Middle East Focus - Mara Rudman and Positive Steps Toward Two States

- - -

Reports that Mara Rudman will be heading the US "Dream Team" focusing on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are very encouraging. Mara was in Boston over the winter to address a group at the local Jewish federation. I found her so engaging, I kept in touch with her, asked her serious question and got serious responses. To quote Bill Maher "You've got to give Obama some credit ... he's appointing people that you only used to read about in the paper ... and of course its good to know someone in this administration is actually reading the paper."

Here is a link to learn more about Mara Rudman's background and gravitas. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/05/19/relentless_player_to_push_for_palestinian_state/

But now I want to talk more about WHY this is a good thing and WHY it is still important to read through the MEDIA BIAS over why THEY think its a good thing. Consider this my "MIDDLE EAST USER"S GUIDE" entry for May 20, 2009. (Oh - and Happy Birthday Caryn!)

I am still furious about the coverage Obama's meeting with Netanyahu and Rudman's appointment is getting. Jeff Jacoby tackled this issue a bit in his piece in the globe today, but I won't even provide the link because I DON'T want you to read his column. He is part of the old "knee jerk crowd" that looks at the past few days and simply says "There won't be peace, and its the Palestinians fault." My objective to is to point out why peace will be so challenging, point out where it is the Palestinians' fault, where its the Israeli's fault, and where you and I can have a role in bypassing the dialogue of blame. In fact this week is a PERFECT example of why this approach is so necessary.

As I wrote in my previous entry, the coverage of the past few days would have you believe that these talks were only about getting Netanyahu to say yes to a two state solution. Even on the front page of the globe, you would think that Israel's past four Prime Ministers, the Knesset and the majority of people in the street hadn't been screaming 'TWO STATE SOLUTION" from the hills for the PAST 15 YEARS.

I can only imagine what these talks would have been about if Tzipi Livni and the Kadima party had gotten just a little more support in the past elections. We would probably be talking about borders, timetables, and the ball would be squarely in the Palestinians court as it has been for the past 15 years. But the reason I can't in good conscience write about that first, and the reason Bibi doesn't want to talk about that first is clear.

Please, I challenge you, read the press about the past weeks statements from Hamas leaders, and representatives of the Palestinian Authority. Following the Obama-Netanyahu meeting a Hamas spokesman stated that "What we've seen is a continued development of the Zionist-American relationship at the expense of our people" and "Obama's statements and messages of hope are meant to mislead global public opinion regarding the continued existence and conduct of the racist and extremist Zionist entity."

These are the leaders whom the rest of the world want Netanyahu and Israel to be comfortable with as leaders in a future Palestinian state. Please read the comments by President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-President-Obama-and-Israeli-Prime-Minister-Netanyahu-in-press-availability/

Similarly to what my entry said, Netanyahu - and Rudman - both acknowledge that there has to be a way to make an end around the extremists that really hold this whole process hostage. No reasonable person would allow - as it is currently constituted - this Hamas government to ultimately hold power. And in case you didn't know, talks in Egypt between Hamas and Fatah (the group currently in charge in the West Bank) fell through yesterday. THERE IS NOT EVEN A GOVERNMENT TO TALK TO RIGHT NOW AND PEOPLE ARE PORTRAYING ISRAEL AS UNWILLING. The recent leader of Fatah, amid these internal problems acknowledged HIMSELF yesterday that NOW MAY NOT BE THE right time for negotiations. Even Palestinians know this. Why does the rest of the world not want to see it. This is a microcosm of the problem we face in America and Europe. People are so eager to see a solution, that they don't want to look closely at the facts (sound familiar folks).

Now does that mean an overthrow? No. Does that mean some kind of violent incursion? Probably not. (Although think of this when you try to evaluate the Gaza incursion ... What if Israel had somehow defeated Hamas? Think of the door that would be open right now. Don't think for a second that wasn't more on the minds of Israeli leaders than what the media and anti-Israel crowd portrayed. Yes - a high cost for pa ossible future for Palestinians and Israelis. But yes, Israel's leaders do think like that and make those difficult choices daily).

What it does mean is that with people like George Mitchell and Mara Rudman in place, Hamas will be held accountable. They may still be allowed to save face, and be the face of the government, but they will have to change. The Northern Ireland model is the one we have to look at most closely. Remember Shin Fein, "The Political Wing of the IRA". The extremists were slowly marginalized by the international community. The semantics of creating a body NOT committed to violence allowed the wackos to wither on the vine if you will. I am not saying this is entirely possible in this middle east context, but it is the ONLY path that holds merit. And this is why Mitchell and Rudman were brought in. And by the way, this is why Obama's view on Iran is slightly backward. Having fewer arms to throw down and less money to re-arm would be a huge boost to making this process a lragely non-violent one.

But in our daily conversations, understanding this is not enough. If the daily barrage, and the occasional dinner conversation keeps coming back to "Bibi won't say Two States." You need to be able to respond. Why you ask? Because the only way to achieve the solution above, which includs the marginalization of the TRUE extremists in this situation, it must begin at home, and on the ground. The more the networks of extremists feel accepted at home and abroad, the longer they will stay in power. WE DO HAVE A ROLE HERE. I recently asked a crowd I spoke to, to begin taking stands; to read and educate yourself. Acknowledge the faults Israel has to account for. Acknowledge that Bibi not saying the words is a PR nightmare. But DO NOT let others who think they know what's going on shape the argument. If any speaker describes the "Zionist entity" as an evil one, or a racist failed project, you know where they are going. Stand up, prepare to leave, tell them why, and leave. Talk to your friends about the past 15 years of that open door for a two state solution. Talk to your friends about the need for Hamas to cease its language of destruction AND for Bibi to join the rest of the country and almost every other leader. DO NOT let the context be WHAT WILL ISRAEL DO. Return the discussion to what will BOTH SIDES do! Use the Northern Ireland model and the very real way Obama has put it into play. England made compromises. The IRA disarmed for the most part. But both sides only budged after neutral parties helped build trust and provide assurances, timetables, and goals.

The added benefit here is that Obama is seen much more as a neutral party. But again, don't let the fact that Bush's policy of backing Israel all the time, means Israel spent the past eight years perpetrating evil while the US looked the other way. NO. The US looked the other way, and for the most part, Israel still acted in good faith. They did not do enough about settlements, they did not do enough to encourage trust, but they also do not routinely call for the destruction of Palestinians and their state. They acknowledge the dual claim to the land and simply want to end the role extremists have played in derailing all their efforts. And let me be clear about this one last point. When people ask how Israeli's can just "go on" with their lives when Palestinians are suffering. As with most issues, Israeli's look at that differently. They do not see the extremists losong control any time soon nor do they feel the hatred for Israels very presence diminishing any time soon. And so their ONLY option is to LIVE. To yes, build homes in disputed land. To yes, create whatever security measures they think they need to LIVE like the Western Democracy they strive to be. To yes, wage war when they feel it just. This is Israel in 2009.

Hopefully, Mitchell, Rudman, and Obama, can create that momentum and trust so that extremism can wither away in the leadership of the Palestinians. That is what the media should be talking about today, that is what average Palestinians really dream of, and that is why YOU need to be talking about it every chance you get.

- - -

Middle East Focus: New and Improved US/Israel Relations - A Users Guide

- - -

As President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu prepare to meet, it is a shame that the context put forth in the media is almost completely about Netanyahu's point of view and what he will and will not say. It is as if the past 15 years of Israel clearly paving the way for a Palestinian state mean nothing.

But then again, Israel is used to having its History and what it did for peace 30 seconds ago ignored and forgotten by much of the world.

So I wanted to take this opportunity to begin a series of entries that will do what so many of my friends and colleagues ask me quite frequently - give us all some language we can use to talk about Israel without sounding like a brainwashed, Israel-right-or-wrong Stepford wife (or husband as the case may be).

The key to doing this, of course, is to make sure you are always doling out legitimate criticism of Israel's actions at the same time you asking for understanding about her predicament and the almost incessant Catch 22's she finds herself in.

My first one has already presented itself:

1) Yes, Netanyahu has expressed reservations about proclaiming his support for a Palestinian state. In the world of diplomacy, this is a disaster. It helps put the spotlight on those who have been saying for 15 years that Israel isn't serious about a Two State Solution. It also allows the world to believe that maybe Israel hasn't been serious. But friends, DO NOT BE DETERRED. The truth is that no election or 2009 policy can change HISTORY. Israel has been holding a door open for a two state solution for 15 years. It was a major door to hold open since so many thought it crazy. So many thought that any sovereign land held by Palestinians would be a staging ground for terrorism and attacks on Israel. And yes, those people, like Bibi, seemed to have been vindicated by Gaza.

2) Yes, Gaza does give many pause to be SO committed to the Two State Solution as Kadima was. They felt burned and they feel that there should have to be SOME change in how Hamas acts as a partner before we feel comfortable with them as any part of a future Palestinian sovereign state. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. And this is what is so difficult to navigate. Of course Israel could have handled the Gaza withdrawal better. But more people need to understand (and be talked to by well-meaning and level headed supporters of Israel) that Israel wants to be able to hand over sovereignty in theory to the Palestinian people and allow the creation of a Palestinian state. Unfortunately, the reality that presents itself is truly horrific for the people of Israel. I say this not because of any bias or racism on their part (even though it is there). I say this because of the word I use over and over - DISTRUST AND DAMN GOOD REASONS FOR IT - ON BOTH SIDES. This is why Bibi should legitimately be able to say - hold on a minute - before just committing to a State when the nature of its leadership is so in doubt.

3) Why is it so hard for people around the world to understand that Israel IS actually threatened by the VERY REAL words of Hamas and Fatah leaders, that talk about - not reconciliation with Israel - but her ultimate destruction? Why is that fact so downplayed along with the threats from Iran. Why do people not know about or routinely ignore these very important problems?

• 3a ... My first real answer. Those who have no knowledge of the prevalence of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish sentiment in the world outside of the United States, and how it is actually one in the same outside of the United States, will never understand how a Jewish person or Israeli sees and feels the pressure of that VERY REAL animosity.

• 3b ... My second real answer. Despite that very real pressure and the very real threat it creates, when well off Jewish Americans and Israelis sit and ponder, and speak of threats to Israel and Jews, IT IS NOT RIGHT to compare the way we feel threatened with the way a Palestinian feels in the West Bank and Gaza. THERE IS NO COMPARISON. It does not mean that one is better than the other. It is simply apples and oranges and will never CONVINCE anyone of the validity of the case for Israel. It comes down to this - In the West Bank, the standard of living is not good. Checkpoints are annoying, inconvenient and infuriating. Israeli soldiers often do seek to humiliate or simply have the effect of humiliating those they stop or interrogate. It does seem to the West like "Extreme Racial Profiling" and clear Occupation. In Gaza, the impact of the war on the Palestinian psyche was simple. "We are weak, we don't want to be weak, and Israel shoved it in our faces. As a result of this, too many of us died and we will always blame Israel and not Hamas." When you come to grips with the harsh reality that what I just described can NEVER be trumped by the situation in Sderot, or by the "threat" of terrorism Israeli's feel on a daily basis in 2009. IT JUST CANNOT COMPARE.

• 3c ... My third real answer. What people seem to forget is that the gauge of suffering is skewed. Because Israel is the one with the army and the apparent upper hand, no mention of Sderot or Terrorism will convince anyone. It needs to be made clear, that the territories have evolved from the over-sized refugee camps the Jordanians and Egyptians set them up as. In the meantime, Israel, a very long time ago set itself on a path, with a vision and a goal. It prospered, developed, and is a beacon of progress to Jews, Arabs, and all those who live and travel within the "green line." This only happened because of how seriously it protected those borders from enemies who sought to destroy her. And so now, in 2009, its standard, and definition of itself as a safe, secure and prosperous country does not include shells coming in from any neighbor. This standard is fairly universal in Western countries, yet I just read the other day by a "lefty" writer this phrase .. "The Katushas had almost all stopped, what was Israel's problem." Now I am not exactly sure what this person's definition of "almost all" was, but I actually have no problem with the fact that Israel's standard of safety is not "Well its only a couple of shells a day - looks like we can move ahead with our plans for peace." Where Israel wants NO threat of terrorism, and Israel seeks to have NO neighbors who even whisper about its annihilation, others would say - that is too high a standard. Others would say, "Israel, you shouldn't care what your neighbors say, or do, you should just give them all what they want, now." We need to be able to speak to our friends, not in the context of this argument - but in the context of a country who is so much like the United States. Once we can do that, we shift the discussion from who has the power to "What would Denmark do? And what would Germany do if they didn't like what Denmark did?" Only when you do that do you also see that as problematic as it is to build a house in a settlement that 5 peace plans say will be part of Israel in the future - "problematic house building" would never be a justification for Germany to send missiles into Denmark. We need to be able to acknowledge what more needs to be done to set the conditions for peace, while never relenting that Israel's standard for trust and comfort is the same as any countries would be - be they Denmark, Germany, or the United States.

- - -