Kevin Sullivan

Israeli Settlements and the Law

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Blog posts

You should read Gershom Gorenberg’s latest column in the American Prospect.

Read it.

Failure or Extension?

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

I’m posing this question to all 7.5 of my readers.

Approximately half of the Palestinian population is increasingly open to the idea of targeting and terrorizing Israeli citizens.  Support for suicide bombings is up, particularly in the Gaza Strip.  Ironically enough, support for their own political institutions continues to waver, while their general hatred for the Israeli people remains a constant in their lives.  This is partly understandable, considering the level of propagandizing and revisionist inculcation they’re exposed to from a very young age.  A life of constant warfare and embargo will of course foster intense feelings, too.  We should be extra critical of any polling data that comes from these territories, especially from those living in such conditions.

However, delving into this a bit further, I’m having a hard time understanding this apparent increase in anti-Israeli sentiment.  Gaza, after all, is arguably more autonomous now than it has ever been in its territorial life.  Settlements were dismantled, and although Israel obviously maintained the right to strike when necessary, there was an overall military withdrawal from the territory.  The fact that sentiments are more virulent in Gaza than the West Bank strikes me as counterintuitive.  It tells me that Gazans are smart enough to see the finite agenda of their own political institutions, however they lack the clarity to see how those institutions have crafted and cultivated popular perception of the Jewish state.  

This puts the Israelis in a precarious position, and its different than their tensions with Lebanon, Syria and even Iran.  All of the aforementioned states have a population with higher living standards, higher education, more freedom and some semblance of a middle class.  In the case of the Palestinians, you have an instance of perpetual warfare between two peoples that are seemingly irreconcilable.  Israel has a proven record of land (and relations) for peace, but not the other way around.  See Egypt, see Jordan and see Turkey.  But the overall Israeli policy (and I believe it to be the right one, incidentally) has been “you don’t respect me, I don’t respect you.”  So what we thus get is a cultural enactment of Newton’s first law: two irreconcilable forces that will perhaps only be stopped once they are made to stop (I won’t speculate on the “unbalanced force” is this analogy). 

I know this is a controversial proposal, but keeping two diplomatic ”schools of thought” in mind, I wonder if war is the only “diplomatic” option left for both sides, keeping the psychological conditions, the current tensions and the poor diplomatic relations between both parties in mind.  If you view war as a failure of diplomacy, than you probably fall in the camp that sees such an outcome as disastrous.  However, if you see war as something more linear, or as an extension of exhausted diplomacy, than you might view conflict with a certain degree of inevitability between the two.

Legitimacy and Credibility are Two Different Words

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

For those who are struggling with the distinction. 

Talking to Hamas

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

This morning’s sensational and absurd Washington Post Op-Ed by Hamas terror pioneer Mahmoud al-Zahar is so absolutely laughable, it doesn’t even deserve much of a mention.  So instead, I’ll outsource this dissection to Carl, who does quite a number on this tripe. 

More at memeorandum 

On J-Street

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

I am a little late to the game on this, but I can’t say that I mind the formation of an alternative lobbying voice for Israel here in Washington, DC.  Their stated goals–a two-state solution, peaceful resolution with Iran, Jerusalem as the capital and a general opposition to settlements–are all perfectly reasonable positions in my mind (although this video that they’re circulating is absurd).  Competing voices are fine by me, and can only serve to keep American elected officials honest.

I am, however, somewhat surprised by some of the commentary this organization’s launching has precipitated.  The usual suspects have, predictably, weighed in on how this is a win for “Liberal” or “progressive” Jewry all over the globe, which seems like a rather peculiar distinction to me.  Is the nation of Israel inherently illiberal?  Do they believe that the positions held by AIPAC are that out of step with those held by the average Israeli citizen?  Obviously, public opinion there is bound to shift and waver.  However, Israelis not only supported the 2006 war in Lebanon overwhelmingly, but they were critical of what was deemed an incompetent and weak application of said war effort.  Issues that have been qualified as “hawkish” by a tiny, tiny faction here in the states tend to be universally embraced by Israelis of all ideology. 

And it’s not as if these “progressive” voices have been completely muzzled in Israel.  If anything, Israelis have been too eager to experiment with diplomatic techniques, which has often come back to bite them in the rear.  As Soccer Dad points out, the Gaza withdrawal/Rafa border issue was publicly celebrated as a huge win for the Israeli Left.  The notion that this marks the liberation of some long-silenced voice in Israeli politics is just silly.  All of this makes sense though when you consider the target audience here.  The creation of J-Street isn’t about anybody in Israel, but instead, is specifically geared towards anti-war Democrats who hope to control American discourse on Iraq and Iran.  Just as SEIU and NARAL can respectively weigh in with the “working class” perspective and the “women’s rights” perspective, J-Street will serve as the authoritative mouthpiece on behalf of American Jews.  There are, in fact, already existent progressive Jewish organizations here in the states, such as the American Jewish Congress, that advocate on behalf of American Jewry.  The problem, as far as the progressive careerists see it, is that these groups prioritize an Israeli military policy that mirrors those of our own neo-conservative elements.  They understand that Israeli security is a nationally binding issue in America, and in order to make headway on their own pet projects, they must chip away at that solid majority of thought.  They’ll need to reframe what it means to be “pro-Israel,” so that they can use that message in their own attempts at framing American foreign policy.             

Dhimmi Carter

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

Paying his respects to terrorism.

Power Struggle Abroad

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

And surprise, surprise…we’re involved.  From Andrew Lee Butters:

Last week, Fatah rivals staged an assassination attempt against Abbas’ chosen man in Lebanon, Abbas Zaki, according to both Palestinian officials, who gave TIME details of the unreported event, and to Lebanese security officials who confirmed the account. The would-be assassin was nabbed just as he was about to plant a car bomb in front of the Palestinian embassy in Beirut. Under what was no doubt less-than-polite questioning in one of Fatah’s prisons inside the camps, the suspect fingered the number two Palestinian leader in Lebanon, Sultan Abul Ainain, whose name means “the Emperor of Eyes.” Sultan is a warlord of the old school, accused by Lebanese authorities of heading a jihaddist sleeper cell and various mafioso-style criminal activities.

President Abbas sent Zaki to Lebanon three years ago in order to clean up Sultan’s mess. Conditions inside Palestinian camps in Lebanon are miserable, in large part because of institutionalized discrimination by the Lebanese, but also because of corruption among Palestinian leaders. But Sultan reportedly has allies of his own: notably the intelligence agencies of pro-American Sunni Muslim Arab countries such Saudi Arabia and Egypt, according to Lebanese newspapers. These countries might have an interest in supporting Sunni Palestinian militants as a possible counter-balance to Hizballah, the Shia Muslim militia that is currently trying to bring down the Saudi and American-backed Lebanese government. Though there is no known connection between Sultan and the Americans, he and his men carry the latest in American-made light assault weapons.

The episode has some eerie echoes of the inter-Palestinian civil war in Gaza last year (albeit on a much smaller scale.) In Gaza, Fatah leaders backed by the Bush administration tried to stage a coup against the democratically elected Hamas government. As in Lebanon, those Fatah leaders had a widespread reputation for corruption and crime, and the resulting chaos in Gaza only strengthened Hamas and those groups opposed to peace with Israel.

Mental and Moral Vacuity

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

Steve Clemons puts it on display for us regarding Senator Obama’s repudiation of Jimmy Carter:

Apparently, he’s OK meeting Israeli leaders because they disavow terrorism — but still they protect and establish illegal settlements and have installed more roadblocks and inhibitions to Palestinian mobility than was the case since the November 2007 Annapolis Summit. And while knocking Carter’s efforts, Obama fails to articulate how any negotiation that does not include in some way a wrestling match and attempt at a negotiation with Hamas will be stable enough to believe in.

Ahh, it’s all of the old classics.  Naive moral equivalence, followed by a kowtow to terrorists and a quick cheap shot at the Evil Zionist Occupiers.  Just one problem: Settlements were forcefully removed from the Gaza Strip, the place in question, back in 2005.  If the terrorist regime in Gaza displayed even half of the Israeli propensity to rein in on their own radical elements, the entire region would be an exponentially better place.  Instead, Hamas chooses to concoct mini-crises, while they skim profits and fuel off the top for their own gains.  By fostering misery in their pseudo-state, they can mold and mobilize the kind of public sentiment that justifies firing shrapnel-laden rockets into school yards.  This organization–which refuses to even acknowledge the existence of those they terrorize–belongs at the discussion table, according to Clemons.

But wait, he gets dumber:

The correct position for Obama to have taken is to say that he would be open to what someone like a Jimmy Carter. . .or a Colin Powell. . .or a Tony Blair, Joschka Fischer, Javier Solana, Vladimir Putin, Hu Jintao, or Saudi King Abdullah might be able to achieve by way of Hamas and Fatah. Emissaries are important, and they can create opportunities a President can’t often take the risks to do himself or herself.

Obama, in my view, has tarnished his foreign policy credentials here. If he can’t embrace what these Americans have been able to do — and what Senator Chuck Hagel has suggested be done with Hamas — then what use is his new vision?

What is his position today if not one that has been influenced by special interests whose political weight has undermined the strategic interests of the United States?

And we have an (albeit veiled) AIPAC jab!  Ding ding ding!  All we need now is something about the Rothschild family, and we can give Clemons his trophy.

So all of the Israel hatred aside, what is Clemons’ primary point?  Well, the responsible thing for the next president to do would be to embrace some unofficial document drafted and signed at a summit that nobody cared about.  This should be done, apparently, despite the stated position of the United States government; which considers Hamas to be a purveyor of terrorism (which, incidentally, they are).  

What escapes Clemons is the issue of legitimacy.  Senator Obama appears to understand what the United Nations, The Quartet, President Carter and even President Bush fail to grasp.  By negotiating with terrorists you legitimize terrorists, thus codifying the tactics they utilize.  Terrorism then becomes “resistance,” and dolts like Clemons are allowed to wrongly equate road blocks with Qassam rockets.  Like a mosquito with amnesia, we keep flying into the zapper over and over and over again, allowing those who deserve no voice a chance to be heard.  We allowed Yasser Arafat to become the defacto spokesman of of an entire people in 1974; despite his lacking in any legitimate claim to that title.  The Road Map plan has produced much of the same, granting authority to an organization that has no place being at the negotiating table. 

Barack Obama, thankfully, understands the folly in this naive cycle.

UPDATE: Thanks to TMV for the link love!

Jimmy Friggin Carter

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

President Carter is apparently doing what President Carter does best: 1. Making an ass of himself, and 2. Legitimizing the behavior of terrorists.

This isn’t about fostering peace and dialogue.  For Carter, it’s always about ego and legacy (Dear God, what if Bill and Dubya do this kind of stuff? I think we might need to place former presidents under house arrest).  Going to Damascus undermines the PA, it undermines the Israeli policy towards Hamas, and–perhaps most importantly!–it undermines our policy towards a terrorist organization.  Carter is handing the prestige of his position and title to a murderous anti-Semite, and he does so in direct defiance of his own country.

Get the leash!       

More at memeorandum 

Obama’s Power Problem

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

That Samantha Power–one of Barack Obama’s chief foreign policy advisers–buys into the popular Jenin “massacre” meme isn’t surprising or new, but it may dog the senator in one of two ways: 1. If he distances himself from her anti-semetic hackery upon being challenged (which he most certainly will be by John McCain), he’ll be accused of vacillation and uncertainty.  As we all know, the wet behind the ears Obama cannot afford the indiscretion of poor staffing while running against America’s Maverick.  2. McCain seems to believe he can make electoral inroads in places like New York, where the Jewish vote will be a factor.  Ditto in Florida.  McCain has his own issues with Jewish voters, most of whom split with him on several social issues. 

One way to change that is to target Obama on Power.  Every Democrat says they support the Jewish State, but highlighting the senator’s decision to hire such a liability might be the perfect way to turn American Jews, or at the very least split them into marginal factions distinguished between social voters and foreign policy voters.

If nothing else, it makes for a great direct mail hit.       

More at memeorandum.