Our closest ally
In case you missed this account of the massacres at Sabra and Shatila (yesterday was the 30th anniversary), it throws light on our “closest ally” and their regard for us.
“While Israel’s role in the massacre has been closely examined, America’s actions have never been fully understood. This summer, at the Israel State Archives, I found recently declassified documents that chronicle key conversations between American and Israeli officials before and during the 1982 massacre. The verbatim transcripts reveal that the Israelis misled American diplomats about events in Beirut and bullied them into accepting the spurious claim that thousands of “terrorists” were in the camps. Most troubling, when the United States was in a position to exert strong diplomatic pressure on Israel that could have ended the atrocities, it failed to do so. As a result, Phalange militiamen were able to murder Palestinian civilians, whom America had pledged to protect just weeks earlier.”
The whole piece here NYTimes.
Might have been nice if one speaker this past week had linked to this anniversary and what happens when a US president or secretary of state buys into the Israeli promises – compare what Bibi wants in terms of Iran and the invasion of Lebanon.
Reagan was angry but still sent the Marines who then were slaughtered – we left ignominousily.
Does anyone wonder what would happen in terms of a strike on Iran and the resultant explosion – look what is happening over a YouTube video?
There was a remarkable movie, “Waltz with Bashir,” made by an Israeli soldier/film make, Ari Folman about the massacre. The movie was released in 2008. It is a quite remarkable combination of animation of the events and live interviews of Israeli soldiers who were there. The Haaretz review: http://www.haaretz.com/news/israeli-film-at-cannes-explores-1982-sabra-and-shatila-massacre-1.245835
Of all our presidents, only Dwight Eisenhower stood up in 1956 to Israel (and Britain and France) during the Suez crisis. The Times op-ed piece says that Reagan was angry about the IDF invasion of Beirut, but in the end he caved to Israeli pressure and lies–as the op ed piece also recounts.
To the best of my knowledge no Israeli killed any Palestinian at Sabra or Shatilla. Nevertheless, Israel itself determined that it should never have allowed the Christian forces to enter those camps given the deep animosities that existed between their respective communities and in light of the contemporary assassination of the Christian president of the country. 300,000 Israelis took to the streets to protest what had happened there and demand the government investigate the matter, after which Sharon was forced to resign as Defense Minister. I’m sure you consider this too little, too late, and perhaps you’re right, but can you imagine any comparable protest movement, government investigation and affixing of responsibility occurring among the Palestinians or in any Arab country for the many atrocities they have committed over the years against the Israelis?
Jeff: The Israelis deserve better governments than they seem to get. The protests over Sabra and Shatilla remind us that Israelis are almost always the finest critics of their own government. I only add to your comment that Sharon did come back to serve as Prime Minister presumably exonerated for his part in the massacres.
Please also note that the NYTimes piece was focused on the role our own government played in allowing Israel leeway in its responsibility to protect those living in the camps. Perhaps no Israeli or no American killed any Palestinian in the camps, but had each accepted its specific responsibility to protect them, the slaughter would never have happened.
Margaret. Thank you for your response. It takes someone to pull the trigger and in this case it was Lebanese Christians, who must bear principal responsibility for this heinous event. And you did not respond to my point about the long history of Palestinian and other Arab atrocities against Israelis, or that the Arab people not only fail to rise up in protest against them, but too often celebrate them.
Don’t you think the Palestinians also deserve far better leadership than they have? And if you admire the Israeli people as much as you say, I am sure you have asked yourself why they have elected and support the current hard-line government. It might have something to do with the rather disgraceful performance of Arafat and the Palestinians at Camp David in 2000 and the follow-on bombing campaign against Israeli civilian buses, restaurants, weddings and Bar Mitzvahs. Over 1,000 Israelis have been killed since 2000, including 150 children.
These events nearly destroyed the Labour Party in Israel, which is now a mere shadow of itself, and decimated the ranks of the peace movement, which calls these Palestinian actions the stab in the back.
Or it might have something to do with the fact that, just as the hardliners predicted, the withdrawal from Gaza did not result in a more peaceful neighbor to its west, but a bitter enemy determined to use Gaza as a more effective staging ground for attacking Israel proper, whose destruction is its official policy. Or the fact that, just as the hardliners predicted, the withdrawal from southern Lebanon did not result in a more peaceful neighbor to its north, but to an Iranian cat’s paw bristling with advanced rocketry aimed at Israel and also sworn to its destruction. Or to Iran itself, calling for Israel to be wiped from the face of the globe, hell bent for nuclear weapons. Or to a newly empowered Egyptian populace whose hate of Israel endangers the peace treaty. Or to a newly wild Sinai overrun with jihadists attacking Israel across the border.
Israelis are frightened and deeply distrustful of Arab and Persian intentions. And they have a right to be.
Jeff, if I may: It may be that the ill will between Israel and the Palestinians is insuperable. That is extremely unfortunate for both of them, for their near neighbors, and for us, Israel’s great supporter, and increasingly its only ally.
The Palestinians do deserve better governance than they have received. However, note that Ehud Olmert, the previous Israeli PM, and President Abbas of the Palestinian Entity carried on talks that raised hopes that some modus vivendi would be found based on the Oslo Accords. The election of PM Netanyahu in alliance with several right-wing parties, including those of West Bank settlers, has ended any efforts to achieve an agreement.
Absent a two-state solution the Israelis are faced with having one-state in which Palestinians will form an increasingly large proportion, eventually a majority. if they form an electoral majority, Israel will cease to be a Jewish state. If the Palestinians are treated as second-class citizens, Israel will find itself under increasing isolation and perhaps even sanctions of the kind now in place on Iran. Another outcome could be ethnic cleansing in which Palestinians would be forced to leave. I believe most Israelis would be opposed to such an eventuality.
You cite a long history in which the Israelis are seen as weak and under attack while the Arab neighbors are always confrontational. I simply point out that Israel has peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt, a stand-off with Syria, and a working modus vivendi with Saudi Arabia. The great breech in Israel’s long-term interest in peace was its occupation of the West Bank and the subsequent establishment of settlements. The occupation was initially legal under international law; the settlements are not. The now thirty-five occupation in which West Bank resources are diverted to Israel is illegal and counter-productive. The occupation and settlement increasingly raise the specter of civil war between Israelis and West Bank settlers.
We can argue about history and who is responsible for the current situation. But it is the future that looms large and, at the moment, dangerous and unpredictable.
The point of my posts has been to think about how the U.S. could do a better job of averting that future and bring peace, even if a cold peace, between Israel and the Palestinians.
Margaret. With respect, I do not understand the fairness of a position that permits you, for example, to dredge up a thirty-year-old incident that is a stain on Israel’s honor, but when I speak of relevant events over the past twelve years that are discreditable to the Palestinians, chastises me for engaging in an unproductive exercise in the blame game.
The truth is that you mainly blame the Israelis for this tragic bloody mess and are not shy about saying so or presenting facts that you believe support your position, and I mainly blame the Palestinians and the larger Arab and Persian world and am no more peace-averse than you in presenting the facts that support my position. And suppose I’m right and you’re wrong? To advance the cause of peace, wouldn’t that require something of a re-orientation by you?
We both know that without certain concessions on both sides the odds of peace are low. Israel must end the occupation, and withdraw the settlements in the West Bank except for certain major population centers that hug the 1949 armistice lines (the “green line,” or the pre-1967 line) for which there must be appropriate land swaps. And Israel must also cede East Jerusalem to the Palestinians. The Palestinians, for their part, must recognize Israel’s right to exist in peace as a Jewish state and normalize relations with it. They must relinquish the “right of return.” And they must agree upon security arrangements to be negotiated by the parties, perhaps with help from the international community. Do you agree?
The purpose of my “long history” was to present evidence (not conclusive, but persuasive) that, whereas the Israelis have shown a willingness to make the concessions required of them, the Palestinians have not. After all, at Camp David in 2000 the Israelis made a good-faith, substantial offer along all of the lines required of it. And it was not a take-it-or-leave-it offer, but an opening offer in what was expected to be a process of negotiations resulting in a peace treaty. The Palestinian response was to begin a terror campaign against Israeli civilians that resulted in many Israeli deaths. Nevertheless, Ehud Olmert made a similar, but enhanced, offer that Abbas left sitting on the table. On the other hand, when have the Palestinians ever offered to relinquish the right of return? To the best of my knowledge, they have never put this on the table.
To my way of thinking, facts such as these – there are others, as well, some of which I mentioned in my “long history,” – indicate that whereas Israel is willing to do what is necessary for peace, the Palestinians are not. And what is the result? The Palestinians get Netanyahu as Israel’s prime minister. And even now, it is Abbas, and not Netanyahu, who refuses to enter into peace negotiations.
Why don’t the Palestinians enter into peace negotiations and make, just as Israel has done in the past, a good-faith offer along all the lines required of the Palestinians to advance peace? If Netanyahu then acted in bad faith, I predict the Israelis would in time elect a new prime minister willing to meet the Palestinians half way. In any event, the world could then draw its own conclusions from the conduct of the parties. As far as I’m concerned, the ball is in the Palestinians’ court.
By the way, I don’t think Israel is weak vis-à-vis the Palestinians. It is obviously very strong. But that doesn’t prevent the Palestinians from killing Israelis, as they have frequently demonstrated. And Israel’s strength vis-à-vis its enemies in the Arab world and Iran is a much closer call.
And as for your position that Israel went wrong in 1967, I would simply ask isn’t that the year Israel defended itself in the second of what would be three wars of aggression by the Arab world to destroy Israel, kill Israelis and steal their land? The year in which Israel subsequently offered to return the Golan to Syria and the Sinai to Egypt in exchange for peace? The year in which Israel offered to enter into negotiations with the Palestinians to resolve their differences? The year in which the Arab world, including the Palestinians, met in Khartoum and responded to Israel with the infamous doctrine of the three noes: No negotiations, no peace, no Israel? Which continued to be the official position of the PLO until the 1990s and is still the position of Gaza?