Quantcast

Pages

Showing posts with label Daniel Pipes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Daniel Pipes. Show all posts

Thursday, January 8, 2009

Solving the Palestinian Problem

Cross posted by Findalis of Monkey in the Middle Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. This is his latest essay from the Jerusalem Post

Israel's war against Hamas brings up the old quandary: What to do about the Palestinians? Western states, including Israel, need to set goals to figure out their policy toward the West Bank and Gaza. Let's first review what we know does not and cannot work:
  • Israeli control. Neither side wishes to continue the situation that began in 1967, when the IDF took control of a population that is religiously, culturally, economically and politically different and hostile.
  • A Palestinian state. The 1993 Oslo Accords began this process but a toxic brew of anarchy, ideological extremism, anti-Semitism, jihadism and warlordism led to complete Palestinian failure.
  • A binational state: Given the two populations' strong mutual antipathy, the prospect of a combined Israel-Palestine (what Muammar Gaddafi calls "Israstine") is as absurd as it seems.
Excluding these three prospects leaves only one practical approach, which worked tolerably well in the period 1948-67: Shared Jordanian-Egyptian rule, with Amman ruling the West Bank and Cairo running Gaza. TO BE sure, this back-to-the-future approach inspires little enthusiasm. Not only was Jordanian-Egyptian rule undistinguished, but resurrecting this arrangement will frustrate Palestinian impulses, be they nationalist or Islamist. Further, Cairo never wanted Gaza and has vehemently rejected its return. Accordingly, one academic analyst dismisses this idea as "an elusive fantasy that can only obscure real and difficult choices." It is not. The failures of Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority and the "peace process," has prompted rethinking in Amman and Jerusalem. Indeed, the Christian Science Monitor's Ilene Prusher found already in 2007 that the idea of a West Bank-Jordan confederation "seems to be gaining traction on both sides of the Jordan River." The Jordanian government, which enthusiastically annexed the West Bank in 1950 and abandoned its claims only under duress in 1988, shows signs of wanting to return. Dan Diker and Pinhas Inbari documented for Middle East Quarterly in 2006 how the PA's "failure to assert control and become a politically viable entity has caused Amman to reconsider whether a hands-off strategy toward the West Bank is in its best interests." Israeli officialdom has also shown itself open to this idea, occasionally calling for Jordanian troops to enter the West Bank. Despairing of self-rule, some Palestinians welcome the Jordanian option. An unnamed senior PA official told Diker and Inbari that a form of federation or confederation with Jordan offers "the only reasonable, stable, long-term solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict." Hanna Seniora opined that "the current weakened prospects for a two-state solution forces us to revisit the possibility of a confederation with Jordan." The New York Times's Hassan Fattah quotes a Palestinian in Jordan: "Everything has been ruined for us - we've been fighting for 60 years and nothing is left. It would be better if Jordan ran things in Palestine, if King Abdullah could take control of the West Bank." NOR IS this just talk: Diker and Inbari report that back-channel PA-Jordan negotiations in 2003-04 "resulted in an agreement in principle to send 30,000 Badr Force members," to the West Bank. And while Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak announced a year ago that "Gaza is not part of Egypt, nor will it ever be," his is hardly the last word. First, Mubarak notwithstanding, Egyptians overwhelmingly want a strong tie to Gaza; Hamas concurs; and Israeli leaders sometimes agree. So the basis for an overhaul in policy exists. Secondly, Gaza is arguably more a part of Egypt than of "Palestine." During most of the Islamic period, it was either controlled by Cairo or part of Egypt administratively. Gazan colloquial Arabic is identical to what Egyptians living in Sinai speak. Economically, Gaza has most connections to Egypt. Hamas itself derives from the Muslim Brethren, an Egyptian organization. Is it time to think of Gazans as Egyptians? Thirdly, Jerusalem could out-maneuver Mubarak. Were it to announce a date when it ends the provisioning of all water, electricity, food, medicine and other trade, and accepts enhanced Egyptian security in Gaza, Cairo would have to take responsibility for Gaza. Among other advantages, this would make it accountable for Gazan security, finally putting an end to the thousands of Hamas rocket and mortar assaults. The Jordan-Egypt option quickens no pulses, but that may be its value. It offers a uniquely sober way to solve the "Palestinian problem."
The Palestinian people have demonstrated that they cannot govern themselves, no matter how many dollars or euros are donated to them. They have not built an infrastructure, working hospitals or schools, roads or sewers, or any of the necessary improvements on their lands that every government must do to maintain law and order. Instead they allow thugs and murderers to rule over them, imposing 7th Century codes of law, and causing massive shortages in every item except bigotry and anger. Since they cannot or will not govern themselves, and Israel is fed up with the whole process, the time has come to force Egypt and Jordan to take these troublesome people back. The Palestinian Problem is not a Jewish or Israeli one, it is an Arab one. And it is time for the Arabs to finally solve it once and for all!

Thursday, June 19, 2008

Why American Jews are Democrats. An Answer? Perhaps.

I somewhat frequently ask why American Jews vote Democrat. It has been a puzzle for years, and after 9/11, there seemed to be some hope that the Jewish vote would lean to the conservative side. It was a shortsighted, and perhaps naive hope. I was perusing the posts over at Instapundit last night and found a piece by Ellen W. Horowitz - Justifying and Deconstructing Hagee and Ourselves. Ms. Horowitz characterizes Pastor John Hagee's recent and controversial "rhetoric" as the

...magnanimous political, humanitarian, and even theological support that the Jewish state is receiving from Pastor Hagee and the American evangelical community.
as well as attributing Hagee as "a well-intentioned, very generous and determined philo-Semite," but goes on to say:
That being said, we Jews need to remain vigilant because it is an historic truism that philo-Semitism can be a mere hair away from anti-Semitism, and when the church and Christians make sweeping and bold moves towards reconciliation – and Jews reciprocate in turn - sometimes things can go terribly wrong. So the Talmudic formula of “respecting and suspecting” would seem to be the wise approach.
I must admit that I Googled around for the definition of "philo-semite." Wikipedia says:
Philo-Semitism or Philosemitism, is an interest in, respect for, and appreciation of the Jewish people, their historical significance and the positive impacts of Judaism in the history of the western world, in particular. Within the Jewish community it also includes the significance of Jewish culture and the love of everything Jewish. The word is not new, but it has recently (ca. 2000) become a significantly growing phenomenon in the modern world. It is characterized (among other things) by an interest in Jewish culture and history, as well as increasing university enrollment by non-Jews in courses relating to Judaism (including Judaism, Hebrew and Jewish languages)[citation needed]. A Philosemite is one who substantially subscribes to, or practices, any of the above. Philo-Semitism has been the subject of a series of books and journal articles (see partial listing below). The rise of philo-Semitism has been met by a mixed response among world Jewry. Some warmly welcome it and argue that it must lead Jews to reconsider their identity. This viewpoint has been expressed by the leading liberal Jewish publication The Forward (Editorial, 10 November 2000): Others reject philo-Semitism, as they feel it (like its apparent opposite anti-Semitism) implicitly gives a special status to Jews. This contradicts the traditional goal of Zionism to make Jewry "a nation among nations." Daniel Goldhagen, Harvard scholar and author of the controversial Hitler's Willing Executioners, argues that philo-Semites are often closet anti-Semites. His detractor Norman Finkelstein agrees. The thesis is that Jew haters feel a need to talk about Jews, and with anti-Semitism no longer being socially acceptable they must instead make exaggerated positive statements.
So...now understanding that supporting Israel can be either a good thing or a bad thing (???), what really caught my attention was the back-and-forth bantering of two commenters - two Jewish gentlemen - regarding Christian proselytizing or "missionizing," and the monies that may flow to the Holyland from Christian organizations, specifically John Hagee's Christians United for Israel (CUFI). One of the commenters views this as "Zionist Christian support" and wants no part of it:
...we can live without their donations some of which I am convinced go towards missionizing, directly or indirectly.
This commenter (the one not wanting Christian support) mentions a book written by "a sort of relation," A Match Made in Heaven by Zev Chafets. In reading through an interesting review of this book, there's this:
“Jews are Democrats, Israelis are Republicans.”
Okay. Now I'm beginning to "get it." American Jews vote Democrat because their American friends (or not) attempt to bring their Jewish friends to Jesus. It makes more sense than the explanation I usually get: American Jews vote Democrat because "American Jews have ALWAYS voted Democrat and ALWAYS will." That's not much of an answer considering today's ever-present Islamic threat to annihilate Israel. Most of us could, rather quickly, get-over an old and harmful habit, when faced with extinction, but perhaps it is just easier to spite Christian "persecution" and pull the lever for a Democrat. After a long, long time digesting this Instapundit post, I'm wondering if it is actually possible, in this day and time, that American Jews are simply frustrated at, or angry about, Christians attempting to convert them? And so they vote Democrat? If this still isn't making a point with you, voting Democrat supports Islam. Voting Democrat supports Hamas, voting Democrat supports Syria, voting Democrat supports Iran (Speaker Pelosi claims that some of the success of the Iraq surge "is the goodwill of the Iranians - they decided when the fighting in Basra would end..."), voting Democrat supports the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision granting Constitutional rights to terrorists (in this case, Islamic terrorists) - who may have been complicit in bringing down the World Trade Towers, and if not complicit, would have been if they could have been. Voting Democrat demands that America remain tied to middle-eastern oil ($$$ flowing to Islamic countries - not comforting to those Republican-thinking Israeli's, I think). Did I mention that voting Democrat supports Hamas? Do Jews ever attempt to tell their Christian friends that the Messiah has not yet come? Of course they do. I'm not angry about it, though. The Horowitz piece, and the comments, are far more intricate than my focus in this post. To be clear, one commenter points out: "Jews and Israel need help now and Christian evangelicals are giving that help now. Jews should be embracing these Christian evangelicals. That does not mean embracing Christianity." Author and commenters: well-worth the read - please do read them. Note: It's my opinion that ALL of Israel's land, should be Israel's land - no land for peace. Others talking about the Jewish view of John Hagee and Christians United for Israel: Daniel Pipes: John Hagee, the Holocaust and Me: Thinking About Allies Anglicans for Israel - The Rise of CUFI, Jews on First: Leader of Reform Judiasm Discourages Cooperation with Christians United for Israel Permalink: http://maggiesnotebook.blogspot.com/2008/06/why-american-jews-are-democrats-answer.html Trackback URL for this entry: http://haloscan.com/tb/maggiesnotebook/6816495747397781634 Technorati Tags: , , , , , , ,

©2007-2012copyrightMaggie M. Thornton