I've never read Horowitz, but have heard others critique him as a fanatical Zionist. After reading the links, I can say that:
1) His history lesson is a pretty fair representation.... in the parts I'm most aware of (I only began taking notice since the Six Day War, when I was 20), I see no serious errors in his description.
2) The debate they have about Buchanan is irrelevant to me. Buchanan has always struck me as a caricature of a self-important caricature, and his importance to anything Middle Eastern can only be overestimated.
3) I can easily find fault with some points McConnell made. The three most pertinent are:
a)comparing Ireland/UK with PLO/Israel is an oversimplification, as Ireland's borders and governance were established & working, and as a nation, succeeding. But if he wishes that to be an apt comparison, we should grant Israel/PLO a like number of centuries to resolve their contentious issues. Why hurry a process that can't be hurried, per his comparative?
b) he dismisses Horowitz' suggestion that the Palestinians should be settled in Jordan "which would be acceptable neither to the Palestinians nor Jordanians". I'd ask why it should be a 'given' that it must be acceptable to the Israelis? Simply because others find a solution unacceptable does not negate the Israeli right to determine unacceptability as well. (More elaboration to come).
c) He also states "the widespread anti-Americanism in the Arab world which provides, as it were, the sea in which Al Qaeda's fish can spawn and swim, is inexorably linked to Israel's unrelenting domination of the Palestinians." Another oversimplification that overlooks how briefly US policy has been tied to Israel's support (approximately the same amount of time the PLO has existed) and the fact that the US has done more than any nation existing to mediate the dispute towards a workable settlement. As well, there is widespread anti-Americanism all over the world for all manner of reasons. It is wise to be aware of it and to consider where certain policy decisions have been unjust, so more just decisions can replace them. But even if we were the perfect gent/lady of a nation, such 'anti' feeling would remain in pockets around the globe and do not necessarily require any dignified response other than actions to protect Americans and to eliminate those who turn feelings into actions. In the Arab world, the fight against modernism provides the perfect example: Shall we consider a return to feudalism and tribalism because someone doesn't like us?
In Horowitz' article and his subsequent rebuttal to a reply, I can find a few lesser errors. McConnell says Horowitz gave the matter of the territories short shrift, and he did, but McConnell overlooks the fact that the majority of Israelis understand Palestinians want an end to the occupation and are willing to end it, in return for some guarantee of security from assault. Only the right wing minority has persisted in the settlements... and many have been evicted because of the majority will of the Israelis.
Horowitz repeats the claim that the Israelis are the most-persecuted ethnic in history, but much of the world came late to the written word, so that cannot be truly quantified. Nor, in the struggle between these opponents or in the struggle for world opinion, does the claim bear significant fruit. Let historians debate that forever; it may be central to the identity of Jewish folk worldwide, but voicing it serves no practical purpose when attempting diplomatic resolution with an opponent who also has a persecution-mindset.
He takes that further, suggesting the whole world save the US & GB is anti-Semitic. And I'd say that's neither true of most majority populations of most countries, nor is it reflected in government policies of most. I'm not saying anti-Semitism should be ignored and I'm well aware of many UN votes that reflect divides akin to this. But every issue in the UN that gets vetoed has not necessarily been off-base, there have been other examples where other countries have voted a pro-Israel position, and some vote opposite the US because of anti-Americanism instead of anti-Zionism.
Overall, though, Horowitz's description has boiled down much of the history and issues to a generally accurate and fair representation. The only thing McConnell added was the fact that some occupying Israeli soldiers are vicious and repugnant. Even Israel is aware of that and tries to rein that in. But given that the position of soldier is inviting to extremists of all stripes, it is understandable that some brutal men can find inhumane sport killing others, and the only compelling solution to that is a peaceful resolution that limits opportunities for sportsmen, be they soldiers on one side or suicide bombers on the other.
Neither of these two made mention of one new sport Palestinian extremists provided the world: airplane hijacking. In fact, perhaps it's my limited history of the Palestinians that causes me to think that's the only contribution the Palestinians have ever originated, good or bad.
McConnell engaged Horowitz in a debate that merely sniped at certain edges of Horowitz' far broader discussion. The major points of Horowitz' history and suggestions went largely uncontested. And that lends credence, because there was much said that cannot be reasonably disputed.
I don't buy the suggestion that the Palestinians 'must' be accomodated by Jordan, but I don't believe Horowitz specified that. He said it is Jordan's problem, and I think that's partly correct. I believe most Israelis have demonstrated a willingness to accomodate a working Palestine nation and a willingness to end the occupation.
But the price for that has to be peace and security. And the PLO actions, not their words, indicate that they remain unwilling to meet Israel halfway or even close to half.
And how does this translate to American foreign policy? What should that be?
Imperialism. Because most of the Arab (and Persian) governments utilize the Palestinians as proxies, because most repress their own peoples with a fundamentalism that history has demonstrated repeatedly as doomed to fail (unless it completely prevails over the secular world where church and state do not intertwine except in very limited ways), and because the only way words convince is with the proper measure of carrot and stick.
In democratic freedoms and capitalist opportunities, our carrots are quite visible. The stick only gets displayed rarely, and given the hogwash Bin Laden has touted about our willingness to flee too easily, it suggests that enough people bought it to create some real headaches in the world.
There is a fine line in presenting carrot and stick. It is clear the line has moved rightward, or more aptly, 'stickward', to demonstrate the futility and risk that comes from attacking America. I think that needs to be maintained in Israel/Palestine, as well, until the martyr squads and the outdated PLO tactics are replaced by something more pragmatic.
As Mcconnell indicated, Netanyahu and Sharon may have also fallen back to old tactics, but Israel is quite likely to replace the hardliners when security is won. The Palestinians, on the other hand, have yet to demonstrate a willingness to do anything but charge like a bull, and complaining that the matador is better armed is a weak argument that has yet to spare a single bull. |
