Will the New Congress Take a Different Approach to Israel-Palestine?

[cali]

By M.J. Rosenberg | bio
Daniel Levy already posted on that ridiculous House hearing on the Middle East that took place on Wednesday. But I need to add my own 2 cents.
This was, after all, the first House hearing on the issue since the Democrats took over so it is of some significance to all of us.


The subject was "Next Steps in the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process" and the invited witnesses were David Makovsky, the Director of the Project on the Middle East Peace Process at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and Martin Indyk, Director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution and Daniel Pipes, the Director of the Middle East Forum.

Both Indyk and Makovsky have impeccable credentials. Makovsky is a brilliant analyst, whose work on the Middle East is both strong and fair. Indyk served as Pres. Clinton's ambassador to Israel and Assistant Secretary of State.

Pipes, by way of contrast, is essentially a crank. He is a prolific writer who repeatedly sounds one note: that the Palestinians are bad people with whom negotiations are impossible. As for Muslims in general, "Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene...All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most.


<snip>
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/feb/16/will_the_new_congress_take_a_different_approach_to_israel_palestine

So the new House holds a hearing on I/P and invites no one from the Palestinian side and Daniel Pipes?

Disgusting.

[papau]

1. M.J. Rosenberg is 2 states & Pipes is 1 state/expel the arabs to other countries - but Pipes is also

one of the most - if not the best - informed person on Muslim History, past actions, and likely future actions. Indeed he has been correct - predicting 9/11 well before and exposing the Iranian how to destroy a building schools operating in Lebanon & training Al Qaeda, predicting the result of invasion of Iraq and being correct, predicting Arafat's motives and real response to Oslo and being correct, predicting Muslim behavior in the EU and being correct - correct so often it is with a bit of nervousness that I oppose him totally in his policy suggestions toward the Palestinians.

Only on the separation wall concept do we agree - and then we disagree on the path of the green line wall - but then we agree on the absolute stupidity and evil that was the proposed Jordan River wall and the internal borders within the West Bank.

M.J. Rosenberg plays dirty with "Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene...All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most." because he knows that while Pipes did indeed write that, that there should be quotes around "brown-skinned peoples" and indeed around just about every phrase in the quote as Pipes was just quoting what had been said by EU political leaders.

Again - Pipes is a conservative, and I disagree with him on what should be done in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict (I want Taba/Geneva - a fair two state settlement that preserves the Jewish State of Israel).

That said, it is strange that Zogby, who dislikes Pipes intensively, was not invited to speak at that same hearing. Perhaps it was just academics they wanted? - but in that case there are many with views from the Palestinians side that are available, and indeed many Muslim academics with views that agree with Pipes (amazing! Eh? As in Sheikh Dr. Ahmed Subhy Mansour, a former visiting fellow in the human-rights program at Harvard Law School stated "We Muslims need a thinker like Dr. Pipes, who can criticize the terrorist culture within Islam, just as I usually do.")

In any case, it is a bit early to be getting too upset. IMHO.

[cali]

2. Pipe is a vile

and reactionary asshole/hater, and Congress has no business lending him credibility or giving him a forum to spew his hate. And sorry, quoting one Muslim who thinks "we need a think like Dr. Pipes..." hardly proves that there are "many Muslim academics that agree with Pipes".

[papau]

3. True as to one is not "many" :-) - - but one can be "vile"/RW and still correct about a lot n/t

n/t

[Tom Joad]

10. Yeah, he is. The ADL *loves* Daniel Pipes. Makes sense.

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/Mise_00/4342_00

ADL spoke out for John Bolton too.
I think the ideology of the ADL, formerly a civil rights group, presently a group run by rightist extremists, are pretty much the same.

We all mourn the passing of the old ADL.

[TomClash]

4. It's disgusting not to invite Daniel Pipes?

A bit like inviting Joe McCarthy, "enemies list" and all.

[cali]

5. How did you get that I said it was disgusting not to invite Pipes?

I couldn't have been any fucking clearer. I said it was disgusting to invite Pipes. I said he was vile. I can only conclude that either your reading comprehension is truly appallingly lacking or that you deliberately misread what I wrote.l

[bemildred]

7. No good deed goes unpunished, eh? nt

[TomClash]

12. Go swear at someone else

Learn to treat people with respect and you might get it back.

You said, "So the new House holds a hearing on I/P and invites no one from the Palestinian side and Daniel Pipes? Disgusting."

I took that to mean they did not invite Pipes either but you thought they should have. I was wrong.

Perhaps this sentence would have been better: "So the new House holds a hearing on I/P and invites Daniel Pipes but no one from the Palestinian side? Disgusting."

[Violet_Crumble]

20. Because it was a poorly constructed sentence...

So the new House holds a hearing on I/P and invites no one from the Palestinian side and Daniel Pipes?

Disgusting.

That sentence did read as though you were saying no one from the Palestinian side and Daniel Pipes wasn't invited. The sentence would have been much clearer if you'd said 'So the new House holds a hearing on I/P and invites no one from the Palestinian side and invited Daniel Pipes?'

We all sometimes put together sentences that aren't clear, and when I've done it I don't tend to tell others that they can't read etc, but try to clarify what I said so that it can be understood, eg. I redo it with the missing words that make the difference, etc...

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

31. Last time I checked, pointing out that a sentence is poorly constructed isn't abusive...

However, getting all snotty and patronising and attacking someone for pointing that out and mentioning that they'd also done some poorly constructed sentences in the past is abusive.

[bemildred]

6. Does seem rather one-sided.

No disrespect to Mr. Makofsky. Like having a hearing to address the next step in the end-slavery process without inviting any slaves, or the next step in the give-the-indians-their-rights process without inviting any indians.

[cali]

8. It's discouraging

I mean, Daniel Pipes and no one at all to represent a Palestinian POV? Not an auspicious beginning.

[bemildred]

9. Yeah, I think we have a long way to go and no road map.

No joke intended. But change will come slowly, if it comes at all, if it comes from the top.

[Tom Joad]

11. Palestinians are not to be allowed to speak for themselves.

Don't you know the rules???
The rules in congress, that is...

You think Fredric Douglass got to speak before a congressional committee?

It's still a racist institution.

[TomClash]

13. Much of the Democratic Party still shills for AIPAC

Congress still may be a racist institution but it now has Charlie Rangel as Chairman of Ways and Means. That's progress.

Now arabs on the other hand . . . don't you know the neo-con mantra they are the root of all evil and must become civilized?

[The Magistrate]

14. Is That A Serious Statement, Mr. Joad?

Is it truely your view that the Congress of the United States is a racist institution, and its present Democratic majority dominated by racists?

[Violet_Crumble]

19. How come you repeat stuff back to Tom that he hasn't said, Mr Magistrate?

I didn't spot him saying anything about its present Democratic majority being dominated by racists.

[The Magistrate]

21. If You Read The Statement, Ma'am

Mr. Joad refered to an action of the present Congress, with its Democratic majority, and to something a Congress more than a century ago did not do, and then said the institution was "still" a racist one. This conveys the sense the that he feels the present Congress has acted in a racist manner, as another might have done long ago, and it seemed appropriate to invite clarification, should he have spoken clumsily and not quite meant what in fact he said. That happens at times. At other times, people will seek to leave a little blur about what they say, so that if called on it they can crawfish readily and disown what it has become uncomfortable to have done.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. No, he didn't say anything about a Democratic majority...

It appears to me that there's a bit of eagerness to try to accuse Tom of saying something he didn't say. fwiw, I think there's definately some tinges of racist/bigoted thinking when it comes to the US govt and its policies...

[The Magistrate]

23. Ma'am, This Is Really Beneath You

The Democrats hold a majority in the current Congress, which means they hold majorities on all committees of the Congress, and thus have control of their agendas, including what hearings are held, what witnesses are summoned, etc.: the majority in the House of Representatives holds an absolute control on all business of the chamber, without exception. To state the witness list of a committee is a demonstration of racism is to state the majority in the House is racist. It is that flat, Ma'am.

[Violet_Crumble]

24. Not at all....

In fact, I think it's probably one of the most ridiculous things I've ever spotted at DU for you to be making out that we should not be pointing out the things we see wrong with the US govt. I think the response to Katrina was entrenched in racism, and I think a lot of the attitude towards the Palestinians has been entrenched in bigotry.


There is something very, very wrong with that witness list, and if racism isn't one of the factors for it, maybe you can explain to me what is?

[The Magistrate]

25. A Republican Government Was In Charge Of The Country During Katrina, Ma'am

You are free to believe that support for Israel in many instances proceeds from bigotry, but in doing so, must accept that much opposition to Israel proceeds from bigotry as well. Opposition to bigotry is a very poor ground on which to take up sides in this particular fight; one cannot help being alligned with a good many bigots, whichever side one chooses.

Charging, or perhaps more precisely, very clearly insinuating, that the Democratic majority in the current Congress is racist, is something that will certainly pique my interest....

[Violet_Crumble]

26. Yet again yr arguing against a position that I've never held, Mr Magistrate...

You are free to believe that support for Israel in many instances proceeds from bigotry, but in doing so, must accept that much opposition to Israel proceeds from bigotry as well.

Take a very close look at my post you were replying to and explain to me how what I said got translated by you into believing that support for Israel in many instances proceeds from bigotry. I was talking about the US govt, yet you tried to turn that into something much more general, as I think everyone's aware that there's no opposition to Israel in the US govt....


Much of what I see emanating policy-wise from the US govt isn't support for Israel, but more a blind and unquestioning 'support' where Palestinians are considered to be no more than Muslim terrorists or supporters of them. If you honestly believe that there's no tinges of bigotry in the decisions the US govt has taken, then you might like to take a look at the more balanced stances taken by other govts and wonder why the US just about stands alone in its unquestioning 'support' of Israel....

Opposition to bigotry is a very poor ground on which to take up sides in this particular fight;

It's not a ground that I used to 'take sides'. In fact, I don't even believe there should be sides that we should be expected to take when it comes to the conflict. Unfortunately there are some folk even here at DU who do base their entire outlook on the I/P conflict on the bigotry they think is rampant on the other 'side'...

Charging, or perhaps more precisely, very clearly insinuating, that the Democratic majority in the current Congress is racist, is something that will certainly pique my interest....

And until you can answer the question I asked you in my post, why should I believe otherwise? Because someone who consistantly accuses me of holding views I don't have, and who lacks balance when it comes to the conflict says so?

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oberliner]

15. No Israelis were invited to speak either nt

[Violet_Crumble]

27. But the pro-Israel narrative is represented...

Daniel Pipes? Why is it that no-one is there to speak on behalf of the Palestinians?

[oberliner]

16. committee had a hearing on Afghanistan Thursday

The witnesses were:

Lieutenant General David Barno, USA, Retired
Director
Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies

Mr. Peter Bergen
Journalist and Senior Fellow
New America Foundation

Mr. Anthony H. Cordesman
Arleigh A. Burke Chair
Center for Strategic and International Studies

[cali]

17. Presumably

the hearing on Afghanistan had to do with U.S. efforts in that country. And your point upthread that no Israelis were in front of the Committee was silly. My point was that they had no one representing the Palestinian perspective or an American perspective that supported the Palestinians.

[oberliner]

18. You could watch both hearings in their entirety

Full webcasts can be found here:

http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/testimony.asp?subnav=close