Comments on: The War as Warm-Up Act for Obama

By: Gregory Pollock

Gregory Pollock — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 04:49:29 +0000

Max, I think you define Realpolitik somewhat shortly. Gaza festers in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, as well as among “radicals” in the states you list. Both Egypt and the Saudi Arabia seem to fear the populist support engendered by Hamas. While one can call these states stable, the repression has bred many who have entered the very groups the US must continue to fight.
Frankly, I think Obama will be rather far sighted on this. Not to say miraculous. I hope for open economic boarders with a rather draconian surveillance. Symbols are important. Gaza spills over into many countries through symbolism. All the countries save Iran you list can experience a shift if Gaza is opened somewhat. I doubt a full Israeli/Palestinian agreement, but hazard a borkered opening of the economic boarder.

Actually, I think you would be more likely right absent the last month. Israel is forcing an American response. Part of the Bush legacy is a decication of symbolism.

As to the war on terror, it is real for the American politic still sees it as real. Obama is indeed pragmatic. He has to fight that war, and knows, I hope, social weapons will be necessary.

By: Max Socol

Max Socol — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 23:30:06 +0000

straw man. i’m not suggesting that Gazans don’t objectively deserve our help. but whether they deserve it, or whether israel wants US intervention, has nothing to do with whether Obama will judge that intervention to be of US interest.

the ‘war on terror’ as an abstract concept is itself based on premises established by President Bush. the US’s primary foreign policy interests lie in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Hamas has nothing to do with these places except insofar as it is a subsidiary of Iran — and the US can deal with Iran directly (perhaps.) Unless you can show me how an Israeli/Palestinian agreement concretely affects US relations to these other countries, I stand by my sense that Obama will be looking elsewhere.

By: Gregory Pollock

Gregory Pollock — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 18:09:44 +0000

Realpolitick advantage, Max: the battle over terrorism rests in support networks, in material and motivational support. You battle not by condemning others, but insisting that others be allowed to build. Culture war? To say that the Gazans deserve to eat better, to work for their economy, to not be isolated from improvement? Then, I suppose I am still a culture warrior. Responsible governance without admitting what has happened to Gaza? Detail that, please.

And, consider: with fantasy there never would have been an Israel. The world runs on ideas as well as material.

By: Lure D. Lou

Lure D. Lou — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 15:01:48 +0000

Israel has to understand that there has been a basic shift in the attitudes of the American people. The amount of disgust and disappointment towards Israel, much of it coming from informed American Jews, is volcanic. The only solution will be for the settlements to go, along with Hamas, and for Jerusalem to be a divided city. Israel is not ‘playing with a full deck’ if it believes that this was in any way a victory or even a good object lesson. The lesson was that Israel is irrational, cruel and oblivious…not a good image for the incoming administration.

By: Max Socol

Max Socol — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 09:11:13 +0000

I don’t know what to say except that your response is precisely what I imagine Obama is not going to be interested in. to battle islamist terror one must battle ‘their story?’ why, exactly? what realpolitik advantage does this bring to the US? isn’t battling the islamist “story” just another way to further inflame the rhetoric of hatred coming from both sides?

forgive me, but I don’t see anything wise about that kind of course. and frankly, it strikes me as one more fantasy of a culture warrior, who isn’t yet ready to admit that American foreign policy is going to shifting gears from ‘storybook’ mode to ‘responsible governance’ mode.

again, time will tell. but I’m not putting my money on your take.

By: Gregory Pollock

Gregory Pollock — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 01:23:42 +0000

This shrill one shrills: If the Palestinian conflict were just about Israel, you would be right, Max. But America has supported and covered Israel for decades, and this relationship is now part of the Islamist myth/story. Battle against Islamist terror requires battle against their story. I suspect, shrilly hope, Obama knows this. What happens in Palestine (however defined) is no longer just about Palestine. It is important for policy related to all four countries you mention that this conflict be addressed forcefully.

Acutally, I wish this were not the case.

By: Max Socol

Max Socol — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 22:44:04 +0000

I’ll be interested to see what Obama is able to bring to the table. But I think it’s a mistake to believe, as one of the less shrill respondents already mentioned, that just because Israel and Palestine are in the front pages, they will necessarily become a foreign policy priority. Time will tell, but if Obama showed what consistent quality in his campaign, it was a commitment to pragmatism. I don’t believe he’ll really break ranks on Israel unless he says practical benefit to the US’s longterm foreign interests. (Which, at the moment, are much more focused on Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.)

By: Herbert Kaine

Herbert Kaine — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 22:23:12 +0000

Settlements can be built, and removed, ie Gaza. The core issue is that Israel has been contructed on Islamic Waqf, and the Palestinians were defeated by apes, pigs, and dogs, rather than a worthy foe. Honor requires the Palestinian people to regain Palestine using force. Remember that the PLO was founded in 1964, before there were any settlements in occupied territories, unless you regard Tel Aviv as a settlement as well. While I think most Israelis would favor evacuation of territories if it would bing peace, we dont particularly want Iranian troops and missiles aimed from E Jerusalem. No critic of Israel can provide ironclad assurance that this will not happen. WE trust the current situation of warfare and conflict over your worthless and poorly intentioned assurances

By: Steve Kelly

Steve Kelly — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 20:14:07 +0000

Ben-David

“The suicide bomber war of 2000 and the current Gaza War started when governments committed to withdrawal from almost all of Judea/Samaria (sic) were in power and offers of this withdrawal were on the table. All the Arab have to do is say “yes” and the settlements will go”

Hilarious!

The Palestinians said ‘yes’ to the Oslo process and what did they get? 100,000 new Israeli settlers into the West Bank and Gaza (doubling the settler population), a further 40,000 acres of Palestinian land confiscated, and 250 miles of settler roads built on confiscated lands.

If all the Palestinians had to do is say ‘yes’ and all settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem would disappear, I think they might just say it, don’t you?

By: Gregory Pollock

Gregory Pollock — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 18:02:15 +0000

As a nobody, here’s what I think: Israel as a State has made a serious mistake (which will mean nothing to the 1000+ dead). I have little doubt that the Gaza campaign’s timing is indeed related to the Presidental change. As such, the State of Israel has expended most if not all good will which the Obama Administration might have had. Obama remained silent because there was nothing he could do. He signed off on the “understanding” because it stops the direct killing (some will still likely die in Hospital) and because he can use that accord to change the goals: if the Gazan tunnels are to be closed down (the only way to stop their use for importing weapons), the last port for the importation of goods into Gaza also closes. So I think the Administration will want international monitoring of the Gazan boarder to close the tunnels and will then say to Israel: “We have closed them. Now the Gazan economy is completely strangulated. Open the economic boarders.” And doing that is the only way to ultimately stop militants–provide a life alternative.
The arrogance bred of Bush and Olmert will now slap Israel back. Rocket firings into Israel will continue at lower pace (how can the hatred be any less after these 20 days?), but Israel will be trapped: if the boarders have been closed for weapons imports, there can be do reason for not beginning economic imports (I know, I know, all economic imports risk military ones; Israel can figure a way around that–I have faith in their technological prowess).
Obama and Western Europe will view Israeli foregin policy with doubt and distaste, I suspect. Israel will not be trusted. Only someone completely unaware of what it means to have the first African-American President could think that these 20 days of war killing over 1000 could naught but harm Israel in the new Administration’s eyes.
Does my opinion make me an anti-Semite? Do I deny the Holocaust? Am I a closet anti-Zionist? Label me! What a great power that is.
No one owns the Holocaust. No one owns the Soviet Gulags. No one owns Rwanda. No one owns the Warsaw Ghetto of history. No one owns the unnumbered pogroms of the past. And, frankly, I am tired of being afraid to speak of 1000 dead. Since Grapes of Wrath I have had great doubts about Israel’s ontology of other people. In my small, biased, racist mind–these doubts stand confirmed.