There is an extremely interesting article in today’s New York Times, discussing the problems and challenges associated with Israel’s Arab minority. Twenty percent of Israel’s population is non-Jewish Arab, and this large minority has long been a problem for a state that has tried to cultivate a Jewish identity. Western media tends to ignore them, and focuses exclusively on the violent and contentious problems related to the Palestinian Authority. And yet the Israeli Arab community poses a difficult set of problems related to how democracies deal with past mistakes and discrimination; in many ways it reminds me of our own problems with regards to Native Americans. In any case, I think it’s a fascinating subject and the article, while imperfect, is well worth your time.
One of Obama’s first comments that really made me start leaning his direction was his statement that if he had “actionable intelligence” that pinpointed the location of Osama bin Laden within Pakistan, that he would attack even without permission from the Pakistani government. He was roundly criticized for that remark by other Democrats and (especially) by the GOP field. Personally, I was impressed with his forthrightness and candor on foreign policy matters–especially after seven years of secretive Bush policies. After all, any president would go after bin Laden without Pakistani permission. Heck, given that the Taliban has significant allies within the Pakistani government, we would attack first and ask permission only after the bombs were in the air.
But now it’s Obama’s turn to be hypocritical. Continue reading »
Bush, Olmert, and Abbas have promised an Israeli-Palestine Peace Treaty in 2008. It’s good to see the President finally taking an interest in the issue. The thing is, I can’t decide if an agreement at these negotiations would be the best thing to happen to the peace process in a long time, or the worst.
The potentials and the pitfalls both stem from the same basic fact: the Palestinians are on the verge of civil war, and Abbas does not speak for a significant percentage of his own people. This goes back to the fact that Hamas won those last elections, and since then Abbas’ people have basically been driven out of Gaza. Hamas has already organized protests against these talks, which will only worsen as the process moves forward. Whatever agreements Abbas comes to, Hamas will not accept them or abide by them, which makes these negotiations a giant crap-shoot.
Here’s what I don’t understand. The press keeps talking about a looming humanitarian crisis in the Gaza strip if Israel doesn’t allow food in, or Palestinians out.
But Gaza isn’t landlocked. It’s long and thin, and has a nice stretch of border along the Mediterranean Sea. Why can’t aid workers bring food and supplies to Gaza by boat? And why can’t refugees leave by boat?
I can understand Israel’s reticence to allow random Palestinians from a territory controlled by Hamas (which maintains a vow of the destruction of Israel to this day and has a history of suicide bombings and attacks on Israeli civilians) free entry into Israel. Its dangerous. And given the security issues, why don’t aid organizations operate by sea instead of land?
In a New York Times op-ed, Tom Segev, author and columnist for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, argues that the Israeli occupation of the West Bank was a mistake. Moreover, he notes that Israeli analysts of the time thought that it would be a mistake.
Leading Israeli policy planners had determined six months before the Six-Day War that capturing the West Bank would be bad for the country. Recently declassified Israeli government documents show that according to these policy planners, taking over the West Bank would weaken the relative strength of Israel’s Jewish majority, encourage Palestinian nationalism and ultimately lead to violent resistance.
It’s an excellent editorial, and I would encourage all of you to read it, if nothing else because he makes an excellent point from a non-intuitive point of view. It also helps that he happens to be right.
Recent Comments