In the ill-fated Munich Pact signed with Hitler in 1938, Britain's Chamberlain surrendered to Germany's demand to annex the Sudetenland, a part of Czechoslovakia, inhabited by Germans for centuries. The Nazis soon occupied the whole country, and then invaded Poland.
Liberated by the Allies in 1945, the Czechs regained the Sudetenland, expelling 2.5 million of its ethnic Germans to Germany as authorized at the Potsdam Conference.
There is a parallel between the German Sudets and the Palestinian refugees - except that the latter refuse to accept the universal code that aggressors must pay for their acts.
A final agreement between the Germans and the Czechs was signed in December 1946, recognizing that the German Sudets were expelled on the understanding that they were pro-Nazi and, as such, enemies of the Czechs. Both sides agreed that the German Sudets would receive neither compensation nor apology. During the ensuing Cold War, the descendants of these Germans demanded to return to their "ancestral homeland" - but in vain.
Had the Palestinians accepted the 1948 UN partition resolution instead of waging an aggressive war, there would have been no refugees.... The initial refugee problem of 1948 was exacerbated when Egypt and Syria launched their failed Six Day War against Israel in 1967.... Never before in history have those who lost wars of aggression been deemed equal partners in the negotiation, and for good reason - aggressors should not have incentives for perpetrating acts of aggression.
The Palestinian refugees are victims, but not of Israel. Rather, they are the victims of wars launched - ostensibly for them - by the Arab states, but for which they pay the price. They are the victims, effectively, of Arab aggression against Israel.
The Palestinian refugee problem is allowed - even forced - to continue and to grow. Of the approximately 135 million refugees created over the last century, only the Palestinians have retained this dismal, nationless status. Every other major refugee group has been resettled within a generation.
Whether the Palestinian refugees have been denied resettlement by tragic oversight, or devious design, the Arab world should take responsibility by resettling them, and paying substantial restitution for the damages inflicted on them over the past by 54 years.
With the Palestinian conflict out of the way, the world should be able to, presumably, focus on other issues without the Palestinian issue dominating – and providing an excuse for – much of the violence coming from that part of the world.
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Monday, April 17, 2006
American Jews: Loyalty under fire?
According to a recent Anti-Defamation League poll, one out of three Americans thinks that Jews in this country put Israel’s interests ahead of America’s. With the upcoming trial of two ex-staffers of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) accused of leaking classified information to Israeli diplomats, and the anti-Jewish Harvard/University of Chicago report* entitled "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy", the question of dual loyalty is, once again, raising it's ugly head. As crazy as it may sound, the mere act of caring about Israel and exercising our rights as American citizens to petition members of Congress – in order to express our views, could be seriously hampered if we do not publicly defend this inalienable right.
At the core of the “American Jewish loyalty” argument lies the following: 1) The case of Jonathon Pollard 2) The quality of American democracy in America 3) attempts to deligitimize American Jews by questioning their loyalty.
In the case of Jonathon Pollard, which is extremely complex, we have a classic case of bad decisions on the part of both Pollard and the Israeli government. For years, the Pollard incident created a glass ceiling for American Jews seeking to partake in the highest levels of our government – a setback that I think most will agree we have just begun to recover. The March 28th, 2006 death of Casper Weinberger dovetails nicely with the issue of American Jewish loyalty because of his intervention in the Pollard case. Weinberger sent a top-secret memo to the Pollard trial judge - a memo that is suspected to blame Pollard for “outing” eleven US spies who were killed in Russia, and was the reason why the US government reneged on Pollard’s plea bargain agreement. It was later learned that Richard Ames, a CIA agent, was the one responsible for the deaths in Russia. The Pollard case, to this day, remains the central argument to those who wish to question American Jewish loyalty – even though the damages to US security was non-existent when compared to just about anyone charged with a similar violation. At the end of the day, the entire Pollard affair - in hindsight - might have been avoided had the American Jewish lobby been more effective during that period. Ironically, former AIPAC officials have been indicted for openly gathering intelligence offered up by US officials. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
As much as I disagree with just about everything written by Harvard Professor Walt and U. of Chicago Professor Mearsheimer in their paper "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy", I will defend their right to exercise their freedom of speech - but question their willingness to allow other US citizens (and groups of US citizens) the same right. Given their flawed analysis, one gets the impression that the Israeli lobby is illegally/covertly imposing its agenda upon a US population that is unaware and unsupportive of their efforts. To the contrary, over 60% of US citizens approve of US support for Israel, which is a higher percentage than put President Bush into office in 2000. The American Israeli Political Action Committee conducts its mission in full compliance with all US laws and regulations covering such lobbying ventures. Professor's Walt and Mearsheimer's statements that recent news stories surrounding AIPAC make their point regarding "treasonous activity" on the part of AIPAC appears to be premature, wishful thinking and grasping at straws.
US foreign policy has often been influenced by special interest groups, be they nationalistically driven (Greeks, Irish) or economically driven (agricultural, manufacturing, NAFTA). If one was to concede the point that US aid to Israel may be disproportionate to overall US aid, it is undisputable that the US gets more than it's money's worth in a politically reliable ally, and a superbly equipped and manned forward base of operation for both political and military activities. But, it is not a point to be conceded so quickly. The cost of US troops in South Korea, Japan and in Western Europe, while not redlined as foreign aid - far exceeds any amount of aid received by Israel from the USA - and many could debate as to whether those assets are well spent.
Attempts to "deligitimize" American Jewish supporters of Israel often reach for hypothetical scenarios to prove their point; what would American Jews do if the USA were to abandon Israel? Where would their loyalty lie? The best answer is to say that because of Israel's existence, American Jews are here by choice. We aren't fleeing political or religious persecution (except in the Muslim world) anymore. We also aren't known to blowup subways, blowup buildings, or stab people when our religious or political sensitivities are offended. We work "within the legal system" to make our voice heard, we write "letters to the editor" to influence public opinion, and we exercise our "inalienable rights" as citizens of the United States of America. Do we have a bigger influence on US foreign policy than our numbers would indicate? Maybe, but there is no reason to apologize or be ashamed for being effective at lobbying.
*The fact that Harvard and the University of Chicago have officially distanced themselves from this report after it was already published is too little, too late.
At the core of the “American Jewish loyalty” argument lies the following: 1) The case of Jonathon Pollard 2) The quality of American democracy in America 3) attempts to deligitimize American Jews by questioning their loyalty.
In the case of Jonathon Pollard, which is extremely complex, we have a classic case of bad decisions on the part of both Pollard and the Israeli government. For years, the Pollard incident created a glass ceiling for American Jews seeking to partake in the highest levels of our government – a setback that I think most will agree we have just begun to recover. The March 28th, 2006 death of Casper Weinberger dovetails nicely with the issue of American Jewish loyalty because of his intervention in the Pollard case. Weinberger sent a top-secret memo to the Pollard trial judge - a memo that is suspected to blame Pollard for “outing” eleven US spies who were killed in Russia, and was the reason why the US government reneged on Pollard’s plea bargain agreement. It was later learned that Richard Ames, a CIA agent, was the one responsible for the deaths in Russia. The Pollard case, to this day, remains the central argument to those who wish to question American Jewish loyalty – even though the damages to US security was non-existent when compared to just about anyone charged with a similar violation. At the end of the day, the entire Pollard affair - in hindsight - might have been avoided had the American Jewish lobby been more effective during that period. Ironically, former AIPAC officials have been indicted for openly gathering intelligence offered up by US officials. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
As much as I disagree with just about everything written by Harvard Professor Walt and U. of Chicago Professor Mearsheimer in their paper "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy", I will defend their right to exercise their freedom of speech - but question their willingness to allow other US citizens (and groups of US citizens) the same right. Given their flawed analysis, one gets the impression that the Israeli lobby is illegally/covertly imposing its agenda upon a US population that is unaware and unsupportive of their efforts. To the contrary, over 60% of US citizens approve of US support for Israel, which is a higher percentage than put President Bush into office in 2000. The American Israeli Political Action Committee conducts its mission in full compliance with all US laws and regulations covering such lobbying ventures. Professor's Walt and Mearsheimer's statements that recent news stories surrounding AIPAC make their point regarding "treasonous activity" on the part of AIPAC appears to be premature, wishful thinking and grasping at straws.
US foreign policy has often been influenced by special interest groups, be they nationalistically driven (Greeks, Irish) or economically driven (agricultural, manufacturing, NAFTA). If one was to concede the point that US aid to Israel may be disproportionate to overall US aid, it is undisputable that the US gets more than it's money's worth in a politically reliable ally, and a superbly equipped and manned forward base of operation for both political and military activities. But, it is not a point to be conceded so quickly. The cost of US troops in South Korea, Japan and in Western Europe, while not redlined as foreign aid - far exceeds any amount of aid received by Israel from the USA - and many could debate as to whether those assets are well spent.
Attempts to "deligitimize" American Jewish supporters of Israel often reach for hypothetical scenarios to prove their point; what would American Jews do if the USA were to abandon Israel? Where would their loyalty lie? The best answer is to say that because of Israel's existence, American Jews are here by choice. We aren't fleeing political or religious persecution (except in the Muslim world) anymore. We also aren't known to blowup subways, blowup buildings, or stab people when our religious or political sensitivities are offended. We work "within the legal system" to make our voice heard, we write "letters to the editor" to influence public opinion, and we exercise our "inalienable rights" as citizens of the United States of America. Do we have a bigger influence on US foreign policy than our numbers would indicate? Maybe, but there is no reason to apologize or be ashamed for being effective at lobbying.
*The fact that Harvard and the University of Chicago have officially distanced themselves from this report after it was already published is too little, too late.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Fixing American Foreign Policy in the Middle East
The bombing today (04/11/06) that killed 40 and injured dozens in Karachi, Pakistan – and the daily sectarian Muslim on Muslim bombings against fellow Iraqi civilians illustrates a number of points that seem to be beyond the grasp of both the Muslim world, and many in the West:
While the chanting mobs on the Arab street protest the existence of Israel for just protecting itself, they seem to be in total denial regarding the barbarity that the Muslim world has inflicted on itself in the name of Islam. The level of violence that the world is witnessing in Dafur, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan – not to mention the USA, Russia, Bali, Spain, England, France, etc. - is just beyond comprehension. The current state of affairs brings into question whether the Muslim world wouldn't be better off being ruled by strong, brutal dictators who know how to keep the peace. In other words, maybe it's time to punt the democracy theme. Good idea, didn't work.
Secondly, the West's inability to comprehend the mindset of the "angry young Muslim" is only exceeded by the limitless nature of Muslim violence. It is not a stretch of the imagination to envision a nuclear Shiite Iran blowing up Mecca, Tel Aviv, London – or a number of other countries that they perceive as having "offended" their sensibilities. We are at the proverbial 11th hour when it comes to doing "something" about Iran's potential to become a nuclear power.
The Arab world has already plainly demonstrated that the only self-imposed limits of their violence are the limits of the weapons they have on hand. Letting them have nuclear capability is beyond my comprehension.
While the chanting mobs on the Arab street protest the existence of Israel for just protecting itself, they seem to be in total denial regarding the barbarity that the Muslim world has inflicted on itself in the name of Islam. The level of violence that the world is witnessing in Dafur, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan – not to mention the USA, Russia, Bali, Spain, England, France, etc. - is just beyond comprehension. The current state of affairs brings into question whether the Muslim world wouldn't be better off being ruled by strong, brutal dictators who know how to keep the peace. In other words, maybe it's time to punt the democracy theme. Good idea, didn't work.
Secondly, the West's inability to comprehend the mindset of the "angry young Muslim" is only exceeded by the limitless nature of Muslim violence. It is not a stretch of the imagination to envision a nuclear Shiite Iran blowing up Mecca, Tel Aviv, London – or a number of other countries that they perceive as having "offended" their sensibilities. We are at the proverbial 11th hour when it comes to doing "something" about Iran's potential to become a nuclear power.
The Arab world has already plainly demonstrated that the only self-imposed limits of their violence are the limits of the weapons they have on hand. Letting them have nuclear capability is beyond my comprehension.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)