Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Jodi Rudoren on Shimon Peres, continued

Rudoren sent me an email, in response to my yesterday's email (below) to her:  "There is no doubt that in recent years Peres has been an outspoken advocate for peace. It has, however, been quite a long time since he was in a position to do anything about it -- as I wrote."

I responded: "How sad.  You seem utterly unaware that when he WAS in a position to do anything about it--not once, but many times--he repeatedly sabotaged genuine opportunities for peace.

Does not your position morally require you to first understand and then reveal the historical realities?    Judging from your response, you don't even pass the first test."

She responded this morning: "I am aware of the history. Also convinced this conversation not constructive, so not going to continue it."

Given the nature of my attack, I suppose I can scarcely blame her.  On the other hand, I am so thoroughly sick of the NY Times' unending,  uncomprehending, and unconscionable dishonesty on this issue, and its characteristic failure to ever address serious criticism,  I can't blame myself either.

Monday, May 26, 2014

Jodi Rudoren on Shimon Peres

Two years ago I published in this blog an exchange of correspondence I had with Jodi Rudoren, as she was about to become the chief NY Times correspondent in Israel.

I've just sent another email to Rudoren, concerning her lead story in today's NY Times.  If she responds, I'll provide an update.  Here's what I wrote to her:

You may or may not remember that when you began your Israeli stint at the Times we exchanged several emails, which (with your permission) I published on my blog.  Based on those emails I thought there was some reason to hope that the Times would finally face the unmistakable facts and stop obscuring or bowdlerizing the truth about the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

To some extent, this has happened--though not nearly sufficiently. You have certainly been an improvement over your egregious predecessor, Ethan Bronner.  But that is small praise.  As many others have noted, many of your stories have been misleading in one way or another, or attempt to strike a "balance"--"Israelis say this, Palestinians say that"--thereby concealing or obscuring objective truths. 

I write now to point out a particular offender: your description today of Shimon Peres as "an outspoken advocate of peace."  True, Peres has made a career out of appearing before unknowing and usually rapturous audiences and lugubriously intoning about his search for peace, but his actual behavior--that is, when he has had real power to do the right thing--is quite the contrary.

As you may know, Yitzhak Rabin detested Peres for his utter hypocrisy.  Many years ago when Rabin was thought to be the hawk and Peres the dove, Rabin's view was discounted--but of course he was absolutely correct.  Peres' true role is just what Hanan Ashrawi says, "to give a clean bill of health for public relations."  

True, you did quote her---but since you've just written, in your own voice and  as if it was an uncontestable fact, that Peres is an "outspoken advocate for peace," what she says will surely be discounted by most readers.  After all, what would you expect a mere Palestinian to say?

What you wrote is either knowingly false or deeply ignorant.  I don't know which is worse, but in either case the NY Times continues to betray its obligation to first ascertain and then write the truth about the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Monday, May 5, 2014

The Kerry Mission: An Exercise in Perfect Fatuity

Last September I had a couple of posts here pointing to John Kerry's absurd and self-contradictory rhetoric and incompetent as well as potentially dangerous policy recommendations about what to do about Syria, especially about its chemical weapons.

He has now trumped even that performance with his failed mission in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The exact details of Kerry's proposed solutions have not yet been made public (I'll have more to say about them if and when they are), but there have been enough leaks to make the main outlines clear.  They amount to the standard international consensus (or the 2000 Bill Clinton proposals) for a two-state settlement, which of course were once again rejected out of hand by the Netanyahu government, which knew it could do so with impunity, at least so far as the U.S. government was concerned. 

Several days ago, Nahum Barnea, probably Israel's most widely read political columnist, published an article on the failed negotiations, based on confidential interviews he had with one or more leading members of the Kerry team.  It makes for remarkable reading: ttp://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4515821,00.html

Barnea's account makes it overwhelmingly clear that nothing either the U.S. or the Palestinians could do would move Netanyahu. Barnea's source--widespread speculation is that it was Martin Indyk, Kerry's main advisor--summed up the various concessions made by Mahmoud Abbas:

"He agreed to a demilitarized state; he agreed to the border outline so 80 percent of settlers would continue living in Israeli territory; he agreed for Israel to keep security sensitive areas (mostly in the Jordan Valley - NB) for five years, and then the United States would take over. He accepted the fact that in the Israeli perception, the Palestinians would never be trustworthy."

"He also agreed that the Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem would remain under Israeli sovereignty, and agreed that the return of Palestinians to Israel would depend on Israeli willingness. 'Israel won't be flooded with refugees,' he promised."

Since none of this moved Netanyahu, the U.S. government surrendered to him--Barnea's source admitted to him that “the last chapter of the American initiative was borderline pathetic.”  In fact, from start to finish the Kerry mission was pathetic—and not merely “borderline” so--and its collapse was not only perfectly predictable, it was widely predicted. Who didn’t know that there was no chance of moving Netanyahu and his government unless Kerry gave Israel an ultimatum: either end the occupation and agree to a two-state settlement or we cut off U.S. diplomatic, economic, and military support? And who didn’t know that there was no chance of Obama—let alone Congress!—supporting such a course?

Well, it would appear that the Kerry mission didn't know it, at least judging from Barnea’s sources inside it.  In fact, it seems to have taken quite awhile for the U.S. delegation to come to an understanding even of the simplest realities, known to anyone who has followed the course of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Consider this remarkable admission by the U.S. official (should we laugh or cry?):

"The negotiations had to start with a decision to freeze settlement construction. We thought that we couldn't achieve that because of the current makeup of the Israeli government, so we gave up. (emphasis added) We didn't realize Netanyahu was using the announcements of tenders for settlement construction as a way to ensure the survival of his own government…There are a lot of reasons for the peace effort's failure, but...the primary sabotage came from the settlements."

You don’t say.

Yet, all this said it seems to me that liberal Zionists (like me) face an insoluable dilemma.  On the one hand, we still think that there was a good case for the establishment of a Jewish state and we still care about the future of Israel--not that it's easy to do so.  On the other hand, as American liberals we strongly support the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.  The problem is that liberalism in the U.S., as in Israel, is under siege from the lunatic fringe and the know-nothings in both countries.

Given the power of the Israel lobby in the U.S., then, any serious U.S. pressures against Israel would likely backfire in our domestic politics and further strengthen the Republican party—especially if, as seems likely, it leads to large scale Jewish defections, votes, and money from the Democrats. In the worst and by no means implausible case, in the next few years it could result in full Republican control of Congress, the presidency, and Supreme Court appointments for a long time to come.

That's way too high a price to pay.  Not only that, even if the U.S. government made its continuing support of Israel conditional on its ending the occupation and accepting a two-state settlement, it is not obvious to me that Israel would bow to those pressures, thereby risking violent civil conflict and possibly even a revolt by the IDF, which is increasingly nationalistic, religious, and hardline.

In the final analysis then--as hard as it is to reach such a conclusion--I would counsel Obama as well as Hillary Clinton or whoever emerges as the next  Democratic presidential candidate to avoid a frontal challenge to Congress or the Israel lobby: we can't beat them, it might not work even if we could, and the probable costs are way too high.

In short, I painfully conclude, Obama and the Democrats should keep quiet and do nothing about Israel--to coin a phrase, the Israelis have made their beds, so let them lie in it.  At least--and it's not negligible--let's stop looking like  fools.