MJ, Splendid statement.

Todd Gitlin

It seems to me that Brooks went to speak, not to listen.

David Brooks is so likeable. He's one of the only decent 'conservatives' I could name. He's earnest and civil and respectful and he seems bereft of the conservative 'mood' or emotion of hatred of the weak.

Still, he's an American, and that means he looks at the mid east as an American puppetmaster. We've been pulling levers over there for over fifty years - almost always what we do ends up blowing up in our faces.

Still, MJ, you might want to reformulate the solution to this mess. There's a new book out by a Palestinian scholar at the University of Chicago, basically saying that partition will never work.

He comes at it from the perspective of Ireland and South Africa success stories. He thinks it would be better to just give citizenship in Israel to Palestinians. Remember, there are already many Arab Israelis.

There are successful models for ending apartheid societies, but creating insta-states has shown to be fraught with peril and bad unintended consequences. Are Indian Muslims really better off with Pakistan?

Nationalist fantasies on both sides are only reinforced by creating a state that, by definition and from its birth views Israel as enemy number one.

Israel has the resources - not to mention backing of a Superpower, to make this happen. Re-enfranchisement of Palestinians with land, resources, and the vote would quite likely be a better option for them than some pseudo state.

Daniel,
You may have missed Andrew Golis' posting in which he said that if you continue to accuse TPMers of anti-semitism, you are banned. I guess you can't read.
Andrew?

MJ has obviously never travelled in the Arab Middle East, or spoken to ordinary Arabs - not simply the elites. Travelling through Egypt, and actually speaking to ordinary people there, it is obvious that they dont really care much about the Palestinians; it simply is not one of their main concerns.

Moreover, if there really was such an affinity among the Palestinians and "Jordanians, Egyptians, Syrians, Lebanese, Saudis and Iraqis", why have they not helped them out more over the last 60 years? Why are there still Palestinian "refugees" in Lebanon? Why aren't they allowed to even purchase land? Why haven't the oil-rich Saudis given material help to these "refugees"? or helped resettle them, as all refugees except the Palestinians were? Why were they expelled by the hundreds of thousands from Kuwait in 1991, and from Iraq presently? The fact is that there is no such connection.

Arab society is still very much a tribal one, as Iraq should clearly illustrate. Tribal affiliation is much more important than national affiliation.

The fact is that for the elites, the Palestinian problem and Israel are embarrasments, and they want the US to make those problems go away.

Nudnik:

Biography

M.J. Rosenberg works in Washington supporting US efforts to advance an Israeli-Palestinian agreement. Previously, he worked on Capitol Hill for various Democratic members of the House and Senate for 15 years. He was also a Clinton political appointee at USAID. In the early 1980s, he was editor of AIPACs weekly newsletter Near East Report. After the signing of the Oslo Accords, Rosenberg broke with the AIPAC position and became a strong advocate of the "two-state solution" to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

You sure hit the nail on the head, that MJ is one ignorant bastard.

Why doesn't he talk about what he knows, and leave the Middle East to experts like you?

MJ, you identified the reasons why it would be reasonable for Americans to believe Arab and Muslim sympathy for the Palestinians is a pretext, yet then proceed to gloss over them by projecting your own laudable values and world view into the minds of Arab elites.  I think this issue needs much more careful analysis.

The overriding source of skepticism comes from the Arab treatment of Palestinian refugees.  Parading the suffering of the refugees, rather than ameliorating it has been Arab policy (Jordan at times providing the sole significant exception.)  Historically, the Jewish-Arab population exchange after the creation of Israel was one of many exchanges that occurred in the volatile post-war years (India-Pakistan, Germans from Eastern Europe being other examples.)  The tragic circumstances of these refugees was ameliorated by the fact that they were welcomed and integrated into their new countries.  As you know, Jewish refugees from Arab lands were embraced and integrated (Ashkenazi paternalism aside) into Israeli society.  Only the Palestinians were left in squalor to be used as political pawns.      

The second source of skepticism comes from the misuse of the Palestinian issue for political issues.  Arab elites use it as an excuse to deflect criticism from the political and economic reforms they refuse to make.  Why should the Palestinian question have to be resolved before Egypt has an independent judiciary or Saudi women can drive? 

Moreover, there are all sorts of fractures within the Arab world that are wholly unrelated to the Palestinian problem - the Sunni/Shia split, Syria's aspirations to hegemony in Lebanon and the rest of "Greater Syria", the rise of militant Islamism. 

Now to the extent Brooks was talking to Jordanian elites, the calculus changes somewhat.  Certainly Jordanians sensibly put the Palestinian question front and center as the future of Jordan as a relatively liberal oasis is dependent on normalizing the condition of Palestinian refugees.  Granted, it is also true that the Palestinian issue exacerbates other conflicts in the region and complicates American diplomacy.  But that is wholly different that the narrative that Israeli mistreatment of Palestinians is the "root" of the region's troubles.

Finally, we come to perhaps the most serious problem.  Notwithstanding the cynicism of Arab elites, there is a genuine emotional bond between much of the Arab world and the plight of the Palestinians.  However, it is less the material suffering of the Palestinians (which Arabs decline to ameliorate where they can) that drives popular Arab anger but rather Palestinian shame and dishonor.  The very existence of Israel is shameful to much of the Arab world as a patent reminder of their weakness.

The Palestinians material suffering can and should be ended through a combination of settlement in a Palestinian state in the West Bank and absoption by neighboring countries  (funded Israel, the West and Arabs).  Unfortunately, it is unclear whether this will mollify the shame and dishonor that Arabs tap into through the Palestinian Naqba.  That's not a reason to abandon the search for peace, but it is a major obstacle.  Challenging the Arabs to reconsider their narrative, however, is absolutely necessary to overcoming that obstacle.    

Nowhere did I say he was ignorant, merely that his views may reflect the views of the Arab elites, but certainly not of the Arab masses. His bio does not change that opinion in the least.

People like Brooks believe that Palestine is a pretext. For Brooks, it is not, it cannot be, the main reason so many Arabs and Muslims have such strong antipathy to the US government. And the fact is that the Palestinians have often been used as a pretext for incitement against Israel and Jews by the same forces that have done virtually nothing to ease the Palestinians’ plight. And also, of course, as a pretext for war. Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah professed love for the Palestinians while he was attacking Israel last summer and killing Palestinians along with their Israeli neighbors.

MJ,

You say people like Brooks think Palestine is just a pretext, then go on to explain how Palestine was just a pretext to Nasrallah last summer. To imply that Hezbollah is not a supporter of Palestine is disingenuous. Lebanon does have its own issues with Israel, but the Palestinian struggle and Lebanon struggle are intimately tied. I applaud your honest appraisal of the Palestinian plight. But if you assert that Hezbollah used the Palestinians as a pretext to bomb Israel, then what pretext did the U.S. have for inciting Israel to bomb the hell out of civilian Lebanon and prolonging that carnage?

But Abraham Lincoln was a Republican! Ha-ha! Answer _that_ you lefties!

And how can _I_ be racist? I'm white--that's a race.

(In other words: yes, please stop with this. Sheesh. This was transparently idiotic twenty years ago, and has been devolving ever since in even uglier directions.)

I agree with Andrew. I think Greenbaum has taken his probation to heart.
But I certainly agree with what Andrew said in his warning to Daniel.
We can, all of us including me, conduct this debate
without name calling.
I don't mean political descriptions like liberal, radical, neoconservative, Zionist, Communist, etc but those names that have a decided racial or ethnic connotation.
Feel free to call me a jerk and the world's worst writer of prose. But skip the references to my being a Jew.

I am without hope for any change in the situation.

Israel's population is dominated by the self-selected group of Jews that are through with any kind of accomodation or assimilation. The only factor that would alter their opinions would be undercutting (in their mind) the legitimacy of Israel's founding. Not going to happen.

Arabs will similarly never truly accept legitimacy for Israel.

They will fight to exhaustion, and with Israel being stronger in most ways, it will survive as the Palestinians wither, and eventually emigrate (those with the wherewithal).

I'm tired of both peoples. The only reason I still care, beyond normal empathy for those living in strife, is the effects the issue has outside of the area. Therefore, I would avoid involvement in the area. Screw oil and the sheiks.

As to policies that lead to dead Jews, how about trying to start a country in the middle of a hostile population? Might have seemed a good idea at the time, but by now it looks way worse than our Iraq blunder.

In any case, we need to find some maneuvering room in our Mideast diplomacy. That means goodbye oil. First things first.

So sorry to be "transparently idiotic" I usually aim for opaque idiocy.

In the spirit of nitpicking, isn't the 'ownership' of anti-semitism and the stripping away of 'semite' from Arabs just another way for Jews to distance themselves from the Arab 'race' and therefore call them lying backstabbers?

Compare the way jews were treated under Arab Muslims in the iberian penensula with the way Jews were treated under Spanish 'Christendom.' This gulf between Muslims (Arabs) and Jews is only decades long, while their brotherhood has lasted centuries.

C'mon the "Arabs aren't Semitic" notion feeds into this whole bizarre narrative of the AIPAC and krischun right teaming together to allow a perfect calf to be sacrificed and Jebus to come on down from his throne.

Is it really going that far to say the idea of 'white' Jews is just as new and strange as the idea of 'non semite' Arabs?

Maybe Brooks should be charged with a violation of The Logan Act :-)

Tom, I'm speaking as a gentile with no iron in this fire, so it's easy to say pox on both houses or whatever.

Still, it's a humanitarian issue as well as an issue of pride and tit for tat.

That's why I'm convinced the answer is to just to call it Israel and - through the vast riches of Israel and the US - re-enfranchise the aggrieved Palestinians with of thier stolen land and build them houses to replace the ones IDF bulldozed. An additional cash 'reparation' might help Palestinians set up businesses and be productive once again.

Maybe 'Arab' nations won't like it, but it would be a gracious and humanitarian gesture, and Israelis could have a clear conscience of atoning for whatever sins from '67 to '07 and just move on.

Remember, it was under Oslo and Arafat that Israel achieved three of its most secure years of its history.

It was also as a result of Oslo that Israel had thrust onto it one of the longest and most damaging wars in its history, with more civilian casualties than at any other time.

Arafat "battled the terrorists" not because he wanted peace, but because that was what was expediant at the time for him to get what he wanted. And when he got what he wanted, he unleashed the terrorists again.

Some light academic rigor. 

Forms of the word "semite" are linguistic terms, applied to the family of languages such as Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic.  It is not a term accurately signifying "race" (a flawed concept to begin with).

The term antisemitism is not a Jewish invention.  Jews never referred to each other or anyone else as "semites."  Wilhelm Marr popularized the term at or around 1870 when he formed the Antisemitic League in order to combat what he saw as the "Judaization" of Austria and Germany.  The term stuck.

Oh, no, MJ! Don't respond to -me-! Repond to mhpine! I'm just the idiot who glommed onto the original, more-intelligent post.

I'm not sure how 'central' and 'of vast importance' differ, I guess. I think the genocides we're currently ignoring might not be 'central' to the political stability of any region, but they're certainly of vast moral importance. I'd like to see us talking about something other than 'centrality' and 'root causes', where we can get pretty bogged down in presumptions and undefined terms.

And other than your notion that a two-state solution will end the fixation on Israel, I agree, too. I mean, yes, in the best two-state solution we'll have peace, and the Israelis and Palestinians will both benefit greatly ... but if you expect that Israel will be accepted in the region, in any meaningful way, you're crazy.

And yeah. We're all still suffering from the assassination of Rabin. (And didn't you once wrote a long post about the Barak peace plan? I can't find via searching ...)

This is interesting, because my guess is that the opposite is true--that the elites really don't care, but they use the issue to inflame the masses and direct them away from the nature of their regimes.

If the elites were really concerned they would be working hard to broker an agreement, and would be providing much more tangible support to the Palestinians than they currently do. I think MJ is on the mark that a large number of ordinary Arabs, as well as some other Muslims, like Iranians, find it infuriating that Israel exists at the expense of the Palestinians, and that nobody has done anything about a situation that increasingly looks like apartheid. Extending MJ's example, there were many Americans much more sincerely concerned with the plight of black South Africans than their government was.

It's refreshing to read a piece written by someone who is clearly interested in seeking the truth, rather than simply putting forth some self-interested partisan agenda. The real enemies in the Israeli/Palestinian situation are not the Jews and the Arabs. They are hatred, ignorance and belligerence. Thanks for a great post, Mr. Rosenberg.

Steggles,
Sounds like I did something wrong. I don't know what. But I apologize.
I wasn't dissing you.
MJ

Why do people so often proclaim what they believe the Arabs believe, as if millions of people from numerous countries, religious factions, tribes, social classes, etc. all shared the same beliefs?

I'm sure that many Arabs have sincere concern for the Palestinians and that many other Arabs use the Palestinian issue as a pretext for other issues. But unless someone has some kind of great Gallup poll data that somehow measures sincerity, I don't see how anyone can claim to know how much "the Arabs" or even "moderate Arab reformers" really care about the Palestinians.

As I recall Brooks' article, his primary complaint was that too many of the Arab attendees wouldn't talk about anything besides the Palestinian issue, which seems to me to be a fair complaint regardless of the attendee's sincerity. And insofar as this tendency characterizes the policies of a number of Arab nations (as represented on the U.N. floor, for example), it's a fair criticism of the policies of those nations.

Well gooollly. Thank yew Mista Steggles. See I'm kina a honky with learnin disabildies and I ain't got no' book learnin' like y'all got.

I don't know nuttin 'bout no Abe Foxman or Tony Judt or nuthin' I just say stupid n' dumb ol' crap likes I do so y'all can talk down 'na me.

In fact just what the difference between 'anti semitism' and 'anti-Israeli' is hotly disputed right now. (Oh, I typed that REAL fast so to keep up with your lightning cognition).

Nudnik,

Zionista, I would completely disagree with you. It was not "the failure of the process following up the Oslo Accords", it was the process itself.

I'm not sure I understand the difference. 

I agree that Arafat's commitment to the process was suspect (see the Karine-A incident).  However, I submit that something like the Oslo Accords was necessary for any kind of progress to get out from under the status quo that was (and continues) draining Israel of its human, financial and diplomatic resources; and perpetuating the resentment and frustration of millions of stateless Palestinians.  The national rights and aspirations of both Jews and Arabs in the former British Mandate are necessary for a resolution of the conflict, and not mutually exclusive.

So why would anyone assume that Arabs are faking their anguish over the suffering of Palestinians. Palestinians have, if anything, a greater connection to their fellow Arabs than Jewish Americans have to Israeli or Russian Jews.

As the article indicates, there's been no massive relief effort led by oil-rich Middle Eastern nations to relieve the suffering of the Palestinians.

But more telling, it was less than 40 years ago when King Hussein ordered the explusion of Palestinians from Jordan, resulting in a bloodly little conflict with Syria. Arabs in many other instances have shown little compunction about being the agent of suffering of other Arabs, and many Middle Eastern countries formed regimes in the last 50 to 100 years as the result of military coups that weren't exactly bloodless, and occasionally they invade (Kuwait) each other or fight decade-long wars (Iran-Iraq War).

I suppose that may be one reason to assume that the Arab sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians might be a little less believeable than the connection American Jews feel towards Russian and Israeli Jews: They've never actually shot at each other before.

Genghis wrote--

"As I recall Brooks' article, his primary complaint was that too many of the Arab attendees wouldn't talk about anything besides the Palestinian issue, which seems to me to be a fair complaint regardless of the attendee's sincerity. And insofar as this tendency characterizes the policies of a number of Arab nations (as represented on the U.N. floor, for example), it's a fair criticism of the policies of those nations."

It might be a fair criticism of some Arabs, perhaps including the ones Brooks talked to, though I wouldn't take his word for that. What struck me is how similar Brooks is to the Arabs he criticizes. Both of them only want to talk about the sins of the other side. Try to get Brooks to acknowledge Israeli crimes against Arabs, or the US role in facilitating those crimes. I don't think it'll happen.

The berserker run of the right-wing Zionist Golem is almost over. Hang tough.

The assassination of Rabin, notwithstanding.

The moderation and human decency of Rosenbergs statement is encouraging.

The tone of most of the comments is also grounds for hope: all too often, discussion of the real suffering of the Palestinians is met with recitation of arab acts of terrorism, as if the two somehow cancel each other out.

Arab society is tragically addicted to violence. The US is the only power that can provide sufficient leadership for peace - and this can only occur if the suffering of arabs, as well as that of Jews, is recognized in the US.

What's the message in this post?

Thanks MJ, great post!

You wrote: "For me, the startling thing about Brooks' column is that he was surprised that Arabs want to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian issue with Americans. Of course, they do."

We also shouldn't be surprised that Brooks wants to discuss "the Sunni-Shiite split, the Iraqi civil war and the rise of Iran." Of course he does. These are the only things currently giving the USA a headache. We see Israel as a reliable and capable ally which can take care of itself -- why should we be concerned with it?

The really surprising thing about Brooks' surprise is that he would believe that the Sunni-Shiite split would be of more concern to the Arabs than a Jewish state in their midst. Why should it be?

The rise of Iran? What Arab nations or concerns does Iran threaten?

The Iraqi civil war? Why should that concern the Arabs more than it concerns us, its instigators?

Another thing that comes as no surprise: that as little as Brooks cares about Israel, he cares even less about the Arabs.

Good point. The Jews deserve a Street of their own. Perhaps the U.N. could section off part of the Arab Street for them.

KingElvis,

2. Posters defending Israel ignore the forest for the trees. It all comes down to a few words in UN resolution blablabla. The giant facts of military occupation - an apartheid state - lets ignore that to bicker about language, which leads us to...

3. Tit for tat. Why does the IDF knock over houses? THEY STARTED IT! You know what? The Hatfields and McCoys had their grievances and mutual reasons for feuding too.

There is alot there, but I'll give these two items a go. 

When we deal with matters of international law conversation necessarily comes down to a few words in UN resolutions (and the distinct nature of binding and non-binding resolutions between Security Council and General Assembly resolutions).  Precision language is the nature of legal discourse, and there is not much we can do about that.  You also have to expect some adversarial response when throwing around words like "apartheid."  Yes, Israel's occupation of the territories and its settlement policy perpetuates the resentment and frustrations of millions of stateless Palestinians, and it is in everyone's best interest to reverse those policies.  But we do no good by ignoring the history and its consequences on present circumstances, either.  For example, the Palestinians of the West Bank were just as stateless from 1948-1967 as they are now, and it is arguable that there would be no occupation if the Arab establishment were at least as dedicated to nurturing Palestinian national self-determination during those twenty years as they were to dispatching that of the Jews.

On the matter of house demolitions, Israeli policymakers have argued that it is the only effective method to counter a tactic as extreme as suicide bombing.  It may not justify the policy, but it goes a certain distance to explain it. 

You and I can lob arguments to this effect for days and weeks at a time, and we may even reach some sort of common understanding.  But you are right.  Unfortunately, what often tends to happen in forums like this is that participants resort to trading broad characterizations like "apartheid-loving neocon" and "antisemitic Israel-basher" for the better part of a few hundred comments.  So it goes....

Nor the Altalena.

I find David Brooks to be manic. The more manic he becomes the more depressing the news he's addressing really is.

I find his bouncy style really, really annoying. He flails his hands and is like an acrobat doing tricks. Bouncy, flailing acrobat.

If he ever could calmly talk about something, I would not be so distracted by his manic manner.

Then again, his logic would probably put me to sleep.

Certainly you can't make peace with a rabid dog.

Dehumanizing others is the first step to validating the usage of violence.

At the risk of posing easy answers: there are 2 facts to consider imo: 1. Compared to where they used to be (pre-1947), the palestinians got royally screwed by the establishment of Israel. They should get at least the pre-1967 borders back. 2. Israel is the big dog and they abuse the crap out of the palestinians. These 2 facts alone are sufficient for anyone to have genuine sympathy for the palestinians. All the other arguments here are just cirmcumstantial evidence compared to these facts. Take any people except maybe Amish and Buddists, put them through the same thing the Palestinians went through, and it's not suprising how horrible some of thier actions are. After what the Jews have been through, it's also not surprising how they are acting either.

In a world of jerks like Imus, Coulter and Limbaugh, Brooks seems like a diamond in the rough. At least he's clever and has arguments. Maybe their invalid arguments but it beats SCREAMING INSULTS AT THE LEFT that has pretty much become the norm now.

Thanks for the response.

hahahaha!