Henry Siegman has written an impassioned plea to the European Union to break the U.S. siege of Gaza by recognizing the new Palestinian unity government. Now that this government has been given the heksher (and undoubtedly financial backing) of Saudi Arabia, this should be all the EU needs, according to him, to recognize it and end the devastating boycott which has ground life in Gaza to a dead stop:
The recent agreement in Mecca between Fatah and Hamas demonstrates the fallacy of a widely held belief — that the United States alone holds the key to resolving the Israel- Palestine conflict. In fact, the Saudi-sponsored accord opens the door to a major European role in the Middle East peace effort. The question is whether Europe will walk through that door.
With the following single sentence, Siegman announces that he has officially given up on the U.S. as an honest broker in resolving the conflict. It’s a Mideast analyst’s form of tough love–like having cold water thrown in your face. But I’m reluctantly forced to agree with him, though one is naturally reluctant to concede that one’s country is much more an obstacle to peace than an enabler of it:
What made this achievement possible was the realization not only by Hamas, but by Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas and King Abdullah as well, that no matter how far Hamas might go in meeting the conditions called for by the so-called Quartet — the United Nations, the European Union, Russia and the United States — Israel has no intention of returning to the 1967 border, and the United States has no intention of making the Israelis do so.
…Every time there emerged the slightest hint that the United States may finally engage seriously in a political process, Elliott Abrams, who handles the peace-process portfolio for the White House, would meet secretly with Olmert’s envoys in Europe or elsewhere to reassure them there exists no such danger.
It is interesting to note Siegman’s characterization of Abrams ‘enabling’ role in this context. On a side note, a friend who participated in an Israel Policy Forum lobbying effort this past week on Capitol Hill came away with the impression that there was at best a 50/50 chance we would attack Iran; and that the two figures most responsible for making the decision were Cheney and Abrams. If that doesn’t chill you to the soul, then nothing will. The guy (Abrams) should have a skull and crossbones over his office door.
Here is the heart of Siegman’s argument:
Now that even Abbas has come to understand the irrelevance of the U.S. role to any possible advancement of the peace effort, the question is whether Europe can disengage from its subservience to Washington on this issue and undertake a constructive initiative of its own. And if the European Union cannot do it, can a coalition of European countries do so?
The Europeans should announce immediately the end of their boycott of Hamas and open a dialogue with a new unity government on conditions that would enable them to end sanctions imposed by the Quartet on the Palestinian Authority. These conditions should recognize that Hamas should not be asked to do that which the international community is not prepared to ask of Israel. Hamas should be asked to declare its willingness to recognize Israel if and when Israel declares its recognition of Palestinian rights within the pre-1967 border.
…And given U.S. dependence on the support of moderate Arab regimes [like Saudi Arabia, which is the unity government’s mentor] in confronting Iran and in dealing with its troubles in Iraq, it is not at all unimaginable that such a European initiative will sooner or later bring the United States along in its wake.
It is clear from the absolute fracas atmosphere leading up to Condi Rice’s three-way summit that neither she nor the Bush Administration have much of anything to contribute to the peace process. What the hell is a “political horizon,” anyway?? Meaningless drivel. Our policy and the Adminstration itself is so weak that I believe Siegman is right. If Europe changes its tune, we will have to follow along. We might be dragged screaming and kicking, but ultimately there will be no choice as no one else in the world will stand with us in continuing to extract blood from the Palestinian turnip except Israel.
How would you react to a following hypothetical proposal made by Henry Siegman?
A hudna can be achieved between al Qaida and the US if the following terms are met
1) US troops withdraw from all bases in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait and the UAE
2) US ends all support of Israel
3) US releases all prisoners in Guantanamo and agrees not to pursue al Qaida
What if al Qaida pitched these terms to the EU, and the EU accepted
Who says Henry Siegman ever made such a proposal–hypothetical or otherwise. I don’t believe he did. But if so, show me a link.
Why should we negotiate with Al Qaeda about anything? The idea seems preposterous.
I said a hypothetical proposal. Henry Siegman would never make such a proposal because he is too close to the Saudis. However, I substituted “United States” for “Israel” and “Al Qaida” for “Hamas”. One could argue that al Qaida has legitimate beefs with the US, and perhaps the EU should negotiate a hudna with it and the US would have to follow. Why is it nonsense to negotiate with al Qaida if Israel negotiates with Hamas?
I know the following answers- Hamas was elected by the Palestinian people. Hitler was elected by the Germans. Besides, if democratic elections were held in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, al Qaeda would win hands down
What would the U.S. have to negotiate about w. Al Qaeda? There’s nothing to negotiate.
However, Israel must negotiate an acceptable peace agreement with the Palestinians for there to be long-term peace with them. And this will prob. eventually involve negotiating w. Hamas at some point, or at least getting Hamas to acquiescse in an agreement.
If you feel, like I and you do, that al Qaida desires the death of the US, then you are correct and there is nothing to negotiate about. On the other hand, if you feel that al Qaida has legitimate grievances against the US, and the 9/11 attacks were an example of assymetric warfare that the weak wages against the strong in order to gain attention to its grievances, then negotiation should follow. You will find millions of people in Europe and the Muslim world who feel the latter is true, and would favor negotiation with al Qaida. Think for a minute if the prime minister of Spain, Zapatero broke away from the US (ala SIegman), and sent a delegation to North Waziristan to negotiate with al Qaida. There would be tremendous pressure in the UK and France to follow.
If you think that Hamas is interested in a two state solution, then by all means negotiate with them. However, if you believe that the long term goals of Hamas are the destruction of Israel, then as you say, there is nothing to negotiate about. Siegman has always considered Israel, as they say in France, “a shitty little country”
I’ll thank you for not putting words in my mouth of speaking on my behalf. I don’t give a rat’s ass what Al Qaeda desires. Killing 3,000 people and bombing several embassies are heinous acts which deserve our unremitting enmity. But that doesn’t come anywhere close to causing “the death of the U.S.” There is nothing to negotiate because they are not an existential threat. They deserve to be opposed certainly.
Again, I have absolutely no interest in Al Qaeda’s grievances. I am concerned about the overreaching of American power in the Middle East and the disastrous consequences it has had for us & the peoples of the region.
A patently ludicrous statement. Show me a single political leader or anyone representing “millions of Europeans” who advocates negotiating with Al Qaeda.
No, I choose not even to think about this for minute…not even a second since it’s beyond ludicrous. Siegman isn’t advocating that Europe negotiate with Al Qaeda. He’s advocating that Europe recognize a government that includes Hamas. Those may be one & the same propositions to you but to the vast majority of the rest of the world they wouldn’t be.
I advocate negotiating with Mahmoud Abbas who will negotiate on behalf of all Palestinians including Hamas.
You’re an outrageous liar. Again, provide a single ounce of evidence that comes even close to such a stupid claim.
It seems that Henry Siegman is trying to give a heksher (whatever that is) to force Israel to negotiate with Hamas, even though Hamas openly declares its aim to destroy Israel. Thus Siegman is acting on behalf of Hamas. If Israel is forced to negotiate with Hamas, isnt it hypocritical to insist that the US doesnt have to negotiate with al Qaida?
I’m in favor of U.S. negotiations with Iran. Am I acting on behalf of Iran?
Siegman wants Israel to negotiate a peace agreement with the Palestinians. He doesn’t much care whether that happens with Mahmoud Abbas or Hamas. But if the PA is needed to make such an agreement work and Hamas is the majority within the PA, then Siegman would be in favor of engaging Hamas. That’s a far cry fr. what you’re claiming.
I think it is still hypocritical to force Israel to negotiate with Hamas when the US refuses to negotiate with al Qaida. The majority of Israelis regard Hamas as a small version of al Qaida. Below is some interesting info on Siegman from the New York Sun. Do you think his source of funding could influence him?
Mystery Solved [on Henry Siegman of the Council on Foreign Relations]
by New York Sun Staff Editorial
New York Sun
August 23, 2005
http://www.nysun.com/article/19031
[ed., text removed–this blog does not publish entire articles in the comments section–a link will suffice]
WRONG. Consistent polls of Israeli opinion say that a majority are prepared for theiir government to negotiate with Hamas. I’ve written several posts on this here & you only have to do a search to find the polls.
Israelis may not like Hamas (nor do I). But they recognize that the path to peace MAY lie with Hamas & they’re prepared, if they have to, to talk to them.
Pls. don’t try to speak on behalf of “the majority of Israelis.”
I looked up Munib Masri, one of Siegman’s major sponsors listed in the article referenced by Mr Young. It is quite interesting. I can see why Mr Masri would sponsor Siegman
[ed., text removed–this blog does not publish entire articles in the comments section]
It seems that the purpose of the Mecca agreements was to kosherize hamas so they could get funding from the EU without having to renounce its support of terror or its goals for the total elimination of Israel. This is what Siegman is all about empowering Hamas at Israels expense. This is what his paymaster Mr Masri is all about. One of the things I dont understand is why the US taxpayer should fund terror groups. We have the option of not funding things that we dislike. Ill bet if your children became AIPAC activists, you would cut off their trust funds pretty quickly. Perhaps as progressive Americans, we should address some of al Qaidas “grievances” by withdrawing from the Middle East, ending US support to Israel, and imposing alien cultural values on the Moslem world. This is understandable when Anna Nicole Smith was the leading spiritual light of our generation
Ridiculous. But great propaganda. Henry Siegman has been a respected national Jewish communal leader and now is a respected Mideast analyst affiliated with the Council on Foreign Relations. He is no one’s fool nor anyone’s pawn. And trying to slip in ridiculous NY Sun neocon propaganda into this blog is not sufficient proof of any claim you might make about Siegman. Come back when you have documented proof from a reputable source.
For making such an odious claim you are banned. You are also banned because you’ve made the same claim too many times in this thread to count. Go back to Little Green Footballs where you belong.
Your problem is you don’t understand democracy. We’re not being asked to fund Hamas. There is a law against that anyway. We’re being asked to fund the PA, which is a government composed of Hamas, Fatah and other parties. Now, it’s prob. your claim that they’re all a bunch of terrorists & that funding the PA at all means funding terrorists. All of which would make you a selective supporter of democracy. I’ll bet you’d support an Israeli government run by Avigdor Lieberman if he was elected PM, even if he forcibly transferred Israeli Arab populations from Israel. But you wouldn’t support a Palestinian government elected by its citizens.
I almost spewed my coffee. My children will grow up learning that a love for Israel and the Jewish people does not entail hating another people and that two peoples can coexist together peacefully. If, when they grow up AIPAC still represents policies antithetical to that view then no, my children will not grow up to be AIPAC activists. But doubtless there will be peace bet. both peoples by the time my kids grow up & AIPAC will be consigned to the dustbin of Jewish history where it belongs (or else it will be transformed into something utterly diff. than what it is now).
I resent your goddamn snarkiness. That’s yet another reason you’re taking a vacation.
What, YOU a progressive American? Don’t make me laugh.