Oh, snap!

CarlPrine August 6th, 2011 at 9:47 am

She’s right about the tired “Waltsheimer Palestine Posse.”

courtneyme109 August 6th, 2011 at 9:54 am

Hi Professor! Well, nobody’s perfect, you know? Personally have no prob with considering all those “pretty obvious moral, strategic, and political counter-arguments” alas thus far, no one sans yours truly will even get semi sorta psychic about what Future Palestine will look like with or without all the afore mentioned mind candy you just mentioned. In fact, until Arab Spring happened all the kids for their entire life have been taught only one thing can save the world — a brand new baby nation state of Palestine.

Carl Prine August 6th, 2011 at 10:03 am

But what about the Arab Spring protests within Palestine, Courtney?

And how does the revolution in Egypt change the dynamic between Ramallah and Gaza City?

Peter J. Munson August 6th, 2011 at 10:53 am

Its bad enough that we’ve got a bunch of people who are professional school children with PhDs and no practical experience whatsoever trying to tell us about how to make the real world work, but now you’re going to elevate an actual school kid to pundit status? Has she ever left the U.S.? Held a job? Graduated from college? This is just adding a voice modifier in the echo chamber of punditry and stupidity of people who have a lot of “good ideas” and criticisms, but don’t actually do anything. If we could flush all of the people who have never actually done anything out of Washington and our colleges and refill with people who actually have had to implement projects and ideas, we would be in a much better place.

It's Lauren, b!tches August 6th, 2011 at 11:03 am

Check the hyper link at the ‘Call for back up’ spot Don

CarlPrine August 6th, 2011 at 11:43 am

We shall see. A key supplier of rockets to Hamas has been Syria, a nation with a few problems of its own right now.

CarlPrine August 6th, 2011 at 11:50 am

The problem, Peter, is that in two hours she’s done more traffic than all my previous posts on women and war have done over more than four months. COMBINED.

People like her. What do you want me to do?

CarlPrine August 6th, 2011 at 12:12 pm

Oh, no. This blog is percolating at the highest it’s been in years, and growing.

I just think that it needs to be more than my analysis, even if it’s what I get paid for. No one says that a blog has to be dominated by one voice or that it can’t reach out to a younger group of people.

Courtney asked to try this. She’s not getting paid. She wants to get advice. On her blog, she’s not getting that, I fear.

Here, she most certainly gets some comments.

I want to diversify the opinions on here. I want younger voices. I want more women. I reached out to more experienced and credentialed women who study national security issues and they scoffed at ever commenting or reading a blog.

They have ceded the terrain to Courtney. I say let her hold it.

CarlPrine August 6th, 2011 at 12:32 pm

For some reason, the thought of eating corn now is upsetting.

Rex Brynen August 6th, 2011 at 2:35 pm

Courtney, I’ve been working on Palestine forever and I’ve NEVER heard anyone with a serious policymaking role anywhere argue that its a golden key to all ME peace. They have argued that 1) it is among the rallying cries for radicals, 2) that the problem won’t solve itself, and 3) that Israel’s current course (settlement construction, implicit opposition to a two state solution) will only make things worse for the region, including for Israel. There is a reason, after all, why a sizeable majority of the Israeli intel and diplomatic communities favours a negotiated two-state solution, even if they differ from the Palestinians on some of the key parameters.

Our only long-term policy options on this one essentially boil down to: 1) permanent Israeli occupation and denial of Palestinian self determination, in what a number of Israelis (former PM Olmert, former IDF chief of military intelligence Gazit, etc) have likened to apartheid), 2) destruction of Israel (Hamas hardliners) or “transfer” of the Arabs (some Israeli right wingers), 3) a one state, binational solution (favoured by some dreamers on the Israeli and Palestinian left, but utterly unrealistic), or 4) a two state solution.

If options 1–3 don’t appeal, then we’re all left thinking about how to make #4 happen. Conditions are far from conducive now, both because of the Fateh/Hamas split (as you note) and because the Netanyahu government isn’t really interested (which you don’t). Getting us closer to it may take some time. I’m actually of the view that a UNGA resolution helps to nail down the principle (even if it doesn’t deliver actual statehood), but that needs to be balanced against the very formidable costs to the Palestinians.

Peter J. Munson August 6th, 2011 at 2:46 pm

I have no idea what any of that is supposed to mean. Are you high?

Peter J. Munson August 6th, 2011 at 2:57 pm

This was in reply to Courtney’s reply, not Rex’s. I can understand Rex’s. Palestine is a radical rallying cry, but the main reason why this is our issue is because of our backing of Israel without question. If we hadn’t tied ourselves so closely to Israel and acted a bit more aloof, this would be what it should be: an Israeli problem to deal with. There are no good solutions for Israel and the longer they play rhetorics and ideological games with it, the worse the options for them get. Also, I’m not sure where she noted the Fateh/Hamas split to anyone who doesn’t already know that there is one (i.e. it was a corn kernel surrounded by verbal diarrhea), but in that nugget she does say something about how their democracy suicided itself (it pains me to retype that). I don’t think so. It probably would have “suicided itself” if we, the status quo powers, had not homicided it first, giving the Fatah position some semblance of legitimacy from the outside and relegated them to being a target of lackey charges from the inside. This brings us around to my perennial point: we mess everything up. Bright minds should be focusing on how we can not mess things up: by not touching them. By not creating polemics that demand action. By not asking how can we fix this. We have the reverse midas touch: everything we touch turns to the stuff surrounding the corn.

Debbie Right Truth August 6th, 2011 at 3:32 pm

Courtney is correct that Israel is the greatest friend that the Palestinians have, they won’t see it that way though. There can be no New Palestine or peaceful Palestine as long as they are divided by leadership. Those who want peace with their neighbor are beaten down by the radicals. There’s a lot of meat here Courtney.

To other readers, beware: I predict that Courtney will one day serve this nation in high places, probably in the State Department, who knows. She is one of the smartest and most intuitive young women I know. You may not like her style, but it is unique and it will reach many that ‘normal’ writing like the rest of us use will not reach. We have a nation of young people who are clueless when it comes to the security of this nation and to world events. We need them educated. I say go for it Courtney.

Debbie
Right Truth http://​www​.righttruth​.typepad​.com

CarlPrine August 6th, 2011 at 3:55 pm

“Courtney, I’ve been working on Palestine forever and I’ve NEVER heard anyone with a serious policymaking role anywhere argue that its a golden key to all ME peace.”

I’ve heard a few politicians say it. Not to mention the boasts of a certain Quartet.

CarlPrine August 6th, 2011 at 3:56 pm

“have likened to apartheid”

We’ve had this discussion. Come on.

CarlPrine August 6th, 2011 at 3:58 pm

I mention the traffic, but that’s not the reason why I do it.

We also feature Michael Yon here. I disagree with him constantly.

Rex Brynen August 6th, 2011 at 4:01 pm

Nothing that faintly interesting ever comes out in a Quartet statement. They’re usually US policy, with a dash of lowest common denominator nothingness.

CarlPrine August 6th, 2011 at 4:06 pm

I like the three-state solution and a stiffer global embargo against Iran.

CarlPrine August 6th, 2011 at 4:22 pm

There’s also the Foundation for Middle East Peace , which makes solving the “Palestinian Issue” (which to the FMEP means the Israeli issue by solving it out of existence) the road map to regional peace.

Obviously, the foundational myth that ME peace goes through Palestine is built into the title.

Carl Prine August 6th, 2011 at 4:35 pm

Oh, and once it goes into the cache for naughty comments I actually can’t get to it.

Rex Brynen August 6th, 2011 at 4:46 pm

I like that Onionesque is becoming a word. Google counts 39,200 appearances.

Rex Brynen August 6th, 2011 at 4:51 pm

…and Courtney, technically it should be Bf 109. But then you knew that (plus, no one would get it, and instead think you’re on your 109th boyfriend).

RobTaylor August 6th, 2011 at 6:45 pm

What moral counter-point is there to denying statehood to a group that is kidnapping and raping Christian minorities within their mini-state now? Are we saying inflicting them on a larger population would be moral? Would it strategically be beneficial to America and the West for an area that embraces Wahabbism and National Socialist tendencies (Mein Kampf continues to be a best seller and Hitler is held out as a hero by many Palestinian groups) to become more influential? Since Palestinians were imported into Iran to help that regime quell democracy protests isn’t there a better political argument to not support the current Palestiaina authorities who are working against our goals of Democracy in the middle east?

@AmPowerBlog August 6th, 2011 at 6:56 pm

Hawt!

CarlPrine August 6th, 2011 at 7:58 pm

The other 108 are in the morgue?

Peter J. Munson August 6th, 2011 at 8:55 pm

I almost stopped reading after folklorist. The same could be said about a Klingonologist about someone who has never actually been to the planet. But then again, who cares about either when you are addressing subjects that actually get people killed? That is where my concerns lie. This isn’t a game. And people get names, then others echo them, then they actually get other idiots who also know nothing to do what they say while others die implementing it. This is the problem with punditry in general. If you look at a list of the telephone tough guys in think-tank land, most of them have never put their can where their mouth is. Carl has. This is why I come here and why I question his decision here. By the way, define years? And also, my commitment to these issues has nothing to do with my “account” here. It has to do with the past decade of my life (that being the portion of my military experience after 9/11 but not in total) and my friends lives, and their deaths. So, toolshed, I disagree.

Peter J. Munson August 6th, 2011 at 9:43 pm

Am I posting on a blog about urban crime and gangs? And the difference here is that CM is being given a podium accorded to a journalist with specific experience, Carl, not posting on some random self-created blog. People can blog about whatever they want, I’m questioning Carl’s decision to lend his credibility to this person. And you earned my retort when you tried to tie my right to an opinion on the issue to folklorists and the length of time I’ve had an “account here,” whatever that means. What I’m saying is that the blog world is not egalitarian. I question Carl’s decision to elevate CM’s status because the name made in the blogosphere (on these kind of blogs, not Joe Schmo blogs) quickly translates into punditry and that is where I think people need some sort of life experience before they use their academic ideological stances to urge others’ sacrifices. I think that CM’s posts should stay on her own blog and in the comment box like the rest of us mortals, not be elevated to headliner status next to others that know a lot more about what they are talking about.

Deus Ex August 6th, 2011 at 10:14 pm

Look, maybe you think your writing style is cute, but it is painfully difficult to read and consider your thoughts when it comes off like I’m chatting to a 13 year old girl on AIM. Do not use words like “prob” for fuck’s sake.

PS, your “I didn’t join the Army because I couldn’t drive tanks” bit was cute. Really cute. I’ll keep that in mind if you ever post a chickenhawk piece. That may be to you what drones-over-Wanat was to Tom Ricks, as I’m sure Carl would love to mention again.

Peter J. Munson August 6th, 2011 at 11:02 pm

And to be clear, I’m not saying that only travelers or vets should have a voice. I’m saying that at least a serious graduate education, which generally would include some regional travel for regionally focused specialties, is needed to establish any credibility. Yet, too many people go from professional student to professional teacher, with no practical experience beyond books and windshield tours. So education plus real experience is much better credibility. It often cuts down on the fantasy-land polemics, but not always.

Ryan August 6th, 2011 at 11:33 pm

I wish I had said this instead of my post.

Joshuapundit August 7th, 2011 at 1:34 am

Syria gets a large part of its stuff from Iran, Carl. And if the Obama Administration has anything to say about, Assad is going to stay right where he is. They won’t do anything about Syria anymore than they’re going to do anything about Iran.

Amateur hour in DC.

CarlPrine August 7th, 2011 at 8:10 am

How am I lending credibility to Courtney any more than I am to Michael Yon?

They both publish here. I disagree with both of them.

I see some potential in Courtney.

gian p gentile August 7th, 2011 at 8:38 am

I think some of you are too hard on GsGf.

As someone who teaches undergraduates, I like her pluck (even if it is a post modern pluck) and more importantly i like the fact that she reads, and can link various thoughts and ideas together. This simple intellectual process is not something that comes easily to most undergraduates.

Like Joshuapundit and Debbie I liked the basic premise to the piece that we should ask questions about what a Palestinian state would look like. That as an idea in and of itself is an important one to consider, along with her points about what the US role in all of it would be too and perhaps with the suggestions that it may not be in our interest.

gian

Carl Prine August 7th, 2011 at 8:54 am

Golda’s infamous 1969 quote to the contrary, I think we might suggest that this line is bunk because of all those refugees presaging the 1967 war.

But even if it’s not we might wish to confront the obvious reality that today more than 11 million people worldwide self-identify as “Palestinian.”

And it’s a bit much to suggest that unknown forces created this “Palestinian” identity in order to club Israel. One might suggest that these people who call themselves “Palestinians” played no small role in defining themselves.

There is nothing wrong with suggesting that the notion of “Palestinian” nationalism grew in opposition to the notion of Zionism in the former British and Ottoman possession over a long span of time before 1948 and that obviously continued after the exodus then and in 1967.

This has become the standard view of historians, both Israeli and Arab, even if we acknowledge dissenters such as Efraim Karsh.

Peter J. Munson August 7th, 2011 at 9:07 am

Yon already has his own level of credibility. The guy has written books and is a journalist for PayPal. He’s not an undergrad. Whatever. I just can’t wait to see CM’s reports from some moronic think tank. At least if her writing style stays the same no one will take them seriously except old guys trying to convince themselves that they are hip and innovative thinkers. Oh wait, those are the idiots making key decisions, right?

Carl Prine August 7th, 2011 at 9:11 am

Thus far, Courtney’s article has sparked more discussion than all the postings I’ve left all week.

Carl Prine August 7th, 2011 at 9:24 am

I don’t “get” her. But others do.

As for “desperate,” this blog has recorded the highest readership in two years. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with experimenting and adding some diversity of opinion and style.

Frankly, her piece was better written than Yon’s latest.

Peter J. Munson August 7th, 2011 at 9:26 am

Like everyone else: by graduating from college, going to grad school, and getting a job where she learns how the world really works outside of books and weirdo professors’ imaginations. Then she finds her own podium and starts that dialectic.

Carl Prine August 7th, 2011 at 9:27 am

Oddly, Rex and I are agreeing. This usually doesn’t happen.

Courtney Messerschmidt’s insane neo-conductivity has brought us together!

She’s a mitzvah!

Carl Prine August 7th, 2011 at 9:36 am

In the coming weeks I’m interviewing two chaps who are slightly older and with wartime experience, H. Lucien Gauthier III and Alex Horton.

Both also blog, Lucien for NATO and Alex for the VA. This will give their efforts more exposure.

Obviously, I can’t expect Courtney to have developed the sophisticated ease of analysis that Alex has cultivated. But that doesn’t mean she won’t get there.

Peter J. Munson August 7th, 2011 at 9:38 am

Ok, maybe I’m an elitist snob. But this is crap. If you’re going to give her a shot, you need to work with her on the editing. And the idea thing. Asking a question and providing caricature answers is not novel thinking, no matter what Gian, looney Debbie, and Joshua say. A lot of thought from people all over the spectrum has already been given to what a Palestinian state could look like. If this is the topic she wants to discuss, she should actually read some of those ideas and defend or attack them, throwing in her own insight based on her experience with the issue.

Rex Brynen August 7th, 2011 at 10:14 am

Peter, I get where you’re coming from. I really do. I don’t think the shotgun soundbites in GsGf patois will get Courtney very far in the world of real policy debate, and that she needs to sharpen and clarify her arguments.

That being said, like Carl and Gian I think she has real potential. She reads these comments and reflects on them (it must be odd seeing yourself as the subject of an 87+ comment online discussion, Courtney!). Some of us even put on our Yoda garb to send her private feedback on this piece, and what she might want to do differently next time.

(“Impenetrable polemics that depend too heavily on your appeal to middle-aged men are the path to the dark side. Soundbites leads to stupidity. Stupidity leads to rabble-rousing. Rabble-rousing leads to Ann Coulter.”)

Let’s see what her next piece looks like.

Rex Brynen August 7th, 2011 at 10:27 am

Hamas is clearly worried about developments in Syria and its implications both for political-military support and access to sanctuary. They’re also ideologically torn, because frankly a lot of them deep-down sympathize with the protesters.

Egypt didn’t really open the border when it opened the border. Given the fear in Cairo of having Gaza offloaded by the Israelis into Egypt’s lap, I’m not sure they ever will, even post-election. The border is so porous now (tunnels + deterioration of Egyptian policing) that from a weapon’s smuggling point of view it doesn’t matter. Moreover, because of Yemen and Libya there are even more arms on the black market than ever before (think “Grads R Us”).

Claude Pelanne August 7th, 2011 at 10:48 am

Strunk and White it first. Go get some primary sources…live some more…and you’ll be OK!

gian p gentile August 7th, 2011 at 11:27 am

Ditto with Rex.

She compares, thinks, reflects; and does it with pluck and some spice.

I commend Carl’s aim of hearing young and fresh views on things.

They may not be perfect, or fully informed by the expert literature; but they are real and interesting whether i agree with them or not.

Come on Peter, unfair in what you say, anybody who has taught undergraudates for any extended period of time appreciates her energy and desire to learn.

gian

Courtside August 7th, 2011 at 12:54 pm

By bankroll I moreso meant ‘provide logistical support,’ as I assumed any group on such a necessarily extended deployment could benefit greatly from the American logistical machine (though at second thought the multinational force would probably have a different sort of ops tempo, negating some of the need).

As evidenced by the sentence fragment left in the middle, the run-on about who fights where under what flag to secure Brave New Palestine was amusing but not a substantive line of inquiry (departure?). Making fun of old men (more charitably company assumed to be exluded) and turning the chamber’s finger to point at Israel’s shortfalls as a strategic institution proved more rewarding.

Peter J. Munson August 7th, 2011 at 2:19 pm

The post-statehood multinational force should not be an issue. We need to stop trying to “manage” and “fix” things. We only make them worse. As far as the international community, Courtside, if you haven’t noticed, all the mascots you mentioned have things that they are dealing with at home, there defense spending is plummeting, and they have no interest in getting tangled up in this mess as the U.S. has. So, it is great to say that others can pick up the tab, but they won’t even be at the bar. They’ll be at home trying to figure out how to make ends meet. We can’t make this happen if the Israeli and Arab governments do not sometime before Har Megido redux see that it is in their interest to come to a solution to this problem and work together to fix it. Barring that far fetched event, there’s nothing the U.S. or anyone else can do to make it so.

CarlPrine August 7th, 2011 at 4:29 pm

People,

I’m NOT going to approve any comments that drop the f-bomb or other similar language. Please keep it clean.

Peter J. Munson August 7th, 2011 at 4:42 pm

I am extremely pessimistic on our ability to shape anything. In an abstract sense, we could, but in a real sense, with the limitations of our political situation right now, no bold policies are forthcoming. And Europe is similarly caught up in more pressing issues at home.

libertariansoldier August 8th, 2011 at 8:36 am

What’s wrong with going on the weekend with a young, smart woman? __Is that what you told your wife? :)__I am a 54 year old retired infantryman and have no problem understanding what she is saying. In fact, I enjoy reading it–both here and at her own blog.__I think she is a fresh voice–although unapologetic GO USA is not the flavor du jour globally.__Penultimately, I find it extremely humorous that Mr. Munson decries the previous policy choices of the US. They were made by the same educated, experienced, people who he says should be the ones authorized to discuss the issue.__Lastly, I disagree with his “which one is not like the others” point. The ROK started out as no more of a military dictatorship than Taiwan. Japan was ruled for half a century by a single party who remained in power through bribery of the voting population with public works racist treatment of minorities, and protectionist trade policies to keep the support of over-represented rural districts. And that doesn’t even take into consideration how we started out.

courtneyme109 August 8th, 2011 at 9:51 am

Sir, That blindly supportive meme is about as fakebelieve as Waltsheimer’s “Little Posse Posse” thing with all the paper in it. Democrazies need to be supported, nurtured and protected, especially in a rough hood.

Unfresh?

Au contraire! It is fresh! No one dares to talk out loud about Future Palestine — even super savvy Teufel Hunden ME experts.

“Shallow…nonsense” in fact seems more descriptive of certain underwhelming critique (which tends at times to wander off like those Raven drones).

Please understand your insight, expertise and commentary is great ly appreciated and reflected on. Thank you.

It’s just the conclusions are incorrect

Peter J. Munson August 8th, 2011 at 10:13 am

One more thought on the policy choices. Many of them were selected not by educated AND experienced people, but by polemical ideologues from academic la-la land who never had to face the consequences of their bile. They had the education, but no real experience to temper their ideology. These people teamed up with one of the stupidest generals in American history to transform the Middle East and failed. Any successes that have been realized since were due to more pragmatic people digging them out.

This is why I do not enjoy CM’s screech or her “unapologetic” stance, because someone else has to do the dirty work that is encouraged by the polemicists. If you are libertarian, why would you find the suggestion that the U.S. has to solve the world’s problems to be “fresh”?

courtneyme109 August 8th, 2011 at 10:36 am

Thanks Deus! Asymmetrical advantages of being all anonymous, nicht wahr?

Peter J. Munson August 8th, 2011 at 11:10 am

Tossing the gauntlet to you is an attempt to get past the shallowness I’ve criticized in order to see what you think is really possible in Palestine. If you respond with something other than sparring, you being the one with the podium and I being a lowly commenter, then you win points with your readership. I’m trying to be fair, as Gian requested. I’m trying to see beyond the verbal epilepsy (which has nothing to do with COIN). By the way, I am not nor have I ever labeled myself a ME expert. Specialist yes, expert no.

So, we should not be yay Palestine, but it is in the interest of both GS and LS for some sort of semi-stable state to emerge. Israel is facing difficult economic times like everyone else, and isn’t that rich to begin with, ringing in just below Italy and Spain at GDP per capita. Look at the difficulties those two are having with far less insecurity on their borders and much smaller security outlays. Israel cannot give up the guns for butter, but many Israelis would like more balance. The one state solution isn’t, as has been described all over the place. Demography threatens to change Israel proper drastically in coming years as it is. Israel’s position isn’t getting stronger. It is getting less pliable neighbors now, too. I think this will be better in the long run once things settle out in the Arab world, maybe, but in the short run it makes their position more difficult. Palestine is not the elixir to all of this in a positive sense, but it is currently gangrene to Israel in a negative sense. So it is not yay Palestine that we should be saying, but rather let’s deal with the gangrene.

I do not think America can do this. Given our current taint, I think we actually make things worse. Not only is any U.S. move open to foreign criticism, but our domestic sniping robs our policy of much of its oomph. At best, we can back channel to help shape Israeli and Arab decisions, but this has not worked in the past, so why would it now?

As for the shape of Palestine, a lot of that depends on the shape of the agreement and who is party to it. Depending on what actors get what concessions, or what actors are seen as selling Palestine out, the political outcomes could be drastically different. Yes, it is not going to be a paragon of liberal virtue, but people tire of Hamas’ extremism, too. A significant factor will be what the next generation of leadership looks like, that being the people waiting in the wings beneath those like Abbas. There was some enthusiasm about them splitting off a few years ago, but everything has ossified for now. Maybe the “Spring” will eventually bring them to the fore, but what their policies will be like once in positions of power is in question. If there is to be a government of people that Palestinians find legitimate, there will be those who some call terrorists in the government. I do not imagine these people will turn into democrats, but I really don’t think they’ll do any more damage in government than they would waging an insurgency against it. This is the logic a lot of people at lower levels are trying to push in Afghanistan. If we include these people at the trough of government, they won’t be killing government officials. Yes, it will be somewhat of a kleptocracy, but if you get enough patrons at the trough, then all the key sectors get their cut and then they can start to figure themselves out. If you cut sectors out, they try to topple the whole thing.

Future Palestine will be dependent on LS economically. If the insecurity can be reduced and movement across borders improved, you have potential for some economic symbiosis. By default, they are going to be close to being one economy with two different political systems. How sustainable this is, I don’t know. But I think that the Palestinian portion of the economy will be small enough to not bring the EU horror story there.

This is probably rambling typing in this little window and I’m not going to go back and edit it. A lot of it is a bit far off, but again I think we need to be very humble in what we think we can achieve and we need to realize that our machinations in the interest of “stability” often blow up in our face a la Taleb’s “Black Swan of Cairo” thesis. We can’t manage everything in the world, so we just need to let some things play out.

Paul Graf August 8th, 2011 at 12:28 pm

For what it’s worth, as a soon-to-be-on-Medicare, certified old man, I’m glad to see Courtney publish here. Do I like her style? No. Like others, I find it difficult to read and comprehend. Are her ideas perfect? No, but she’s put some thought into them and appears to be widely read (particularly for someone in her age cohort). She can use some seasoning but the challenging comments by people like Peter, Rex, and others will help with that. Finally, I agree: this young woman has a bright future ahead of her and I look forward to reading her first serious book before I reach 80. It’s good to take a little time to encourage people like her.

Carl, I was surprised to see you say you have had difficulty getting qualified women to participate on the blog. What about people like Leah Farrell, Deborah Wunger, Laurin Jenkins, Marcy Wheeler, Charlie Simpson, and other well-qualified bloggers? Surely some of them would be willing. And academics? I went down the faculty list for the Georgetown Security Studies Program and found some outstanding ones: Kim Cragin, Nora Bensahel, Chantal de Jonge Oudraat, Natalie Goldring, Gale Mattox, Christine Fair (who seems to be quoted in the newspapers and magazines about twice every week), Margaret Hayes, Jo Husbands-Rosenberg, Dana Johnson, Catherine Lotrionte, Elizabeth Prescott, Celina Realuyo, Tammy Schultz, Elizabeth Stanley, and Jennifer Sims. I’ll bet John Nagl could give you an intro to them if you need it. There’s also a professional group called “Women In International Security” with over 800 members. Their website is at http://​csis​.org/​p​r​o​g​r​a​m​/​w​iis.

Maybe one or two of these women would be willing to post here occasionally.

Carl Prine August 8th, 2011 at 12:35 pm

Courtney makes more sense than John Nagl.

Nick Prime August 8th, 2011 at 1:10 pm

Not sure how that first paragraph got doubled up.…

Joshuapundit August 8th, 2011 at 1:27 pm

Interesting points,Rex. But unfortunately, there are some inconvenient facts that don’t quite jibe IMO. According to Winston Churchill, the partitioning of the Palestine Mandate in 1922 wherein 76% of the mandate was gifted to the Arabs was intended to solve any problems of Arab ‘Palestinian’ nationalism. The Brits removed those Jews that had settled east of the Jordan ( hence the original name, Trans-Jordan) and reassured the Zionists that everything west of the Jordan would become the new Jewish State.

The San Remo Accord, ratified by the League of Nations in1922 and ratified by America in 1925 ratified these borders in international law.

In 1948, after the attempted jihad against Israel’s there were numerous indigent Arabs who claimed refugee status who had never lived in ‘Palestine’ but liked the free food and money UNRWA was handing out. According to the head of the Agency , John Blandford Jr., UNRWA made no attempt at all to determine refugee status..so the figures on ‘Palestinian’ refugees are highly inflated, to say the least.

Further, when Jordan illegally occupied Judea and Samaria and ethnically cleansed its Jewish inhabitants, Jordanian law specifically granted Jordanian citizenship to all Arabs living in the area. It’s significant that (a) the UN never recognized this area as part of Jordan (b) No countries except the UK and Pakistan recognized the Jordanian annexation © Jordan moved many of it’s own citizens into the area in an attempt to colonize the area during the 19 years it held it and (d) There was absolutely no agitation or action for a ‘Palestinian’ state until the Jews retook the area after Jordan attacked Israel in 1967.

So there was no serious ‘Palestinian’ nationalism until it became necessary to use it against Israel.

BTW Rex, the term ‘Palestinian’ in common usage before 1967 referred to the Jewish inhabitants of the Mandate. The 1939 New York World’s Fair included an exhibition from ‘Palestine’ that exclusively featured Jewish exhibits, and the original name of the Jerusalem Post was The Palestine Post.

Another factor is that the ‘Palestinians’ themselves are by no means a people with much in common. They come from many diverse areas, contrary to popular belief many of them never lived in the area between the Jordan and the Mediterranean ( Yasser Arafat, an Egyptian, being a prime example) they are divided by clans, national origin, customs, political affiliation and have little in common.

There’s also the little matter that the Israelis, after their experience with Arafat and Oslo are not likely to agree to any deal the ‘Palestinians’ are likely to accept, which would involve redividing Jerusalem, creating 500,000 Jewish refugees and swamping what’s left of Israel with genocidal ‘Palestinian refugees’.

Another problem is that there’s no economic basis to establish a state. ‘Palestine’ lives on international aid and in spite of receiving more of it per capita than any other developing country, for decades, there’s still no real economic infrastructure to support the ‘Palestinians’ — largely because of the emphasis on the War Against the Jews, the raison d’etre of ‘Palestine’ and because of widespread theft and corruption. Given the current financial situation, the West ain’t gonna continue to pay the tab, the Israelis will have no reason to cooperate with a hostile state and the Arabs won’t financially support it unless it’s Hamas ruled and Iran steps in.

It’s a recipe for yet another failed state. Certainly, there no benefit for the US here.

Rex Brynen August 8th, 2011 at 2:51 pm

Are you still on that silly “there’s no such thing as a Palestinian” kick? Sheeesh.

Joshuapundit August 8th, 2011 at 4:06 pm

Gosh Rex,
I’m simply overwhelmed by the facts,impeccable logic and solid evidence contained in your last comment.

You sure told me!

Regards,
Rob

Rex Brynen August 8th, 2011 at 6:37 pm

Good questions, Michael.

On the Palestinian side, the logic behind the UN push is to pin down the principle of Palestinian statehood (ideally on the basis of the 1967 borders +/- swaps) in the face of what they view as an Israeli government that isn’t fundamentally committed to a two state solution. They have no illusions about it delivering tangible outcomes, but rather see in in longer term positional terms. It is also a degree of political frustration, and possibly some overestimation of how much support they would secure.

Fayyad’s position is slightly different. His state-building drive was less a push to construct state institutions (which are by and large already there) but rather to remove the doubt in the donors’ minds that the Palestinians are unprepared for statehood. In many regards he’s achieved that. However, he is (as a former IMF economist) also quite worried about the fiscal implications of a UN recognition drive if it results in a further decline of Western, especially US, aid, or if israel once more withholds tax clearances.

Regarding Hamas, the implicit Fateh game plan was always to negotiate a sufficiently good deal with Israel that they could go over the heads of Hamas and win a referendum. The problem, however, is that under current circumstances there’s no real chance of securing a sufficiently good deal with the Netanyahu government. While the Barak and Olmert governments were serious about reaching a two state deal, and Israeli-Palestinian negotiations were serious, I don’t think the same is true of Bibi.

Over the last few years Hamas’ support has eroded much more than Fateh’s, and the latter could probably win an election.. which is a good reason for Hamas not to want to have one. Or vice-versa. Although there are Palestinian officials on both cites who see reconciliation as important, I think the entrenched self-interest of the two parties make it almost impossible to achieve at present.

Other possibilities? The Obama Administration has favoured a borders-and-security first, other stuff later approach that would resolve the settlements issue and mark a slower transition to statehood. That hasn’t gone anywhere.

Hardliners on both sides feel time is on their side. More settlement activity makes Palestinian statehood harder, politically and geographically.. so the Israeli right wing is fine with the status quo. Some Palestinians feel that permanent occupation would eventually put themselves in the position of being a permanently disenfranchised minority, allowing them to play the South Africa-style one-person one-vote card for democratic rights in a united Israel/Palestine. (Olmert was worried about that too, hence his desire to negotiate a two state agreement.) The religious hardliners on both sides know that God is on their side, of course.

Then there is Carl’s three state solution, which (as I understand it) essentially treats the WB separately from Gaza. It has some merit, although in my view more as a way of permanently hobbling Hamas and ending their rule in Gaza by making a positive deal on Palestinian statehood in the West Bank (first). It is a hard sell to Palestinians, and to the minority of Israelis who oppose the principle of Palestinian statehood.

In the meantime, I think the international community–even if not able to get the parties to reach an agreement, which requires some shifts within their respective domestic politics–can at least lay down the principles clearly, ideally through a UNSC resolution: two state solution, 1967 borders +/- swaps, no large-scale refugee return, Palestinian demilitarization, etc. By doing so, they make it harder for the extremists to move the goalposts.

Rex Brynen August 8th, 2011 at 6:53 pm

Well, I think that’s a bit of the problem, Courtney–people talk about the future Palestine ALL THE TIME. I think, without exaggeration, one could find a couple of thousand “Palestine isn’t ready for statehood” posts online–and one could fill a half a room with the detailed, critical unclassified work done by the international community on the issue of economic viability.*

*(I’m pretty sure of this because I have half a room filled with detailed, critical work done by the international community on the issue of economic viability.)

Moreover, if one wants to argue that Palestinian self-determination is a bad idea, you’re then left with the challenge of what the alternative is. Permanent occupation and disenfranchisement? Ethnic cleansing? Incorporation into Israel–and the end of the Jewish state?

On the other hand, if you think statehood is a good idea but not now–and I know you’re a hyperactive democracy enthusiast at heart–you have to face the challenge of 1) how do we get there from here, and 2) what do we do about actors (like Hamas hardliners) and actions (such as Israeli settlement expansion) that make the goal more difficult.

Carl Prine August 8th, 2011 at 7:01 pm

Three state solution!

Michael W. August 8th, 2011 at 7:36 pm

So status quo it is. That’s insipid. I thought GsGf was passionate about the advancement of democracy. Are the Palestinians beyond the pale? Should Israel attempt more unilateralism like Gaza ’05?

How about you Rex, any original suggestions? I don’t think UNSC resolutions have been very effective (i.e. 242 and 1701).

Michael W. August 8th, 2011 at 8:04 pm

Carl, haven’t you ever seen people debate about Israel-Palestine? This is forum looks like a royal dinner compared to some of the sites I’ve seen discuss this issue. Anything having to do with us Jo0z tend to inflame the wider world.

Carl Prine August 8th, 2011 at 8:35 pm

I’m not exactly sure that you know who I am. But, yes. I’ve experienced a few debates over Israel and Palestine (too often with Rex, now that I think about it).

While this might be akin to a royal dinner, it ain’t going to become Dinner with Trimalchio on my watch.

I won’t approve any comments that are racist, pornographic or that pepper the f-bomb and similar words in lieu of punctuation.

I’m all for free speech, but I also don’t like explaining to the Military​.com overlords why they’re getting complaints about grown men and women who can’t stop their fingers from typing gratuitous porn instead of clement salutations.

Peter J. Munson August 8th, 2011 at 8:44 pm

Democracy does not mean anything without a relatively equal distribution of organization and power. If the choices are A and B, and little tiny c through zzzzz, all you’re going to get are A and B and A and B, and A and B are going to keep c through zzzzz out of power and divided. And A and B will distribute the spoils to make sure this is so. Free choice isn’t free choice if the choices are dictated to you by skewed power and organization. We can’t expect elections to uncover magical mini-Americans because these people aren’t the ones with the power in society. State-making as organized crime means that the organized criminals run the place until they eventually get to a point where they have to strike a bargain with the populace to get their consent for difficult policies. This consent isn’t required when you aren’t really governing, you blame others (GS and LS) for your shortcomings, and/or you have largesse to distribute that alleviates the need to get the consent of the ruled. As long as Palestine is a basket case, we’re not going to get a liberal outcome from an election.

courtneyme109 August 8th, 2011 at 8:47 pm

Nope! The old tricks are the best tricks after all (:

courtneyme109 August 8th, 2011 at 8:52 pm

Alternate solutions? Absolute! It would take a while — up to a generation perhaps. It could be done tho — but only Great Satan can make it happen with her leadership and some occasional clever input from other free nations.

courtneyme109 August 8th, 2011 at 9:11 pm

“As long as Palestine is a basket case, we’re not going to get a liberal outcome from an election.”

Yes sir! Thank you sir! Which kinda makes my case to Michael and Rex about a massive commitment — to police, to marginalize, and like in the famous WilF’s Brit Army Review — destroy — extreme, intolerant factions while providing alternatives. Educational reform, UNRWA reform (it would be unrecognizable from it’s form au courant) even media.

Just a few ideas for starters

Peter J. Munson August 8th, 2011 at 9:51 pm

Destroying extreme intolerant factions is virtually impossible and only radicalizes others. Israel has been trying to pull them apart in different ways for years. We’ve been at the same in Afghanistan and Iraq. It sounds great on the computer screen, but it is more than key taps and mouse clicks in the real world. It doesn’t work unless you have the stomach to go all the way, and I mean all the way, and we don’t, nor do the Israelis, nor should we.

Yet, an illiberal outcome is different than one that is dangerous to Israel or America. We can put up with an illiberal, vociferous, cantankerous state that doesn’t really like us as long as it turns to the task of governing its space and working with the Israelis on the aforementioned economic symbiosis, grudging though it will be. Given the right incentives and a hope toward future benefit, they won’t want extremists to screw things up. Right now there’s not that much to screw up. They’ll police their own if they cost the powers that be money, and they’ll do it far better than you give them credit for. They don’t need high tech support from the U.S. to find, fix, and ruthlessly deal with their own. They know them, they know where they live, and they know who their families are.

The trick is letting them work their own politics out without either supporting illiberal dictators for 30 more years or pushing a democracy that falls apart at the word go.

Rex Brynen August 8th, 2011 at 10:12 pm

What would take a generation to happen? If you’re concerned about Palestinian antagonism to Israel, is another quarter century of military occupation likely to make them think warm and fuzzy thoughts? What of settlement activity in the meantime, and the effects of that on the prospects for making a two state solution work?

And what is it the US should actually *do*? So far Great Satan’s leadership on this has been pretty abysmal: the Clinton Administration messed up Camp David (one Israeli participant described it to me as “the worst organized negotiations I have attended in in my professional life”), Bush didn’t do better, and I would argue that in many ways Obama has done worse (although in fairness he’s got an obstructionist Bibi to deal with, and not a more cooperative Olmert).

There’s a Denis Ross theme running through there somewhere too, but don’t get me started on that.

Carl Prine August 8th, 2011 at 10:37 pm

One also might mention the long line of Israeli leaders who have turned out to be corrupt buffoons, including Olmert.

But if you’re going to be honest, Rex, you’re going to have to admit that Palestinian terror did more to upend Israeli attitudes about peaceful negotiations than all the idiocy of Clinton’s team.

Rex Brynen August 8th, 2011 at 10:53 pm

Actually, Hamas is already pretty marginalized in the West Bank, in an operational if not political sense: they didn’t manage to mount a single operation (not one) during Cast Lead, largely due to the PA and not for want of trying.

Education reform? The system is actually far better than the one pre-1994, when Israeli Civil Administration schools used Egyptian and Jordanian texts. Antipathy to Israelis is not learned from PA school curriculum, but largely from the daily experience of interacting with Israelis as occupiers.

Go through the humiliation of checkpoints, searches, and have multiple members of your family arrested (plus the bigger stuff like land seizures and settlements, not to mention all that 1948 stuff) and you would be pretty pissed off at them too.

Carl and I have had a long debate about UNRWA years back on Abu Muqawama which we don’t need to rehash here, but let me point out an irony. Last year year Canada, responding to the UNRWA-is-evil campaign, ended its contributions to the UNRWA General Fund. Not only did the Palestinians, Arab host states, EU, and Great Satan complain–but so too did the Israelis, who have asked Ottawa to renew its UNRWA core funding. The reason is simple enough: when push comes to shove, the Israelis know that UNRWA’s services and educational message run counter to that of Hamas. Indeed, at the moment there’s a rather nasty Hamas-UNRWA conflict going on at the moment in both Gaza and Lebanon. (Although I’ve written a little on it elsewhere, there are limits on how much detail can be provided, since in the Lebanese case people’s lives are potentially at risk.)

I’m not sure Israelis and Palestinians liking each other is a necessary condition for peace, and I don’t see how reconciliation is possible under occupation.

Peter J. Munson August 8th, 2011 at 11:24 pm

The biggest problem with the right of return is not in Palestine (I’m not lecturing you here, I’m putting the point forth for your take). It is with all the surrounding regimes that have refused to allow the Palestinians to assimilate. So, not only what does Palestine look like, but how do the surrounding regimes address the issue of “refugees” that finally have to admit they are never going back? As Amin Maalouf’s character in Leo Africanus says “Perhaps one day it may be necessary for someone to dare to teach them to look unflinchingly at their defeat, to explain to them that in order to get to one’s feet again one must first admit that one is down on the ground. Perhaps someone will have to tell them the truth one day. But I myself do not have the courage to do so.”

Carl Prine August 8th, 2011 at 11:47 pm

Rex will now give us his spiel about Lebanon.

Courtside August 9th, 2011 at 12:03 am

Curious to hear you articulate more on what shatters your stereotypes/makes your belief hard to sustain — also, are you saying that as an American yourself or someone from elsewhere?

Deus Ex August 9th, 2011 at 1:10 am

Peter,

Just so you know, I have agreed with nearly every comment of yours. Your words are not falling upon empty ears (or eyes, in this case).

Deus Ex August 9th, 2011 at 1:26 am

I would fling my copy of “Learning to Eat Soup With a Knife” at you.

Courtside August 9th, 2011 at 1:58 am

I’m pretty sure Colonel Gentile knows Courtney’s views on COIN are — they’re mentioned in her interview here a while back.

In fact, a quote from his comment on that interview: ‘Ah the smart young woman broke my heart when she said “Coin works.“‘

Waving your bloody shirt is getting pretty dull, and you apparently don’t actually follow this blog, so the chickenhawk line’s all you’ve got left. I’d suggest expanding it beyond a soundbite.

Surely people without the combat infantryman badge are allowed to advocate positions on public policy.

Michael Roger Victor Weis August 9th, 2011 at 9:39 am

I’ve seen you use at least two Yiddish words. As a man of Little Satan, I’m shocked by how much Yiddish Americans use. I didn’t know any Yiddish growing up with/in Little Satan.

Rex Brynen August 9th, 2011 at 9:56 am

How can I resist?

Of the (UNRWA-registered) refugees outside the WBG, the c2 million in Jordan are by most measures integrated. They are citizens. They vote (whatever that means, and recognizing that the system is gerrymandered to favour East Bankers). The vast majority (80%+) don’t live in refugee camps, and in any case most of the camps are just urban areas rather than “camps” in the way that most people might imagine them. Their standard of living is roughly equivalent to other Jordanians. Political and economic integration, it seems, doesn’t automatically result in a lessened emotional attachment to the RoR.

In Syria, the 495,000 refugees are fully integrated in an economic sense. They can work. Most (almost 70%) live outside camps. They can access all government services. They have no citizenship or political rights–but then again, Syrians don’t exactly have meaningful political rights either.

Lebanon (250,000 refugees) is an awful situation. There are restrictions of working (slightly alleviated in recent years, but not by much). There is a ban on property ownership. There are other forms of discrimination. Because this is tangled up with Lebanese history, politics, and sectarianism, it won’t change soon–indeed, after some minor improvement under the Siniora and Hariri governments, it might now be getting worse.

libertariansoldier August 9th, 2011 at 11:06 am

Well, many of the choices were made by professional politicians who live far from academic la-la land and face the consequences of their choices (more or less) every election. And they were supported by military personnel who (more or less, sometimes) are accountable for their decisions. In fact, my perception is the la-la denizens are much more likely to agree with your view on the ME and Israel than Bf109’s.
I agree about the stupidest general–I had to laugh when I heard he wrote that Feith was the stupidest guy on the planet. Having worked for both, the latter was never more than number two as long as the former was around.
Doing dirty work is what the military does–sometimes it works out and sometimes it does not and sometimes you cannot tell which it was. I learned that a long time ago, and if it bothered me I would not have stayed in.

Carl Prine August 9th, 2011 at 2:14 pm

I couldn’t disagree more.

Peter J. Munson August 9th, 2011 at 2:45 pm

The libertarian bit I was challenging was not with regard to CM’s freedom to spout drivel, which I do not challenge (just Carl’s decision, which he is free to make, I just question his logic). I was challenging why a libertarian would want governments to go abroad trying to sort out the world’s problems when I thought libertarians wanted governments to stay small and out of the way.

I understand that the military does dirty work. I do not, however, respect the people who push for more dirty work from the sidelines to support poorly constructed ideologies, such as CM’s shallow spoutings here.

Michael Roger Victor Weis August 9th, 2011 at 5:00 pm

She doesn’t have to be “brilliant.” She has to be well informed, make an argument, and support it. I believe she does that.

Is she being irrational? Ignorant? Bigoted? I think not, and I’m a liberal, I should be appalled by her.

Maybe it is her style that is amplifying her jingoism? That is perhaps why I am shocked that someone like her exists. So young and informed, is there any FoPo issue she doesn’t have an opinion on?

Carl Prine August 9th, 2011 at 7:46 pm

WTF are you talking about?

I don’t care if anyone has served or not. And the Honore article was about a career officer who served three decades.

Are you high?

Rex Brynen August 9th, 2011 at 8:36 pm

I think Peter has a problem (as do I) with the “make an argument and support it” part. Instead, Courtney threw a lot of spaghetti at the wall (albeit spaghetti of a certain type) and it was left to her readers to develop a deeper argument about Palestinian statehood and US national security interests.

I have no doubt she is smart and well-informed–which is precisely why I don’t think this piece was anywhere near what she’s capable of.

On that note, I think I’ll let this thread pass and wait for her next piece.

Peter J. Munson August 9th, 2011 at 9:06 pm

If she’s as bold and self-confident as she seems in her positions, I highly doubt that nasty comments will scare her away. If they do, then she’s not what she presents herself to be. I know that I put out a lot of nasty comments, but I and other also put out some more substantive comments. I for one was hoping to see her reply, rebut, address, discuss one of those with more than a few sentences. She never did. Not sure why. I would have liked to see her get a bit beyond the post and interact a little bit, again, with more substance.

For all my negative comments, if she’s going to be on here, I’d like to see her do better. Go a little deeper. Not just throw the gauntlet, but take it up herself and show some depth. If she does that, my tone will change a little.

libertariansoldier August 10th, 2011 at 8:48 am

I don’t want governments to go abroad and… I have reread my postings and could not find anywhere that I said that.I did.
Supporting a freedom to choose doesn’t entail supporting the choices made.
I would be very happy pulling everyone out of Iraq and AFG today.
I would be happy cutting a couple hundred billion annually out of the DOD budget and reducing our force structure significantly.
I would also be happy eliminating the money (both ESF and FMF) going to Eqypt and Israel, as well as the subsidies (starting with agriculture and ethanol) and tax breaks (starting with the mortgage interst deduction) complicating the tax code