MJ is on to something here.  There is a growing trend among young progressive American Jews to turn away from the messy realities of Israel and towards an idealized Yiddish cultural past.  There are some positive elements to this trend - namely the neo-klezmer movement and the literature such as Chabons, but on the whole it is neither good for Israel or Diaspora Jewry for progressive Jews to leave the Diaspora-Israel relationship in the hands of the Orthodox and right-wing Zionists.

Posted at May 18, 2007 1:26 PM in response to Moving Israel to Alaska

MJ,

       It is one thing for these groups to lobby the U.S. for a two-state solution.  It is another to lobby Palestinians and other Arabs to reject absolute positions on the "right of return" and terorrism as a viable tactic.  Do Zogby and friends do the latter, or are they only interested in altering U.S. policy (and the concessions the U.S. can obtain from Israel.)

Posted at May 15, 2007 3:04 PM in response to Why Jews Envy The Irish

I don't think reverting to Jordanian security control of the West Bank is a good idea, but it does strike me as the least bad of all possible options.  MJ loves to talk about the missed opportunity of 1970, but in my mind the aborted Peres-Hussein dialogue in 1986 was an even worse missed opportunity by Israel.  The mistakes of Oslo were well intentioned, but they have resulted in a dysfunctionality in Palestinian society that will take years to cure.

Posted at May 15, 2007 2:59 PM in response to Why Jews Envy The Irish

5. The diasporas of both sides of the conflict have to help promote peace and economic development in a coordinated fashion. Communicating the sense that both diasporas are working together is critical. The Friends of Belfast is a good example.

MJ, you've identified what you think the role of the American Jewish diaspora should be.  Who are the partners in the Arab diaspora committed to reigning in the Palestinians?  There are a number of regimes (Jordan, Egypt and the Saudis) that have dipped a toe in the water here, but what real committments are they willing to make to end the conflict?  And who is the Arab equivalent to the IPF, willing to condemn (rather than explan) their own side's violence without ceding the justice of their position?

<br>

On a related note, MJ is starting to convince me, dafka, to worry far less about an increasingly likely second term for Bibi.

Posted at May 11, 2007 2:20 PM in response to Why Jews Envy The Irish

In the long term, a high-speed rail link might be the best best (an elevated highway might cause more problems.)

However, stabilization of both the West Bank and Gaza by someone other than the Israelis has to happen first. Unmanned observation posts aren't going to stop Qassams from being launched. Egyptian and Jordanian forces (under an Arab League mandate) might.

Posted at May 7, 2007 3:32 PM in response to Time To Apologize To Critics of Lebanon War

Olmert wasn't simply chest-beating for domestic consumption.  (A better example of that would be Shimon Peres' "Grapes of Wrath" offensive that led to the first Qana tragedy.)  The whole logic to Convergence was that Israel could achieve greater long-term security through withdrawal, internal and external legitimacy and deterrance as opposed to occupation.  Hezbollah's attacks across the international border came in the context of the Palestinian attacks from the evacuated settlements in Gaza.  Olmert believed that only an overwhelming response would restore public confidence in the merits of unilateral withdrawal.   

Olmert's botching of the response has now discredited Convergence.  This is a shame, because the fundamental arguments supporting it still stand: (1) Israel needs clear borders with a clear Jewish majority; (2) Palestinians need to have the prospect of a contiguous state presented as a real alternative to violence and rejectionism; and (3) progress towards a two-state solution cannot wait for the Palestinians to produce a genuine negotiating partner. 

The best alternative in the short run is to implement a modified Convergence plan with a "settlers out, soldiers in approach" in which the isolated settlements are dismantled, but the IDF holds on the various chunks of the West Bank until a responsible force can be found/created to take over patrolling the territory.

Posted at May 7, 2007 2:58 PM in response to Time To Apologize To Critics of Lebanon War

The solution on Israel-Palestine is known - just read the Clinton Parameters or Geneva Initiative.

Yes, this is the baseline for what a final agreement should look like, but setting the borders, sharing Jerusalem and even reaching an agreement on the refugees is all less challenging than establishing a functional, non-revanchist Palestinian state.  A true solution needs to have a realistic path of getting there.

The majority of Israelis and Palestinians can support such solutions, and a formula also exists for engaging Hamas and allowing them to acquiesce in such an outcome.

What is this formula?  Does it include "eye of newt"?  Truly, if Levy has a magic potion that transforms militant Islamists into democrats with pragmatic views towards the dhimmi status of Jews and ceding dar-al-Islam, he shouldn't be hoarding it. 

While I reject the utter pessimism of Barry Rubin's latest op-ed in the Jerusalem Post, I have to agree with his dismissal of the unfounded faith of the Meretznik in the potential moderation of Hamas:

Make Hamas moderate. Take one percent of Hamas leaders' statements in English. Discard the rest and everything said by them in Arabic. Throw in the belief that no one can really be radical. Ignore the fact that they think they are divinely directed and need not change since they are winning. Mix well with ignorance and - voila, Hamas Moderation Stew, makes millions of portions.

The best lesson the U.S. can learn from the Israeli occupation is not to delude oneself as to the ease of maintaining or ending an occupation.  Otherwise, the differences of the situation vastly exceed the similarities.  We should be focused right now on how to extract ourselves from Iraq with the least damaging way to the Iraqis and our own security.    

Posted at April 26, 2007 12:23 PM in response to Another brick in the wall: What can forty years of Israeli occupation teach us about America's four years in Iraq?

There are more one set of progressive answers.  There is a Wilsonian answer, which says that neocons fundamental mistake is their unilateralism and over-reliance on militarism.  However, Wilsonians generally believe democracy promotion should be significant policy preference and that multilateral intervenionism is necessary (and in the case of Darfur e.g., under-utilized.) 

Jeffersonians on the other hand agree that democracy is the best form of government, but believe that the U.S. should primarily focus on modeling it for the rest of the world, and refrain from trying to export it.  The neocons in their mind are simply dead wrong about just about everything.  If this means making common cause with the realists, than so be it; better James Baker than the Truman Project.   

Certain progressives such as David Rieff that were formerly Wilsonian, now hew a Jeffersonian position as a reaction to the Iraq debacle and the "complicity" of the liberal Wilsonians who lent support to the war.  The majority of the active commenters on this board (as well as the progressive blogosphere) are Jeffersonians.  They like to define Wilsonians as "neo-cons" or otherwise compromised by Iraq and therefore claim that the Wilsonian policy wonks need to be purged from the Democratic ranks. 

Posted at April 24, 2007 3:18 PM in response to Robert Wright on the Neocons and The Thinking That Gave Us the Iraq War

The neocons desire to remake the Middle East as part of a Pax Americana did not originate in 2001.  However, the idea that the neocon worldview originated in a 1996 briefing to Bibi is conspiracy mongering at its worst.  Here's the summary table of the 2000 Rebuilding America's Defenses paper: 

Cold War

• Strategic System: Bipolar 
• Strategic Goal: Contain Soviet Union
• Main Military Mission: Deter Soviet expansionism
• Main Military Threat(s): Potential global war across many theaters
• Focus of Strategic Competition: Europe

21st Century

• Strategic System: Unipolar
• Strategic Goal: Preserve Pax Americana
• Main Military Mission: Secure and expand zones of democratic peace; deter rise of new great power competitor; defend key regions; exploit transformation of war
• Main Military Threat(s): Potential theater wars across the globe
• Focus of Strategic Competition: East Asia 

It is pretty obvious who the most likely "new great power competitor" was in 2000 and why the focus of strategic competition was East Asia.  Does everyone forget the neocons saber-rattling over the spy plane incident? 

The neocons views on Israel, Iraq and Iran all fit within their larger views of Pax Americana.  But so to do their views on China and India.  Trying to explain the neocons grandiose vision of an America unilaterally expanding "zones of democratic peace" by force to be derived from a preference for keeping Israeli settlers in Hebron is absurd.  Until progressives understand this, they will not only continue to misunderstand the neocons, they will keep providing fodder for conspiracy-mongerers.   

Posted at April 24, 2007 2:57 PM in response to Robert Wright on the Neocons and The Thinking That Gave Us the Iraq War

      MJ's Israel-centric focus leads him to have a warped vision of neocon history.

The neocons original manifesto stated that their aim was to "Secure the Realm" (i.e. Israel's hold on the West Bank, etc). But now, confident that the occupation of the West Bank is pretty secure), they have so many other and bigger fish to fry.

This is nonsense.  Moreover, its not even what Wright actually wrote.

Critics murmur that neoconservatism is “all about Israel.” I wish! Then the damage might be confined to one region. Alas, the neocon paradox — empower people and enrage them — is global. Neocons want to make China democratic ASAP; meanwhile, they pass the time arousing anti-American Chinese nationalism with vestigial cold war rants. Fortunately, they won fewer intra-administration battles over China than over the Middle East.

Anyone who has actually studied the intellectual history of the neocons realizes that they have had a broad-based agenda of promoting American values (freedom, democracy, capitalism) through unilateral force since the 1970s.  The movement's original manifesto was rabid anti-Communism.  The world was divided into "free" and the enemies of freedom.  Israel fit neatly into the neocon vision as a frontier state in the free world.  (And it especially fits as front-line ally with "Islamo-facism" dubbed the replacement for Soviet Communism.) 

But the neocons in the 1980s were obsessed with funding the Contras and supporting Taiwan against Communist China.  Prior to 9/11, the neocons were gearing up for a confrontation with China as the next great enemy, not political Islam.

The best critiques of the neocons come from those, like Francis Fukuyama who know them best.  As Fukuyama put it, the neocons have a "Leninist" view towards liberal democracy.  It is the task of the United States not merely to facilitate and nuture the spread of democracy, but to radically intervene to speed the process of global democratization and liberalization. 

The question for progressives to decide is how much of the neocon mission is wrong.  Do we oppose the messianism, unilateralism and militarism of the neocons or (as many on the left have decided in the wake of Iraq) do we reject the entire premise that liberal democracy is the highest form of government that all people, regardless of culture, deserve to enjoy.

Posted at April 24, 2007 12:17 PM in response to Robert Wright on the Neocons and The Thinking That Gave Us the Iraq War