Le Sabot Post-Moderne

Bravo! Well said.

Consider another possible breathtaking consequence of W's presidency: IF the election this weekend has 65% + participation (more than US or European elections) and IF the Shiites and Sunnis and Kurds build a coalition government and IF that leads eventually to some kind of legitimate democratic state, and IF the recent Palestinian elections move them closer to some kind of legitimate democratic negotiator with Israel and IF Afganistan continues its path to becoming a democratic state and IF all of the above puts pressure on Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to make democratic reforms... well, that's a lot of "if's" but... what if that reduced our need to support Israel as the only democratic state in the Middle East because it WON'T be anymore?

How would all of that change the equation of the US-Israel relationship? No longer does it become the island of democracy among threating despots that we MUST support, but rather a player in a democratic region which we may or may not support on particular issues as it deals with it's neighbors.

Wow. Whether W can pull it off, whether or not you like him, his presidency is one of BIG IDEAS. Big visions. Four years ago he was portrayed as an idiot who would sit at his computer and play solitaire and fiddle with little ideas. I don't know if it will all work out, but this is a guy with a big vision who is trying to hit the ball into the cheap seats.

What if he pulls it off?

Disco, I cannot agree with you more. Esp. when I think how Israel has sold arms to every country that the US stopped selling arms to. "friendship doesn't require blind loyalty" - blind loyalty is detrimental to growth and progress - my friends are the ones who tell me I am behaving badly as part of constructive criticism. But perhaps Rousseaun based parental policy has infected US policy? - "restraint bad"

Isreal is given foreign aid which is then spent to buy American arms which go towards paying for jobs in certain constituencies. In a sense its giving a neighbour money so that he can give it back to you for goods.

There is much inertia behind American policy toward Israel. The policy basically conceives of Israel not only as a friendly democracy but also as a democracy threatened with destruction.

What makes this possible is that Israel's Arab enemies generally do talk in terms of destroying Israel and reversing the results of the 1948 war. In the diplomatic world it is known that Arab governments' public rhetoric does not always match what they are prepared to say and do in private. Americans, however, tend to take public statements literally -- they do not make distinctions between, say, Europeans and peoples from other cultures who speak less precisely. As well, when push comes to shove in Arab (and specifically Palestinian) politics the men who end up calling the shots are usually the men with the guns, who often do advocate extreme hostility toward Israel.

America can never be "even-handed" as between Israelis seeking to live in peace and organizations like Hamas committed to Israel's destruction (at the end of the day Europe can't either). But the core of the dispute between Israel and Palestinians as a whole is the settlement question. Israeli settlements in Gaza and the West Bank serve no American interest whatever -- they never have, they never will. The first Bush administration recognized this; its efforts to pressure Israel not to expand settlements were halted only under great pressure from Congress. The current Bush administration has followed a policy of benign neglect toward settlements, partly influenced by neoconservatives at the Defense Department with a stronger emotional attachment to Israel and its Likud Party than is perhaps desirable for government officials to have.

It would be unfortunate if the Bush administration, having been granted as a result of Arafat's death a Palestinian government willing to take steps to repress terrorism, were to continue treating Israeli settlements on the West Bank as if they mattered to the United States. They don't.

Zathras:

This is not difficult. The politics in Israel, America and Europe all favor settlement of the dispute and establishment of a Palestinian state in the territories. It is the policy of the US government -- and W personally -- for such a state.

The new Palestinian "government" needs to stop the terror attacks. It really is that simple. Like, let's say... oh, I don't know, they could go 6 months, 180 days or so, without blowing up jews. Granted, 12 months, 365 days would be better, but 180 would be a good start. 180 days of NO TERRORIST ATTACKS on jews.

If they could manage that -- granted we're setting the bar pretty high here, I mean I know how hard it is to go a MONTH without blowing up a jew, so 6 months is a real hardship, but desperate times call for desparate measures -- if they could prove that as a "government" they can actually exercise some control over the people they are supposed to govern -- then the pressure there and here to withdraw from the territories and turn it over to a Palestinian state would be hard to resist.

The ball is in the Palestinian "government's" court.

Wow it is good to see some real non emotional support of Israel. Go over to the Angry Arab new site and watch the vile spew.

I think Israel is a little heavy handed sometimes but believe they have a right to exist.I get tired of hearing that it wasn't Israel before the 40's and that it was someone elses, blah blah blah.

I mean it's like the Poles saying hey Vilnius used to be ours we should have it back. That's history move on. The Jews aren't going anywhere, they need to accept and get along.

Greg and Rick's points are well taken, however it seems unwise to take for granted that a cessation of Palestinian terrorism would lead Israel under its current government to do more than the bare minimum with regard to settlements -- "the bare minimum" being defined as withdrawals that do not spark violent resistance from settlers.

I'd like to believe that we could take for granted that the Sharon government's policy will be driven by the great majority of Israelis who want peace more than anything and are willing to go along with a two state solution to get it. But Israeli politics have not worked that way in the past -- if they had most of the settlements would not have been built in the first place. Arguments against stirring up the local Arabs and diluting Israel's character as a Jewish state by absorbing land already occupied by large numbers of Palestinians were as cogent 20 years ago as they are now, but the settlements got built anyway: not because most Israelis wanted them, but because a passionate minority with a strong tactical position in the Knesset did.

It should go without saying that we should also not take for granted that, if the Sharon government were to deal responsibly with the settlement question, the Palestinian leadership would then be able to put a permanent end to the suicide bombings that are the Palestinians most notable contribution to the world in which we live. But nothing in the Middle East ever goes without saying, so I thought I'd better say that.