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 Homeward Bound

POLITICS JUNE 19, 2010

Homeward Bound

BY MARTIN PERETZ

The lady has been an old crone for more than half a century. So it was inevitable that some people in the profession would feel sympathy for Helen Thomas, even in her wicked quintessence. And not only merciful to her person but concerned for her lost job. Yes, Hearst pushed her, but Thomas, intuitively sensing that she would no longer be deferred to by the president or the press corps, went gently. Her wacky game was up.

But this is not comedy. And Thomas’s answer to a random question—from a rabbi, it is true—about her current thoughts on Israel were deadly serious. She suggested that the whole matter could be wrapped up if only the Jews of Israel would go home to where they came from, which in her narrative, she made clear, meant primarily Poland and Germany. And maybe the United States.

Now, the truth is that almost everyone was repelled by Thomas’s comments. The president said they were “offensive” and “out of line.” But he added that all this, meaning her resignation/dismissal, was “a shame, because Helen was ... really an institution of Washington.” Actually, I believe it is not a shame and that it is precisely because she had become, mirabile dictu, a Washington institution that her humiliation is deserved and just.

The president’s press spokesman, Robert Gibbs, also commented that her words were “offensive,” a descriptive term. But Gibbs added “reprehensible,” making his observations a bit more chilling and judgmental than Obama’s. The White House Correspondents’ Association called her wicked ramble “indefensible.” Her speakers agency cancelled her contract. And Walt Whitman High School in Bethesda, Maryland, called off her scheduled commencement address. (Why it invited her in the first place is a mystery since her nuttiness was no surprise to anyone, at least to any sentient adult and especially in the Washington area.)

The end of this career is not because of “the Israel lobby” or “the Jewish vote.” It is a consequence of the American people’s own sense of justice and their historic sense of justice for the Jews. This goes back to way before the Declaration of Independence, when Old Testament Protestantism was cutting through the brush to its own errand in the wilderness. The American nation, from the eighteenth century to this one, has seen in the homelessness of the Jewish nation an injustice that could only be cured by what the religious called the “restoration.” Hardly a Congress in history has failed to call for it, and, in the twentieth century, only two secretaries of state, John Foster Dulles and James Baker, and their presidents tried to betray it.

The public-opinion polls continue to confirm this loyalty of the American people to Israel. And there is something steadfast, almost heroic in that fealty. One reason that it sometimes seems brave is that it has to confront at once fashionable and unflinching antagonism to Israel, much of it actually raw hatred. The present season of disdain started with Walt and Mearsheimer. A second cause comes from two cognate sources: the declining “mainline” churches (Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Methodist, etc., many of which, by the way, issued hysterical and grotesquely false condemnations of the Mediterranean confrontation) and the “non-political” NGOs like Human Rights Watch (about which Benjamin Birnbaum has published a scrupulous and withering piece in The New Republic). The blogosphere is the third place of origin for irresponsible information and opinion.

 

 

Right now and maybe for a few months more, these views are being bolstered by the pogrom of international rhetoric about the Mavi Marmara, the jihadist ship dressed up as a Mississippi River cruise boat. Of course, the onslaught of hostility to Zion comes daily from the United Nations; its recognizably degraded agencies; gangster governments like Iran with its allies Turkey and Syria; and, alas, over the last year, in the highest echelons—the very highest echelons—of the Obama administration.

Fouad Ajami, the great scholar of the Middle East and a frequent TNR contributor, has an essay titled “Iran and the ‘Freedom Recession’” in The Wall Street Journal. It is, as you can see from its title, not about Israel or imagined Palestine but about Persia and its present struggle for freedom and decency. He writes, “There is no guarantee that categorical American support would have altered the outcome of the struggle between autocracy and liberty in Iran. But it shall now be part of the narrative of liberty that when Persia rose in the summer of 2009, the steward of American power ducked for cover, and that a president who prided himself on his eloquence couldn’t even find the words to tell the forces of liberty that he understood the wellsprings of their revolt.”

President Obama’s failure to find the right words is not a failure of eloquence. It is a failure of truth and a deliberate aversion to the truths of history. Obama’s disregard for Zionist achievements in building a real society in Palestine and preparing for statehood from the fin de siècle until the eve of the Jewish catastrophe cannot be a result of ignorance, although it may well be a willed ignorance. The fact is that the president has his own narrative, and it is essential to his view of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and of how to settle it. The one major problem with his perspective is that it is largely untrue or, to be more precise, it is maybe 20 percent true. For one, it is untrue in that he omits the essential Zionism of the Jewish religion. But faith is only faith, and prayer kept the vision alive. What it did not do is build a real polity in the Holy Land and in the Diaspora and, from that, a state. Zionism did that.

Zionism was part of the “springtime of nations” that burst out in the middle of the nineteenth century ... as an aftereffect. Liberal nationalism in Europe did not quite admit the Jews to its rights or did so only on the conditions of utter assimilation and cultural self-denial. Indeed, progressives almost everywhere picked up anti-Semitic tropes and made them their own. Here begins the history of modern Jewish nationalism.

I will not recite this history just because President Obama fails to acknowledge it. But the history of Israel cannot be understood without grasping its Zionist essence: the holiness of the land, the religion of work, the law as foundation of justice, the discipline of science, the connection of every Jew to another, the centrality of Jerusalem as the physical and spiritual pivot of “the return.” You may think it corny. Still, the prayer: “next year in Jerusalem.” And the reality: already this year.

 

Why am I discussing the ugly ruminations of Helen Thomas in tandem with the president’s views of and policies toward Israel? Not because they are kindred. Obama is not a stupid or a malicious man. But I also happen to think that, almost across the board, he is not wise in his conduct of foreign policy. His incompetence in the Middle East and especially with reference to Israel-Palestine derives from his utter coolness to the Jewish nation and his intellectually distorting emotions about the Arab and Muslim orbits.

 

 

With his arrival in Turkey on his first overseas trip during his presidency, Obama came down on the side of the “world of Islam,” with which liberal Muslims have been struggling for decades. It is a struggle for the nation-state, with incipient liberalizing aspirations, against the doctrine of the Islamists, which was best expressed by Sayyid Qutb, “A Muslim has no nationality except his belief.” In his visits to Ankara and Istanbul, he was more concerned with courting the Turks as part of Islam than the Turks as a nation. This certainly pleased Prime Minister Erdogan, who has since shown just how much further he wants to go in that direction.

Islam was even more the core of Obama’s visit to Egypt than it was in Turkey. It was not just his historic distortions of Muslims and Islam and their institutions. Or, for that matter, his exaggerations about how many Americans are Muslims. And his tacky misrepresentations of the relations between Muslim countries and the United States throughout history. He also chooses to pick between factions in an intra-Islamic religious debate. He even took a swipe at our French allies, who are weighing whether a woman should be able to wear hijab, jilbab, niqab, khimar in the street. I find the proposal a bit silly. But I am not French. OK, the American president thinks the choice of clothes a civil liberty. The truly endangered and coerced women, however, are those in Muslim countries—in the Muslim world, as Obama would have it. But he has not spoken up for them.

So back to Helen Thomas. She hates Jews. The president does not. But, as he couldn’t find a suitable voice for Iran, he cannot find a suitable and truthful voice for Israel. And, if President Obama thinks, as he seems to, that there was no century of Zionist democratic state-building or 20 years of crimped and “temporary” frontiers until, in 1967, three neighboring states, with tangible support from across the Arab world, sought to dissolve even these, why should he not give his heart to the Palestinians and his back or back of his hand to the Israelis?

Thomas believes that Israel only exists because of its refugees from Germany and Poland. The president is not so coarse. And he must know that nearly one million Jews escaped from horrific Arab and Islamic realms immediately at the dawn of independence, and a considerable number did so before that.

In fact, insofar as Obama reads his history, as he seems to do, as a transaction between the Holocaust and what the Arabs call the nakba, the disaster, it is distorted history. It is not only that the traumas of two people are not at all similar or compassable in weight and depth. It is ridiculous to have to argue this elementary point. For almost 100 years, the Arabs of Palestine and the Arabs beyond thought they could simply dismiss Zionism and the vital liberal society it built. They can’t. And the president shouldn’t either.

 

Martin Peretz is the editor-in-chief of The New Republic.

For more TNR, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 245 comments

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

245 comments

Talk about ignoring history! What would Herzl have thought, to hear of the "religious' and "spiritual" core of Zionism.

- NR851651

June 19, 2010 at 12:47am

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

That dull-witted old sow deserves the contempt of all decent people. But she hates the Jews, and she hates the United States, which is enough to make "progressives" think she is well, kinda sorta OK.

- bulbman1066

June 19, 2010 at 1:05am

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

Did Peretz say something here? If he did, I have no idea what it was. Seems is though the point is simply to express his distaste for Obama without having anything in particular to complain of on this occasion.

- roidubouloi

June 19, 2010 at 1:18am

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

Most of this is spittle-flecked garbage. Particularly galling are these lines: "President Obama’s failure to find the right words is not a failure of eloquence. It is a failure of truth and a deliberate aversion to the truths of history. Obama’s disregard for Zionist achievements in building a real society in Palestine and preparing for statehood from the fin de siècle until the eve of the Jewish catastrophe cannot be a result of ignorance, although it may well be a willed ignorance." Mr. Peretz, you likely only read Jeffrey Goldberg when he contributes to your magazine, else you wouldn't have missed examples like this one, from the heat of the Presidential Campaign in 2008, when Goldberg interviewed the then-candidate and asked him if he had what can roughly be called "a gut understanding" of Jewish fears. Obama responded thusly (http://tinyurl.com/3ybvm88), "I think the idea of Israel and the reality of Israel is one that I find important to me personally. Because it speaks to my history of being uprooted, it speaks to the African-American story of exodus, it describes the history of overcoming great odds and a courage and a commitment to carving out a democracy and prosperity in the midst of hardscrabble land." I quote this passage because I was particularly struck by a phrase relevant to Mr. Peretz's concerns: "carving out a democracy." That is "building a real society in Palestine." That is the hard work of Zionism. The president gets it. Mr. Peretz, on the other hand, is only interested in getting what he wants: chest-thumping. The United States champions Israel's security with military and other aid-correctly, in my view-the president shows no sign of flinching on that, but in Peretz's view, he's not clapping loudly enough. On Iran's revolution of last year, you think the president "couldn't find the words," but you omit, probably willfully, his evocation of Dr. King ("The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice."). What else was the King reference but a call to the protesters to keep fighting, for their work would eventually lead to justice? Also, you fail to explore the possibility-neigh, probability, given the reach of American power-that the presence of a former C.I.A. director at the Pentagon means the United States is willing to quietly, secretly nudge peaceful revolutions like Iran's. This will probably be dismissed by those who agree with what Peretz wrote here as a "predictable" response. Perhaps it is. But then, this was a predictable column, and the inflexibility of Peretz on many foreign policy questions these days makes him very difficult to read. Indeed, one hears whining in his words, not healthy skepticism.

- TJ814

June 19, 2010 at 1:21am

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

I disagree with you guys. This needed to be said. Roi, you continually try to ignore the problem of European, particularly British antisemitism, and declare that it has nothing to do with America or American "progressives" let alone "realists." But it does have a great deal to do with both. Helen Thomas is not being criticized in the left wing European press. Worse, the government of Britain isn't enforcing its own laws concerning the direct aid and funding of Hamas. Here, we have attacks on American Jews - comments about "disloyalty" about people of the calibre of Dennis Ross - from within the Administration. This shouldn't happen, this isn't the 1930's. But we have professors and students on American campuses who make it impossible even to hear Israeli or proIsrael speakers. One could go on but it shouldn't be necessary - unless you've been asleep the past several years the astonishing increase in bigotry against Jews and against Israel is plenty obvious, though as Mr. Peretz points out, it remains pretty fringe among the American people. But that isn't stopping the Presbyterian leadership for example, it hasn't stopped Jimmy Carter, Chas Freeman, and other Americans of power and influence from attacking both Israel and those in the US who support Israel (and no this doesn't mean we can't criticize etc etc etc.) Read the comment thread on any article about Israel in the Huffington Post for example. On the right we get other angles of commentary, for example endless discussions about the Liberty and "dual loyalty" and of course, "interests" whatever that means. The ignorance is astonishing. Leaders need to confront this, Gibb's comment was more appropriate and it was welcome particularly since many "progressives" not only attack Israel routinely but also, of all the people who voted for the Iraq war, only Joe Lieberman was singled out for a national attempt to take his senate seat. That's worrisome. And, I think many of us were offended when Israel was linked merely to the Shoah in Cairo and we've been concerned by developments since, and also by a lack of vision concerning eventual solutions to the Arab/Israeli conflict - including the problem of outside incitement but also a lack of honesty concerning ROR and other key issues, and the history of the Mizrachim is key to that yet it's never discussed.

- Sophia

June 19, 2010 at 2:14am

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

The irony is the more Obama kisses Muslim behind the more contempt the Islamic world shows for our wretched excuse for a leader. Guess what: Muslims know a coward and a fool when they see one.

- bulbman1066

June 19, 2010 at 3:36am

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

roi - let me help you understand the logical progression of Marty's essay. Helen Thomas' wish for the Jews of Israel to return to their countries of origin is an extreme example of the lack of understanding and appreciation for the Zionist enterprise. It links to Obama in that while the Obama Administration supports Israel with generous military and other aid, nevertheless, Obama's ardent wooing of Islamic nations, his lack of hard demands on the Palestinians, and his cold attitude in general towards Israel represent, in a much milder form, a similar lack of appreciation for the Zionist enterprise. Though a bigoted rant is not really comparable to a foreign policy, Peretz views their connection as a shared attitude of disdain and disrespect. So roi, assuming I have interpreted Marty's intention correctly (never a sure thing), two follow-up questions might be: Is Obama missing some important aspect of the long history of Zionism that might influence his attitude and policy? And, is his pursuit of better relations with the Islamic world at the cost of distancing us from Israel working out to advance US interests? My answer to the second question would be, so far not really. On the first question, I really don't know, but I'm dubious whether resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is really key to improving relations with all of Islam. Plus, I don't see it happening any time soon. So the cost-benefit ratio is not looking all that good. On a broader front, I've noticed that many commenters are so incensed about Marty's verbal tics and hobbyhorses, some of which are admittedly quite annoying (e.g. bashing Hillary, putting down Arabs), that they miss what I see as a man who has found his major life purpose, namely the defense of Israel against all its enemies, foreign and domestic, real and hypothetical, and is deeply engaged in carrying it out. As someone who shares Marty's profound appreciation for the Zionist enterprise, even though I also get annoyed, I'm glad he's in the ring taking his shots.

- JackR

June 19, 2010 at 7:54am

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

Main stream media people almost never challenge the big lie of Helen Thomas and other anti-Israel hawkers that Israeli Jews all derive from Germany and Poland. Peretz rightly reminds us that nearly a million came to Israel from other Middle Eastern countries to escape Islamic Apartheid.

- amidut

June 19, 2010 at 7:54am

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

I read this how essay and other than the obvious fact that Helen Thomas is a bigoted old lady who got what she deserved I have no idea what Marty is talking about. He criticizes Obama's policy toward Turkey but doesn't say what Obama did (or said) in Turkey that he objects to. He says Obama distorts Islam -- how or in what way we have no idea. He doesn't like Obama's comments on the hijab in France, but then calls the French proposal silly. Could TNR hire a Peretz translator?

- PeteM

June 19, 2010 at 8:07am

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

I really like your post Jack, but I wish I could agree with more of it. I don't find Marty any more ardent of Israel than her friends who may have critiques (and yes, of course they exist). "Defending at all costs" isn't what I experience with Marty, I find his inability to employ critical thinking skills with regard to Israel as extremely dangerous to his cause. In TJ814's memorable phrase, Marty risks nothing with his "chest thumping" and his incessant screeching to the choir. Good riddance on Helen Thomas, what she said was deeply disgusting and bigoted. I certainly have no problem with kicking her again for it. Let's send HER to Poland or Germany as a Jew in her next life. What a horror show of a human being! But the reality is that all of that has already been said, so its hard to consider that there is any other reason for it except as yet another frame to slander Obama and play the mind-reader on his supposed "motives." Let's sometime que the tapes on exactly what Obama has said to his Muslim audiences - I defy anyone to find one instance where he wasn't demanding as well as conciliatory. I defy anyone to find one instance where he did not defend Israel in detail. How is Obama as cold towards Israel? Yes, he is cold towards her stupidly macho incompetent of a President and good for Obama for it. Bibi has made Israel more vulnerable than ever. There is no partnership with Bibi and the US, there is only taking, lying, destroying and undermining - and he has never been any different with the our Presidents. I loathe him, and I don't blame Obama if he does too.

- WandreyCer

June 19, 2010 at 8:28am

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

Wandrey - I love your design for Helen Thomas' next life. There is one issue on which all Arabs, very much including the Palestinians, are united, and that is in their desire to see the state of Israel disappear (shades of Helen). They see it as an imperialistic European encroachment. Hence their rejection of every Israeli proposal for a two state solution. Obama to my knowledge has NEVER demanded that the Palestinians accept Israel as a Jewish state. The lack of such a demand will never appear on a tape; there would be nothing to tape. I consider myself a strong supporter of Obama, but I don't feel obligated to genuflect at his misadventures, of which I consider his exaggerated effort to redress Bush's pro-Israel tilt one of the most egregious.

- JackR

June 19, 2010 at 10:15am

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

Roi is getting easier and easier to ignore with his predictable anti-Peretz cliches.

- jdyer

June 19, 2010 at 11:25am

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

"JackR "There is one issue on which all Arabs, very much including the Palestinians, are united, and that is in their desire to see the state of Israel disappear (shades of Helen)." It's been noticed that on the issue of Israel and Jews the Arabs and Muslims maintain a frightening unanimity. They would like Jews living under Muslim rule to resume their status as dhimmis! These views are now being echoed by the left who never could tolerate Judaism. “They see it as an imperialistic European encroachment. Hence their rejection of every Israeli proposal for a two state solution.” I don’t entirely agree, here. Arabs and Muslims oppose Israel not because they see it as a “European encroachment” more than half the Jews in Israel are Mizrahi which is to say Jews who fled Arab and Muslim countries. Some may use that language in order to appeal to European leftists, but their hatred of Israel is based on their hatred of Jews, and not on the notion that it is a “European” colonial power. They know very well that Jews are not Europeans (as do most Europeans). This is one of the reasons for their hatred. Only a few leftist misguided and ignorant Jews see themselves as “Europeans,” in the same way that some German Jews saw themselves as “German.” In reality even European non Jewish leftists when they are being honest will tell you that Jews are not European. This is what Trotsky and other “Jewish Bolsheviks” found out when it was too late after the Stalinists took over.

- jdyer

June 19, 2010 at 11:39am

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

Not getting any easier for you, jackson. I don't know what jackson is talking about when he says that European Jews are not European. Genetically? Both yes and no. Culturally? Both yes and no. The history of Diaspora is unique and it makes European Jews both particular and cosmopolitan at the same time. I see no meaning or point in trying to affix the label definitively or deny it definitively. One thing is for sure: Israel is most definitely part of the culture of the west, whatever its oriental flavors. __________________ Sophia, I have no problem kicking Helen Thomas from here to there and back again. It is perfectly appropriate to denounce anti-Semitism wherever and whenever it appears. However, it is not the defining motif for all policy, including all policy related to Israel. It would be like starting every discussion about everything with a little reprise about Nazism before segueing to the subject at hand. So, no I don't get the connections Peretz is trying to make. I don't think that he really has any in mind -- just likes to mention things he hates and things he dislikes in the same post in order to suggest that they are equally worthy of opprobrium or are in some deep way the same thing. And, despite his ardor, I certainly don't think that Peretz is defending Israel, any more than Netanyahu's policies are defending Israel. They are misguided and jeopardize Israel's security. The persistent belief that, because anti-Semitism is real and Arab anti-Semitism motivates much of Arab rhetoric and policy toward Israel, stasis, occupation, colonization, and stupidity are therefore acceptable, is a threat to Israel's future. Israel is the governing power in Israel and Palestine. If it does what is within its power to move the population there toward at least peaceful coexistence, responds vigorously AND DEFTLY to attacks and threats, and cultivates positive relations with the rest of the civilized world within the constraints of its own security needs, it will be as safe as it can be in this world. If it does less than that, it will be less safe and it won't matter one whit whether the source of the threats is anti-Semitic sentiment or not.

- roidubouloi

June 19, 2010 at 1:26pm

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

jdyer - I think you could be right. I was focused on the European history of Zionism (e.g. Herzl, Weissman, Ben Gurion, Begin, etc.) and, maybe, on Helen's wish that all Israelis return to Poland and Germany, rather than to the Arab diaspora.

- JackR

June 19, 2010 at 1:36pm

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

JackR “jdyer - I think you could be right. I was focused on the European history of Zionism (e.g. Herzl, Weissman, Ben Gurion, Begin, etc.) and, maybe, on Helen's wish that all Israelis return to Poland and Germany, rather than to the Arab diaspora.” She was following the old leftist script that says that all Zionists are European even though even before Herzl there were many thousands of Mizrahis living in Jerusalem. The Jews of that city constituted a majority (many of them were from the mizrach) till they were ethnically cleansed by the Arab League in 1947, 1948. Moreover, Jews in pre-war Europe were, while given in some counties the rights of citizenship, (which could and often were taken away) were not thought of as originating in Europe, hence that they couldn’t be French, of English, or German, etc. Even Sartre one of the most pro-Jewish intellectuals wrote about Jews as non Europeans. Many Jews (especially the more progressive ones) deluded themselves into thinking that they were just as much French, of English, or German as the native population. Amos Oz has written that in early 30’s when his family left Germany for mandate Palestine he saw grafitti which read, “Jews go to Palestine;” while in 1968 when he visited Germany on a lecture tour he saw grafitti which read “Jews out of Palestine.” This is the logic of the Helen Thomas’ of this world.

- jdyer

June 19, 2010 at 1:56pm

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

Sophia, one small note. You write, "But we have professors and students on American campuses who make it impossible even to hear Israeli or pro-Israel speakers." You might find it interesting that at University of California, Irvine, the pro-Palestinian students that shouted down Oren were banned for a year. The university looked into the situation and determined that this protest had been planned, and that the students had lied about that fact.

- MOLLYSIMON

June 19, 2010 at 1:57pm

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

As Stephen Colbert pointed out to the Israeli Ambassador, it was outrageous for Helen Thomas to suggest that Israeli Jews go back to where they came from, what we need is someone with the courage to tell the Palestinians they will have to go back to where they came from instead.

- nayyer_ali

June 19, 2010 at 5:28pm

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

The most basic and controlling fact that Marty never seems to notice is that in 1948, 70% of the population of the Mandate Palestine were Arabic speaking Palestinians. In 2048, we will have come full circle and that percentage will be restored. Apartheid is not acceptable to the rest of the planet, which means that we are going to see the end of hardline Zionism. Already 500,000 Israelis, mostly educated liberals, have fled for the West. They don't want any part of what Israel is becoming, and if people like Marty have their way, in 50 years it will be more than 70% Palestinians, as all the liberal secular Jews will have decamped and left Israel a state for the Orthodox. An odd end to Herzl's vision. Beinart is right, people like Marty are Israel's greatest enemies. I find the irony just a bit amusing.

- nayyer_ali

June 19, 2010 at 6:45pm

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

nayyer_ali: "... what we need is someone with the courage to tell the Palestinians they will have to go back to where they came from instead." Where is that the Arabian Peninsula, or perhaps Jordan and Syria? Anyway, it takes no courage to tell people to destroy Israel and kill the Jews. This is done on a daily basis in the Arab media.

- jdyer

June 19, 2010 at 7:08pm

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

"Moreover, Jews in pre-war Europe were, while given in some counties the rights of citizenship, (which could and often were taken away) were not thought of as originating in Europe, hence that they couldn’t be French, of English, or German, etc. " Most European countries have a tradition of jus sanguinis, birthright by blood, with benefits of maintaining culture and national identity. I don't have much problem with this for countries like Israel or Ireland or Germany at the present day because these countries are based on ethnic identity above all. Historically though this meant the Jackson was right, Jews had no birthright by blood, and hence were never regarded as being truly part of the society. The US, of course, has jus soli, birth by soil, and it is for this reason that every Jew born in America is American. NO QUESTION. And Nayyer Ali, in 1948 Baghdad had a plurality Jewish population. What are the odds that any Jew would live long there now? Not only do the Arabs want all of the Arab world but they also want Israel too, and Spain, Eastern Europe, etc. etc. The Arabs had more than enough opportunities to come to an accommodation with Jews and instead they chose war, over and over again. And why do Palestinians have so many children, for the same reason all third world impoverished and benighted civilizations do, because parents feel they have to have enough children so that some can survive and take care of them in their old age. Why would you find generations of dirt poor backwater peasantry "amusing" This is no victory, it is a resounding defeat for these people because it means the people have no faith in the possibility of good government for themselves ever. Yes, the Palestinians will show those prosperous Jews something by living 20 to a room sharing a communal kitchen and bathroom with a hundred other dirt poor people. I recognize the tragedy in this, you consider it a victory. Who truly is the anti-Palestinian?

- blackton

June 19, 2010 at 7:24pm

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

Helen Thomas and Barack Obama both have distorted views of Israel's history (yeah, I got temporarily suckered by that Obama quote in Jeffrey Goldberg's article). What Helen Thomas said to the rabbi entering the official WH reception celebrating Jewish-American Heritage was highly symbolic of her comfort level with Obama's distancing himself, and U.S. foreign policy, from a tight embrace of Israel. In that regard, Helen Thomas is a proxy for Erdogan, most of the EU, and the media who all pile on Israel: guilty until proven guilty. Obama is guilty of being so blindly NOT-Bush43 that he is now betraying Iraqi Kurds in order to placate Erdogan. I just hope we still have until 2012 for legal regime change in the White House, although the next President of the United States will be spending a lot of time reassuring the world that he is NOT Obama, although I doubt that Great Britain, Mexico, and India will still be listening. I keep thinking this is all a cover story, that Obama is manipulating the world in order to expose the truth about Hamas, Turkey, and Iran. Otoh, it is increasingly apparent that Obama's education totally frames his world view that European and American imperialism is the source of all evil. Too bad he missed the course about Ottoman and Russian land empire imperialism. What exactly is Obama's foreign policy trying to accomplish besides being the NOT-Bush43 (who in his turn tried so hard to be the NOT-Bush41)?

- K2K

June 19, 2010 at 7:32pm

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

For a short while, a very short while, I thought Obama was Prince Hal. But he turns out to be a very different sort of a leader. I'm not sure I can find any Shakespearean model for him.

- noga1

June 19, 2010 at 9:18pm

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

After WWII, the US built a series of international institutions, such as the UN, NATO, the World Bank, the IMF, the Bretton Woods monetary system, all of which were designed to maintain American pre-eminence and hegemony on the cheap, meaning without outright military domination, which would have been too taxing even for us, although there was plenty of military in the mix. It was pretty damned smart. The trade-off, however, in terms of getting other nations to cooperate, was to persuade them that it was something more than a system of American hegemony and advantage, that it was a system of law and rights, restraint and mutual security, that all could attain to. That system lasted, with many strains and setbacks, right until Bush gave the finger to the Security Council, asking for sanction for his war, not getting it, and then going on about it anyway. This exploded the idea that the system imposed any restraint on the US itself, and not just on everyone else. This is exactly what American neo-cons wanted, because they believed that the US had more than enough power on its own to do what it wanted and they wanted to free the US from the constraints of international law. They were, of course, quite wrong about the extent of American power and about our ability to operate unilaterally and successfully. In extremis, when we are prepared to exert our maximum effort, perhaps. But the whole point of the system we had constructed was to maintain de facto hegemony without having to exert maximum effort, to leverage our effort by channeling it through international institutions. The stupidity of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice boggles the imagination. By trashing the system, they strained our relations with allies, put Russia and China on notice that we would be operating in our own interest where and when we pleased, without regard to their status as permanent members of the Security Council, and helped to stimulate forces around the globe the inevitably resist naked American hegemony. Now Peretz wonders aloud at the fact that so many nations are behaving in a manner hostile to American interests and indifferent to American power. Why? Because on the way to Baghdad, Bush and Co. succeeded not in "shock and awe," but in demonstrating in Afghanistan and Iraq, and now Pakistan, the limits of American power. With the US strained to its limits (in the absence of any real mobilization of our society), everyone from the Turks to the Venezuelans to the Russians to the Chinese is pretty much free to thumb their noses at us. Jerks like Martin Peretz, who seemingly understand absolutely nothing about the world as it is, appear to believe that we can re-establish the power relationships we would like merely by tough talk, denouncing enemies, proclaiming our support for human rights, and so forth. This is inane. What Obama is trying to do is put Humpty Dumpty back together by trying to mitigate hostility toward American unilateralism and find some ground upon which we can again look to exert authority without paying the price, in terms of sheer military power and economic hardball, that we as a people are far from willing to pay. ("There's a war on, go shopping.") It is not clear whether and how this can be achieved. It is, for sure, a bit of groping. But the Peretz approach -- more of what has landed us in this mess, unilateralism and a lot of belligerent talk that we are unable and/or unwilling to back up -- is completely asinine. Of one thing we can be certain, if Peretz were praising Obama, then Obama's foreign policy would be asinine too. While Peretz's carping and whining are by themselves no assurance that Obama is on the right track, it is at least some indication that he is trying to find a solution.

- roidubouloi

June 19, 2010 at 9:31pm

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

Nayer, that is no more of a "controlling" fact than the legions of Jews in 1948 living under Jim Crow (or worse) regimes in the Arab world who risked their own and their families lives to flee to Israel at a time when a second holocaust was a very real possibility. How many of them, or their Sephardic ancestors, have "fled" Israel? Seriously, give a number and a source as you do (well, a number, no source) here. Hundreds of thousands more civilians, Muslim and Hindus, were forced from their a"ncestral homelands during the India/Pakistan partition -- nobody bemoans, for example, the plight of Sindhi Hindus, probably because instead of refugee camps, occupied territories and Black Mondays India simply took them in. This is not to say the Palestinians don't have some just and rightful claims, but the Jews that Marty mentions are simply erased from the "nakba" narrative.

- Lymon1

June 19, 2010 at 9:51pm

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

There were more Jewish refugees from Arab countries absorbed by Israel than there were Arab refugees from the war of independence, which was a war of aggression by Arab states. The debt is paid. Israel owes the Arab refugees exactly nothing. _____________________ "I'm not sure I can find any Shakespearean model for him." This means trouble. In the absence of some analogy to fiction, how can we possibly understand US politics and policy? No Austen, no Shakespeare. An intellectual vacuum.

- roidubouloi

June 19, 2010 at 9:59pm

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

Roi, your parenthetical phrase, "in the absence of any real mobilization of our society," is most revealing. My big beef with Bush was not that he did too much on 9/12, but that he did too little. Instead of putting our country on a war footing with all the sacrifices that entails and at a time when we were willing to go along with it, and organizing grand regional alliances to deal with jihadi Islam, he told us to resume business as usual. It soon became clear to me that tax cuts for billionaires were more important to him than protecting our country. And this was before Iraq.

- NR114746

June 19, 2010 at 10:22pm

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

K2K says "next President of the United States will be spending a lot of time reassuring the world that he is NOT Obama, although I doubt that Great Britain, Mexico, and India will still be listening." Oh yes those three countries are no longer our allies. Where do you get his garbage? Darn that Obama for actually talking to other countries and engaging in diplomacy. Hasn't he ever heard of death squads or starting wars, like right wing leaders offer?

- OscarPeck

June 19, 2010 at 11:09pm

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

Bush wasn't going to organize grand regional alliances to deal with jihadi Islam because the top slot belonged to Saudi Arabia, the Bushes great buddies. He picked Iraq because it was weak and a pariah state, thinking that this would be enough of a demonstration project to intimidate the jihadis found elsewhere. The whole thing was misconceived from top to bottom, including delusions about the reach of American power. What we most needed to do was reach firm consensus with our allies about how to proceed. The west collectively is more than strong enough to face down Islamism. Now we don't have much of a collective.

- roidubouloi

June 19, 2010 at 11:24pm

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

Top slot for Saudi Arabia amongst jihadis that is.

- roidubouloi

June 19, 2010 at 11:25pm

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

Obama has launched a very different approach to Saudi Arabia. http://bunkerville.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/obama-bow.jpg

- noga1

June 19, 2010 at 11:44pm

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

I thought Roi's comments about Bush were right on. One got the sense that, unopposed by the Soviets, Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld et.al. thought they were an empire. As to foreign policy vis a vis Israel, this is interesting: http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/rosner/entry/the_six_lousy_reminders_by

- Sophia

June 20, 2010 at 1:09am

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

The Bush administration was philosemitic and pro-Western. The Obama administration is, in foreign policy, anti-Semitic, anti-western, and Islamophilic. I choose the West. I believe that democracy is superior to dictatorship. I believe that women should be treated like human beings and not like chattel. I think homosexuals should be left alone and not persecuted and murdered. I think that science is the best path to truth, and that the rantings of an illiterate 7th century lunatic should be treated with the contempt they deserve. Guess what people. Not all cultures are equal. The Islamic culture is for the most part a cesspool of ignorance, stupidity and barbarism. Liberals who pretend otherwise are either liars or fools.

- bulbman1066

June 20, 2010 at 1:45am

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

Roi. You seem awfully concerned about hegemony. Particularly American hegemony. Am I to infer from your writings that an Obama flavored reset on the terms of that hegemony are the smart way of pursuing continuation of the same? You contend that hubris and conceit, arrogance and greed, to be the Bush administrations prime offenses. Are you advocating a kinder, gentler hegemony as a means to an end? What might that end be and does it have a moral touchstone?

- jacko

June 20, 2010 at 7:38am

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

Gotta go to a wedding, jacko. Later.

- roidubouloi

June 20, 2010 at 7:58am

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

Enjoy yourself. I will be in and out today as well. We'll go forth with all allowances.

- jacko

June 20, 2010 at 8:04am

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

America was a reluctant hegemon after WW2. the "series of international institutions, such as the UN, NATO, the World Bank, the IMF, the Bretton Woods monetary system" were meant as much to stop the European war cycle and to restrain Stalin and Mao so as to "maintain American pre-eminence and hegemony on the cheap". Bush43&co were deluded into believing in American unipolar hegemony. By contrast, Bush41 & Clinton understood American strength, but they both had the sense to try to strengthen multilateral institutions and focus on expanding the benefits of economic growth to more of the world. Highly recommend Greg Behrman's "The Most Noble Adventure: The Marshall Plan and the Time when America Helped Save Europe" to understand that post-WW2 period. Obama seeks to refashion that post-WW2 multilateralism, but without an overriding principle. My big beef is that he goes out of his way to be NOT-Bush43, while continuing many of the same policies (Mexico-drug war, Afghanistan-must win, Turkey-EU, US imperial military expansion) without encouraging reform of any kind at the UN, UNHRC, NATO... It may be that this moment in history would elude any American president, which is why we should at least have a president willing to change course. The most recent example is State's PJ Crowley giving Turkey the green light to keep invading Iraq to kill Kurdish terrorists last week. What a betrayal at the precise moment when the Iraqi Kurds do not know whether to support an inclusive government or go along with the Iranian-influenced Shi'a coalition. If the neocons were deluded to think the path to peace in Jerusalem ran through Baghdad, is it not equally delusional to believe the path to peace in North Waziristan means handing half of Jerusalem to Palestinians who may elect Taliban-lite Hamas?

- K2K

June 20, 2010 at 8:48am

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

"I choose the West. I believe that democracy is superior to dictatorship. " http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VGmbL0Dlwo&feature=player_embedded

- noga1

June 20, 2010 at 9:29am

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

"The reviews of Obama's performance have been disappointing. He has seemed uncomfortable in the role of leading other nations, and often seems to suggest there is nothing special about America's role in the world. The global community was puzzled over the pictures of Obama bowing to some of the world's leaders and surprised by his gratuitous criticisms of and apologies for America's foreign policy under the previous administration of George W. Bush. One Middle East authority, Fouad Ajami, pointed out that Obama seems unaware that it is bad form and even a great moral lapse to speak ill of one's own tribe while in the lands of others." http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/06/18/mort-zuckerman-world-sees-obama-as-incompetent-and-amateur.html

- noga1

June 20, 2010 at 9:38am

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

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/06/18/mort-zuckerman-world-sees-obama-as-incompetent-and-amateur.html

- noga1

June 20, 2010 at 9:42am

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

noga1 - Thanks for the Israeli Druse youtube and the Zuckerman article. Both were wrenching in totally different ways. The youtube reminded me of why Israeli democracy is worth supporting despite its flaws. The Zuckerman article was the most trenchant analysis I've seen of the weakness of Obama's international leadership, and it rang too true to be easily dismissed. I recommend that the rest of you check these two gems.

- JackR

June 20, 2010 at 11:11am

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

G. W. Bush was in fact much better at working with other countries than is the current president. He maintained the special relation with Great Britain. He strengthened alliances with Japan, India and Pakistan. He persuaded most countries in Europe as well as Japan to send troops to Iraq. In sub-Saharan Africa his approval ratings were stratospheric. The French, led by the corrupt, anti-American administration of Chiraq and Dominique de Villepinhead didn't like him, nor did the then leftist government in Germany. No shame in that. Since then France and Germany have elected pro-American governments. By contrast Obama has gone out of his way to insult Great Britain and been cool to most of America's traditional allies. Obama's "apologizing" to Islamic countries has succeeded only in earning him contempt in those quarters. Obama's turn against Israel is scandalous. It seems that being democratic and pro-American is a sin in the eyes of the Obama administration.

- bulbman1066

June 20, 2010 at 11:44am

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

Helen Thomas' kin: "Hizb ut-Tahrir: “purify the earth of Jewish filth”" http://hurryupharry.org/2010/06/20/hizb-ut-tahrir-%e2%80%9cpurify-the-earth-of-jewish-filth%e2%80%9d/ "Women are the 'secret weapon'" By HERB KEINON AND TOVAH LAZAROFF http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=178935 "Meanwhile, Yasser Kashlak, a Syrian businessman of Palestinian descent who heads the “Free Palestine Organization” and is funding this boat, as well as another that is to carry journalists and parliamentarians, said over the weekend on Hizbullah’s al-Manar television station that he was more and more optimistic that one day these same boats would take “Europe’s refuse [the Jews] that came to my homeland back to their homelands. “Gilad Schalit should go back to Paris and those murderers go back to Poland, and after that we will chase them until the ends of the earth to bring them to justice for their acts of slaughter from Deir Yassin until today.” Kashlak, a fervent Hizbullah supporter, called Israel a “rabid dog sent to the region to frighten the Arabs. He said he had a message for Israelis: ‘Get on the ships we are sending you and go back to your lands. Don’t let the moderate Arab leaders delude you, [you] cannot make peace with us. Our children will return to Palestine, you have no reason for coexistence. Even if our leaders will sign a peace agreement, we will not sign.’” He said the boat carrying journalists and parliamentarians will carry 12 former American diplomats as well.."

- jdyer

June 20, 2010 at 12:38pm

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

jackr: as it happens I had read the Zuckerman article and likewise thought it was strong and I agree with your argument for the coherence of Peret'z post. I was going to reprise it to show that, as you have, but am happy with your summary of it. jackd: I'm coming into the home stretch of Berman's book and, as you noted before I got there, I was taken with the discussion of the anti- Blum French left and as well the take down of Chomsky and his reductive twin theories of 1. power and greed and 2. innate freedom as explainers of all things states and their special interests and masses do with no allowance for pathological mass movements in his clinging to a narrow pre-World War 1 belief in a narrowily conceived rationalism. Also, I keep enjoying how eloquent is Berman, with his *mostly* home spun, homely, plain speaking, vernacular prose style that builds on itself to complement the clear incisiveness of his analysis and his judicious summations of his research and his own thinking. It's a hell of a book. Did you perchance read his writings on Carl Sandburg?

- basman

June 20, 2010 at 1:13pm

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

jackd: One more brief comment: I was talking to a couple of guys who read Berman's book and we agreed that on the evidence of the beginning of his book one can make a good case for his support of the Iraq war on Bush theory of prevention (as opposed to pre emption) and I believe that that is what Hitchins's support for the war also finally boils down to--that Hussein disentitled himself from the relative immunities of sovereignty by his cumulative actions over time.

- basman

June 20, 2010 at 1:24pm

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

I second JackR's recomendation of noga's link, the Zuckerman article - thank you noga. I didn't agree with all of it, but it was wise in many ways. Thanks again. And so the blockade ends, thank you Bibi. I hope I shall be able to trust him more or at least get past my anger with him.

- WandreyCer

June 20, 2010 at 1:59pm

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

Jacko - excellent question, I look forward to the debate - better than University.

- WandreyCer

June 20, 2010 at 2:04pm

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

wandrey: "so the blockade ends" NO, the blockade continues, with changes to what is banned to focus solely on military weapons. Everything still has to be checked, and the naval blockade continues. go back to being mad at netanyahu - no one cares. Turkey's secular Hurriyet jumps on the Helen Thomas bandwagon, although the comments challenge the headline: "Israelis flock 'back' to Germany" is about how a few thousand Israelis who are entitled to German citizenship have taken advantage of it.

- K2K

June 20, 2010 at 2:26pm

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

"Meanwhile, Yasser Kashlak, a Syrian businessman of Palestinian descent who heads the “Free Palestine Organization” and is funding this boat, as well as another that is to carry journalists and parliamentarians, said over the weekend on Hizbullah’s al-Manar television station that he was more and more optimistic that one day these same boats would take “Europe’s refuse [the Jews] that came to my homeland back to their homelands. “Gilad Schalit should go back to Paris and those murderers go back to Poland, and after that we will chase them until the ends of the earth to bring them to justice for their acts of slaughter from Deir Yassin until today.” Kashlak, a fervent Hizbullah supporter, called Israel a “rabid dog sent to the region to frighten the Arabs. He said he had a message for Israelis: ‘Get on the ships we are sending you and go back to your lands. Don’t let the moderate Arab leaders delude you, [you] cannot make peace with us. Our children will return to Palestine, you have no reason for coexistence. Even if our leaders will sign a peace agreement, we will not sign.’” He said the boat carrying journalists and parliamentarians will carry 12 former American diplomats as well.." http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=178935 No doubt, if Israel stops building those apartment units in Ramat Shlomo, Kashlak will be singing a very different tune.

- noga1

June 20, 2010 at 3:29pm

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

Oops. Sorry. I see Jackson has already posted a link to this enlightening article.

- noga1

June 20, 2010 at 3:30pm

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

Well then K2K, the "blockade" finally makes something resembling sense. Most of the rest of it was vindictive and (most importantly) highly counterproductive. Blocking weapons imported from terrorists in any country seems logical, let alone Gaza. Shutting down all means of productive life does not. I'm not "mad" at Netanyahu, that infers something that could change. He's been too consistently awful for that. Anyone who trusts him is a fool.

- WandreyCer

June 20, 2010 at 3:39pm

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

Thanks noga, ugh. I should add that I do appreciate the risk Netanyahu is taking, at least appearing to bow to world opinion. This is not usually his way and his own people seem opposed to it. Good for him, no matter what his angel is. It's still entirely up to the enemies to take appropriate advantage of this fig leaf. Releasing your kidnapped soldier just for starters. I won't hold my breath.

- WandreyCer

June 20, 2010 at 3:43pm

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

make that "enemies of Israel"

- WandreyCer

June 20, 2010 at 3:44pm

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

...that infers something that could change.... "That *implies* something that could change. You imply; I infer. Think of an inference as the extraction or or taking or drawing a meaning from something. It's like the drawing of a conclusion.

- basman

June 20, 2010 at 5:25pm

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

David F. Nesenoff finds the missing link: "Where before I saw a foggy anti-Israel, anti-Jewish link, it's now clear. This feeling is not about statehood. It's about an ingrown, organic hate. It's a sentiment that bears no connection to history, dates, passages or verses. Erase the facts, the dates and the lore. Erase the Jew. Incredibly, even the Nazis said to the Jews, "Go home to Palestine." But Thomas and a babbling stream in our world and country dictate to Jewish people to "go home to Poland and Germany." Yeah, I said "oooh." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/18/AR2010061803204.html

- noga1

June 20, 2010 at 5:32pm

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

"I'm not "mad" at Netanyahu, that infers something that could change. He's been too consistently awful for that. Anyone who trusts him is a fool." WandreyCer: I am definitely not an admirer of Bibi, however, to be fair, every Israeli PM is severely constraint by the structure of the Israeli political system which is quite inefficient. Americans in particular have a problem understanding that the Israeli coalition government does not allow PM to make independent decision without the agreement of the coalition parties, as opposed to the "strong president" system of the US. I think Natanyahu is in non enviable situation in having to deal with the nuts of Israel Beitenu and Likkud. I think that the Gaza blockade is foolish anyway. In my opinion it is necessary for Israel to disconnect itself completely from Gaza. As I said in another blog: no electricity, no fuel, no food, no building materials, nothing, zilch, nada... Hamas wants to have it's cake and eat it too. They want to attack Israel with missiles and demand that Israel feed them. It is absurd for Israel, to support a terrorist enemy regime in the neighbouring enemy state. Gaza has a border with Egypt as well, it has a port, it has sympathetic Arab regimes around, it has it's allies. Israel needs to make sure that it will reserve itself the right to inspect any see or air cargo going to Aza when and if it feels it is suspect. Let's have Egypt deal with Aza. They were Aza's overlords till 1967 so it will be easy for them to pickup where they stopped. Amos 1-3: "For three sins of Gaza, even for four, I will not turn back my wrath .

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

June 20, 2010 at 6:07pm

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

For those who are not familiar with the Hebrew names, "Aza" is Gaza.:)

- noga1

June 20, 2010 at 6:26pm

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

Thanks Noga. I think I will get few hours of sleep.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

June 20, 2010 at 6:47pm

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

Laila tov

- noga1

June 20, 2010 at 6:55pm

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

Thank you makover, a beautiful post that gave me much needed perspective. You'd be surprised how much I think of Israel! I was raised in the 70's by a father and several uncles who were in the Airforce and vocally worshiped Israel as heroic brothers. I'll probably always view them the same way, I look at Bibi as somewhat of a very reckless and frightening family member. I sincerely beg all of your indulgence in such presumption.

- WandreyCer

June 20, 2010 at 7:19pm

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

wandrey: "Good for him, no matter what his angel is. ..." yes, time to invoke the Archangel Michael to deal with Aza. bubonic plague followed by fire? oops, that was London England in 1665-6 during the reign of Charles II. the good old days. sorry, still fuming from CNN's 'moral equivalence interview' of Free Gaza guy. back to Charles II.

- K2K

June 20, 2010 at 7:33pm

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

noga1 “Oops. Sorry. I see Jackson has already posted a link to this enlightening article.” The article is indeed “enlightening” in the sense that it drops all pretense that the war against the Jews is merely an Israeli/Palestinian “conflict.” It’s an Arab/Muslims war against the Jewish people. This was true in 1948 and it’s true today. Btw: if the Jews are “to be sent back” to where they came from then the Arabs and Muslims in Europe and the US should also be sent back to their countries of origin: 'what's fair for the goose is fair for the gander'

- jdyer

June 20, 2010 at 7:37pm

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

From politico, thoughts? Steve Rothman Congressman (D-N.J.) : Israel's security: What the media has underreported There are six hugely important developments that have happened in the last month that will provide extraordinary help to protect Israel’s security. Unfortunately, these events have been underreported in the media: 1. On June 9, the U.N. Security Council passed a set of new sanctions against Iran with Russia, China, the U.S. and nine others voting in favor, with Brazil and Turkey voting no, and Lebanon abstaining. While these sanctions will have some additional effects, and are expected to result in even greater sanctions from the Europeans and the U.S., the most immediate, as well as long-term benefit of the sanctions is that Russia has agreed not to sell its S-300 anti-aircraft system to Iran. The S-300 system is extremely difficult to overcome, according to all knowledgeable military experts. If delivered to Iran, it would be a game-changer in Iran’s military position vis-a-vis Israel. Reduce... 2. On June 12, Saudi Arabia agreed to permit Israel to fly over a portion of its territory, should Israel feel it necessary to undertake military actions against Iran. 3. On June 10, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas publicly stated that Israel should not be forced to end its blockade of Gaza. 4. On June 9, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas publicly declared in Washington that he and the Palestinians were ready to recognize that the Jewish people have a right to some portion of Israel and the territories. 5. On May 10, Israel was admitted, unanimously, to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. This enables Israel to join the world’s fellow economic powers as a co-equal, first class citizen for the first time. 6. On May 13, President Barack Obama announced his intention to give the state of Israel $205 million so that Israel might purchase additional Iron Dome anti-missile defense batteries for deployment throughout the state of Israel.On May 20, the House of Representatives voted 410-4 to affirm President Obama’s decision. The Iron Dome Short Range Artillery Rocket Defense System is designed to intercept short-range rockets, missiles, and mortars launched by terrorists in Gaza and southern Lebanon. It can protect Israel from rockets within a range of 2.5–45 miles. All these six items have a major, positive impact on the security of the state of Israel. Each of these six accomplishments was only made possible with the direct, powerful, and demanding insistence of President Barack Obama. In my opinion, the big picture for Israel’s security has improved. There is, obviously, a long way to go, but progress such as this is important not to overlook, ignore, or belittle.

- WandreyCer

June 20, 2010 at 7:38pm

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

Basman: “Did you perchance read his writings on Carl Sandburg?” No, I am no fan of Sandburg. “jackd: I'm coming into the home stretch of Berman's book and, as you noted before I got there, I was taken with the discussion of the anti- Blum French left and as well the take down of Chomsky and his reductive twin theories of 1. power and greed and 2. innate freedom as explainers of all things states and their special interests and masses do with no allowance for pathological mass movements in his clinging to a narrow pre-World War 1 belief in a narrowily conceived rationalism.” I agree, Itzik, though I don’t have time right now to elaborate. Yes, it was Bergman’s description of the anti-Blum left that made a deep impression on me. We keep talking about Chamberlain’s “peace in out time comment” and it is important though the underlying his sentiment is the same “pacifist impulse” that paralyzed the French left and made it unable to prepare itself for the coming struggle against the Nazis in the 1930’s. Chomsky is indeed a descendant of the uber rationalists who refuse to recognize the irrational in political life.

- jdyer

June 20, 2010 at 7:48pm

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

"On June 9, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas publicly declared in Washington that he and the Palestinians were ready to recognize that the Jewish people have a right to some portion of Israel and the territories." With all due respect, the PA prez has denied saying that. The Saudis also denied that they have given the Jewish State permission to fly over its territory. In world politics it's difficult to say what position a country holds: the public or the private posture?

- jdyer

June 20, 2010 at 7:53pm

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

Steve Rothman is positioning himself as an Obama Democrat: "direct, powerful, and demanding insistence of President Barack Obama." GMAB. the New Jersey 9th should be safe for him, but you just never know if Michael Agosta can get past his bad press and give Rothman a close race in November. Rothman must be scrambling to firm up the Jewish voters in the Ninth with that 6-point Politico thing. the Orthodox might outnumber the Liberal Jews in the Ninth, which is quite a demographic mishmash. New Jersey caught anti-incumbent fever early.

- K2K

June 20, 2010 at 8:00pm

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

The Rosner link I posted earlier addresses his assertions point by point.

- Sophia

June 20, 2010 at 9:24pm

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

Here - about Rothman: http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/rosner/entry/the_six_lousy_reminders_by

- Sophia

June 20, 2010 at 9:26pm

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

It is instructive to compare Israeli-American relations now with what they were in 1948. Truman recognized Israel upon its declaration of independence but slapped an arms embargo before then that stood until JFK sold Israel anti-aircraft missiles almost 15 years later. Whatever military hardware Israel received from the U.S. in 1948 was smuggled out and the Justice Department prosecuted those who got caught. Obama may not be paying the kind of lip service Truman gave, but arms supplies and military cooperation continue unabated.

- NR114746

June 20, 2010 at 9:59pm

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

President Obama may deem Helen Thomas's remarks "offensive," but until he acknowledges the ancestry of the Jewish people, an ancestry whose presence in the Holy Land predates any entity called Palestine, then he reinforces the notion that Jews originated elsewhere.

- drheingold

June 20, 2010 at 10:00pm

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

"It is instructive to compare Israeli-American relations now with what they were in 1948." NOT EVEN REMOTELY RELEVANT. even if NR114746 had the true facts. So, Iran just hung another Sunni-Baluchi freedom fighter, accusing Abdolmalek Rigi of being financially supported by the US/Britain/NATO/Israel/Pakistan Pentagon of evil. way to make friends with Pakistan, who is fighting their own Baluchi separatist movement. nice touch blaming NATO. Iran fighter jets had forced down the commercial flight from Dubai to Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan to arrest Rigi. I bet Putin has a secret room where he keeps track of all these plots :)

- K2K

June 20, 2010 at 11:08pm

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

"Look over there! Cows."

- roidubouloi

June 20, 2010 at 11:30pm

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

Irrelevant to what? If Iran is forcing down commercial flights, it is living in a glass house.

- NR114746

June 20, 2010 at 11:31pm

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

Always the same nonsense from Peretz and his flagellants. "So and so is a real anti-Semite. And, by the way, Obama doesn't say Jew enough, doesn't understand Jewish history properly, doesn't make the right declarations about Jewish history, offers engagement rather than ritual denunciation of enemies, hasn't brought Russia, China, Iran, or Venezuela to heel, etc., etc." When it is pointed out how preposterous this is, invariably the flagellants will shift gears to discuss some fresh outrage by a Moslem government or public figure or to remind us of crimes against humanity in Africa or that Israel's enemies are actually enemies. Anything to shift attention away from the Peretzian absurdities.

- roidubouloi

June 20, 2010 at 11:37pm

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

where is the Rule of Roid that dictates a comment MUST ONLY BE ABOUT ONE TOPIC, and ONLY IF ROID APPROVES OF SAID TOPIC? roid: go to more weddings - everyone here welcomes the absence of your psycopathic derangement and abusive attacks

- K2K

June 20, 2010 at 11:56pm

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

"..then he reinforces the notion that Jews originated elsewhere." Well, maybe he found Nadia El-Haj's theories so persuasive that he cannot in good conscience declare that "the ancestry of the Jewish people... in the Holy Land predates any entity called Palestine" .

- noga1

June 20, 2010 at 11:57pm

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

Roi likes to point to cows.

- noga1

June 20, 2010 at 11:58pm

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

roi: Is valid criticism of Barak Obama's foreign policy some kind of ideological impurity, a heresy of sort? Why is it that you always ascribe impure motives to Obama's critics? Do you at all accept the fact that maybe, just maybe he, his policy or his goals might be wrong and against the interests of the US and American Jewry? It seems that Obama is indeed not particularly open to Jewish issues. As a matter of fact this just in from the JP: "White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel may quit his position within several months, the Daily Telegraph reported late Sunday. According to the British paper, Emanuel stated he would leave his post in six to eight months due to lack of compatibility with senior officials in Washington, as well as disappointment in his failure to make policy changes within the Obama administration" Since English is not my first language maybe I misunderstood the term "flaggelant" but I don't see how this is relevant in this context. "flagellants (flăj'ulunts, flujel'unts) [key], term applied to the groups of Christians who practiced public flagellation as a penance." Are Peretz's fans doing some kind of penance? For whose sins? Care to explain?

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

June 21, 2010 at 8:40am

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

“Flagellant: term applied to the groups of Christians who practiced public flagellation as a penance….” Methinks that it’s those who are obsessed with Peretz who are the real flagellants. To passionately hate a blogger and spend most of one’s time throwing tantrums on his blog: a sign of true masochism.

- jdyer

June 21, 2010 at 9:14am

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

"White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel may quit his position within several months, the Daily Telegraph reported late Sunday. " I knew it. I even made that prediction right here on TNR some time ago (at the risk of subscribing to the Talmudic designation of who got the gift of prophecy after the destruction of the temple...) . Emanuel has seemed a very glum and unhappy little Rahm for quite some time now. During his interview with Wolf Blitzer after the passage of the health bill he seemed very despondent, even as he tried to put a brave face on the fact that Obama neglected to include his name in the list of people he thanked for helping in the effort. There will be one less of "them Jews" in the White House.

- noga1

June 21, 2010 at 9:22am

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

It is quite possible that roi read the word "flagellants" somewhere and decided from the sound of it that it would be a good word to add to his unique vocabulary. Probably didn't bother to find out what it actually meant. I'm guessing he imagined it referred to people who flog other people.

- noga1

June 21, 2010 at 9:31am

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

"To passionately hate a blogger and spend most of one’s time throwing tantrums on his blog: a sign of true masochism." My opinion exectly!

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

June 21, 2010 at 9:46am

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

K2K - well, bloggers, not unlike athletes, have good days and bad days, and I think you may have caught roid on a bad day. IMHO he has been a very constructive and cogent analyst of Israeli missteps and their unintended consequences. He has shown how the illegality of Israel's non-Jerusalem settlements has undermined Israel's ability to hold other players accountable to standards of legality that they themselves are violating and how that weakens their position internationally. For me, this was a valuable insight, one of many that makes me willing to accept his occasional off-days.

- JackR

June 21, 2010 at 10:15am

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

the online petition of http://www.friendsofisraelinitiative.org/ "Stand for Israel, Stand for the West: The Friends of Israel have joined together in a new international initiative on the basis of the following convictions: 1. Israel is a Western country. With a liberal democratic political system operating under the rule of law, a flourishing market economy producing technological innovation to the benefit of the wider world, and a population as educated and cultured as anywhere in Europe or North America Israel is a normal Western country with a right to be treated as such in the community of nations. 2. Israel´s right to exist should not be questioned. In the face of a uniquely campaign of deligitimation, we remind all people of goodwill of the true historical context in which the State of Israel was re-established following United Nations Resolution 181 in 1947. We state emphatically that that decision to recognize the right of the Jewish people to national self-determination was not merely a gesture of compassion following the horrors that had befallen the Jewish people during the Holocaust. It was, above all, a recognition of the right of the Jewish people to establish a sovereign state on land in which they have had an enduring presence and to which they have had a historical claim for thousands of years. 3. Israel, as a sovereign country, has the right to self-defense. Israel is indeed a normal Western country, but it is one which faces unique threats and challenges. Israel is the only state in the world forced to fight one war after another to secure its very existence. Confronting some of the most violent and well equipped terrorist groups in the world it is also the only country whose right to self-defense is consistently and widely questioned. Today, Israel has been forced to fight on two fronts: one to defend its borders and another to defend its legitimacy. We stand with Israel, and demand that it be accorded the same legitimacy and the same right to defend itself as any other Western country. Human rights statutes designed to defend the dignity of people everywhere, laws on universal jurisdiction intended to be used against criminals and tyrants and international bodies established to secure justice, have been subverted, their guiding principles stood on their head, to wage war against Israeli democracy. The campaign against Israel is corroding the international system from within. 4. Israel is on our side. With this in mind, we must be clear in recognizing that Israel’s fight is our fight. Western democracy will not prevail unless we recognize and assume the Judeo-Christian cultural and moral heritage which first gave rise to those institutions and the values which initially inspired them, and strengthen them. The assault on Israel is itself an assault on Judeo-Christian values. Israel stands on the front line, but we are next in line. If Israel’s right to self defense is questioned in the Middle East, our right to self-defense will be questioned when fighting similar terrorist enemies in Afghanistan, and at home. If principles of human rights and universal jurisdiction are to be turned into weapons against Israeli democracy, what makes us so sure they will not one day be used against European and North American democracy? Israel’s future is our fate. 5. We believe in peace, but peace in the Middle East is not just about Israel and the Palestinians. The aspiration for an enduring peace in the Middle East is a noble one, and it is one we share. But outsiders, helpful as they can sometimes be, can only achieve so much. The parties involved should know how to reach a satisfactory solution themselves. Attempts to impose solutions from the outside will fail. The key to ending this conflict is for the Palestinian side to unequivocally recognize Israel as the legitimate national homeland of the Jewish people. Once that step has been taken, good faith negotiations have a chance of achieving success. 6. We share the same threats and challenges. There are two related threats which also imperil the region, and the wider world: the spread of Islamic fundamentalism and jihadism; and the prospect of a nuclear Iran. These threats are as existential for the state of Israel as for the rest of us: the jihad knows no boundaries and a nuclear Iran represents a strategic revolution of global dimensions. Israel cannot and should not face those threats alone. For the global jihad, Israel may be the first objective. But it will not be the last. 7. Believing that the continuous deligitimation of Israel has a great deal of responsibility in raising an aggressive and dangerous anti-semitism, in a spirit of solidarity with the State of Israel, and in recognition that we, the Western nations, must stand together lest we fall together, we therefore launch the Friends of Israel Initiative to do the following: a) To combat the deligitimization of the State of Israel at home, abroad and inside the institutions of the international community. b) To publicly show our solidarity with Israel’s democratic institutions – the legitimate expression of the Jewish people’s millennial aspiration to live in peace and freedom in its national homeland. c) To support Israel’s inalienable right to secure borders unmolested by terrorists or tyrannical regimes so that its citizens can continue living with the same guarantees that our own societies enjoy. d) To consistently and firmly oppose the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran. e) To work to ensure that Israel is fully accepted as a normal Western country, an essential and indivisible part of the Western world to which we belong. f) To reaffirm the value of the religious, moral, and cultural Judeo-Christian heritage as the main source of the liberal and democratic Western societies. These convictions inspire this Friends of Israel Initiative. We invite all men and women of goodwill to join us."

- K2K

June 21, 2010 at 11:46am

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

JackR: Be forewarned: the minute JackR disagrees with roid is when all JackR will see is roid "having a bad day". you have not been in the many threads where roid explains his purpose is solely to attack Peretz and any commenter who enters a Peretz thread.

- K2K

June 21, 2010 at 11:50am

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

to the protestors blockading the Israeli Zim cargo ship trying to offload in Oakland, California: may the Zim's cargo be low cost generic medications made in Israel for American Medicaid patients.

- K2K

June 21, 2010 at 12:50pm

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

Let me try to follow Marty's logic on how Helen Thomas and her anti-Semitic bile is relevant to Barack Obama and his Israel policy: Helen Thomas is an old, anti-Israel bigot who thinks the Jews ought to go back to Europe and leave Palestine. Obama is not at all an anti-Israel bigot who doesn't share any of Helen Thomas's thoughts. BUT his Israel policy is not a friendly toward Israel is I think it should be, because he doesn't want to justify Israel based on a historical connection to the land of Israel. Therefore, both of these topics belong in a single article. This sort of logic is so shamefully stupid that it belongs on a Glenn Beck program. How in the world is Obama's reluctance or failure to adopt one particular narrative of Israel's founding at all comparable to Thomas's hate-filled desire to see Israel disappear and its Jewish inhabitants to return from whence they came? How is it even in the same area code, except that we are talking about Israel in both cases? A logical analogue comes to mind. We know from reading the latest Spine post that Marty Peretz doesn't like BP and its handling of the Gulf oil spill. Neither does Robert Reich (a former TNR contributor!). Now, Marty Peretz doesn't want to seize BP's American assets indefinitely to pay for the costs of cleaning up the spill and compensating any damaged parties and Reich does, but they are both clearly hostile to BP. So it seems appropriate to mention them in one breath, because Marty Peretz's hostility to BP creates an atmosphere where the likes of Robert Reich can preach Hugo Chavez-style seizures of private property (or something). Even though there is no chance that Reich's preferred strategy is either embraced by the public or has any chance of becoming law, but it is important to mention it in one breath with Marty's dislike of BP. Because any dislike of BP is one more step toward the triumph of socialist tyranny in America.

- wildboy

June 21, 2010 at 1:44pm

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

Shelby Steele, I think today in the Wall Street Journal _____________________ ....The most interesting voice in all the fallout surrounding the Gaza flotilla incident is that sanctimonious and meddling voice known as "world opinion." At every turn "world opinion," like a school marm, takes offense and condemns Israel for yet another infraction of the world's moral sensibility. And this voice has achieved an international political legitimacy so that even the silliest condemnation of Israel is an opportunity for self-congratulation. Rock bands now find moral imprimatur in canceling their summer tour stops in Israel (Elvis Costello, the Pixies, the Gorillaz, the Klaxons). A demonstrator at an anti-Israel rally in New York carries a sign depicting the skull and crossbones drawn over the word "Israel." White House correspondent Helen Thomas, in one of the ugliest incarnations of this voice, calls on Jews to move back to Poland. And of course the United Nations and other international organizations smugly pass one condemnatory resolution after another against Israel while the Obama administration either joins in or demurs with a wink. This is something new in the world, this almost complete segregation of Israel in the community of nations. And if Helen Thomas's remarks were pathetic and ugly, didn't they also point to the end game of this isolation effort: the nullification of Israel's legitimacy as a nation? There is a chilling familiarity in all this. One of the world's oldest stories is playing out before our eyes: The Jews are being scapegoated again. "World opinion" labors mightily to make Israel look like South Africa looked in its apartheid era—a nation beyond the moral pale. And it projects onto Israel the same sin that made apartheid South Africa so untouchable: white supremacy. Somehow "world opinion" has moved away from the old 20th century view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a complicated territorial dispute between two long-suffering peoples. Today the world puts its thumb on the scale for the Palestinians by demonizing the stronger and whiter Israel as essentially a colonial power committed to the "occupation" of a beleaguered Third World people. This is now—figuratively in some quarters and literally in others—the moral template through which Israel is seen. It doesn't matter that much of the world may actually know better. This template has become propriety itself, a form of good manners, a political correctness. Thus it is good manners to be outraged at Israel's blockade of Gaza, and it is bad manners to be outraged at Hamas's recent attack on a school because it educated girls, or at the thousands of rockets Hamas has fired into Israeli towns—or even at the fact that Hamas is armed and funded by Iran. The world wants independent investigations of Israel, not of Hamas. One reason for this is that the entire Western world has suffered from a deficit of moral authority for decades now. Today we in the West are reluctant to use our full military might in war lest we seem imperialistic; we hesitate to enforce our borders lest we seem racist; we are reluctant to ask for assimilation from new immigrants lest we seem xenophobic; and we are pained to give Western Civilization primacy in our educational curricula lest we seem supremacist. Today the West lives on the defensive, the very legitimacy of our modern societies requiring constant dissociation from the sins of the Western past—racism, economic exploitation, imperialism and so on. When the Israeli commandos boarded that last boat in the flotilla and, after being attacked with metal rods, killed nine of their attackers, they were acting in a world without the moral authority to give them the benefit of the doubt. By appearances they were shock troopers from a largely white First World nation willing to slaughter even "peace activists" in order to enforce a blockade against the impoverished brown people of Gaza. Thus the irony: In the eyes of a morally compromised Western world, the Israelis looked like the Gestapo. This, of course, is not the reality of modern Israel. Israel does not seek to oppress or occupy—and certainly not to annihilate—the Palestinians in the pursuit of some atavistic Jewish supremacy. But the merest echo of the shameful Western past is enough to chill support for Israel in the West. The West also lacks the self-assurance to see the Palestinians accurately. Here again it is safer in the white West to see the Palestinians as they advertise themselves—as an "occupied" people denied sovereignty and simple human dignity by a white Western colonizer. The West is simply too vulnerable to the racist stigma to object to this "neo-colonial" characterization. Our problem in the West is understandable. We don't want to lose more moral authority than we already have. So we choose not to see certain things that are right in front of us. For example, we ignore that the Palestinians—and for that matter much of the Middle East—are driven to militancy and war not by legitimate complaints against Israel or the West but by an internalized sense of inferiority. If the Palestinians got everything they want—a sovereign nation and even, let's say, a nuclear weapon—they would wake the next morning still hounded by a sense of inferiority. For better or for worse, modernity is now the measure of man. And the quickest cover for inferiority is hatred. The problem is not me; it is them. And in my victimization I enjoy a moral and human grandiosity—no matter how smart and modern my enemy is, I have the innocence that defines victims. I may be poor but my hands are clean. Even my backwardness and poverty only reflect a moral superiority, while my enemy's wealth proves his inhumanity. In other words, my hatred is my self-esteem. This must have much to do with why Yasser Arafat rejected Ehud Barak's famous Camp David offer of 2000 in which Israel offered more than 90% of what the Palestinians had demanded. To have accepted that offer would have been to forgo hatred as consolation and meaning. Thus it would have plunged the Palestinians—and by implication the broader Muslim world—into a confrontation with their inferiority relative to modernity. Arafat knew that without the Jews to hate an all-defining cohesion would leave the Muslim world. So he said no to peace. And this recalcitrance in the Muslim world, this attraction to the consolations of hatred, is one of the world's great problems today—whether in the suburbs of Paris and London, or in Kabul and Karachi, or in Queens, N.Y., and Gaza. The fervor for hatred as deliverance may not define the Muslim world, but it has become a drug that consoles elements of that world in the larger competition with the West. This is the problem we in the West have no easy solution to, and we scapegoat Israel—admonish it to behave better—so as not to feel helpless. We see our own vulnerability there....

- basman

June 21, 2010 at 1:57pm

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

JackR: The Israeli settlement policy in the West Bank does not deserve defence and is indeed counterproductive. However, there must be a recognition that the lack of progress on the Palestinian Israeli track is hardly the result of this policy. It is a feeling of majority of Israelis that the Palestinians simply do not want Palestine. If they did, they would agree to it long time ago and when given countless opportunities, a current one that comes to mind; Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza. They could have have started building institutions of sovereign state, they could have develop their economy. Instead, they accepted this as Israeli weakness, and proceeded to lob rockets into Shderot Simply, the Palestinians have refused to accept Palestine time after time after time. And not because of the settlements but because they cannot give up their holy anger. They cannot give up the right of return. They cannot give up portions of Jerusalem. But most of all, they cannot imagine themselves living next to a Jewish state in the region they consider part of the Muslim Wakf. That is all. All the rest is commentary, bickering and mental masturbation. And therefore, for Roi to come out with the arrogant, self righteous attitude, pretending that everything that he says is sainted, blessed and confirmed, that everything he agrees with is the Torah from Sinai and everything he disagrees with is absolute garbage is somewhat disturbing. Combine this with his lack of civility and name calling and you might understand why some of us here are impatient with him despite his knowledge and intelligence.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

June 21, 2010 at 2:41pm

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

Amen. Also to wildboy, I fail to see how Thomas' comment about Israeli Jews and an apparent lack of knowledge about Jewish history aren't related. The one doesn't cause the other but the same lack of knowledge lies behind both, albeit Obama lacks Thomas' venom. Still, he hasn't shown - except when campaigning - real understanding of Jewish tradition, history and to my knowledge nobody talks about the history of Middle Eastern Jews. People have completely bought into the idea that Jews are from the West and that we're "white," now that millions of Jews have been murdered for being "oriental" and "not white." We can't win.

- Sophia

June 21, 2010 at 3:27pm

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

Itz rocks.

- jacko

June 21, 2010 at 3:37pm

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

Itz rocks.

- jacko

June 21, 2010 at 3:37pm

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

Basman, thanks for posting the Shelby Steele piece here. Makes me wish everyone had read it with their morning coffee. I think that the moral inversion that the West suffers from comes primarily from the Viet-Nam era and the set of values that coalesced in the anti-war movement. I remember Eldridge Cleaver's stirring words in "Soul on Ice": "The Western heroes are dead now, their hands dripping with blood." Not sure what became of him after his line of men's pants with bulging crotch-lines failed. The world and its situations are now dramatically different, but much of the progressive left remains anchored in that 60s worldview through which they first distinguished good from evil. Including, alas, our President.

- willjames77

June 21, 2010 at 3:57pm

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

Sorry Sophia, we're talking about such a massive difference in scale between Thomas's views and Obama's that we're into a difference in type. Thomas holds to the belief that Israeli Jews are interlopers in the Middle East and that they should go back to their "true" European homelands. She believes Israel is an illegitimate entity thrust up by Europeans in a Middle Eastern country. When has Obama ever said, or even intimated, such a thing (as candidate, President or otherwise)?? For the record, he has made dozens upon dozens of statements supporting Israel's right to exist, right to security from its enemies, right to be treated as a sovereign state and on and on. If he truly believed anything along the lines of what Helen Thomas does, how could he possibly continue to maintain diplomatic or trade relations with Israel? Marty's and others sole source of objective evidence for Obama's insufficient love for the State of Israel is the Cairo speech and its apparent invocation that Israel was created because of the Holocaust (note that they concede that his public arguments with Israel about settlement building, the status of Jerusalem or the Mavi Marmara are tactical, not strategic). I don't buy this line of argument for a second, unless we are to hold the gentile leaders of states to a different standard than Israeli statesmen or politicians or Jewish commentators of all stripes who constantly evoke the Holocaust as the principal, or among the principal, reasons for the existence and the necessity of Israel. As a matter of fact, we never decided to require previous US Presidents to a standard where they had to justify American policy toward the Middle East by invoking the ancient right of Jews to the lands between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, and by-and-large those Presidents never did. They, or their speechwriters, seemed to know better than to base US Middle Eastern policy on God's covenant with Abraham, the Book of Joshua or the theoretical bases of Zionist thought -- because it's dangerous to base foreign policy on religion or the dialectics of other people's nationalist movements. In the absence of all-out war between the United States and the Arab world, American Middle Eastern foreign policy has to be acceptable to one degree or another to all the inhabitants of the region rather than just to some. So the United States, going back to Truman, has embraced Israel as a state whose existence is fully justified due to its authorization by a United Nations vote and its acceptance by long-established diplomatic custom and has treated that state as a reality to be recognized and dealt with as a fellow sovereign state, rather than as the fulfillment of religious prophecy, an affirmation of nationalist philosophy or as a manifestation of Western civilization in a global struggle with anti-Western forces. Before the Age of Obama, we did not think that the United States needed to accept Israel on the basis of anything more than the first two items listed above. Now that he is President, I fail to see why the United States needs to accept Israel on those additional bases. Is it because he is so much more eloquent than any other post-1948 President? Because he is so much more introspective than any other post-1948 President? Because he has so many fewer Jewish friends or acquaintances than any other post-1948 President (or is it because he has the wrong kind of Jewish friends and acquaintances)? Because he is so much more descended from Muslims than any other post-1948 President? Because is he is so much blacker than any other post-1948 President?

- wildboy

June 21, 2010 at 4:30pm

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

Sophia: "Also to wildboy, I fail to see how Thomas' comment about Israeli Jews and an apparent lack of knowledge about Jewish history aren't related. " It's not just "an apparent lack of knowledge about Jewish history". It's a carefully cultivated ignorance. It is impossible to imagine Thomas is unaware of Jewish history. __________ Shelby Steele: "...the consolations of hatred.." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZMuOhuB3Wo&feature=related

- noga1

June 21, 2010 at 5:34pm

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

Noga, what an astonishing piece of film! How do you keep pulling these rabbits out or your hat? My hat's off to you...

- willjames77

June 21, 2010 at 5:53pm

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

did anyone else sign the online petition I posted at 11:46 am? http://www.friendsofisraelinitiative.org/ malahat: "One wonders what would be the reaction were Israel to, say sponsor and organize a flotilla of ships to provide aid to Turkish Kurds, or finance, train and arm to the teeth "militant" groups operating in Iran..." if you read the English media in Turkey, they already blame "US/Kurd/Israel". When Iran executed their Sunni-Baluchi freedom fighter Abdolmalek Rigi, the blame was the US/Britain/NATO/Israel/Pakistan Pentagon of evil. In Pakistan, the blame (for everything) goes to the US/Hindu/Israel conspiracy. The only issue I had with Shelby Steele's op-ed was his positioning Israel as white and Palestinians as "brown people of Gaza". wildboy: no, my concern about Obama hit the alarm stage when he made apartments in North Jerusalem's Ramat Shlomo a major international incident with Netanyahu in March 2010 (although I was already mistrustful because of what was happening inside his official campaign website during the campaign - and I have the documentatio). BTW, you might want to check your American history: John Adams was the first president who was a Christian Zionist.

- K2K

June 21, 2010 at 5:54pm

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

makover - thanks, I get it.

- JackR

June 21, 2010 at 5:55pm

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

K2K, yes, I signed the petition when I saw your post. It looks like a distinguished panel of sponsors. Glad to see such initiatives moving forward to fill the void of Obama's deafening silence. malahat: I love it when you talk that way. I would have Israeli and American maidens strewing flowers as they bring boatloads of children's toys to poor Kurdish families. Two can play this game. And since Turkey is not at war with its Kurds (not officially, anyway) how could they dare embargo such a ship? I wonder if StandWithUs would consider such an initiative? As a counterpunch to the flotilla, I think it's a powerful idea. What, apart from the risks of being killed, would be the negatives?

- willjames77

June 21, 2010 at 6:31pm

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

wildboy: I should be sleeping but just this one: "I don't buy this line of argument for a second, unless we are to hold the gentile leaders of states to a different standard than Israeli statesmen or politicians or Jewish commentators of all stripes who constantly evoke the Holocaust as the principal, or among the principal, reasons for the existence and the necessity of Israel." Actually, I have to agree with you on this one. Not so much Israeli statesmen or politicians but Jewish commentators, yes. It is a disturbing practice in general but I find it particularly annoying in the United States. Sometimes it seems to me that the American Jewish community's strongest unifying theme is the Holocaust. The religious and the secular all agree on the central space that the Holocaust occupies in Jewish identity in the US. I am always reminded of Dan Ben Amotz, an Israeli satirical author of some renown. He is known to be the author of the Dictionary of Israeli Slang. Himself a Holocaust survivor, was saved by a gentile family as a child. He wrote a book in the sixties called in Hebrew "Lizkor ve Lishkoah", meaning To Remember and To Forget. In this book he attempts to demonstrate that to lead a productive life, to really remember the Holocaust and it's victims and to cherish their memory, to free oneself from it's continuous destructive influence, one has to forget it. To forget means to remember. I know I am going to catch a lot of angry comments on this issue but it is an painful subject. The Holocaust cannot be the central reason for the continuous existence of the Jewish people or the Jewish State. Regarding Obama: I resent your remark that he is "so much blacker". That is not the issue nor the reason for our suspicion. He made all the right noises during the primaries and during the elections. The company he kept during his years in Chicago, his friendship with Khalidi, Abunima, Said, Reverend Wright and his connection to Islam did not instill any great confidence in the Israeli public but we were open minded. Skeptical, suspicious yes, but open minded. Then came the elections, then came the Cairo speech, the spat about the settlements, his mistreatment of Natanyahu, his cozying up to Syria, to Hizballah. In short, we felt that he did not "feel our pain". We feel that by creating a tempest in a tea cup he shows his antipathy to Israel. We feel that when push comes to shove, he will not be in our corner, he will support our enemies. And we feel that he was dishonest during his pre-election interviews, that he was dishonest telling us how he would have acted like us if he had to defend his daughters. So, don't be surprised if we don't believe a word he says.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

June 21, 2010 at 7:04pm

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

I read that book, makover, a million years ago. He falls in love with a German girl (I even remember her name: Barbara) and brings her to Israel and that's how the book ends. What happens next, he wrote, merits another novel. What a talent he had! He was one of the greatest Israeli comedians, together with Uri Zohar and Yossi Banai. His most famous novel was "Don't give a F***" about soldiers who were maimed during the war. Here he is, next to Paul Newman. He is the one in the grey shirt and curly hair: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKMJoXM6uGY

- noga1

June 21, 2010 at 8:34pm

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

willjames77 [glad you are feeling better] on a Kurdish flotilla: "What, apart from the risks of being killed, would be the negatives?" the Kurds are landlocked. The PKK is still listed as a terrorist organization by Turkey and the U.S. The bigger issue is the fragility of Iraqi Kurdistan. As Obama sticks to his Iraq drawdown of all combat troops by August, he is also apparently not too interested in whether there is an Iraqi central government in charge (more of that NOTBush43 Syndrome). The Kurds do not know who to align with, and are trying on their own to make nice with Turkey and Iran, who are violating their (Iraqi) sovereignty. And, someone instigated the Azeris to start shooting again with Armenia. So, a very complex, delicate moment in time for Kurds and Armenians, hoping Turkey's hypocrisy becomes ever more blatant. Seems Brazil has now backed away from Iran. So, Ottomans v Persians while Brazil and the rest of Latin America dominate the World Cup. I am in need of hydration...

- K2K

June 21, 2010 at 9:06pm

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

Let us start with the civilized, if irritable, makover, proceed to the local fool, K2K, and finish up with the completely repellent sociopath, noga: Makover asks this: "roi: Is valid criticism of Barak Obama's foreign policy some kind of ideological impurity, a heresy of sort? Why is it that you always ascribe impure motives to Obama's critics? Do you at all accept the fact that maybe, just maybe he, his policy or his goals might be wrong and against the interests of the US and American Jewry? It seems that Obama is indeed not particularly open to Jewish issues." First of all, you take it for granted that your criticism is valid, or that the criticism of Obama here is valid. Most of what emanates from Martin Peretz is vile spew. This post is just an example, amply summarized by "Helen Thomas is an anti-Semite, and by the way Obama this that and the other thing." Disgusting. Does the man have anything to say about Obama that even attempts to be "critical" or is it all just one giant smear campaign? The latter in my opinion. Is that valid? Should it be condoned? Should it be greeted with silence? As wildboy, who has more patience for explaining the obvious than I do, put it quit nicely, "This sort of logic is so shamefully stupid that it belongs on a Glenn Beck program." We often read Peretz excoriating Obama for his Iran policy. Yet, Peretz never has anything to suggest as an alternative (which might then qualify as "valid" criticism). Why should this be considered valid? And how exactly does it come to be that it is valid to criticize Obama, but not to criticize his so-called critics? And is there any reason why the criticism of a horrid, vengeful, incoherent, often racist son-of-a-bitch like Martin Peretz must be more temperate than what he himself has to say? I don't think so. The one who seems to find criticism heretical is you, not me. And it is ironic that you cast me questioning the motives of critics, when you all insistently question the good faith of Obama. In fact, I don't question your motives at all, because I don't care about your motives. I care about whether your arguments make sense and advance the cause of peace and security. And very often I find that they don't, that they are the repetition of Jewish applause lines that are both devoid of common sense and any connection to reality. And then you wonder why reality stubbornly refuses to yield? You later say this: "JackR: The Israeli settlement policy in the West Bank does not deserve defence and is indeed counterproductive. However, there must be a recognition that the lack of progress on the Palestinian Israeli track is hardly the result of this policy. It is a feeling of majority of Israelis that the Palestinians simply do not want Palestine. If they did, they would agree to it long time ago and when given countless opportunities, a current one that comes to mind; Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza. They could have have started building institutions of sovereign state, they could have develop their economy. Instead, they accepted this as Israeli weakness, and proceeded to lob rockets into Shderot Simply, the Palestinians have refused to accept Palestine time after time after time. And not because of the settlements but because they cannot give up their holy anger. They cannot give up the right of return. They cannot give up portions of Jerusalem. But most of all, they cannot imagine themselves living next to a Jewish state in the region they consider part of the Muslim Wakf. That is all. All the rest is commentary, bickering and mental masturbation. And therefore, for Roi to come out with the arrogant, self righteous attitude, pretending that everything that he says is sainted, blessed and confirmed, that everything he agrees with is the Torah from Sinai and everything he disagrees with is absolute garbage is somewhat disturbing." This is not bad in its way, although I don't quite agree with you. But, look around here. What you will often read, or most often read, for the Peretz acolytes is essentially that Israel's settlement policy is irrelevant and not even an appropriate subject for discussion so long as, in their view, the Palestinians refuse to accept Israel. But they did once. In the Oslo accords, and they have again in the Saudi piece plan. So, the claim that the Arabs will not accept the legitimacy of Israel is at least more complicated than you and they make out. What the Arabs, having offered to accept Israel, have not accepted are Israel's terms for peace, which do not included Palestinian sovereignty over everything east of the Green Line and do not include abandonment of their claims that refugees of 1948 have a right to return and re-settle west of the Green Line. I think there are sound, just, and legitimate reasons for Israel not to agree to the Saudi plan. However, it is fatuous, truly, to keep insisting that the only obstacle to peace, or even the primary obstacle to peace, is Arab refusal to recognize Israel. Quite plainly, that would not get the Arabs the rest of what they want, or they would have done that a long time ago. It is simply self-evident to you that the Arabs must give up this, that, or the other thing. But why? Is it a violation of the laws of God for them to want everything east of the Green Line and a right of return too? I would say to them, as I often say to the Peretz crowd here, that that is quite unrealistic and will not be a basis for peace, but I don't see that it is illegitimate for them to make those claims. Certainly not any more illegitimate than the claim of many on the Israeli right-wing of a right to both consider the West Bank occupied, in order not to grant political rights to its inhabitants, while settling it. Whose claims have more justice, the Arabs or the Israeli right? I would have to go with the Arabs on that. Yet, it is unrealistic as no thoughtful Arab could possibly expect Israel to make a final peace on those terms any more than Israel should expect the Arabs to make peace while, by its behavior, Israel manifests a continuing intention to colonize them. Also unrealistic and ample reason to question the motives of those such as Netanyahu who pursue this policy. The proper criticism of the Arabs is not their demands or their refusal to accept Israel's terms. Those are political and they have as much right to pursue their political objects as anyone else What they do not have the right to do is to pursue them by violence. This is their great crime, and the reason that they have been unable to establish their own state, that they will not abandon violence as the means of pursuing their political goals. But Israel does not make it easy for them to do so. By colonizing them, subjecting them to a variety of humiliations UNNECESSARY TO ISRAELI SECURITY, Israel stokes the anger that makes all too easy for a violent minority to obtain the tacit support it needs from the sullen or angry majority. If you want peace, you have to want peace, and at least be willing to desist from behavior that frustrates that goal without being necessary for self-defense. The refusal (until the retreat under extraordinary pressure) to suspend settlement activity, falls into that category. The refusal to desist from building in East Jerusalem pending negotiations, the entire purpose of which is to express in concrete terms the refusal to negotiate over the status of East Jerusalem, falls into that category too. Will the Palestinians magically collapse in the arms of Israel if Israel did those things? Of course not. But if they no longer have a means of so justifying their refusals based on Israel's actions, and if they no longer have the ability to invoke the opprobrium of the world upon Israel, they might just decide that they need tactics other than violence or refusal. And then there might be a way forward, not necessarily a single, momentous solution, but a way to advance toward the goal. That you think I am arrogant for suggesting these things is unfortunate. If you read what I say for a while, you will see that I do not hesitate to defend, without qualification other than an expectation of prudence, Israel's right to defend itself BY EFFECTIVE MEANS, even if those means cause Arab casualties. I defend without reservation, and based on a lot of historical and legal argument, Israel's right to exist and its claim to sovereignty. I do not excuse the bad behavior of the Arabs, although I will consistently point out that such bad behavior in no manner justifies other bad behavior by Israel. That I have little patience for ritual arguments and invocations that bear no useful relationship to a solution, or even to Israel's security while a solution remains out of reach, is true. But it is the arguments and claims that I think are the proper object of criticism. If you stay long enough and are willing to read with an open mind, I think you will also find that there is here a group of self-styled defenders of Israel who consistently engage in just the behavior you attribute to me.

- roidubouloi

June 21, 2010 at 9:12pm

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

Noga is a flagellant because she constantly flays herself and others with anti-Semitism as if this were the defining characteristic of the world as a whole or even of Israel and the Jewish people. But it is worse than that, because she wields it as a weapon, in a manner far more perverse than anything conjured by Mearsheimer and Walt, to silence ideas she does not like. Sometimes it is merely to distract. The discussion takes a turn she doesn't like and suddenly we are invited to consider instead the latest hateful speech of Ahmadinejad. But it is also used as a form of loyalty oath. "You cannot talk about that, you cannot hold that opinion or express if until you have sufficiently deplored Ahmadinejad. Have you deplored him today? Have you deplored him here? Have you deplored him with just the precise words and phrases that "we" judge necessary as proof of your proper intentions? No? Then you have no right to speak and your speech is evident only of malign and anti-Semitic intentions. At a deeper level, noga's exaltation of Jewish victimhood is nothing but the internalization of anti-Semitism. There is no other way to understand an obsession not with one's own agency, responsibilities, and opportunities, but with one's status as an object or irrational hatred. Ironically, it is Shelby Steele, quoted at length above, talking about the Arabs, who explains the root of this pathology: "And the quickest cover for inferiority is hatred. The problem is not me; it is them. And in my victimization I enjoy a moral and human grandiosity—no matter how smart and modern my enemy is, I have the innocence that defines victims. I may be poor but my hands are clean. Even my backwardness and poverty only reflect a moral superiority, while my enemy's wealth proves his inhumanity. In other words, my hatred is my self-esteem." This is how noga betrays Zionism. "Flagellent" was exactly the proper description, with precisely its primary meaning. Because I deplore this self-victimization and moral grandiosity in victimhood, because I am disgusted by the flagellation, noga has from the start distorted my words and thoughts, or invented her own versions to place in my mouth, uttered many lies, and made endless outlandish accusations to attempt to discredit me. I give it right back to her as she is execrable and I refuse to allow her shrieking and hysteria to command the forum at my expense. If the price is mutual shrieking, so be it. I cannot stop her, but I can make as much ugly noise as she does, or more. _________________ As for K2K, I haven't really the energy beyond this: He is noga's Don Quixote, and she his Dulcinea. He is a rather pitiful and grandiose fool who imagines himself her knight errant and cannot refrain from injecting himself in the middle in some misplaced attempt at chivalry. He is really nothing more than a boob. He doesn't know when to shut up, and when he opens his mouth, he most often makes little sense. Hapless and absurd. The woman he defends is not at all the fair maiden of his imagination.

- roidubouloi

June 21, 2010 at 9:37pm

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

Shoot, Roi. The first most recent post I thought that you had carved out a defensible position. One that I disagree with, due other extenuations and emphasis, but for the most part indicative of a thoughtful kind of guy. Even if he is ruled by his own (by my lights) unrealistic particulars and blind spots. Then throwing down in the manner of your second post kind of spoiled all of that... more than a little leaky.

- jacko

June 21, 2010 at 10:17pm

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

willjames77: about the Kurds. The Turkish press is freaking over the recent surge in army deaths from the PKK; accusing the army of not knowing how to operate the drones they bought from Israel [oh my!]; and the government's priority is to redraw the Iraq/Turkey border and station 70,000 troops on the border that is already landmined. From Iraq's Kurdistan Globe: 19 June 2010, "Sovereignty of Kurdistan is under threat" Azad Amin "While most of Iraq is still unstable and insecure, Kurdistan Region is the only safe, stable, and secure region. However, this stability and security is under threat as Turkey and Iran under the pretext of fighting against PKK and PJAK violate the border area with military incursions. Both the Iranian and Turkish armies entered Kurdistan Region, thus disrespecting the sovereign rights of the Kurdistan Regional Government and the Iraq Federal Republic. Both the KRG's and Iraqi central government's responses to such border violations are weak and insignificant. Infringement of sovereignty is not a simple matter and should be approached with more somber and serious diplomatic initiatives and other measures. Border incursions in Kurdistan Region upset and depress the KRG more than the Iraqi central government, as the protection of the border areas lies under the control of Kurdistan security forces, the Peshmerga. However, a unilateral response to border incursions by the Peshmerga will complicate the issue more and put sovereign titles of the Iraqi Republic in question. The Iraqi State must act like a proper sovereign state and be more sensitive to its border violations. Stability and security of Kurdistan Region is not only a matter of urgency for the people in Kurdistan, but it is as crucial for the well-being of all of Iraq as well as for neighboring countries. It is also crucial for the United States as it prepares for troop withdrawal from Iraq. Chaos and instability in Kurdistan Region will have serious implications for the U.S. intention of troop withdrawal from Iraq. Thus, the U.S. must play a more serious role in such border violations and not leave the matter solely to the Kurdistan regional authorities and Peshmerga forces. Should border incursions and violations continue and become permanent, then Kurdish authorities and Kurdistan security forces will have no other option than but to deal with it unitarily for sovereignty of Kurdistan and the security and well-being of its citizens are at the stake. Border violations by Turkey and Iran should not be seen as temporary incidents limited to chasing PKK and PJAK guerrillas based in the remote mountaintops of Kurdistan Region. Such cross-border military operations are part of larger political calculations and strategies for internal and external objectives. These operations, unless serious measures are not taken by KRG and Iraqi government, will increase throughout this summer in parallel with the escalation of PKK and PJAK military operations in Turkey and Iran. PKK ended its ceasefire at the beginning of this month, and through its various high-ranking officials--including its imprisoned leader, Abdullah Ocalan--threatens to escalate the armed struggle to more dramatic levels. KRG should interpret this as further alibi for the Turkish army to violate the Kurdistan border, and thus pose serious obstacles in the way toward developing economic and political relations between KRG and the Turkish government. Kurdistan President Massoud Barzani's landmark trip to Turkey earlier this month signified the peak point of positive relations between the two entities. Some circles within the Turkish establishment, mainly Kemalist elite and army officials, and within the PKK are not happy to see better economic and political relations between Turkey and Kurdistan Region; hence, the escalation of a military conflict will become an inevitable fact affecting politics this summer. Kurdistan Parliament should have a special session to address border violations and measures to be taken in order to prevent such incidents for the sake of Kurdistan sovereignty and the security of its people. Kurdistan Parliament should not be content with issuing a statement protesting border incursions. To the contrary, Kurdistan Parliament should do more than that and be much more serious on these border violations. " http://www.kurdishglobe.net/displayArticle.jsp?id=E907BF21E4EC509AC966C6413FAC07DA

- K2K

June 21, 2010 at 10:19pm

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

jacko: the only reason roid is here is to attack Peretz and anyone who presumes to comment. roid is solely here to attack ad hominem, ad nauseum. best to ignore roid rage.

- K2K

June 21, 2010 at 10:23pm

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

Wildboy: “As a matter of fact, we never decided to require previous US Presidents to a standard where they had to justify American policy toward the Middle East by invoking the ancient right of Jews to the lands between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, and by-and-large those Presidents never did. They, or their speechwriters, seemed to know better than to base US Middle Eastern policy on God's covenant with Abraham, the Book of Joshua or the theoretical bases of Zionist thought -- because it's dangerous to base foreign policy on religion or the dialectics of other people's nationalist movements.” This is a long confusing and confused post: Couple of points: The Jewish claim to the land of Israel is historically and not biblically based. It’s not the biblical account of God’s covenant with the people of Israel that is at issue here, but rather the historical fact that the Jewish people originated in the land of Israel (also known as Judea) and the they were ethnically cleansed by the Romans who conquered the land expelled it inhabitants and renamed the country Palestine. Zionism has always maintained that there is inalienable attachment of the Jewish people to that land for which they have been praying since the expulsion. Next, while it is true that US policy is not based on biblical claims, it is also true that many American Presidents since John Adams (who for the most part were religious people themselves) believed that the Jewish people had a right to be resettled in their ancestral homeland. (Truman for example saw himself as a latter day King Cyrus.) “Before the Age of Obama, we did not think that the United States needed to accept Israel on the basis of anything more than the first two items listed above.” This is true, but that’s because it was taken for granted that Israel was a Jewish State whose legitimacy was based on the historical attachment of the Jewish people to the land. Since Camp David in 2000 when it became clear that Arafat and many other PA officials as well as Hamas did not accept that historical fact then it became necessary to ask for reassurance that such was the case. Bush of course, like Clinton and other previous Presidents, took it for granted that such was the case. “Now that he is President, I fail to see why the United States needs to accept Israel on those additional bases. Is it because he is so much more eloquent than any other post-1948 President?” The answer is obvious. In any case, Obama isn’t more eloquent than say Clinton or even Reagan. “Because he is so much more introspective than any other post-1948 President? Because he has so many fewer Jewish friends or acquaintances than any other post-1948 President (or is it because he has the wrong kind of Jewish friends and acquaintances)? Because he is so much more descended from Muslims than any other post-1948 President? Because is he is so much blacker than any other post-1948 President?” These are all preposterous propositions. People complain when they are accused of antisemitism, but they allow themselves the privilege to accuse Jews of racism whenever they disagree with them. Antisemitism is the racism of the antiracists. One more point: while the Holocaust is not the main reason for Israel’s existence, (Zionism antedates the Holocaust), antisemitism both in Europe as well as in the Muslim world is. Now, the Holocaust is a gruesome part of the history of antisemitism in the world and in this sense it is proper to see it as a reason for Israel’s coming into existence when it did. (Personally I don’t think the Jews speak enough about the antisemitism that led to the Holocaust and is now the basis for attacks on Israel (and all too often on Jewish people) all over the world. There is more than one source of legitimacy for the Jewish State and people who reduce the discussion to one or two sources can’t seem to deal with historical complexities.

- jdyer

June 21, 2010 at 10:43pm

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

Makover, I wasn't criticizing Israelis in my comments so much as I was criticizing American (and other Diaspora) Jewish community leaders and commentators like our Dear Marty Peretz who keep pouring hypocritical scorn on Obama's Israel policy and make a fetish of his Cairo speech's Holocaust references, as if other American leaders were ever forced to jump through their preferred rhetorical hoops in order to prove their pro-Israel bona fides. I have come to the conculsion that, for those who are not openly conservative and therefore honest about their motives for criticizing Obama (i.e., that he's not a conservative), their motives carry the rancid smell of irrational contempt, in some cases flavored with racism, in some cases with anti-Islamism and in some cases with a reflexive defense of Israeli actions that no longer takes context, motive or change into account. But, since you choose to defend Israeli hostility toward Obama, I will make a couple comments. First, Israeli politicians and leaders (especially those from Likud) have been invoking the Holocaust all the time as justification for their policies toward Muslims. Begin did it in the run-up to the Lebanon War, comparing Arafat to Hitler and actually concluding that Arafat was worse. Shamir did it in his opposition to talks with the Palestinians or giving up settlement construction, by his references to how Israel couldn't go back to the "Auschwitz borders" of 1949. Sharon did it by comparing Israel to Czechoslovakia in the midst of the Second Intifadah and implying that Israel would not sacrifice itself in an attempt to appease Arabs and Islamists in the same way that Czechoslovakia sacrificed itself in a vain attempt to appease Hitler. Netenyahu has made a cottage industry of these types of comparisons, first in his tenure as Ambassador to the US (where he was arguably just accommodating the Holocaust-centric American Jewish public) but then in his first tenure as Prime Minister in his dealings with Clinton and most recently in his calls for world action against Iran, right down to bringing plans for the Birkenau crematoria into the UN General Assembly as props in a speech. So let's not pretend that Israeli politicians don't invoke the Holocaust to suit their purposes -- they do it all the time and in public, and they feel the need to follow it up with additional invocations of Jewish archeology or the historical continuity of this or that community. If you think they are right to do it at least some of the time (and I sense that you do), then you should concede that an American President has the right to do so as well without having to parrot a pre-approved narrative. Especially when you didn't kvetch about Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and on through Clinton and W Bush saying the exact same things about Israel without mentioning Masada, Yehuda Halevi, mystics in Tzfat or any of the other approved proto-Zionist history that Israelis claim as their birthright. If an Israeli Prime Minister made some remarks praising American history by invoking Washington, Adams and Hamilton and American commentators criticized him for not mentioning Jefferson or Madison, you would see the weirdness of this debate in full view. As for objecting to Obama's policies toward Israel, you are welcome to do that. But if you want to understand them for what they are, I suggest that you look at the evidence in front of you rather than relying on some kind of conspiracy theories about the influence of people he occasionally socialized with at parties. He plainly said, in an interview while running for President, that he considers himself pro-Israel but that this does not (to him) mean pro-Likud. And, given that his foreign policy team is staffed with veterans of the Clinton White House who had such a terrible time with Netenyahu, his view of a Likud government would have been skeptical from the start about its genuine commitment to peace talks and its ability to manage broader relations with the Arab world. He is openly committed to improved relations with Muslim countries and a more conciliatory line toward Iran (although the latter has been changing). He is also committed to more fully implementing the previously agreed-upon parameters of an Arab/Israeli peace settlement, without tacitly accepting prior informal exceptions that were agreed upon by the Bush administration -- namely, a commitment to a Palestinian state with sovereignty over the whole West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem (with minor agreed-upon border adjustments); direct peace talks between Israel and Palestinians to that end; and, in the meantime, an end to settlement construction in the West Bank and an end to construction in East Jerusalem that is intended to foreclose Palestinian sovereignty over those areas. If these ideas come from Jeremiah Wright, Rashid Khalidi or Edward Said (whom Obama barely knew), they don't seem to reflect the views of those persons very well. Instead, they reflect the positions taken by the Clinton administration in the 1990s and mainstream Democratic foreign policy commentators during the Bush years. If you think this makes Obama hate Israel, then the vast majority of Democratic foreign policy types do too. And if you think that the only acceptable American attitude toward Israel is the unconditional love that came from George W. Bush's administration until 2005 or so, then you are longing for a love that is highly, highly unlikely to come again from Washington any time soon.

- wildboy

June 21, 2010 at 11:14pm

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

from the Sunday WashPO with a moderated comment thread, by the gentleman who deserves to be part of this thread: "I asked Helen Thomas about Israel. Her answer revealed more than you think." By David F. Nesenoff Sunday, June 20, 2010 COMMENT 450 Comments | http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/18/AR2010061803204.html?wpisrc=nl_pmopinions "On the night of May 26, I drove down to Washington from New York with my son, Adam, and his friend Daniel. We arrived at 2:30 a.m. and crashed in a hotel. A few hours later, we woke up and coaxed each other to prepare for a day at the White House. The president was hosting a Jewish heritage celebration, and we'd been able to get media credentials to cover the event. We were exhausted, but thrilled. The day began with security checks. Then to the press room. A glimpse of former president Bill Clinton scurrying by with Vice President Biden. A press conference in the East Room with President Obama. An impromptu interview with the White House's mashgiach, the supervisor of the kosher kitchen preparation. Adam and Daniel were documenting the events for their Jewish teen Web site, ShmoozePOINT.com. I was interviewing people about Israel for a feature on my Web site, RabbiLIVE.com. I thought that if I could create videos of short anecdotes about Israel -- the food, archeology, history and personal experiences -- they might go viral on the Internet and be a nice promo campaign for the country. I had started the project just a few weeks before. Even as a rabbi, I did not count on divine intervention. We were on the White House front lawn when I told the teenagers that approaching us was the most famous reporter in the world -- Helen Thomas, a veteran who had covered presidents from Kennedy to Obama. We stopped her. I told Thomas that the young men were starting out in the press corps and hoped to be reporters. She kindly shared notes about journalism with us. "You'll always keep learning," she said. It was an honor. Then I asked: "Any comments on Israel? We're asking everybody today." Like saying a password to enter a new, secret place. "Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine," she replied, and "go home" to Poland and Germany. We were in. The gentle give and take has now been broadcast, transcribed and thoroughly dissected. However, a strict transcription misses the accuracy of the audiovisual. Only in the director's cut, the video, are the nonwords, the sound, the noise, the true reaction. And that was my "oooh." "What were you thinking when you said 'oooh,' rabbi?" asked Fox News, as did many of the other national and international media outlets that probed and jabbed for my innermost thoughts. Well, I was thinking "oooh." Oooh. Most heard it the first time. Certainly during the multitude of reruns, "oooh" became part of the song. It was a response by a rabbi to Thomas's comments, and it was from my soul. I merely asked a question with a video camera to a columnist. She answered me with an opinion that was unacceptable not just to me but to former and current press secretaries, politicians, the president, her agent and a great many other people. Her freedom of speech was not stifled; on the contrary, it was respected. She didn't say that the blockade was unjust, or that aid was not getting to Gaza, or that there was a massacre on the high seas, or that East Jerusalem is occupied, or that the settlements are immoral . . . and get out and go back to West Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa and Eilat. No. This was not the two-state solution. This was get the hell out and go back to the places of the final solution, Poland and Germany. The Jew has no connection with the land of Israel. And why? Because, as Thomas went on to explain to me, "I'm from Arab descent." That's it? That's all you got? Do we all travel with only our parents' stereotypes to guide us, never going beyond them to get to a peaceful destination? In the past weeks I have relived this moment over and over, on television and radio, in newspapers and blogs. I've listened to a constant stream of commentary. And my sharpest impression is this: Where before I saw a foggy anti-Israel, anti-Jewish link, it's now clear. This feeling is not about statehood. It's about an ingrown, organic hate. It's a sentiment that bears no connection to history, dates, passages or verses. Erase the facts, the dates and the lore. Erase the Jew. Incredibly, even the Nazis said to the Jews, "Go home to Palestine." But Thomas and a babbling stream in our world and country dictate to Jewish people to "go home to Poland and Germany." Yeah, I said "oooh." My "oooh" was the sound of the shofar ram's horn calling a loud primal tikeya, the extended ancient whole note from my very core. My existence was being erased. Every room in every Holiday Inn in America has, next to the bed, in the drawer, a Bible, beside the yellow pages and the breakfast menu. Christianity believes in the Jewish ancestry. Islam believes in the prophets Moses and Jesus. Can we just rip away the history of Jews in Israel like a Band-Aid, one quick motion across the centuries? Oooh. One may disagree on fences and rights of return. There have been handshakes, summits, accords, cease-fires, negotiations and boycotts. It's all been on the table, under the table or sometimes tabled. But the connection between the Jew and Israel is valid, historical, ancient, modern, spiritual and eternal. The relationship is beyond the state of Israel. It is a unique relationship of a religion to a land. The Jews are "bnai yisroel," the children of Israel. Even when they are away, they are connected. Even during exiles and diasporas, they are connected. Even during inquisitions, pogroms and a Holocaust, they are connected. My grandmother used to kibitz, "Friends you choose; family you're stuck with." The Jew is stuck with Israel. There is no ungluing the connection. It is beyond the ambiguous term "chosen people"; they are "the people who have no choice." It is more than a religious belief; it is a value and a moral barometer of the Earth. History, truth, integrity and the foundation of our world are not negotiable. "Tell them to get the hell out . . ." We went back to the East Room for the Jewish event and then onto the South Lawn as Marine One carried away the first family for the Memorial Day weekend. We stopped in Maryland on the way home for some kosher shwarma. The New Jersey Turnpike looked the same, but we were already traveling on a road in a post-oooh world. " rabbi@rabbiLIVE.com David F. Nesenoff is a rabbi in New York. His Web site is RabbiLIVE.com. He will discuss this article online Monday, June 21 at 11 a.m. Please submit questions before or during the discussion. From the archives: Jon Ward on Helen Thomas's role in the White House press corps and a look at other career-changing gaffes. (June 13).

- K2K

June 21, 2010 at 11:20pm

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

"He is noga's Don Quixote, and she his Dulcinea. " Oh dear. A literary allusion. Is this the first crack in that concrete royal facade? "'NOW, what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever be of any service to them. This is the principle on which I bring up my own children, and this is the principle on which I bring up these children. Stick to Facts, sir!'" "'In this life, we want nothing but Facts, sir; nothing but Facts!'" BTW, roi, did you know the Cervantes was a converso? His father was an apothecary and legend has it that Christopher Columbus used to congregate secretly in his little shop after hours with other conversos to discuss his plan to sail the ocean blue. Maybe he bounced little Miguel on his knee as he regaled the company with his hopes. Dulcinea is a fine character, as her name and conduct would tell you.

- noga1

June 21, 2010 at 11:45pm

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

"BTW, roi, did you know the Cervantes was a converso? His father was an apothecary and legend has it that Christopher Columbus used to congregate secretly in his little shop after hours with other conversos to discuss his plan to sail the ocean blue" I thought that had been largely discredited.

- MOLLYSIMON

June 21, 2010 at 11:51pm

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

Jackson, this is not a convincing rebuttal of my main point -- that there is no fundamental difference in today's international political climate that justifies the demand that President Obama has to acknowledge Israel's historical or religious ties to the land over the Holocaust or some other justification. The facts have not changed so fundamentally -- there were Arab states and publics that rejected the legitimacy of Israel and its sovereignty in 1948, in 1960, in 1980, in 2000 and in 2010. There were regimes that spewed rabid anti-Israel propaganda in all those years, and regimes or terrorist organizations that threatened to wipe Israel out in all those years. There was anti-semitism throughout the Western and Muslim worlds in all those years. And somehow the friends of Israel in the Diaspora, and the Israeli government and public, were happy enough for America to extend continued diplomatic support to their state, to commit itself to an alliance with it and to treat it like any other friendly sovereign country. They occasionally called for more forceful public diplomatic engagement on Israel's behalf or selling more arms to Israel but they didn't expect an American President to paint his love of Israel by a specified set of numbers they way they do with Obama. They certainly didn't call upon an American President to get bogged down in justifying Israel by way of historical claims. What is the reason they do so now? How is the world so different now? Are we to believe that anti-semitism today is so much worse than before that the US President needs to lecture Arabs about the origins of the terms "Palestine" and "Judea"? Are we to believe that the threat posed to Israel by Iran's atomic bomb is so much worse than the one posed by Saddam's bombs or Soviet missiles or Nasser's armies that the US President has to sprinkle his speeches with references to the longing for Zion in Jewish liturgies? If you really believe that, come out and say it -- but don't expect the assertions to hold up to objective fact in the light of day. There is no evidence whatsoever that Barack Obama is not committed to Israel as a Jewish State or a sovereign state or an American ally. There is no evidence whatsoever that he is hostile to the basic American relationship with Israel, that he is unwilling to defend Israel from condemnation in international fora (as his administration did with the Mavi Marmara incident), or to criticize Israel for military action in its self defense (as the incoming administration did by its silence during the Gaza War) or to stop selling military hardware to Israel. The fact that some American Jewish or Israeli leaders refuse to believe what is in front of their eyes, and ascribe sinister motives to Obama or insist upon double standards makes me think the problem is theirs, not his. I do not think they are all racist, though people like Marty Peretz sure as hell infer it with some of their comments. But I do think that they are all wilfully obtuse on this issue.

- wildboy

June 21, 2010 at 11:53pm

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

Another long rambling and irrelevant post from “widlboychik” Muslims and their leftist friends have a right to refer to the Holcoaust call Jews liars and “Nazis,” but Jews have no right to talk about what had happened to them or their parents and grandparents. In fact according to rambling wild ass, Jews are the only people who have no right to mention this historical event.

- jdyer

June 21, 2010 at 11:55pm

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

MOLLYSIMON “"BTW, roi, did you know the Cervantes was a converso? His father was an apothecary and legend has it that Christopher Columbus used to congregate secretly in his little shop after hours with other conversos to discuss his plan to sail the ocean blue" I thought that had been largely discredited.” It’s doubtful that Columbus came from a converso background. However, it’s not impossible that Cervantes did. There is no direct proof, but there is ample indirect proof in his writings that he did. In Don Quijote he makes clear that the main character comes from a converso background as he does in many of his short stories. In one play he has a charlatan come to a small town where he puts on a make believe play. He tells the towns people that only those who are “old Christians” (non conversos) can see this non existent play. The town’s people afraid to be taken for “new Christians” pretend to see the play.

- jdyer

June 22, 2010 at 12:11am

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

wildboy “Jackson, this is not a convincing rebuttal of my main point -- that there is no fundamental difference in today's international political climate that justifies the demand that President Obama has to acknowledge Israel's historical or religious ties to the land over the Holocaust or some other justification.” He is the first and as far as I know the only President to use the Holocaust as a primary reason for the creation of the Jewish State. Previous presidents took that into account but didn’t use it as a primary justification. Had the Jews not had an historical relation to that land no President would have supported the creation of such a State. In any case, Obama would have saved himself a lot of political grief had he mentioned the historical ties of the Jews to the land of Israel. Hell, even the Koran recognizes those ties as Abbas admitted recently.

- jdyer

June 22, 2010 at 12:18am

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

"I thought that had been largely discredited." Not at all. http://www.amazon.com/Don-Quichotte-roman-juif-masqu%C3%A9/dp/2020374811/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277204092&sr=8-1 http://www.h-net.org/~cervantes/csa/artics04/mcgaha.pdf

- noga1

June 22, 2010 at 6:57am

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

"I thought that had been largely discredited." Not at all. http://www.amazon.com/Don-Quichotte-roman-juif-masqu%C3%A9/dp/2020374811/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277204092&sr=8-1 http://www.h-net.org/~cervantes/csa/artics04/mcgaha.pdf

- noga1

June 22, 2010 at 6:57am

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

roi: To criticize a US politician, the President of the United States is not only valid, it is required. I thought that for somebody who is always invoking his democratic credentials, the American values and other such symbols it would not be problematic. But obviously it is. Why? Because I think that Peretz, and us, the other posters on this and other blogs have touched a raw nerve. There is no point for me to go again into all the reasons I think Obama is a poor president but I think that for a person well versed in history and politics you know deep down that you made a mistake voting for the ubermensh of Chicago. I think that by now you know that he is a typical political hack. He will say and do anything during the elections to get elected. You thought you voted for the beauty and you got the beast. Your rage is a rage against your own naiveté so I will not add anything to your frustration. Regarding your second post about Noga and K2K, forgive me but it is childish. Respond to her argument if you can but stop this name calling. You sound like a 2 year old. Wildboy: I don't think that anybody is (how did you put it?) "heaping hypocritical scorn" on Obama. What did you mean by "hypocritical" and by "scorn"? Is any criticism of the president "hypocritical"? Peretz does not like where this president is leading this country. He is not the only one. He does not like the direction. Is this some sort of sin in your opinion? Respond to the criticism not the critic. That is and was for hundreds of years the foundation for intellectual discussion. Israeli politicians generally do not invoke "the Holocaust". They make historical references to Second World War. Are those comparison forbidden now, since Obama's elections? Israeli politician do not claim that Holocaust gives Jews claim on Eretz Yisrael. Just the opposite. Is it too much to ask the president of the US to respect that? "I suggest that you look at the evidence in front of you rather than relying on some kind of conspiracy theories about the influence of people he occasionally socialized with at parties." Oh, so that what it was, booze talk no less. Attending church services for years is just "parties" and conspiracy theories. Hardly know Said. But yes, I looked at evidence and it does not fill me with admiration.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

June 22, 2010 at 7:32am

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

makover, I cannot make any sense out of the first paragraph of your post. You seem to think that the First Amendment runs in one direction, that we are free to criticize political leaders, which of course we are, but not free to criticize critics such as Martin Peretz for criticism that is unfounded, dishonest, and destructive of the very ends he claims to seek. Why the hell not? As for your wishful thinking that I believe I made a mistake with Obama, nothing of the kind. Leaving aside that the alternative was completely ludicrous by the time we reached the general election, I don't pine for Hillary or any of Obama's Democratic competitors. I think we have the best person available at this time in history. Your narrative that I voted for "beauty" and got the "beast" is simply more of the right-wing smear that began during the campaign, that Obama's supporters thought he was the messiah or some such stupidity rather than understanding that he was a gifted and progressive politician. Having invented the smear, the end of the right-wing narrative is necessarily that we are now disappointed that Obama is not the messiah or beauty or some such. The right invented the lie; the right now continues with it. Big deal. This is what the right does all the time, lies and smears. One barely notices. What is interesting is that you appear to be sufficiently stewed in right-wing rhetoric (what are you reading on the web?) that you are unaware of the sources of what you repeat. If I have a disappointment with Obama, it arises from something I worried about aloud even before he took office, that he believes that he can conciliate anyone if he is open-handed and genuinely willing to consider their point of view and respond to it as best he can. He did not believe that it is possible for us and for him to have implacable enemies who have no interest in reconciliation, only in his and our destruction. Top of that list is the Republican party which is corrupt inside and out, completely detached from reality, and, as I said then, would do absolutely anything it could, with lies and smears at the top of the list, to destroy Obama, just as they did toward FDR even though we were in the midst of two of the worst crises in our national history. I hope he has learned his lesson, although there has certainly been a heavy cost in terms of lost political capital while he was doing it. He no doubt had to learn the same lesson with respect to international enemies. The difference is that with them he has more time as events are driven by deeper forces -- national interests -- that won't move much one way or the other, for or against us, regardless of what he says. With the Republicans he had no time at all as they were bound to do nothing but try to destroy him from the gitgo. So, I am disappointed that Obama has not been more wary of enemies, among whom I include Martin Peretz and Benjamin Netanyahu. They and those who are like them are his enemies. He should know it. He should consider what he does and says with that in mind. Unlike the juvenile belief of the idiot right-wing, what you do with enemies is not necessarily publicly to lambaste them all the time, but you had better know who wishes you well and who doesn't. Which brings us to wildboy's very trenchant point -- his brilliant description of the latest demand by right-wing enemies for "paint by number" rhetoric from the American president according to a picture painted by right-wing Zionists. This has brilliantly illuminated for me something I realize I had not fully understood. Wildboy is correct, and he describes eloquently the absurdity of this state of affairs -- and aptly characterizes easily 80% of what is said by Peretz and his devotees here. But it should be seen as part and parcel of the great right-wing delusion, that the world will be as you describe it, that one has to say the right things, not do the right things, and it will all work out: If you claim you are fighting terrorism, then any stupid thing you do is efficacious. If you claim that there are WMDs in Iraq, then there are, or there are "WMDs of the mind" which are just as good. If you claim that you are going to shock and awe your enemies, they will be shocked and awed, even if they are not. If you claim that cutting taxes will not produce deficits, then it won't. If you claim that the market is self-regulating and correcting, then it is. If you claim that global-warming is a theory, then it cannot hurt you. Given the depth of the right-wing psychosis, its devotion to faith-based reality, it becomes perfectly understandable that so much of the criticism, and the criticism here, is devoid of any suggestion of plausible alternatives but consists entirely of the demand that Obama use the proper ritual words, with regard to Israel, Iran, Turkey, whomever. We do not require concrete actions with a plausible relationship to the outcome we seek, we require the proper incantations. Obama won't say the words, the magic incantations, they way we want him to say them. Therefore, he must be possessed by the devil, the minister of his church in Chicago, the people he met socially or politically in the course of his political career, whatever. This is straight out of the McCarthyite playbook, but who cares. The Soviet Union was at least a bona fide enemy even if the reaction was extreme and destructive. The current right-wing is so loaded with authentic crackpots, that McCarthyism in this day and age is barely worthy of notice. As for noga and her arguments, makover, noga cannot make an argument. She doesn't know how. I used to ask her to try and frame one, but it was pointless. She is only capable of spitting venom while trying to perfume herself with literary allusions. She still stinks to the heavens; she is still a sociopathic liar. There isn't perfume enough in the world. _______________ Jacko, re "American hegemony:" You describe me as concerned about American hegemony. If you mean concerned to maintain it, that would be correct. If you think I am one of those who deplores American power, you are completely misreading me. What I deplore is the waste and dissipation of that power due to the wantonness and stupidity of the right. A perfect example is the complete right-wing failure to understand the nature and purposes of international institutions as useful tools of American power if we play the game properly. The were intent on smashing them because, in their juvenile manner, they saw them only as a multitude of threads tying down the great Gulliver of American power. They have succeeded to a significant degree in the smashing, and now we find it exceedingly difficult to operate without reliable allies and international cooperation. My point is that Obama is trying to reestablish our authority and create a more favorable environment for American success on key issues. I don't know that that is possible; it may be too late. But his objective at least seems clear to me. As described above, the lunatic right has no interest in policy -- they didn't even have such an interest when they were in power -- only in display. Hence, the right is infuriated that Obama pursues policy in preference to preening display and is completely incapable of suggesting what alternative policies should instead be pursued other than its favorites of preening display, tough, but empty, talk, and various ritual incantations about friends and enemies.

- roidubouloi

June 22, 2010 at 9:20am

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

Roi: "If I have a disappointment with Obama, it arises from something I worried about aloud even before he took office, that he believes that he can conciliate anyone if he is open-handed and genuinely willing to consider their point of view and respond to it as best he can. He did not believe that it is possible for us and for him to have implacable enemies who have no interest in reconciliation, only in his and our destruction." I think we should remember this insightful wisdom. It sounds almost like Marty Peretz had written it.

- noga1

June 22, 2010 at 10:42am

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

Roi, even there are already 125 posts on this thread, I know that you will scroll all the way to the end looking for your name to see if anyone has responded to your insults. So I know that my words won't be wasted... I'm quite flattered that you chose to cast me in the role of Don Quixote defending the fair lady Noga/Dulcinea, although I think it's obvious to everyone that she's hardly in need of defenders. I typically imagine myself as Perseus or St. George or the Red Cross Knight, but Don Quixote is a nice twist. In any event that leaves you with the role of the dragon, skewered on the point of a lance as you twist and writhe in your own hateful excrement. I know that they're working on new versions of Imodium and Kaopectate that can help control Logorrhea, but you'll probably have to deal with the paranoia and dementia on your own.

- willjames77

June 22, 2010 at 12:02pm

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

K2K, thanks for the well wishes and the very informative piece on what's up in Kurdistan. Disturbing. Don't the bad guys ever sleep?

- willjames77

June 22, 2010 at 12:37pm

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

willjames77: since seeing "How to Train Your Dragon", it seems unfair to dragons to symbolize evil. As to the Kurds? I just scanned Hurriyet and TodaysZaman. Amazing how Hamas/Gaza is totally out of the Turkish media, now obsessed with the Erdogan's war against the PKK Kurds (the opposition parties blame Erdogan's Kurd policies for re-starting PKK violence). Obama is having a very bad week as Commander in Chief, let alone 'leader of the free world', or even leader of the Democratic Party.

- K2K

June 22, 2010 at 3:45pm

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

Jackson, you've made pretty wacko claims but the one about how Obama is "the first President to make the Holocaust a primary reason for his support for Israel" is a doozy. Harry Fricking Truman pushed for the international recognition of a sovereign Israeli state precisely because of the Holocaust, especially his own dismay at the deportation of Holocaust survivors back to Europe by the British from the Palestine Mandate. This had a hell of a lot more to do with his motives for backing the end of the Mandate and the US's recognition of a Jewish state (over the active opposition of his State Department) that his private musings about King Cyrus. Just about every other US President has said things about how Israel's existence is either recompense for the Holocaust or to ensure that Jews are not subjected to another Holocaust. Only when Obama said it do the Peretzes of the world start to notice, and yell about it. As I said, the problem is not Obama's but his opponents.

- wildboy

June 22, 2010 at 4:32pm

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

There is a difference between making the Holocaust the only reason for the necessity of the Jewish state and a recognition of the Jewish claim to be in Israel because it is the historical homeland of the Jews, the indigenous homeland, not just an acquired piece of real estate. Obama's position about Israel's rights as expressed in the Cairo speech was a rhetorical fallacy, "argumentum ad misericordiam" trying to win support for an argument by appealing to feelings of pity or guilt. "Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed -- more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, it is ignorant, and it is hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction -- or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews -- is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve." This appeal to the emotions would not have withstood roi's legalistic impositions for a minute, had they been presented by a Jew, an Israeli or an American who is not a democrat. It says nothing about the fact that Jews have a very real, historically legitimate and verifiable to live in their homeland, free of persecution. On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people -- Muslims and Christians -- have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. "Barack Obama looked over the ruins of Buchenwald on Friday and said of the concentration camp's inmates: "They could not have known how the nation of Israel would rise out of the destruction of the Holocaust." http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/obama-s-buchenwald-visit-seen-as-balance-to-cairo-speech-1.277448 Well, then, if this is the only case he can make to the Muslims about Israel's claims, then Helen Thomas was not that wrong in her call for those Jews to get the hell out of Palestine, just as Ahmadinjad is proved right when he says that whatever fate the Jews suffered in Europe has nothing to do with Palestine.

- noga1

June 22, 2010 at 5:39pm

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

wildboy: Harry S. Truman hardly "pushed for the international recognition of a sovereign Israeli state". The Truman administration first pushed, on March 19,1948 before the UN General Assembly, to abandon the partition plan in favor of a temporary UN "trusteeship". Public opinion was overwhelmingly for partition, and the rest you can just find out for yourself by studying the meeting in the Oval Office at 4p.m. May 12, 1948 where Clark Clifford made the case for recognition of the new Jewish state, at Harry S. Truman's request, to SecState George Marshall, which included these lines from Deuteronomy: "Behold, I have set the land before you: go in and possess the land which the Lord swear unto your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give unto them and to their seed after them."

- K2K

June 22, 2010 at 5:43pm

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

Corrction to my comment: This "On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people -- Muslims and Christians -- have suffered in pursuit of a homeland." should come right after: "Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed -- more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, it is ignorant, and it is hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction -- or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews -- is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve."

- noga1

June 22, 2010 at 7:02pm

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

This is what Muslim antisemitism looks like these days: "Dutch police use 'decoy Jews' to stop anti-Semitic attacks" "Dutch police are to use "decoy Jews", by dressing law enforcers in Jewish religious dress such as skullcaps, in an effort to catch anti-Semitic attackers." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/7846704/Dutch-police-use-decoy-Jews-to-stop-anti-Semitic-attacks.html "Lodewijk Asscher, Amsterdam's mayor, has ordered the new decoy strategy to cut the number of verbal and physical attacks on Jews, amid fears that anti-Semitic "hate crime" is on the rise. "Jews in at least six Amsterdam neighbourhoods often cannot cross the street wearing a skullcap without being insulted, spat at or even attacked," according to local reports." "Secret television recordings by the Jewish broadcasting company, Joodse Omroep, broadcast at the weekend, have shocked Amsterdam, a city which prides itself on liberalism and which is home to the Anne Frank museum. The footage showed young men, often of immigrant origin, shouting and making Nazi salutes at a rabbi when he visited different areas of the Dutch capital."

- jdyer

June 22, 2010 at 10:06pm

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

willjames, you are smart enough to be obnoxious, K2K is such a boob he can barely manage. He is noga's Don Quixote, not you. On the other hand, when you make the effort to be insulting, you seem to be unable to muster anything more than what makes third graders titter. Say "underpants" why don't you and show us what a clever little boy you are. __________________ Speaking of children, here is a teachable moment for the children on the Spine, Peretz's little cabal of nasty grade-schoolers: "Roi: 'If I have a disappointment with Obama, it arises from something I worried about aloud even before he took office, that he believes that he can conciliate anyone if he is open-handed and genuinely willing to consider their point of view and respond to it as best he can. He did not believe that it is possible for us and for him to have implacable enemies who have no interest in reconciliation, only in his and our destruction.' I think we should remember this insightful wisdom. It sounds almost like Marty Peretz had written it." Marty Peretz might have written it, but neither he nor you can understand it. You and the rest of the right-wing wackos think that if one has an enemy it follows that the thing to do is simply denounce that enemy at every opportunity. That is childish and dangerous stupidity. Your speciality. States are not people. They are not unitary, containing thousands or millions. Conciliatory speech can have many positive tactical benefits even if a hostile government refuses any sort of reconciliation: it may sow division within the enemy government, it may diminish the ardor of supporters, it may prevent a hostile coalition from coalescing, it may leave open opportunities for maneuver later while seeming in command, it may persuade allies that it is not too dangerous to offer support. The last is exactly what is happening in this case with Iran. The US lowering its tone toward Iran and indicating that it is not simply seeking violent confrontation has helped other powers decide to cooperate with us rather than distance themselves. States are not people. That means their governments can change. A particular government may be hostile, the next may not be, or vice versa. States are not people. Even hostile powers have interests and, despite their hostility, can be moved to act by pressure against their interests. The feckless right thinks that because Obama will not ape their intensely stupid excuse for policy -- empty tough-talk and the haranguing of enemies -- that Obama does not understand that our enemies are just that. This says nothing about Obama and everything about the inability of the right to approach diplomacy and international relations with any subtlety or forethought beyond that of a child. And that is why the Peretzian approach appeals to the many children here - amidut, tnr.reader, noga, K2k, willjames. They too cannot think past their hatreds and obsessions to consider what policies may be efficacious, and they have the attention span of two-your-olds, demanding instant results.

- roidubouloi

June 22, 2010 at 10:16pm

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

Wildboy “Harry Fricking Truman pushed for the international recognition of a sovereign Israeli state precisely because of the Holocaust, especially his own dismay at the deportation of Holocaust survivors back to Europe by the British from the Palestine Mandate.” Truman went against his own State department and decided to recognize Israel. His reasons were multiple and not single. However, Truman’s recognition had to do with his sense that Jews belonged in Israel (their ancestral homeland). Had Jews wanted to set up a State in say, Suriname or in Taiwan, Holocaust or no Holocaust, I doubt he would have supported such a move. However when all is said and done, it was the Jewish people in detention centers in Cyprus and in Europe that demanded to go to Mandate Palestine which made such recognition possible and necessary; that and the fact that Jews had been building up the country since the late 19c. Still, you can’t pick and choose causes of US recognition. It was the entirety of Jewish history (as well as the history of antisemitism of which the Holocaust is a part) which made such recognition inevitable. “Just about every other US President has said things about how Israel's existence is either recompense for the Holocaust or to ensure that Jews are not subjected to another Holocaust. Only when Obama said it do the Peretzes of the world start to notice, and yell about it.” Wrong, no other President said it in a public address to an Arab audience as a statement of official U. S. policy. You are also wrong that Obama is being treated to a different standard than other US Presidents by Jewish American leaders. Bush the elder was criticized even more severely than Obama. Only difference is that Democrats joined in the criticism. Then there was Jimmy Carter….. So stop being so thin skinned. Obama is not above criticism.

- jdyer

June 22, 2010 at 10:28pm

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

oh boy another long post to avoid by his majesty the oldinfant, Roi.

- jdyer

June 22, 2010 at 10:29pm

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

some men get mean when they get drunk. verbally mean. maybe all we are encountering is AbsolutRoid.

- K2K

June 22, 2010 at 10:30pm

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

Since when was the Cairo speech a "statement of official US policy"? Did the State Department put its contents into a White Paper? Has it been distributed as talking points to ambassadors around the world? Where do you get this shite, anyway? But let me grant you that the caterwauling about Obama's Cairo speech was justified because he did say it in an Arab country and in a speech intended for a Muslim audience, and not in some perfunctory ceremony with the Israeli ambassador or some visiting Israeli Prime Minister. Suppose that his Muslim audience heard it and assumed, as you seem to fear, that the United States' official policy is that Israel only exists because of the Holocaust. Does that change anything at all? Does that mean that the United States will no longer safeguard Israel's security? Does it mean that the United States would no longer treat Israel as an ally or as a fellow sovereign state? Does it mean that the United States now agrees with the assertion that Israel is only justified by a European-perpetrated Holocaust, ergo the creation and existence of the State of Israel is an injustice that needs to be remedied in Europe and not the Middle East? Does it mean that the United States will agree with Iran that the Holocaust wasn't real and will acquiesce in Iran building a bomb and launching a Middle Eastern arms race and God knows what else? If it means any of those things, where is the evidence for any of it? The demand for a settlement freeze? Ramat Shlomo? Calling the Mavi Marmara incident "tragic"? Not bombing Iran yet? How are any of those hiccups in American-Israeli relations in the last two years evidence of any of this? Let me try to flip this one around for you. Suppose Obama said in Cairo that Israel is justified not by the Holocaust, or only by the Holocaust, but also by the continuous Jewish physical presence within its territory since 2000 BCE and the constant Jewish longing to return to Zion to rebuild their state. I don't doubt that Israelis would have felt all warm and fuzzy toward him -- Ma'ariv would have put him on its front page for weeks on end. Does that mean that Netenyahu would have frozen all settlement construction the way Obama asked him to? That expansion of Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem would have come to a halt upon request from the White House? That the blockade of Gaza would have been lifted unilaterally, in the absence of the freedom of Gilad Shalit and the downfall of Hamas, because Obama knows that Jews lived there 2,000 years ago? And, on the flip side, do you think a discourse of Jewish history in the Levant would have made Arabs reconsider a century of rejectionism and decide that Israel does indeed belong as their neighbor and friend, that Palestinian refugees and their descendants should be integrated into their societies because they are just Arabs like all the rest, that the Palestinian capital should just be in Ramallah and that there really is no legitimate reason for Palestinians to claim any part of Jerusalem for themselves? Who are you kidding? WHO ARE YOU KIDDING?? Roi has aptly sized up the Marty groupies here -- like your Dear Leader, you have a magical belief in the power of words to change the world and convince people to change their minds all on their own. To me, this sort of logic treats states and peoples like the family dog -- just scratch his belly once in a while and he will then do whatever his master tells him to do. Words matter, but self-interest and national institutions matter much much more. Kvetch all you want, but fantasizing about how people's minds would be changed with mere words doesn't make it so.

- wildboy

June 22, 2010 at 11:21pm

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

"...like your Dear Leader, you have a magical belief in the power of words to change the world and convince people to change their minds all on their own. To me, this sort of logic treats states and peoples like the family dog -- just scratch his belly once in a while and he will then do whatever his master tells him to do. Words matter, but self-interest and national institutions matter much much more. Kvetch all you want, but fantasizing about how people's minds would be changed with mere words doesn't make it so." How well this describes Obama's style of leadership and his reliance on speeches to sweeten up enemies. "Dear leader" - priceless projection.

- noga1

June 22, 2010 at 11:37pm

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

Well done, wildboy. But it's not just that the Peretz crowd has magical beliefs about the power of words to change outcomes, so long as the words are in their view "righteous." They don't even think the job of the American president is to obtain favorable outcomes for the US. The think his job is to say all the things that will make them feel warm and fuzzy, including lambasting everyone on their enemies list at every opportunity. They are so deep into their magical, symbolic world that it has become more important to them than the real world itself. The symbols matter, the world not so much.

- roidubouloi

June 22, 2010 at 11:51pm

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

“Suppose that his Muslim audience heard it and assumed, as you seem to fear, that the United States' official policy is that Israel only exists because of the Holocaust. Does that change anything at all? Does that mean that the United States will no longer safeguard Israel's security?” It changes everything and the fact that you don’t see it means that you have poor judgment when it comes to issues of sovereignty. If Israel existence is predicated on the fact that the Jewish people need protection then it devalues their statues as a free people. It makes of the Jewish State a dhimmi State. Is that what you are after? No one who believes that Jews have a right to sovereignty in their historical homeland would accept such demeaning conditions for its existence. You and some others here seem to feel that supporting Obama is more important than the existence of a viable Jewish State. Fine, but don’t pretend that you support Israel’s right to exist.

- jdyer

June 23, 2010 at 12:47am

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

If President Barak Hussein Obamaof the United States made a speech in Cairo and clearly said that the State of "Israel is justified not ... only by the Holocaust, but also by the continuous Jewish physical presence within its territory since 2000 BCE" and that the United States was moving it's embassy to Jerusalem in order to be in the capital of Israel, you better believe no one would be threatening to lob missiles or take potshots at any Israeli government. What would the United States gain? The grudging respect (and relief) that the United States stands with her allies, and has a moral stance.

- K2K

June 23, 2010 at 1:01am

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

I learned when I was a kid that the reason one should support Israel was that, after the Holocaust, Jews had an existential need for a nation-state of their own that would take them in if massive persecution should begin once again. I guarantee that 90% of people in the world who are for Israel will advance a reason similar to the foregoing if you ask them why. What on earth is wrong with this and why on earth has almost everyone here been pillorying Obama for saying so at the heart of the Arab world, in Cairo? It seemed to me he did something very worthwhile -- he gave it to Arabs straight: you wonder why America supports Israel? Here's why. I have to confess that I am still baffled -- this is the core support of people that is being dismissed almost contemptuously.

- ironyroad

June 23, 2010 at 8:06am

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

"I learned when I was a kid that the reason one should support Israel was that, after the Holocaust, Jews had an existential need for a nation-state of their own that would take them in if massive persecution should begin once again." Ahmadinejad understands exactly what you were taught, ironyroad. Which is why he is hard at work: a. denying that the Holocaust happened, and b. that if it did, why are the Palestinians paying the price for a Jewish need for protection? If Jews have no reason to be in Israel other than it was the arbitrary choice of the empires to grant them this piece of land by way of solving a problem for those empires, then the whole Zionist project collapses. Never mind that when my grandfather packed up and left Turkey in 1941 to immigrate to Israel it had nothing to do with the Holocaust but with his own natural response as a Jew to the inexorable appeal of rebuilding the Jewish land, the land of his ancestors. What you were taught as a child is what you were taught as a child. Now that you are a grownup person with a much greater understanding of the history I would have expected a slightly more sophisticated and responsible understanding.

- noga1

June 23, 2010 at 8:17am

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

irony: I would add to noga's logic that there is a rabid doctrinal intolerance in both fundamentalist Sunni and Shi'a Islam. In Pakistan, the Ahmadis are legally classified as heretics. Turkey struggles with their Alevi confessional, not Sunni, yet not quite Shi'a. Most of Iraq's refugees are Christians (maybe 800,000), and the UN chief for refugees yesterday called for a non-denominational government so that Iraqi Christians can eventually go home. Also, what makes you think there is any concern for the Jews when so many in the world think the Jews control everything and need to be destroyed? Obama would do the world a great service by speaking about freedom of expression and the humanity of living in pluralistic confessional societies.

- K2K

June 23, 2010 at 9:31am

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

One of the things I have learned in this rich, intriguing thread is that it on the question of the roots of Israel, it is necessary to be able to keep two ideas in your head at the same time: 1) beyond any doubt, the Holocaust provided one of the main driving forces in the creation of the modern state of Israel; 2) The Jewish claim to the land of Israel antedates the Holocaust by far, taking in not only Biblical times but mizrahi Jews living there in recent centuries. Plus, jdyer reminds us of the simple fact that Zionism predates the Holocaust by decades. The concern expressed was that Obama's Cairo speech put all the emphasis on the Holocaust-based history, which is the shallower, less substantial claim and, as noga1 points out, subject to the rebuttal (however specious) of Holocaust deniers.

- JackR

June 23, 2010 at 9:35am

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

roid - Well, today is a new day. After lamely defending you by saying you were having a bad day (e.g. cow comments and all), I was pleased to see you get serious. I especially appreciated your long, careful delineation of the totality of your views on the Israeli - Palestinian conflict. That enabled me to understand where we agree (95%) and where we disagree (5%, but a critical 5%). You are brutally clear about where your detractors have a blind spot, namely in the many ramifications, unintended consequences, and implications of Israeli settlement policy. I would now presume to point out what I think is your blind spot. You say that Palestinians have demonstrated their acceptance of Israel and their willingness to live and coexist in peace by virtue of the Oslo Accords and various statements by Abbas and maybe some other events. I think this is dead wrong. I believe Palestinians view two-state solution as a tactical first step to facilitate their long term goal of taking over all of the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, destroying Israel in the process. You might decide that I am among the many paranoids on this thread, but I would remind you that paranoids have enemies. If one reads translations of Palestinian speeches given in Arabic, rich with dreams of returning to olive groves in Jaffa and the like, you don't get the picture that Palestinians would be just happy as clams to stay in their part of the two states. In my view, if this is right, it puts a hole below the water line in your policy ship. Israel still needs to go through the motions and participate in the charade for a variety of good reasons, but not because a peace treaty and two state solution will ever see the light of day. [I have more but need to go.]

- JackR

June 23, 2010 at 10:07am

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

Jack, You haven't been here that long, but quite a while ago, when the discussion was in a somewhat different vein, I wrote repeatedly that I do not believe Israel needs to do the things I suggest because I believe that the Arabs generally and in good faith want peace, but because I don't believe that. I see the current position of Israel as very vulnerable because of the settlements. If the occupation had stuck to the minimum necessary for security and had tried to keep as low a profile as possible, then Israel's negotiating position would be stronger -- it would be able to say that it is ready and willing to support a Palestinian state as soon as the Palestinians will accept one and enter into suitable security arrangements -- and it would be able to maintain the occupation with much less pressure. I don't believe in making policy based on assumptions about the other side's good intentions. I am willing to hope for the best, or that the best may evolve over time, but I believe you make moves that are stabilizing and enhance security in and of themselves, considered in context, whenever the opportunity presents itself. In that manner, your situation is at least improving marginally whether or not you are able at the present to achieve the final outcome you desire. If the situation can be improved and the level of tension can subside a bit, then it may be possible to make further improvements that were not possible previously. And, at some point, a breakthrough might become possible. Overall, I think the optimum for Israel would have been the lowest possible security profile in the West Bank, a constant willingness, openly expressed, to do whatever is possible to improve life for the inhabitants, and a constant willingness, openly expressed, to support the coming into existence of an independent Palestinian state. That doesn't mean that defenses get neglected or you do not respond forcefully -- but intelligently -- to outbreaks of violence. In effect, the message should always be that violence is a dead-end, but there is a another way forward that will be there when you are ready to take it. When I point out that the Palestinians and the Arabs more broadly have recognized Israel's existence (which they have done verbally more than once), it is not because I am trying to demonstrate their good faith. Rather, I am trying to call attention to the fact that this "no partner for peace" line is a verbal evasion of Israel's responsibility to itself to move forward. It is an excuse to do nothing. This evasion makes it appear that the territorial and population issues that divide the two sides are trivial and that the only reason a peace has not been concluded is Arab denial. Well, those issues are far from trivial, to either side. It is just that Israel has grown accustomed to thinking that something resembling its last proposals at Taba are the only possible or rational outcome and that the Arab refusal to accept them must therefore be interpreted as a refusal under any circumstances to make peace. Whatever value or lack of value the "no partner for peace" verbiage may have as propaganda (not much in my opinion), it is a form of self-deception that allows Israel to postpone the day of reckoning on the settlements. And I believe that postponing that day has become a higher political priority for Israel than peace -- what Tom Friedman, that vicious anti-Semite, meant when he wrote some weeks ago during the apartment flap that, "Peace has become merely a hobby for Israel." I believe that Netanyahu has an affirmative policy of frustrating progress (while hoping to avoid as far as possible the appearance of doing so) in order to postpone that reckoning indefinitely. It is why he is pointlessly provocative whenever he can be (as in, what was the point in refusing upon election to endorse a two-state solution?). He doesn't want to reduce tension, he wants to keep it high enough to multiply the difficulties faced by the PA in coming to the table, but not so high that violence results, a fine line to walk. The so-called "kerfuffle" between Netanyahu and Obama over settlements and Jerusalem apartments was addressed by Obama only in part to Netanyahu. I am sure Obama would have preferred Netanyahu to cooperate, but, primarily, Obama was talking past Netanyahu with these gestures, saying to the Palestinians that Israel cannot assume US support for its territorial claims, but that the only way forward to take advantage of that fact is to come to the table. This is indeed why Israelis are so infuriated. They get the point Obama is making, that their assumptions -- the stories they tell each other -- about what territory they will get to keep in a peace settlement will be tested sorely in peace negotiations. The reaction is to try to ridicule Obama and suggest that he naïvely assumed that Netanyahu would bend or that the Arabs would suddenly fall into his arms. Not necessarily. He is exerting pressure to unfreeze a frozen situation. If it doesn't start to unfreeze after a while, he will try something else. While there are no doubt Palestinians who regard the two-state solution as a tactical step toward the ultimate destruction of Israel, the question for Israel is whether a two-state solution is in fact a tactical disadvantage that puts it in greater jeopardy. I think the answer to that is overwhelmingly that two states, with provisions to prevent Palestine from arming, would be a tremendous improvement over the current situation. Not only would it enhance Israel's security and international posture -- completely delegitimizing any continued Arab violence -- it would bring the conflict entirely within the laws of nations and war giving Israel greater, not lesser, room for tactical maneuver. the difference between Gaza and Lebanon. As well, whatever the Palestinians may say to each other, there will be many who come to accept that, as a matter of reality, Israel will not disappear and who may then turn their attentions to building their own nation. Finally, when you have more to lose, it is less appealing to make war that may cost you. I understand and respect your comments, I mostly agree with them, but my reading of the proper strategic response to the reality you describe is a bit different.

- roidubouloi

June 23, 2010 at 11:01am

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

This is my last response to the Marty-lovers on Obama and the Cairo speech ('cause I have work to do). You're dead wrong when you say that Obama's defense of Israel by reference to history would have changed anything when his defense of Israel by reference to the Holocaust did not. First of all, you seem to have forgotten what he said in Cairo -- he did not offer a comprehensive defense of Israel's right to exist, but only stated that Israel's existence is based on "a tragic history that cannot be denied". Referencing one reason for an empirical reality without specifically excluding other reasons does not mean that those other reasons are excluded, unless the two reasons cannot logically or empirically coexist. But everyone concedes that Israel's existence is legitimate both because of historic ties to the land AND because it was triggered by the Holocaust and would hopefully preclude another Holocaust. So the assumption that Obama only thinks that Israel exists as a "dhimmi" state (why use that terminology? because you think Obama thinks in those categories?) or an illegitimate state because he only publicly mentioned the Holocaust as justification in a speech is hardly sufficient to conclude that he denies or wilfully ignores other reasons for Israel's existence. There is no evidence for any of that, and those who choose to see things that aren't there have an essential problem with Obama that seems immune to logic, reason and evidence. And if Obama did expressly say that Israel's existence is supported by historical continuity and legitimate national aspirations? Apparently, we all seem to concede that this would not have changed Arab minds one bit. And, if you think that fights about the propriety or historicity of the Holocaust present a thicket, what do you think that fights about 4,000-year old or 2,000-year old history do? The Arabs/Muslims developed arguments against the Jews' historic right to the Land of Israel that are almost as old as Zionism itself (and older, if you go back to the legal and religious bases for Arab or Muslim rule over this land). If you think they would abandon any of these arguments just because Barack Hussein Obama disagrees with them publicly, you are hallucinating. It would be more likely that Obama's invocation of Jewish history would have instead inspired a full-scale public resuscitation in the Arab and Muslim worlds for how Jews don't really have any legitimate connection to Palestine and any right to a state there -- all the old saws about how they are descendants of Khazars, or about how the biblical Hebrews just converted to Islam, or about how Palestinians are descendants of Canaanites and Jebusites who predated the Hebrews or about how Dar-ul'Islam cannot be carved up and given to a dhimmi people, ad nauseum. Instead of one Helen Thomas, you would have had hundreds all over Western cable channels. Does America need any of this? You people are entranced by words -- stirring words, tough words, righteous words and soothing words. But you think that words are all, and then project it onto Obama -- the way Hillary and McCain tried to and the way his opponents today try to. But it's clear that, for Obama, rhetoric is not the end but a means to an end. He has never limited his policies on any important issue to a speech or a series of speeches -- including his policies toward Iran and the broader Muslim world. His policies toward the broader Muslim world and Iran are hardly beyond criticism, but the criticism is more appropriately targeted at actions or inaction than at rhetoric independent of action. You want to criticize Obama because he is disrespectful of Israel's Prime Minister, or because he has publicly demanded a stop to settlement building or an end to Jewish housing in Jerusalem or won't move the embassy there? Fine -- though none of these things comes close to justifying the conclusion that Obama is somehow "anti-Israel" or treats Israel as less than a full ally and fully sovereign state or anti-Semitic. But instead you want to criticize Obama for things he says or doesn't say that don't reflect any action and proceed to infer nefarious things from it. Sorry, but this puts you in the same league (if not quite the same division) as the 9/11 truthers and the people who think the White House, BP and Greenpeace jointly blew up the oil rig.

- wildboy

June 23, 2010 at 1:18pm

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

Noga, K2K: despite all the evidence I've given to the contrary, my thinking has indeed evolved slightly beyond my 12-year-old self. Although I was a nicer person then. I wasn't suggesting that I personally believe that the Holocaust is the only valid justification for Israel as a nation-state, butrather that the existential reason of protection against some future event of that nature is one that made and makes sense to a lot of people across the world. So, my issue is really a note of caution about dismissing it so quickly, even if it doesn't reflect a larger sense of Israeli nationhood. To that extent, I see a peculiar contradiction between exposing the Holocaust-denial track of Arab-Muslim politics (Achmadinnerjacket or whoever) and then attacking the validity of Obama's assertion of Israel's right to exist in Cairo. I thought he did a good thing in declaring it exactly there, in laying out the truth where it's denied. Another reason that nobody has mentioned, but I think plays a role in global attitudes, is that a certain amount of unease can be generated by arguments that say, we lived in this land for thousands of years, and now we're returning to it. The capacity for global apocalypse would be cubed if that became a regular legitimate aim for political movements. Israel is an exception, in a way, because of the combination of the survival of an identifiable people and then a particular history of persecution. It may be the case that continual links to the land over 2,000 years is by far the most authentic claim or justification, but if people see it a different way, and the result is still positive, why treat it with disdain? As someone suggested above, they aren't mutually exclusive assertions.

- ironyroad

June 23, 2010 at 2:03pm

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

Irrational Obama-hatred, ironyroad. They don't mind contradicting themselves from one paragraph to the next as long as they think they are discrediting Obama. The point is not to persuade, but simply to do their part to render Obama ineffectual so that he cannot pursue policies they don't like. It's called a smear campaign, oldest fascist trick in the book.

- roidubouloi

June 23, 2010 at 2:15pm

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

roid - thanks for taking the time and trouble to elaborate on why you think Palestinian bad intentions need not prevent strategic prudence on Israel's part. Very clear, very cogent.

- JackR

June 23, 2010 at 2:32pm

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

Thank you, jack, for the invitation and the opportunity. I would much rather spend my time here in thoughtful discussion with thoughtful people than, well, that other stuff. But one also needs to be able to speak without being drowned out by screeching. My particular "all arms" approach to that problem is successful in creating and maintaining a little space, but only up to a point. I would welcome any thoughts from you on how to be more successful with less energy.

- roidubouloi

June 23, 2010 at 2:48pm

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

roid - With that invitation I will be glad to wade in, with the caveat that I know it's easier to give advice than to follow it. First, no one can censor you and, really, no one can drown you out. Your words and thoughts were at all times present, complete, and readable. How else would we have had our colloquy? So you can drop "being drowned out" as an excuse for anything. Second, IMHO it's of critical importance to stay calm regardless of the provocation. These are substantive, intellectual matters, and most readers are fair-minded enough to respond well to clarity and cogency, which happen to be your strong suits. Third, this emphatically does NOT mean that you can't take umbrage at being misquoted, perversely misunderstood, or even insulted. When any of these occur, you can speak authoritatively about your reactions to same e.g. "I'm offended that you characterize me as..." or "You have grossly misunderstood my point..." or "I'm concerned that your ad hominem is a substitute for not having an answer to..." Anyway, you get the point: "I" statements in preference to "you" statements e.g. "You are a shameless acolyte of that fanatic Marty" or "You come off as a Delilah to X's Samson". To put it mildly, these do not qualify as civil discussion and allow the recipients of your ad hominems to respond and escalate in kind. Your "all arms" approach" is both ineffective and annoying. Believe me, I understand provocations and giving in to reacting. During the 2008 primary season, there was a character code-named Tullius pimping for Hillary that used to drive me nuts with his condescending, know-it-all tone. I have to confess that on some of those occasions, I did not follow my own advice, but I should have. (Tullius - if you're still out there, I apologize.) Another of the bloggers that I most admire is jdyer. He's as smart and knowledgable as you but has a much shorter fuse and starts insulting folks at the drop of a hat. Think about your reaction to his rants, and realize others are quite likely reacting in a similar vein to yours. So to summarize, stay calm, make your points, if you feel angry or offended, take responsibility for your umbrage rather than trade insults, and lastly, trust us, your community of bloggers to (mostly) get what you're saying and, ultimately, to get you. Someday, I hope to meet you in person.

- JackR

June 23, 2010 at 4:45pm

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

Okay, jack. I have sufficient respect for your cogency, that I am going to take your advice. Let's see what happens. In what part of this wide world are you found?

- roidubouloi

June 23, 2010 at 5:46pm

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

roi: "It's called a smear campaign, oldest fascist trick in the book." “I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God.” Evan Thomas of Newsweek Any critical comment about your "Dear Leader" is a fascist smear to you. We worship a different God.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

June 23, 2010 at 6:54pm

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

roid - I'm in Deerfield, MA. I occasionally get to Washington -- for some reason, I seem to recall you might be from somewhere in Maryland. In case you want to pursue any of this off-line, my email address is: .

- JackR

June 23, 2010 at 7:51pm

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

roid - it was mysteriously deleted from the above: jackandcorinne@comcast.net

- JackR

June 23, 2010 at 7:53pm

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

irony: I did not share noga's 12-year old comment. While I think Obama could have used his bully pulpit in Cairo more effectively, my concern started with his over-reaction to the apartments in Ramat Shlomo, and I am as concerned with how he has treated other U.S. allies, not just Israel. Too post-modern for this moment in history. In my heart, I know there is no safe place for Jews, anywhere in the world. I guess it will always be so.

- K2K

June 23, 2010 at 8:38pm

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

You seem not have read what I actually wrote, makover. Or perhaps you misunderstood. I wasn't referring to criticism of Obama in general, just the sort of criticism one reads frequently here on the Spine that is so wildly incoherent and even self-contradictory. In such cases, it is difficult to conclude that the intention is "criticism" in the sense of trying to point to a better course of action so much as it is an effort simply to discredit, by any and every means, whether honest or not. Martin Peretz is himself often guilty of this. He makes a series of accusations about how ineffective and offensive to morality Obama's policies are while never being able to suggest any policies that would be preferable. This happens repeatedly. One can infer that Peretz is not trying to move policy in a preferred direction, only trying to discredit Obama. Such posts as this one here are particularly offensive since it consists of a declaration that Helen Thomas is an anti-Semite, which plainly she is, segueing to some ramble about Obama so as to tar him with Thomas's anti-Semitism. That cannot be legitimately characterized as criticism at all. It is merely a smear. Such behavior is indeed characteristic of fascism. In that regard, I would remind you that the reference to "Dear Leader" by another poster above was a reference to Martin Peretz, not to Obama. Why for example do you quote me and then Evan Thomas of Newsweek saying something absurdly adulatory about Obama? Have I ever expressed any sentiment remotely similar to that of Evan Thomas? I certainly don't share that sentiment to the slightest degree and am quite certain I have never said anything like it. It would appear, therefore, that you are attempting to tar me with something said by someone else with which and to whom I have no connection at all. Yes, makover, we worship a very different god, of that you can be drop-dead certain. __________________ I am quite surprised at K2Ks characterization of Obama's response to the apartments in Ramat Shlomo as an over-reaction. What basis can there possibly be for this? It is long-standing policy of the US not to recognize the annexation of East Jerusalem and to oppose West Bank settlement. While Israel insists that East Jerusalem is not a settlement, this is a distinction that only Israel itself recognizes, and even that distinction is rather suspect since Israel has settled its citizens both in East Jerusalem, that it has formally annexed, and in the West Bank that Israel itself considers occupied. One would have to ask, what then is the distinction in status between East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank? In any case, the US policy is one of long-standing. Further, one recalls that, at the time, the US was trying to restart negotiations between Israel and the PA and that Vice President Biden was on a state visit. To have announced this construction at that very moment seems an obvious affront to the US intended to scuttle any hope of talks. One wonders why that action by Netanyahu's government does not raise a great deal more concern than the subsequent demand by the US that Israel suspend construction in all territory east of the Green Line. Of course, Netanyahu cannot be said to have "over-reacted" to anything because he was the protagonist. But such behavior seems to be nothing if not extreme.

- roidubouloi

June 23, 2010 at 10:50pm

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

"...despite all the evidence I've given to the contrary, my thinking has indeed evolved slightly beyond my 12-year-old self. " I must have imagined what you said, then, in response to the arguments made in this thread, repeatedly, that for Israel, Israelis and some Jews it is of vital importance to know the history of the state of Israel and how it came to be: "I learned when I was a kid that the reason one should support Israel was that, after the Holocaust, Jews had an existential need for a nation-state of their own that would take them in if massive persecution should begin once again." If you wish to make a grownup comment, why even mention what you learned as a kid, as if it were indisputable? Didn't you mean to suggest what you learned as a child has some sort of intuitive truth to it? And why are you pretending that I'm treating you like a child when I most emphatically appealed to your adult knowledge?

- noga1

June 23, 2010 at 10:54pm

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

on every map, Ramat Shlomo is in North Jerusalem, a neighborhood of 20,000 built on a rocky hillside used for goat grazing before 1967. It certainly was not prudent diplomacy for the U.S. State Department to let the world know that PM Netanyahu was berated for 43 minutes by SecState Hillary Clinton over future housing units in North Jerusalem. The public disdain for Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai around the same time was also imprudent diplomacy. It does seem the Obama administration is on a slow learning curve about when to keep diplomatic disputes with allies private. Public 'Tit for Tat' is not a successful technique in international diplomacy.

- K2K

June 24, 2010 at 12:14am

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

How odd that you should think public diplomacy is not successful when Martin Peretz supports a diplomacy that seems to consist of nothing but. Perhaps PM Netanyahu was not the only intended audience for the berating. Or perhaps that's what it takes to get PM Netanyahu's cooperation (suggesting that it is he who is on a slow learning curve about the Obama administration and the fact that Obama is not Bush) and, despite the public posture, the Sec'y of State has his private assurance that there will not be any more housing starts while negotiations are pending.

- roidubouloi

June 24, 2010 at 12:37am

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

making diplomatic disputes public is not the same as 'public diplomacy' for the last time roid, I am not a fan of Peretz, although I am a huge fan of Netanyahu. and too interested in other issues to endlessly split words with anyone. find another Talmudist

- K2K

June 24, 2010 at 1:23am

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

roi: It looks like even the American most brilliant general seems to share my opinion of Obama's foreign policy and his Social Security Team. The general's criticism did not evolve in vacuum and while I agree that he should be fired I think this administration would be smart to analyze his comments.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

June 24, 2010 at 6:59am

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

Sorry, a Freudian slip. I meant National Security Team.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

June 24, 2010 at 7:00am

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

"I would remind you that the reference to "Dear Leader" by another poster above was a reference to Martin Peretz, not to Obama." Sooo, it is applicable to Obama and his adulators as well. "To have announced this construction at that very moment seems an obvious affront to the US intended to scuttle any hope of talks." Not at all, it only seems so to those who have no understanding of the ME or the complex forces at play. Only those who have no idea what are the stakes. Only those who repeat "progressive" mantras in favor of sacred "peace process". In short, Obama and his team. Those who know anything at all are dispatched to the "wilderness" and given no credence, like Ross for example. In addition, it seems, that only the Israeli "affront" generates the ire of the president and his team of "wise men". The Turkish, the Syrian and the Brazilian provokes no comments, zilch. As the old Israeli saying goes: "You don't scare a whore with a dick." Nobody is concerned that this president will do anything, because everybody, including Netanyahu, as well as America's enemies know its all a talk and no action and they heard this talk before.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

June 24, 2010 at 7:53am

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

"As the old Israeli saying goes: "You don't scare a whore with a dick." It's a shrewd saying but I never heard it before. Can you tell me what it is in Hebrew? I'm also not sure I fully understand its relevance in this context. Of course there is much concern about Obama's rather explicit hostility to Israel. I don't think this stops with the PM. Here is an article by Moshe Arens that addresses exactly how Obama's public flagellation of Israel has Netanyahu scurrying all over for cover. Needless to say, it is a despicable spectacle and one that has burned itself on Israeli society's memory, for all that it is used, as you say, to be constantly excoriated in world opinion. Personally, I believe that for this president, there is nothing Israel can do, say or concede that will ever be enough. I think Israelis also realize this and it's in this respect that Obama's new policies are bound to fail miserably. Why compromise on what is your most cherished project (like Jerusalem) when it is never reciprocated, appreciated and only serves to feed an appetite, not to assuage hunger? Last year when I was in Israel in August I was struck by the fact that Israelis seemed quite happy and content. In my conversations with my friends and family more recently I sense a real despondency and hopelessness. I don't think I ever sensed this kind of fear except during the weeks leading up to the Six day war, not even during the first gulf war when scuds were raining down on Israel. http://israelinsider.ning.com/forum/topics/moshe-arens-is-israel-becoming "But with Benjamin Netanyahu's second government and Barack Obama's entry into the White House, things have gone from bad to worse. After Obama's Cairo speech, Netanyahu announced, despite his pre-election platform, that he favored the establishment of a Palestinian state. This was followed by the government's decision, contrary to pre-election promises, to freeze construction in Judea and Samaria for 10 months. The humiliation of Netanyahu during his visit to the White House resulted in a decision effectively freezing construction in parts of Jerusalem. And now after the interception by the Israel Navy of the flotilla of boats that tried to break the blockade of Hamas-ruled Gaza, the Israeli government, under pressure from the White House, established an investigative committee including international observers. The composition of the committee was not announced until it had been approved by Washington. That set a record for Israeli subservience to Washington. One wonders what will come next. Not that one should deal lightly with the subject of the U.S.-Israeli relationship. It is an important component of Israel's strategic posture. At least some of Israel's deterrent capability rests on the assumption that the United States would support Israel in any conflict with its enemies."

- noga1

June 24, 2010 at 9:28am

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

Why is Moshe Arens so surprised that the Obama administration didn't trust Netenyahu? He concedes that Netenyahu's "pre-election promises" and "pre-election platform" consisted of no recognition of a Palestinian state, no halt to settlement construction and no limits on Israeli building in East Jerusalem. All of these run counter to Washington's public positions and, in the case of the Palestinian state, even renege on prior Israeli commitments. That Netenyahu eventually conceded on these issues (under intense pressure in two cases) does not make for a happy strategic partnership. I'm sorry, but special partnership or not, if your electoral platform goes against stated American foreign policy goals then you have to expect tension. Netenyahu may have thought that Obama would just treat those goals like platitudes, the way Bush did, but that is Netenyahu's fault, not Obama's. And those Israelis who voted for Netenyahu and his coalition partners should have known their man's sorry history with Washington before giving him their votes. I have no sympathy for French voters who support Gaullist candidates and German voters who support Social Democrats but then complain about how their countries' resultant foreign policies clash with the United States. I don't find much sympathy for Israeli voters who support Likud or other right-wing parties and then complain about how a Democratic US President doesn't like them. Caveat emptor.

- wildboy

June 24, 2010 at 11:03am

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

"to expect tension." As Arens points out, tensions between American and Israeli interests have always existed and been expected. There is a difference between "tension" and a nonstop irresponsible campaign of public humiliation and excoriation, no matter how much your own personal inclinations may derive pleasure from such exhibitions. That shameful treatment of Netanyahu in the WH by Obama will not be easily erased from Israel's memory. And that pertains to most Israelis not just those whom you so contemptuously denigrate as "Israeli voters who support Likud or other right-wing parties". One wonders what about this particular circumstance that made Obama abandon his sleek facade of gentlemanly sang-froid and that fabled absence of passion which he so brags about.

- noga1

June 24, 2010 at 11:40am

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

wildboy's view is a shrinking minority in the U.S. I have to believe Netanyahu approved this statement by Lieberman, and whatever Bibi agreed to regarding the flotilla provocation is not as important this week as DM Barak's arrival at the Pentagon on Monday, or Netanyahu's July 6 visit with Obama. "My blueprint for a resolution By AVIGDOR LIEBERMAN 06/23/2010 23:40 Israel’s foreign minister on what a two-state solution entails and where Israel draws the line. Talkbacks (35) The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results,” Albert Einstein once said. Since 1993, successive governments, supported by the international community, have tried to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict using the flawed paradigm of land for peace. Each time, the same formula was attempted, but failed every time because of Arab recalcitrance. Increasingly, the international community has started to demand that Israel return to the pre-1967 armistice lines as the basis of any resolution to the conflict. This has largely happened because there is a misunderstanding that the dispute is territorial in nature and confusion on international law and precedent. Most importantly, the Israeli leadership has historically provided no alternatives to this paradigm. Those who claim that Israel must return to the socalled Green Line need to examine UN Security Council Resolution 242, the legal framework created following the 1967 war when the territories were conquered. The resolution purposely never called for a full withdrawal from the West Bank. Lord Caradon, the main drafter of the resolution, called the pre-1967 lines “artificial and undesirable”, another drafter, Eugene V. Rostow, US undersecretary of state for political affairs in 1967, said Israel needs to retreat only to “secure and recognized borders, which need not be the same as the armistice demarcation lines.” In fact, the Green Line was created as a line where the Israeli and Jordanian armies concluded their fighting when Israel’s War of Independence ended. The Jordanian- Israeli Armistice Agreement specifically stated: “No provision of this agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either party hereto in the peaceful settlement of the Palestine questions, the provisions of this agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.” So there is no evidence that the Green Line, the demarcation that former dovish foreign minister Abba Eban described as the “Auschwitz lines,” was ever considered a border of any kind. While many claim that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is territorial, the facts suggest otherwise. Israel had no citizens, settlers or military in the West Bank until 1967, but did not enjoy one moment’s peace from our neighbors and the terrorists that they supported. The Palestinian Liberation Organization preceded that war and was created in 1964, specifically stating in its original constitution that it made no claims to the West Bank. IF THE conflict returns to the pre-1967 lines, it will inevitably pass beyond those borders and into Israel. Most of the country’s Arab population defines itself as Palestinian politically and culturally. Many openly identify with the Palestinian national movement to the point where they openly act against the state which provides them with full civil rights. In 2006, the Arab leadership wrote a paper titled “The Future Vision of the Palestinian Arabs in Israel,” which was deeply troubling as it questioned Israel’s legitimacy and raison d’être as the realization of Jewish self-determination. Even worse, some Arab leaders actively assist those who want to destroy the Jewish State. Former MK Azmi Bishara directed Hizbullah rocket attacks on Israel and Ahmed Tibi advised Yasser Arafat and current Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, even though he is a member of the Knesset whose wages are paid by the taxpayers. Large-scale demonstrations against Israel regularly appear in Arab cities all over the country, where it is not infrequent to hear the cries of “Death to the Jews” and where pictures of terrorist leaders from Hamas and Hizbullah are prominently displayed. These phenomena are a clear indication that a conflict between two peoples is the cause of friction. The solution lies not in appeasing the maximalist territorial demands of the Palestinians, but in truly creating “two states for two peoples.” The current demands from some in the international community are to create a homogeneous pure Palestinian state and a binational state in Israel. This becomes the one-and-a-half to half state solution. For lasting peace and security we need to create true political division between Arabs and Jews, with each enjoying self-determination. Therefore, for a lasting and fair solution, there needs to be an exchange of populated territories to create two largely homogeneous states, one Jewish Israeli and the other Arab Palestinian. Of course, this is not to preclude that minorities will remain in either state where they will receive full civil rights. There will be no so-called Palestinian right of return. Just as the Jewish refugees from Arab lands found a solution in Israel, so too Palestinian refugees will only be incorporated into a Palestinian state. This state needs to be demilitarized and Israel will need to retain a presence on its borders to ensure no smuggling of arms. In my opinion, these need to be our red lines. We have seen that history is moving away from attempts to accommodate competing national aspirations in a single state. The former Yugoslavia was broken up into many separate states. Czechoslovakia was split into two, and even in Belgium there are strong voices who wish to see that nation broken into separate Walloon and Flemish territories. The precedent of creating new states based on ethnic, national and even religious boundaries has been established in the international community and is becoming the trend. With all the difficulties involved, this is the only solution that ensures long-term stability in the region. In most cases there is no physical population transfer or the demolition of houses, but creating a border where none existed, according to demographics. Those Arabs who were in Israel will now receive Palestinian citizenship. THERE ARE those who will claim that it is illegal to remove citizenship from individuals. However, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 55/153, written in 2001, explicitly states: “When part of the territory of a state is transferred by that state to another state, the successor state shall attribute its nationality to the persons concerned who have their habitual residence in the transferred territory and the predecessor state shall withdraw its nationality from such persons.” There are also those who claim that those Arabs who would become part of a future Palestinian state would reject this. Firstly, we need to beg the question: Why would Arabs who claim to support Palestinian national aspirations reject this plan? However, I believe that we can put this to a referendum to all of the citizens of Israel and let them decide. I have no doubt that they, regardless of race or religion, will show political maturity to ensure a lasting peace which is in the best interests of all. While many are growing impatient for a resolution, setting artificial time limits or pressure will not help. " Regardless of how long it takes, the resolution to this conflict can only be achieved through nonviolent means. There are currently more than 100 territorial and national disputes around the world where those involved do not resort to violence. However, to build trust and a positive atmosphere between the parties the Palestinians cannot continue to incite against Israel, glorify murder, stigmatize Israel in international forums, boycott Israeli goods and mount legal offensives against Israeli officials. While there will be many ups and downs during this arduous process the resolution can only arrive through direct negotiations. This is the blueprint for a permanent resolution to our conflict. In the words of Theodor Herzl: “If you will it, it is no dream.” The writer is foreign minister and deputy prime ministerhttp://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=179333

- K2K

June 24, 2010 at 12:23pm

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

wildboy: "... if your electoral platform goes against stated American foreign policy goals then you have to expect tension. ..." OR, in the case of Great Britain and Japan, collapse of your government :)

- K2K

June 24, 2010 at 12:28pm

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

Noga: לא מפחידים זונה עים זין Israel has been threatened with annihilation, with deligimatization, with stop of aid, with destruction, with war, with tough talk and with every calamity known to men. We have been called Nazis, Apartheid, colonist, imperialist, war mongers, crazy killers and more. So what can Obama add to this, how can he scare us? You can't scare a whore with a dick.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

June 24, 2010 at 1:26pm

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

K2K, if you think that Gordon Brown's government was voted out of office because it was opposed to American foreign policy objectives you are writing some really good fiction. As for Japan, you are correct and it's their own damn fault for promising their voting public to close the US bases on Okinawa and failing to deliver. Actually, the collapse of Netenyahu's government is plausible in the same way that the collapse of any Israeli coalition government is plausible at any time. Don't think that the Obama Admin doesn't know this and take it into account with its dealings with Israel. That's why, for all the huffing and puffing about settlements and Ramat Shlomo (all that "nonstop public campaing of excoriation and humiliation" that Noga writes about), they haven't actually done anything to seriously imperil that coalition -- like publicly rebuking Israel over the Mavi Marmara, or threatening to withhold military aid or forcing the Israelis back to negotiations with Abbas or intimating that Israel is thwarting American efforts to improve relations with Lebanon, Syria or Iran. The kind of stuff that would be excoriating and humiliating to Israel. Because someone in the White House (maybe Obama himself) realizes that the collapse of the Israeli government right now is not in America's best interest. But if circumstances change, don't be surprised if the US says or does something that would make a majority of Israeli voters think about selecting someone else as their Prime Minister.

- wildboy

June 24, 2010 at 1:35pm

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

wildboy: "if you think that Gordon Brown's government was voted out of office because it was opposed to American foreign policy objectives" Afghanistan (and the financial meltdown) caused a split that meant the Tories had to form a coalition with the Lib-Dems. Obama's blatant disdain for Gordon Brown certainly did not help, and now Obama has to BEG the Brits to stay in Afghanistan. wildboy: this is the last time i note anything you write. not worth my time. I am NOT persuadable on anything you believe, and have to relocate a fox den. While I am glad the foxes decided my north slope is good territory for their mole genocide, not sure I want a permanent fox settlement.

- K2K

June 24, 2010 at 1:50pm

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

makover: you are most welcome to explain how Obama has united Israeli support for Netanyahu, and confirmed Israeli mistrust of Obama's Israel policy since March.

- K2K

June 24, 2010 at 1:54pm

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

Israelis topple their governments over issues of corruption, economic strictures, too much pandering to the less productive segments of the population (mainly ultra religious Haredim, who seem to want the money without doing the work). What will not sway Israelis is to topple a government they consider as doing the job (such as standing up to the ultra-religious segments which Lieberman's ultra-secular party does) just because Obama wishes it. The promotion of secular ethos is much more important for Israel's health than the futile attempts to please the Palestinians (that is, Obama). From Shark blog: "It is not easy to govern Israel. Alongside tensions and worse that come from Israeli Arabs, those of surrounding countries and their international supporters are the more prominent domestic tensions between the secular majority, the ultra-Orthodox minority, and floating "traditional" and "Orthodox" communities that can shift to support the ultra-Orthodox in behalf of Judaism. The Zion conceived by Theodore Herzl was a lot simpler. He came only gradually to recognize the weight of Eastern European Jewry, more religious than the assimilated Western European Jews with whom he identified. He was even less aware of Jews from North Africa, Iraq, Yemen, and Iran, who have come to be a majority in modern Israel. There is no sign that he thought about Jews of Ethiopia, or that he contemplated the problem of Ashkenazi ultra-Orthodox who insist to keep themselves apart from Sephardi ultra-Orthodox at a time when the larger society has moved beyond the acceptance of ethnic segregation. Israel adheres to the rules of democracy and the nuances of politics. The results are seldom applauded widely and generally invite criticisms of being "undemocratic." Insofar as democracy pertains more to rules of the game than the nature of results, we can expect a democratic treatment of this latest hiccup in our national history. Institutions will recognize the power of communities that can produce 100,000 demonstrators, and keep them in order on a hot day with nothing more untoward than a few cases of fainting and dehydration. Cosmetic changes are more predictable than extensive reform in the management and finance of schools. Plans are underway for the government to spend more money to expand the colleges that serve the ultra-Orthodox community. The purpose is to induce them into a mode of higher education that will prepare them for work rather than to force them out of the religious academies. The IDF has programs to expand its recruitment of the ultra-Orthodox into units that are useful to the military while also accommodating their special needs. " http://www.usefulwork.com/shark/archives/014057.html#014057

- noga1

June 24, 2010 at 2:01pm

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

Noga: "Didn't you mean to suggest what you learned as a child has some sort of intuitive truth to it?" That was indeed my point, which I thought you didn't get, and saw merely as some ancient scratchings on the ironyroad tribal tablets, not relevant to today. To sum it up: I think that it's at least worth exercising a little forethought before dissing/dismissing a perspective that makes sense to a lot of people, even if it isn't precisely the perspective you think the most authentic or appropriate. Again, I think Obama said something that the Arabs hadn't heard from such a source standing in front of them before this.

- ironyroad

June 24, 2010 at 11:47pm

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

To put it more succinctly, I also learned at a young age that in our legal system, for example, the accused is innocent until proven guilty. The fact that I have matured, evolved, and developed beyond that (and am aware of the gap between ideal and reality) does not, however, compromise the basic principle imparted earlier.

- ironyroad

June 25, 2010 at 7:14am

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

My problem with Obama's revised history is that it shares a premise with Ahmadinejad's stated reason for wanting to destroy Israel and the Arabs know of nothing else. It is dangerous to play around with this kind of crucial truths. ironyroad: While you declare that "my thinking has indeed evolved slightly beyond my 12-year-old self", in your most recent comment you restate your faith in the 12 year old judgment "The fact that I have matured, evolved, and developed beyond that (and am aware of the gap between ideal and reality) does not, however, compromise the basic principle imparted earlier." So you practically confirm that your belief then and now remain the same: that Israel was a consolation prize to Jews for the Holocaust. The problem with that is that when you relate the foundation of Israel to the Holocaust, it validates anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic criticism "Why should the Palestinians pay for the crimes of the Europeans?" And if you think that the appeal to decency and pity implied in Obama's revision of Israel's beginnings is going to work for some reason, you must take into consideration the recorded history of such appeals. In the Peel Commission Report of July 1937, one sentence distinguishes itself: ”Considering what the possibility of finding a refuge in Palestine means to thousands of suffering Jews, is the loss occasioned by Partition, great as it would be, more than Arab generosity can bear?” The statement was written in 1937, when the world was beginning to get wise to what was being planned for the Jews, but even so, the report can only imagine "thousands" of suffering Jews getting a lease on life if permitted to immigrate to Palestine. The Arabs of Palestine, though addressed with the most explicit plea in the report for showing "generosity" to the persecuted Jews of Europe, existentially threatened, did not for a second consider this possibility and continued to mount their pressure on the British to seal the borders. When there was hardly a country in the world open to accept Jewish refugees fleeing from Hitler's ominous programs, Mandate Palestine, which had been commissioned by The League of Nations to provide a safe haven for Jews, chose to close ranks with the Arabs and seal the borders, against the Jews. BTW, as an aside, the staple Palestinian argument is that they had no responsibility whatsoever for what happened to the Jews. However, they bear at least the same responsibility as every country that ever refused to accept Jews who were looking to get out of Europe ( In Canada it was the "none is too many" policy).

- noga1

June 25, 2010 at 10:01am

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

Makover says: "As the old Israeli saying goes: 'You don't scare a whore with a dick.' Nobody is concerned that this president will do anything, because everybody, including Netanyahu, as well as America's enemies know its all a talk and no action and they heard this talk before." This is what is called, in an old English expression, "whistling past the graveyard." If world opinion doesn't matter, as the "friends of Israel" keep claiming, because it is all anti-Semitic anyway, and US opinion doesn't matter, as the friends of Israel keep claiming, because it is toothless, why all the distress over the various opinions about and reactions to Israeli policy and actions? If none of it matters, there is no reason to care let alone be concerned. Just carry on. With all the complications of the ME, as you like to refer to it, any government that would permit the Ramat Shlomo incident during a state visit is either grossly incompetent, actively demonstrating its indifference to US opinion and diplomatic interests, or both. If it was merely some kind of bureaucratic screw-up, the minister involved should have been and would have been out on his ass in a heartbeat and the whole thing would have died right down. If the internal politics are such that Israel is incapable of conducting foreign policy to its own advantage, then, as wildboy points out, no one in Israel has any business complaining about the results that its system and voters produce. Democracy does not mean that anything a democratically elected government does is worthy of respect or will be deferred to by other governments in pursuit of their own interests. For all the toothlessness you attribute to the US and Obama, so far it is Netanyahu who is bending. One wonders why if you are correct. The thing about Netanyahu is that he is such a clod that he manages to concede the point but does so in such away that he gets nothing in return. For having made the whole thing so painful and demonstrated so plainly that he does not want to cooperate with the US, he generates only enmity and distrust. A leader with any brains would manage to make a great show of cooperation while declaring the desire to support US peace efforts. There would be smiles all over Foggy Bottom.

- roidubouloi

June 25, 2010 at 8:20pm

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

BSD

- K2K

June 25, 2010 at 8:27pm

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

OMG, KMFA, and TTFN or, if you prefer, WWMD.

- roidubouloi

June 25, 2010 at 8:39pm

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

Noga, I'm not disagreeing with the substance of your point. What I'm saying is that is might not be the most tactically intelligent move to completely bury a justification for supporting Israel that makes a lot of sense to people in many different places. The rise in antisemitism seems to provide an extra notch of confirmation too. It's not a zero-sum game, and both justifications have their validity. And Obama wasn't "rewriting" Israeli history, imo, he was articulating a perspective that many (millions?) of people here and abroad see the force of. It seems to me that the two arguments can and indeed must coexist. In my limited experience, the argument that the Palestinians weren't responsible for the extermination of European Jews can be met with the argument that they aren't being made responsible. That there were injustices and brutalities in 1948 (which should be honestly admitted) is a fact bearing upon future solutions, not a kind of cosmic downstream re-enactment of the Holocaust, as Israel hasn't been engaging in mass ethno-religious murder as the Nazis were. Again, reading Obama's speech as some kind of hostile attack on Israel is in my opinion bordering on the crazy.

- ironyroad

June 26, 2010 at 12:15am

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

"Noga, I'm not disagreeing with the substance of your point." I think you are. When you say the following: "Again, reading Obama's speech as some kind of hostile attack on Israel is in my opinion bordering on the crazy." Obama deliberately avoided mentioning the long history of Jews in Judea-Palestine-Israel. It was not done by accident. He was reiterating the history of the region as he thought Arabs are taught about it. And then he thought he could put a spin on it, by appealing to the Arab sense of decency and pity. He was telling them: we agree about the facts. What I want you to do is interpret them differently. So he definitely shares a premise with the Arabs and Ahmadinejad. He quibbles only about how they should regard the events. This is born out by the fact that immediately after the Holocaust as the reason for Israel he follows with the suffering of Palestinians, which is the reason why they need their own state. Thus he creates perfect parallels between Jewish history and Palestinian history, and feeds, rather irresponsibly, Arab sense of victimhood. It's not empathy he generates but rather the very contrary of what he wants to achieve: a hardening of hearts. So he does violence to the Zionist narrative, to the history of the Jewish people but the benefits he expects to reap from such revisionism are simply not there. Look, I don't think we should discuss this any further. It makes me feel more than usually as if I live in a strange world where truth and facts and sheer decency are no longer values to live by. You cannot convince me that distorting the story of Israel's re-birth is a good thing and I cannot convince you that distorting the story of Israel's re-birth is a bad thing.

- noga1

June 26, 2010 at 6:44am

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

roi: "If world opinion doesn't matter, as the "friends of Israel" keep claiming, because it is all anti-Semitic anyway, and US opinion doesn't matter, as the friends of Israel keep claiming, because it is toothless, why all the distress over the various opinions about and reactions to Israeli policy and actions? If none of it matters, there is no reason to care let alone be concerned." Roi: Don't put words in my mouth, (as is your normal habit). I did not say "world opinion doesn't matter". I just say that Israel is accustomed to threats "as a whore is accustomed to a dick". As opposed to American Jews, we live with threats to our existence on a continuous basis, we sleep with threats and we eat threats for breakfast, lunch and dinner every day and we learned to take them with a grain of salt. We don't make light of it, but we also don't loose our sleep over it. We take action that is supportive of our interest. Sometimes, we take stupid action like in the case of the flottilla but overall we know what to do with the dillemas confronting us. So stop pretending that Barak Obama or you for that matter know what is good for us more than we do. We rely on ourselves only. Pity us if we had to rely on you. We lived in this neighbourhood for thousands of years and we know the forces aligned against us. We've been there before. And we know that "the world opinion" is fickle. It is here today and there tomorrow. We know that this too shall pass and we know that the Jews are eternal people. We cannot be destroyed, we can only suffer. So, for now we are suffering the foolishness of this administration and waiting. In patience I might add. After all what is another four years.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

June 26, 2010 at 8:19am

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

Noga: "Look, I don't think we should discuss this any further. It makes me feel more than usually as if I live in a strange world where truth and facts and sheer decency are no longer values to live by. You cannot convince me that distorting the story of Israel's re-birth is a good thing and I cannot convince you that distorting the story of Israel's re-birth is a bad thing." The American Jewish community is worrying again, as it always does, about the rise of antisemitism in the US but they are accusing Israel of "it is all anti-Semitic anyway" mentality. Forget for a moment that they were the ones to support the election of the current administration. And now, after this president spat in their face, insulted them distorted the history of their people, they don't even dare to protest. As I said before somewhere on another blog, they are the only American constituents to be insulted with impunity. So for now they sit quite and don't make any waves around the "flesh pot".

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

June 26, 2010 at 8:32am

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

"I did not say 'world opinion doesn't matter.' I just say that Israel is accustomed to threats 'as a whore is accustomed to a dick.'" Oh. Now I see. ___________________ "We cannot be destroyed, we can only suffer. So, for now we are suffering the foolishness of this administration and waiting. In patience I might add. After all what is another four years." I have written here many times that, "Both sides behave as if time is on their side. At least one of them is mistaken in this belief." And how do you suffer the foolishness of Netanyahu? Patiently? As for the "fickleness" of world opinion, it doesn't seem so to me. Seems to be moving steadily in one direction. You either believe that will have consequences or you don't. But I suppose that with thousands of years living in the area, you well understand what those consequences may be and the manner that outside powers may impinge upon Israel. There are lots of examples, after all. Rome comes to mind. Since the thousands of years living in the area have pretty much taught you what to do, what is your opinion about the West Bank settlements as a thing to do? Good idea? Bad idea? Barack Obama's job is not to know what is good for you, but what is good for us, a distinction that seems frequently lost here. They are not necessarily the same thing.

- roidubouloi

June 26, 2010 at 8:46am

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

"And now, after this president spat in their face, insulted them distorted the history of their people, they don't even dare to protest." I don't feel the slightest bit insulted by President Obama, much as makover and Martin Peretz think I should. Indeed, I rather like the idea of an American president pursuing American interests. It cheers me. I am an American, you know, like so many of us here. If I think he is doing it badly, I will say so. Not "dare to protest?" What country are you living in? I am much happier, however, when I feel that American and Israeli interests are well-aligned. Some here think that it is up to the United States, with the help of AIPAC, to keep them aligned. I think that is, well, unrealistic.

- roidubouloi

June 26, 2010 at 8:57am

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

roi: As I told you before, the American administration is free to do whatever it feels is in American interest. I am the first to admit that I don't know exactly what it is since it seems to be changing every day, in accordance with the whim of the president. Clueless. Obama can stop the aid to Israel, can stop supporting Israel in the UN, can stop military cooperation, anything he wants. "Barack Obama's job is not to know what is good for you, but what is good for us, a distinction that seems frequently lost here. They are not necessarily the same thing." Not, that distinction is only lost on you. We Israelis always know and are always told by people like you about "American Interest". You think that Israel is as you yourself put it: "a vassal state" Nothing is further from the truth. Israel pursues it's own interest. As I mentioned to you in another post, US was not always the ally of Israel. But Barak Obama seems not to know what's good for the US either, but hey, that's not my problem. You will have to eat another few years of unemployment, bailout for the banks, bailout for auto industry, ecological disasters, poorly managed war in Afganistan, Iraq, reduction of American prestige in the Middle East, Europe, Russia and lost of an important strategic ally in that part of the world where America has very few. "I don't feel the slightest bit insulted by President Obama, much as makover and Martin Peretz think I should" As the old saying goes, pretend it's raining. "Some here think that it is up to the United States, with the help of AIPAC, to keep them aligned. I think that is, well, unrealistic." Oh, they think that they should be aligned with the interest of the Muslim Brotherhood? Interest of Muslims in general? Are those the interests of America Rapprochement with the most oppressive regimes on the planet? Are those American future allies in lieu of Israel. Good luck!

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

June 26, 2010 at 11:52am

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

roi: I forgot Netanyahu. In Israel the government is voted out on a regular basis by the voters. So his time is marked.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

June 26, 2010 at 11:53am

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

"Obama deliberately avoided mentioning the long history of Jews in Judea-Palestine-Israel. It was not done by accident. He was reiterating the history of the region as he thought Arabs are taught about it. And then he thought he could put a spin on it, by appealing to the Arab sense of decency and pity." Or, perhaps: "Obama made the mistake in Cairo of concentrating on the post-Holocaust justification for the state of Israel rather than the longer history of Jews in their traditional regions of Palestine. Althoug he probably thought that this was a legitimate and potentially effective appeal to Arabs on the grounds of humanity, as well as challenging the forces of Holocaust Denial on their own territory, it did open the door to a dangerous premise that equates Jewish and Palestinian traumas." Might that not be a fairer and more realistic critical response? I fail to see why I'm being indecent in disagreeing with you, Noga. I don't feel indecent, which is a traditional guideline for me. I do think there is something indecent -- and worrying -- about doggedly insisting on seeing hostility where there is none, however.

- ironyroad

June 26, 2010 at 12:11pm

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

I have not referred to Israel as a "vassal state." It is a client state. The former is pejorative, the latter descriptive of reality. Perhaps you don't like the reality, but it is what it is. True, the US was not always an ally of Israel, although it was content for its clients to be so. At this point, it is pretty much the only ally of Israel left, a state of affairs that the "friends of Israel" insist has nothing whatever to do with any Israeli policy and is purely the result of anti-Semitism, hence inevitable. No, I don't think that Israel should be aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood. I do think that if Israel wants to depend on US patronage, which it seems no longer to have any choice but to do as it has no other patron or ally, then Israel will have to do its best to align its policies and interests with those of the US, not the other way around, although you and Martin Peretz may wish things to be otherwise. You may not think that Obama has an idea of where US interests lie. I disagree. For one, it is not in our interest to be seen as enabling Israeli settlement east of the Green Line. All the horrors you describe for America are what we have already suffered at the hands of the wacked-out conservatives, the Bushies whom you seem to admire so much. Since Obama is not the messiah that you all imagine he imagines himself to be, he cannot wave a wand a make the depredations of eight years of conservative governance disappear overnight, not least because the perpetrators of these horrors resist every effort to remediate them. But he is trying, and in my opinion doing quite an intelligent job of it, although too timidly and cautiously for my taste. Good to hear that we need not have a lot of patience waiting for the end of Netanyahu.

- roidubouloi

June 26, 2010 at 12:16pm

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

"I fail to see why I'm being indecent in disagreeing with you, Noga." I can't find in my comment that I suggested you were. Unless you identify with Obama's rhetorics to such a degree that you no longer distinguish between what I say about him and what I say about you. Actually, I don't think I said anything about you except to point the difference between you and I: "You cannot convince me that distorting the story of Israel's re-birth is a good thing and I cannot convince you that distorting the story of Israel's re-birth is a bad thing." ___________________ "Or, perhaps: "Obama made the mistake in Cairo of concentrating on the post-Holocaust justification for the state of Israel rather than the longer history of Jews in their traditional regions of Palestine. Althoug he probably thought that this was a legitimate and potentially effective appeal to Arabs on the grounds of humanity, as well as challenging the forces of Holocaust Denial on their own territory, it did open the door to a dangerous premise that equates Jewish and Palestinian traumas." Obama is very careful with words, except the one or two incidents when he was not, which were unplanned. His attempt at historical teaching was not done in mistake. I had written my position in the way I thought was most pertinent. You may choose to edit it so as to emphasize Obama's good intentions. The road to hell is paved with those, anyway.

- noga1

June 26, 2010 at 12:43pm

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

"No, I don't think that Israel should be aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood" You misread makover's comment, which was: "Oh, they think that they should be aligned with the interest of the Muslim Brotherhood? Interest of Muslims in general? Are those the interests of America Rapprochement with the most oppressive regimes on the planet? Are those American future allies in lieu of Israel. Good luck!" A bizarre misunderstanding. Makes absolutely no sense.

- noga1

June 26, 2010 at 12:52pm

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

If the right-wing Zionists had written Obama's Cairo speech for him, the only thing on the world that would be better today would be the emotional state of right-wing Zionists. I don't think that suggesting that the Palestinians cannot hope to relieve their sufferings by denying the suffering and losses of the Jews was a bad thing at all. Nor do I think an American president is in a particlarly good position to advocate that the sovereignty of nation-states depends primarily on the duration and primacy of settlement. The Arab historical narrative and the Jewish historical narrative are in direct conflict. Choosing the one over the other would have been poor diplomacy and is most unlikely to have assisted American efforts at mediation. I do think Obama chose his words carefully and that they were the right words for the outcome he seeks. He was not trying to write history but to use it for diplomatic purposes, a distinctiion lost on Martin Peretz and his loyal crew.

- roidubouloi

June 26, 2010 at 1:05pm

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

I deliberately "misunderstood" makover's point to call attention to the way he had deliberately misunderstood mine so as to make it appear farcical. That language problem again.

- roidubouloi

June 26, 2010 at 1:07pm

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

Since I began by saying that I want israel and the US to be aligned, it is rather bizarre to interpret that as either a desire or a prediction that US interest might lie with the Muslim Brotherhood. The more likely reading of makeover's point is that there exist only two alternatives, US alignment with Israel or with the Muslim Brotherhood and hence that the matter needs take care of itself, the latter being unthinkable. But the US need not be aligned with either. The US does not need Israel, despite Michael Oren's recent, obligatory repetition of the standard homilies.

- roidubouloi

June 26, 2010 at 1:16pm

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

"I deliberately "misunderstood" makover's point to call attention to the way he had deliberately misunderstood mine so as to make it appear farcical. That language problem again." Shouldn't you find another excuse for your lame rhetorical flights? This one is getting pretty tattered with overuse.

- noga1

June 26, 2010 at 2:21pm

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

Noga, you simply do not understand the inflections of English. Not my problem. I cannot write down to your level.

- roidubouloi

June 26, 2010 at 2:33pm

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

"Choosing the one over the other would have been poor diplomacy and is most unlikely to have assisted American efforts at mediation." This makes sense. In order to establish American credibility in a part of the world which is in principle hostile to it, Obama had no other choice but to speak to those unteachable Arabs except though their own sets of beliefs and carefully-cultivated ignorance. If that means lying, or doing injustice to the truth, or inflicting unmerited violence on Israeli Jews and those some other Jews who still know a thing or two about their own history, well, what of it? And we witness, this delicate and superior "diplomacy" has yielded great fruit of Arab friendship for the US. Palestinians, wise to Jewish suffering, are now resigned to canceling RoR and making peace. To say nothing of the rest of the Arab and Muslim world. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NINZS7vUnjk&feature=player_embedded http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=illF1vt5g1Q&feature=player_embedded

- noga1

June 26, 2010 at 2:33pm

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

"In the neighborhood where we live Israel has to take decisions on the basis of its own interests and not under pressure... Acting under pressure signals weakness and we cannot allow ourselves to do that. So the leader of Kadima has now... explicitly rejected the premise of J Street – that U.S. pressure can resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict." http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/j-street-goes-even-further-left

- noga1

June 26, 2010 at 2:44pm

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

"If that means lying, or doing injustice to the truth, or inflicting unmerited violence on Israeli Jews and those some other Jews who still know a thing or two about their own history, well, what of it?" It is very naïve to think of diplomacy as some generalized truth commission. It is also inappropriate to equate speech with violence, as in, "Saying things I regard as untrue or misleading or incomplete does violence to me." The insistence that the Arabs accept the Israeli version of history cannot possibly serve the cause of peace. It is never going to happen any more than Israelis are going to accept that they are invaders who forced the Arabs out of their homes. That is why those in Israel who oppose peace keep insisting that the Arabs must accept this in order for there to be a "partner for peace." To the contrary, the only thing the Arabs must do is agree to desist from violence and do so in fact. __________________ "Acting under pressure signals weakness and we cannot allow ourselves to do that." This is purely for the peanut gallery. States "act under pressure" constantly (else they would all be doing exactly what they wanted to do), but, of course, don't want to be seen doing so. This is precisely what shows Netanyahu to be such a clod. Instead of making a virtue out of necessity, proclaiming his desire to give every possible support to US efforts "to achieve a just and lasting peace," he makes it obvious that he is merely yielding, very reluctantly, to heavy American pressure and thus fails to reap any diplomatic benefits from cooperation.

- roidubouloi

June 26, 2010 at 2:59pm

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

"It is very naïve to think of diplomacy as some generalized truth commission" It is a perverted type of diplomacy that imagines that it can achieve peaceful solutions through lies, distortions and appeals to the irrational beliefs of people.

- noga1

June 26, 2010 at 3:05pm

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

LOOOOVED the link noga supplies to the Weekly Standard with the advertisement for Rand Paul fundraising smack in the middle of the article. If that doesn't enhance its credibility in all the right circles, what would? It seems not to occur to anyone in Israel, or at least those of the persuasion of the Weekly Standard, that part of Obama's purpose is to signal to both sides the outlines of a settlement that may be imposed if they don't get on about resolving it themselves. In part, this looks beyond the current stalemate and begins to condition public opinion to the outcome. The US can impose a settlement any time it wants to just by getting out of the way of the Security Council -- letting its members understand just what the US will and will not veto. The fantasy that Israel will simply defy UN-drawn borders short of what is perceived as a matter of life-and-death is just that, a fantasy.

- roidubouloi

June 26, 2010 at 3:08pm

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

"It is a perverted type of diplomacy that imagines that it can achieve peaceful solutions through lies, distortions and appeals to the irrational beliefs of people." What peace requires is that people desist from violence in pursuit of their goals. It does not require that people believe anything in particular about why they are doing it, and it is most unlikely that the two sides in any dispute will come to see it the same way, either at the time peace is made or thereafter. If diplomacy required as a condition for its success that people surrender their irrational beliefs (like, say, that God promised this Land to the Jews), there would be no diplomacy. The religious wars in Europe came to an end because people came to believe that the cost of defending their irrational beliefs violently was too great. They did not surrender those beliefs. And settlement in the Americas provided a means of getting rid of religious extremists and deviants thereby helping to bring peace to Europe.

- roidubouloi

June 26, 2010 at 3:13pm

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

roi: You have specifically referred to Israel as vassal state in one of your past comments. I don't have the time nor the inclination to dig for it. But to answer your other statements. US have never supported Israeli settlements behind the sainted "green line" or more correctly armistice lines and therefore nobody expected Obama's administration to support it, particularly not Likud. What was expected is not to make a mountain of a molehill. What was expected is some political savvy. How did this "i'm taking my toys and I am not going to play anymore" served the US interests I am obviously not smart enough to figure out. Israeli narrative and Arab narrative is a bunch of hogwash. A lie pull over ignorant "progressive" public. There is still such thing as an objective truth or is this also became relativistic mishmash? The Arab narrative is that Jews harvest Palestinian children organs, so that must be true? Besides, if the Palestinians claim that they are refugees 63 years after moving couple of miles away that is got to be THE "narrative". Let me tell assure you that the Palestinians are the luckiest Arabs on God's green earth that faith have given them the Jews as enemies. Can you imagine the Iraqi Shia or the Jordanians...oops, I forgot, the Jordanians already proved their pro Palestinian credentials by killing about 15,000 of them during September. I remember that part well my friend. I was stationed in Bikaat Ha Yarden and I remember well the heroes of Palestine swimming the river to surrender to us the Zionist thugs of the IDF. So don't talk to me about narratives. Should we bring out the Mexican narrative, and the Native American narrative, and the Afro American narrative and the Canadian narrative. Maybe the African Americans should be allowed to establish a state somewhere in the South? Texas maybe, or should it be Alabama? Maybe Mexicans who soon going to a majority in the South should establish the state of Tejas? Don't tell me about my support of the Bush administration. You don't know what are my political leanings so don't generalize. Yes, Bush was not the brightest tool in the shed. Israeli intelligence advised him to go after Iran but he had to avenge daddy's honour. But to bring Bush now, after two years of the Obama administration is a sign of desperation. It's that all your defense, that Bush was worse? Is that all you can come up with yingaleh. Well, that is not going to be enough for me.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

June 26, 2010 at 3:15pm

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

Well you find it if you think you can. I don't think that and I have never said it. It is not my type of language. I raised Bush specifically in response to makover's list of the horrors he attributes to Obama -- all of which were in fact caused by Bush and pre-date Obama. It is Obama's sorry task to have to clean up this colossal domestic and international mess. Someone who claims to value the truth so highly ought to be willing to acknowledge that truth. There is such a thing as objective reality, you know. The fact that Obama hasn't mastered these problems in 18 months, only begun to ameliorate them, should astonish no one other than his sworn enemies, of which there are quite a few. Yes, there is a Mexican narrative, and a Native American narrative, and an Afro American narrative. People tell themselves stories about their history and the stories of victors and vanquished don't typically mesh. Other than World War II, which was historically anomalous in many ways particularly with regard to "total surrender," I can think of no conflict which came to a close because one side agreed to surrender its version of history. It is incomplete in my view, but perfectly plausible (not at all of a piece with the crazies who claim Israelis harvest the organs of children) to describe the creation of Israel as an invasion by a non-native population that usurped the rights and land of the indigenous population. However, as the Native American narrative shows, it is possible to become reconciled to such an outcome -- even when it is indisputable. What matters is that Native Americans, whatever stories they tell, are not engaged in any violent efforts to redress what they quite reasonably regard as injustices perpetrated against them. (I don't agree with that description as being complete either, but it is not nuts.) Once again, the fact that there are other actors on the world stage who are worse in all regards than Israel or the US justifies absolutely nothing, as a matter of law, morality, justice, or prudence. "nobody expected Obama's administration to support it, particularly not Likud." And just how did everyone expect this lack of support to manifest itself? "Oh, we don't support that. Now, carry on?" You are correct, the US has never supported the settlements, but Israel got used to Bush's unwillingness to do anything to ruffle Israeli feathers and began to think that the world would go on that way forever. If Native Americans wanted their own state, I would give it to them, although there is little chance of that because they, being from all over, would never agree on where it should be. I would say the same for African Americans although I don't even think they would want such a thing in the abstract. Their aspiration is not to be self-governing but to be fully a part of this country. As for Texas, I would give it to Mexico, lock, stock, and barrel, in a heartbeat. I cannot even believe that I live in a country that includes Texas. It's like living in the US that happens to include Turkey. If, in turn, they would allow the blue states to secede, I would take that deal too and never look back. A friend just got back from China a couple of days ago. Her impression is that, if this country cannot start making decisions that have some relationship to reality, China is going to bury us before the end of this century. That strikes me as a realistic appraisal. And the chances of making the sort of decisions we need to while we have red states, particularly Texas, possessed of all sorts of irrational beliefs is vanishingly close to zero.

- roidubouloi

June 26, 2010 at 3:39pm

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

"This is precisely what shows Netanyahu to be such a clod. Instead of making a virtue out of necessity, proclaiming his desire to give every possible support to US efforts "to achieve a just and lasting peace," he makes it obvious that he is merely yielding, very reluctantly, to heavy American pressure and thus fails to reap any diplomatic benefits from cooperation." You have no idea whatsoever what Netanyahu's actions and words are going to yield. You have no idea how he uses American pressure to advance his own vision and agenda. You are assuming he is a clod as you assume everyone else is who does not share your type of world view. From that assumption, there flows a multitude of opinions. Never underestimate other people's intelligence. I assure you no one in Israel is underestimating Obama's intelligence. In that they show a far greater wisdom than you do or ever will. Your total confidence in your own perceptions undermine your positions.

- noga1

June 26, 2010 at 3:40pm

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

I have no more or less idea what Netanyahu's actions and words are going to yield than you do about the actions and words of Obama. Somehow, that doesn't prevent you from having lots of opinions on that score. My estimation of Netanyahu is that he does not think peace is possible on the basis of any resolution of the territorial and population disputes that would be acceptable to him. Not that he doesn't believe a peace can be reached, just that it cannot be reached on his terms. Hence, he does what he can to frustrate movement toward peace while also, as best he can, trying not to appear to be doing so. Of course, given what I take to be his real intentions, that is very difficult to do. I think Netanyahu is stupidly shortsighted in supposing that procrastination is in Israel's interest, that, if Israel can wait long enough, it will get better terms than it can achieve today or that nothing will happen to force a settlement. Plus, his policy always carries the risk that things can get out of hand with disastrous consequences as, in my confident view, the status quo is unstable. I think Ehud Barak understands this and Ariel Sharon came to understand it. I don't think either can reasonably be accused of being less zealous in defense of Israel than Captain Benjamin Netanyahu.

- roidubouloi

June 26, 2010 at 3:51pm

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

Well, roi, I advance opinions about Obama based on his actions and words. You make declarations and statements of fact about Netanyahu based on your opinion that he is a clod. There is nothing remotely tentative about your statements or even a whiff of a suggestion of a doubt. It's part of your irresistible charm. I would hate you to modify your tone; a bit more hesitation and self-restraint and people might actually find you persuasive.

- noga1

June 26, 2010 at 4:01pm

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

I will work on it. You may perceive a great deal of restraint and persuasive argument in respect to the opinions expressed here about Obama. I don't quite see it that way. Among the specific actions and words of Netanyahu that I consider evidence of cloddishness are: Being unwilling publicly to endorse the two-state solution to form a coalition with Kadima. Refusing to suspend West Bank construction and then agreeing to do so as gracelessly as possible. That Ramat Shlomo affair. The Mavi Marmara affair. That's quite a list of achievements for a short time in office.

- roidubouloi

June 26, 2010 at 4:27pm

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

"I raised Bush specifically in response to makover's list of the horrors he attributes to Obama -- all of which were in fact caused by Bush and pre-date Obama." Is there statue of limitations on "inherited all the mess" How long is it bubele, tell us so we are not going to bother you with our unwarranted criticism. Six month, a year, two years, a decade, a generation? What will it be pray tell. "As for Texas, I would give it to Mexico, lock, stock, and barrel, in a heartbeat. I cannot even believe that I live in a country that includes Texas. It's like living in the US that happens to include Turkey. If, in turn, they would allow the blue states to secede, I would take that deal too and never look back. " "If Native Americans wanted their own state, I would give it to them, although there is little chance of that because they, being from all over, would never agree on where it should be." I am not even going to respond to this foolishness. A typical response of a "know nothing". An educated "know nothing" but nevertheless...Nothing is important except my little pie. "Oh, we don't support that. Now, carry on?" No, just to say to the Palestinians, boys and girls, the Israelis, the Zionists, have offered you Palestine countless times. Would you please get of your horse, swallow your pride and accept it because the world did not stop 65 years ago and in 40-50 years there will be nothing left for you. Understand?

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

June 26, 2010 at 4:40pm

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

"Obama is very careful with words, except the one or two incidents when he was not, which were unplanned. His attempt at historical teaching was not done in mistake." Well, I think that applies to many people in the public sphere, and the unplanned is not the careful, as you say. There is, however, a large difference between an unplanned comment (e.g. on the Gates-police squabble at the press conference) and a comment that was planned, but was the wrong or inappropriate one for the context. I repeat that to see malice in Obama's comments in Cairo, irrespective of how mistaken you think they were, is itself mistaken. The key comments were as follows: "America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied. Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust." This does not say that the Holocaust is the only justification for Israeli nationhood, but a part of the whole, and it certainly reflects Herzl's core recognition that the continual persistence of European antisemitism was a good a reason for a Jewish national territory as any. And where is the malice in those comments? I don't see it. And where the Achmedinnerjacket overlap? I don't see it. I pride myself on being sensitive to language but here I don't see anything except laying out the state of affairs for the audience. I thought that you were indeed saying that my feeling for language was marked by indecency, and I think everyone who read your comment would think so also. However, it is not so marked.

- ironyroad

June 26, 2010 at 4:50pm

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

It is obvious to me at least ironyroad that for all your decency you are not averse to perceiving malice where none is to be found ("you were indeed saying that my feeling for language was marked by indecency, and I think everyone who read your comment would think so also.") and to attribute to me something I did not say (as in "And where is the malice in those comments?"). I said and I say that Obama shares the Arab-Muslim-Ahmadinejad interpetation of the creation of Israel as response to the Holocaust, or, as you correctly point out, past persecutions. He does not mention that the Zionist project is a righteous project not only because of the persecutions but because Jews claim Israel as their historical homeland, have always been present in it and have a very legitimate claim to Jerusalem. If you don't make that claim then you leave the field open to Ahmadinjad and Arafat and Arabs and Muslims and certain reactionary Leftists to make the argument that Israel is nothing but a colonialist project in the image of British, Belgian, French colonialisms. In other words, there is no reason on earth why Jews could not be given territory in Europe which was directly responsible for their annihilation. This is an important, crucial omission and yet you refuse to acknowledge it let alone allow its extreme importance vis a vis Arab and Iranian genocidal aspiration.

- noga1

June 26, 2010 at 5:06pm

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

Makover, There is no moratorium on criticism of Obama, but legitimate criticism should have some plausible suggestion of what he should do differently or should have done differently in response to this problems, and no falsifying of the history of where the mess came from. If Obama. Is in office 100 years, he still will have inherited this balagan and can be criticized only for what he should or should not be doing to fix it. It is possible that some of it cannot be fixed at all. As far as my little by goes, if you can aspire to Jewish self-government in the land of Israel, I don't see why it is less worthy for me to long for self-government of the sane, by the sane, for the sane. I want Texans to have self-government to, every bit as barbaric, backward, inscientific, and anti-Enligh

- roidubouloi

June 26, 2010 at 5:15pm

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

I was thinking about Obama's careless remarks about those gun-toting religious yahoos and even worse, that comment he made on one of the night shows about the special Olympics. It reveals not a nice turn of mind.

- noga1

June 26, 2010 at 5:18pm

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

Anti-Enlightenment as they want. I just want it to be their affair, not mine. How about if Obama said, boys and girls, everything east of the Green Line except Jerusalem becomes Palestine. Israeli settlers can stay. An equal number of Palestinians refugees can go to Israel. Jerusalem remains united under joint administration with x percentage of Palestinian residents and Y percentage of Israeli residents in perpetuity. Each administers the following Holy Places. Would you bite, makover, or would you suddenly discover that there is more than just peace and the acceptance of Israel at stake (or, to put it another way, that the refusal is not entirely on the Arab side)?

- roidubouloi

June 26, 2010 at 5:25pm

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

It is implausible, makeover, that the Palestinians would get a worse deal in 40-50 years as there will be so many of them. They are willing to wait and endure in the meantime. It is Israel's clock that is ticking which is why Netanyahu's procrastination is so foolish. Israel needs to get rid of Palestine and the feckless settlement policy has made it much harder to do so.

- roidubouloi

June 26, 2010 at 5:35pm

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

A conversation about poor, persecuted Helen Thomas and how she was set up by a rabbi and then provoked into making a comment she didn't really mean. The first time I hear the term "antisemitism" being used by such a public personality as applicable to Arabs. Hard to believe that the scrupulous Ralph Nader would stoop to such media shenanigans and then have the audacity to complain about the big moguls in the media (I presume he means the Joos) victimizing this revolutionary tough feminist voice of moral clarity in the White House press corps: http://progressivealaska.blogspot.com/2010/06/ralph-nader-on-helen-thomas.html They have to make up stuff in order to plead for a cause. Apparently when she said Poland she meant the Poland that was anti-Fascist where Jews fought side by side with Polish partisans against Hitler. Talk about historical revisionism.

- noga1

June 26, 2010 at 7:50pm

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

Here is the link: http://progressivealaska.blogspot.com/2010/06/ralph-nader-on-helen-thomas.html Talk about historical revisionism: they agree that when Thomas referred to Poland she meant Poland that was anti-Fascist where Jews and Poles fought Hitler together. This is a deliberate exercise in ignorance.

- noga1

June 26, 2010 at 7:53pm

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

Scrupulous? Nader? This is the man who said there is no difference between the Democratic and Republican parties. Nader is nothing but a political narcissist who is simply using this occasion, as so many others, to attract attention to himself by saying outrageous things.

- roidubouloi

June 26, 2010 at 8:14pm

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

Nader, like Thomas, is of Lebanese extraction and, although I have never paid any attention to his views on the Middle East, I can pretty well guess that they are would be those typical of the European extreme left.

- roidubouloi

June 26, 2010 at 8:16pm

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

"Nader, like Thomas, is of Lebanese extraction " Why does it matter? I know Lebanese Lebanese who don't have these kinds of positions. Why would American Lebanese presumably educated in a Western democratic system, get to develop such opinions?

- noga1

June 26, 2010 at 8:34pm

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

The same reason that American Jews can be more extreme in their defense of an Israeli government than are Israelis. It expresses their ethnic solidarity and they are not terribly interested in the details. Nothing about an education in a Western democratic system appears to me to ensure anything at all about people's opinions. Social groups matter a great deal more. Who do you know and what does the group think?

- roidubouloi

June 26, 2010 at 9:07pm

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

As I said before, Noga, I think people are a little uneasy about the implications of an "everyone back to where they were 2,000 years ago" position and American presidents -- to the best of my knowledge, all of them -- have not publicly underlined continued Jewish presence in the Middle East as a justification for Israeli national statehood. I could be wrong about this, however, and I would welcome correction. Again, I'm not saying it's not a justification -- I personally think it is -- but rather that it has some elements that are problematic in terms of American diplomatic and strategic relations. What I find strange is that Obama did something special -- he challenged the Arab conspiracy theory mentality right there on the ground in Cairo, where it is rife, and gets no credit for it. Why? I thought it was a significant move and one to be admired. I thought so, at least. While I agree that over-emphasis on the Holocaust is wrong, I also think it is dangerous to see the Holocaust-based justification for Israel as only playing into the hands of Iran etc. That has never been the case and no human being with half a brain believes that Israel would have been created with a slice of Austria. That's just cartoon stuff and not worth arguing about. The Holocaust argument is not about pity or sympathy, but about making clear to others why Israel will fight for its survival.

- ironyroad

June 27, 2010 at 2:14am

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

I agree with irony that what Obama said in the heart of the Arab world was admirable. The Talmudic parsing is silly. It hardly needs to be said that his purpose was not to stoke Arab grievances nor to imply that Israel could, should, or will be re-located. There are those, such as Peretz, who are determined to paint Obama as anti-Semitic, without coming right out and saying so, because they think this will discredit and hobble his Middle East diplomacy that they regard as insufficiently in the interests of Israel. Any pretext will do. My favorite was Peretz's complaint that Obama doesn't say "Jew" often enough.

- roidubouloi

June 27, 2010 at 8:44am

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

"What I find strange is that Obama did something special -- he challenged the Arab conspiracy theory mentality right there on the ground in Cairo, where it is rife, and gets no credit for it." I just don't understand how you grade these things. To challenge an obvious and slanderous murderous falsehood deserves special credit? Revising history and creating false analogies in order to curry favour with the very audience with that "conspiracy theory mentality" is shruggable as in "what's the big deal"?

- noga1

June 27, 2010 at 8:51am

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

"How about if Obama said, boys and girls, everything east of the Green Line except Jerusalem becomes Palestine. Israeli settlers can stay. An equal number of Palestinians refugees can go to Israel. Jerusalem remains united under joint administration with x percentage of Palestinian residents and Y percentage of Israeli residents in perpetuity. Each administers the following Holy Places" Are you joking? First, since when does the President negotiates for the Palestinians? Is there something I don't know? Is Obama now a Palestinian President too? However, what you are describing have been offered with small variation to the Palestinians already three times, once by Ehud Barak in Camp David in 2002, second time by Ehud Barak, Clinton and Shlomo Avineri in Taba the same year and third time by Ehud Olmert in 2009. The first two offers were met with war, terror and suicide bombings, the third one was met with a big NO and disdainful comments. Actually, Olmert's offer have been more generous than what you are describing. As for Texas, I hope that you never going to need the services of the Houston Medical Center and leave it at that. "It is implausible, makeover, that the Palestinians would get a worse deal in 40-50 years as there will be so many of them." Actually, the boggy man of the demographics is a greatly over-emphasized monster. If you read the latest statistics from Israeli demographic research you will find out that the devil is much less scary. Be that what it may, two tendencies are now becoming obvious: 1. The Palestinians cannot sustain the current natural growth indefinitely 2. The Palestinian emigration from the territories, particularly the productive class and the Christian population is enormous. 3. The rise in antisemitism in Europe, South America, South Africa, and yes, the US is going to bring large number of olim to Israel. It is already felt in the increasing cost of housing. And last but not least, Jewish natural growth in Israel is way above Europe and United States and is actually quite comparable to the Arab. However, that is not the reason that the Palestinians are foolish trying to run out the clock: Israel is a liberal democracy, with a vibrant economics, hight tech, modern banking system and awesome military power. The Palestinians are mostly a rural, peasant and merchant class. The best are already gone abroad. What you have left is the theocracy and thugocracy and cleptocracy. In addition, do you think that the Palestinians have any illusions about the Palestinian state? I meet with educated Palestinians and Arabs from time to time and let me tell you, they are not so keen on living in another dysfunctional Arab statelet. "Israel needs to get rid of Palestine and the feckless settlement policy has made it much harder to do so." I agree with you one hundred percent. This is a must but getting rid of the Palestinians is like getting rid of a bad girlfriend or a boyfriend, a stocker. Whatever you offer, whatever you do they always there throwing stones in your windows. This is the reason that I advocate to get the hell out of the territories, throw the keys to the Palestinians and tell them: Buddies, you are on your own. If you need power, fuels, food, produce or markets, call your Arab brethren. Because Israel right now does not need cooperation with the territories, it needs a total, complete divorce.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

June 27, 2010 at 8:58am

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

"Ehud Barak, Clinton and Shlomo Avineri " I think you mean Shlomo Ben-Ami

- noga1

June 27, 2010 at 9:18am

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

Excuse me, makover, but I was borrowing the rhetorical device of "How about if Obama said . . . " from YOU just above: "No, just to say to the Palestinians, boys and girls, the Israelis, the Zionists, have offered you Palestine countless times. Would you please get of your horse, swallow your pride and accept it because the world did not stop 65 years ago and in 40-50 years there will be nothing left for you. Understand?" I am curious as to how you manage to take such umbrage at what are in essence your own turns of phrase. The point of my question, however, was not what the Palestinians would accept, but what Israelis would accept. From your point of view, the differences between what I just proposed and what Barak et alia have proposed are "small." If they are so small, the question is whether Israel would readily do without them. I suspect that the answer to that question is, "No," which suggests that they are not so small at all, in the eyes of either party. You evaded the question and returned to a peroration about the Palestinians. Allow me to repeat myself: "Both parties act as though time is on their side. At least one of them is mistaken in this belief." You seem to believe that delay in reaching a settlement strengthens Israel's hand. I don't, both for demographic and political reasons. The Palestinian strategy is to endure the status quo and periodically to provoke incidents, such as the Mavi Marmara, that will eventually take the matter out of Israel's hands by resulting in its political isolation. The WANT you in the territories because it is what stokes their international support. That, in turn, is why they are making it so hard to get a divorce. You think it is just pig-headedness, but it is an affirmative strategy, and not a bad one for a nation that is weaker in every respect other than the weight of its friends. Israel may be a a liberal democracy, with a vibrant economy, etc., etc., but it is still tiny and depends utterly on its international commerce. Without that trade, it would be surviving on olives and oranges. That means that, at the end of the day, Israel will be unable to resist a solution imposed by the UN. That is the Palestinian gambit. The way to take it away from them is not by playing the role that the Palestinians designate for Israel -- occupier and colonizer of the territories -- but to find a different role that frustrates the Palestinian strategy. Even if it means just throwing them the keys and walking away. I think smart negotiators (if any exist in Israel, do they?) can do better than that, if they got on about it which Netanyahu won't do. But picking a border, even one including the settlement bloc, and withdrawing to it, potentially leaving nothing for the Palestinians to negotiate, would push them to the table. What you seem to understand that most of Israel seems not to understand is that it is holding itself hostage with the settlements. The trope that "We gave them greenhouses in Gaza and the responded with rockets" serves only to make the holding of oneself hostage seem either necessary or inevitable. It is neither. _______________ I have no plans to visit Houston, ever. There is perfectly adequate care in many other places. Indeed, it rankles me when I have no easy choice but to transit through its airport. Creepy. There is nothing that can persuade me that being rid of Texas would not open the path to a sane and successful future for the balance of the US.

- roidubouloi

June 27, 2010 at 9:45am

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

I should have said that the strategy of Palestinian refuseniks is as I describe. I don't think that Abbas subscribes to this strategy, but I also don't think he is going to agree to any portion of the territory east of the Green Line becoming part of Israel. The armistice lines became de facto borders and that is that. Sometimes history just happens and there is no point in arguing that it didn't.

- roidubouloi

June 27, 2010 at 9:51am

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

Dates. I forgot to mention dates. My sister's kibbutz grows dates.

- roidubouloi

June 27, 2010 at 10:09am

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

"Israel’s Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren is reported to have told Israeli diplomats that the U.S. and Israel are experiencing a “tectonic rift,” not a temporary crisis. “There is no crisis in Israel-US relations because in a crisis there are ups and downs,” Oren told a a closed briefing to senior officials in the Israeli Foreign Ministry’s North America Branch and research division, Yedioth Ahronoth’s Itamar Eichner reports. “According to the Israeli diplomats, Oren said …’Relations are in the state of a tectonic rift in which continents are drifting apart,’” Haaretz said. “Oren noted that contrary to Obama's predecessors - George W. Bush and Bill Clinton - the current president is not motivated by historical-ideological sentiments toward Israel but by cold interests and considerations,” Haaretz reports. “He added that his access as Israel's ambassador to senior administration officials and close advisers of the president is good. But Obama has very tight control over his immediate environment, and it is hard to influence him. ‘This is a one-man show,’ Oren is quoted as saying.” http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/28221 " the current president is not motivated by historical-ideological sentiments toward Israel but by cold interests and considerations,” I don't think this is an accurate assessment. I think it is more likely that the current president is motivated by historical-ideological sentiments toward Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims (as reflected in his Cairo speech) and the "cold interests and considerations” are but one way of presenting his bias without having to be accountable for it.

- noga1

June 27, 2010 at 11:11am

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

It falls in with Obama's bizarre bow to the Saudi, his glad handing with Chavez, his humiliating Netanyahu his blowing up the 1600 apartments incident into a mega-crisis, and his schmoozing with Abbas. "Instead, he [Abbas] says, he will remain passive. "I will wait for Hamas to accept international commitments. I will wait for Israel to freeze settlements," he said. "Until then, in the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life." In the Obama administration, so far, it's easy being Palestinian. " http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/28/AR2009052803614.html As Makover aptly noted, Obama is a Palestinian negotiator.

- noga1

June 27, 2010 at 11:17am

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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/28/AR2009052803614.html Makover got it right; Obama acts as a Palestinian negotiator.

- noga1

June 27, 2010 at 11:18am

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

The article linked does not even begin to support what is asserted. I did find interesting the Post description from a year ago of Abbas demanding that Hamas forswear violence and recognize Israel. The assertion that Obama is motivated by sentiment, not by US interests, has no basis other than the long and incorrect assumption that US interests and Israeli interests are the same. This is due in no small part to the sentimentality of Bush in particular who never provided any evidence that he even understands what US interests are (as opposed to the interests of oil companies and other plutocrats which he understood very well because they explained them to him). If you knew how to talk faux cowboy tough guy, Bush was "wid ya."

- roidubouloi

June 27, 2010 at 11:50am

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

If the people in the West Bank are indeed living a normal life, that should not be accounted a bad thing for Israel. It is a step toward pacification and should be welcomed.

- roidubouloi

June 27, 2010 at 11:51am

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

"If the people in the West Bank are indeed living a normal life, that should not be accounted a bad thing for Israel. It is a step toward pacification and should be welcomed." Don't worry. As soon as Obanma's plan is put into gear and Hamas infiltration of the West Bank will gain momentum, normal life will quickly dissipate: "Just think of the calm insanity of that paragraph. The United States is going to pump money into Gaza. That money is a "down payment on the U.S. commitment," that is, it is not an act of generosity for which the United States deserves to get something in return. No, the phrasing makes it seem that the United States owes them the money. Moreover, giving this money does not really advance the cause of building a Palestinian state but retards it by shoring up a Hamas government which is against the Palestinian Authority, against peace with Israel, and against a two-state solution. Note, too, that Hamas is put on an equal plane with the Palestinian Authority. The people of Gaza and the people of the West Bank will build a state, says the statement. Couldn't the administration even have said that the state would be built in the context of the Oslo accords or under the leadership of the Palestinian Authority? This is truly amazing. There is no mention of even the Quartet conditions: nothing said about Hamas abandoning terrorism or accepting Israel's existence or returning to recognition of the Palestinian Authority's rule as the legitimate government. The statement is unconditional, absolutely unconditional. Only the "humanitarian" consideration counts, as if the U.S. government is a community organizer organizing a food stamp program." http://www.gloria-center.org/gloria/2010/06/white-house-announcement-on-gaza I somehow find the idea that Americans share common interests with Arabs and Muslims quite scary. It reminds me of the joke about George Bernard Shaw and Isadora Duncan: 'Duncan suggested that she and Shaw should have a child together. "Think of it!" she said, "With your brains and my body, what a wonder it would be." Shaw thought for a moment and replied, "Yes, but what if it had my body and your brains?"

- noga1

June 27, 2010 at 12:03pm

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

The article linked by noga says this, among other things: "Doesn't who governs the Gaza Strip as a dictatorship (an antisemitic, anti-American, terrorist, revolutionary Islamist, would-be genocidal, Christian-expelling, women-repressing, terrorist, and allied to Iran dictatorship at that) matter a bit? The announcement continued by welcoming Israel's new policy as something that "should significantly improve conditions for Palestinians in Gaza, while preventing the entry of weapons." In other words, the United States has no problem with Hamas ruling Gaza as long as weapons are kept out. There is absolutely no strategic concept in the U.S. approach." ___________________ What this demonstrates is that the United States actually does have a strategic concept and that the author of this article has an empty head, no brains, no concept, no nothing other than the desire to kvetch. The guy is a true dummy, stupid, belligerent, and self-righteous all rolled into one. While it would be lovely to have a liberal democratic government in Gaza, it does not matter all that much for anyone other than the Gazans so long as weapons and means of making them are kept out and the use of what weapons are there is successfully deterred. The confusion between the imperial ambition to determine the governance of Gaza and the actual needs of self-defense is precisely what demonstrates the author's lack of a strategic concept. As for the Gazans, they themselves are going to have to figure out how to get rid of Hamas.

- roidubouloi

June 27, 2010 at 1:16pm

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

Tzipi Livni is interviewed briefly in today's NYT Magazine. In an interview that otherwise demonstrates sanity and a prudent grasp of reality, she says something to the effect that the purpose of the Gaza embargo is not to punish the Gazans but to discredit Hamas (by punishing the Gazans, I should add). In adopting a strategy, one ought to have some notion of how likely it is to succeed. In this case, not at all, as there is no precedent for such a policy succeeding. The best example that comes to mind is Cuba. Been more than 40 years now and the Castro brothers are still there.

- roidubouloi

June 27, 2010 at 1:26pm

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

More than 50 years actually, the Cuban government being nearly as old as the State of Israel.

- roidubouloi

June 27, 2010 at 1:47pm

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

"..the author of this article has an empty head, no brains, no concept, no nothing other than the desire to kvetch. The guy is a true dummy, stupid, belligerent, and self-righteous all rolled into one." "Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict, and Crisis (Palgrave Macmillan), Conflict and Insurgency in the Contemporary Middle East (Routledge), The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition) (Viking-Penguin), the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan), A Chronological History of Terrorism (Sharpe), and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley)."

- noga1

June 27, 2010 at 4:17pm

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

And so? If I were to look up Alan Greenspan's pedigree, it would no doubt look marvelous. Rubin does not write like an analyst, but like an ideologue. If he were an analyst, he would take note of the exceedingly long record of failure of the imperial technique of installing favorable government by external force. Even when an imperial power manages to install one, the local backlash tends to make matters even worse. See, for example, Vietnam and Iran. And how about the Saudi government, installed by imperial powers and now financing terror in an effort to maintain legitimacy with its own people? Titles are meaningless. I'm told that Martin Peretz taught at Harvard. Netanyahu has not one, but two degrees from MIT.

- roidubouloi

June 27, 2010 at 4:32pm

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

Here's another line from Rubin's piece where he demonstrates his keen grasp of "strategery": "Did anyone in the administration think of conditioning the easing of the embargo and the U.S. aid on Shalit's release? Of course not." And why not? Well, for one thing, the US purpose is to convey the aid to Gaza as a demonstration that the US is not interested in punishing the Gazans. Shalit is not going to be released any time soon, with or without the aid. Hence, conditioning the aid on Shalit's release means no aid. Tzipi Livni says that the purpose of the embargo is not to punish the Gazans, acknowledging indirectly that "strategically" that is maybe not such a hot idea. But of course, the policy as implemented is precisely to punish the Gazans with the vain hope that this will discredit rather than strengthen Hamas. So, doing what this genius Rubin suggests would serve only to frustrate the US policy of separating the enmity toward Hamas from the perception of enmity toward the Gazans. Beyond that, does Barry Rubin, head of GLORIA, author of all these books, think that the United States of America, home to 300 million people, world colossus, is going to condition its foreign policies on the fate of Gilad Shalit? Does this genius policy analyst even have a notion of how preposterous that is? Of course, he must. But he is pandering to an Israeli audience anxious to convince itself that what the United States is doing has no purpose, that it is merely the floundering of a naif who will disappear before too long taking his policies with him. They should perhaps pay closer attention to Michael Oren.

- roidubouloi

June 27, 2010 at 5:02pm

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

Re Texas, makover, this today from TNR: http://www.tnr.com/book/review/american-hell Re Jewish victimhood, noga, this today from TNR: http://www.tnr.com/book/review/positively-jewish "Jonathan Sacks, a rabbinical scholar and religious thinker, and also the Chief Rabbi of Great Britain, argues that what was true of the past is not true of the present. In 2010, Sacks writes, what Jews need is not anxiety but confidence, not withdrawal from the world but a new embrace of it: 'It is my considered view that, in this tense and troubled century, Jews must take a stand, not motivated by fear, not driven by paranoia or a sense of victimhood, but a positive stand on the basis of the values by which our ancestors lived and for which they were prepared to die. … Now is not the time to retreat into a ghetto of the mind.'"

- roidubouloi

June 28, 2010 at 12:52am

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

The editors are reading my mind, or I am reading theirs. Or it is just the zeitgeist.

- roidubouloi

June 28, 2010 at 12:52am

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

One word: unintelligble. Maybe next time, Marty.

- lyansaine

June 29, 2010 at 9:11pm

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

The author of this article, whose name is beneath mention, continues to demonstrate why this mag - to which I have subscribed for decades - is only reliably worthwhile for the back section on literature, philosophy, film and the arts. Ms. Thomas spoke truth to power, including the power of Untruth and Illusion (Delusion?) and with her going the already-thin ranks of the constitutionally vital "free press" (independent, mature, dedicated to finding and speaking truth) are substantially weakened.

- Publion

July 8, 2010 at 10:02pm

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close