An Optimistic Voice in Israel

Israel's military defeat in Lebanon has created new opportunities for peace – that's what Israeli Knesset member and peace movement leader Yossi Beilin told Terry Gross on the NPR show "Fresh Air" on August 23. Beilin, chairman of the left-wing Meretz party, has served in different Labor governments, and was one of the architects of the 1991 Oslo Accords and the 2003 Geneva Accord.

The Israeli government and military today are facing popular anger and strong criticism over their failures in Lebanon. Beilen recalled that the government faced similar criticism after the 1973 Yom Kippur war. But that war, he pointed out, opened the way to a historic peace treaty with Egypt -- the Camp David agreement of 1978 – and a peace between the two countries that continues to this day.

That treaty was possible, Beilin argued, because after 1973 Egypt "felt there was there was a kind of symmetry" with the Israeli military, rather than feeling "they had been totally defeated," which had been the case with the 1968 war.

But, Terry Gross asked, who should Israel negotiate with? Hamas and Hezbollah don't recognize Israel or its right to exist. "I would negotiate with everybody who is ready to negotiate with me," Beilin replied. "Neither Hezbollah nor Hamas is ready to negotiate with Israel, which leaves us with the government of Lebanon, with Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority, and with the Syrian government. All of them are speaking about an agreement with Israel." He suggested convening an international conference with those participants.

But withdrawing from Lebanon, and then withdrawing from Gaza, did not bring peace. Haven't these experiences turned Israeli public opinion against peace negotiations? "I don't think so," Beilin replied. What Israelis have lost faith in is unilateral withdrawals. In contrast to the "non-agreements" around the withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza, "We have had a peace agreement with Egypt since ‘75, with Jordan since ‘94, and these are big achievements," he said. "People are disenchanted about unilateralism. . . . They understand now that peace agreements do not have substitutes."

The crucial example: Syria. It's possible that the entire Lebanon war, and the arming of Hezbollah, could have been avoided if Israel had signed a peace treaty with Syria in 1999 – "and paid the price of the Golan Heights to have this peace." That would have had "a huge impact on Lebanon," which Syria has more or less controlled. Israel at that point had a Labor government headed by Ehud Barak; at the end of 1999, he decided not to sign a peace treaty with Syria, and instead to withdraw from Lebanon unilaterally. The consequences of those decisions are now clear.

But when Hamas controls a majority of seats in the Palestinian legislature, and when Hamas doesn't recognize Israel or its right to exist, how can you have a negotiated peace with the Palestinians? "Here the procedure is quite clear," Beilin replied. "Hamas is telling the world that it is ready for Mahmoud Abbas to negotiate with Israel. Once he ends his negotiations, he will have to bring that agreement either to a referendum or to a meeting of the Palestinian national council. If there is a majority for such an agreement, it will become a reality. . . . This is the way Hamas can stick to its ideology, but enable others to negotiate." In the end, the leaders of Hamas "will not be the ones to shake our hands, but they will benefit from an agreement with Israel."

But hasn't the war strengthened the determination of Hamas and Hezbollah to seek the destruction of Israel? Beilin insisted that "There is a big difference between the two groups. Hezbollah is not a potential partner." Hamas is different, and "at the end of the day, if Hamas gives Mahmoud Abbas the mandate to negotiate, there is a possibility of getting an agreement. This is not the situation with Hezbollah."

But hasn't the rise of Islamic extremism throughout the region reduced the chances for a negotiated peace? "I would like to reject the idea that what we have is a war of civilizations or war of religions," Beilin said. "Everywhere you have extremists, but also moderate people and pragmatic people. Wisdom also requires creating the coalition of sanity, those people who want to live and want their kids to live. These are the majorities everywhere."

The strategic key for Israel, he said, is "to put an end to the war situation in the inner circle" – Israel, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and the Palestinians – "so that war here will not create a pretext for those who want to fight forever." Beilin gave credit for that idea to Yitzhak Rabin, the prime minister who was assassinated in 1995 by an Israeli fanatic who opposed his signing the Oslo Acccords. Rabin "wanted peace in the inner circle before Iran became a nuclear power, and before the hatred of Israel in the Arab world would make anyone who made peace with us be seen as a traitor. He was right." But "it's still not too late."

Finally Terry Gross asked Yossi Beilin how optimistic he was feeling now. After a pause, he said, "I believe there is an opening which wasn't there before. The question is whether it is big enough to change the situation. . . . It is more than a matter of optimism. It is a matter of creativity, of doing something." Here he refused to call himself an optimist, which he defined as a person "who believes that the situation will be better tomorrow." Instead, he concluded, "I believe it is my task to make it so."

Comments (24)

1. If it is indeed perceived that Israel lost this last war, then Israel is in deep trouble, as her enemies will beleive that if they can rearm a little stronger next time, then they can defeat Israel for real...point being, Hellsboola(IRAN) or their surrogats will negoiate right up until the day they feel stronger and attack again..peace is farther away today than it was 45 days ago.

   Posted by john maasch at 08/25/2006 @ 01:28am

2. And they won't waste time kidnapping anyone this time...

   Posted by john maasch at 08/25/2006 @ 01:29am

3. I would love to see an article written on the Nation on Pat Buchannans new book and immigration. That will bring about a great discussion here..

   Posted by john maasch at 08/25/2006 @ 01:30am

4. Don't worry, John "why exactly do I spend so much time at the Nation's blog that I'm bragging about telling all my co-workers about it" Maasch:

   The "Israel defeat" or its more common variant, the "Stronger Than Expected Hezbollah" is already being used to spin the "we better attack Iran cuz obviously they so scary" line of turdalysis.

   And anyway, isn't that a lot more fun than talking about all those civilian casualties? But I'm getting this deja vu....kind of reminds me of the start of the Iraq war, when it would all be so easy....and then when it wasn't easy.....the stronger than expected insurgency, ahhh.....which must have been from all the foreign fighters, sure.....which wouldn't have ANYTHING to do with US weapons (whether fired by the US or Israel, of course) raining down in the middle of cities....nah, the regular people are just victims of the Saddam's regime//terrorists.....their deaths, their thousands and thousands of deaths, are regrettable.....but we're different see, because we didn't MEAN to kill them.....we just bombed the shit out of the cities they lived in and strafed the roads.....it wasn't to kill civilians you know.....it was unfortunate.....the difference is clear....terrorists MEAN to kill civilians.....the US and Israel DON'T MEAN to kill civilians.....so even though the US and Israel kill way, way , way more civlians than the terrorists.....

   it's the thought that counts.

   Posted by Vic Perry at 08/25/2006 @ 06:14am

5. If Israel is going to negotiate with anybody who'll grant its right to existance...

   that'll leave out FROMREDBIRD! (hehe)

   Posted by Mask at 08/25/2006 @ 07:27am

6. perhaps if israel grants the rights of it's neigbors to exist...

   they'll return the favor

   Posted by Will C. at 08/25/2006 @ 09:08am

7. hehe

   Posted by Will C. at 08/25/2006 @ 09:08am

8. "perhaps if israel grants the rights of it's neigbors to exist... "

   Yeah....all those years of 5 million Jews threating 500 million Arabs with public sworn promises to the world about pushing all those Arabs into the sea are finally coming to bear...and yes, despite the beloved UN here, it is the US that has kept Israel , ah, afloat, so to speak...so it is perhaps Bush fault that Hellsboola(where is their home, BTW?) crossed a border Israel had retreated(er, redeployed from)in order to set up an invasion, rain down 4,400 rockets on civilian populations(cleverly non USA made),all this in order to invade Iran....

   ya, das ist moglich..allah akbahr, alle..

   Posted by john maasch at 08/25/2006 @ 10:05am

9. "threatening"..sorry, as all who bother to read my blatherings are well aware of my creative spelling technicalitys(sp).....

   Posted by john maasch at 08/25/2006 @ 10:08am

10. John,

    The problem is that Israel did lose this war, by just about any strategic measure (and they didn't do very well operationally either.) They have failed to eliminate Hezbollah as a military entity, failed to stop attacks on Israeli soil during the course of the war, strengthened Hezbollah's political position in Lebanon, drawn new world-wide anger over their conduct of military operations in their air campaign, and demonstrated their military capabilities for their neighbors in ways that are neither flattering nor useful. They have also failed to eject Hezbollah from south Lebanon, though that has been done for them by the international community to prevent a spread of the war. How complete the redeployment of Hezbollah will be remains to be seen, but there is little doubt that they will not be disarmed any time soon and that the ultimate solution to "disarming" them as a party in Lebanon may well be to integrate their forces into the Lebanese Army (a solution the Israelis would find somewhat less than ideal.) The whole exercise has strengthened extremists and given Iran both more room to maneuver in relation to its nuclear standoff and strengthened its ties elsewhere in the world (all those weapons that Hezbollah will need to replace will come largely from China through Iran.) I'd call that a failure in any book, especially since the only success they can find out of this is killing maybe a few hundred Hezbollah footsoldiers (if we believe the Israeli's numbers on that, Hezbollah's are understandably somewhat lower, see this assessment [en.wikipedia.org] of casualty figures) and even that operational "success" came at the cost of a fair number of soldiers and some very valuable equipment (tanks, at least one helcopter, etc.), not to mention the anger of the Israeli public for exposing them to war without actually achieving anything. All in all, John, looks like a loss to me.

    The question now is, "what next?" I think that's what Mr. Beilin was trying to get at. The Olmert government fell back on the old militarist policies, and they failed. The legacy of the Sharon unilateralism has also largely been a failure for Israel. So the only real option at this point is to negotiate and try for a secure situation. I agree with Mr. Beilin's reasoning on this point, especially the idea that bilateral and multilateral agreements have worked (by and large) and offer the only good way out of the whole mess. It is an appeal to sanity, but that may offer the only hope that peace (and Israel) can get.

    Posted by Stwriley at 08/25/2006 @ 11:21am

11. These so-called friends of Israel would do well to read the subtext of United States imperialism, for example, the article that appeared in the Associated Press in which State department spokespeople are investigating the charge that Israel may have "misused" U.S.-made cluster bombs. "Mis-used", my fanny. They were used exactly the way they are designed to be used, to rip flesh and destroy people. And the Zionists were encouraged to use them by the United States government, which, as usual, is looking to dump world disapproval on the shoulders of its junior partners in the "middle East", Israel included. Yes, if the more sober Israelis want to retain a homeland, they'll do well to get hip to their so-called benefactor, who now more than ever is looking for a way to make U.S. imperial shit smell like roses. Simply being a running dog for the U.S. and its ambitions will not protect those Jews who want to live alongside a free and independent Palestine. If the last debacle in Lebanon didn't show the idiots over here, the next one will. There will be no peace without justice for Palestine. Get used to it, true believers. The gig is up. Please understand that.

    Posted by MCHureaux at 08/25/2006 @ 11:40am

12. Stwriley,

    There is another aspect that has gained very little attention. And that is the aspect of the insanely politically powerful military industrial complex.

    Israel remains the USA's largest foreign aid recipient (mostly in military giveaways). If there is a quasi new world order emerging whereby (using a sports metaphor) "heart" counts for more than tanks and F16's (as evidenced by the low tech / low cost but partially succesful Afghanistan / Iraq / Hezbollah insurgencies). Then there eventually will be an enormous dilemma that faces the military industrial complex.

    The USA can carry on spending all our kids and grandkids money on fancy stuff and spending even more on fancy stuff so we can give it to the Israeli army, but if it is largely ineffective how long will our politicians carry on with that boondoggle against us taxpayers?

    Who knows, but you know the guys at Lockheed et al are fully aware of the seeming failure of our technological superiority and would dearly like a "display" of what technological superiority can buy. Meaning, the military Industrial complex has got to be routing for a full scale conventional war versus the conventional armies of Iran. Like the war in Iraq, the military industrial complex will probably make it happen.

    Posted by freedomplease at 08/25/2006 @ 11:47am

13. Superb post, MCHUREAUX ...

    Posted by Vic Perry at 08/25/2006 @ 12:02pm

14. This article appeared in Ovi Magazine:

    "THE ROAD TO PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST OR THE ROAD TO ARMAGEDDON: WE MUST CHOOSE NOW!"

    I'd come across an article that had highlighted a peace plan for the Middle East that was presented by Abe Hirschfield and Dr. Mohammed Mehdi. The day it was presented was September 11, 1974, a date that could have made history.

    Now, that date 9-11 means more than it ever could have back then. Yet, on that day thirty-two years ago, was perhaps the most important event that might have prevented not only the airplane terrors but also the loss of many lives that were and still are being sacrificed for the sake of ill causes.

    What if just five summers ago, when Arafat had proposed a ceasefire, Mr. Hirschfield's peace plan was again in play? It wasn't, so instead the violence in Israel only escalated. And does any Jew actually believe that the Palestinians will stop at only a small piece of their former land, not to mention "no right of return".

    Well, again, we are faced with a time when something bold needs to be presented. Only this may truly be our last chance for any true peace, not only in the Middle East but also perhaps throughout the world. As religions and philosophies are spread out so are the factions that are ready to explode into more wars.

    As the threat of civil war in Iraq will place an ominous burden of any chances for a peaceful settlement, Israel and Palestine should lead the march for a peaceful solution. In spite of the string of assassinations, on both sides, of the innocent and the guilty, let all governments and organizations declare a new ceasefire.

    Impossible, you say. We try, but they bomb. Can't be trusted, butchers every one of them. (Describes both sides, doesn't it?) But, what if.....

    What if indeed it becomes possible that the first hurdle of peace has been cleared by the agreed upon "true" ceasefire, then the next step should be taken with the utmost care as the next hurdle may cause us to fall and may also prevent us from ever crossing that finish line of total peace.

    Yet, how should we proceed? Obviously, with caution at most, but also with a possible belief and understanding of trust. That is the name of that next hurdle - trust. It always has been. And to clear it, what may our next step be?

    Sometimes the most obvious step is the most difficult to accept.

    In 1974, Mr. Hirschfield, a Jew, and Dr. Mehdi, an Arab, had presented a plan for peace. This may be its last chance for implementation. But it must be taken seriously this time, as what lies beyond failure may be annihilation. As everything else tried has been and will be a failure and Jerusalem will perhaps change hands once again through wars just as it did during the time of the earlier Crusades. We still learn nothing from history.

    So here it is: the only solution never seriously discussed is that which will allow Palestinians and Jews to live side by side, literally and logistically as next door neighbors; sharing not only the spaces with each other but also learning to live as friends in peace, and with respect. Sharing the same environment, the same living standards, can make all the difference.

    Obviously only a pipe dream, even a madman's delusion, ask anybody. They would kill each other, wouldn't they? If the answer is yes, then what's the use of trying anything? But, if they'd learn to share the dream of better futures for their children then perhaps they can heal the wounds that are carried into each child's generation. After all, it is the children who must learn to live in peace from any time on. For the adults, the hate has already taken hold; therefore, only their God-given logic can overcome their hateful passions. And with each new generation the hate will grow ten fold.

    Yet, peace can be achieved and perhaps this is how it can be started: throughout all of the disputed Israeli settlements on the West Bank and throughout former Palestine, propose that the disputed housing communities shall remain intact and with a new plan for expansion, for the sake of this amendment, this experiment: - that each house/apartment shall have as it's next door occupant the opposite, an even distribution of Palestinians and Jews; thereby, creating an environment of neighbors, hopefully a community that can learn to live in peace and with respect towards one another, a new kind of country; even by name, if necessary. (Perhaps, "New Jerusalem", instead of Israel-Palestine, as these are the two warring countries that will not stop fighting until one side has complete control to call its own, and which name first?)

    This concept is somewhat present now as some Palestinians (albeit Christians for the most part), are already sharing homesites in the West Bank. However, as some Jews have stated, that they will move if a Palestinian lives next door, the road to peace must be a shared one.

    (Unfortunately, the test case could have also been implemented in Gaza but instead of hoping to share, Israel tore down perfectly good housing because they didn't want the Palestinians to occupy decent housing. What kind of message did that send, I wonder.)

    Ironically, this plan may even create a bombproof and helicopter attack proof neighborhood. Any explosions in such a neighborhood would surely have victims from both sides, a deterrent, perhaps. But also, those who would live this experiment must and would need extreme courage, as many would try to destroy that kind of peace. But it would be up to the leaders from each side to also show the courage of leadership.

    Most assuredly, make no mistake, there will be problems from the start but how else can both sides learn to live in peace with each other? Let's see if it could work. After all, isn't that the most obvious goal? A small portion of Land for Peace is not a final solution, and walls can always be penetrated by hatred.

    And, a small portion of land for peace is perhaps the real delusion, a "pipe dream" lost in the smoke of carnival mirrors. Who would be satisfied at only getting back part of a house when the whole house should be yours after it was taken from you by force?

    Every country/state is first a state of mind. The United States was first formed in the mind of freedom. The land only serves as a place to fulfill that dream of spirit. It is with that kind of state of mind that peace should be dealt, not by flags, walled boundaries, or religions.

    As for the rudimentary issues of government, (both religious and civil), all matters of government should be drafted to show equality, including such matters as teaching and understanding the history of both religions in the same classrooms; flags, combine both as to reflect the peaceful country of New Jerusalem.

    If the fear of a Palestinian majority in any new government is a roadblock, then form a government and constitution that this "Holy Land" of the Middle East shall be shaped, represented, and governed by an equal number of ministers no matter what the population majority.

    It isn't simple! But you have to start somewhere, lives are wasted and both side are tired of it. Instead of saying it won't work, why not try to find a way to make it work. Time to find out which leaders have truly attained their wisdom by age forty? But, if by the gift of grace it does work at these trial sites then this approach can be offered throughout.

    Surely, this is only a dream of hope, but imagine what true horrors may still lie ahead. Do not be deceived by the face of appeasement, the embers of total victory still hide deep within each Palestinian heart, ready to start new fires.

    So why not try hope as our dream. We already have insanity.

    This time let us find and embrace True Peace, and let us believe in "...hope, an unfolding lullaby for the soul."

    the end

    Posted by bohdan yuri at 08/25/2006 @ 12:13pm

15. US politics certainly going to play a part here...as we've already seen.

    I mentioned to our resident Hezbollah spokesperson, FRB, on another thread....HOWARD DEAN recently called the PM of Iraq Al Maliki an "anti-Semite" for not criticizing Hezbollah as harshly as he was criticizing Israel.

    Which seemingly was ignored by Dean's supporters, the "reflexively anti-Israel" crowd (as Ari Berman called them) among the Left-wing bloggers.

    While Jon Weiner's article deals with attempts by moderates in Israel to find a negotiated settlement, many on the American Left have taken a position not too far from Hassan Nasrallah, not just on "aid to Israel", but on its right to even exist.

    If even Dean isn't going to call for aid cuts to Israel, or even use them as a threat if "Israel doesn't clean up their act"...then what makes the anti-Israel Left think they will have ANY chance of doing that?

    Now...how about a good ol' fashioned "AIPAC controls both parties" retort?

    Posted by Mask at 08/25/2006 @ 12:16pm

16. Israel is an established presence and has every right to exist. The question, however, is whether it can continue to exist "supported" by "Christian" Zionists from the United States, who have been all too adept at convincing the most rabid elements of Zionist/Israeli politics that they should push for something called "Greater Israel", and thereby set even larger sections of the Middle East aflame. As I said earlier, the more sober elements in Israeli politics need to call in the bloody pit bulls who've been running their government for all too long, and cage them like the beasts they are. All those maniacs are doing is increasing the likelihood that Israel will become a deathtrap for the Jews, through their idiotic vision of a so-called Christian apocalypse. And if anybody doubts that, check the indifference they exhibit in their belief that Jews who do not "come to Christ"-their version of whom resembles Jack the Ripper- will have to fall in this PLANNED conflagration of theirs.

    Posted by MCHureaux at 08/25/2006 @ 12:38pm

17. Superb rant, MCHUREAUX ...

    Posted by john maasch at 08/25/2006 @ 12:54pm

18. Striley,

    I beleive I was agreeing with the point you make, but not on the ending,I don't see negoiations as being successful her,..I think Hellsboola is and will continue to rearm and re attack Israel, and harder now, since they seem to have won by surviving. There will be no peace until someone wins totally or one can negoiate with a responsible party capable of ratifing treaties(countrys) and enforcing those treaties. Hellsboola is not a reliable party and is not a country...Lebanon even looks less a country as it can not control its own lands..or what happens in them.

    Israel is in thre cross hairs now, of a real weapon...Fanatical Islam.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/25/2006 @ 1:01pm

19. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 08/25/2006 @ 11:47am

    There is another aspect that has gained very little attention. And that is the aspect of the insanely politically powerful military industrial complex.

    Israel remains the USA's largest foreign aid recipient (mostly in military giveaways). If there is a quasi new world order emerging whereby (using a sports metaphor) "heart" counts for more than tanks and F16's (as evidenced by the low tech / low cost but partially succesful Afghanistan / Iraq / Hezbollah insurgencies). Then there eventually will be an enormous dilemma that faces the military industrial complex.

    You'll get no argument from me about the military industrial complex idea. Eisenhower was right about that one, and we've seen the results for decades. It's not just Israel, of course, though as you rightly point out they are at the top of our hit parade of proxies. The problem is that one of the worst possible effects of the Cold War has been to emphasize this tendency to proxy war, with predictable results. Small nations like Israel become the targets for (as Mchureaux pointed out about Israel) the negative aspects of our actions. The reaction is also quite predictable, since most of the military proxies need constant aid and engender exactly the kind of insurgent/guerrilla action that has proved impossible to eradicate in modern warfare. The military industrial complex has faced this before: yes, I do mean Vietnam, which saw exactly this kind of asymetrical warfare and never managed to prompt real change in the basic system despite the military trying to learn the lesson. The industrial side of the complex keeps making tons of cash so there's really no incentive to change and won't be until the pigs are driven from the trough.

    The USA can carry on spending all our kids and grandkids money on fancy stuff and spending even more on fancy stuff so we can give it to the Israeli army, but if it is largely ineffective how long will our politicians carry on with that boondoggle against us taxpayers?

    I like Ike's quote on that:

    "As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow." Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961 [yale.edu]

    Could BushCo's whole-hearted backing of military industrial goals be any more aptly put? As I see it, the real problem is that what we have now in a military industrial sense also goes by a more revealing name; "military Keynesianism" [en.wikipedia.org]. Basically, the political benefits of the entire complex in dollar terms (just think of the flap over base closings) are so great that almost any policy that expands defense expenditures will be approved. It has little to do with military effectiveness and much more with economic effect (think of all the weapons programs that keep going, even when the armed service involved doesn't want what is being produced as has happened with a number of programs in recent years.) What we really need is a proper public discussion of the whole defense establishment and what it actually does vs. what most people think it does. Then we might have a chance to realign our Keynesianism to something more productive in the long run (and better for ourselves even in the short run.)

    Who knows, but you know the guys at Lockheed et al are fully aware of the seeming failure of our technological superiority and would dearly like a "display" of what technological superiority can buy. Meaning, the military Industrial complex has got to be routing for a full scale conventional war versus the conventional armies of Iran. Like the war in Iraq, the military industrial complex will probably make it happen.

    I don't doubt that there are plenty backing a war with Iran and BushCo seems to be doing their level best (one of the few things they can actually do) to bring one on. But they won't be able to pull it off the way they did Iraq, and I don't think given the ongoing Iraq disaster that they'll be able to make the case in the end. What that will lead to as their political situation at home gets worse (and it will, one way or another) I can only guess. BushCo might try to defy both world opinion and Congress. You just never know what guys like this will do when cornered. Either way, I see the days of overhyped military spending as necessarily limited, because one of two things wil happen: we'll wake up and stop spending to no good effect on a military industrial complex that doesn't really serve us but its own ends, or we run out of cash and the whole thing comes down around our ears. Personally, I'm working as hard as I can for the first option, one of the reasons that I'm a military historian speciallizing in strategy. I hope to convince people that we need a new path strategically, one that gives us real security and strength while it cuts off the perception of imperialism and unjust power.

    Posted by Stwriley at 08/25/2006 @ 6:49pm

20. Posted by MCHUREAUX 08/25/2006 @ 12:38am

    Some very interesting and well made points. I'm glad you qualified the "zionist" part from the first post in the second, since it is that radical right element in Israel (rather than the whole nation) that supports this Eretz Yisra'el viewpoint (not to be confused with the anti-Israeli propaganda associated with the "Eretz Yisrael Hashlemah" idea.) It is true enough that the Israeli middle and left had better use what opportunities they have (as Mr. Beilin seems to be trying to do) to counter this kind of irredentism and get a reasonable and balanced peace with whomever can be negotiated with.

    Posted by Stwriley at 08/25/2006 @ 7:04pm

21. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/25/2006 @ 1:01pm

    John,

    I think you're overstating the danger from radicals. There are plenty to be sure (and we and the Israeli right make more every day) but they can be defeated by methods other than military (and almost certainly not by military ones.) It rests on who we support and how. We need to be behind the current UN mission in Lebanon with more than tacit support, for instance, since with a French lead it has a good chance of stabilizing the country and letting the Lebanese government get control for the long term. The same is true of support fo the more moderate Palestinian elements (like Abbas and his supporters) and for taking different approaches to Syria. If we put in the hard work diplomatically, it could be done, but only if we restore US credibility and neutrality to at least a small degree by checking Israel when they do stupid things and getting ourselves out of Iraq. Otherwise, we'll be stuck in the same tracks forever and the conflicts will only get worse.

    Posted by Stwriley at 08/25/2006 @ 7:11pm

22. Thank you for a thoughtful commentary. I too think there are openings for peace, in the aftermath of a rather disgusting exchange of firepower that destroyed so much and achieved so little. I personally have become much better educated about the history of the Middle East -- Israelis, Palestinians, Lebanese --in the context of Jordon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran... in the context of the the establishment of the United Nations and the state of Israel in the late 1940s, in the context of the British Empire and decisions of colonial policy that were made in the first few decades of the 20th century. At the end of the day it looks like the issues are LAND and RESOURCES and the only possibility for peace lies in an equitable sharing of the lands and resources among the peoples of Israel, Palestine, Lebanon and Syria. It's time to negotiate and settle land disputes, with internationally recognized borders.

    Posted by prairdog at 08/25/2006 @ 7:43pm

23. Posted by WILL C. 08/25/2006 @ 09:08am perhaps if israel grants the rights of it's neigbors to exist...

    they'll return the favor

    Depends on the neighbors ... with the Palestinian and Syrians, sure, its a possibility. Hezbollah, of course not, since they depend on the fight against Israel for their weight as a political force ... but create peace and they will be starved of the conflict they need to thrive.

    Iran, of course, will remain a threat, but there is nothing they can do about that ... the policy of the Bush regime ensured that Iran would be the main winner from the brief Iraq War and the extended Iraq Occupation.

    Posted by BruceMcF at 08/25/2006 @ 10:50pm

24. I find it extraordinary that the Nation writer does not acknowledge a few unpleasant facts about Beilin. First, he supported the Lebanon war...until he didn't. That is, he supported the war almost till the very end & only broke w. the Olmert war in the last few days when an expanded ground invasion was proposed.

    Second, Beilin believes that neither Hamas nor Hezbollah are fit partners with which Israel should negotiate. He'd prefer to farm out Israeli interactions regarding Hamas or Hezbollah to Abbas and Assad respectively. Which of course treats ea. one as if they are proxies or mere extensions of their interlocutor rather than legitimate political players in their own right. I should add that this is more or less the Bush Administration's view of things as well.

    Until the war, I was a huge fan of Beilin and Meretz. But no one should lose sight of the fact that he & his party gave full-throated approval to this awful disgrace of a war almost to the very bloody end. Let them live that one down & explain it to us.

    In his Terry Gross interview he appears to be trying to get back on track with his former progressive positions. But he can't get away fr. that one dirty little secret which is the war & why he acquiesced instead of speaking out as a moral & humane political leader would've done.

    And I don't single Beilin alone out for opprobrium. Peace Now's position was equally shameful.

    Posted by richards1052 at 08/29/2006 @ 05:29am