FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

Much has been written about Mearsheimer and Walt (see my post “The What and Why of Mearsheimer and Walt“). What strikes me strongly is the contrast between their pretense of scholarship and their polemical anti-Israel bias and disingenuous disregard of truth and logic.

I concluded that such a political tract must have a purpose other than disinterested scholarship, and I am even more convinced of this when I consider the way they have responded to critics. Consider the following example, part of correspondence between the august professors and Maurice Ostroff. I’ve reprinted this in full with permission in order to give it the widest possible distribution.

An open follow-up to correspondence with Professors Mearsheimer and Walt

(Click here for previous correspondence)

From Maurice Ostroff

October 8, 2007

Dear Professors Mearsheimer and Walt,

In response to my letter of May 6, 2006, you replied that you were preparing a lengthy “response to critics” in which you would address many of the issues I had raised. And indeed in December you kindly sent me a copy of your 81-page paper “Setting the record straight”.

While you did address some of the minor criticisms which had been leveled against your published articles on the Israel lobby, I am disappointed that you ignored almost all the points I had raised. As my readers and I are anxious to learn your views on these matters, I would very much appreciate your considered response to the following.

(more…)

The Jerusalem Post reports:

Syrian President Bashar Assad announced on Thursday that his country would not participate in the Middle East peace conference in Annapolis next month, Army Radio reported.

Speaking to Tunisian media, Assad said the conference had no chance of achieving Syria’s goals.

No clearer indication of his intentions could have been given. While dictator Assad would not be averse to taking possession of the Golan, there are reasons that he prefers to keep the conflict with Israel boiling. As I wrote yesterday,

Syria could have had the Golan heights in return for a peace agreement at multiple times since 1999. They have never chosen this path, because the continued conflict with Israel has more important to the Assad regimes (first Hafez and now his son Bashar) as a tool to keep internal reformers at bay and maintain influence over Lebanon than possession of the Golan (see Lee Harris’ review of Barry Rubin’s “The Truth About Syria” for an in-depth discussion of Syrian motives).

In the framework of a Mideast summit as is being organized by the US, it is likely that issues relating to Syrian interference in Lebanon and Iraq would come up, both isssues that Assad wishes to avoid.

Assad would prefer to continue to threaten war with Israel, rattle his chemical-warhead tipped missiles, supply Hezbollah and Hamas, and support Iraqi insurgents — all the while repressing dissent at home.

What are “Syria’s goals” that Assad thinks could not be met by attending the summit? Actually, the goals in question are not really Syria’s, they are Bashar Assad’s. Peace with Israel could be a boost to Syria’s economy and could open the door to much-needed political and economic reforms.

Assad, on the other hand, cares little about the economic well-being of Syrians — in fact, he prefers a poor economy in order to keep middle-class merchants, his reformist opposition, at bay. What is important to him is staying in power, maintaining influence in Lebanon, and continuing to receive weapons and aid from Iran for his ‘work’ with Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iraqi insurgency.

From Israel’s point of view, Assad’s non-participation may be a good thing. Since it appears that he is implacably hostile, better to face him with the IDF in the Golan Heights than not.

Technorati Tags: Syria, Israel

Just so that nobody thinks that they are not still trying to kill Israelis, Hamas is keeping up its rocket and mortar barrage of southern Israel, and has reached a milestone of sorts:

Palestinian terrorists in Gaza have fired 1000 mortar rounds and rockets towards Israel since Hamas took power four months ago, Israeli security officials said Wednesday.

A military official told Ynet that “Hamas-sponsored terror groups are trying to maintain a constant level of terror activity against Israel.

The IDF estimates that approximately 350 Qassam rockets and 650 mortar rounds have been launched at Israel since then.

Most of these were directed at Israeli territory although some were fired at IDF forces operating inside Gaza.

These numbers only represent launches that have been identified and recorded, so the actual number of attacks is likely to be much higher.
— YNet

Many of these have landed harmlessly in open areas, some have simply caused panic and destroyed property, and others have seriously injured and killed people.

Meanwhile, the official Palestinian Authority [PA] of Mahmoud Abbas is making demands for the amount of territory that it expects to receive as a result of the coming Mideast Summit to be held in Annapolis MD on November 26:

In a joint declaration, [Palestinian negotiator Ahmed] Qureia said, it would be enough to declare the 1967 lines as the starting point, say the border is open to modifications, based on the principle that the Palestinians end up with as much land as they lost in 1967. The exact border would be worked out in negotiations following the Annapolis conference. Part of the deal would likely be a land corridor linking the West Bank and Gaza, separated by 40 kilometers of Israeli territory, but other swap proposals have not been raised. — Jerusalem Post [my emphasis]

I would like to point out that the Palestinians didn’t ‘lose’ anything in 1967, because they didn’t have anything. The West Bank and East Jerusalem were occupied by Jordan prior to the 1967 war, as a result of the aggressive war started by the Arab nations in 1948. The Palestinians didn’t seem to have a big problem with that ‘occupation’, since the occupiers were Arabs, but never mind.

Suppose there is a deal with the West Bank branch of the PA in which large amounts of territory are transferred to Palestinian control, Jerusalem is divided, control of the Temple Mount is given to Jordan or an international body, there is a ‘corridor’ dividing Israel in two, etc.

Then my question is this: what is to prevent the Abbas faction and the Hamas faction from reconciling and rediscovering their shared interests (what these are can left as an exercise for the reader)?

What will happen to all of those Hamas rocket scientists when “peace” has been achieved and there is a corridor connecting Gaza and the West Bank?

Indeed, what will happen when the Hamas elements gain control of the PA?

What will happen when, in accordance with the “peace” agreement, the IDF does not have freedom of action in the West Bank? Imagine a mortar attack on the Ben Gurion airport, or Katyushas landing in Tel Aviv.

It seems to me that instead of finding creative formulas for saying that the Palestinians really own Israel’s home while not letting them move in, the Israeli government should insist that the Palestinians first find a solution to their terrorism problem, before any territory is transferred.

There is really no point to continue in the present direction while under fire, because — unless Hamas is dealt with — the security situation can only get worse.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Palestinians, Hamas

The anti-Israel ‘realists’ are at it again, this time with a letter to President Bush, which will be released later today, that will call for engagement with Hamas and a tilt towards Syria in an attempt to ‘solve’ the Israeli-Arab conflict.

Signers include former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, former US Trade Representative Carla Hills, Former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs and US Ambassador to Russia Thomas Pickering, former Senator Nancy Kassebaum Baker, former House International Relations Committee Chairman Lee Hamilton, former Counselor to President Kennedy Theodore Sorensen, and former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker.

In the letter to Bush, beyond calling on the US and the parties to focus on the outlines of a final status settlement, the co-signatories defy the administration’s views by calling for an end to the policy of isolating Hamas and for a shift in policy toward Syria — including both US/Syria engagement and renewal of Syrian/Israeli negotiations. — Steven Clemons, The Washington Note

Both of these policies would be disastrous for Israel, and for any moderate elements among the Palestinians (if there are any left).

Hamas could have ended its isolation (in other words, gotten huge amounts of financial aid from the West and become part — and ultimately the controlling part, of the official Palestinian Authority) simply by accepting Israel’s right to exist, renouncing terrorism, and accepting prior agreements between Israel and the PA. Note that this formula says nothing about the borders of Israel, Palestinian refugees, etc. But they have never been prepared to do this, preferring an outlaw existence funded by Iran and radical elements in the Muslim world which permits them to maintain their rejectionist stance toward Israel and their genocidal position about Jews.

Granting them recognition legitimizes this position and provides yet more evidence that terrorism is the best path to political legitimacy. It also strengthens Iranian influence in the region.

Syria could have had the Golan heights in return for a peace agreement at multiple times since 1999. They have never chosen this path, because the continued conflict with Israel has more important to the Assad regimes (first Hafez and now his son Bashar) as a tool to keep internal reformers at bay and maintain influence over Lebanon than possession of the Golan (see Lee Harris’ review of Barry Rubin’s “The Truth About Syria” for an in-depth discussion of Syrian motives).

Syria today is working with Iran to support Hamas and Hezbollah, helping Iraqi insurgents kill Americans, threatening war with Israel over the Golan (which Israel would give her in return for a peace treaty), and murdering anti-Syrian Lebanese politicians. They also have a huge arsenal of chemical weapons, and are apparently trying to obtain nuclear material from North Korea. Should American policy become more or less pro-Syrian?

Ami Isseroff writes,

The people who participated in this letter are either fools or knaves [they are knaves — ed.]. A few may be so clueless that they don’t really understand what Hamas is all about, and think that Hamas can be “converted” into a peaceful movement. Likewise, they believe Bashar Assad is just another politician taking care of business. The rest are “realists” who would have no compunction about assisting in the elimination of Israel, which they believe is an “unviable client state” and a foreign policy liability. In Machiavellian calculations of realpolitik, considerations of morality and sentiment are irrelevant.

Some of these knaves are influential people. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s former National Security Advisor, is the foreign policy advisor to presidential hopeful Barak Obama.

This is a really bad idea which needs to die quietly.

Technorati Tags: Hamas, Syria, Israel, Scowcroft, Brzezinski