Jaw-Jaw — or War-War?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi took a lot of heat from the Bush administration and its flaks over her visit to Syria.

Some critics took her to task for having her own foreign policy, as opposed to the “official” one set by the president.

Others decried the fact that she traveled to a country that is on the State Department’s list of countries that sponsor terrorism.

To the first set of critics, M.J. Rosenberg, director of Israel Policy Forum’s Washington Policy Center, provided a pointed rejoinder in his April 6 column:

Heaven forefend! Things are going so swimmingly in the Middle East that the last thing anyone needs is for the 3rd highest official in the United States trying to resuscitate diplomacy.

But it makes no sense to refuse categorically to talk with your “enemies.” After all, it’s your “enemies” with whom you ultimately have to make peace — not your friends.

Few of Pelosi’s critics, Rosenberg noted, can rationally have any qualms about what she reportedly said to Syria’s President Bashar Assad:

that he should stop making trouble in Iraq and Lebanon, that the Israeli government is ready for negotiations, that Israel has no bellicose intentions toward Syria and that Syria should use its influence to free Israeli prisoners.

All in all, Rosenberg concluded, Pelosi’s trip was “a gutsy move”: It “strengthened America’s position in the region, and likely helped Israel on prisoners, on Hezbollah, and in its effort to avoid another war like last summer’s.”

Claude Salhani, UPI’s international editor, stuck it to Pelosi’s second set of critics by recapping a few highlights of times when the US has deemed it necessary and useful to hold talks with nations or groups with which it was engaged in hostilities:

• At the height of the Cold War, the US and the Soviet Union established a “hot line” telephone link between Washington and Moscow so that their leaders could “communicate and ... avoid having a crisis grow into a reason for a major confrontation.”

• During the Vietnam War, US officials held talks with both North Vietnamese and Vietcong representatives.

• In Iraq, US officials have negotiated with Sunni “insurgents,” even as Sunni groups engage US troops in combat.

The Bush administration’s fixation with channeling John Wayne-like “strong, silent type” movie machismo demonstrates that it would rather have conflict than resolve conflict.

At some point, you’ve got to talk with your “enemies.” After all, it’s your “enemies” with whom you’ve got to make peace — not your friends.

— Adam Simms

Pundits on parade

Ha’aretz correspondent Shmuel Rosner writes a monthly column in which Israel’s pundits sound off about “whom the consider to be the best [US] candidate for Israel.”

But quite rightly M. J. Rosenberg, director of the Israel Policy Forum’s Washington office, finds this offensive.

“[I]t smacks,” he writes in his March 9 on-line column — click {here} to read it in its entirety — “of a bunch of non-Americans telling Americans how to vote.”

Moreover, as Rosenberg points out, Rosner's pundit panel is wildly out of touch with American Jews’ political sentiments:

The flaws in Rosner’s poll come through loud and clear in his most recent results. The three candidates deemed “best for Israel” are Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Newt Gingrich. All the Democratic contenders rate well below this top tier. Newt Gingrich! Newt is a significant political figure but I doubt that 5% of American Jews would choose him for President.

And, if history is any guide, when the November 2008 election comes around, American Jews are going to vote overwhelmingly Democratic for President, no matter which Democrat or Republican is the respective party’s nominee.

We know that because since 1928, Jewish voters have chosen the Democratic candidate, usually with at least 75% of the total vote. This is not because they believe Democrats to be more pro-Israel but because, on the wide array of issues facing the American people, they have been more comfortable with the Democrats than with the Republicans.

“Candidates who address American Jews as if their only concern is Israel are out of line,” Rosenberg concludes:

In fact, they cross the line between pandering and out-and-out insulting the Jewish community.

We do care about Israel, and deeply so. That is why we want to see Israel living at peace with the Palestinians. Those who think they will win our support by offering policies that promise Israel nothing but more war – while assuming that their positions on domestic issues are less important to us – will soon learn otherwise. This community has been called many things. “Stupid” is not among them.

— Posted by Adam Simms

Daniel Pipes, Armchair Warrior

M.J. Rosenberg, director of the Israel Policy Forum's Washington office, distributes a weekly opinion column via e-mail called "IPF Friday." IPF is one of a handful of peace-oriented pro-Israel organizations active on Capitol Hill, and Rosenberg's pieces are thoughtful, insightful and worth reading.

His Feb. 16 entry, "Kangaroo Congressional Hearing," is noteworthy for its portrait of the difficulties the American Jewish peace camp faces in moving the U.S. foreign-policy apparatus -- Congress and the Executive branch -- to resume the role of honest broker between Israelis and Palestinians.

IPF's board was in Washington during the week of Feb. 12-16 to meet with Senators and House members, and Rosenberg notes that the sessions generally went well from IPF's perspective.

The downer, however occurred when Rosenberg learned that IPF's peace-camp views were not the only ones being circulated on the Hill that week. On the 14th -- Valentine Day, ironically -- the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East held a hearing on "Next Steps in the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process."

Only witnesses identified with Israel were invited to provide testimony. No Arab American institutions or individuals were invited. "This was a hearing," Rosenberg observes,

about two sides of a conflict where only one side was allowed to speak. It was a throwback to the bad old days when Congress held hearings on racism with only whites invited to testify.

Rosenberg's analogy is apt, given excerpts he provides of testimony offered by Daniel Pipes, director of an outfit called the Middle East Forum.

"Pipes," Rosenberg writes,

...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.

Rosenberg continues:

He [Pipes] doesnt have much use for the Israelis either. In his testimony he trashed the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and current Prime Minister Ehud Olmert for "their ennui with fighting." He called Israelis "an exhausted people, confused and without direction."

Let's stop for a moment and consider the armchair warrior Pipes' use of the word "ennui" to describe Israelis eager for peace rather than more are. According to the dictionary, ennui means "listlessness and dissatisfaction resulting from lack of interest, boredom." In other words, Israelis are tired of fighting the way a teenager might be bored by another Saturday at the mall.

Rabin, the greatest military hero in Israel's history, gave up on war because he was feeling listless. What should he have done? What should Olmert do now?

Echoing General MacArthur (but with no military background, of course), Pipes argues for total victory. "Victory consists of imposing one's will on the enemy by compelling him to give up his war goals. Wars usually end when one side gives up its hope of winning, when its will to fight has been crushed."

In other words, Israelis should fight Palestinians until the end of time.

Imagine. This guy spouted this loathsome nonsense at an official hearing of the United States Congress. (He's just lucky that two of the Senators we met with were not in the room. James Webb and Chuck Hagel, two military heroes who hate war as only those who have experienced it can, would have torn him to shreds.)

Still, Rosenberg concludes that Pipes and this particular House committee session look to be an anomaly:

...there is a real sense in Washington that things are changing on Capitol Hill. Senators and House members -- especially the up-and-comers and freshmen -- are determined that America resume its role of leadership in seeking an end to a conflict that does so much damage both to us, to the Palestinians, and to Israel. And they understand that America cannot do any good for anyone in the Middle East if we are seen as hostile to 99% of the people who live in that region.

You can read M.J. Rosenberg's weekly columns at www.ipforum.org. You can also obtain an e-mail subscription by sending an e-mail to: ipfdc@ipforumdc.org.

-- Posted by Adam Simms