in public statements and in a curriculum
introduced into Palestinian schools.

No such breakthroughs took place.

Nor is there any reason to think that either side has put into motion a 
process that will lead in this direction.

Yet it would be foolish to close the door or to insist that the whole 
thing is a charade. Abbas, Olmert and Bush all have strong reasons to
want to have a breakthrough, since each has very little else to boast
about in terms of political accomplishments while in office. There is
every reason to believe that they actually want something dramatic to
change as the negotiations proceed.

On the other hand, none of them are willing to act courageously and to
use their actual existing power to make breakthroughs happen. Contrast
that with Egyptian President Sadat who announced that he was coming to
Israel to make peace. By taking that step, Sadat made a gesture that
raised hopes in Israel sufficiently for the Israeli population to
switch from being against concessions to Egypt to being for those
concessions, and the result was the withdrawal from Sinai by Israel and
a cold peace that has provided safety for Israel ever since.

Contrast that with the Oslo Accord in which Arafat and Rabin signed 
declarations under the watchful eye of Bill Clinton, but only agreed to
a negotiating process and a staged process of implementing a
Palestinian state, the stages of which were not ever seriously
implemented.  What was absent in that case was any agreement about the
final terms of a settlement, and hence any incentive for either side to
make painful concessions in the stages of the process, since there had
been no agreement about where the process would lead. Ditto the Road
Map to Peace proposed by President Bush many years ago had no clarity
about where the road was leading, so no one bothered to get on that
road to follow its alleged map.

Absent the courage on either side to make dramatic breakthroughs, the 
negotiations envisioned are unlikely to produce much in the next few 
years.

Yet the hope for peace is important to sustain, and the negotiations
may slowly whittle away at the pessimism on both sides that makes 
breakthroughs so difficult.  For that reason, we should support the 
process, but without illusions about its likely success. What we can do
is help clarify for those who will listen what in fact would be
acceptable terms for a resolution of this conflict (see, for example,
my book The Geneva Accord and Other Strategies for Middle East Peace,
North Atlantic Books, 2004).  And we can do our best to prepare the
ground for an effort by the next President to use his or her power to
push the sides toward a real agreement that would provide a just
solution, though as long as the Israel Lobby sets severe limits on such
a solution there is little reason to believe that any of the current
front runners for either major party will be willing to risk his or her
political capital to actually push for substantial compromises on both
sides.

Ironically, the one thing that might change the situation in future
years is a change in the consciousness of Americas ruling elites. The
failure of their war in Iraq, and the likely destructive consequences
of the likely airstrikes at Iran, may eventually open those elites to
the wisdom of a new approach:  the strategy of generosity and the
Global Marshall Plan. Such a transformation of consciousness on their
parts would make it possible for them to use their power, far greater
than the power of the Israel Lobby, to push the US government toward a
powerful role in insisting that both sides make the necessary
concessions that would bring a lasting peace.

We must continue to pray for peace, and also to spread a vision of a
world based on mutual caring and generosity, because it is only if that
larger vision can get traction in the minds of our fellow citizens of
the world that they will be willing to give up territory or power for
the sake of peace.

[Meanwhile,  we  will provide you with ongoing analyses of the process,
right here at www.tikkun.org ]

-Rabbi Michael Lerner
Editor, Tikkun Magazine
Chair, NSP (the Network of Spiritual Progressives)
www.spiritualprogressives.org)

                           ***

Please read all that comes below:

Olmert: Reality formed in 1967 to change significantly
Israel, PA agree to strive for accord by end of 2008 

By Barak Ravid, Aluf Benn, and Assaf Uni, 
Haaretz Correspondents and Haaretz Service 

Israel and the Palestinian Authority agreed Tuesday to immediately
launch peace negotiations in order to reach an agreement by the end of
2008, U.S. President George Bush said in his remarks at the Middle East
peace conference in Annapolis, Maryland.

Prior to his prepared address, Bush read a joint statement agreed on by 
the sides during last-minute negotiations at the summit. (Watch
excerpts from Bush's speech on Haaretz.com TV) Bush spoke before
representatives of more than 50 nations and organizations that he had
invited to Annapolis for a day-long conference aimed at restarting the
stalled peace process. Among the participants were the foreign
ministers of most Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, as well as the
Syrian envoy to Washington. "We agreed to immediately launch good
faith, bilateral negotiations in order to conclude a peace treaty
resolving all outstanding issues, including core issues, without
exception," Bush said, reading from the joint statement.

According to the statement, Israel and the PA also agreed to implement 
their commitments under the long-dormant U.S.-backed road map for
Middle East peace.

According to sources in the Israeli delegation, the Palestinians had 
refused to sign the document until the last minute.

Bush met Tuesday with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian
Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas at the Annapolis summit.  The
president met separately with Olmert and Abbas on Monday evening.

The first peace talks are to be held December 12, Bush said, and are to 
continue biweekly after that.

In his address following the meeting, Bush said, "The Palestinians 
understand that terrorism is the enemy standing in the way of a 
Palestinians state."

"The [final peace] settlement will establish Palestine as a 
homeland for the Palestinian people just as Israel is the homeland for
the Jewish people," said Bush.

"The United States will keep its strong commitment to the
security of the State of Israel and its existence as a homeland for the
Jewish people," he continued.

The U.S.  president also urged the Palestinians to dismantle the 
"infrastructure of terror,"  and called on Israel to end settlement 
expansion as well as evacuate the illegal West Bank settlement outposts.

"The task begun here in Annapolis will be difficult,"  Bush
acknowledged. "This is the beginning of the process, not the end of
it." "The time is right, the cause is just, and with hard effort, I
know they can succeed," he said.

Later,  in  an  interview with The Associated Press, Bush spoke of the
importance  of  giving  beleaguered Palestinians something positive to
look forward to and sketched a grim alternative.

"Without  a hopeful vision," he said, "it is conceivable that we could
lose  an  entire generation, or a lot of a generation, to radicals and
extremists."

"There has to be something more positive. And that is on the 
horizon today," the president said.

Bush also expressed strong support for democracy in Lebanon, saying it
was crucial for Middle East peace.


Olmert: Reality that emerged in 1967 to change significantly

In his address, Olmert said Israel was ready for painful concessions
for peace, and to dramatically change the reality that emerged
following the 1967 Six-Day War. (Watch excerpts from Olmert's speech on
Haaretz.com TV) "We want peace," he continued. We demand the end of
terror, incitement and hatred.  We are prepared to make a painful
compromise, rife with risks, in order to realize these aspirations."
"The negotiations will address all of the issues which we have thus far
avoided dealing with,"  he continued. " am convinced that the reality
that emerged in our region in 1967 will change significantly.

I know this. Many of my people know this. We are prepared for it."
Olmert said Israel was offering an outstretched hand for peace, despite
all its concerns.

"The ongoing shooting of Qassam rockets against tens of thousands of 
residents in the south of Israel, particularly in the city of Sderot, 
serves as a warning sign, one which we cannot overlook," he said. "I
have come here, despite the concerns and the doubts and the
hesitations." "I believe that there is no path other than the path of
peace. I believe that there is no just solution other than the solution
of two national states for two peoples," he said. "I believe that there
is no path that does not involve painful compromise for you, the
Palestinians, and for us, the Israelis." The prime minister said he did
not come to Annapolis to "settle historical accounts"  for the
conflict, adding that he was aware of that Palestinians too have
suffered greatly.

Olmert expressed hopes that the sides could resolve the refugee issue,
one of the toughest sticking points.  "Israel will be part of an
international mechanism that will assist in finding a solution to this
problem," he said.

The prime minister said that a peace agreement could only be
implemented, in "gradual and careful" steps, after the road map is
fully carried out.

"We will abide by all of our obligations, and so will you."

"There isn't a single Arab state in the north, in the east or in the
south with which we do not seek peace," he said. "There isn't a single
Muslim state with which we do not want to establish diplomatic
relations."

The prime minister took the opportunity to call for the release of 
abducted Israel Defense Forces soldiers Gilad Shalit, Ehud (Udi) 
Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. "I long for the day when I can see Gilad, 
Eldad and Udi back with their families," he said. "And I will continue 
relentlessly in my efforts to achieve their release." Abbas: Israel
must end occupation of all PA lands, including E. J'lem In his address,
Abbas called for an end to the "occupation of all Palestinian lands
since 1967, including East Jerusalem, as well as the Syrian Golan and
occupied Lebanese territory," as well as a solution to the Palestinian
refugee problem. (Watch excerpts from Abbas' speech on Haaretz.com TV)

"We need East Jerusalem to be our capital, and to establish
open relations with West Jerusalem," he continued, urging respect for
the holy places of all religions.

"I am not overstating it, Mr. President, if I say the region is at a 
cross-roads between the pre-Annapolis phase and the post-Annapolis
phase," he continued.  "We are facing a test as our credibility as a
whole - the United States, the Quartet, and the whole international
community ... Israel, Palestine and the Arab states as well." The PA
chairman also praised Arab states for attending the summit, saying it
proved the sincerity of Arab states to continue what they started by
launching a peace initiative in 2002.

Abbas also called on Bush to ensure that Israel releases Palestinian 
prisoners.

                          ***

Who's in favor of ending (Israeli) terrorism?

The Annapolis diary, day 3

By Aluf Benn and Shmuel Rosner

1. If there is a need for proof that nothing changes in
Israeli-Palestinian relations, the joint declaration should suffice -
the one that was signed a few minutes before President George W. Bush
went to the podium and only after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
put a little pressure on Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.

If proof is needed to show that much has changed, then the whispering 
between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Abbas - a moment after Abbas 
finished his speech and Olmert took the floor - is proof of this.

The talks over the joint declaration, a total of only 437 words, lasted 
many weeks and reflected previous rounds of Israeli-Palestinian talks.
As always, the Palestinians announced each day that there was a
"crisis," and until the last minute declared they were going to pass on
the whole thing. As always, the Israelis said that things will be fine,
and played down the disagreements. And as always, at the moment of
truth, the two sides did not disappoint their American kindergarten
teacher.  At least they offered a bit of drama to the media on a
diplomatic document that is quite dull.


2. The Americans insisted for many months, with a persistence that is 
reserved for officials convinced they are correct, that in Annapolis
there will be a "meeting" and not a "summit." In the media and the rest
of the world they ignored this precise terminology, but the U.S.
administration did not give in. It was one of its ways of lowering
expectations.  Even Olmert, who has a compulsion for correcting
mistakes, constantly reiterated that "this is not a conference, but a
gathering."  Still, in the joint declaration the two leaders expressed
their thanks to the "participants in this international conference."
The joint declaration has other such delicate formulations that are
understood only by legal experts and veterans of the peace industry.

For example, on the question of what the declaration would be called, 
"declaration"  was the Israelis' choice, "document"  was the
Palestinians' preference, and "understanding"  was the American
compromise accepted in the end.

Such distinctions may give cause for a giggle, but the declaration 
contains two elements that will serve the Israeli right wing in attacks
it is expected to make on the prime minister. The first is the
comparison the declaration makes between "terrorism and incitement,
whether committed by Palestinians or Israelis." Translation: Olmert
agreed that Israel too is responsible for terrorism and incitement
against the Palestinians, and that America will decide in every case
who is inciting and who is a terrorist.

No public relations spin will be able to erase that: The comments Ariel 
Sharon's government presented for the road map specifically rejected
the requirement that Israel "cease the violence and the incitement
against the Palestinians." Now Israel has given up on its opposition
and a moral comparison has been established, which leaves Olmert with a
lot of explaining to do. (One of his explanations: it's not "Israel"
but rather "Israelis").

The second problematic element, from Israel's point of view, is the 
commitment to "make every effort" to complete the agreement by the end
of 2008.  On this matter, the Palestinian demand for a timetable was 
accepted, and Israel's position, which proposed to leave the timing 
unspecified, was rejected.


3. Olmert did everything he could to sterilize the Annapolis
declaration from any political booby traps. He had two problems.
Avigdor Lieberman and Shas opposed any talk on the core issues, and Eli
Yishai threatened that Shas would leave the coalition if "Jerusalem was
mentioned at Annapolis." On the other hand, Olmert was faced with the
objections of Ehud Barak and the defense establishment to any overly
generous gestures of good will to Abbas.

The only issue on which there is no organized opposition was the 
timetable.  No one will leave the cabinet because Israel has committed
to reaching a final-status agreement in a year. In politics, a year is
a lifetime.  And in the Middle East, as Yitzhak Rabin said about the
Oslo Accords, "no date is sacred." Therefore, it was convenient for
Olmert to give in on this without taking a chance.  'Let the
negotiations begin, then we'll see,' is the attitude.

Israel's main gain at Annapolis was in conditioning the implementation
of the future agreement, if such is achieved, to the implementation of
the obligations laid out in the road map and in rejecting the
Palestinian demand that the road map be implemented in parallel with
the final-status agreement. The Palestinians wanted Israel to have to
evacuate an outpost or freeze a settlement in exchange for every one of
their security-related operations. Israel insisted on separating the
two, and succeeded.


4. The issue that threatened to disrupt the talks between Foreign
Minister Tzipi Livni and her lead-negotiating counterpart, former PA
prime minister Ahmed Qureia, was over who would supervise the two sides
and decide whether they are meeting their road map obligations.

Experience in the Middle East suggests that the Israelis and the 
Palestinians are very good at blaming the other side, but they do not 
really like to keep their obligations. Had this been different the 
Palestinian terrorist groups and the outposts in the West Bank would
have long gone. During the Oslo period there was no responsible adult
around to ensure that the obligations were met. The road map sought to
correct this and set a mechanism of monitoring under American control.

The Palestinians and the Americans proposed for the current
negotiations to set up a tripartite committee that would discuss all
issues and decide who was right and who needs to correct things.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak opposed this proposal, fearing that Israel 
will find itself in a minority position, and proposed instead that an 
American arbitrator would be assigned to decide. The final compromise
is that a committee will be set up, but the decision maker will be U.S. 
General Jim Jones, the former NATO commander, who will take up his new 
duties in the coming days. Like other generals appointed by the White 
House for this thankless job, Jones will also probably go through a 
complicated breaking-in period in the Middle East.

                             ***


Nov 26, 2007

Broken Peace Process

by Stephen Zunes

Theres little reason to hope for a breakthrough at the Middle
East peace summit in Annapolis, unless there is a fundamental shift in
U.S. policy in addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And theres
little evidence to suggest such a change is forthcoming.

Indeed, Yossi Beilin, the Israeli Knesset member and former cabinet 
official who served as one of the major architects of the Oslo Accords, 
called for the conference to be canceled, fearing that it will only be
an empty summit that will only attract Arab ambassadors and not 
decision-makers alongside an Israeli leadership that prefers [appeasing 
Israeli hardliners] over a breakthrough to peace. As a result, he
argues that the meeting is doomed to fail and, as a result, would
weaken the Palestinian camp, strengthen Hamas and cause violence.

The   reason   for   such   pessimism   is   that  ever  since  direct
Israeli-Palestinian  peace talks began in the early 1990s, U.S. policy
has  been  based  on the assumption that both sides need to work out a
solution  among  themselves  and both sides need to accept territorial
compromise.  As reasonable as that may seem on the surface, it ignores
the fact that, even if one assumes that both Israelis and Palestinians
have  equal  rights to peace, freedom and security, there is a grossly
unequal  balance  of  power  between the occupied Palestinians and the
occupying  Israelis.  It  also  avoids acknowledging the fact that the
Palestinians, through the Oslo agreement, have recognized the state of
Israel  on  a  full  78%  of  Palestine and what Palestinian President
Mahmoud  Abbas  is asking for is simply the remaining 22% of Palestine
that  was  seized  by  Israel in the 1967 war and is recognized by the
international community as being under belligerent occupation.

International Law

However one may respect Israel for its democratic institutions (at
least for its Jewish citizens), its progressive social institutions
(like the kibbutzim), and its important role as a homeland for a
historically oppressed people, the fact remains that the Palestinians
have international law on their side in demanding, in return for
security guarantees, an Israeli withdrawal from all of the West Bank,
including East Jerusalem. The U.S. position, however, is that 22% is
too much and that the Palestinians must settle for less.

According to Israeli journalist Uri Avnery, the only way the conference 
could pave to way the peace would be if President George W. Bush
decided to exert intense pressure on Israel, to compel it to take the
necessary steps: agree to the establishment of a real Palestinian
state, give up East Jerusalem, restore the Green Line border (with some
small swaps of territory), find an agreed-upon compromise formula for
the refugee issue. The United States, which provides Israel with over
$4 billion in military and economic aid annually and has repeatedly
used its veto power at the UN Security Council to protect the Israeli
government from being compelled to live up to its international legal
obligations, has the power to do so.

According to Shlomo Brom of Tel Avivs Institute for National Security 
Studies, Judging from previous experience, US pressure can be very 
effective. Theres no evidence that the United States plans to use that 
kind of clout, however, to move the peace process forward.

Illegal Settlements

The Palestinians, Saudis and other Arab participants have been pushing
for a comprehensive package of Israeli actions that would include a
freeze on the growth of illegal settlements in the occupied
territories, the release of Palestinian political prisoners, the
relaxation of travel restrictions and checkpoints in the occupied
territories and an end of construction of parts of the separation
barrier inside the West Bank as called for by the International Court
of Justice.  Failure for Israel to agree to such conditions and the
failure of the United States to push Israel to agree to such conditions
has led to concerns that the conference would be simply a propaganda
coup by the Bush administration and Israeli government to give the
appearance of an ongoing peace process when, in fact, they are
unwilling to make the necessary comprises for a sustainable peace.

Israel has recently announced the release of approximately 400
Palestinian prisoners, though thousands most of whom have never engaged
in terrorism remain incarcerated. Some of the roadblocks that have
crippled travel and commerce in the occupied West Bank have been
lifted, but scores of others still impede Palestinians from traveling
from one town to another.

There are some indications that Israel will announce at the conference
a freeze on the construction of additional settlements in the West
Bank. However, they have agreed to such a freeze on several previous
occasions, including in an annex to the 1978 Camp David agreement, the
1992 loan guarantee agreement, the 1993 Oslo Accords, their response to
the 2001 Mitchell Report, and other times, only to continue
construction anyway without the United States insisting they live up to
their promises.  And Israel has ruled out withdrawing from these
illegal settlements, every one of which violates the Fourth Geneva
Convention, which deem it illegal for any country to transfer any part
of its civilian population onto territories seized by military force.

Indeed, UN Security Council resolutions 446, 452, 465, and 471
explicitly call on Israel to remove its colonists from the occupied
territories. However, both the Bush administration and an overwhelming
bipartisan majority in Congress have gone on record that Israel should
not be required to withdraw from the majority of these settlements.

Its these settlements, along with the separation barrier snaking its
way deep into the West Bank to separate them and surrounding areas from 
Palestinian population centers, which has made a peace settlement 
impossible, since the apparent goal of formally annexing them into
Israel would divide up a future Palestinian mini-state into a series of 
non-contiguous cantons consisting of as little as half of the West
Bank. These Jewish-only settlements connected by Jewish-only highways 
effectively have created an apartheid-like situation on the West Bank.

Any Palestinian state remaining would effectively be comparable to the 
notorious Bantustans of South Africa prior to majority rule. Despite
this, this partial Israeli disengagement from most
Palestinian-populated areas while controlling much of the land
surrounding them known as the Convergence Plan has received the support
of the Bush administration and an overwhelming bipartisan majority of
Congress.

Photo Op

Unless Israel and the United States are willing to address the core
issues boundaries that would insure a viable contiguous Palestinian
state, withdrawal of troops and settlers from the West Bank (except
perhaps for some along the border in exchange for an equal amount of
Israeli land), and a just resolution of the refugee problem the
conference will amount to little more than a photo op.

Indeed, the current unilateral Israel initiative is not much worse than 
the so-called generous offer put forward by former Prime Minister Ehud 
Barak at the Camp David summit in 2000. Arafats understandable refusal
to accept such a limited proposal was then used by the United States
and Israel as supposed proof of the Palestinians lack of desire for
peace.

The Annapolis meeting is ostensibly designed to re-start the process
along the so-called Roadmap for Israeli-Palestinian peace, originally
announced in 2002, which was to be based on the principle of Israeli
support for the establishment of a viable Palestinian state alongside
Israel following democratic reforms by the Palestinian Authority and
the end of terrorist attacks. Provisions called for in Phase I, which
was originally hoped to have been completed by 2003, included an end to
Palestinian violence, Palestinian political reform (including free
elections), Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian Authority areas
re-conquered since 2001, and a freeze on the expansion of Israeli
settlements in the occupied territories.

However, Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and a sizable majority of House 
members sent a letter to Bush insisting that the peace process be based 
above all on an end of Palestinian violence and the establishment of a
new Palestinian leadership. There was no mention of any reciprocal
actions by the Israeli government, reiterating the longstanding U.S.
position that it is not the occupation, but resistance to the
occupation, that is the root of the conflict.

President Bush agreed and, not surprisingly, the Roadmap stalled.

Recognizing Israel as a Jewish State

The prospects of progress growing out of the Annapolis meeting is made
all the less likely due to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmerts
insistence, backed by the U.S.  Congress, that the Palestinians,
despite having formally recognized Israel, also recognize Israel as a
Jewish state before substantive issues can be negotiated. Given the
sizable Palestinian minority in Israel and concerns that it would
legitimate past and future Israeli efforts at ethnic cleansing, this
demand is something that the Palestinian government could never agree
to and appears to be designed to prevent the peace process from moving
forward.

Indeed, the Soviets never demanded as a precondition of any agreements 
with the United States that the USSR be formally recognized as a
Communist state, nor has Pakistan ever demanded that India recognize it
as an Islamic state.

Though the United States has indicated its desire to emphasize an end
to Palestinian violence particularly acts of terrorism and addressing
Israels security concerns, there is no indication that the United
States plans to address issues concerning human rights or international
law outside of providing increased humanitarian relief for the
Palestinians.

If progress seems so unlikely, why is the United States pushing for
this summit to go forward? One motivation may simply be for the United
States to improve its standing among pro-Western Arab regimes by
appearing to be interested in the plight of the Palestinians in order
to gain support for the ongoing war in Iraq and increasing threats
against Iran. Whatever the reason, unless and until the United States
recognizes that Israeli security and Palestinian rights are not
mutually exclusive, but mutually dependent upon the other, there is
little hope for peace.

Stephen Zunes, the Foreign Policy In Focus (www.fpif.org) Middle East 
editor, is a professor of politics at the University of San Francisco,
a regular author for Tikkun Magazine, and the author of Tinderbox: U.S. 
Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (Common Courage Press, 
2003).

                               ***

October 31, 2007

It's Not Only the Israel Lobby
Other Interests Benefit from the Chaos

by Jon Basil Utley

The new, public debate about the Israel lobby is missing a major point
the lobby's allies, the many other interests in America that want chaos
in the Middle East. For example, in the Walt-Mearsheimer book there is
no listing in the index for "military-industrial complex." For all its
vaunted power, the Israel lobby could not dominate America's Mideast
policies without cover and active support from other powerful groups.
Although AIPAC promotes the lobby's image in Congress as being all
powerful, it isn't. The book does specify Christian Zionists as an
integral part of the lobby, but it neglects many others.

Another important question is how, when polling data shows that most
Jews opposed the Iraq war, did the Likud/settler minority faction take
over the whole Israel lobby? Although a minority with an agenda will
often win over an amorphous majority, that is not a sufficient
explanation. Indeed Jews are at the forefront of the fight against the
war and the consequent encroaching police state here in America. Some
of the most honest reporting on Israel comes from Jewish media:
Ha'aretz in Israel and The Forward in America. What happened? It was
Likudniks headquartered at the American Enterprise Institute in
Washington who first undermined the Oslo Peace Accords. They also urged
attacking Iraq long before 9/11. Some, such as David Wurmser, even
predicted that the attack could result in Iraq being "ripped apart,"
splintered into warring tribes for years. Polls show that most Israelis
also want peace and support a Palestinian state (in fact, they voted
out Likud); meanwhile, the Likudniks want America to attack Iran and
Syria.  They appeal to those who see a greater Israel "from the Nile to
the Euphrates." The Allies The first major ally is the
military-industrial complex, now funded by the new system of hidden
congressional earmarks. Arnaud de Borchgrave first wrote about there
being 15,000 defense budget earmarks. These allow a congressman to slip
contracts into the budget for favored constituents, who then donate
money to the congressman's reelection committee and may also provide
well-paid jobs in their districts.

These encourage warmaking, or at least threats of war, as never before. 
It's hard to hide money in the budget for "a bridge to nowhere,"  but a 
missile to nowhere will never be questioned, as its sponsors cloak
their profits in "national defense." Among the beneficiaries are the
new mercenaries, all the companies subcontracted by the Department of
Defense to provide everything from kitchen services to bodyguards and 
intelligence. All of these are very well paid and now have an interest
in promoting unending wars. Add to this the new power of think tanks
taking money from war-wanting corporations and foundations to hire
skilled polemicists and propagandists to work the 24-hour news cycle.

The complex has seen military spending triple since 9/11. The collapse
of communism had threatened them. As they faced lower budgets, they
offered a plan to keep military budgets high. The bin Laden attack
suited them perfectly. Hundreds of billions were then appropriated for
the complex, even for weapons irrelevant to the war on terror.

Unbelievable profits rolled in. But few question the waste, and all the 
Republican presidential candidates (except Ron Paul) and most of the 
Democrats want to increase it further.

Next come the religious fundamentalists' dominant minority of 
Armageddonites, those who see Israel's expansion as expediting the
return of Christ. They see Bush as God's agent. They saw, in the words
of Tom DeLay, that the war in Iraq was a prelude to the chaos necessary
to bring about the "end times." Then there's Big Oil. Although long ago
it opposed the Israel lobby for antagonizing the Muslim world, more
recently it has cast its lot with imperialism. Kevin Phillips argues in
his book American Theocracy that Big Oil supported the Iraq war. It
feared that Washington had made American interests so unwelcome in much
of the Muslim world that future concessions and contracts would be
going to Chinese, French, Italian, Indian, and Russian companies. In
this view, conquering Iraq and placing major military bases on its soil
would sustain a friendly government that would give first choice to
American interests.

Needless to say, it's not working out that way. Iraq's oil production
is minimal, and even Saudi Arabia chose a French company over American
rivals for its last big postwar contract. The war also further revived
Russian nationalism and aroused major anti-American forces in Central
Asia so that American oil companies are weakened there as well. But at
least oil was a tangible reason for war, a reason most recently backed
up in Alan Greenspan's biography.

American "Conservatives"

Then come many leading American conservatives. Mostly ignorant of the 
outside world and still fighting the Cold War against the United
Nations, they see the world as allied against America. They strongly
sympathized with Bush's go-it-alone agenda.  Many have a knee-jerk
response to military spending, that more is always better. Others feel
hostility toward Arabs and Muslims and see Israelis as being "like us."

During the first Iraq war in 1991, when I was a co-founder of the 
Committee to Avert a Mideast Holocaust, I saw how many conservatives
still resented losing the Vietnam War and wanted to prove to
recalcitrant Third Worlders that we could "win" such wars. Others are
anti-Semitic and use support for Israel as a cover. Others admire
Israel for doing what America could not: smash its enemies without
caring about winning hearts and minds. Fox News' TV generals today
often express such sentiments for unleashing "total war" (a euphemism
for killing more civilians) as the way to win in Iraq. Support for war
among traditional conservatives was promoted by National Review, the
Wall Street Journal editorial page, and the Heritage Foundation, which
excluded virtually all antiwar voices. The common thread among these
writers, many of whom I know, was an abysmal ignorance of the world
outside Europe.  A subset were Englishmen (and some Irishmen), e.g.,
National Review's former editor, who dreamed of playing Greece to
America's Rome.  They pine for the old British Empire and long for
America to replace it.

Finally there are the neoconservatives, the brains of the War Party,
the influential think-tankers and lifetime Washington policy wonks.

Though many are Jewish, their support for belligerence is motivated
mainly by the desire of some intellectuals for excitement, relevance,
and power. It's a common trait of those who have never been out in the
real world, especially business or the military. Remember that before
9/11 they were demanding a confrontation with Russia and then war with
China over the U.S. spy plane incident. For them, any war would do; it
did not have to be against Iraq.  In fact, their founder, Irving
Kristol, wrote in the Wall Street Journal in 1996 that America needed a
real enemy, one "worthy of our mettle." Long before 9/11 others (John
Bolton, for example) were urging the U.S. to abandon treaties and,
indeed, ignore international law because it would constrain the
imperialist policies they promoted.

In conclusion, this alliance of interests should be better understood.

Aside from more wars, the risk, as Kevin Phillips has said, is that 
unending war with the Muslim world may do to America what the World War
I did to England: weaken us irreparably.