SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Mean Streets

MARCH 17, 2010

Mean Streets

BY LEON WIESELTIER

Recently I was rummaging through the living mess of papers in my office--my nachlass, however hard-driven, will not be a hard drive--when I discovered a fading sheet I had not seen in decades. It was a copy of a letter that was given to me by a little man in the municipal hall in Hebron in 1980. I had traveled to Hebron to look into an incident that occurred a few days earlier on Purim, a triumphalist holiday on which Jews are enjoined to revel in inversions and to drink themselves out of their capacity to distinguish between good and evil. In the course of their bacchanal, some of the settlers at Beit Hadassah, the formerly Jewish house in the center of town that they were claiming for themselves, had opened their windows and urinated on Palestinians in the street below. The mayor of Hebron convened a public meeting for the victims of the abuse to tell their stories. It was there that the little man rose to express his grievance. To demonstrate the ugliness of what was done to him, he read from an old letter written in Hebrew on the stationery of a metalworking company in Jerusalem. It stated (this is my translation): “To Whom It May Concern: I the undersigned, Moses Joseph ben Jacob Ezra, born in Hebron, hereby declare that the family of Rajib Hassan Al Badr, with whom we lived in the same quarter in Hebron, protected my family in [the riots of] 1929 and again in [the riots of] 1936, and until 1947, while we were still in Hebron, we enjoyed good neighborly relations and constant protection by the Al Badr family generally. I would be deeply grateful for any human assistance that might be extended to them.” So it was the scion of that good and brave family whom the yarmulked hooligans had soiled. I remembered this wrenching document a few weeks ago when Yedioth Ahronoth posted a video on its website of a Purim party in Sheikh Jarrah, an Arab neighborhood in East Jerusalem, at which religious militants boorishly sang a song of praise to the memory of Baruch Goldstein, who slaughtered twenty-nine Palestinians at the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron: “Dr. Goldstein. Dr. Goldstein, there is no one like you in the whole world.” The stone house in which the punks dishonored their tradition with an anthem to murder had recently belonged to the El Ghawis, a Palestinian family that was expelled from it last August.

 

Sheikh Jarrah is a place with a run-down but real magic, rather like Naples. You can still see the glory beneath the grime, the fine imperial picturesque--the porticos and the gardens of old Palestine, the material elegance of the Muslim gentry in the calm between the storms. There is a mosque at the tomb of a medieval Muslim saint named Hussein ibn Isa Al Jarrah, and nearby it is the tomb of Simon the Just, the high priest in Jerusalem around 200 B.C.E. and according to legend the founder of the Jewish liturgy, whose sacerdotal splendor was described swooningly by Ben Sira; and there is the Shepherd Hotel, a grand villa built by the mufti of Jerusalem, once inhabited by George Antonius, and in the 1980s acquired by a rich Jewish bingo-king in Florida for the purpose of expelling Palestinians from the area and installing Jews; and there is the American Colony Hotel, whose bougainvillea has often given me asylum from the respective fervors of my brothers and sisters in the western part of the city. In 1948, Arab forces in Sheikh Jarrah ambushed a convoy of Jewish doctors and nurses on their way to the hospital on Mount Scopus and committed a massacre. Sheikh Jarrah came under Israeli control in 1967, and a few years later Jewish groups went to court with old Jewish deeds to various properties, even though no Jews had lived there since 1948. The court upheld their ownership, but ruled that the Palestinians who resided there could remain as long as they paid rent. The Palestinian families disputed the authenticity of the Jewish documents, and refused to pay. They were finally evicted this past year, and the drunken disciples of Dr. Goldstein moved in.

 

The dream of reversing history has been a cause of both greatness and depravity. It is right for people not to acquiesce in their own wretchedness, to reject all the quietisms and the fatalisms that teach them to do nothing for themselves. Zionism owed its moral and historical force in large measure to its refusal to accept the irreversibility of Jewish exile, and its attendant misery; and the national self-reliance now exemplified for the Palestinians by Salam Fayyad--in a culture of jusqu’au-boutisme, the technocrat is the revolutionary--represents a similar refusal of historical passivity. But not everything can, or should, be reversed. Sometimes there is wisdom also in acceptance, and in the power that it confers to move on. In the name of justice, one may destroy peace, and forget that peace, too, is an element of justice. The idea of beginning again is often a savage idea. Since the Palestinian right of return, and its premise that restoration is preferable to reconciliation, would undo the Jewish state, Israel is right to deny it. But if, in the name of moral realism, and so that they do not delude themselves with catastrophic fantasies of starting over, Palestinians are not to be granted a right to return to what was theirs before 1948, then neither should such a right be granted to Jews. When Jews fled Sheikh Jarrah, they fled to a Jewish state, which should have been worth the loss of their property; and the same would have been true of the Palestinians, if their Arab brethren had allowed the state of Palestine to come into being. But the lunatic Jews who insist that a Jew must live anywhere a Jew ever lived do not see that they, too, are re-opening 1948 and the legitimacy of what it established. Why does the Israeli government allow the argument for a unified Jerusalem to be mistaken for the heartless revanchism of these settlers? Whatever arrangements about Jerusalem are eventually made in a peace agreement, and I no longer expect to see one in my lifetime, Jerusalem will remain both the capital of Israel and a demographically mottled city. It makes no sense to show contempt for the people with whom you are destined to live. It is not only cruel, it is stupid. So the dispossession of the El Ghawis is a disgrace. And a Jewish disgrace, because it was Simon the Just, the legendary leader buried in an ancient cave not far from the El Ghawis’ house, who famously taught that one of the things which supports the world in existence is the practice of kindness.

Leon Wieseltier is the literary editor of The New Republic.

 

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 138 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

138 comments

This is very welcome, at this moment in particular. Thank you.

- roidubouloi

March 24, 2010 at 12:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Leon Wieseltier is a deeply honorable man whose words deserve to be to read and pondered. At the same time let's not be confused. Jewish extremists are a fringe element. The Palestinians are another matter. Their ideology is identical with that of Adolf Hitler, for whom most of them have unqualified admiration. What western liberals don't understand is that the so-called Palestinians, as well as most Muslims, have values 180 degrees opposite to those of both liberals and conservatives in the West.

- bulbman1066

March 24, 2010 at 1:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bulbman, your comments are racist and totally not founded in any historical fact. It was Europe, not the Muslim Middle East, that tried to exterminate Jews, and it was to the Muslim world that the Sephardim fled in 1492. The Palestinians are not admirers of Hitler, that is a ridiculous slur. They have a deep and real historical grievance that you refuse to acknowledge, their opposition to Israel is not from anti-Semitism but as a result of having suffered dispossession and ethnic cleansing. I would imagine that in terms of values, I have much more in common with Mr. Wieseltier than you do. He at least is willing to see both sides of an issue. You certainly are not.

- nayyer_ali

March 24, 2010 at 1:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

These Baruch Goldman types are outrageous. Shame on them. I don't understand this total blindness and lack of humanity.

- Sophia

March 24, 2010 at 2:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We aren't talking about 1492. We are talking about today. Today the majority of Palestinians are indeed admirers of Hitler. They supported Hitler during the Third Reich, just as they supported the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Today Palestinian children are fed propaganda in school straight out the Nazi playbook. Like Hitler, the Palestinians have one goal: genocide of the Jews. Hamas says it explicitly. Al Fatah minces words, but only in front of western audiences. If you deny that you are either ignorant, a liar or an anti-Semite. The actions and the words of the so-called Palestinians over the last century prove that I am right. Their historical grievance is not due to Israel, but to the cynicism and cruelty of their leaders and of the Arab governments who have artificially created their plight in order to maintain stay in power. The Baruch Goldman types are a) rare and ) despised by most Jews. Their Arab equivalents are b) anything but rare and b) treated as heroes by most Arabs and indeed by most Muslims. Nayer Ali's use of the word "racist" is ignorant blather. Race in not the issue. So-called Palestinians are Arabs, who are members of the Semitic branch of the Caucasian race, as are most Jews. At issue is the survival of a civilized island, Israel, in an ocean of barbarism.

- bulbman1066

March 24, 2010 at 4:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is terrific but it is not "kindness" to let the El Ghawis' live in their own house. The disgrace of these settlers does not lie in their lack of benevolence.

- benberger

March 24, 2010 at 8:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Sheikh Jarrah came under Israeli control in 1967, and a few years later Jewish groups went to court with old Jewish deeds to various properties, even though no Jews had lived there since 1948. The court upheld their ownership, but ruled that the Palestinians who resided there could remain as long as they paid rent. The Palestinian families disputed the authenticity of the Jewish documents, and refused to pay. They were finally evicted this past year, and the drunken disciples of Dr. Goldstein moved in." From Ami Isseroff: "The Arabs are not being evicted because they are Arabs, or because it is Jewish property, but because they refuse to pay rent. Allowing Arab tenants to remain without paying rent would in fact create several dangerous precedents that do not seem to concern Ir-Amim. The Arab tenants claim that the property is theirs and therefore they don't need to pay rent. If they are allowed to stay, w all the Arab tenants inside "green line Israel" can claim that all of the land is theirs, and therefore they are not obligated to pay rent or obey other Israeli laws, and can break any legal contract. Refusing to allow eviction of the illegal Arab settlers would create yet another precedent, since the same logic would necessarily apply to Jewish settlers in Tapuah or Yizhar who had lived there for decades. They to claim that all of the land is theirs, regardless of property rights. Even if a peace agreement is reached, it would be impossible to implement any evacuation of Jewish settlers from any settlements, under any conditions." I suggest you read the whole thing, as an antidote to Wieseltier's tales of cruelty and stupidity in Jerusalem: http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000729.html

- noga1

March 24, 2010 at 8:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, your hypocrisy truly knows no bounds. Do Israelis who live on land between the UN Partition line and the Green Line pay rent to Arabs? As for the claim that "refusing to allow eviction of illegal Arab settlers would create another precedent," you have completely lost contact with reality. Israel cannot or will not even enforce its own laws against illegal Jewish settlement east of the Green Line. And by what law did these Arabs become "illegal settlers?" Are you incapable of understanding (that's a rhetorical question, I know you are incapable of understanding) that this standard puts paid to every claim on behalf of Jewish settlement in the West Bank? Worse, as Wieseltier correctly points out, this standard undermines the legitimacy of Israel's claims to land west of the Green Line. But you don't care. In your Likud delusional state, you imagine that the world is somehow going to accept your inane and self-contradictory legalisms. Beyond the legalities, Wieseltier is absolutely correct that the whole thing is almost unbearably stupid. If you want a little sample of how Israel is losing, or maybe has already lost, the propaganda war, see this from today's New York Times. http://community.nytimes.com/comments/opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/against-pro-israel/?sort=oldest&offset=2 And these comments come mostly from people in the United States, Israel's closest, or perhaps only remaining, state friend. You would rather stand on "principles" (principles that I find appalling, but lets grant for the moment that they are the sort of abstractions that could be called principles) and martyr yourself and your country than accept any of the realities of world politics or the inevitability of succumbing to collective world sentiment once it becomes sufficiently unified. Or I suppose Israel can stand against the whole world and live in isolation like North Korea perpetually on the brink of starvation. You are the saddest end to the Zionist dream that I can imagine.

- roidubouloi

March 24, 2010 at 9:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"But if ... Palestinians are not to be granted a right to return to what was theirs before 1948, then neither should such a right be granted to Jews." Wieseltier, you old Jew-baiting anti-Semite Hamas-loving moral relativist. And it's funny - hilarious even - that Roid is quoting that old den of anti-Semitic liberal fascism, the NY Times, to support his delusional arguments.

- icarusr

March 24, 2010 at 10:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Icaurus, if you go to the link, you will see that I am not "quoting the Times" for anything. That particular article, one that I do not agree with, is accompanied by a blog for comments by readers. I link to it as evidence, albeit anecdotal, of the sentiments of far too many Americans about the relationship between the US and Israel. Netanyahu and the Israeli right seem barely to be concerned about the government-to-government relationship. But what ought to be of far greater concern to them is American public opinion, because that, in the end, will have an enormous impact for good or ill on the relations between the governments. (On an earlier thread where the Israelis were saying that Obama was compromising Israeli public opinion, as if that should worry us, I pointed out that the good opinion of Americans about Israel was of far greater importance than the reverse.) While you may be able to court the members of another government and alter their attitudes, if American public opinion is lost, it will be nearly impossible to reclaim. I link to this blog to buttress the point that Israel, by its conduct, is losing the propaganda war, even here in the US where it can count more friends than anywhere else.

- roidubouloi

March 24, 2010 at 11:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid ... I was channelling some of the other posters here :P ...

- icarusr

March 24, 2010 at 12:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bulbman, racism is any attitude that ascribes characteristics to a group based on ethnic/linguistic/cultural/religious basis. The Nazis were racists but it was all whites on whites, the Rwandan genocide was racist in nature etc. Just because Palestinians and Israeli Jews have similar skin colors doesn't make racism inoperable in the relationship. When you say "Palestinians and Muslims don't share values with Westerners" that is a racist generalization. If I said a similar statement about Jews that would be obviously anti-Semitic, and anti-Semitism is a form of racism. Israel is a deeply racist society, it discriminates against the PAlestinians in the territories and against its own non-Jewish citizens. Out of the 500,000 Israeli settlers how many are non-Jewish? Why did Israel deny Israeli Muslims citizenship until 1965? To suggest that the Palestinian feelings toward Israel are not primarily based in the loss of their land and the ethnic cleansing of 1948 and the lack of citizenship, basic human rights, and the brutality of occupation is nonsense. What other people in a similar set of circumstances would have warm feelings toward the group that did that to them? The issue is not Muslim acceptance of Israel. Egypt and Jordan already have peace deals with Israel. Syria would sign a treaty whenever Israel agrees to give up Syrian land it occupies. Lebanon would follow Syria, at that point all Israel's neighbors would have a peace treaty with Israel. The broader Arab League and other Muslim countries such as Pakistan have made clear they would recognize Israel once it withdraws from the West Bank and the Palestinians get a state. The problem is not that Muslims don't love Israel as much as you desire, it is that Israel would rather keep the West Bank and the settlements than have peace. The price of peace is a full withdrawal and full sovereignty for the Palestinians. No Israeli government has ever offered that, which is why we are still in this conflict. When Israel agreed to full withdrawal, it got peace with Egypt and Jordan, when it fully withdraws from the rest of the occupied territories, it will get peace with Syria and Palestine. It's up to Israel to choose whether it wants peace or settlements. The issue remains whether the Israelis will truly accept a real two state solution, or whether they want to insist on their "one and a half state" solution they keep trying to force on the Palestinians.

- nayyer_ali

March 24, 2010 at 12:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am with Roid that this is an exceptional piece, well thought out and well reasoned. I nominate Leon to replace Marty on the Spine. Leon is absolutely right, at some point you have to look at facts on the ground. Palestinians who abandoned their homes in Israel proper at some point forfeited their right of return, likewise for Jewish people who abandoned their homes elsewhere. This isn't even about sovereignty, if I abandon my home in the states, quit paying taxes and upkeep, then my claim 30 years later to that property would be null and void. To expect the new residents there to pay rent or be evicted is ridiculous.

- blackton

March 24, 2010 at 12:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ic, I got the joke, but I still wanted it to be clear to all just what use I was making of the Times in this case. R

- roidubouloi

March 24, 2010 at 1:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is exactly correct -- profoundly insightful, powerfully persuasive, and beautifully expressed. A fine piece of writing. Thank you, Mr Wieseltier. Neil

- purcellneil

March 24, 2010 at 1:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

nayyer_al "Bulbman, your comments are racist and totally not founded in any historical fact. It was Europe, not the Muslim Middle East, that tried to exterminate Jews, and it was to the Muslim world that the Sephardim fled in 1492. The Palestinians are not admirers of Hitler, that is a ridiculous slur." It wasn't "the Palestinians" who welcomed the Jews in 1492. It was the Turks who allowed them to settle in North Africa and they were quickly shoved into Ghettoes there and held in contempt. Read some historical account of their treatment. The Spanish writer Cervantes of converso stock who was being held prisoner in Algiers (a575-1580) wrote a play about it called: “Los Baños de Argel” http://www.amazon.com/Cervantes-Algiers-Maria-Antonia-Garces/dp/0826514707 More recently during WW2 the Arabs in general sided with Hitler and the Arabs in North Africa discriminated against the Jews there and held them in contempt. Let’s not forget the Jerusalem Mufti Mohammad Amin al-Husayni who worked for Hitler as a propaganda agent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni Hitler’s Mein Kampf is still a big seller in that region. When I was in France, I met Arabs who said that they would like to see all the Jews killed because they didn't appreciate what the Arabs had done for them. Look in the mirror before you call other people racists. None, of this though justifies a Baruch Goldstein nor the acts of the settlers which are reprehensible. Israel should withdraw from most of the West Bann and help set up a Palestinian State within the context of a real peace agreement.

- jdyer

March 24, 2010 at 1:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarusr, as usual your attempt at humor falls flat.

- jdyer

March 24, 2010 at 1:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I noticed that nayyer didn't answer those who pointed out that antisemitism isn't restricted to Europe. Here is more information: "The roots of Arab Anti-Semitism Radical Islam’s favorite Western tradition." By David Greenberg http://www.slate.com/id/2057949/ and here: "Moishe Postone on the apparent emancipatory power of antisemitism" http://engageonline.wordpress.com/2010/02/07/moishe-postone-on-left-antisemitism/

- jdyer

March 24, 2010 at 3:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Zionism, anti-semitism and the left" http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2010/02/05/zionism-anti-semitism-and-left

- jdyer

March 24, 2010 at 3:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Finally everyone interested in the subject should read: "Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11" by Matthias Küntzel http://www.amazon.com/Jihad-Jew-Hatred-Islamism-Nazism-Roots/dp/0914386395/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1269460649&sr=8-1

- jdyer

March 24, 2010 at 3:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...It makes no sense to show contempt for the people with whom you are destined to live. It is not only cruel, it is stupid. So the dispossession of the El Ghawis is a disgrace. And a Jewish disgrace, because it was Simon the Just, the legendary leader buried in an ancient cave not far from the El Ghawis’ house, who famously taught that one of the things which supports the world in existence is the practice of kindness... I simply joing he comments in priase of this piece. I quote this to contrast it with the sour, slurring drivel Peretz has been writing lately.

- basman

March 24, 2010 at 4:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow, even Andrew Sullivan linked to this piece.. a grand thaw? http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/03/yglesias-award-nominee-4.html

- thetraytiger

March 24, 2010 at 7:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So, a few Jews have visited humiliation and indignities upon a few Arabs. So what? That's far milder than the indignities and implicit threat of violence imposed upon Jews right now in France, and upon dhimi Jews for 14 centuries in the Arab world. And, as Syrian-American Wafa Sultan pointed out in a globally-distributed al-Jazeera video, Jews have not used the fact of far worse "indignities" during the Holocaust to bomb pizzerias in Germany. The true racism here is Wieseltier's omission of the claims of the Mizrahim. Even were miltant settlers to claim the whole of the West Bank, it would still not coe close to compensatin of the property losses of the Mizrahim. In my opinion, AsAJews like Wieseltier encourage Arab intransigeance and exaggerated sense of grievance and so further the bloodshed.

- TNR.Reader

March 24, 2010 at 7:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JDyer, Glazov's recent book United in Hate has a chapter devoted to the left's romance with anti-Semitism.

- TNR.Reader

March 24, 2010 at 7:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Wow, even Andrew Sullivan linked to this piece.. a grand thaw?" Why wouldn't he? It makes Jews look bad, doesn't it? Of course, he and his readers will take it out of context and claim that most Jews are like these reprehensible West bank settlers.

- jdyer

March 24, 2010 at 7:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

TNR.Reader "Glazov's recent book United in Hate has a chapter devoted to the left's romance with anti-Semitism." I haven't seen the book, but the left's antisemitism is longstanding. Already in the late 19c August Ferdinand Bebel coined the phrase "The Socialism of fools" to describe leftist antisemitism. And before that even Karl Marx that sometime antisemite noticed Bruno Bauer's antisemitsm. Have your read Daniel Deronda by George Eliot there is a chapter in that long wonderful novel that deals with leftist antisemitism.

- jdyer

March 24, 2010 at 7:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JDyer, I knew of Daniel Deronda but not of the specific chapter. Thanks for the reference! In support of your coments above, see here for an excellent debunking of the myth of Islamic tolerance: http://www.mmisi.org/ir/41_02/fernandez-morera.pdf

- TNR.Reader

March 24, 2010 at 8:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The anti Semitism of the left and the myth of Islamic tolerance--all true, let's agree--have what, exactly, to do with Wieseltier wrote?

- basman

March 24, 2010 at 8:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nayyer introduced the myth of Islamic tolerance, above. Wieseltier's article is a perfect illustration of the anti-Semitism of the left in - its imposition of a radically different standard upon Jews than upon the rest of the world - its grossly disproportionate treatment of offenses committed by Jews compared to offenses commited against them.

- TNR.Reader

March 24, 2010 at 8:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

TNR.Reader, respectfully, you may want to take a whack at at being a rereader. It misunderstands Wieseltier and misconceives what he wrote to think, if you do that he is of the left, and if you don't think that, that his piece exemplifies anti Semitism of the left. He is making no claims of moral equivalence, no equating of respective evils. Rather, his is, finally, a Cri de Coeur, a plea for decency and kindness, a wish to encroach on demonization and otherness. There is plenty to criticize in Settler Messianiasm; and what Wieseltier describes instances patterns of some appalling conduct and attitudes, which see Palestinians as the easily dispensable other. This s not answered by citing greater instances of injustice leveled against Jews by Arabs. The issue is not a balance sheet of comparable rights and wrongs: the issue is kindness trumping otherness as an irreducible human starting point. For such little hope as there is for a resolution as opposed to an outcome, without that starting point, there is no hope at all.

- basman

March 24, 2010 at 9:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

basman, what? You mean Leon Wieseltier is not anti-semitic? I will tell you, sometimes LW strikes a wrong note, but when he is on the top of his form there are few greater writers at TNR (or anywhere) in tone, elegance of writing, and substance. As to your rebuttal of TNR reader, what you said absolutely.

- blackton

March 24, 2010 at 9:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"In my opinion, AsAJews like Wieseltier encourage Arab intransigeance and exaggerated sense of grievance and so further the bloodshed." Wieseltier's piece is not intended for an Arab audience. It is meant to re-assert his credentials as a leftist writer and thinker so as to reassure such TNR readers as we sometimes encounter here that he knows who a good Jew is and why. He is not antisemitic by any means but his article here does serve some of their vital concerns. TNR Reader makes a very valid point about the absence of any concern for the injustice done to Oriental Jews in this piece. It might be a reflection of a certain intra-Jewish bias on the part of Wieseltier. Mizrahim in Israel often wonder why Ashkenazi elite intellectuals in America can show such dogged and principled and vociferous compassion and caring for poor Palestinians while they maintain almost complete silence about Mizrahi history. http://jewishrefugees.blogspot.com/

- noga1

March 24, 2010 at 10:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks Blackton. ...I will tell you, sometimes LW strikes a wrong note, but when he is on the top of his form there are few greater writers at TNR (or anywhere) in tone, elegance of writing, and substance... I have had a love hate relationship with Wiesletier's writing here for a few years now. But even in hate mode, I sensed there was greatness in him. You put it very well when he is, as you say, "on the top of his form".

- basman

March 24, 2010 at 11:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

TNR.Reader “Nayyer introduced the myth of Islamic tolerance, above." TNR reader wasn't criticizing Wieseltier. He was criticizing, as was I, Nayyer's comments. Noga is also a hundred percent wrong when she says: "Wieseltier's piece is not intended for an Arab audience. It is meant to re-assert his credentials as a leftist writer and thinker so as to reassure such TNR readers as we sometimes encounter here that he knows who a good Jew is and why." One can criticize his comments, (on logical and historical grounds) but the above is just plain nonsense.

- jdyer

March 24, 2010 at 11:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, how do you know what Wieseltier’s is meant to do other than say what he said? You don’t of course. And the absurdity of your comment that he is trying to shine up his “good Jew” credentials as a is as unbelievable as it offensive. That absurdity is made blastingly evident by the fact you cannot know what his motives are. He, in fact, devastatingly took Andrew Sullivan apart for doing the very thing you assign to him: essentializing –read objectifying--Jewishness and saying that there are good/acceptable/right thinking Jews and bad/unacceptable/wrong thinking Jews. You fall into the same fallacy as does TNR Reader. Look at the reductio ad absurdum your line of reasoning, premised on the same misreading of this piece as that of TNR Reader, leads to. Wieseltier is to be faulted for not mentioning unjust conduct x: but then what about unjust conduct y and z and x1, y1 and z1? Where does it end? To repeat the obvious that I’m surprised you misconceive : the point is the fundamental one of a plea for human decency and kindness amongst people destined to be neighbors, not an enumeration of their comparative wrongdoing. Finally this is just weird and virtually paranoid: “He is not antisemitic by any means but his article here does serve some of their vital concerns.” This is functionally analogous to the ridiculous notion that any criticism of Israel or Israelis is tantamount to anti Semitism.

- basman

March 24, 2010 at 11:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I did not see Jdyer's post till I after I posted my own.

- basman

March 24, 2010 at 11:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Basman: He is making no claims of moral equivalence, no equating of respective evils. The equation is done not in commission but in omission. Wieseltier wrote an article of hundreds of words to describe what are minor offenses to Arab dignity, with not a single reference to the bloody or even murderous "indignities" visited by Muslims upon the Mizrahim for the past 14 centuries, nor to the eliminationist threat some Muslims (including some Palestinians) still intend today, nor to the eliminationist past (such collaboration in the Shoah). Every minority in every country will endure some indignities. It is absurd (and indeed anti-Semitic) to expect perfection of Jews, and Jews only. Why does the Israeli government allow the argument for a unified Jerusalem to be mistaken for the heartless revanchism of these settlers? Heartless revanchism? What does Wieseltier know of heartless revanchism? Heartless revanchism would be - de jure formally relegating the Arab on that sole basis to subordinate legal status, a reverse dhimmitude - forced conversion to Judaism of Muslim orphans - a systematic pogrom or farhud whenever one or another Arab deigned to rise above his station, such as aspiring to a seat on the Supreme Court or in the Knesset - requiring that Muslim schools be headed by a Jew, the inverse of Iran or Turkey - requiring Arabs to step off the pavement when a Jew passes - blood libel trials of Arabs - designation of the Arab as inherently unclean to contact Jewish food, the inverse of Yemen - forcing the Muslim to wear identifying, humiliating clothing - murder or religious edicts to murder any Muslim who "insults" Judaism - declarations of intent to eliminate Muslims world-wide. religious militants boorishly sang a song of praise to the memory of Baruch Goldstein So far as I know, singing a song, no matter how poor the taste, is not criminal. Indeed, there are millions of Jews who would have thanked God had the worst Islam (and Christianity) done to them, were the occasional boorish song. The anti-Semitism of Wieseltier's article is the same as that expressed by those of the Islamist-leftist alliance who compare modern "Islamophobia" in western Europe to the treatment of Jews in Germany; it is such a gross distortion of proportion as to figuratively piss on the memory of the many Jews murdered by Muslim and Christian mobs. Noga, I am familiar with the Jewish Refugees blog. Wieseltier ought to spend more time reading it.

- TNR.Reader

March 24, 2010 at 11:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

TNR Readrer you have exhausted my interest and my patience. You have merely "doubled down" on what you said before and I see nothing productive in essentially repeating myself. Believe what you want including that Wiesltier has written an anti Semitic screed. But great defence of the singers of the song praising Baruch Goldman, btw. Your rabidity is showing. Enough I say!

- basman

March 25, 2010 at 1:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"... praising Baruch Goldman, btw. " It's Baruch Goldstein. basman, I air my intuitive understandings here based on my personal encounters and experience. I am very interested in your lawyerly logic but that type of thinking often falls short of covering all aspects of the human mind. There is little doubt in my mind that Wieseltier's piece here appeals to those who had not words enough to pillory him for his Sullivan piece. That bothers me. In the story W. tells opens with Jews urinating on Palestinians, followed by a tale of a very virtuous Palestinian who has a letter attesting to the historical righteousness of his family. Ugly drunk vulgar Jews urinating from high up on noble, long suffering Palestinians. Notice that the virtuous Palestinian is a "little man". People who have very tenuous grasp over the historical facts, the events submereged in that letter of good character, are left with this gist of the story. That's the Palestinian narrative, fully-digested. I stand by what I said about Wieseltier's piece. Of course I cannot prove what his intention was, I doubt he himself is fully aware. But that tone, that selectiveness, that incontinent need to find the most graphic images by which to describe ugly Jews behaving badly, all these suggest the he is writing a defensive piece here. And who is he defending himself against?

- noga1

March 25, 2010 at 9:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So, according to TNR.reader, gross injustice to Jewish people by other people elsewhere (even on other continents), entitles people to mistreat Palestinians in less severe ways, even when the Palestinians so mistreated had nothing to do with the afore-mentioned injustices. So, whoever has suffered the most as a group historically, every other injustice must simply be ignored out of respect?

- miceelf

March 25, 2010 at 9:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is why I subscribe to TNR. Thank you for this. I don't know if Wieseltier reads the online comments on his articles (I'd be astounded if he did), but I'd be curious to see him address the people calling him a leftist anti-Semite for writing this in his next piece.

- ClumsyMohel

March 25, 2010 at 9:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Has anyone called W. "a leftist anti-Semite"? It appears that you are the one labeling things and people, somewhat rashly. Out of curiosity, were you just as pleased with W's piece about Sullivan?

- noga1

March 25, 2010 at 10:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Who is he defending himself against, noga? Any decent human being would have to start by at least be defending himself against the likes of you. You grow more repellent every time you open your mouth. There are people here who have generally been on the same side of the issues as you and have taken you seriously. I don't think they will be paying that sort of attention to you any longer. Your viciousness is too plain. You are the proverbial trapped wolf, belatedly realizing that your own mistakes (imputing to you the mistakes of the Israeli right-wing of which you are a vocal supporter) have led you into a dead-end from which you, meaning Israel, cannot escape without taking losses you don't want to accept. It is a pity. But messianism doesn't deal with reality, and reality always has its way in the end. In your agony, you cannot abide even an expression of shared humanity with Palestinians subjected to disgraceful treatment by Jews. How ugly.

- roidubouloi

March 25, 2010 at 10:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

yes roid, God forbid a writer showing the full breadth of Jewish humanity, warts and all, and incidentally, in so doing prove the essential moral superiority of Jewish thought and tradition. And yes, I mean moral superiority. (I am not Jewish so I get to say this, ha).

- blackton

March 25, 2010 at 11:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Blackton, In the period of the founding of Zionism, when Herzl was making the case that Jews, to have the dignity and safety of other peoples, needed to become like all other nations in having a state of their own, there were Jewish thinkers who wrote critically and warned that, if the Jews became like all other nations in this way, they would inevitably become like all other nations in all of their bad aspects too. I don't think we are there yet, but I do think that this Jewish criticism of the core idea of Zionism is something that we need to take seriously and keep present in front of us. There was a lot of wisdom in it, even if I believe, as I do, that Herzl was more right than wrong.

- roidubouloi

March 25, 2010 at 11:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

People who think that Leon is pondering to the left should listen to his lectures here: http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/wieseltier-vs-the-new-atheists You need to hear the whole thing to get a sense of what he is saying.

- jdyer

March 25, 2010 at 11:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I find the idea that Israel or the Jewish people need to be morally superior in order to survive repellant even if many Orthodox and even non religious Jews (for their own political reasons) believe that. It’s a notion that dehumanizes Jews and holds them to a standard that no one believes in, especially in our age of irony and cynicism. Moreover, many nations going back to antiquity have seen themselves as a kind of “light” or civilizing agent. The ancient Greek Alexander wanted to conquer the world in order to spread a superior Greek culture. So did the Romans and the world religions of Christianity and Islam. In the modern period, since the French revolution every tawdry band of revolutionaries has tried to spread the virtues of world revolution to the benighted working classes and masses. Moreover, countries like France and Great Britain justified their imperial ambitions by spreading “enlightenment” to the rest of the world. The peoples of the world don’t need to be enlightened, liberated, or made equal to everyone else. I despise the messianisms (religious and secular) of the right and of the left. Jews need to see themselves as merely human beings with a right to live in peace in their own country and not be held to a higher or lower standard. Wieseltier, article (while I agree with his criticism of the unseemly behavior of some of the settlers) unfortunately tries to hold the Jews to a higher standard. This isn’t helpful. Jews are just human being and will do as good and as bad human being do. Here he is merely whistletiering in the dark. It is true, though, that the settlers on the West bank are diminishing not enhancing the Jewish State with their impossible claims and their un-neighborly behavior towards the Palestinians there.

- jdyer

March 25, 2010 at 11:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"... the idea that Israel or the Jewish people need to be morally superior in order to survive" Philosemitism is but the obverse side of antisemitism. Great antisemites started as philosemites and then when they found that Jews are just as prone to the usual human feebleness as any other, they were so disgusted that they needed to punish Jews for this effrontery by piling upon them their deepest hatred. They probably never realize at what point they cross that Rubicon. roi: inadvertently, you have revealed yourself to be a dogmatic dangerous thinker when you said this: "your own mistakes (imputing to you the mistakes of the Israeli right-wing of which you are a vocal supporter) have led you into a dead-end from which you, meaning Israel" I, meaning Israel? Let's assume for a second that you are correct about me, how do you get from Noga to Israel? How can I be burdened with the (supposed) crimes of Israel? How can Israel be blamed for my own positions? It's pretty impossible to match the levels of your vituperation and sheer slander. If you were to stand before a crowd with this kind of inciting rhetoric, there is no telling where it might lead to. You are a scary person, roi. But I think you know that. People who claim the capacity for "shared humanity with Palestinians subjected to disgraceful treatment by Jews" do not go on to dehumanize others with such vicious animalism as you regularly do.

- noga1

March 25, 2010 at 12:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jackson, The moral behavior of much of humanity is not of the highest. We have the obligation to hold ourselves to a higher standard, as does everyone, odd as that may seem. Americans too aspire to hold themselves to a higher standard in human affairs, although the standard is often not met. That doesn't mean you abandon the aspiration. Nor does it mean that meeting that standard is a condition of the right enjoyed by everyone to live in peace. We should be willing to deplore bad behavior by our own without having constantly to inquire whether someone, somewhere isn't doing something even worse. It makes no sense to insist that on any given day we must find, deplore, and eliminate the worst behavior in the world before we can take notice of anything else. When the criticism is self-criticism, it is particularly worthy as it is difficult to impute a self-serving motivation to the criticism.

- roidubouloi

March 25, 2010 at 12:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As ever, noga, having nothing worthy to say, you manage to make argument with customary usage of the English language, even when I insert normally unnecessary parentheticals to signal to you when a word or usage in English is not understood in its most literal sense. And yes, when you personally advocate for a position that is turned into action, you share the responsibility for it and its consequences in the world. You. You yourself. In person. There is a moral responsibility that attaches even to words. Indeed, I would say that, even if you rhetorically embrace deeds after the fact that you had nothing to do with before the fact, you share responsibility for them. Kind of how morality works. It must be unbearable to be you, noga, and have constantly to try and hide one's moral nakedness with such tiny fig leaves.

- roidubouloi

March 25, 2010 at 12:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jews need to see themselves as merely human beings with a right to live in peace in their own country and not be held to a higher or lower standard. Jackson, while I agree with that, and i have long said I long for the day that Israel gets the same news treatment as Denmark does. Let me be clear about my above statement, I don't think Jews are better than anyone else for being Jewish, however I see nothing wrong with learning from the best parts of other cultures and condemning the worst parts. I simply see no value is ascribing relativistic claims that all cultures are equal in moral values when simple observation dictates otherwise. I understand a Jewish person making a claim of moral superiority would elicit from others condemnations of arrogance and pride, so this is why I said as a non Jew I can say this. I am also not saying that all Jewish thought is superior, just that many aspects are, such as the capacity for self examination and criticism (as well as the whole arts and science excellence thing). I also don't hesitate to say I know that Western concepts of Liberty, Justice, Equality are superior to Sharia Law, or utopian idiocies like Communism.

- blackton

March 25, 2010 at 1:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree with Jdyer's posts of 3/25 1:31 and 11:54 except that I read Wieseltier's piece differently and don't think he's trying to hold Jews to a higher standard and don't see what in the text supports that reading of it. My contention is that he expects from Jews behaviour no different than he would expect from others. That expectation does not obviate a plea for, and heart felt appeal, to our common humanity. It was not "incontinent" as such for Wieseltier to briefly depict the urination. That was a self conscious and self assured writing choice. And if I was teaching his piece to a class I would talk about how rivetingly and concretely and heart breakingly Wiesletier developed his theme, how he brought it home to his readers, in contrast to the abstractions of otherness. He shattered otherness.

- basman

March 25, 2010 at 1:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"He shattered otherness." Not the way I see it. I agree that he used highly effective and affective language in describing a moment in time in which, according to his story, the balance of power between oppressor and oppressed was crystallized. Here are the Jews, the oppressors, urinating on Palestinians, the suffering oppressed. And not only are they oppressed but they are also virtuous. And here comes the proof for that virtue: the Palestinian who has a bona fide testimony that his grandfather helped to save a family of Jews. Thereby the outrage W excites is doubled and tripled: The virtuous, oppressed Palestinian contrasted with the ingrate Jew oppressor urinator on other human beings. And the effect of this article is to re enforce the image that these urinators represent all settlers and that settlers are a stand-in for Israel, and by extension, for all Jews. I don't see any shattering of otherness in this piece,. If anything, it contributes its share to the obfuscation of both history and moral principle. History, that hides the extent of the horror of the event that the letter refers to, the massacre of 67 completely innocent Jews, the result of incitement and relentless hammering of hate propaganda. The definitive aspect of that event was not that an Arab gave shelter to a Jewish family. The definitive aspect of the event is the massacre (which btw the Arab world knows nothing about). But you don't get that information in W's piece; you get the impression that this was the norm. Moral principle: that the oppressed should not be urinated upon, not because it is simply wrong to do so, but because they are virtuous. I disagree. It should not matter that those very Palestinians might have celebrated the bombing of buses and pizzerias. It does not matter whether they admired their terrorists or not, as far as their human dignity is concerned. Human beings should not be urinated upon, whatever they feel or think about you and your dead. W seems to believe that Palestinians should not be urinated upon because in the past someone did something to help a Jew. Shattered otherness? I don't think so. "Why does the Israeli government allow the argument for a unified Jerusalem to be mistaken for the heartless revanchism of these settlers?" Does it? Does W think that the Israeli government should arrest those people who were singing their praises to Goldstein? Is this song taught in schools, kindergartens? Is it sung in the media? Is it sung on TV? Is there a public square in Tel Aviv named after Goldstein? Does the government of Israel encourage the cult of Goldstein? W looks at Israel and sees "the drunken disciples of Dr. Goldstein". This is what he reports about it. This is how he contributes his little bit to the entrenchment of Palestinian narrative.

- noga1

March 25, 2010 at 4:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga1 "... the idea that Israel or the Jewish people need to be morally superior in order to survive" “Philosemitism is but the obverse side of antisemitism. Great antisemites started as philosemites and then when they found that Jews are just as prone to the usual human feebleness as any other, they were so disgusted that they needed to punish Jews for this effrontery by piling upon them their deepest hatred. They probably never realize at what point they cross that Rubicon.” Noga, you quoted me out of context to endorse a point I never made. I also don’t think that the “Philosemitism is the obverse of antisemitism” whatever that means to you. In any case the idea that Israel or the Jewish people should be a light unto the nations is what I am arguing against and it is a deeply entrenched Jewish ideal. Btw: why can’t you just come out and condemn the reprehensible behavior of some of the West bank settlers towards their Arab neighbors? Why do you need to come up with ever more refined excuses for them?

- jdyer

March 25, 2010 at 4:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi “Jackson, The moral behavior of much of humanity is not of the highest. We have the obligation to hold ourselves to a higher standard, as does everyone, odd as that may seem. Americans too aspire to hold themselves to a higher standard in human affairs, although the standard is often not met. That doesn't mean you abandon the aspiration. Nor does it mean that meeting that standard is a condition of the right enjoyed by everyone to live in peace.” Well, my point is that many of those countries who hold themselves to a “higher” standard and up both violating it and flagellating themselves over it. Most Western countries have done so; even Germany with its kultur held itself to a higher standard. I would prefer that countries not hold themselves to a higher standard. Just an ordinary standard of decency will suffice, thank you.

- jdyer

March 25, 2010 at 4:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

blackton “Jackson, while I agree with that, and i have long said I long for the day that Israel gets the same news treatment as Denmark does.” Me too, in fact, I’d settle for Israel getting the same treatment as Romania or Poland get.

- jdyer

March 25, 2010 at 5:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

basman “I agree with Jdyer's posts of 3/25 1:31 and 11:54 except that I read Wieseltier's piece differently and don't think he's trying to hold Jews to a higher standard and don't see what in the text supports that reading of it. My contention is that he expects from Jews behaviour no different than he would expect from others. That expectation does not obviate a plea for, and heart felt appeal, to our common humanity.” Try this: “So the dispossession of the El Ghawis is a disgrace. And a Jewish disgrace, because it was Simon the Just, the legendary leader buried in an ancient cave not far from the El Ghawis’ house, who famously taught that one of the things which supports the world in existence is the practice of kindness.” Wieseltier Well, Simon the Just was a saintly, man who did hold Jews to a higher standard. There is no need to appeal to saintly man in order to make the point that one should treat one’s neighbors with kindness.

- jdyer

March 25, 2010 at 5:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga: “W seems to believe that Palestinians should not be urinated upon because in the past someone did something to help a Jew.” Are you serious? Where the hell did Wieseltier say that. Noga?

- jdyer

March 25, 2010 at 5:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Why do you need to come up with ever more refined excuses for them?" Where have I come up with "refined excuses" for settlers who urinate on Palestinians?

- noga1

March 25, 2010 at 5:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Noga, you quoted me out of context to endorse a point I never made." I was referring to the idea that "Israel or the Jewish people need to be morally superior in order to survive", not YOUR idea, obviously.

- noga1

March 25, 2010 at 5:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Are you serious? Where the hell did Wieseltier say that. Noga?" He did not say so. He assembled a whole tale in which this was the thrust of it. Why else would he make this connection between the victims of the urinating settlers and the letter one little Palestinian showed him about a past virtuous deed? If the two incidents are not connected, why juxtapose them? What was the other possible explanation for creating a connection between the two stories? Did he not intend to whip up even greater outrage against the settlers by framing their behaviour within a larger context? And what was the context he chose to highlight? to what purpose? Was it not meant to say that here are these ugly Jews doing this disgraceful thing to Palestinians who were not only innocent but actually unusually virtuous? Isn't he endorsing the fallacy of the superior virtue of the oppressed in this tale of his?

- noga1

March 25, 2010 at 5:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

At this moment, Israel is in crisis and its surival at stake, partially due to the intent of the Obama administration. Whether in deliberation or in naïveté, the Obama administration is: - blaming Israel for the death of US forces - forcing the declaration of a Palestinian state which will become the launch-pad for an Iranian-managed militia - depriving Israel of its millennia-old capital - in an example of pure neo-colonialism, interfering in Israel's democracy to effect "regime change" - elevatng the OIC to ambassador-level relations - admitting terrorsymps like Ramadan to the USA - opening the floodgates for demonisation of Israel by the entire planet, starting with the Quartet - doing lttle more than appease the genocidal neo-imperialists of Tehran - encouraging Palestinian intransigeance (including the synagogue riots). Yet, what does Wieseltier serve up? "Look how mean a few dastardly haredim are to the poor Arabs, humiliating them like that." Thus, after a day of thought, I must conclude that Noga is right; Wieseltier is just buffing his good-Jew credentials. Unlike the gentile Jackson Diehl: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/03/obama_and_netanyahu_pointless.html

- TNR.Reader

March 25, 2010 at 5:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga1 ""Are you serious? Where the hell did Wieseltier say that. Noga?" He did not say so. He assembled a whole tale in which this was the thrust of it. Why else would he make this connection between the victims of the urinating settlers and the letter one little Palestinian showed him about a past virtuous deed?" Noga, you seem to have a never ending contempt for the Arabs on the West bank. Phrases like "one little Palestinian" and "past virtuous deed" makes this obvious. Does saving people from murderous mobs constitute merely a "past virtuous deed?" Is there a statute of limitations on such deeds? Your final paragraph is amazing for the ugliness of its tone, not to mention its illogicality. “Was it not meant to say that here are these ugly Jews doing this disgraceful thing to Palestinians who were not only innocent but actually unusually virtuous? Isn't he endorsing the fallacy of the superior virtue of the oppressed in this tale of his?” According to you no people can complain about being abused because that would make them “superior in virtue” to the abusers. And since when is being urinated upon (I noticed that you didn’t contest the veracity of the claim) not an egregious act of oppression since the people so treated could not defend themselves? Your denial of the obvious is leading you to manufacture ever greater logical contortions. Again, why can’t you just condemn this inhuman cruelty?

- jdyer

March 25, 2010 at 5:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

me: "Are you serious? Where the hell did Wieseltier say that. Noga?" 'He did not say so. He assembled a whole tale in which this was the thrust of it. Why else would he make this connection between the victims of the urinating settlers and the letter one little Palestinian showed him about a past virtuous deed?' Noga Noga, you seem to have a never ending contempt for the Arabs on the West bank. Phrases like "one little Palestinian" and "past virtuous deed" makes this obvious. Does saving people from murderous mobs constitute merely a "past virtuous deed?" Is there a statute of limitations on such deeds? Your final paragraph is amazing for the ugliness of its tone, not to mention its illogicality. “Was it not meant to say that here are these ugly Jews doing this disgraceful thing to Palestinians who were not only innocent but actually unusually virtuous? Isn't he endorsing the fallacy of the superior virtue of the oppressed in this tale of his?” According to you no people can complain about being abused because that would make them “superior in virtue” to the abusers. And since when is being urinated upon (I noticed that you didn’t contest the veracity of the claim) not an egregious act of oppression since the people so treated could not defend themselves? Your denial of the obvious is leading you to manufacture ever greater logical contortions. Again, why can’t you just condemn this offensive act of cruelty by some drunken settlers?

- jdyer

March 25, 2010 at 5:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"one little Palestinian" is how W described the letter holder. _________________ "“Was it not meant to say that here are these ugly Jews doing this disgraceful thing to Palestinians who were not only innocent but actually unusually virtuous? Isn't he endorsing the fallacy of the superior virtue of the oppressed in this tale of his?” According to you no people can complain about being abused because that would make them “superior in virtue” to the abusers." Had you taken the trouble to read my comments carefully you would have found that I'm actually saying the very opposite of what I suspect W is trying to say. That the oppressed should not be oppressed even if they do not have superior virtue. The oppressed deserved to be unoppressed by virtue of the fact that they are oppressed. Which is why I invoked Bertrand Russell's unpopular essay. Is it possible that you are unfamiliar with it? I take exception to your ugly characterization of my comments before you even make an effort to understand them. I detest mob mentality. ____________ I try to keep sentimentality and bathetic outpouring for the suffering of Palestinians out of my comments. Palestinians enjoy the sympathy of 1.4 billion Muslims and most of Americans and Europeans. They could also stop all their suffering tomorrow if they agreed to some very simple principles: they should stop inciting to kill Israelis, they should stop wanting to kill Israelis, they should stop working for the destruction of Israel. They should learn that compromise is not a dirty word and not a blasphemy. I don't feel the need to prove my credentials as a peace loving person by avowing my sympathy for Palestinians. It is enough that I want them to have what they claim they want short of my country committing suicide for them. It is their choice.

- noga1

March 25, 2010 at 6:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Whether in deliberation or in naïveté, the Obama administration is: - blaming Israel for the death of US forces" At least General Petraeus has provided a clarification on this accusation: "Bravo to Philip Klein for giving General David Petraeus the opportunity to clarify the following: one, he never requested that the West Bank and Gaza be added to his remit as Commander of CENTCOM, which includes Afghanistan and Iraq. Two, the perceived pro-Israel slant of US Middle East policy is just one of many strategic factors, and not the only one, which he has to take into consideration (the other factors include, Petraeus said, “a whole bunch of extremist organizations, some of which by the way deny Israel’s right to exist. There’s a country that has a nuclear program who denies that the Holocaust took place.”) Three, that he never made the statement, widely attributed to him, that US policy endangers the lives of American soldiers under his command (“There is no mention of lives anywhere in there. I actually reread the statement. It doesn’t say that at all.”) Of all the distortions of Petraeus’s recent testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, none is more malicious than the linkage of slain American troops to alleged Israeli intransigence. Iranian interference in Afghanistan and Iraq is a clear and present danger, yet invariably ignored by the “Israel Lobby” theorists, simply because it doesn’t fit their twisted narrative. Thankfully, General Petraeus is paying attention. Petraeus’s latest remarks, delivered yesterday at a press briefing in New Hampshire, make a number of commentators look extremely foolish. Among them: the idiotic Philip Weiss, who claimed that Petraeus was effectively endorsing the Mearsheimer/Walt version of how US foreign policy is made; Mearsheimer himself; Robert Wright, whom the New York Times provided with a platform to say that “Biden and Petraeus are right: America’s perceived support of — or at least acquiescence in — Israel’s more inflammatory policies endangers American troops abroad;” Jake Tapper of ABC News, who eleven days ago yelled the question, “does the intransigence of the Israeli government on the housing issue, yes or no, does it put U.S. troops lives at risk?” into the face of a rather worried-looking David Axelrod; and, of course, Hezbollah apologist Mark Perry, whose breathlessly excited piece for Foreign Policy’s blog, subsequently littered with clarifications, started this nonsense in the first place. Gentlemen, in case you didn’t hear the General, here he is again: “There is no mention of lives anywhere in there. I actually reread the statement. It doesn’t say that at all.” Your elucidations were, the General said, “based on ‘bad gouges,’ as a sailor would say — bad information.” http://blog.z-word.com/2010/03/what-petraeus-really-said-about-israel/

- noga1

March 25, 2010 at 6:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

West Bank settlement is a colonial enterprise, a form of colonization. It cannot be anything else regardless of the status of Israel's claims because Israel settles the territory without according full political rights to the inhabitants and while maintaining separate legal and political systems for the colonized and the colonizers. The claim that it is the "fault" of the Palestinians for continuing violent resistance and not making peace is a falsehood. When, for a relatively brief time after Oslo, there we peace, quiet, and significant commerce between the West Bank and Israel, the colonization did not stop, it was not suspended. As well, any claim that being colonized is condign punishment for violence does not bear up under international law. Israel is entitled to administer the territories in the absence of a local government with which it can conclude a durable peace. It is entitled to take such measures as are rationally related to its own security. It could probably take measures that are designed to mitigate the cost to it of that security. It is not entitled to do more than this, including measures that serve to stifle economic life. International law is not ambiguous in this regard. if Israel incorporated the territories, it would have a colorable claim of being entitled to do so on the grounds that the territory was "unallocated," not belonging to any state, that it had secured the territory by chance of defensive war (aggressive war being illegal), and that it had long historical claims to the territory in any case. While one can doubt that the world would accept this, the status of such claims would not be different than the claims upon which many borders in the world are based. However, to do this, Israel would have to accord the inhabitants political rights, which it cannot do for demographic reasons. Otherwise, it would be guilty of the crime of apartheid. So, to avoid committing apartheid, Israel refrains from incorporating the territories. But if it doesn't incorporate them, it is transferring its population to occupied territory. The matter is actually so legally straightforward, one wonders why anyone bothers to argue. That it is possible the Palestinians could put an end to the colonial enterprise by desisting from violence does not legitimize it. Colonization is not acceptable "punishment" for violence. And while Israelis can insist that colonization is not an obstacle to peace, no one in the world believes this because colonization has everywhere and at all times been a cause of war, often genocidal war. No people is willingly colonized. None are willingly conquered either, but conquests that lead to full incorporation generally stick. The European settlers in America are still there, the Australians, the Chinese in Tibet, the examples are legion. In contrast, almost all vestiges of colonialism proper have been undone. The only thing that has enabled Israel to succeed thus far is the ineptitude of the Palestinians. I can think of at least two ways in which they could relatively quickly break Israeli control over the West Bank and quite possibly Jerusalem as well. One would be to declare a state that completely forswears violence but lays claim to all of the territory east of the Green Line, to be reclaimed by exclusively peaceful means as conditions allow. I think that within a relatively short time, Israel would be forced to withdraw. A shorter more effective route would be to declare the willingness to conclude a final peace that required that Palestinians to forgo all claims west of the Green Line and the Isrealis east of the Green Line. The Palestinians could offer to permit any Israelis settled east of the Green Line to remain and become citizens of Palestine provided that an equal number of Palestinian who had formally lived in Israel or their descendents were permitted to emigrate to Israel and become full citizens there. If Israel refused, on what basis could it possibly claim only to want peace? The Saudi peace plan was just a political ploy, never meant to be accepted because it was perfectly clear that a Palestinian right of return was impossible. That would not be a two-state solution at all. But if the Arabs really did offer a two-state solution, declining however to surrender any claim to territory east of the Green Line, they would succeed, sooner rather than later. * * * That colonization produces the sort of disgraceful behavior that Wieseltier describes is only to be expected. This is what colonization always produces because it requires the colonizers to regard the colonized as lesser human beings. Otherwise, they couldn't do it.

- roidubouloi

March 25, 2010 at 7:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Following a Press Conference this morning with Defense Secretary Gates, Spencer Ackerman wrote: -- Asked by Yochi Dreazen of The Wall Street Journal at a press conference this morning to address Gen. David Petraeus’ recent testimony that the Israel-Palestinian conflict’s persistence “foments anti-American sentiment,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that he didn’t know if it had a “direct” influence on U.S. security, but “the lack of progress toward Middle East peace clearly is an issue that is exploited by our adversaries in the region, and is a source of, certainly, political challenges.” There’s “no question,” Gates said, that the “absence of Middle East peace” impacts U.S. interests in the region. (my emphasis) http://washingtonindependent.com/80423/so-when-will-abe-foxman-go-after-secretary-gates This is, of course, all so obvious that its denial is a lie.

- ndmackenzie

March 25, 2010 at 7:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, as my high school English once signed in my yearbook, "nil carborundum illegitemi". I find your postings to be refreshingly sane and insightful, in addition to being informative and occasionally quite funny. I hope you won't become discouraged from posting here by the ranting and posturing of the dogmatists who are so enamoured of their positions that they become vile and nasty in their defense.

- willjames77

March 25, 2010 at 7:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga1 “"one little Palestinian" is how W described the letter holder.” Did he? Here is what Wieseltier said about him in full: “It was there that the little man rose to express his grievance. To demonstrate the ugliness of what was done to him, he read from an old letter written in Hebrew on the stationery of a metalworking company in Jerusalem. It stated (this is my translation): “To Whom It May Concern: I the undersigned, Moses Joseph ben Jacob Ezra, born in Hebron, hereby declare that the family of Rajib Hassan Al Badr, with whom we lived in the same quarter in Hebron, protected my family in [the riots of] 1929 and again in [the riots of] 1936, and until 1947, while we were still in Hebron, we enjoyed good neighborly relations and constant protection by the Al Badr family generally. I would be deeply grateful for any human assistance that might be extended to them.” So it was the scion of that good and brave family whom the yarmulked hooligans had soiled.” The rest of what you said is beside the point. The fact that the Palestinians enjoy the sympathy of billions of people is not relevant to what W described here. It should be condemned on its own terms. Your inability to understand this is the sign of a callous mind.

- jdyer

March 25, 2010 at 7:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, well, the antisemitc ndmackenzie had to make an appearance. He is one of the posters that makes one sympathize with the settlers.

- jdyer

March 25, 2010 at 7:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

hear hear jackson. Noga, when in a hole, stop digging. You honestly can't believe this: "I agree that he used highly effective and affective language in describing a moment in time in which, according to his story, the balance of power between oppressor and oppressed was crystallized. Here are the Jews, the oppressors, urinating on Palestinians, the suffering oppressed. And not only are they oppressed but they are also virtuous. And here comes the proof for that virtue: the Palestinian who has a bona fide testimony that his grandfather helped to save a family of Jews. Thereby the outrage W excites is doubled and tripled: The virtuous, oppressed Palestinian contrasted with the ingrate Jew oppressor urinator on other human beings. And the effect of this article is to re enforce the image that these urinators represent all settlers and that settlers are a stand-in for Israel, and by extension, for all Jews." This has to be satire. Do you honestly believe that upon reading that I now believe that all Jews urinate on all Arabs? This leap of illogic literally is amazing. It is almost brilliant in its abstruseness, it is literally unfathomable to me how you arrived at that conclusion.

- blackton

March 25, 2010 at 7:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JD: I answered your accusations in good faith and point by point. I cannot do better than I have done. If you insist on reading my comments in the spirit of a lynching mob, there is nothing I can do to change that. Nor do I have any interest in even trying. willjames77: I appreciate the kind words.

- noga1

March 25, 2010 at 7:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Blackton: My impression is that you are a very impressionable fellow (not that there is anything wrong with that). And that eventually the lingering impression from this article in your memory will be just that: a bunch of Jews urinating on Palestinians. I'll be happy to be disabused of this impression but alas, I fear not. Let's just wait a while and see. OK?

- noga1

March 25, 2010 at 7:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"He is one of the posters that makes one sympathize with the settlers." What do you mean by "the settlers", JD? Which settlers? You mean those who have been living for the past 35 years in French Hill, Ramot, Ramot Eshkol, Gilo, East Talpiot, thinking they were residing in Jerusalem? Is there any reason why you wouldn't sympathize with them, if President Obama plans for them to be displaced to non-Judenrein territories?

- noga1

March 25, 2010 at 8:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

yes, noga, you are right, I am impressionable, I am often accused here of not thinking for myself or having my own opinion. Look, I am certainly happy to be admit I can be a jackass but if I were impressionable I doubt I would have ever come to TNR, much less pay the subscription fees, since, and we all admit, the general worldwide media bias is against Israel, especially so in the third world (where I have long lived). Many expats I have known in China were virulent in their anti-Israel bias, so I managed to survive that unscathed. I am sure I can survive Leon.

- blackton

March 25, 2010 at 9:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Whatever those anti-Israel ex-pats said, blackton, I'm sure none of them had Wieseltier's facility with words and creating images. I'm not saying his impact is deadly but this article could be a nice addition to a blog like Electronic Intifada.

- noga1

March 25, 2010 at 9:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga wrote, They should learn that compromise is not a dirty word and not a blasphemy. Amen. Even some Sunni are telling the Palestinians that: http://www.nysun.com/article/35606 How unfortunate that Obama should come along now to signal the Palestinians they need not compromise, nor even engage in direct talks. The cause of peace has been set back decades.

- TNR.Reader

March 25, 2010 at 10:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't read Obama signaling to the Palestinians that they need not compromise. Not in the slightest. I read him signaling that, if they are willing to compromise, they can achieve their goals in substantial measure and the US will help them do it. There is no reason whatsoever for the US to encourage intransigence on either side. Its principal interest is in seeing a formally final settlement. It has not a lot of interest in the structure of that settlement as long as it is accepted by the parties, and it is willing to exert pressure to achieve that end. Incredible that anyone would even think to question the propriety of calling attention to offensive behavior by Jews merely because it does not advance the party line of the Likud. But then, the right always criticizes criticism of the nation as unpatriotic and a threat to peace during right-wing government while freely engaging in it during left-wing government. Both here and there. In the US, the right-wing government was constantly lambasting critics of torture as jeopardizing the lives of Americans. This is classic right-wing propaganda that all decent people should ignore. The proper and decent thing to do when confronted with an article like Wieseltier's is publicly to deplore the bad behavior. It does not represent all settlers, all Jews, or all anything. A good lesson. Just as those who are violent in the Palestinian cause don't represent all Palestinians. But, the more the criticism of the abhorrent behavior is itself criticized by Israelis -- both an oblique and explicit way of minimizing the bad conduct -- the more an objective observer might believe that it does in fact represent the attitudes of Israelis in general. Is it worse than killing people? Yes and no. All combatants justify killing as necessary to achieve what they regard as a just cause. The humiliation of pissing on people is completely gratuitous. Even if one believes in the justice of a cause, there is nothing that can be served by it other than the expression of utter contempt. Do people respond with violence when they are treated with utter contempt by those in power? All the time if they have the means to do so. Contempt for the colonized is a constant feature of human experience. The Jews have often been the targets of such contempt. One would think for that reason alone it would simply be deplored, and stop there.

- roidubouloi

March 25, 2010 at 11:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The rage, the fury, Noga. You know, spittle isn't good for the computer screen. So for Noga, it's all about propaganda. Let's not let the truth out that some settlers are beneath contempt. No, that would destroy her victim narrative. You and Herr Goebbels, both. You yourself are beneath contempt. You want the world to treat Israelis without double standards, and yet look at the double standard you set up. Of course, it could just be your Aspi-ness getting in the way. Shades of gray are just incomprehensible by your kind.

- MOLLYSIMON

March 25, 2010 at 11:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How, jackson, do we make moral progress if we are to consider the general behavior of humanity per se the definition of good enough?

- roidubouloi

March 25, 2010 at 11:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi "How, jackson, do we make moral progress if we are to consider the general behavior of humanity per se the definition of good enough?" Good question. Here is another: Do you really believe there is such a thing as "moral progress?" How far have we progressed morally since the cave days? All we done is find more subtle ways of blaming others and ourselves (if you are a good liberal). Ask Bosnians or Gypsies about moral progress in Europe since WW2? Let’s not look for ideal standards that we can’t honor. Let’s just make humane and practical laws and live by them honestly.

- jdyer

March 25, 2010 at 11:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For the record and to counter mackenzie’s obscene and libelous post: Here: “Petraeus to Ashkenazi: I never said Israel policy endangers U.S.” http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1159165.html and here: “The Lies About General Petraeus About Israel” http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-spine/the-lies-about-general-petraeus-about-israel

- jdyer

March 25, 2010 at 11:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jack, thanks for responding. And Noga you as well, and this is by way of response to you as well. I don’t see how quoting Simon the Just’s cardinal and universal injunction to practice kindness—“which supports the world”—goes to a reading of this piece as urging a higher standard of behavior on Jews. As a Jew himself, Wieseltier lends his writing resonance by laying down the bitter irony of the disgraceful dispossession occurring in the mytho-historical shadow of Simon the Just who taught so much better. I can’t see how the laying down of that resonance sets out a higher standard of conduct for Jews. Where they act objectionably or horribly, they act objectionably or horribly. But the conduct Wieseltier particularizes is of a piece with the Settler Messianism he laments and cries out against. That Messianism, Wieseltier is saying is a particular and tragic making Israeli burden that will need to be surmounted for any possibility of a two state solution. There is in this no particular demand of Jews not demanded of the Palestinians. The moral and overarching –and implicitly geopolitical—analysis and prescription is even handed: ....The dream of reversing history has been a cause of both greatness and depravity. It is right for people not to acquiesce in their own wretchedness, to reject all the quietisms and the fatalisms that teach them to do nothing for themselves. Zionism owed its moral and historical force in large measure to its refusal to accept the irreversibility of Jewish exile, and its attendant misery; and the national self-reliance now exemplified for the Palestinians by Salam Fayyad--in a culture of jusqu’au-boutisme, the technocrat is the revolutionary--represents a similar refusal of historical passivity... ...The idea of beginning again is often a savage idea. Since the Palestinian right of return, and its premise that restoration is preferable to reconciliation, would undo the Jewish state, Israel is right to deny it. But if, in the name of moral realism, and so that they do not delude themselves with catastrophic fantasies of starting over, Palestinians are not to be granted a right to return to what was theirs before 1948, then neither should such a right be granted to Jews... One focus of his piece is this: ...But the lunatic Jews who insist that a Jew must live anywhere a Jew ever lived do not see that they, too, are re-opening 1948 and the legitimacy of what it established. Why does the Israeli government allow the argument for a unified Jerusalem to be mistaken for the heartless revanchism of these settlers... So as I say, I don’t understand a higher standard of conduct being set for Jews in any of this. For any resolution that might come by way of a two state solution Israel, and therefore Israelis, Wieseltier says, will need to come to terms with both Palestinian peoplehood and statehood. Do you think he is any less conscious of, or demanding of, what Palestinians must do, and come to understand, for any possibility of that resolution? What he does, I suggest (writing as a Jew, for an enlightened audience, made up not insignificantly of Jewish readership) in setting out the loutish, vulgar and unjust behavior he describes is to lay a heartfelt, heart breaking and vivid predicate on the Israeli side for his plea. Jews and Palestinians, he says, if they are ever to live in peace will necessarily bear inextricabilities. In that their common humanity must compel their mutual respect. In this, there is no assertion, I argue, of a higher standard of conduct. If there is what is it? If it’s present in what Wieseltier has written it eludes me. Finally, for me, Wieseltier is speaking obviously of something more profound than treating one’s neighbors with kindness—though he is surely saying that. He is indentifying the common humanity, the predominance of the other’s humaness over their otherness, as the true meaning and basis of that kindness. After all, piss on a man, you eviscerate his humanity. Stand up for a man so pissed on, who with his family once gave you and your family life and succor, you in action help revivify his humanity, as in action you personify the common humanity exemplified in kindness, just as “kind” itself means “class or type of people or things having similar characteristics”. No?

- basman

March 25, 2010 at 11:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Check this out Roi: "Planet Violence" http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2010/03/planet-violence.html

- jdyer

March 25, 2010 at 11:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

p.s. I apologize for not having read the posts that followed Noga's and Jack's to me. So if my post is out of context with further argument on this thread, that is the reason.

- basman

March 26, 2010 at 12:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Let’s not look for ideal standards that we can’t honor. Let’s just make humane and practical laws and live by them honestly." This alone represents moral progress, jackson. We are not very far removed from a time when slavery was considered a perfectly normal state of affairs and those with power, such has nobles, had a pretty unrestrained right to dispose of the people who were "theirs." Indeed, only in the 20th century did war come to be seen as no longer something that states could legitimately engage in just because they thought there was some gain in it. So, yes, we do make progress, although it is fitful. I do not suggest that what we ought to aspire to is sainthood, but that the general level of behavior does not represent our best, even well short of sainthood. We can aspire to be better than the mediocre and so to lift expectations of how everyone can and should behave, not as a reproach to others but as an example and as the fulfilling of one's own responsibilities regardless of the conduct of others. Surely, this is an enormous portion of what Jewish thought is about. I don't think it was ever the Zionist aspiration to abandon Judaism in the course of winning a state. I'm not impressed much by that link. There are occasions when it is appropriate to call attention to hypocrisy, but that is not every occasion. If we have to catalog all the hypocrisies every time we want to discuss a moral issue, we can never discuss anything as there is not enough time.

- roidubouloi

March 26, 2010 at 12:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The following description of the #1 challenge to security and stability in the CentCom area comes directly from the prepared remarks by General Petreaus to the Senate Armed Services Committee. Enjoy. -- Insufficient progress toward a comprehensive Middle East peace. The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR. Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas. http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2010/03%20March/Petraeus%2003-16-10.pdf Whatever jdyer, TNRs resident (Zio-)Nazi, may think it is neither obscene nor libelous to quote either Secretary Gates or General Petreaus.

- ndmackenzie

March 26, 2010 at 4:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi "Let’s not look for ideal standards that we can’t honor. Let’s just make humane and practical laws and live by them honestly." “This alone represents moral progress, jackson. We are not very far removed from a time when slavery was considered a perfectly normal state of affairs and those with power, such has nobles, had a pretty unrestrained right to dispose of the people who were "theirs." Indeed, only in the 20th century did war come to be seen as no longer something that states could legitimately engage in just because they thought there was some gain in it. So, yes, we do make progress, although it is fitful. I do not suggest that what we ought to aspire to is sainthood, but that t ... view full comment.” What you describe isn’t moral progress. The end of slavery came about for many reasons, but mainly it had to do with changes in economic life. In the late Middle Ages the British abolished serfdom (which entailed certain obligations of the lord to the serfs) and set them adrift. In the US slavery was being questioned already during the revolutionary struggles against England. Later on it was seen by many observers as inefficient. De Tocqueville for one has some pretty strong pages on the industriousness of Northern free farmers compared to the laziness of southern farmers. In any case, it wasn’t moral considerations that led to the abolition of slavery. It was practical (economic) and political considerations which was responsible. Even the slaveholders never said they were fighting for slavery but rather for their “rights” (states rights, personal rights to property, etc.) Moreover the abolition of the economic condition of the slave society in the south didn’t lead to immediate betterment of the lives of these former slaves. Many slaves didn’t see this as a moral advance. In Europe at the same time Jews were being liberated from the Ghettoes and given civil rights in one generation only to be taken away again in the next generation. And don’t get me started about Russia with its abolition of serfdom which wasn’t even seen by serfs as a moral advance. As for the notion that “states could (not) legitimately engage in just because they thought there was some gain in it” that was the result of an exhausting and murderous war and the fear of nuclear annihilation. This didn’t stop a Bosnia nor would I be all that sanguine about the future of war even in Europe. States may not declare war on each other but peoples may and probably will given the right economic conditions. I don’t see moral progress here, merely a change in the economic fortunes of large numbers of people. Let’s hope economies recover and that people all over the globe keep making economic progress.

- jdyer

March 26, 2010 at 7:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Whatever jdyer, TNRs resident (Zio-)Nazi, may think it is neither obscene nor libelous to quote either Secretary Gates or General Petreaus." mackenzie the resdient Nazi can't even write an honest sentence. What a liar he is. Here is a completer statemtent of the obstacles to peace as the general sees it: "Insufficient progress toward a comprehensive Middle East peace. The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR. Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas. • Militant Islamist movements. The CENTCOM AOR is home to militant Islamist movements that threaten states in the region, exploit local conflicts, and foster instability through acts of terrorism. The most significant of these is al-Qaeda, which, along with its Associated Movements, seeks to impose its 12 intolerant ideology on the people through indiscriminant violence and intimidation. Although cooperative counterterrorist activities in many different countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Pakistan, over the past few years have eroded the network’s support and safe haven and degraded the network’s capabilities in many ways, al-Qaeda continues to plan and conduct operations and recruit new fighters. It remains a serious and formidable threat. • Proliferation of WMD. The AOR contains states and terrorist organizations that actively seek WMD capabilities and have previously proliferated WMD related material, technology, and expertise outside established international monitoring regimes. In addition, regional states are increasingly interested in the development of nuclear programs, which, if not properly managed, could lead to the proliferation of illicit nuclear material or a regional arms race. • Ungoverned, poorly governed, and alternatively governed spaces. Weak civil and security institutions and the inability of certain governments in the region to exert full control over their territories are conditions that insurgent groups can exploit to create physical safe havens in which they can plan, train for, and launch operations or pursue narco-criminal activities. We have seen these groups develop, or attempt to develop, what might be termed sub-states, particularly in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, and the Palestinian territories. 13 • Significant sources of terrorist financing and facilitation. The AOR remains a primary source of illicit funding and facilitation for global terrorist organizations and other militant groups. All this financing is transmitted through a variety of formal and informal networks, which include financial operatives and front companies throughout the region. • Piracy. The lack of governance in Somalia has allowed piracy to grow off the coast and in the Horn of Africa threatening the flow of commerce through the region. Since the spike in piracy in 2008, we have worked in close cooperation with the international community to counter this trend by focusing on increasing international presence, encouraging the shipping industry to adopt best practices to defend against piracy, and establishing a sound international legal framework for resolving piracy cases. Despite some reduction in the number of successful pirate attacks in the region, piracy remains lucrative – increasingly so, as the ransom rates have nearly doubled over the previous year’s – and pirates continue to modify their area of operations and techniques to avoid coalition presence. • Ethnic, tribal, and sectarian rivalries. Within certain countries, the politicization of ethnicity, tribal affiliation, and religious sect serves to disrupt the development of national civil institutions and social cohesion, at times to the point of violence. Between countries in the region, such rivalries can heighten political tension and serve as catalysts for conflict and insurgency. 14 • Disputed territories and access to vital resources. Unresolved issues of disputed territorial boundaries and disagreements over the sharing of vital resources, such as water, oil, and natural gas, serve as sources of tension and conflict between and within states in the region. • Criminal activities, such as weapons, narcotics, and human trafficking. Weapons smuggling, narcotics trafficking, and associated criminal activities undermine security, spur corruption, and inhibit legitimate economic activity and good governance throughout the AOR. In particular, state-sponsored weapons trafficking in support of groups like Lebanese Hizballah, Hamas, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad undermines regional security and the Middle East Peace Process. • Uneven economic development and lack of employment opportunities. Despite substantial economic growth rates throughout much of the region over the past few years, significant segments of the population in the region remain economically disenfranchised, under-educated, and without sufficient opportunity. In addition many countries in the region face growing “youth bulges” that will strain their economies’ abilities to produce sufficient employment opportunities. The recent global economic downturn has heightened these problems. Without sustained, broad-based economic development, increased employment opportunities are unlikely given the growing proportions of young people relative to overall populations. 15 • Lack of regional and global economic integration. The AOR is characterized by low levels of trade and commerce among countries, which diminish prospects for long term economic growth, as well as opportunities to deepen interdependence through increased political, commercial, social, and cultural ties." Lookes at carefully one would see the Arab Israeli conflict as merely one problem in the region and the major one. Moreover the report doesn't say that Israel is responsible for lack of progress in that conflict. The general himself has on many occasions denied the imputation by antisemites and Nazis like mackenzie that Israel is responsible.

- jdyer

March 26, 2010 at 7:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1159165.html ““Commander of the U.S. Military's Central Command Gen. David Petraeus phoned his Israeli counterpart, Gabi Ashkenazi, this week to deny reports that he had blamed Israeli policy for the failure in a regional solution and for endangering U.S. interests. Earlier this month, Petraeus warned the Pentagon that "America's relationship with Israel is important, but not as important as the lives of America's soldiers," in a posting on the Foreign Policy Web site. In a 56-page report, the Central Command had written: "The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests," the CENTCOM report read. Petraeus told reporters on Thursday that the report - which he claimed had been taken out of context - had been drafted because: "We noted in there that there was a perception at times that America sides with Israel and so forth. And I mean, that is a perception. It is there. I don't think that's disputable." "But I think people inferred from what that said and then repeated it a couple of times and bloggers picked it up and spun it," he added. "And I think that has been unhelpful, frankly." Responding to questions regarding that report, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates warned that the ongoing Palestinian-Israeli conflict gave enemies of the two allies the opportunity to "exploit" the lack of a political settlement. "Lack of progress toward Middle East peace is clearly an issue that is exploited by our adversaries in the region and is a source of certainly political challenge," said Gates. "Whether it has a direct impact, I'm not entirely sure. But there is no question that the absence of Middle East peace does affect U.S. national security interests in the region." Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, meanwhile, told reporters at the same briefing that the relationship between the U.S. Army and the Israel Defense Forces remained "exceptionally" strong. Mullen added that he had been in contact with IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi twice this week and that the U.S. was concerned with Israel's security because: "It is in our national interests obviously or we wouldn't be so engaged... the United States has considered peace in the Middle East to be a national security interest for decades." “

- jdyer

March 26, 2010 at 7:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, jackson, if you believe that the moral character of the world is the same as it was in the year 1000, that the ideas of the Enlightenment for example have had no practical impact on the way many people lead their lives, I won't bother to argue with you. But I don't see it that way. I do believe we have made moral progress. If we hadn't, your desire for "human and practical laws that we can live by honestly" wouldn't even be intelligible let alone possible.

- roidubouloi

March 26, 2010 at 8:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi "Well, jackson, if you believe that the moral character of the world is the same as it was in the year 1000, that the ideas of the Enlightenment for example have had no practical impact on the way many people lead their lives, I won't bother to argue with you. " Nice, dodge. The wordl is different and the differences are consistent with the economic, scientific and technological progress but not with any so called "moral progress." The number of people killed in any decade of the 20th century in warfare far exceeds those killed in whole of the year 1000. As for the enlightenment, how is it that millions of people were murdered in the mid 20th century in the very lands were the enlightenment was first broached. But I suspect you knew that.

- jdyer

March 26, 2010 at 10:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

interesting little debate roid and jackson, I don't think there has been any progress from the ideal stated thousands of years ago "Do unto others...", you really can't get any better than that. The only thing that has changed is our capability to live according to it. (that so many don't is a different issue, it is far easier for me to do it now then it would have been centuries past) basman, wonderful post, it seems to me a pity that you felt the need to express it. Noga kind of reminds me of the person who had that different take on the boy who cried wolf, with Leon as Aesop and we as Greeks first hearing it. We would all agree it is a clever way to teach people not to lie. Not so says Noga, Leon (Aesop) is immoral, he is really telling us not to say the same lie twice.

- blackton

March 26, 2010 at 10:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jackson, with all due respect--and I truly do mean that, I do respect you--it seems to me that Petraeus did say that the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is not so good for our standing among the Arabs we are trying to cultivate as friends. What he said to his Israeli equivalent merely seems to be a bit of a walk-back. In fact, somewhere it says, "he claims [his remarks] were taken out of context." That is a classic dodge. Either he decided on his own that he felt he'd gone too far, or Obama--contrary to what Peretz says and thinks--may have told him to dial it down. Mid-terms are coming up, after all. On another note about whether Jerusalem should be Israel's capitol alone, I once sat in a small group of people to listen to what Henry Kissinger had to say about the world. (My general impression of the man is not so good, however he was a fascinating speaker.) One thing he said that struck me is that Americans have an almost folkloric belief in peace--an almost impossible belief. Any way, he said that despite the realities of the world, strange solutions can come. For instance (and here my memory is really foggy--this was 15 years ago), there is a road somewhere in the Sinai, I believe, which both Israel and Egypt wanted as their own. And so a compromise was struck: For three days the Israelis had use of the road, three days the Egyptians. In other words a strange kind of compromise cobbled together that ended up being very effective. I think this kind of jerry-rigged solution could have happened in Jerusalem, though from what I've read, things have progressed too far now from the Israeli perspective to go back to that kind of compromise.

- MOLLYSIMON

March 26, 2010 at 11:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well then, jackson. By that argument, there is no need to concern ourselves with morality at all. Indeed, it is an illusion. All "progress" is merely economic, scientific, and technological. We need therefore only do what we want and wait and watch as economics, science, and technology bring as a different world that we can then think either is or is not morally superior to the one we left behind. And it won't matter one way or the other what we think about it as, by your lights, it has a life entirely its own in any case.

- roidubouloi

March 26, 2010 at 12:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MOLLYSIMON “Jackson, with all due respect--and I truly do mean that, I do respect you--it seems to me that Petraeus did say that the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is not so good for our standing among the Arabs we are trying to cultivate as friends. What he said to his Israeli equivalent merely seems to be a bit of a walk-back. In fact, somewhere it says, "he claims [his remarks] were taken out of context." That is a classic dodge.” Why would he and Gates dodge the issue? They are neither of them politicians. Moreover, if you read the report you will see that there other more intractable issues affecting peace in the region. The fact that the US is pro Israel and that the Arabs don’t like that is not news. Of course many of them will claim that if there were no Jewish State then peace will break out all over the Middle East just like flowers in May. This is not what the General said. Give me a break, Molly.

- jdyer

March 26, 2010 at 12:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi “Well then, jackson. By that argument, there is no need to concern ourselves with morality at all. Indeed, it is an illusion. All "progress" is merely economic, scientific, and technological. We need therefore only do what we want and wait and watch as economics, science, and technology bring as a different world that we can then think either is or is not morally superior to the one we left behind. And it won't matter one way or the other what we think about it as, by your lights, it has a life entirely its own in any case.” This is absurd, roi. Just because there is no progress in morality, doesn’t mean that there is no such thing as morality! It merely means that “economic, scientific, and technological” progress which many mistake for moral progress isn’t the same as moral progress. As Blackton said, it’s much easier for many of us today to adhere to certain immutable moral principles such as the prohibition to murder and not to do unto others… because our daily struggles are much less intense than they were a thousand or even a hundred years ago. About morality in the Middle Ages I suggest you read: “Inventing the Middle Ages by Norman F. Cantor” You seem to have a very conventional view of that period and of history in general.

- jdyer

March 26, 2010 at 1:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I was unaware that such moral aspirations as "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" dated to the Middle Ages and beyond. Nor did I realize that these sentiments are of no moral force, appearing to have such only because of economic, scientific, and technological progress. I guess that comes from not having read Cantor. If you want to argue that everything we understand about morality was understood thousands of years ago, I won't spend any effort on the point. The bait and switch was yours. I was arguing that we ought to hold ourselves to a higher standard than the general conduct of human beings in the present. You disagreed. I wasn't originally making a point about the origins of morality. You slipped the argument over in that direction. I would be content if we held ourselves to the moral standards articulated in the Talmud. That would still be a big improvement over what we actually do, and I consider it a standard to which we should aspire. I do not find it acceptable when the United States or Israel behaves in ways that are morally deplorable merely because other nations do worse.

- roidubouloi

March 26, 2010 at 1:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi “I was unaware that such moral aspirations as "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" The notion that all men are created equal is hardly and invention of the Founding Fathers. “They held that external differences such as rank and wealth are of no importance in social relationships. Thus, before the rise of Christianity, Stoics advocated the brotherhood of humanity and the natural equality of all human beings. Stoicism became the most influential school of the Greco–Roman world, and produced a number of remarkable writers and personalities, such as Cato the Younger and Epictetus.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism#Social_philosophy “If you want to argue that everything we understand about morality was understood thousands of years ago, I won't spend any effort on the point.” I said that there is no such thing as “progress in morality;” I never said that “everything we understand about morality was understood thousands of years.” Btw: moral progressives have always had trouble dealing with the Holocaust. It’s a stumbling block to their belief system and they either try to ignore it, minimize, or even deny it in some fashion.

- jdyer

March 26, 2010 at 2:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jack: one small further note: ...Well, Simon the Just was a saintly, man who did hold Jews to a higher standard... I missed the point of *your* noting that Simon the Just held Jews to a higher standard. I focused on his injunction. Noting that though, I don't see how it helps your claim. Assuming it's so, it seems a fairly specialized bit of knowledge that Wieseltier makes no specific reference to--ie not readily apparent to his readers, I don't think. So, again, I see nothing in his text that calls for a higher standard of conduct for Jews. If there is, where is it, and what does it call for, not expected of others?

- basman

March 26, 2010 at 5:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

TNRs resident (Zio-)Nazi "Zionazi" is a revolting expression drawn from rabid, anti-Semitic hate sites. It is defined as anti-Semitism by the EUMC draft. It is a disgusting manner of pissing upon the Shoah's actual victims. TNR should be ashamed of its appearance on the TNR blog. West Bank settlement is a colonial enterprise, a form of colonization. More nonsense from the RoiDesTravelosDuBoisDeBoulogne. West Bank settlement may be claimed just compensation to the Jews for the far greater properties and assets confiscated from the Jews of the Muslim world. (Nevertheless, it is within the right of the Israeli majority to cede any such claim, however just.) Noga, nil carborundum illegitemi.

- TNR.Reader

March 26, 2010 at 7:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Please excuse the poor formatting above. TNRs resident (Zio-)Nazi "Zionazi" is a revolting expression drawn from rabid, anti-Semitic hate sites. It is defined as anti-Semitism by the EUMC draft. It is a disgusting manner of pissing upon the Shoah's actual victims. TNR should be ashamed of its appearance on the TNR blog. Noga, nil carborundum illegitemi. RoiDesTravelosDuBoisDeBoulogne: West Bank settlement is a colonial enterprise, a form of colonization. More nonsense from the RoiDesTravelosDuBoisDeBoulogne. West Bank settlement may be claimed just compensation to the Jews for the far greater properties and assets confiscated from the Jews of the Muslim world. (Nevertheless, it is within the right of the Israeli majority to cede any such claim, however just.)

- TNR.Reader

March 26, 2010 at 7:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

basman “jack: one small further note: ...Well, Simon the Just was a saintly, man who did hold Jews to a higher standard... I missed the point of *your* noting that Simon the Just held Jews to a higher standard. I focused on his injunction. Noting that though, I don't see how it helps your claim. Assuming it's so, it seems a fairly specialized bit of knowledge that Wieseltier makes no specific reference to--ie not readily apparent to his readers, I don't think. So, again, I see nothing in his text that calls for a higher standard of conduct for Jews. If there is, where is it, and what does it call for, not expected of others?” Simeon the Just’s chief maxim was "The world exists through three things: the Law, worship, and beneficence" (Pirkei Avoth 1:2), http://www.ncjh.org/downloads/QuotesPirkeAvot.doc Simon the Just…used to say, “Upon three things the world stands: On Torah, on (Divine) Service, and on Deeds of Lovingkindness.” Pirke Avot 1:2 The Pirke Avot is a Jewish classic text even for non believers like myself. I love to read it from time to time. He probably assumed that many of at least his Jewish readers would familiar with this saying.

- jdyer

March 26, 2010 at 10:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“RoiDesTravelosDuBoisDeBoulogne: West Bank settlement is a colonial enterprise, a form of colonization. More nonsense from the RoiDesTravelosDuBoisDeBoulogne. West Bank settlement may be claimed just compensation to the Jews for the far greater properties and assets confiscated from the Jews of the Muslim world. (Nevertheless, it is within the right of the Israeli majority to cede any such claim, however just.)” I agree with your last sentence, though not with your view of the settlements as “just compensation….” Only a legitimate court of law, either national or international could offer “just compensation.” In any case, the settlements are neither a “colonial enterprise” nor “just compensation.” They were a practical means of securing the land on the Wets bank after the Arabs rejected a peace offer in exchange for the territory. It was always understood that it would be returned for a just peace accord. The whole settlement process got out of control which is why certain land swaps is more practical than moving those closest to the green line. East Jerusalem though is another matter which Netanyahu unsurprisingly fucked up. There was no need to make it an issue at this time.

- jdyer

March 26, 2010 at 10:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JDyer They were a practical means of securing the land on the Wets bank after the Arabs rejected a peace offer in exchange for the territory. I agree this was a factor - cf the Allon plan. In any case, the settlements are neither a “colonial enterprise” nor “just compensation.” I don't agree. The Mizrahim are justifiably bitter the international discussion turns on compensation for the Palestinians and little on compensation for the Mizrahim. The Arabs imposed dhimmitude and semi-apartheid on the Mizrahim for 1,400 years, and (it could be argued) in recompense owe the Jews - a country, if necessary Jordan-to-Med for security or Mizrahi asset offset - a completion of the population exchange. The whole settlement process got out of control which is why certain land swaps is more practical than moving those closest to the green line I agree. But the spanner in the works is the hypocritical insistence of Israeli Arabs in the triangle and elsewhere, that they remain Israeli. East Jerusalem though is another matter which Netanyahu unsurprisingly fucked up. There was no need to make it an issue at this time I disagree. Netanyahu has done nothing to change earlier Israeli governments' policies towards E Jerusalem. It was Obama, not Netanyahu, who made it an issue, for reasons both of his primary anti-Zionism and as a club to force Israel to acquiesce to a nuclear Iran. Only a legitimate court of law, either national or international could offer “just compensation.” I disagree. Courts of law and international institutions have done little to nothing to protect Jews from death, were impotent during the Holocaust, and now are under even firmer control by the leftist-Islamic coalition. Israel and Jews generally can never rely upon them for protection or justice. That's why it is a primary tenet of Zionism that never again should Jews depend upon the gentile for protection. It was always understood that it would be returned for a just peace accord. No, it wasn't. Israel as a whole and even many individual Israelis (in ther own minds) have always wavered between (a) keep the teritories for security and (b) cede them for a weak promise of peace and democracy. Immediately after 1967, Israelis assumed (a); then Khartoum's "three no's" pushed them to (b). In the run-up to Oslo they veered back to (a). Evidence of Arab bad faith (Gaza, Karine-A) has recently pushed them to a mid-point, "We'll use the territories as a bargaining chip, ceding them only once we are convinced the West Bank will not become another Gaza." Even as early as 1967, I listened to an Israeli taxi-driver argue with himself: "We have a tiger by the tail. If we cede the territories, they'll be used once again to attack us. But if we retain them, we'll forever have undemocratic conrol over another people." East Jerusalem is another matter. Barak made an extremely generous offer; its rejection shocked Israelis, and they ae unlikely to make the same offer again. In the end, many Israelis are now convinced that no matter the Israeli leader and no matter the extent of concessions, the Palestinians and their new Shi'a backers will pocket all concessions and continue the war of annihilation. Ironically, it has often been suggested that hawkish leaders, as Begin and Sharon and Bibi, may be ideologically better-positioned to make concessions without bitterly splitting the Israeli electorate. That is, like Reagan's and Nixon's overtures to Russia and China, the centre-right can bring along both left and right, while a centre-left leader can only bring along the left. Concessions might, however, push Shas out of Bibi's coalition and bring in Kadima. It may be that Obama's neo-colonalist intent has been just such "regime change" in Jerusalem.

- TNR.Reader

March 26, 2010 at 11:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Apologies. I meant to say:

Israel as a whole and even many individual Israelis (in ther own minds) have always wavered between (a) keep the teritories for security and (b) cede them for a weak promise of peace and democracy. Immediately after 1967, Israelis assumed (b); then Khartoum's "three no's" pushed Israelis to (a). In the run-up to Oslo they veered back to (b). Evidence of Arab bad faith (Gaza, Karine-A) has recently pushed them to a mid-point, "We'll use the territories as a bargaining chip, ceding them only once we are convinced the West Bank will not become another Gaza."

- TNR.Reader

March 26, 2010 at 11:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"TNRs resident (Zio-)Nazi" ndmckenziie is a Jew baiter. He says these things in the way David Irving talks about the Holocaust. His record on these blogs is not an honorable one, and I wouldn't pay him the compliment of being insulted by anything he has to say.

- noga1

March 27, 2010 at 10:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If Israel were to incorporate the territories and grant the inhabitants full political rights, something it could do without a "peace treaty" as by definition there would be no one left with whom to negotiate that treaty, it would have a colorable claim of right under customary international law on the grounds that: the territory was "unallocated," belonging to no state, it acquired control over the territory as the chance of defensive war, it had long historical ties to and claims upon the territory. Since international law is not independent of international politics in the manner that domestic law is at least supposed to be independent of domestic politics, one can question whether Israel's claims would be recognized and it would therefore achieve internationally recognized borders in this way. But a good international lawyer could at least make the claim with a straight face. (Of course, this would also run afoul of Resolution 242, but we can pretend for the sake of argument that this does not exist or is of no force.) What is no longer arguable under international law is that a state may have a minority population to which it does not accord equal political rights, such as those rights may be in any particular state. This is the crime against humanity that is called apartheid. The term is not well-defined, but one can be pretty sure that this state of affairs would fall within the definition. Hence, unless it were willing to take the risks entailed in being branded by the world as an apartheid state, it cannot incorporate the territories without according the inhabitants political rights. As a practical matter, it cannot incorporate the territories and accord the inhabitants political rights because it would be overwhelmed demographically. It is for these very reasons, including Resolution 242, that Israel itself maintains the status of most of the territory seized in 1967 as occupied. It acknowledges this as the reality by government the territories with a military occupation government. Since Israel itself acknowledges the territories as occupied and does not claim them as compensation or on any other basis to be integral territory of Israel, international law is also quite clear that it may not transfer its own population to the territories, as it has plainly done with its settlement policy. Now, a naïve or ignorant person might say, So what? International law is not like domestic law. There are no courts or police to enforce it (leaving aside that Israel is actually a state-party to some of the relevant treaties). This view fails to comprehend that international law is primarily customary law amongst nations, only reduced to positive law with some nascent legal apparatus, in relatively recent times. Even without a legal apparatus, the custom of nations affects how nations do in fact behave, what they take as a reason for war for example, for boycott, for the basis of trade. To pretend that international law is of no force because there are no international police (in fact there are in some circumstances under the UN Charter) makes as much sense as insisting that social custom does not exist unless it is cast into positive law. If, however, one resolutely refuses to ignore social custom, one can quickly find oneself without friends and perhaps without a livelihood. There are some wealthy and powerful individuals who can afford this. Most people cannot. Thus, whatever their views of social custom, they ignore it at their peril. So it is with international law. It may be safely ignored up to the point when other nations, or enough of them, conclude that a country is an outlaw and decide to take action. Of course, nations being large things, movement in international affairs is much slower than change in the relations amongst people. It wouldn't take very long for someone who ignored social convention to be ostracized. The fact that it takes longer in international affairs does not mean it cannot or will not happen. We have South Africa and North Korea as examples (and North Korea only endures its isolation because China continues to assist it in a variety of ways -- keeping it on the edge of starvation but preventing it from imploding). Given the rulings of international judicial bodies against Israel, it is quite unlikely that the world would ever accept the view of international law propounded above. And that is what ultimately matters in international law, the consensus. Because international law is custom that organizes the actions of nations. One can be of the view that Israel can become an outlaw, become increasingly isolated, be ostracized by the world, and still survive. That would not be a very good bet. On a related thread, TNR.reader declares that Israel has done very nicely for 60 years, including the period when it was not supplied by arms by the US. Of course, during that period, it was supplied with arms by the French. It seems not to have crossed TNR.reader's mind that it may have been perfectly congenial to the United States to have Israel supplied with arms without itself being the prime supplier (although F-4 Phantoms were an important part of Israel's arsenal prior to the Six-Day War). Do we have evidence of this? We do. When France was no longer willing to supply Israel, the US immediately stepped into the breach, strongly suggesting that it was always US policy that Israel have sufficient arms to defend itself. Israel is not a large nation endowed with great mineral wealth and other natural resources. You cannot build jet fighters out of potash. The notion that Israel could very long endure international sanctions if they ever came is absurd. If sanctions come, they will come over the issue of settlements or, well before that, international bodies will start to move in such a way that Israel is forced to yield. The bet of the idiotic right-wing of Israel is that Israel can persuade the Palestinians to legitimize a lot of the settlements as part of a peace treaty. That's not particularly likely. However, if one wants to pursue that strategy rather than just run out the clock on the world's collective patience, a person who was not an idiot or a messianic nut, would realize that drawing the Palestinians into negotiations was a necessary condition for having an outcome that legitimizes settlements. Invited by the US to make gestures in that direction, a person who was not an idiot or a messianic nut would take the exit ramp offered and noisily trumpet its willingness to make every effort toward the success of peace negotiations, advancing thereby its own interest and securing a measure of good will for the patron, the US, that is pretty much the only thing standing between it and international sanctions today. But Israel is governed by fools and messianic nuts, egged on by people like TNR.reader, who, whether or not he is Israeli, plainly wishes upon Israel noble martyrdom rather than long and prosperous life. Does that make him an anti-Semite or a Nazi? I would not venture to say.

- roidubouloi

March 27, 2010 at 1:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In case it was too much of an intellectual leap, let me make explicit that what renders the settlements indubitably a "colonial enterprise" is that Israel itself declines to incorporate the territory. Its settlements, rather than being settlements of territory it claims as its own, are settlements on territory it does not claim and are in derogation of the interests of the existing population. They also require extra-territoriality of law in which Israeli settlers are governed by different law than Palestinian Arabs within the same political region, the Occupied Territory. That renders the settlements as colonies, under whatever basis they may be claimed.

- roidubouloi

March 27, 2010 at 1:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...let me make explicit that what renders the settlements indubitably a "colonial enterprise" is that Israel itself declines to incorporate the territory. Its settlements, rather than being settlements of territory it claims as its own, are settlements on territory it does not claim and are in derogation of the interests of the existing population. They also require extra-territoriality of law in which Israeli settlers are governed by different law than Palestinian Arabs within the same political region, the Occupied Territory. That renders the settlements as colonies, under whatever basis they may be claimed." This is a plausible way of describing the status of the settlements today, no matter what the intentions, when they were established, were back in the mid 70's.

- jdyer

March 27, 2010 at 2:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roi no need to be snooty in your response to TNR.Reader. I disagree with him on some issues but that doesn't make him a "drooling idiot."

- jdyer

March 27, 2010 at 3:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

RoisDesTravelosDuBoisDeBoulogne:

Ahhh, the slack-jawed idiot, TNR.reader, finally shows up to drool on this thread.
We see that RoisDesTravelosDuBoisDeBoulogne is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. His logorrhoea indicates solely a profound ignorance both of Israel and of logic. Two examples of Roi's nonsense should suffice: 1. His argument reduces to:
It may be safely ignored up to the point when other nations, or enough of them, conclude that a country is an outlaw and decide to take action
No western nation would ever take major arms against Israel, and any attempt at economic sanctions would be just as ineffective as those against Iran. Nor would that necessarily be possible, since Israel could easily survive until the regime in Washington rotates and breaks any sanctions. 2.
But Israel is governed by fools and messianic nuts
Thus, in such a gross generalisation, we see exposed the core of Roi's soul: A deep contempt for Israeli democracy and for the Israeli public which twice put Netanyahu in office. As for Bibi himself, he holds two MIT degrees and could easily make short work of Roi in any intellectual or political forum.
It makes him a piece of shit though. That much is certain.
Descent into vituperation confirms Roi knows he has lost the argument. Of even greater importance is his re-creation on the pages of TNR of the very hate-filled atmosphere which gave rise to Yigal Amir. It does TNR, the Jewish community, and Israel significant harm.

- TNR.Reader

March 27, 2010 at 3:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, jackson, if you were reading the thread "It's Time for Israel to Talk to Hamas," you would understand why. Flame wars happen. They are a part of cyber-life. Then they go away.

- roidubouloi

March 27, 2010 at 3:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

On the contrary, Roi; you have exposed your character for the entire world to see.

- TNR.Reader

March 27, 2010 at 4:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Lost an argument? With you tnr-reader? Don't be absurd. It's just that when one is in a flame-war, it is necessary to choose the right weapon. Some people are clever. With them, one needs wit. Some are really nuts. With them, a little teasing is usually what works best. I judge you to be in the class of those who are both pretty dim and who think they are much, much smarter than they are. Wit would be lost on you. Crude epithets are your speed. Anything more would be a waste of effort. The evidence for my low opinion of you is that you said something very stupid, and when I ridiculed what you had said -- without however resorting to name-calling or epithets -- the only thing you could think of in response was to call me an anti-Semite. (There isn't much here that provokes me to laugh out loud, but that did.) Your inability to muster any more artful response immediately labeled you as a dummy. Sorry. It must be a difficult way to get through life, constantly confronted by people smarter than you saying things you don't really understand. Frustrating for you, I am sure.

- roidubouloi

March 27, 2010 at 4:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If thinking that such as Netanyahu are stupid and dangerous in their stupidity represents deep contempt for Israel and Isreali society, then I must also have deep contempt for Americans and the American society that twice elected George W. Bush who was even stupider and more dangerous than Netanyahu. And Bush went to both Yale and Harvard! Big deal. Anyone who has ever attended such an institution, as I have, knows that there are stupid people there too. No, what I have is a deep, profound, and enduring contempt for the ideological right-wing, a group so benighted that they have no means of interpreting any disagreement with their ideological fantasies other than as hatred. That societies are periodically drawn to right-wing leadership when the historical record is so overwhelming that nothing good follows is a paradox of human nature. But, at regular intervals societies have to re-learn the lesson that the hubristic right produces only failure. Israel will spit Netanyahu out again. Then he will have been elected twice and unelected twice. I prefer the aspect of Israeli society that unelects him. That's the decent and thoughtful side. (It's not as if the Likud actually won a majority in the Knesset; it didn't even win the most seats. If it had, then I would really be worried about the future of Israel.) And if pressure from the United States and Netanyahu's incapacity to deal with that hastens the day of his second departure, so much the better.

- roidubouloi

March 27, 2010 at 4:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

tnr.reader says: "Descent into vituperation confirms Roi knows he has lost the argument. Of even greater importance is his re-creation on the pages of TNR of the very hate-filled atmosphere which gave rise to Yigal Amir. It does TNR, the Jewish community, and Israel significant harm." With more justification, tnr.reader, one could say that your immediate resort to crude epithets -- and indeed you were the first to do so although you would now like to pretend otherwise -- when confronted with an argument to which you were unable to respond intelligently is the sort of mentality that gave rise to Baruch Goldstein. That's you tnr.reader, a witless admirer of Baruch Goldstein.

- roidubouloi

March 27, 2010 at 4:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There is an old saying that sticks and stone will break my bones but names will do no harm. Unsuprisingly, TNR.Reader, jdyer and noga dislike the word Zio-Nazi since it accurately describes their morally-depraved worldview. I have nothing but contempt for those who attack the word Zio-Nazi even as they support the aims of the most pervasive and pernicious form of neo-Nazism in the Western World - the Zio-Nazism of the so-called settlers. The word Zio-Nazi accurately describes those who support the decades-long Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people which has brutally killed thousands of Palestinians and immiserated an entire people. Furthermore, in using the history of the Jewish people to justify this oppression by the State of Israel they seek to share the blame for Israeli war crimes among all Jews they show themselves to be Zionist Anti-Semites - the most widespread form of anti-Semitism among the modern Western elite. Unsuprisingly, TNR.Reader, jdyer and noga have found a gathering spot on The Spine the house blog of American Zio-Nazism. And however much Jonathan Chait may pretend it is not so The New Republic and Commentary form the intellectual heartland of this vile ideology. Well done, Frank Foer.

- ndmackenzie

March 27, 2010 at 5:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We now see Roi not only offering excuses for his vituperation, but extending it. He cannot stand difference of opinion, or hates most of the Israeli electorate, or both. In either case, the vituperation is inexcusable. Further, if he is in fact Jewish, then that level of hatred of the Israeli electrate, combined with his above suggestion that AIPAC represents Israeli control of the USA (a commonplace theme of anti-Semitic sites), suggests an inner sickness of some sort. This is confirmed by the tendency to simply make up facts. For example:

Because TNR.reader is self-evidently quite dim of mind, it seems not to have crossed his mind that it may have been perfectly congenial to the United States to have Israel supplied with arms without itself being the prime supplier (although F-4 Phantoms were an important part of Israel's arsenal prior to the Six-Day War).
The USA made no major arms supply to Israel until 1968, its first large arms sale of Phantoms to the Jewish state.

- TNR.Reader

March 27, 2010 at 5:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roi:

"the only thing you could think of in response was to call me an anti-Semite"
No, Roi, it wasn't the only thing I could think of, but unlike your august self, I know how to hold my tongue. Moreover, it was accurate; AIPAC is American, not Israeli, and does not control the US government. You emulated quite well one of the most common of anti-Semitic themes. We see your anti-Semitism confirmed in your treatment of Israel's democratically-chosen government as "fools and messianic nuts." If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck ... it' a duck.

- TNR.Reader

March 27, 2010 at 5:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roi:

No, what I have is a deep, profound, and enduring contempt for the ideological right-wing
No, what you have is a contempt for Israeli democracy and a mountain-sized chip on your shoulder. And apparently little contact with those Israelis - from Mizrahim to Ashkenazi haredim to secular Russians - who have put Likud in office over and over.

- TNR.Reader

March 27, 2010 at 5:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ndmackenzie, who actually advocates political violence by Arabs in the absence of any threat of violence against them, is not to be taken seriously. His love of bloodshed has long been apparent, and he uses the term Zio-Nazi only in the hope that it will be provocative. Coming from him, nothing is provocative, because it is all drenched with his love of death. It is only sick. B'Tselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, recites that the civil strife between Israel and the Palestinians, meaning not including the wars of regular forces, have cause 3,650 Palestinian deaths and 1,142 Israeli deaths. This does not include an estimated 1,000 deaths of Arabs at the hands of other Arabs. Not exactly the Holocaust. To convey a sense of scale, 2,973 Americans died in the September 11 attacks.

- roidubouloi

March 27, 2010 at 5:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oddly enough, tnr.reader makes exactly the same argument that Hamas makes: That whatever government is elected by Democratic means, its acts deserve respect. No, that a government is democratically elected means only that the people who elected them can be held responsible for the acts of their government. There is nothing that says that discreditable acts by an elected government deserve anything other than condemnation. By this perverse logic, Israelis have no complaint about any policy adopted by the Obama administration. He, after all, was elected by tens of millions of Americans whereas Netanyahu's party does not even enjoy a plurality in the Knesset. By disagreeing with Obama and casting aspersions on his policies, and with their interference in American domestic affairs by lobbying, through AIPAC, the American legislature (is there any counterpart of this in Israel? no) should we conclude that Israel has only contempt for Americans and American society. I suppose that, in the case of tnr.reader, this is exactly what we should conclude, as (s)he tells us in no uncertain terms that criticism, even contempt, for the leader of another nation expresses contempt for its people. It is not difficult to find Israelis volubly expressing contempt for President Obama. Hitler was elected too. We criticize leaders, and rightly so, for their bad bad behavior, bad policies, and ineptitude. Only in totalitarian societies is criticism of government regarded as betrayal. The right-wing, while always engaging in the most vicious, even vile criticism of left-wing government, constantly urges upon as that it is a threat to the state and society to criticize a right-wing government. This is right-wing propaganda trash that any thinking person ought to ignore.

- roidubouloi

March 27, 2010 at 6:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ah, so you are a liar too tnr.reader. Why am I not surprised. I never said nor even intimated that AIPAC controls the US government. Israelis are lately complaining of American policy they don't like that this is interference in Israeli domestic affairs. This is objectively ridiculous, merely another propaganda ploy, made doubly so be the fact that AIPAC directly lobbies the American government and legislature on behalf of Israel. It was founded when the American Zionist Council was obliged to register as a foreign agent and it would take a wilful act of ignorance not to notice both that AIPAC represents the interests of Israel and that it is indistinguishable form the American Zionist Council that it replaced. There is no counterpart in Israel of anyone lobbying elements of the Israeli government on behalf of the United States, and it is certainly not the case that the United States pressuring Israel to do what is in the interest of the United States is inappropriate interference in Israel's affairs. States pressure other states, particularly their client states, to act in ways that benefit them. Israel directly, and through the media, exerts pressure on the United States in its own interests. It also has a lobby here. By your twisted lights, taking notice of objective reality or criticizing Israeli leadership expresses contempt for Israeli society. The right-wing, both in the United States and Israel, has much nastier things to say about left-wing government that it disagrees with than anything I can conjure up about the right. And given your propensity for epithets, it is highly likely that you are an eager participant.

- roidubouloi

March 27, 2010 at 6:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

tnr.reader is correct that the US did not sell Phantoms to Israel until 1968, as the result of direct pressure on Congress on behalf of Israel. It is my mis-recollection that they were employed during the Six Day War itself. The US sold Israel Hawk missiles in 1962 and 210 Patton tanks in 1965. It explicitly stepped in as Israel's arms supplier to replace the French after the Six Day War. It considered Israel adequately armed to that point, as apparently it was. The main point that tnr.reader was attempting to make -- that the Israeli military capability does not require US support -- is objectively absurd. Israel has been the single largest recipient of direct US economic and military aid since WWII.

- roidubouloi

March 27, 2010 at 6:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"tnr.reader is correct that the US did not sell Phantoms to Israel until 1968, as the result of direct pressure on Congress on behalf of Israel. It is my mis-recollection that they were employed during the Six Day War itself. " This is not so easily dismissable an error, for someone such as you, who try to pass yourself as some sort of an expert authority on Israel's history. One may well wonder, under what other mis-recollections you work when you pronounce opinions and positions about Israel? What other errors are embedded in that memory of yours? How much can the reader actually trust you when you dispense your political wisdom about Israel's history and politics?

- noga1

March 27, 2010 at 8:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Don't be silly, noga. I have never suggested that I am an "expert authority on Israel's history," an authority on Israel's history, an expert on Israel's history, or even that I am exceptionally knowledgeable about Israel's history. Usually I have to go check any factual assertion I make, even those I think I recall, because I can and do recall things incorrectly. In this particular case, I didn't check my memory of Phantoms being used to good effect in that era. Apparently, I was conflating my memories of 1967 and 1973. I am happy to admit a mistake when I have made one. The basic point that I was making in this case, that the US was content, as a matter of policy, to have France as Israel's major arms supplier, is borne out by fact-checking. That was the policy prior to 1968. I am also correct that the US deliberately stepped in as Israel's major arms supplier once France refused to supply Israel any longer. This also bears out my contention that the US was never "boycotting" Israel as far as arms go as TNR.reader suggested. Indeed, TNR.reader (does (s)he also purport to be an expert authority on Israel's history?) is incorrect in stating that the US was not also an important arms supplier to Israel prior to 1968. It supplied both Hawk missiles and a large number of Patton tanks in 1962 and 1965, respectively. I don't in fact have much of anything to say either about Israel's history or its politics. I find its politics boring. Most of the relevant history is fairly well-known and there is no need to discuss it except to correct errors of fact made by the tendentious. I make some mistakes too, although, as here, usually not very big ones. What I have to say is not about the facts but largely about the nature of Israel's strategic position, including its military, diplomatic, propaganda, and international legal posture, less about its economics as that isn't typically the source of contention, except when we read that Israel would easily endure an international boycott if one came. That is just silly. Most of the opinions I express can stand on their own without need of historical exegesis, and I take pains to articulate not only my conclusions but my reasoning, often to complaints that I am too long-winded. That should enable you or anyone else to make a substantive argument in disagreement. I am happy to engage a substantive argument on the merits, and do when one is offered, rather than by resort to epithets and the like which is usually the best that those on the right are able to muster. When that occurs, I respond in kind as I don't think the noisiest and most obnoxious deserve to win the argument. My political tutors have taught me and I accpet that when you encounter that kind of crap, you meet it with an equal or greater amount of the same crap because thoughtful arguments will not work under those circumstances. Once the crap has been fought to a draw, which is usually the best that can be hoped for, it is then possible to return to more substantive discussion with those who have an interest in substantive discussion.

- roidubouloi

March 27, 2010 at 9:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jackson, Don't know what you are busy reading these days, but I penned a response to your question over on Peretz's Gaza Jihad post.

- roidubouloi

March 27, 2010 at 11:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JDyer, many thanks for your attempt to teach the classless Roi some menschlichkeit - but one cannot make a silk purse from a sow's ear. You should realise the problem extends well beyond Roi's malignant ego to a core of racism. In Israel, the bulwark of Likud support arises from Mizrahim, haredim, and Russians. To Roi, all three of these groups are inferior: To people like Roi, the haredim are religious nutters; the Mizrahim are an inferior race; and the Russians are despicable. Only secular Ashkenazim have rights; the rest - Mizrahi, haredi, and Russian Jews - are "stupid," inferior gnats to be squashed. Unfortunately for Roi, the haredim, Mizrahim, and Russians constitute the majority of Israel's Jews and will decide her fate, no matter how much Roi may hate them. Poor fellow - they not only don't even know he exists, but wouldn't listen to him in any case. Moreover, his dozen posts in under a day indicate a worrisome level of obsession and instablility. All in all, a dangerous fellow.

- TNR.Reader

March 28, 2010 at 12:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JDyer:

This ["colonial enterprise"] is a plausible way of describing the status of the settlements today
Actually, there are at least three or four other models whose fact-pattern matches the situation far more closely than the colonial model: Models 1. colonial 2. civil war 3. population exchange 4. dhimmified minority/compensatory damages 5. dhimmified minority/positive discrimination I'll be glad to add specifics when I've a moment.

- TNR.Reader

March 28, 2010 at 12:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Unfortunately, for Roi, the haredim, Mizrahim and Russians constitute the majority of Israel's Jews and will decide her fate . . ." If that is the case, the misfortune is all yours. I don't live in Israel, and all the members of my family who do carry American passports. And Americans, not Israelis, will decide what is in the interest of the United States. That may be your misfortune too if Israel cannot align its interests with those of the US as the notion that the US is going to align its interest with those of Israel is narishkeit. The haredim ARE religious nutters. That pretty much defines haredim. It is indeed a misfortune that the world in which we live operates on rather different principles than those that the religious nuts adhere too. There is no such thing as "faith-based reality" much as they wish there were. If they would stay in their self-imposed ghettoes, talk to god, and stay out of pubic affairs, the world would be a better and much safer place. Alas, it is the price of democracy that they don't. As to Mizrahim, and Russian Jews, I have no opinion whatsoever in relation to their place of origin or the culture they come from. I don't even think about it let alone regard them as either superior or inferior. If they are rightists, then they too are a threat to the peace and security of the world and to the secure future of Israel. Democracy requires that they have their say too. But sensible people will deplore what they have to say. The racism and the fantasies of racism are all yours TNR.reader. You are so empty of a mature thought that the only thing you can do is reduce everything to questions of race, ethnicity, etc. The only one here to make an issue or even any reference to any of that is you. It is your obsession, not mine. If I can be a danger to the opinions of such as you, TNR.reader, I consider it a public service. I certainly hope so. You, on the other hand, are not a danger to anyone other than yourself. You are too inept and self-absorbed to have a chance of moving anyone's opinion in any direction. You masturbate here. That is all.

- roidubouloi

March 28, 2010 at 12:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think you are pretty stupid, TNR.reader. Rather obviously so. But I certainly don't think your stupidity has any implications about anyone else's intellect, be they haredi, Mizrahi, Russian or anything else. The prize is all yours. It also occurs to me reading your latest effluent that you define your politics and those of Likud in opposition to the Ashkenazim. Not surprising. Those who are profligate with charges of racism are most typically racists. I don't define my political or policy views in relation to the identity of those I disagree with. I disagree with their opinions. If the haredim, Mizrahim, and Russians are like you, then woe unto Israel indeed. It's fate will be decided by race-obsession rather than by a sound understanding of the world.

- roidubouloi

March 28, 2010 at 1:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"It is indeed a misfortune that the world in which we live operates on rather different principles than those that the religious nuts adhere too. " "Religious nuts" are not much different from political nuts, that is, liberal nuts or conservative nuts. They all have this common: they have a theological perspective. If you disagree with their perspective, you are an idiot, fanatic and nutcase. They can be easily recognized from the way they manage to avoid new facts. When they are made aware of some factual error in their thinking, they right away swallow the fact while completely ignoring it or the harm it has caused to their general theories. That type of political adherence is not distinguishable in tone, effect or affect from Savonarolla's fire and brimstone.

- noga1

March 28, 2010 at 1:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid, Nobody does it better than you. I have way too much going on in my life right now, but still check in because it is like watching Bjorn Borg play tennis. It literally makes me smile. You are a credit to those who share your sympathies.

- MOLLYSIMON

March 28, 2010 at 2:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"If you disagree with their perspective, you are an idiot, fanatic and nutcase." Hmmm. These are exactly the terms applied by the resident extreme-leftist (Roid) to Shas and to myself. Noga: "That type of political adherence is not distinguishable in tone, effect or affect from Savonarolla's fire and brimstone." Ironic that it is now the left which has adopted Savonarola's tactics. What matters to the UC Irvine (Oren) or the U of Ottawa or CAIR or Roid is, like Savonarola, dominating and silencing opposition by any means necessary. In Roid's case, if sheer volume (dozens of posts in two days) doesn't work, then vituperation will do. He has managed to turn the TNR blog into the roidubouloi blog.

- TNR.Reader

March 28, 2010 at 3:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga is correct, there is not much difference between theological nuts and ideological nuts, although I would say there is a slightly greater possibility of changing the views of ideological nuts and they are typically more cunning than the theological in the way in which they deal with the world. The theological nuts are particularly dangerous both because they are immovable -- they talk to god -- and because the don't feel the need to understand the real world. God and prayer and righteousness according to the arcana of their religious beliefs will provide, or not. They are both unworldly and fatalistic, an especially lethal cocktail. It is what leads people to strap on suicide belts. So, tell us, noga, what new facts have you managed not to avoid lately? Just so we know that you are neither a theological nut nor an ideological nut. * * * You, TNR,reader, are not an idiot, fanatic, and nutcase because I disagree with your politics. You are an idiot, fanatic, and nutcase because you are an idiot, fanatic, and nutcase. You demonstrate this with your complete inability to advance any point of view or argument other than the slinging of epithets, such as anti-Semite. The moment you manage to make an actual argument or advance a position that is grounded in reason of any kind, however tenuous -- rather than merely reciting the litany of haredi, Mizrahi, and Russian resentments to which you constantly resort, as if mere resentment constitutes truth -- someone will surely take it up. As long as you can do no better than sling epithets and insults and recite your resentments, you are merely a nuisance to be treated with disdain.

- roidubouloi

March 28, 2010 at 3:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hi Molly, I hope that whatever is keeping you busy consists only of good things. Chag sameach.

- roidubouloi

March 28, 2010 at 3:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close