I realize that the Israeli/Palenstinian issue generates heated positions on all sides here at Daily Kos (well, everyplace, actually), but once in a while I read something about it that is so ... what is a word I can use without getting personal ... pointless, that I can't let it pass without comment.
If that pointless comment is someplace that is obscure, or is so lacking in any kind of intellectual credibility (like Instapundit), I usually don't care. But...
Well, a post by M.J. Rosenberg on TPM today has for some reason set me off.
My problem is not with the main point of Mr. Rosenberg's piece, obvious though it is, that the Internet makes it difficult, if not impossible, for political candidates to pander to interests groups with impunity the way they once did.
And I have no problem with Mr. Rosenberg's use of U.S. Mid-East policy as an example of where such pandering occurs with regularity.
No, my problem is with Mr. Rosenberg's articulation of what U.S. policy ought to be:
"If I am elected President, I will do everything in my power to bring about negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians with the goal of achieving peace and security for Israel and a secure contiguous state for the Palestinians in West Bank/Gaza. As a supporter of Israel, I believe that Israel's surest route to security is by reaching an agreement with the Palestinians. Furthermore, I believe that achieving an equitable Israeli-Palestinian agreement will advance America's interests throughout the Middle East and the Muslim world.
Linkhere.
I mean, really, on a "Duh? Scale" of 1-10, this is what, a 9.5 (only Nadia is perfect!) It adds noting to the debate, and does not articulate anything of substance. In any event, isn't a two-state solution already the stated policy of the American government? And is there anyone on the planet who knows anything about this situation who does not fully understand that the only possible practical avenue to peace is a two state solution?
The real challenge for US policy-makers, and what candidates ought to be talking about, is how they are going to resolve the roadblocks that impede the two state solution, or in fact, if those roadblocks are even removable in the current environment.
Rights of return, security walls, boundries -- at the end of the day those are just matters to be haggled and traded over. The three problems of equal import that need to be solved first are:
- Can the Palenstianians as a people accept the existence of Israel as a Jewish state in their hearts, not merely as a political reality on the ground?
- Can each side, Israeli and Palestinian, as populations, sufficiently forgive the other in their hearts for the acts of cruelty they have inflicted upon one another over the last 75 years?
- Are there leaders on each side capable of leading their populations to answer the first two questions, "Yes," and after they are assisinated by extremists who do not want peace, as history tels us they will be, are there more leaders on each side ready to step up and continue their work?
Until these questions are resolved, Israelis and Palestiinains can talk and talk and talk. they can make treaties, and enter into temporary alliances from time to time for security, social or commercial reasons, but there will never be peace.
Now, maybe there is not much the US can do about these issues. Maybe there is. I think both Carter and Clinton moved the ball forward on these issues.
And maybe as a friend of mine, a professor in Middle Eastern affairs has opined to me, the answers to these issues are a generation or two away, and our immediate goal until then should be limiting the bloodshed on each side as much as possible.
In any event, these are the questions that should be discussed to form the basis of US policy in the Middle East -- not some milquetoast statement about how peace and fairness are good for everyone that sounds nice, but means nothing.
Mr. Rosenberg, TPM is a nice platform to have, and a nice platform for airing your views is a terrible thing to waste.