America is Israel's "Crack Dealer"

Thomas Friedman's Essay re: Israel and Palestine

I was nodding my head so vigorously I just about got a cramp reading the above essay.  The USA needs to just stop with the aid to Israel, the constant attempts at negotiations and let them deal with it on their own:

Oil is to Saudi Arabia what unconditional American aid and affection are to Israel — and what unconditional Arab and European aid and affection are to the Palestinians: a hallucinogenic drug that enables them each to think they can defy the laws of history, geography and demography. It is long past time that we stop being their crack dealers. At a time of nearly 10 percent unemployment in America, we have the Israelis and the Palestinians sitting over there with their arms folded, waiting for more U.S. assurances or money to persuade them to do what is manifestly in their own interest: negotiate a two-state deal. Shame on them, and shame us. You can’t want peace more than the parties themselves, and that is exactly where America is today. The people running Israel and Palestine have other priorities. It is time we left them alone to pursue them — and to live with the consequences

Friedman then goes on to illustrate that the aid that is flowing to Israel could be better used for assisting the many US communities that are having to cut back on basics, such as fire departments and education. We need to realize that we are in a co-dependent kind of relationship with Israel and the aid that we're constantly supplying them with is only lengthening the process.

I'm reminded of a Start Trek episode where Kirk & Co. discover that the war two planets have been fighting for centuries has been fought by computers. The computers do war games and determine the number of casualties. The people are then selected by the computers to go to disintegration chambers. There is no damage to buildings and no famine or any of that ugly stuff that makes war disagreeable.

Kirk destroys the disintegration chambers and asserts that they have to deal with the ugliness of war or negotiate on their own to stop the killing.

This is basically what Friedman is arguing in this essay: We need to just simply stop and let them deal with the ugliness of war or realize they need to negotiate honestly with each other, knowing that compromise will need to occur. If they want US mediators without conditions, then fine, but stop the aid.

Friedman's conclusion:

It’s all a fraud. America must get out of the way so Israelis and Palestinians can see clearly, without any obstructions, what reckless choices their leaders are making. Make no mistake, I am for the most active U.S. mediation effort possible to promote peace, but the initiative has to come from them. The Middle East only puts a smile on your face when it starts with them.

The Truth is Not Always Easy to Discover

I read that there will be renewed Peace Talks between Israel and Palestine. Before I could get my hopes up, the pundits started saying that it will fail. I thought they were just being negative, which is partially true, but then I read an Op-Ed in the New York Times which got me thinking:

Hamas, the I.R.A. and Us

I highly recommend reading it in its entirety, but the basic point is that when we consider what finally worked in the negotiations in Ireland, we realize that it happened when everyone was allowed to come to the table:

Mr. Mitchell’s comparison is misleading at best. Success in the Irish talks was the result not just of determination and time, but also a very different United States approach to diplomacy.

The conflict in Northern Ireland had been intractable for decades. Unionists backed by the British government saw any political compromise with Irish nationalists as a danger, one that would lead to a united Ireland in which a Catholic majority would dominate minority Protestant unionists. The British government also refused to deal with the Irish nationalist party Sinn Fein, despite its significant electoral mandate, because of its close ties to the Irish Republican Army, which had carried out violent acts in the United Kingdom.

A parallel can be seen with the American refusal to speak to the Palestinian party Hamas, which decisively won elections in the West Bank and Gaza in 2006. Asked what role Hamas would have in the renewed talks, Mr. Mitchell answered with one word: “None.” No serious analyst believes that peace can be made between Palestinians and Israelis without Hamas on board, any more than could have been the case in Northern Ireland without Sinn Fein and the I.R.A.

So there can be no peace unless Hamas is allowed to come to the table without the preconditions that hard right wing Israeli government wants to set on them. The preconditions basically ask Hamas to not be Hamas.

I recall that the difference between a "privateer" and a "pirate" in history depends on which side you were on. If you were favoring England, then French "privateers" are seen as "pirates", for example. Finding the truth in historical events is difficult, which is why history can be so fascinating.

This brings up the question: Is Hamas actually as much of a terrorist's party as our pro-Israeli press tends to paint it? Is Israel any less guilty of "terrorist acts"? Are we just viewing it through a Zionist lens?

Keep in mind that having Hamas come to the table doesn't mean everyone approves of everything Hamas has done. It also doesn't mean we should just blindly assume Israel, or the US for that matter, has always done the "right" thing. The I.R.A. weren't a bunch of boy scouts, either.