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 Losing Hope on Israeli-Palestinian Peace

DECEMBER 6, 2012

Losing Hope on Israeli-Palestinian Peace

BY LEON WIESELTIER

LOST CAUSES are not wrong causes, unless winning is the measure of right. The historical victory of an idea reveals nothing about its merit: power has uses for fictions, and the popularity of lies is an ancient feature of human affairs. I am always stirred, when I read the medieval disputations between Jews and Christians, by the boldness of the Jewish retort to Christian triumphalism, to the arrogant Christian insistence that the lowly social status of the Jews was proof of their lowly spiritual status—was any argument ever more rigged?; and always offended by the Hegelian view, which survives in many forms, that it is for history to vindicate philosophy. There is no shame and no error in a minoritarian existence. If one is in error, it is hardly because one is not in a majority. For this reason, the legitimacy of lost causes is one of the gifts of a democratic order, in which heresy is merely another opinion and dissent does not require an extreme of courage. The beauty of lost causes may be hard to appreciate, though, in a society such as ours, with its pornographic obsession with winners, and its harsh assumption that failure is a blow to dignity. In my eyes, the pursuers of lost causes possess an extra measure of dignity, because one really should be intransigent about what one believes to be true. This confers an inner strength that cannot be defeated by circumstances. The spine owes a great deal to the mind, even if one should not think with one’s spine; and so the pursuer of lost causes can be, paradoxically, the most stubborn of fighters. Yet I would not exaggerate the glamor of lost causes. Sadness always attaches to the deferral of a dream.

 

I HAVE BEEN THINKING about lost causes because I have concluded that one of my causes is lost. I no longer believe that peace between Israelis and Palestinians will occur in my lifetime. I have not changed my views; I have merely lost my hopes. I am still quite certain that the establishment of the state of Palestine is a condition for the survival of the state of Israel, as a Jewish state and a democratic state, and that for Israel not to be a Jewish state would be a Jewish catastrophe, and for it not to be a democratic state would be a human catastrophe; and that the only solution there has ever been to this conflict is the solution that was proposed by the Peel Commission in 1937, that is, the partition of one land into two states; and that the Jewish settlement of the West Bank was a colossal mistake, and the occupation (and the indifference to it) corrodes the decency of the occupiers; and that the Jewish state is a secular entity; and that anti-Semitism, which will never disappear, does not explain the entirety of the history of the Jews or their state, or exempt Israel from accountability for its actions. An impenitent Zionist and an impenitent dove, in sum; but to the consternation of some of my comrades, a hawkish dove, too, since I see that Israel has enemies and I believe in the ethical primacy of self-defense. I have irritated some of my comrades also with my unglowing view of the Palestinians and their inability to recognize the historical grandeur of compromise. Since 1977, and really since 1947, they have refused one proposed solution after another, as if the “unviability” of an imperfect state is not preferable to the unviability of statelessness. In recent decades they have added a new religious maximalism to an old secular maximalism. But still I concur in the necessity and the justice of their demand for a state, and still I yearn for a serious Palestinian diplomacy.

 

ALL THESE BELIEFS, however, are beginning to seem pointless. Reality appears to have other plans for itself. Hamas maintains its terrorist and theocratic sway over Gaza, and criminally fires hundreds of rockets at Israeli civilians, and extols the destruction of its arsenal and its infrastructure by Israel as some sort of apotheosis. Mahmoud Abbas celebrates the attainment of observer-state status at the United Nations with a mean and small speech in which he accuses Israel of “one of the most dreadful campaigns of ethnic cleansing and dispossession in modern history,” and of unprovoked “aggression” in Gaza, and of “an apartheid system of colonial occupation, which institutionalizes the plague of racism.” Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian leader for whom we longed, is a tragic figure, undone by Palestinians and Israelis together. In Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu petulantly responds to the General Assembly vote with an outrageous proposal for Jewish housing in the area east of Jerusalem known as “E1,” which would scuttle any cartographically meaningful state for the Palestinians. He allies his party with the party of Avigdor Lieberman, the fascist face of Israel, who has proposed loyalty oaths for Israeli Arabs, and then his party, I mean the Likud, demotes its moderates and promotes the odious likes of Moshe Feiglin, who refers to Arabs as Amalek and advocates their “voluntary transfer” from Israel. As these anti-democratic maniacs flourish in Netanyahu’s base, one increasingly hears in those quarters the ugly old refrain that Jordan is the Palestinian state. And there is no significant opposition to Likud, only a petty and fragmented and pathetic assortment of self-interested figures and parties. People assure me that all this can change if there is the political will to change it; but I do not detect the political will. So what if the two-state solution is the only solution, when nobody is desperate to solve the problem?

 

I HAVE BEEN RE-READING The Shepherd’s War by my old friend Meron Benvenisti, his controversial essays of the 1980s, in which he described “the virtual permanence of the present situation,” and reported that “after implementing a project which concerns people’s lives, one may discover that it is irreversible,” and contested the progressive view that “there is no such thing as an irretrievable loss, options are never closed, there is no need to trouble our conscience over what we have wasted, no reason for perpetual sorrow.” He was vilified for his fatalism. I think he is owed an apology. It has been almost half a century since Israel acquired the territories in a war to save itself, and more than half a century since the birth of Palestinian nationalism. Those were the allegedly provisional decades, the cost-free interim in which both sides were to come to reason. Sure, the struggle continues. The debate must go on. But how long is an interim? What if reason never comes? When does hope become illusion?

Leon Wieseltier is the literary editor of The New Republic. This article appeared in the December 20, 2012 issue of the magazine under the headline “Discouragement.”

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 534 comments

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

534 comments

Yes, but, The outcomes in Syria, already impacting Lebanon, with the possibility of confessional state(lets in federation?) The multi-state Druse (and who knows if the multi-state Circassians talk with each other) The Kurds, in Syria, and Kirkuk, The Bedouin, in Israel, Jordan, Sinai... Perhaps the Pope will render an official opinion if Adam was the first muslim. Israeli politics is following Israeli demographics. E-1 is not Mount Everest.

- K2K

December 8, 2012 at 12:52am

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

Okay then. I feel you. Now back to the responsible in power to keep trying in good faith according to their lights. And the rest of us to keep arguing and proselytizing and contributing as best we can. There's nothing else to be done.

- basman

December 8, 2012 at 1:00am

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

The Israelis keep moving the goal posts on the Palestinians, first accept that you must share the land, then accept Israel has a right to exist, then accept that Israel is a "Jewish State", a claim that no other nation on Earth recognizes, and Israel never demanded of Egypt or Jordan when they made peace. It is a ruse by Netanyahu to scuttle peace. The Palestinians erred in 1947 by not seeing they were the weaker party, and like the Sioux should have accepted the remnants and not demand what they saw as justly theirs. They erred again in 2000 at Camp David by not making a counteroffer, though that was a tactical error as Barak was not going to accept anything reasonable regardless. Clinton bullied them into a summit with nothing agreed to beforehand so of course it collapsed when Barak revealed Bantustan map. Israel on the other hand has no driving force pushing it to end the occupation and get out of the West BAnk. With 10% of Israel's Jews living on Palestinian land, going back to the 1967 border will tear the country apart. The only force out there that could make this happen is a credible private promise by Obama to Netanyahu that he has 24 months to end the occupation, after which the US will recognize Palestine. If I was negotiating for the Palestinians I would demand the 1967 borders, anything less is preposterous. It's been 2 generations in camps, what will the Middle East be like in 2 more? Will Israel's relative position be better or worse? Will its level of support in Europe and the US be lower or higher? The young generation of American Jews for the most part are detaching from Israel as the center of their identity, J Street is the future, not AIPAC. The current situation is not permanent, but the Israelis pretend that time is on their side. Demography is destiny.

- nayyer_ali

December 8, 2012 at 1:44am

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

I have spoken to many Palestinians and the consistent sense I get in private conversations is that either of two alternatives is acceptable to the majority of them. First, two-state solution but Israel gives up ALL of the settlements, goes back to the precise 1967 border and there is some sharing arrangement of the Old City holy sites. In return the Palestinians recognize Israel and accept compensation and a token return only of refugees. The second acceptable option is that Israel grant them citizenship, and becomes a state that does not discriminate on the basis of religion. This one-state solution would negate Zionism as the majority would be Palestinian, but the Palestinians would be fine with it. So the choices are simple, get married or get a divorce, but the master-slave thing will not last, and I don't think the slaves will be too happy with you when they finally get their freedom. That is the arc of history, struggle against it at your peril.

- nayyer_ali

December 8, 2012 at 1:53am

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

"...but the Palestinians would be fine with it." The Palestinians won't be fine with anything, nayyer_ali. It's not in their nature. I remember many of them got out in the streets and cheered the events of 9/11. What kind of people do that? Have Americans ever gotten out in the streets and cheered an unprovoked attack on another country? I can't think of an instance. "In return the Palestinians recognize Israel..." That'll happen when SpongeBob SquarePants becomes president of the United States. Your solutions are as facile as those in a cartoon. I notice you don't mention any wrongdoing on the part of the Palestinians. Admittedly, Netanyahu has instituted some aggressive and cruel policies, but you imply by omission that the Palestinians are as innocent as sheep in a land of wolves. You're speaking of the minority, not the majority. I think you're picking your Palestinians to speak to. LW is right. Middle East: insoluble problem--unless all the Israelis move to Kentucky.

- magboy47.

December 8, 2012 at 3:03am

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

"LW is right. Middle East: insoluble problem--unless all the Israelis move to Kentucky." Even then the Arabs would follow them and start attacking them. In France and other European countries the Arabs first moved into Jewish neighborhoods because they were the only neighbors that wouldn't attack them. Later on they started attacking Jews using Israel as an excuse.

- arnon1

December 8, 2012 at 5:54am

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

Half a century? The Temple was destroyed almost two thousand years ago. The history of Israel is one of patience. Greek (Hellenistic), Roman, Byzantine, Arab, how many conquests and persecutions has Israel endured. Hanukkah, beginning today, is the celebration of victory over Greek rule (and re-dedication of the Temple). Israel is a place and a people, a unity that cannot be divided though many have tried through the centuries. One of the ironies of recent history (the past 100 years) is that it was conflict among Gentiles that helped restore that unity.

- rayward

December 8, 2012 at 8:34am

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

I am surprised that it took Leon so long to loose hope. We Israelis lost hope when the Palestinians, subsequent to Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, destroyed all hothouses paid for by Jewish, American donors and elected Hamas, thus making Gaza the first, terrorist led entity. Welcome to the club Leon. What are the crocodile tears about E-1 area? Why is this suddenly "scuttle any cartographically meaningful state for the Palestinians."? It was to be annexed by Israel as part of Olmert peace plan and I don't remember Leon writing requiems for hope than. Everybody seems to love this plan, even Abu Mazen accepted it (after first rejecting it of course). In view of this I must conclude that Leon discovered that stupidity, venality and intransigence are new in the New Middle East.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

December 8, 2012 at 9:02am

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

I agree with nayyer_ali's two posts, particularly his observation that, while it may take a long time, the ultimate outcome is quite clear. Following nayyer-ali, just the standard victimhood blather, lies, and denial of Israeli responsibility to abide by international law. Israel has the absolute right to defend itself. It has no right to colonize the Palestinians in defiance of international law. The former does not justify the latter no matter the effort that Israel's apologists exert to obscure that simple reality. Overwhelmingly, with the exception of a few places that they, the apologists, frequent, they are losing the moral and rhetorical battle got the opinion of the world and of America, as they should. Inevitably, they will attribute the de-legitimization of Israel to anti-Semitism (after all, excuse and apology for Israel's illicit behavior is what they do and all they do), but they themselves are to blame.

- roidubouloi

December 8, 2012 at 9:51am

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

"battle for the opinion of the world and of America"

- roidubouloi

December 8, 2012 at 9:52am

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

I apologize for seeming to lump rayward's comments in with the rest. I have no quarrel with his remarks at all and appreciate his different, and useful, perspective.

- roidubouloi

December 8, 2012 at 9:55am

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

It's a sentimental and self-indulgent piece of writing. There is nothing in it that I can use, to clarify or enlighten or add to an understanding. Wieseltier mouths the currently popular "universally acknowledged" truth. Funny how he invokes the Jewish spirit in the medieval disputations and then turns around to chide other, modern, Jews for keeping up with that tradition. He asks: "So what if the two-state solution is the only solution, when nobody is desperate to solve the problem?" Have you ever asked yourself why should Jews be expected to remove their history and suffering from the matrix of this solution, as you see it? What would be easier: removing Jews living in Jerusalem or for Palestinians coming to terms with Jews living in Jerusalem? By what right do Palestinians even demand such a measure? What right does Obama or Europeans have of interfering in who will build in Jerusalem? Wieseltier is a great admirer of the Hebrew scripture. He should remember one of its most powerful stories, then: "There were two men in one city, the one rich, and the other poor. The rich man had exceeding many sheep and oxen. But the poor man had nothing at all but one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up, and which had grown up in his house together with his children, eating of his bread, and drinking of his cup, and sleeping in his bosom: and it was unto him as a daughter. And when a certain stranger was come to the rich man, he spared to take of his own sheep and oxen, to make a feast for that stranger, who was come to him, but took the poor man's ewe, and dressed it for the man that was come to him. And David's anger being exceedingly kindled against that man, he said to Nathan: As the Lord liveth, the man that hath done this is a child of death. He shall restore the ewe fourfold, because he did this thing, and had no pity." Shall I decode this for you, Mr. Wieseltier? Who is the poor man in this story, when you speak of Israel, with its 0.01% of the territory held by Arabs in the Middle East? What's with the Arab lust for total domination and claiming every piece of land that Jews hold?

- Noga

December 8, 2012 at 10:12am

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

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=294955 "Something bizarre happened at the UN last Thursday – so bizarre, in fact, it would be difficult to make stuff like this up. Dysfunctional polity, collapsing economy The plenary session of the General Assembly was addressed by a man who despite the fact that his term of office expired almost half a decade ago, still purports to be the leader of a people who openly concede they have no real, separate identity, and that the only rationale for their claiming nationhood is to deny that of another UN member state; a man who was forcibly ejected from, and is now barred – on pain of death – from reentering a good portion of the area populated by the people he claims to represent; a people that, despite two decades of unprecedented economic aid and political support, has been unable to create anything remotely resembling a stable, productive civil society. From the podium, this man, who parades as president of an entity with a dysfunctional polity and a collapsing economy – with a minuscule private sector and a bloated public one, wracked by corruption, and crippled by cronyism, manifestly unsustainable without (and probably even with) massive infusions of foreign funds – launched into a distortive and deceptive diatribe against Israel. Of course, the fact that without Israeli largesse this man’s regime would implode in very short order, in no way deterred him from his malevolent, mendacious and misleading monologue – which only made the entire event more macabre. This man, Mahmoud Abbas (a.k.a. Abu Mazen), whose regime was permitted to run up a debt amounting to close to a quarter billion dollars for unpaid electricity provided by Israel – which itself makes Israel one of his largest benefactors – accused the very entity propping him up in power of virtually every heinous misdeed known to man."

- Noga

December 8, 2012 at 10:27am

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

roidodo: "I agree with nayyer_ali" The puppet agrees with the ventriloquist.

- arnon1

December 8, 2012 at 10:29am

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

"The puppet agrees with the ventriloquist." Very good!

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

December 8, 2012 at 10:33am

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

The empty heads agree. Blow air through the ear of one, it comes out the ear of the other.

- roidubouloi

December 8, 2012 at 10:44am

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

The most bizarre thing happening at the UN is that Israelis continue to believe that their pious self-righteousness and self-pity will somehow enable them to defy the UN indefinitely. One wonders at what point Israelis will consider that they have seized enough of what the UN created as the Arab partition. But, no matter how much, Israelis will forever consider themselves victims. If the representatives here are any indication, they have so totally internalized victimhood that they can do nothing else. Yes, poor Israel, only one little lamb, no arms, no wealth, no economy, no education, a helpless little lamb, prostrate before the Palestinians who gorge themselves on all those sheep and oxen. Israelis suffer so, they have suffered so, we must forgive their trespasses. The matrix of their suffering makes them do it. No matter the bottomless well of self-pity, by-and-by the world will move them regardless.

- roidubouloi

December 8, 2012 at 10:53am

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

Swimming pools in Maale Adumim are no doubt the best antidote to suffering and the burden of history. Living in Canada is good too.

- roidubouloi

December 8, 2012 at 10:55am

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

makover, it's a roi pathology. It's not t hat he is ali's puppet or anything like that. He will cling and merge with anyone expressing positions similar to ali's. In that respect he is more like Zelig than a puppet. (Disambiguation: Woody Allen's Zelig). ______ roi, clearly Israelis are not to be allowed to choose their own way of dealing with their past suffering. They must consult with Palestinians about it, and ultimate conformists like you.

- Noga

December 8, 2012 at 11:06am

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

Israelis have no "self pity". You leave us alone, we will leave you alone, you will f..k with us, we will kick your ass. The Palestinians always think they can get better deal somewhere else, at another time, later, maybe the Russians or the Arab League, or the UN or Saddam, or Morsi. But "later" just gets worse and worse. It's about time they realize it that they can negotiate only with Israel and only with whoever is the ruling coalition in Israel at the time. The Palestinians are the ones that destroyed the Israeli left and they are the ones that brought out the Likud crazies to the leading positions in the party. They have only themselves to blame. And since the Israelis are not blameless themselves, just put this whole explosive package together and up it goes...

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

December 8, 2012 at 11:22am

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

Well, I agree with you, peace between the Palestinians and Israelis probably won't happen in your lifetime. Which is sad. However, I draw hope from Hamas getting Palestine declared "a state", even if in some small way at the UN. This means that international law might actually apply to them, whereupon the launching of daily rockets into Israel becomes a War-Crime Between States, not just the action of a "few uncontrollable discontents". Israel must establish defendable borders. Israel will claim all of Jerusalem. As long as the Palestinians continue to seek the destruction of Israel through terrorism or outright war, Israel is justified in keeping the territories they won in 1967 and 1973. That they're using some of those territories to assist in creating a Palestinian state doesn't mean the Palestinians get to choose what territories are theirs. In fact, their continuing use of rockets into Israel means they've given up that choice. This is the sad but true state of affairs in Israel. And it does mean that true peace won't be achieved in your lifetime.

- AllanL5

December 8, 2012 at 11:24am

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

My, my. Just imagine that someone here should agree with someone else and say so. By the light of Israeli opinion, they are then merged into a single personality, puppets, ventriloquism, Zelig. Noga has previously expressed her contempt for nayyer_ali because he uses an Arabic-sounding screen name, as if that is all one needs to know. He could be a Viking for all I know or care. When I agree with him, I am happy to say so. Even when I don't agree, his analyses are for more insightful than the infantile mewlings of his critics here. ____________________________ Israelis can choose to wallow in their purported past suffering as much as they like. (Does one experience the suffering of one's ancestors regardless of one's own present circumstances and existence? Or is this meant to apply only to those Israelis who can be said actually to have suffered?). I find wallowing in self-pity rather repellent and prefer to take such action as circumstances permit to improve my situation and that of the world, but that is just my opinion. What Israelis cannot do is use the self-pity or any amount of past suffering to justify wrongful behavior in the present and the perpetuation of war and other people's present suffering.

- roidubouloi

December 8, 2012 at 11:26am

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbKyVElEzL4 Happy Feast of Lights, everyone. This evening we light the first candle of Hannukka and place the Hannukia on the window ledge. One small candle light can hardly dispel the darkness of the human heart, but, as the Chinese would say, even a thousand lightyear's journey begins with one tiny candle flame.

- Noga

December 8, 2012 at 11:28am

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

"Israelis have no "self pity". You leave us alone, we will leave you alone, you will f..k with us, we will kick your ass." I beg to differ. Israeli self pity is forever on display here. "The suffering, the suffering." As for ass-kicking, without the United States covering your asses and bailing you out of your messes from time to time, you would be toast. And as for leaving the Palestinians alone? Utter nonsense. All you did with the peaceful interlude created by Oslo was take more of their land and consolidate your hold on what you had already taken. The only thing that exceeds Israeli self-pity is Israeli self-righteousness and greed. I think that what I most object to about Israel re-declaring itself the Jewish state is that it becomes impossible for me both to be Jewish and to disassociate myself from your disgraceful behavior. A very unfortunate position to be in. Why don't you declare yourselves to be the Maccabbean state or the Davidic state or something, get off the US security teat, stop meddling in US politics, and then do whatever you want and suffer the consequences? Just leave us here alone, why don't you?

- roidubouloi

December 8, 2012 at 11:36am

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

"Noga has previously expressed her contempt for nayyer_ali because he uses an Arabic-sounding screen name," When short on facts, why not manufacture a lie? Schmuck roi, I never cast aspersions on ali because of his name. Prove your accusation or be taken for the liar you are. Expressing contempt for people's personal names and private life is your forte, yours and arnon's (two peas in a pod). _______________ Makover: "Israelis have no "self pity". You leave us alone, we will leave you alone, you will f..k with us, we will kick your ass. " Only yesterday I came across this quote from Ben Gurion, in 1955(!): " "We're in a difficult situation with the Arabs, because when they wish to destroy or murder, they don't have to kill hundreds of us at a time. Instead, they make our life miserable day by day. Maybe they can't do otherwise, since they're afraid to send an entire military unit against us. So they send a small squad, and the squad crosses the border and waits for nightfall. Under cover of darkness they wander around until they find an object or a person, and they destroy it or kill the person. Their intention is to do this for years and wear us down... We can't do what they do, even if we wished to, because we can't kill civillians, say to start killing Arab civilians we meet along the way.. So we have two options. We can resign ourselves to this situation, or we can not resign ourselves to it. This government was created to not resign itself to such a situation. I announced this in the Knesset. Based on that announcement, I called [Eedson] Burns [the UN commander in the area] and informed him that this government would respond and he should tell [Gamal] Nasser... On the Sea of Galillee they've got a system. They shoot at our fishermen, and they shoot at our police boats. The entire lake is in our territory, no-one disputes that. It's the begining of the fishing season, and they've been shooting a lot. It's merely a coincidence that none of our people was hurt, but the boats have been hit. We can't accept this situation... In Syria there's no efficient regime, they're perpetually on the verge of a putsch. Either we'll aquiesce with the loss of our right to fish, or we'll have to destroy their fortifications. We could do as they do, and simply shoot back, but then we'll hit their civilians, beause their troops are all protected by their fortifications. I said: we're not going to target their civilians, their women and children, their villages, so we'll have to take and destroy their fortifications." [p.3-5] Later in the discussion Minister of Finance Levi Eshkol elaborated a bit further: There haven't been many casualties on the lake, perhaps because many fishers stay away from that part of it. We slowly get used to the situation. It's far from Tel Aviv, it's far from Jerusalem, we're not there - yet that's where they're trying to kill our people... "

- Noga

December 8, 2012 at 11:36am

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

It is actually quite fascinating that Israelis manage to blame even the increasing Israeli turn toward fascism on the Palestinians but do not perceive that the actions of Israel can have any impact on extremism, the prevalence of extremism, and the appeal of extremism in the Arab world. What happens in Israel is the fault of the Arabs. What happens in the Arab world is the fault of the Arabs. The growing isolation of Israel in the world and the low regard in which it is held are the fault of the Arabs. Israel has no agency whatsoever, and the Arabs are seemingly immensely powerful. Sorry, but Israelis bear the responsibility for their government and its deeds. It is a democracy, after all.

- roidubouloi

December 8, 2012 at 11:44am

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

Roi, in a moment of rare self-recognition: "I think that what I most object to about Israel re-declaring itself the Jewish state is that it becomes impossible for me both to be Jewish and to disassociate myself from your disgraceful behavior ... Just leave us here alone, why don't you?" (To makover: Yatsa martse'a min hasak). Didn't I tell you all along? Ironically, roi's confession here is a fortunate reflection upon Wieseltier's allusion to the medieval Jewish-Christian disputations, which he professes to admire. One of the greatest disputation took place at Barcelona (1263) , between Dominican Friar Pablo Christiani, a convert from Judaism to Christianity, and Rabbi Nachmanides. Roi is spiritual heir to Pablo Christiani: (From wiki): "Pablo Christiani (or Paul Christian), a figure of the 13th century... became a Christian convert and Dominican friar. ... His participation in the Disputation of Barcelona with Nahmanides was to try his new missionary technique to bring Jews to Christianity. The failure in the Disputation did not, however, discourage Christiani. Provided through the agency of Raymond de Penyafort with letters of protection from King James I of Aragon, he went on missionary journeys, compelling the Jews everywhere to listen to his speeches and to answer his questions, either in their synagogues or wherever else he pleased."

- Noga

December 8, 2012 at 11:50am

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

Ah yes, the suffering of 1955. _____________________ Here you go, noga. The citation you asked for. Your racism plainly on display. 11/28/2012 - 8:26pm EDT | Noga Nah. I don't think roi is doubling. He is too arrogant to share the credit of his brilliance. Ali is not smac. Smac is a real antisemite, possibly from a family of antisemites. There is an Aryan flavour to his antisemitism. Ali is just anti-Israeli in the most fundamentally Arab way which means that for him Jews, unless they are like roi, are inherently suspect of Zionism which for him is a crime against humanity. http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/110479/what-ehud-baraks-retirement-means-israel#comments

- roidubouloi

December 8, 2012 at 11:50am

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

The link: http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/110479/what-ehud-baraks-retirement-means-israel#comments

- roidubouloi

December 8, 2012 at 11:51am

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

"Noga has previously expressed her contempt for nayyer_ali because he uses an Arabic-sounding screen name," When short on facts, why not manufacture a lie? Schmuck roi, I never cast aspersions on ali because of his name. Prove your accusation or be taken for the liar you are. Expressing contempt for people's personal names and private life is your forte, yours and arnon's (two peas in a pod).

- Noga

December 8, 2012 at 11:51am

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

Here is roi's accusation: "Noga has previously expressed her contempt for nayyer_ali because he uses an Arabic-sounding screen name," And here is how he justifies his slander: "Here you go, noga. The citation you asked for. Your racism plainly on display. 11/28/2012 - 8:26pm EDT | Noga Nah. I don't think roi is doubling. He is too arrogant to share the credit of his brilliance. Ali is not smac. Smac is a real antisemite, possibly from a family of antisemites. There is an Aryan flavour to his antisemitism. Ali is just anti-Israeli in the most fundamentally Arab way which means that for him Jews, unless they are like roi, are inherently suspect of Zionism which for him is a crime against humanity." It is an interesting twist on what he claims to be truth. Not just a schmuck but an uberschmuck.

- Noga

December 8, 2012 at 11:55am

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

Oh, not at all, noga. I have no desire to convert or abandon my Judaism. We will be celebrating Chanukah tonight. But I object to Israel bring disgrace upon it and upon the Jewish people who are more than the State of Israel. That is the conundrum. How to be faithful to Judaism without being morally responsible for the immoral behavior of Israel. The best I can think of to do is publicly to deplore it, just as I publicly deplore the behavior of the United States when I find that morally objectionable. Naturally, the fascists who are ever present will call that treason, self-hatred, blah, blah, blah. The standard fascist tropes.

- roidubouloi

December 8, 2012 at 11:56am

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

You are caught like a bug on fly-paper, noga. Either you didn't remember what you said or you figured I wouldn't. LOL

- roidubouloi

December 8, 2012 at 11:59am

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

But let's not let roi's pathological lies to derail this thread. Here is more on Pablo Christiani, roi's spiritual forefather: http://roshpinaproject.com/tag/pablo-christiani/ "Christiani was a Jewish convert to Christianity. His thirteenth-century preaching campaigns represented the first serious effort by the mediaeval Church to convert the Jews in its midst. [2] Christiani was openly hostile to Judaism and complained about Jewish usury. [3] Under King James’ edict, Christiani also preached forced sermons to Jews in their own synagogues. Whilst Christiani attempted to prove Jesus’ Messiahship through the Talmud, Christiani also acted as a censor the Talmud, removing portions deemed to be anti-Christian. Christiani even appealed to King Louis IX of France to force Jews to wear badges marking them out from the rest of society, and would continue to preach forced sermons in French synagogues. [4] Thomas Aquinas was in town when Christiani was preaching in Paris in 1269. [5]"

- Noga

December 8, 2012 at 12:01pm

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

"| roidubouloi Oh, not at all, noga. I have no desire to convert or abandon my Judaism." Another example of roi's inability to understand ironic analogies. roi has such a literal way of understanding language that I wonder I didn't realize before it is more than just dogma with him. It is a psychological impediment. He is clearly unable to perceive any underlying meanings in words that are clear to most other readers. That's what makes him so rigid, and narrow-minded. He actually believes that my comparing him with Christiani is about him converting. His response is really a jaw-dropper. As little opinion I have of him as I do, he managed to surprise even me with his stupidity.

- Noga

December 8, 2012 at 12:09pm

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

Yes indeed, nayyer-ali, that "typical Arab." One can only imagine noga's fury if her opinions were described as those of a "typical Jew." Trapped by her own vile words, we see here noga playing another of her favorite little rhetorical games, trying to tar people with others with whom they have no association because she, noga, claims to be reminded of one by the other. I am not hostile to Judaism, noga. I don't want Jews, or Israelis, to wear badges. I don't propose to censor your more obnoxious expressions or force you or anyone to listen to anything. I am unmistakably Jewish and proud to be so. Rather, I object to Israel defaming Judaism with its very un-Jewish behavior, behavior that you have from time to time defended on the ground that the Jewish state should be like any other state, held to the same low standards, and that it is anti-Semitic to do otherwise. I don't think so. If Israel insists on calling itself the Jewish state, then it ought to behave in a manner that brings credit to Judaism. Perpetuating war in order to take the Palestinians' land is immoral and un-Jewish behavior. In your bizarre world that I think so apparently makes me a "typical Arab" or a crypto-Christian. Blah, blah, blah. More nonsense from the guilty. You are always so noga.

- roidubouloi

December 8, 2012 at 12:18pm

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

Your analogy between me and Christiani is so fatuous, noga, and so redolent of your ill-concealed fascism, that the only proper response is to take it literally. As analogy, it is completely meaningless, not ironic, moronic. Rest assured, noga, you will NEVER, EVER surprise me by being even stupider than I imagine you are. That is not possible. Watching you writhe in the trap you sprung on yourself is fun. More LOL.

- roidubouloi

December 8, 2012 at 12:22pm

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

I'm going for a walk now. Talk amongst yourselves, noga, with all of your multiple personalities that is.

- roidubouloi

December 8, 2012 at 12:24pm

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

Watch out, roi, that you won't choke on your own bile. I admit freely that it is not at all fun to see it.

- Noga

December 8, 2012 at 12:25pm

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

Just as US bailed us out of a mess or two it has also got us into a mess or two, it goes both ways. roid: "it becomes impossible for me both to be Jewish and to disassociate myself from your disgraceful behavior ... Just leave us here alone, why don't you?" Poor roid, he bears the guilt of all Jewry like a cross on his back, like Jesus he suffers for our sins. What a pompous little rat.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

December 8, 2012 at 12:48pm

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

"The empty heads agree." Empty heads can't agree, except in the case Roido who tells himself how clever he is and agrees with himself.

- arnon1

December 8, 2012 at 12:54pm

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

Reading this thread is like wading in the same river not just twice but hundreds of time turning the waters into urine. Once lonely Roidopisser takes over and starts pissing it's best to stay out of the water.

- arnon1

December 8, 2012 at 12:58pm

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

roi: "Talk amongst yourselves, noga, with all of your multiple personalities that is." Shoosh ... You promised you wouldn't reveal our little secret.

- Noga

December 8, 2012 at 1:09pm

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

I despise Netanyahu he has the same personality that Roidododo has.

- arnon1

December 8, 2012 at 1:13pm

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

Roi said: " In your bizarre world that I think so apparently makes me a "typical Arab" or a crypto-Christian." Didn't you claim the "typical Arab" designation was addressed to nayyerali? How come ali has morphed into you now? Is it possible arnon was right about you and ali being one and the same? Alternatively, if you take that "typically Arab" description to have a more general meaning, that applied to you but not exclusively you, why did you accuse me of the following: "Noga has previously expressed her contempt for nayyer_ali because he uses an Arabic-sounding screen name," ?? Can you straighten the crooked, roi ?

- Noga

December 8, 2012 at 1:20pm

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

Roi said: " In your bizarre world that I think so apparently makes me a "typical Arab" or a crypto-Christian." Don't flatter yourself, you pretend ...... What you really are is a spoiled rich brat who never learned to take criticism with some grace.

- arnon1

December 8, 2012 at 1:43pm

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

"Poor roid, he bears the guilt of all Jewry like a cross on his back, like Jesus he suffers for our sins." Try to track the ball, makover, even with the wind whistling through your empty head. The point is that all of Jewry is compelled to bear responsibility for the misdeeds of Israel, the Jewish state, unless we make a point of speaking out publicly so as not to be complicit. This is the responsibility of citizens of any polity, to object to misdeeds in order not to be complicit in them. Of course, this does not apply to you. You take no responsibility for anything, certainly not for Israel. According to you, whatever Israel does, even electing right-wing wackos to high office, it is the fault of the Arabs. _____________________ moron1, you think that what you say here constitutes "criticism?" That presupposes some sort of intellectual content. In your case, that would be an oxymoron. No one thinks that when children on a playground taunt each other with silly names that that constitutes "criticism." It is just childish behavior, born of the inability of children to engage the world with competence or mastery. That is the perfect description of you, childish and unable to address the world with competence or mastery. Back in the kiddie pool for you, little boy, where you can pee on yourself, as you are wont to do, to your wee heart's delight. ________________________ "Didn't you claim the "typical Arab" designation was addressed to nayyerali?" Why, noga, don't you purport to understand irony, even to be a gifted ironist yourself? You see, this is but another way of pointing out your racism, that the expression of a particular opinion should be addressed, if at all, on its merits, not by dismissing it as merely that of at "typical _______ ." You would of course understand that very well if you were dismissed sneeringly as a "typical Jew" with "typical Jew opinions." But, have no fear. You have not disappointed me in the least with your inability to understand the simple. It is what I expect.

- roidubouloi

December 8, 2012 at 2:10pm

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

nayyer_ali, I received my copy of the Wasserstein book. I have not yet read it, but I did look at the map to which you referred of what Barak offered at Camp David. If it is remotely accurate, it is perfectly understandable that Arafat walked away, particularly from being double-teamed by Clinton and Barak. However, as you acknowledge here, his responsibility was to counter-offer, not to return to violence. It was both a moral and a tactical error that has turned into a great setback for the cause of Palestinian statehood and independence. As I think I said the last time, without regard to his morality, Arafat was a man who had outlived his own understanding of his times. Ironically, I sometimes think the best explanation for the bizarre misconceptions of Israel's leadership is that it too is locked in the past, having outlived the times that it understood. For the Likud, it is always the Yishuv and the nascent Israel is always playing cat and mouse with the Mandatory power, creating "facts on the ground" to control territory. In like manner the government of Israel plays games with the UN and the US. It seems never to have occurred to them that, once Israel became a bona fide state, a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, a member of the United Nations, it had different responsibilities and could not behave in the same manner. Creating "facts on the ground" in the West Bank, rather than being the means to secure statehood, has instead led Israel to a cliff that it seems determined to jump off of, all the while baffled that its incursions in the West Bank have not led to world acceptance of its occupation or settlement there. Rather than understand that it has authored its own dilemma, Israel persuades itself that the world rejection of its settlement is anti-Semtism. From this in turn comes even more defiance (as we just saw with Netanyahu's response to the General Assembly action) and the grandiose belief that, in a confrontation with the whole world, Israel will prevail. As its position in the world erodes, all that produces is still more fury and defiance, rather than recognition of the hole that Israel has dug for itself. Sharon understood, belatedly, and had the courage to admit it to himself. Netanyahu is both too stupid and too venal.

- roidubouloi

December 8, 2012 at 2:28pm

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

Another Roidododo sermon that justifies Jew hatred. Arabs have committed hundred times the crimes committed by Israel including abetting the Holocaust yet people Roidodo and his confreres have nothing to say about that. In one week more Arabs are being killed by other Arabs than died in any of the Arab Israeli wars. Roidodod is more obsessed with Israel than most antisemites.

- arnon1

December 8, 2012 at 2:35pm

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

A special Hanukkah greeting from Gaza: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/08/hamas-gaza-palestine-khaled-meshaal-israel "Hamas leader vows not to yield 'an inch of Palestine' to Israel Thousands cheer claims of victory in last month's war and warnings that more Israeli soldiers could be kidnapped" [written by] Abeer Ayyoub in Gaza City and Harriet Sherwood in Jerusalem, Saturday 8 December 2012 12.49 EST " Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal vowed Gaza's rulers would never give up "an inch of the land" to Israel in an uncompromising speech before tens of thousands of cheering supporters at a triumphalist "victory" rally in Gaza City. "Palestine is ours, from the river to the sea and from the south to the north. There will be no concession on an inch of the land," he told the crowd on his first visit to Gaza. "We will never recognise the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation and therefore there is no legitimacy for Israel, no matter how long it will take." ... Among the crowd, which Hamas officials estimated at half a million, were some Fatah supporters, waving their faction's yellow flag. It was one of increasing signs in recent weeks that reconciliation between the two rival factions could become a more realistic prospect in the coming months. Patriotic songs forecasting the liberation of the whole land of Palestine blared from huge speakers, as children, some dressed in military garb, brandished plastic guns and toy rockets. Accompanied by Ismail Haniyeh, Gaza's de facto prime minister, Meshaal stepped through a giant model of a Hamas missile on to the stage, which took the form of a map of historic Palestine. ... The celebration was brought forward by a few days to hold it on the anniversary of the start of the first Palestinian intifada – uprising – in 1997."

- K2K

December 8, 2012 at 3:06pm

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

"The point is that all of Jewry is compelled to bear responsibility for the misdeeds of Israel, the Jewish state, unless we make a point of speaking out publicly so as not to be complicit." Another ROIDODO piece of bullshit. Show me the legal document that says that "all Jews" are guilty for what a segment or an individual Jew does? If that were the case than rich bocher ROIDODO is as guilty as Madoff is of fraud.

- arnon1

December 8, 2012 at 3:10pm

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

Just for those who always talk about "genocide" perpetrated by Israel on the Palestinians. The total number of casualties on both sides, both military and civilian from 1948 till 2009 is 14,500. This is from the Polynational War Memorial of University of Upsala in Sweden, not necessarily a member of the Likud or even a pro-Israel institution. I think that Israel is a very inept genocider and war criminal. Take a look, an interesting item. http://www.war-memorial.net/Israel-vs-Palestine-3.217

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

December 8, 2012 at 3:24pm

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

I too yearn for a "serious Palestinian diplomacy," but unfortunately it's difficult to imagine a serious Palestinian diplomacy that won't be immediately and vehemently undermined by Palestinians who won't accept what a serious Palestinian diplomacy might win them. I've said my piece on Israeli diplomacy unter Netanyahu before. It's not the same problem but it's anything but optimal.

- ironyroad

December 8, 2012 at 3:27pm

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

roi et al. It's not just demographics that work against the long-term interests of the military hegemony of Israel, but also "the bomb". At present, it is owned only by Israel, but that, too, will pass, and with it absolute military hegemony. And most of the world will regard it's possession by a theocratic state of Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia,Pakistan or?? as no more insane or threatening than by a theocratic Israel.

- drofnats1

December 8, 2012 at 3:47pm

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

arnon, you are such a child, morally as in every other way. There are many people in the world doing far worse things than Israel every day. That does not in any way excuse Israel. None of us can excuse bad behavior by saying that someone, somewhere is doing worse things. As for the duty to criticize, that responsibility arises most acutely with respect to the communities of which we ourselves are members. If one searches the world for moral failures to criticize, one could do nothing else all day than criticize one thing or another. But my principal responsibility, other than for myself and my own conduct, is to participate in policing the behavior of my community, my country, my culture, any co-fraternity of which I am a member, including Judaism. That does not in any way imply that there are not others more worthy of criticism than my community, country, culture, or cofraternity. It implies only that I have certain moral responsibilities with regard to the behavior of groups to which I belong that I do not have with respect to other groups to which I do not belong. As we must police ourselves as individuals, we must participate in policing the groups to which we belong. Otherwise, no one will. While I may deplore the behavior of Arabs toward Arabs, it is not peculiarly my responsibility to criticize them for it. After all, worse things are going on in the Congo than in Syria. Much worse. According to you, I should have to rank all the outrages in the world and exhaust my responsibilities to criticize the worst before getting to the Arabs. Hence, Israel should not be criticized because the Arabs are worse, but the Arabs should not be criticized because groups in the Congo are worse. That is silly. The point of moral criticism is not to achieve a proper ranking of morally outrageous behavior. It is to prevent morally outrageous behavior. I have no influence over what Arabs do to Arabs. I do have influence, small though it may be, over what Jews or Americans do to others. That is where my primary moral responsibility lies. Think it over. Maybe it will come to you.

- roidubouloi

December 8, 2012 at 3:49pm

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

"Ali is not smac. Smac is a real antisemite, possibly from a family of antisemites. There is an Aryan flavour to his antisemitism." Dear me, I'm being talked about.... The funniest thing about this is that I spent a good deal of the late 1990s being accused online of being a 'closet Jew' (whatever that would be...) or a dupe of ZOG by assorted cranks from the National Alliance. Do any of you Deep Thinkers know who the National Alliance are? They're kind of marginal now, but they were assuredly not after Oklahoma City. And the most depressing thing about this is how little daylight there is between the way those idiots from the National Alliance talked then about 'mud people', and the way that Noga, arnon1 and all of Martin Peretz's other disciples talk now about Arabs. So I am, at least, being consistent....

- SMacEachern2

December 8, 2012 at 4:03pm

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

Hello again, dr. Apart from the moral aspects, I have said repeatedly that Netanyahu is a strategic nitwit. While irony's pessimism about achieving a settlement could be just right, it is pure insanity for Israel not to seek at every opportunity to achieve one. The Arab world comprises 400 million people, the Moslem world a billion. Today, due to technology and education, and the support of the United States, Israel has a preponderance of power in its region. It is utter foolishness to suppose that this state of affairs will endure indefinitely. One hundred years ago, China was a backward country divided amongst warlords. Today it is a strategic problem for the United States. It is feckless in the extreme for the government of Israel to fail to try to resolve the conflict at the earliest opportunity, let alone exacerbate it with colonial occupation, and to refuse to do so in the effort to keep territory to which Israel has no claim and which will therefore remain a casus belli even if Israel succeeded today in compelling the Palestinians to cede it. The government of Israel and Israelis seem to have the delusion that time is on their side and that delay works to their advantage. That is a gross misperception. As both a diplomatic and military matter, Israel's strategic position is eroding and will continue to do so, exacerbated by its settlement policy. __________________ Childish arnon, I did not say that every Jew bears responsibility for the misdeeds of Israel. I said that we do so "unless we make a point of speaking out publicly so as not to be complicit." As an individual, I have no power to do more than that. Hence, that is what I am morally bound to do. I do not have a similar responsibility with respect to every malefactor in the world. One should also note in this context the tremendous irony of Jews disparaging the value of law and the importance of observing the law, including international obligations such as the Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter to which Israel is a party. The moral significance of relatively objective law, as distinct from subjective moral feeling and insight, is perhaps the single greatest contribution of Judaism to moral thought.

- roidubouloi

December 8, 2012 at 4:04pm

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

A special Hanukkah greeting from Gaza, repeated for Page 2 of this thread: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/08/hamas-gaza-palestine-khaled-meshaal-israel "Hamas leader vows not to yield 'an inch of Palestine' to Israel Thousands cheer claims of victory in last month's war and warnings that more Israeli soldiers could be kidnapped" [written by] Abeer Ayyoub in Gaza City and Harriet Sherwood in Jerusalem, Saturday 8 December 2012 12.49 EST " Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal vowed Gaza's rulers would never give up "an inch of the land" to Israel in an uncompromising speech before tens of thousands of cheering supporters at a triumphalist "victory" rally in Gaza City. "Palestine is ours, from the river to the sea and from the south to the north. There will be no concession on an inch of the land," he told the crowd on his first visit to Gaza. "We will never recognise the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation and therefore there is no legitimacy for Israel, no matter how long it will take." ... Among the crowd, which Hamas officials estimated at half a million, were some Fatah supporters, waving their faction's yellow flag. It was one of increasing signs in recent weeks that reconciliation between the two rival factions could become a more realistic prospect in the coming months. Patriotic songs forecasting the liberation of the whole land of Palestine blared from huge speakers, as children, some dressed in military garb, brandished plastic guns and toy rockets. Accompanied by Ismail Haniyeh, Gaza's de facto prime minister, Meshaal stepped through a giant model of a Hamas missile on to the stage, which took the form of a map of historic Palestine. ... The celebration was brought forward by a few days to hold it on the anniversary of the start of the first Palestinian intifada – uprising – in 1997."

- K2K

December 8, 2012 at 4:07pm

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

Serious Palestinian diplomacy is like a Unicorn it is...etc, etc. I know arnon thinks that I am an underground supporter of Netanyahu. I am not. I do think though that he is a shrewd politician and a survivor. I also neither hate him or despise him to a degree that I would consider everything he does diametrically opposed simply because he did it. If Netanyahu likes ice cream that does not necessarily means ice cream is bad. As I mentioned before, much ado is made about the decision to build in Area-E as if this area is any different than any other area the Palestinians object to. So, first of all, nothing has been constructed yet, no surveying, no plans, no permits, no architectural or engineering drawings, zilch. So relax everybody, we are not going to see Moshe Abramowitz from Brooklyn dancing hora in Area-E tomorrow. Second, the Palestinians pocked a finger in Obama's eye and for some reason everybody is angry at the Israelis. Why is it that Israeli apartment becomes a weapon of mass destruction and Palestinian intransigence, terror and threats, rockets, artillery and high explosives are simply "their culture". Why their threats and bellicose speeches by Abu Mazen in the UN carry no stigma and no risk of European retaliation? The Palestinians always think that there is the rais or effendi somewhere that is going to win Palestine for them. There will be the Soviets, or the Russians, or the Arab League or the Americans or their Arab brethren. It will be Morsi or Nasrallah. They don't understand that nobody gives a fig about them and that if their enemies were not the Jews they would not exist today. They would would end up like the Syrians, blown to pieces, tortured, shot and very soon gassed. So they should thank Allah everyday that he gave them the Jews as the enemies.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

December 8, 2012 at 4:22pm

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

fwiw, I think Leon Wieseltier's despondency in this post might be due to finding out his childhood home, flooded by StormSandy, is in a Brooklyn neighborhood that voted for Romney. Cheer up, Leon: the Irish neighborhood of Woodlawn, The Bronx, also voted for Romney. Hand-wringing American Jews who blame Likud and it's coalition for the absence of "peace" should stop embarrassing those of us who only see an imperialist intolerant ideology called Islam as the barrier to any peace for anyone in the world not enslaved by an ideology that pretends to be a religion.

- K2K

December 8, 2012 at 4:23pm

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

"arnon, you are such a child, morally as in every other way. There are many people in the world doing far worse things than Israel every day. That does not in any way excuse Israel. None of us can excuse bad behavior by saying that someone, somewhere is doing worse things." Well, looks like I graduated from a "moron" to a "child." But then these judgement come from a DODO which ought to have gone extinct centuries ago. Yes, there are peoples doing worse things every day than the Jewish State and I don't see them obsessing over it as much as some self righteous bigoted self hating Jews. "As for the duty to criticize, that responsibility arises most acutely with respect to the communities of which we ourselves are members." Now he says duty, before he used legal language. Show any one here the legal system that holds all Jews responsible for what supposedly the Jewish State is doing (assuming it is doing anything that is criminal)?

- arnon1

December 8, 2012 at 4:25pm

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

Minus the vituperation some good comments. I'm afraid the basic thrust of the post is correct--there's no Mideast peace deal in sight, maybe ever. In my view there can't be until the Pals, who observed the Jews' success with playing the victim card and seem determined to play it over and over until it works again reality be damned, wake up to the fact that they don't have recourse to some special code of justice whipped up in talking shops like the UNGA. Central Europe is full with millions of people who were dispossessed in the wake of WWII. If you start an unprovoked war of aggression and lose, there are consequences, which applies to the Germans among them, and to the Arabs of Palestine. As far the Poles, Ukrainians, Balts, etc., simply tough shit. At the end of the day the Kurds, Pashtuns, Chechens, Baluchs, and probably a dozen more nations have a better claim to statehood than the made-up Palestinian "nation", which has never existed in thousands of years of recorded history. The "Palestinians" have been screwed by their own "leaders" far more than by Israel. There is no, zero, upside to a peaceful settlement for Arab leaders who have built a giant entitlement out of continuous conflict and victimhood. There is no deal they would accept, including that every Jew in Israel drown themselves and their families in the sea. Anyway, happy Hanuka to all without regard to creed or denomination. Always good to light a candle and be grateful.

- Robert Powell

December 8, 2012 at 4:27pm

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

Happy Hanukka to everyone, Jew and Gentile. Sweet and Oily as always. Let it be Peace on Earth.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

December 8, 2012 at 4:40pm

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

Childish arnon, there is a difference between legal responsibility and moral responsible. One may have moral duties. One may have legal duties. Sometimes they are the same. Sometimes they are not. But we all have a moral duty to obey the law, even when it does not immediately embody a moral precept. ____________________ Ah yes, all those benign Israeli apartments and nursery schools and swing sets and flower gardens in the West Bank. Trivial. But let us imagine that some power decreed that Palestinian Arabs might go wherever they chose in Israel and build benign Palestinian apartments and nursery schools and swing sets and flower gardens. Would we not expect outrage from Israelis, threats of violent resistance (as already exist on the right in Israel), accusations of anti-Semitism? Would it satisfy Israelis that these lovely apartments, etc. were not bombs? Would they not feel a threat to their national existence because, after all, they are just apartments? As I said earlier, there are no adequate words in English for Israeli hypocrisy and cynicism. Perhaps such words exist in Hebrew. ______________________ All the nations mentioned by Robert Powell are out of luck because they do not belong to a tribe with the will and ability to exercise power on their behalf. The Palestinians do. As much as Israelis would like to consider them a small group without power (even while hypocritically denying the existence of any Arab Palestinian nation), they are part of a large nation that will grow more powerful with time as, bit by bit, at accedes to the modern world. If Mr. Powell's pessimism were justified, all Israel need do is offer complete withdrawal from the West Bank and wait for the Palestinians to refuse. Israel will not do so out of fear that the Palestinians will say yes. It is common to insist on behalf of Israeli intransigence that the Palestinians will not agree to peace on the basis of two states, one west of the Green Line called Israel and one east of the Green Line called Palestine. But Israel will not put the proposition. Better to talk about unicorns than to the strategically smart thing.

- roidubouloi

December 8, 2012 at 4:42pm

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

The Galicianer dishonest self hatred Jew keeps demonizing Israel keeps demonizing the Jews. Even the Arabs don't trust him. It is hemor..roid delirating over and over again. What a piece of crap he is.

- JAIMECHUCH

December 8, 2012 at 4:46pm

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

"As far the Poles, Ukrainians, Balts, etc., simply tough shit. At the end of the day the Kurds, Pashtuns, Chechens, Baluchs, and probably a dozen more nations have a better claim to statehood than the made-up Palestinian "nation", which has never existed in thousands of years of recorded history." Perhaps so, were it not for the minor detail that the United Nations partitioned Palestine for a Jewish-majority state and an Arab-majority state. No such action by the world was taken on behalf of Kurds, Pashtuns, Chechens, or Baluchis. But for the action of the UN, there would be no Israel and the Arabs, in making war to prevent a separatist state, would not have been in violation of international law. The Jews of Palestine would today be a minority in some Arab state, perhaps one comprising all of Mandatory Palestine.

- roidubouloi

December 8, 2012 at 4:47pm

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

Don't give up hope, eventually there will be a miracle. The Arabs will become civilized and stop being savages. But the Galicianer dishonest self hatred Jew will be eternally a scum, he has been a lost cause from day one, and he remains a lost cause. Doubt the Arabs will become civilized. It includes the Iranians. The islamo fascists forever. And hemor..roid remains an hemor..roid. An Judea and Samaria keeps progressing, and hemor..roid keeps foaming at his mouth.

- JAIMECHUCH

December 8, 2012 at 4:55pm

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

Robert, I have to remind you that it is Israel, not the Palestinians, who will not countenance a unitary state between the Jordan and the sea. Since there cannot be one state, there must be two. The Baluchis are not part of a larger entity that insists that they be excluded. The Palestinian Arabs are. Of course, what Israel would prefer is a permanently subordinated non-state in the West Bank in which Israelis can use the land, its water, its resources of all kinds as they wish without according the inhabitants full political rights. This is called apartheid. It is anathema in the modern world. The problem today is that while the Palestinians will accept either a one-state or a two-state solution (just put the proposition), the Israelis will accept neither. The Netanyahu government does its best to cultivate just enough war so that it can justify refusing to settle.

- roidubouloi

December 8, 2012 at 5:01pm

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

...I too yearn for a "serious Palestinian diplomacy," but unfortunately it's difficult to imagine a serious Palestinian diplomacy that won't be immediately and vehemently undermined by Palestinians who won't accept what a serious Palestinian diplomacy might win them... Not surprisingly, incisive comment of the day.

- basman

December 8, 2012 at 5:10pm

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

I would advise Roid to find himself a more virtuous people.

- amidut

December 8, 2012 at 5:17pm

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

I would advise Roid to find himself a more virtuous people.

- amidut

December 8, 2012 at 5:17pm

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

http://jcpa.org/article/the-future-of-kurdistan-between-turkey-the-iraq-war-and-the-syrian-revolt/ "Kurdistan: The Next Flashpoint Between Turkey, Iraq, and the Syrian Revolt" [by] Col. (ret.) Dr. Jacques Neriah, August 5, 2012 [quite a lenghty analysis, including relevant history] "...The Treaty of Sèvres, concluded on 10 August 1920 between the Allies – France, Great Britain, and the United States – and the Ottoman Empire, actually recommended, in section 111 (art. 64), the creation of a Kurdish state in part of Kurdistan: If within one year from the coming into force of the present Treaty the Kurdish peoples within the areas defined in Article 2 [i.e., Turkey] shall address themselves to the Council of the League of Nations in such a manner as to show that a majority of the population of these areas desires independence from Turkey, and if the Council then considers that these peoples are capable of such independence and recommends that it shall be granted to them, Turkey hereby agrees to execute such a recommendation, and to renounce all rights and title over these areas. This treaty, however, was superseded by the Treaty of Lausanne signed on 24 July 1923, which was concluded with modern Turkey after the Ottoman Empire’s dissolution. The Treaty of Lausanne did not provide any guarantee of the Kurds’ rights and handed the major part of Kurdistan over to the new Turkish state. ... After the Treaty of Sèvres unraveled, Britain’s imperial planners in the Colonial Office insisted on including Kurdistan in their mandate for Iraq so as to add to its Sunni population and offset the plurality of the Iraqi Shia. The League of Nations recognized the annexation of Kurdistan to Iraq in 1925. The British promised to make Iraqi Kurdistan autonomous once Iraq gained its independence. That commitment was not fulfilled ..." [as for the Baluchis? Check a world map from 1848. Baloochistan is on the map as distinct a nation as Persia or Afghanistan. The British mapmakers divided Baloochistan in order to cut off that invasion route to British India. Both Kurds and Baluchis are members of UNPO.org, where peoples without a nation-state attempt to get recognition. Their dilemma appears to be that they have no Jews as their 'enemy'.]

- K2K

December 8, 2012 at 5:19pm

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

too polite amidut :)

- K2K

December 8, 2012 at 5:21pm

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

arnon: "Show any one here the legal system that holds all Jews responsible for what supposedly the Jewish State is doing (assuming it is doing anything that is criminal)?" roi initially said: "I think that what I most object to about Israel re-declaring itself the Jewish state is that it becomes impossible for me both to be Jewish and to disassociate myself from your disgraceful behavior ... Just leave us here alone, why don't you?" It's antisemitism par excellence: http://www.european-forum-on-antisemitism.org/working-definition-of-antisemitism/english/ “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” [one of the examples being:] "Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel." It doesn't matter that roi is a Jew who does that. It is still antisemitism and there is a concealed threat to all Jews in this very sentiment, to say nothing of its expression. Like I mentioned before, roi is a modern-day incarnation of Pablo Christiani.

- Noga

December 8, 2012 at 5:25pm

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

A unitary state between the Jordan and the sea is fine as far as it goes. It may end up the Final Solution. But it's not going to work if it's not a state that can guarantee the full rights and prerogatives of minorities, even Jewish ones. So far the track record of Muslim/Arab states in this regard is not confidence inspiring to say the least. Israel could turn over the West Bank tomorrow if such a guarantee was plausible.

- Robert Powell

December 8, 2012 at 5:25pm

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

As if Israelis would accept what a serious diplomacy would win them. Would they accept peace and security, a condominium in Jerusalem, a resolution of Palestinian refugee claims, and either no settlements or no sovereignty over settlements that remain in Palestine? Not so long as the right-wing is in charge. Could a serious diplomacy achieve just that? Quite likely. When Abbas declared that he accepts that Israel is the land west of the Green Line and that he himself will not be able to live there, there was widespread Arab pushback on what appeared to be his concession of refugee claims in advance of a final agreement (which is what Oslo contemplates). There was not such pushback, except from Hamas of course, on his acceptance of Israel west of the Green Line. ___________________ Seems to me, amidut, that when I was a teenager that was framed by the chauvinist right as, "America, love it or leave it." Plus ça change, la plus c'est la même chose.

- roidubouloi

December 8, 2012 at 5:29pm

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

Robert, You don't want to use the term Final Solution. That has a peculiar historical meaning from the Holocaust that you do not intend. I am not suggesting that Israel ought to be willing to accept a unitary state. That is not the Zionist aspiration. It was the Jews who demanded the partition in 1947 as the realization of Jewish national aspirations, not particularly as a means to protect minority rights. The whole point was not to be a minority in Israel. It was not at all contemplated that Jews in the Arab partition would move to Israel or vice versa. The partition plan contemplated minorities on both sides and that minority rights would be protected. The Arabs opposed the partition and went to war to prevent it. Israel will no more agree to a one-state solution today than it would have in 1947. But then it has to agree to a two-state solution. And that will not include land given to the Arabs that the UNSC has repeatedly told Israel is not theirs to settle. If Israel wants a two-state solution, because it will not even consider a one-state solution, it cannot have sovereignty or partial sovereignty over that which comprises the Arab state. Shorn of the fog of rhetoric about who refuses to make peace, this is not complicated. But, even without peace, Israel may not settle the West Bank. It can occupy and govern it until there is peace, but it cannot settle it.

- roidubouloi

December 8, 2012 at 5:38pm

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

Roid, I applaud your willingness to not check your sense of ethics at the door when it comes to Israel, something not all Jews do. I find these stupid fights about who people "really" are that post on internet boards amusing in their inanity. Never mud wrestle a pig, you get dirty and the pig enjoys it, is a good philosophy to take. I post under my real name, google me if you want. I am of Pakistani origin, not Arab, and I once shared a stage with Leon at a Hillel function on Israel at UCLA about 6 years ago. I was supposed to talk about the Muslim reactions to Zionism (which are various). I am a liberal, and I am good friends with Exec Director of the New Israel Fund, we used to lunch together often when he headed the PJA in LA. The Likudniks are in as deep denial as the Tea Party crowd, the arc of history is bending in the other direction. If I was a liberal Jewish Zionist my fear would be the criminal stupidity of the right wing is going to be Israel's ruin. The right resorts to prejudice and stereotypes about its enemies, and the same mindset operates in the Tea Party as in Lieberman and his crowd.

- nayyer_ali

December 8, 2012 at 5:39pm

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

"If I was a liberal Jewish Zionist my fear would be the criminal stupidity of the right wing is going to be Israel's ruin." This is precisely how I feel nayyer_ali. I also see no distinction between the Likud and its partners and the crazy right in the United States, including the Tea Party. One chauvinist nut is pretty much like another chauvinist nut, no matter the nationality, all equally oblivious to reality and indifferent to anything other than what they think they can achieve with power. In point of fact, our chauvinist nuts, particularly the neo-cons, are good buddies with the Likudniks. For them, it is all about power, never about ethics. And they have no sense that power waxes and wanes. What, if you could summarize, did you say to the question of Muslim reactions to Zionism? What did Leon say? And here I figured you for a Viking.

- roidubouloi

December 8, 2012 at 5:48pm

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

Let's put it this way: Jewish residents of Arab countries in the region (Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, and particularly "Palestine") have exactly the same rights and protections as Arab Israelis. Now we have the basis for a deal. Without that this is only a never-ending nightmare perpetuated by the illusion of a World Government in the form of a UNGA dominated by dictatorships.

- Robert Powell

December 8, 2012 at 5:50pm

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

Is Palestine being occupied and colonized to secure Jewish rights in Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and Jordan?

- roidubouloi

December 8, 2012 at 5:59pm

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

Roid, I think I can find the word file of my remarks, if you are interested email me at nali@socal.rr.com and I'll send. I cannot recall exactly what Leon said, they were sentiments that I mostly agreed with in general terms.

- nayyer_ali

December 8, 2012 at 6:03pm

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

"One hundred years ago, China was a backward country divided amongst warlords. Today it is a strategic problem for the United States." Another brilliant comparison by ROIDODO bird. China is not an Islamic country. Muslims societies (just as Orthodox Jewish societies) would have to shed their religious straight Jackets before they can become a strategic threat like China.

- arnon1

December 8, 2012 at 6:03pm

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

"Palestine" is being occupied because Israel can't allow what happened to Jews in Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, and etc. to happen to Jews living in the West Bank. And presumably eventually in all of Israel. It's midnight in Poland. Good night and best holiday wishes to all. I'll check in tomorrow....Bob

- Robert Powell

December 8, 2012 at 6:10pm

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

Save your racist sewage for someone else, arnon. Pakistan managed to build nuclear weapons. Israel fears that Iran will too. Somehow the argument that Muslim societies are incapable of mastering technology is not impressing the government of Israel. You really could not be any stupider. Stupid and racist. Classic combination.

- roidubouloi

December 8, 2012 at 6:10pm

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

roidodo "Save your racist sewage for someone else, arnon." You are the racist claiming that all Jews are guilty of some imaginary crime. The only racist on this thread is ROIDO. He is also a dumb ass who thinks he is clever because he made some money on the stock market (more than likely he cheated someone to get her money).

- arnon1

December 8, 2012 at 6:16pm

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

"Pakistan managed to build nuclear weapons. Israel fears that Iran will too. Somehow the argument that Muslim societies are incapable of mastering technology is not impressing the government of Israel." What a dumb ass. He doesn't even know recent history. Pakistan is a backward country even if they managed to build an a bomb. Turkey is a more advanced country and it doesn't have a bomb. Of course Turkey developed after it shed its Islamic garb. Now that it's going back to the good old Ottoman days, it's not going to be developing very much. Getting a bomb and being an advanced technological society are two different things.

- arnon1

December 8, 2012 at 6:21pm

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

Roidododo has to import a fake double in baba-ali to show that someone agrees with him. Roidodo is no more a "liberal Zionist" than a member of Maki is a liberal Zionist.

- arnon1

December 8, 2012 at 6:48pm

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

Nayyer ali: "I am a liberal, and I am good friends with Exec Director of the New Israel Fund, we used to lunch together often when he headed the PJA in LA." http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archive/2010/02/ben-dror-yemini-the-new-israel-fund-is-p/ "The New Israel Fund is part of the global deception campaign. It does not deal with human rights but with denying one people's right to self-determination."

- Noga

December 8, 2012 at 6:52pm

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

HAVE A HAPPY HEALTY HANUKKAH. http://www.tabletmag.com/cards/hanukkah_7.jpg

- JAIMECHUCH

December 8, 2012 at 7:19pm

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

Good comment Malahat, a point very much needed to be made.

- basman

December 8, 2012 at 7:46pm

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

malahat, I remember a time when almost everyone in Israel was optimistic about peace with the Arab countries. now the reverse seems to be the case. Right now there is an Islamic movement that has taken hold of the political world in most Arab countries just as a couple of dozen years back the trends was towards "progressivism." The political world will turn around again towards a new form of progressivm, one less ploitical more technological. All Israel has to do is stay strong till the political wheel makes another turn. Friedman is the last person we should listen to. Remember his refrain about the world being flat? What makes you think that he us more right this time than he was last time? Yes, political forces are "playing out “around Israel, but it's unclear how deep they are. Few people expected the Muslim Brotherhood to be challenged by so many people in Egypt. That poor people would gravitate towards Islamists who promise them bread in this life and virgins in the afterlife is no surprise any more than poor people in other parts of the world gravitate towards despots who promise them a better economic future. But what will happen a few years from now when it becomes clear that they cannot and will not deliver? The world wasn’t flat in the 90’s and it’s not flat today. As far as I know the world is almost round and it is still turning.

- arnon1

December 8, 2012 at 7:47pm

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

malahat: I thought the first comment bellow the article very apropo. Anyway, Barak's experience as prime minister, is something we need to look at if we are to listen to his advice: he was in lockstep with the US president and both produced a very fine settlement agreement to the Palestinians, and that ended in the outbreak of the second Intifada, with over 1200 Israelis dead. So he was willing to look with open eyes, taught himself not to become enslaved by pessimism, took a risk and the followup of this experiment was a killing orgy for the Palestinians. Since then he has not achieved anything except manage the situation, which he has done quite competently. Maybe the lesson is to be found in his modest achievements, and not in his grandiose sermon about hope and trust amid the raging darkness. I myself tend to regard any urging to "hope" as a dangerous sentimental narcotic. To understand my view, you will have to read A DESCENT INTO THE MAELSTROM by Edgar Allan Poe.

- Noga

December 8, 2012 at 7:57pm

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

Is Friedman trying to get in touch with his former and better self? How long will it be before he blames American aid to Israel for his wife's teaching position being reduced to part time, for lack of funds? Or refer to Israel's leadership as a bunch of drunk drivers and "lunatics", urge that America stop being Israel's "crack dealer" and calling Netanyahu "[the] Mubarak of Israel.” ?? Interesting that of course Ehud Barak was always there, at Netanyahu's side, when Friedman was indulging in these analogies, so, what gives, now?

- Noga

December 8, 2012 at 8:06pm

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

"I myself tend to regard any urging to "hope" as a dangerous sentimental narcotic. To understand my view, you will have to read A DESCENT INTO THE MAELSTROM by Edgar Allan Poe." Yes, Edgar Poe knew a lot about the Middle East.

- arnon1

December 8, 2012 at 8:08pm

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

Why is hope more of a narcotic than hopelessness?

- arnon1

December 8, 2012 at 8:27pm

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

" Netanyahu "[the] Mubarak of Israel.” " He wishes.

- arnon1

December 8, 2012 at 8:29pm

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

"America, love it or leave it." Roid, I concur with that sentiment.

- amidut

December 8, 2012 at 8:33pm

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

The Mountains of Israel [Paperback] Norma Parrish Archbold (Author) Editorial Reviews About the Author Norma Archbold, MA, former Director of Religious Education, served the Lord in Jerusalem and the West Bank where she researched and wrote The Mountains of Israel, provided free Bibles for Arabs, arranged for emergency aid to Christians, and fought for a high standard of truth in the media and for the release of new believers jailed and tortured by the PA. Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved. PREFACE For everyone who loves the Lord, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the events unfolding in the Middle East are important. It is difficult, however, to form a clear picture of what is happening. The news in the West about the Arab-Israeli conflict is incomplete and often inaccurate and is interpreted by people, who do not necessarily believe in the Bible, or have a clear overall picture of the 4,000-year-old conflict. Without an overall picture of the conflict the events mentioned in the news are meaningless. Years of historical research is necessary to find the missing pieces. To match history with the Word of God one must also be a serious student of the Bible. For many people understanding the Arab-Israeli conflict is so difficult that they have given up. In studying the Middle East conflict I was struck by the similarity of Middle East events and chapters 35 and 36 of Ezekiel. These chapters are two halves of a whole. Chapter 35 is a prophecy "against" a mountain (Mount Seir) and chapter 36 is a prophecy "to" mountains (the mountains of Israel). Mount Seir and the mountains of Israel are the homelands of twin brothers Esau and Jacob, ancestors of today's Arabs and Jews. Although chapter 35 contains warnings and chapter 36 contains promises, the purpose is the same. Both chapters end with the same words, "Then they shall know that I am the Lord." By revealing the similarity between these chapters and historical and current events The Mountains of Israel provides a context for the bits and pieces we pick up in the news. The Bible has much to say about the Arab-Israeli conflict. But without knowing the identity of Edom and the location of Mount Seir and of the mountains of Israel, one can read right past some startling information without understanding that it affects the Middle East, the world and important decisions being made today. The Mountains of Israel provides important missing pieces which point out the truth of the Bible, revealing God's great power, wisdom, and faithfulness. This is not a chatty book. I use just enough words to help you to see the picture without getting lost in complicated side issues. Simple maps and other illustrations make a point with few words. To help you to feel the desolation of Israel before the return of the Jewish people, I have included quotes from eyewitnesses—Gentiles who traveled here in the 18th and 19th centuries. You will see that Israel was a treeless, barren wasteland. The population a century and a half ago was less than 4% of today's population. As you read the eyewitness reports, imagine what Israel must have been like without 96% of its population. In the19th century those who visited the Holy Land testified of its condition. "A desolate country," "wretched desolation and neglect," "almost abandoned now," "unoccupied," "uninhabited," "Thinly populated" is how they described the land. The Reverend Samuel Manning said about the coastal plain, "This fertile plain, which might support an immense population, is almost a solitude...Day by day we were to learn afresh the lesson now forced upon us, that the denunciations of ancient prophecy have been fulfilled to the very letter—'the land is left void and desolate and without inhabitants.'" Jews were among the sparse population—as prophesied more than 2,500 years ago. "...the forsaken places are many in the ...Land...but yet a tenth will be in it...as an oak whose stump remains when it is cut down so the holy seed shall be its stump." (Isaiah 6:12-13) An official report in 1864 reveals that the largest group living in Jerusalem was Jewish. God is keeping his promise to bring the children of Israel back to their land. Jewish people have been returning to Israel for more than 120 years. For a glimpse inside their hearts I have included the story of an Ethiopian girl, who walked through a desert, to fulfill her desire to be in Jerusalem. What is happening today was foreseen and is working out according to the promises of God. When the Bible and the events in the Middle East are understood one cannot reasonably deny the existence of God. Properly understood, the events of today are earth shaking. I took information from many sources and named them so you can study the subject as thoroughly as you wish. Bible references are given. The authority for this work rests firmly on the Bible—the Word of the Lord. Those who do not accept God's Word will not accept the conclusions in The Mountains of Israel. But those who do accept the Bible as God's Word and who love Him, will find reason to rejoice. The Lord is keeping His promises in our day, proving that the Bible is true. If you are one of the small group who have a good basic understanding of the Middle East situation, you already know how difficult it is to explain to others. The Mountains of Israel can give your family and friends the overview they need to understand the issues. Teachers and others who speak about the Arab-Israeli situation will find this book helpful. You may want to use it as a text.

- JAIMECHUCH

December 8, 2012 at 8:49pm

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

"...Having made up my mind to hope no more, I got rid of a great deal of that terror which unmanned me at first. I suppose it was despair that strung my nerves ..." maelstorms.

- K2K

December 8, 2012 at 10:47pm

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

Arnon: You really need to let go of the conspiracy theories. Roid and I are two different individuals. Also, Barak's offer at Camp David was a Bantustan solution, produce a map that contradicts that if you can, otherwise stop making such nonsense claims. As to the future, the Muslim world is developing extremely rapidly. Population has risen from 180 million in 1900 to 1.6 billion today, reaching 2.7 billion in 2050. US Muslim population rising from 2.7 million today to 6 million in 2030 according to the Pew Research Project. Literacy rates, GDP per capita, life expectancy etc are all moving upward. Even in Saudi and Iran the majority of university students are female (and the Saudis now send 10% of their college age population to US and European universities, a policy they quietly adopted about 5 years ago), and the four largest Muslim nations (Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Turkey) have elected women as Prime Ministers in the last 20 years. Pakistan's economy has grown 5% per year since independence despite a host of problems, the country is vastly more developed. Another 60 years of 5% growth will raise the GDP to 10 trillion dollars. Indonesia, Malaysia and Turkey are all doing well. Egypt will start rise in a few years after they sort out the politics. BTW, Turkey has flourished under the Islamist AKP, who attained power because of the economic incompetence of the traditional parties.

- nayyer_ali

December 8, 2012 at 11:13pm

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

Here is Roidoddo's double the mayor of Malmo, Sweden: "Sweden’s ‘Damn Jew’ Problem" "Wearing a yarmulke is no longer safe in the city of Malmö. The mayor blames the Jews, while other Swedish politicians point to ‘social inequality.’" http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/96146/swedens-damn-jew-problem?all=1 "Fredrik Sieradzski, 47, is a Jew from Malmö who got tired of waiting for the city’s politicians to take action against anti-Semitic threats and harassment. He recently initiated what he calls “kippah walks” through the streets of the city. Members of the community meet up after services on Saturdays and walk through town wearing visible Jewish symbols. He is critical of how the Swedish media portrays the situation for Malmö’s Jews. “They don’t write that the perpetrators are Muslims. I simply believe that it’s because the Jewish group is so much smaller than the Muslim,” he said. “Obviously, it’s just a minority of the Muslims in Malmö who threaten us, but we must be able to address the problem.” Last time around, his kippa walk gathered 20 people. Among them was one non-Jew who wanted to show his solidarity." A small example of bigoted Muslims making life hell for Jews in Europe with the approval of left wing politicians.

- arnon1

December 8, 2012 at 11:49pm

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

nayyer, the negative move at Camp David wasn't the vices or virtues of the Israeli proposal, it was the failure of the Palestinians (Arafat's personal failure, perhaps) to come back with a counter-proposal. It's called negotiation, and it needs both parties to want to be there and to get to a resolution. One party blaming the other party for doing what is part of the whole deal -- negotiating -- doesn't heighten the former's credibility. Arafat walked away from the table because he was the major perpetrator in a generation-long scam: telling the Palestinian people that they can safely refuse every solution that allows them to finally emerge as a nation-state because one day the Israelis will give up and leave and then they can have the whole enchilada. And he couldn't bring himself to be the one to tell them the truth.

- ironyroad

December 8, 2012 at 11:51pm

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

ali if you want me to respond to you (who ever "you" is) don't start by accusing me of being paranoid. You can start by telling me the prevalence of anti-Jewish attitudes in the Muslim communities around the world. Malmo, Sweden is but a small example of what I am talking about.

- arnon1

December 8, 2012 at 11:51pm

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

Arnon, I don't speak for all Muslims, I only speak for myself. As to who I am, just google my name. I don't hide my identity because I am not trying to pretend I'm someone else or pop off racist nonsense on an internet board where I can't be held accountable. Your anti-Muslim bigotry, ignorance, and bias are worn like a badge of honor by you. Next you'll be asking me when I'm going to stop beating my wife. Not once have you ever addressed the substance of my points or data. Until you do, you are a just another blowhard right winger. Under your logic, White South Africa should never have yielded an inch until every single Black South African had provided incontestable proof that they had no anti-White prejudices or stereotyped notions about White people. The Palestinians deserve freedom, whether some idiot engages in anti-Semitism in Malmo doesn't change that.

- nayyer_ali

December 9, 2012 at 12:03am

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

I don't divide the world into Muslims and Jews and Christians etc. I divide the world into intelligent thoughtful people, and morons. Roid is clearly in the former category, as to Gingrich, or Netanyahu, or Arnon...

- nayyer_ali

December 9, 2012 at 12:07am

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

"America, love it or leave it." Roid, I concur with that sentiment. Of course you do, amidut. One would expect that the murmurings of fascist wannabes would appeal to you. However, you don't appreciate the irony that those who believed that their love for America was greater than those of its critics are the same people who led the US into the swamp of Vietnam and then into the swamp of the Second Iraq War. Such love. Uncritical "love of country" is a staple of right-wing insanity. And in Israel too it is leading to disaster.

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2012 at 12:07am

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

"he was in lockstep with the US president and both produced a very fine settlement agreement to the Palestinians," If the map on page 142 of Wasserstein's book, showing what Barak offered Arafat, is even close to accurate, this is hardly the case. Only in the minds of Israelis who have managed to convince themselves that they are entitled to the parts of the West Bank that they want. But more evidence that Israel wants the Palestinians' land, not peace. The claim to want peace is pure propaganda, solemnly intoned as part of Israel's claim to victimhood. And if pigs had wings they would be kosher. Anyone who really believes the Israeli fairy tale should be happy to allow Palestinians to build apartments all over Israel as the Palestinians' contribution to peace. Oddly, no one in Israel seems to want that.

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2012 at 12:15am

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

"Bantustans" would be precisely the right description for the Barak/Clinton map. The Palestinians have consistently rejected so-called "land swaps." Yet Israelis have convinced themselves that they are entitled to them.

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2012 at 12:17am

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

Irony: Read a good detailed history of Camp David. The whole thing was a railroad job by Clinton who was running out of time and Barak who thought he could cram a terrible deal on the Palestinians. Would a counteroffer by Arafat really have led somewhere? We don't truly know but my view is it would have been pointless. The Palestinians very reluctantly agreed to the summit because they knew there was no groundwork laid for a final status agreement. What's lost in all this is that there was another round of negotiations at Taba in January 2001, those negotiations made real progress and the negotiators on both sides felt they were getting close to a deal (Ariel and Maale Adumim were major issues still), but then Sharon took power and stopped it all. The Taba negotiators continued their work on their own and came up with the Geneva Accords. A final deal will ultimately look like that, but given the facts on the ground and the strength of the Israeli right, the two state option is closing.

- nayyer_ali

December 9, 2012 at 12:19am

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

well stated ironyroad at, 11:51 p.m. today's counter-proposal from Meshaal is too blunt to be anything but one more Qatari bread crumb... next move to Abbas, yet the world is transfixed by Egypt, Syria, and the Kurds. It would be a shame if the Mayan prophecy for Dec. 21 comes true because I just read a terrific review of "Les Mis", to open on Dec. 25 in the USA.

- K2K

December 9, 2012 at 12:23am

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

"The Palestinians deserve freedom, whether some idiot engages in anti-Semitism in Malmo doesn't change that." Israeli civilians deserve not to be shelled by Palestinians or blown up by suicide bombers and whether or not Netanyahu builds some apartments on land claimed by both sides doesn't change that.

- arnon1

December 9, 2012 at 12:29am

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

""Bantustans" would be precisely the right description for the Barak/Clinton map." The Mayor of Malmo would agree. Most honest observers would not.

- arnon1

December 9, 2012 at 12:30am

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

The rockets should stop, but the 1.5 million people in Gaza should not be subject to occupation, to a siege and blockade that counts calories allowed in just enough to create mass hardship and hunger but not so little as to result in famine and death. Collective punishment of civilians is a war crime, except when Israel does it to the Palestinians I guess. The conflict ends when Israel no longer wishes to subjugate the Palestinians and accepts them as equals. In your heart you do not. Your fondest wish is that they somehow just disappear. BTW, produce your Camp David map or stop whining about it. You are full of hatred for Muslims and Arabs and Palestinians. It seeps out of every sentence you post.

- nayyer_ali

December 9, 2012 at 12:39am

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

Netanyahu has no claim to land east of the Green Line and settling there is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. See the opinion of Judge Buergenthal, former Justice of the ICJ. "Born to German-Jewish/Polish-Jewish parents who had moved from Germany to Czechoslovakia in 1933, [he] grew up in the Jewish ghetto of Kielce (Poland) and later in the concentration camps at Auschwitz and Sachsenhausen." Of course, noga would consider him an anti-Semite for his opinion that Israel is in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The protocols to the Conventions make illegal settlement in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention a war crime. Hence Netanyahu's effort to get the United States to get the Palestinians to agree that, if their state is recognized, as it was by the General Assembly, they would agree not to pursue charges against Israel in the International Criminal Court. The Palestinians would not agree to refrain from invoking the jurisdiction and aid of the court. The Palestinians have the human right not to be illegally colonized by Israel. That there are suicide bombers doesn't change that whatsoever unless it could be plausibly argued (it cannot) that colonizing the Palestinians is in aid of Israel's defense. The fact of war does not permit violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. By its terms, it applies to war, and Israel is a state party. Israel, as a member of the UN, is also obligated to observe the resolutions of the UNSC. Israel flagrantly violates both the convention and a multitude of UNSC resolutions. So much for Netanyahu's so-called claims.

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2012 at 12:48am

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

Arnon has not the slightest idea what the Camp David map looks like. Of course, he does not need to know anything to form his opinions. If he did, he would have no opinions. There is no more ignorant and bigoted poster here (although the prize for psycho-pathology goes to someone else).

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2012 at 12:51am

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

nayyer_ali "The rockets should stop, but the 1.5 million people in Gaza should not be subject to occupation..." What occupation? Israel withdrew from Gaza years ago. A trade embargo is not the same as a siege and Egypt to had a trade embargo. The embargo was put in place to prevent Hamas from smuggling in weapons. Israel does have a right to protect itself from a regime that promises to "kill all Jews." Here is the link with Malmo which you dismissed so easily. There is also a link to Muslims in France who murder Jews. When you can be honest about what is going on than I'll take you seriously. Otherwise talk to your other self, the self who sing himself Roidododo.

- arnon1

December 9, 2012 at 1:10am

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

"The Palestinians have the human right not to be illegally colonized by Israel." Roidododo is just repeating what his alter ego Ali said above. It was bullshit then and it's bullshit now.

- arnon1

December 9, 2012 at 1:12am

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

"Arnon has not the slightest idea what the Camp David map looks like." So says the racist antisemite, the double of the Mayor of Malmo. He himself has idea what he is bullshitting about. But he doesn't need to know he is RODODODO: he arrived, he squinted, and he got it wrong. This is your Roidododo bird.

- arnon1

December 9, 2012 at 1:16am

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

Noga, who disclosed her racism when she disparaged nayyer_ali as a "typical Arab" is still attempting to prove that I am an anti-Semite. To that end, she engages in one of her typical rhetorical/propaganda games of selective quotation. She quotes from an AJC "working definition" of anti-Semitism: "Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel." The full text, without noga's emendation, says this: "Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include: Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic." Let me assure noga that I am every bit as critical of my own country, the United States, as I am of Israel, when the United States engages in disreputable behavior. The American right is every bit as execrable as the Israeli right, and vice-versa. I have oft expressed the opinion here that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld ought to be serving time in the Hague for war crimes committed in Iraq, in particular waging aggressive war with neither a bona fide self-defense purpose nor the approval of the UNSC. Nor do I hold Jews collectively responsible for the deeds of Israel. I hold us responsible for criticizing the deeds of Israel when they are illegal or immoral or needlessly perpetuate war or are in the service of illicit desires, such as the colonization of the Palestinians. Our responsibility as Jews is not for the deeds, but not to be complicit in them with our silence. It is one of the perversities of fascists and right-wing extremists such as noga that one must believe stupid and impossible things in order not to be branded by them as an anti-Semite. Israel declares itself to be the Jewish state, and to fail to accept this is anti-Semitism. But then to think that the acts of the Jewish state reflect on the Jewish people is also anti-Semitism. Of course, these consummate propagandists have no difficulty at all in finding that the acts of extremist Muslims reflect on Muslims. When pressed, they will qualify this by saying that they only tar Muslims with the acts of extremists if they approve them or fail to criticize them. But if a Jew criticizes Israel, say for committing acts that are clearly defined as human rights violations or war crimes, that too is anti-Semitism. So, Muslims must criticize Muslim extremism or be anti-Semites. But Jews who criticize Israeli extremism are also anti-Semites. And Jews who think that Judaism itself obliges them to criticize the bad deeds carried out be the self-proclaimed Jewish state are also anti-Semites. In other words, anyone who doesn't agree with the racist extremism and fascism of noga is an anti-Semite.

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2012 at 1:19am

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

Actually, arnon, I took the trouble to get the book and check out the map, so that I might have an informed opinion, something a moron like you could never understand. I doubt you could figure out which way to hold the book. You are far and away tne single stupidest and most bigoted poster here.

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2012 at 1:22am

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

Gaza is occupied territory, whether the jailers are inside it or on the border Israel has sovereignty over it. It is not a free country, no ship can sail to it, no plane can enter it, no airport can be open, no export sent, no passport issued, nothing that gives it any freedom. In international law Israel remains the occupying power of Gaza not Egypt. Egypt has no legal responsibility to the people of Gaza, Israel as the occupying power does. Gaza is nothing but a giant open air prison run by Israel with order maintained by air strikes. Israel cannot pick and choose scraps of Palestinian land it doesn't want, the occupation is an all or none phenomenon. When Israel recognizes Palestine then and only then has the occupation ended.

- nayyer_ali

December 9, 2012 at 1:24am

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

Actually, nayyer, the occupation ends when Israel physically ceases to occupy Palestine, not before. Recognition of Palestine is a somewhat different issue.

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2012 at 1:27am

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

Thank you, nayyer, for your comments at the LA forum. I found them very illuminating. For the theological anti-Zionists, however, who you say regard Jewish dispossession by the Romans as evidence that they did not fulfill their covenant obligations, how do they not conclude that their own dispossession evidences their similar religious failure, or that the almost miraculous re-creation of Israel after a lapse of 2,000 years is not evidence of God's favor? Do they even consider such questions? Their theology seems rather self-serving (as does that of right-wing Jews, to say the least).

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2012 at 1:31am

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

nayyer-ali: "Would a counteroffer by Arafat really have led somewhere? We don't truly know but my view is it would have been pointless." Yeah? What a surprise. For a brief moment I entertained the seductive possibility that you'd have a different answer, and I'd have to seriously rethink. But it wasn't to be. You're a good match for Noga, as it happens. She believes that trying anything at all is pointless too, as is optimism, energy, fresh thinking, and imagination. You know, one day everyone is going to get really really tired of the Middle East.

- ironyroad

December 9, 2012 at 1:56am

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

Marques KO Paquio in the 6th round, it took 2minutes to recover. Hard way to earn 20 million dollaritos. See it all in ESPN BOX.

- JAIMECHUCH

December 9, 2012 at 2:47am

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

Tired of the Middle East? Turn to boxing. Why not. Different folks , different earnings. http://espn.go.com/blog/dan-rafael/post/_/id/2554/pacquiao-will-earn-at-least-26-million Pacquiao will earn at least $26M December, 6, 2012 DEC 6 4:40 PM ET By Dan Rafael | ESPN.com RECOMMEND311TWEET57COMMENTS74EMAILPRINT LAS VEGAS – The contracts have been submitted to the Nevada State Athletic Commission so the purses are official for the Manny Pacquiao-Juan Manuel Marquez IV card on Saturday night (HBO PPV, 9 ET, $59.95) at the MGM Grand Garden Arena. Pacquiao’s contract figure is $8,595,000, but that does not tell the full story. It was supposed to be $10 million, according to Top Rank promoter Bob Arum, but it goes down as less because Top Rank is being paid back money that it has advanced Pacquiao. But regardless of what the commission contract says, Arum told me that Pacquiao’s guarantee -- the minimum he will earn -– is $26 million. He has chance to earn much more depending on how well the pay-per-view sales are. Marquez’s bout contract with the commission is for $3 million, but Arum said that he is guaranteed at least $6 million. Like Pacquiao, he will earn more on the upside if the pay-per-view hits certain figures. On the undercard, Yuriorkis Gamboa is due to earn $50,000. It seems like a very low figure but it could be because he owes new promoter Curtis Jackson (aka rapper 50 Cent) money for buying out his contract from Top Rank earlier this year. So the promoter could be getting a larger chunk of the overall money being paid for the fight since Jackson laid out seven figures to buy Gamboa’s contract out. Michael Farenas, his opponent for their vacant interim junior lightweight title bout, is due to earn $70,000. Lightweight titlist Miguel Vazquez gets $175,000 while challenger Mercito Gesta gets $50,000. Patrick Hyland will earn $75,000 while Javier Fortuna will get $60,000 for their vacant interim featherweight title bout. Lightweight Jose Ramirez, the 2012 U.S. Olympian, will earn $4,000 for his scheduled four-round pro debut while opponent Corey Siegwarth will make $2,500.

- JAIMECHUCH

December 9, 2012 at 2:56am

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

THE REALITY. NOT THE IMAGINED LUDICROSITY OF A SELF HATRED JEW OR THE ANTI ISRAEL ARAB. Some in Israel see acquiescence in Iron Dome missile defense system http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/some-in-israel-see-acquiescence-in-iron-dome-missile-defense-system/2012/12/08/5dc857f4-3d67-11e2-bca3-aadc9b7e29c5_story_1.html The dome is the latest and most high-tech stage of Israel’s decades-long national effort to fortify itself from outside threats. After the 1991 Persian Gulf War, when Saddam Hussein’s Scud missiles slammed into Israel, the national government here required hardened safe rooms to be included in all new homes and apartments. Here in the crosshairs cities of southern Israel, reinforcing residential rooftops, bedrooms, schools and other public buildings against missiles from Gaza has been a big business for years. ..................excerpt................ She and her 15-year-old son, Ben, rushed into the safe room that doubles as his bedroom. On its thick, lead-lined door hang photos of girls in Ben’s high school class and of his basketball team. The room shook, and she knew that after days of success, Iron Dome had failed. Through her living room’s sliding glass doors, Makhon looks due south to Gaza, just beyond a stand of distant cypress trees and rolling dunes. She said she has little faith that peace will ever be achieved with the Palestinians, even though she hopes for it. Iron Dome has brought her a small measure of relief, not only from the rockets aimed at her city but also from potential dangers faced by her son. Ben is three years from mandatory military service, and like many boys his age, he is eager to serve. Like many mothers across this country, Makhon thinks of little else but his safety as a soldier. “Our sons may never have to go into Gaza again,” Makhon said, glancing at Ben.

- JAIMECHUCH

December 9, 2012 at 3:48am

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

" Of course, noga would consider him an anti-Semite for his opinion that Israel is in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention" Noga would consider him an antisemite, if, like roi here, he said this: ""I think that what I most object to about Israel re-declaring itself the Jewish state is that it becomes impossible for me both to be Jewish and to disassociate myself from your disgraceful behavior ... Just leave us here alone, why don't you?" It's antisemitism par excellence: http://www.european-forum-on-antisemitism.org/working-definition-of-anti... “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” [one of the examples being:] "Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel." It doesn't matter that roi is a Jew who does that. It is still antisemitism and there is a concealed threat to all Jews in this very sentiment, to say nothing of its expression. Like I mentioned before, roi is a modern-day incarnation of Pablo Christiani.

- Noga

December 9, 2012 at 7:27am

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

ironyroad: WTF? Why are you inserting my name into your conversation with nayyer? Couldn't you find anybody else to dump on? Can't you criticize nayyer's rejectionism without showing that you are just as "hard"on someone from the other side?

- Noga

December 9, 2012 at 7:56am

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

"nayyer_ali I don't divide the world into Muslims and Jews and Christians etc. I divide the world into intelligent thoughtful people, and morons." That of course is not quite evident from nayyer's comments on this website. He actually divides the world into pro-Israel advocates and pro-Palestinians advocates. The pro-Israeli advocates are as per definition, morons, because they disagree with the pro-Palestinian advocates who are all intelligent thoughtful people (like roi here). So nayyer when you indulge in these salutations to yourself you would be better respected if you actually provided the meanings you attach to the words you use.

- Noga

December 9, 2012 at 8:06am

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

Noga's fascism, racism, and paranoia continue unabated. According to noga, Thomas Friedman is an anti-Semite, former justice of the International Court of Justice, and Holocaust survivor, Thomas Buergenthal, is an anti-Semite, the New Israel Fund is anti-Semitic, needless to say, I a an anti-Semite. Quite simply, anyone who dares to point out that Israel is a flagrant violator of the human rights of the Palestinians is an anti-Semite. If I were to describe noga's views as those of a "typical Jew," that would indeed by an anti-Semitic remark. That, however, is not what I have said about her, but the way she describes the opinions of nayyer_ali, calling his opinions those of the "typical Arab." Fascists and extremists such as noga deploy racism as both a weapon and as a shield. Like the Nazis, who accused the Jews of racial hatred, noga profligately spews her accusations of anti-Semitism against any and all who do not share her racist views.

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2012 at 8:35am

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

It should not go unremarked that, as with every thread regarding Israel, there are two "conversations" going on. There is one, in which decent people agree and disagree in a civil manner, and another in which a small band of goons and verbal thugs led by noga incontinently deploy abuse to try to silence critics of Israel. They are fascists. This is what fascists do, try to silence people with abuse. Noga, however, is distinctive even amongst this miserable bunch. The rest merely employ insults and imprecations, some noteworthy more for their childishness than anything else. Noga, however, is an acolyte of the most vicious propagandists of our age whose speciality is deploying lies and extreme, perverse inversions of reality in the service of abuse. One must be grateful that she is limited to words. Her paranoia and hatred appear to know no bounds.

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2012 at 8:54am

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

Here is a perfect example of noga inverting reality in an attempt to discredit and silence someone, in this case nayyer_ali: "He actually divides the world into pro-Israel advocates and pro-Palestinians advocates." Who is noga describing in this sentence? Not nayyer_ali. He does no such thing. The person noga is describing is noga. This technique of extreme, perverted inversion of reality is indistinguishable from the sort of lies that the Nazis told about the Jews, accusing the Jews of doing to the Germans what the Nazis were in fact doing to the Jews. The purpose of the audacious, utterly incredible lie is always to leave critics gasping for air and baffled at how to respond.

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2012 at 9:00am

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

Poe's Maelstrom is a perfect cognitive corrector to [insert noun of choice].

- K2K

December 9, 2012 at 9:28am

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

"Few people expected the Muslim Brotherhood to be challenged by so many people in Egypt." Yes arnon, I was one. irony: I mentioned before that the Palestinians will never agree to any settlements that will require them to give up their holy self righteous anger. They don't want a state. They want a rollback of history. Sixty four years of misery, of war, of living in "refugee camps". Endless negotiations, endless promises. Barak and Clinton and Olmert have already called in their bluff and now we know now that settlement is not what they desire. It is not possible under current circumstances and the current Palestinian leadership and I am afraid it will not be possible under ever. I think you are right, everyone is going to get really really tired of the Middle East.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

December 9, 2012 at 9:37am

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

roi, you have outed yourself as an antisemite when you chose to declare, openly, the following: "I think that what I most object to about Israel re-declaring itself the Jewish state is that it becomes impossible for me both to be Jewish and to disassociate myself from your disgraceful behavior ... Just leave us here alone, why don't you?" I only apply the set of markers that appear in the Working Definition for Antisemitism where it says, clearly: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” [one of the examples being:] "Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel." Look what roi is saying, that Israel being defined as a Jewish state is offensive to himself. Imagine a man telling gay men that they can't define themselves as homosexual, because that would cast aspersions on his own manhood. Of course roi is an antisemite.

- Noga

December 9, 2012 at 10:21am

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

I'm essentially a by stander on this thread but it's liking watching a train wreck from which I can't turn away, the sheer animus recurring here is of ceaseless amazement to me even though it doesn't disappoint my expectations.

- basman

December 9, 2012 at 11:22am

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

Irony: My comments on "what ifs" at Camp David had to do with the dynamics at that summit and what Barak was even willing to consider. He was not in any way willing to withdraw from the West Bank and pull the settlements, which is why he came up with Swiss Cheese for Palestine. You really think if Arafat had said I'll take the 1967 borders and removal of all the settlers Barak would have had an epiphany? Just before Barak left for Camp David, Sharon had led a massive demonstration saying "No to a Palestinian State". Barak was heading a minority government, he had no room to really offer much. The Palestinians and the Arabs in general have made several offers. The Arab League offer still stands for the last 10 years, the 1967 borders, two states, and in return all 22 Arab nations will recognize Israel. What more do you want? The Palestinians have repeatedly signaled they will take the 1967 borders. The Palestinian "offer" is not an offer, because they control nothing, all they can offer is to end the conflict, but they will not do so for scraps. It is no secret what Israel needs to do to end the conflict, but the right has no interest in it. Your notion that the blame is in the severe confusion the Israelis have over what the Palestinians want is not credible.

- nayyer_ali

December 9, 2012 at 11:24am

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

I really don't post here to convince right wingers that they should give the Palestinians freedom and equality out of any sense of right and wrong or human dignity. That's not in their nature to accept those sorts of arguments. What I do state clearly is that Israel's relative power is at a high water mark, that over the next 50 years demographic/diplomatic/economic/social/military trends locally and globally are all moving against Israel, and the ability of Israel to ensure its long term security is going to rapidly deteriorate. Not in a week or a month but over a few decades. If the Israelis want to be secure their future it would be best done by making peace with the Palestinians now. In 50 years Israel will be in deep trouble.

- nayyer_ali

December 9, 2012 at 11:29am

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

" You really think if Arafat had said I'll take the 1967 borders and removal of all the settlers Barak would have had an epiphany? Just before Barak left for Camp David, Sharon had led a massive demonstration saying "No to a Palestinian State" " Nayyer asks a question and inadvertently pulls the rug from under the argument he is making. As it happens, Sharon did undergo a change of strategic thinking, created a new party that was elected to form the government and then withdrew all settlers from Gaza. And BTW, this: "if Arafat had said I'll take the 1967 borders and removal of all the settlers Barak would have had an epiphany" takes us back to the very idea of what negotiation is. It is a process of eliminating by degrees the great distance between two parties. What it is not is: Your proposal is unacceptable, here is my proposal, take it or leave it". nayyer for all his fine words about morons and thoughtful intelligent people wouldn't know the difference if it hit him on the head.

- Noga

December 9, 2012 at 11:46am

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

Actually, noga, you don't apply the "set of markers" at all. You edit them selectively to try to achieve the perverse outcome you want (as indeed you edit my words too, as usual, because you cannot get where you want to go if you quote them in full). This is because you are a fascist propagandist and, to no surprise, a homophobe too. It is profoundly ironic that you here conflate criticism or distaste for someone or some group because of status with criticism of bad behavior. This is indeed the very thing that distinguishes racists and haters like you from normal people. To attack people because of their status, as Jews, or blacks, or homosexuals, or Palestinians, or Arabs (the very behavior that you engage in when, for example, you describe nayyer_ali as a "typical Arab" leaving aside that he is neither typical nor an Arab) is not at all the same thing as objecting to bad behavior and not wanting to be associated with bad behavior. Bad behavior, illegal behavior, immoral behavior, not only can be criticized, we have a duty to do so in order to curb it. Racists such as you constantly want to confuse status and behavior, to claim that a particular status or membership implies bad behavior and hence makes the members of that group reprehensible. Conversely, you claim that criticism of bad behavior is hatred for status. This is exactly the manner in which fascists such as you deploy racism and all other status-hatreds as both a sword and a shield, very much the behavior of the Nazis. And, of course, you attempt to tag me with your own repellent and pathological confusion between behavior and status. But I am not confused, certainly not by you and your fevered efforts at obfuscation. Those of us not possessed by your pathology are able to distinguish clearly between behavior, for which we are responsible, and status, as a Jew, a homosexual, a Palestinian, a Muslim, which is not an acceptable basis for criticism or rejection. Israel's behavior, its flagrant violations of the human rights of the Palestinians as embodied in the Geneva Conventions and UNSC resolutions, not only can be criticized, but must be criticized and identified unambiguously for what it is. That is not rejection of Israel because it is Jewish, but rejection of its bad behavior despite the fact that it is Jewish, the refusal to be cowed into silence by perverse accusations of anti-Semitism such as yours. As Jews, we have a special moral responsibility to speak out against outrages committed by the self-declared "Jewish state," because it acts in our name and we must take care of our good name. If Israel did not insist on this status, and indeed did not demand as it does and as you do special loyalty from Jews, then I could regard Israel as I do the Congo or China, a human rights violator to be sure, but not one that places a peculiar moral obligation upon me. As Israel shows no ability to reform itself, enthralled as it is to its right-wing extremists such as you, I would indeed rather be left alone by you, not having you interfere with the politics of my country for your benefit, not having to see the good name of my country compromised to protect you, not having you making noisy demands in my synagogue, not having you create risks to the peace and security of the world in pursuit of your colonial, apartheid project. I would rather Israel pursued its illicit ends in a manner that was not associated in any way with me as a Jew or as an American. But that is not to be. As I do not choose to abandon my Judaism on account of the bad behavior of Israel, or leave my synagogue because Israelis and friends are constantly presenting themselves there to demand my demonstrations of loyalty, my money, my speech on Israel's behalf, I am stuck with having to raise my voice to criticize Israel's bad behavior and disassociate myself and the people of my country from it. Your perversity is such that you demand recognition of Israel as a "Jewish state" and accuse anyone who will not utter those words for your pleasure as being an anti-Semite. But then, if anyone takes notice that this identifies Israel with the Jewish people as a whole, you accuse them of being anti-Semitic too. In the end, it is really quite simple. You are unable to defend Israel's behavior. So you attack any critic for being an anti-Semite. The list is long, ranging from Thomas Friedman to the New Israel Fund. One could almost say that NOT being branded by you as an anti-Semite is a mark of shame. We should wear your accusation of anti-Semitism as the Danes wore the yellow star, as a demonstration of the refusal to accept a moral outrage and of solidarity with its victims. Doesn't matter what mud you fling. It is Israel that is a human rights violator. Not me.

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2012 at 11:58am

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

Benny Morris on Camp David: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2002/jun/27/camp-david-and-aftercontinued/?pagination=false "And it’s really very simple—Ehud Barak and Bill Clinton put on the table during July–December 2000 a historic compromise and the Palestinians rejected it. They concede that Barak’s offer at Camp David was “unprecedented” and that the upgraded (Clinton) proposals offered the Palestinians 94–96 percent of the West Bank, 100 percent of the Gaza Strip, a sovereign Palestinian state, an end to the occupation, the uprooting of most of the settlements, and sovereignty over Arab East Jerusalem—and Arafat and his aides still rejected the deal and pressed on with their terroristic onslaught." " Arafat himself has never affirmed Israel’s right to exist or its legitimacy, and has never waived the Palestinian refugees’ “right of return”—and what his underlings “offer” or “accept” can always be denied or repudiated. This is the Arafat method," "The origins of the current violence are a further case in point. Malley and Agha, after trotting out some qualifications, leave their readers with the clear impression that the Sharon visit was what caused the intifada. But Israeli intelligence (and the CIA, according to Barak) has strong evidence that the Palestinian Authority had planned the intifada already in July 2000. For example, in March 2001 the PA’s communications minister, Imad Faluji, told residents of the Ein al-Hilwe refugee camp outside Sidon: “Whoever thinks that the Intifada broke out because of the despised Sharon’s visit to the al-Aqsa Mosque is wrong, even if this visit was the straw that broke the back of the Palestinian people. This intifada was planned in advance, ever since President Arafat’s return from the Camp David negotiations, where he turned the table upside down on President Clinton.” (Al-Safir, Lebanon, March 3, 2001). Barak characterizes Arafat “and some (not all) of his entourage” as “serial liars.” "

- Noga

December 9, 2012 at 12:03pm

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

All the sound and fury and spittle and bile of the nogas of the world is intended to obscure one simple fact: Israel will not vacate the West Bank, land given to the Palestinian Arabs by the UN for their state, in order to make peace. Nor will it accept a single state between the Jordan and the sea in which all the inhabitants enjoy equal political and civil rights. It will not accept a one-state solution, it will not accept a two-state solution, it will not accept a solution. Noise, noise, noise, intemperate accusations, bathetic claims of victimhood, all for the purpose of obscuring to the greatest extent possible this patent reality, a reality that stands in clear violation of international law. We are all expected to be rendered stupid by the noise, unable to see that which is plain. And if we refuse to be rendered stupid, the right-wing extremists, religious nuts, and Jewish fascists will then level the accusation of anti-Semitism, their purported trump card.

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2012 at 12:09pm

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

roi, I don't have to fling mud. You appear on these boards and you are covered with head to toe. What you said was said in a moment of frenzy when your truth slipped out. And that's the truth that makes you an antisemite. That you actually think that Israel being defined as a Jewish state is a burden and a disgrace for you, personally, as a Jew living in America, cannot get anymore antisemitic. You would deny 6 million Israelis the right for self-determination because it makes your social interactions awkward.

- Noga

December 9, 2012 at 12:11pm

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

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2002/jun/13/camp-david-and-after-an-exchange-1-an-interview-wi/?pagination=false Camp David and After: An Exchange (1. An Interview with Ehud Barak)

- Noga

December 9, 2012 at 12:17pm

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

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/benami2.html " Question: Shlomo Ben-Ami, what were the assumptions that guided you and theprime minister, Ehud Barak, when you set out, in the spring of 2000, toterminate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Answer: "We had a number of working assumptions, but I think the mostimportant of them was the basic assumption that has been shared by theAmericans, the Europeans and the Israeli center-left for years: that Oslocreated a rational order in the Middle East based on give-and-take, which inthe future would lead to an acceptable compromise; that in 1993 aquasi-state of the Palestinians was established, in terms of orderlyinternational relations. In retrospect, this turned out to be a mistakenassumption, It turned out that for [Palestinian leader Yasser] Arafat it wasa huge camouflage net behind which he fomented, and continues to foment,political pressure and terrorism in different dosages in order to underminethe very idea of two states for two nations." ... Question: Didn't the Palestinians make a counterproposal? Answer: "No. And that is the heart of the matter. Never, in the negotiations between us and the Palestinians, was there a Palestinian counterproposal. There never was and there never will be. So the Israeli negotiator always finds himself in a dilemma: Either I get up and walk out because these guys aren't ready to put forward proposals of their own, or I make another concession. In the end, even the most moderate negotiator reaches a point where he understands that there is no end to it."

- Noga

December 9, 2012 at 12:20pm

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

roi: the noise and kicking up dust and demonization are all generated by you and you alone. Just go back and calculate the proportion of invective in your copious comments. You really are a piece of work, aren't you? I would feel sorry for you if you weren't such an out and out schmuck.

- Noga

December 9, 2012 at 12:24pm

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

How odd, noga. You claim you don't have to fling mud, but then do nothing but, ever. This suggests that indeed you do have to fling mud. I understand. You cannot defend the indefensible conduct of Israel. Hence, you fling mud to distract and obscure. Israel, and you in particular, constantly make demands for special loyalty of Jews throughout the world. To fail to give the loyalty you demand is immediately branded as anti-Semitic. Having defined itself as the Jewish state, and one that has claims upon the loyalty of all Jews, it is then inevitable that the behavior of the Jewish state reflects upon all Jews. Not because I say so or want it to be so, but because it does, as a matter of fact, whether we live in America or the north pole. And then we who did not want to be morally responsible for Israel's deeds have a duty to speak out against them in order to disassociate ourselves from them and make clear that Israel does not act in our name, although it claims to. Germans had a moral duty to speak out against the Nazis, at least before it became to dangerous to do so. Americans had a duty to speak out against Jim Crow, our shame. Jews have a duty to speak out against human rights violations by Israel and the threat to world peace that it poses by refusing to desist from such violations in order to achieve a settlement. That is how the moral universe works. Of course, this has nothing whatever to do with something as trivial "social interactions." On the Upper West Side of Manhattan, one is far more likely to run into an expatriate Israeli than by a bona fide anti-Semite. It has to do with moral responsibility, moral duty, things that are so far removed from your capability that you cannot begin to comprehend them. 6 million Israelis have the right to self-determination. They just don't have the right to violate the human rights of the Palestinians as set forth in the Fourth Geneva Convention and as made a war crime by the First Protocol thereto. Inevitably, you again attempt to obfuscate the two, to embrace illegal behavior by Israel in its right of self-determination so as to accuse anyone who can see the difference of being an anti-Semite. As to you, Mearsheimer and Walt were quite right.

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2012 at 12:27pm

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

But you are completely unable to speak to the issues, noga. Only capable of flinging whatever dirt is near to hand to obscure them. I certainly don't feel sorry for you or wish that I could. You are an evil human being, an inveterate liar and slanderer, rotten to the core

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2012 at 12:31pm

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

noga: More than that. Read the interview with Bandar bin Sultan in March 24, 2003 issue of New Yorker. http://www.saudiembassy.net/files/PDF/03-ST-Bandar-0324-NewYorker.pdf THIS IS FROM DENNIS ROSS: WHAT REALLY HAPPENED AT CAMP DAVID AND BEYOND A summary by Dennis Ross of what was offered and what took place at the Camp David and Taba negotiations: 1. Yasser Arafat presented no ideas at Camp David. 2. The Taba talks would have happened in late September if not for the outbreak of violence. Arafat knew the US was ready to make a proposal and thus promised to control the violence, but didn't. (I think he was hoping that he could leverage the violence into political gain.) 3. All of Gaza and a net of 97% of the West Bank were offered at Taba. 4. The West Bank area offered was contiguous, not "cantons". 5. The Jordan valley would be under Israeli patrol for only 6 years. 6. The Palestinians were offered a capital in eastern Jerusalem. 7. There would be a "Right of Return" to the nascent Palestinian state. 8. A $30 Billion fund to compensate refugees would be set up. 9. Taba was rushed due to Clinton's, not Barak's, end of term. 10. Members of the PA delegation thought Taba was the best they could hope to get and encouraged Arafat to accept it. 11. Arafat accepted everything he was given at Taba, but rejected everything he was supposed to give. 12. Arafat scuttled the Camp David offer. Arafat scuttled the Taba offer. Arafat scuttled the Mitchell plan. Arafat scuttled the Tenet plan. Arafat scuttled the Zinni plan. Anyway, it's getting late. As irony said, even I am getting tired of the Middle East.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

December 9, 2012 at 12:35pm

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

The Jewish Virtual library article linked by noga must be read. It shows the bizarre, self-contradictory ideation of Israeli negotiators and Camp David and Taba quite clearly. For one, to my surprise, it gives the lie to the claim that Arafat made no counter-offer. Apparently, he did, but is was not acceptable to Israel because it did not concede to Israel enough of the West Bank to satisfy it. Also bizarre is the implicit acknowledgement that Israel's concept of "land swaps" was for the Palestinians to receive only scraps of desert that no one wanted. The Israeli negotiator expresses his shock that, in contemplating land swaps, the Palestinians actually wanted land contiguous to the West Bank. Shocking! That in a so-called bargain for exchange the other side should actually ask for something it wants rather than accepting meekly something it doesn't want. Only in the bizarre universe that Israel has concocted for itself does peace necessarily assume that Israel will be able to keep under its sovereignty settlements that its own counsel told it were illegal, that the UNSC has repeatedly denounced as illegal, instructing Israel to refrain, and that the Fourth Geneva Convention makes a human rights violation. Israel will not end its occupation of the land that belongs to the Palestinians under the UN partition plan, land that the UN has repeatedly insisted that Israel not settle and cannot take, in order to make peace. Israel wants the land, not the peace, as I have said here repeatedly. The interview with the Israeli negotiator from Camp David and Taba makes this absolutely clear. Moreoever, as nayyer_ali has pointed out, there is an Arab proposal on the table for years now -- the 1967 borders, a settlement for the refugee question, and full recognition of Israel by all 22 Arab states. Israel refuses even to contemplate a settlement on this basis. It continues to demand as the price for peace that its illegal settlements east of the Green Line be given to it while demanding that the Arabs abandon their claims west of the Green Line. It is Israel that refuses to make peace.

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2012 at 12:49pm

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

Here is the link again: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/benami2.html

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2012 at 12:54pm

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

This is an especially bizarre exchange from the interview: Question: Shlomo Ben-Ami, you and Ehud Barak set out on a journey to the bowels of the earth, as it were, to the very heart of the conflict. What did you find? Answer: "I think that we found a few difficult things. First of all, regarding Arafat, we discovered that he does not have the ability to convey to his Israeli interlocutors that the process of making concessions has an end. His strategy is one of conflict." Question: Are you saying that he is not a partner? Answer: "Arafat is the leader of the Palestinians. I cannot change this fact; it is their disaster. He is so loyal to his truth that he cannot compromise it. But his truth is the truth of the Islamic ethos, the ethos of refugees and victimization. This truth does not allow him to end his negotiations with Israel unless Israel breaks its neck. So in this particular aspect, Arafat is not a partner. Worse, Arafat is a strategic threat; he endangers peace in the Middle East and in the world." Question: So he still does not recognize Israel's right to exist? Answer: "Arafat's concession vis-a-vis Israel at Oslo was a formal concession. Morally and conceptually, he didn't recognize Israel's right to exist. He doesn't accept the idea of two states for two peoples. He may be able to make some sort of partial, temporary settlement with us - though Ihave doubts about that, too - but at the deep level, he doesn't accept us.Neither he nor the Palestinian national movement accept us." Question: Your criticism goes beyond Arafat personally to include also thePalestinian national movement as a whole? Answer: "Yes. Intellectually, I can understand their logic. I understand that from their point of view, they ceded 78 percent [of historic Palestine]at Oslo, so the rest is theirs. I understand that from their point of view,the process is one of decolonization, and therefore they are not going to make a compromise with us, just as the residents of Congo would not compromise with the Belgians. "But when all is said and done, after eight months of negotiations, I reach the conclusion that we are in a confrontation with a national movement in which there are serious pathological elements. It is a very sad movement, a very tragic movement, which at its core doesn't have the ability to setitself positive goals. "At the end of the process, it is impossible not to form the impression that the Palestinians don't want a solution as much as they want to place Israel in the dock of the accused. They want to denounce our state more than they want their own state. At the deepest level they have a negative ethos.This is why unlike Zionism, they are unable to compromise...." ___________________ Ben-Ami's unreflective inversion of reality is almost complete. On the one hand, he can recognize that, at Oslo, the Palestinians conceded "78% of historic Palestine" to Israel, abandoning territorial claims west of the Green Line although Israel includes both land given to the Jews by the UN partition and land given to the Arabs. But he dismisses Arab recognition of Israel as "formal" because their psyches are not what he wants them to be. In the next breath, Ben-Ami insists that the Palestinians will not compromise, having just recognized that they have already done so. He claims the Arabs will not stop expecting more, even though he too can see that they are to be left, at the end of the day, with not more than 22% of historic Palestine. No matter that the Arabs concede recognition and the land west of the Green Line, Israel keeps asking for more. It is in fact Israel that pockets whatever the Palestinians concede and then demands more, as Israel has thus far conceded nothing whatsoever. Most bizarre of all, expecting Israel to vacate the West Bank, the 22% where it has no legitimate claim to sovereignty, in Ben-Ami's view, is expecting Israel to "break its neck" and "be humiliated." This man has no sense at all of the meaning of the words he unselfconsciously utters. Of course, neither does the Likud government.

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2012 at 1:05pm

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

And Ben-Ami thinks the Palestinians have an "ethos of victimhood?" He should see the Israeli ethos of victimhood on display here at TNR. The Palestinians are amateurs when it comes to playing the victim compare to these Israelis. The Israelis think they are victims because the Arabs somehow forced Israel to colonize them in violation of international law. Could anything be more perverse?

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2012 at 1:09pm

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

Noga: Sharon's idea was "disengagement" by which he meant to pull Israeli settlers out of remote regions but further tighten Israel's grip on the most desirable parts of the West Bank. His withdrawal from Gaza was part of that strategy, it had nothing to do with creating a Palestinian state, something which he never endorsed. Besides my point was specifically about Barak's negotiating latitude in 2000, back then Sharon was totally against any withdrawals and was attacking Barak from the right, he went on to win an election and ended the Taba negotiations. As to what happened at Camp David, I would rely on neutral accounts and actual maps of what Barak offered, rather than self-serving testimonials from Barak and his allies. Produce a map or stop the whining.

- nayyer_ali

December 9, 2012 at 1:10pm

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

Here is another bizarre reflection by Ben-Ami on the Palestinians: "It is a very sad movement, a very tragic movement, which at its core doesn't have the ability to set itself positive goals." How about the positive goal of an independent state comprising the West Bank and, ultimately, Gaza, while recognizing the legitimacy of Israel west of the Green Line? That's not positive enough for Ben-Ami, apparently. His idea of a "positive goal" for the Palestinians is that Israel gets the pieces of Palestinian land that Israel covets.

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2012 at 1:12pm

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

Ben-Ami's take is "What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable, and if you won't negotiate over your scraps it proves you don't want peace." Ridiculous.

- nayyer_ali

December 9, 2012 at 1:13pm

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

roid, I don't see the counter-offer in the material you linked to. The mention of maps refers -- unless I'm totally misreading it -- to the last moments of the Taba discussions which were dead in the water in any case given both the US and the Israeli elections. nayyer, I don't get it. Your entire position seems to be something on the lines of "Arafat was perfectly entitled to enter a negotiating context and then not negotiate because I and all like-minded people are convinced that negotiation would not have brought results. Oh yes, I almost forgot, the Palestinians should just get their rights anyway so why bother negotiating!" I regard that as perverse even if the dimension of mutual intractability is fully accepted as present in Camp David. Indeed, Arafat's desire to somehow pretend he had neatly slithered out of a malicious trap prepared by Clinton -- a "trap" that could have delivered a sovereign Palestinian nation -- speaks volumes. Noga, you spent years trying to paint me again and again into an ideological connection with others on TNR with whom no such connection -- as you knew full well -- existed, not to mention using me as a general target area for all your pet frustrations of the moment. So I hope that answers your question.

- ironyroad

December 9, 2012 at 2:24pm

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

It's all wasted words. Till ali comes to terms with Hamas aim at perpetrating genocide against the Jewish people all discussions are moot: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20649583 "Hamas political leader Khaled Meshaal has told tens of thousands of people marking the 25th anniversary of the Palestinian Islamist group's founding that it will not recognise Israel. In a fiery speech during his first ever visit to Gaza, he said Palestinians would not cede any part of their land. Mr Meshaal's visit follows a ceasefire that ended days of violence between Israel and Hamas last month. Israel described Mr Meshaal's speech as "hateful and extremist"."

- arnon1

December 9, 2012 at 2:27pm

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

ROIDODO and his alter EGO ALI can criticize condemn or try to de-legitimate Israel's peace efforts but it means nothing. You are both full of self importance and hot air.

- arnon1

December 9, 2012 at 2:30pm

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

"Here is another bizarre reflection by Ben-Ami on the Palestinians" Why is this bizarre? "It is a very sad movement, a very tragic movement, which at its core doesn't have the ability to set itself positive goals." What is the context of this comment? When ROIODODO and alter-DODO talk about peace efforts they choose the most positive comments by PLO people in English (not in Arabic) but when they quote Israeli officials about the peace process they choose the most negative comments in reaction to PLO, Hamas outrages and murder of civilians and other terrorist attacks. This is why their comment are self serving and FALSE.

- arnon1

December 9, 2012 at 2:35pm

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

Talk to me about Hamas which seems to have more support by Palestinian Arabs on the West Bank than does Abbas.

- arnon1

December 9, 2012 at 2:36pm

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

Here is the passage of the interview to which I was referring, ironyroad: "Question: Throughout this whole period, didn't the Palestinians present maps of their own? Was there no Palestinian geographical proposal? Answer: "They did not present maps at all. Not before Taba. But at Camp David I did chance to see some sort of Palestinian map. It was a map that reflected a concession of less than 2 percent on their part in return for a territorial swap in a 1:1 ratio. But the territories they wanted from us were not in the Halutza dunes, they wanted them next to the West Bank. I remember that according to their map, Kochav Yair, for example, was supposed to be included in the territory of the Palestinian state; they demanded sovereignty over Kochav Yair." ______________________ ironyroad says: "Noga, you spent years trying to paint me again and again into an ideological connection with others on TNR with whom no such connection -- as you knew full well -- existed, not to mention using me as a general target area for all your pet frustrations of the moment. So I hope that answers your question." This is one of her favorite propaganda games. She decides that someone here reminds her of someone else, could be another poster or could be some figure from the Middle Ages, and then freely attributes to the poster here any thought or expression of the person of whom she was reminded, as if the words of one are then magically the words of the other. In this manner, she permits herself to re-characterize the words actually uttered here as anything else she likes. Withal, noga is incapable of responding to anyone's point. She determines whether someone is in her mind a friend or an enemy then attacks the person of the enemy rather than respond to the substance of what someone says. This reflects three things: The first is her personal inability to mount a rational argument of any kind. The second is her awareness that she has nothing persuasive to say in defense of Israel beyond the identification of any critic as an enemy. The third is her fascist belief that all that is necessary is to discredit a speaker using any possible rhetorical device no matter how vicious (of which lying is only the most basic) and she has thereby won an argument -- without ever actually advancing any argument herself. Noga is nothing but a thug. She is incapable of more than thata.

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2012 at 3:00pm

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

12/09/2012 - 2:24pm EDT | ironyroad My friend you're on ironic fire.

- basman

December 9, 2012 at 3:05pm

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

Editorial in The National http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/editorial/hamas-is-failing-its-responsibility-to-palestinians

- basman

December 9, 2012 at 3:19pm

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

I am more impressed with ironyroad's comments than with Noga's. But it makes no sense for third parties like ROIDODO should interfere in other poster's discussions and quarrels. This is self serving. Roidodo has had many quarrel's with Noga (as have I) and he thinks that by taking the side of Irony he too would be proven right. He is mistaken in this as in so many things.

- arnon1

December 9, 2012 at 3:41pm

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

malahat asks "How can anyone hope for anything more than more of the same?" I am willing to wait and see what happens in Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Kurdistan, Jordan, and Libya before asking that question about palestinian "peace". That 'present' certainly is going to make being 'cemented in the past' the territory of historians. Even UK's Guardian seems thrown off by Meshal's blast from the past. Considering what the Kurds have endured since 1918, I expect Kurdistan to displace the palestinians as the focus of the 'international community'. Anyone embarrassed to be a Jew over E-1 needs to become a Buddhist, and find a comment thread about the very real ethnic cleansing of Tibet.

- K2K

December 9, 2012 at 4:11pm

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

"The dangerous myopia of American Jewish leaders" "The progressive Jewish leadership calls for peace while Hamas calls for hatred. When will these Jewish leaders stop denying reality and start grappling with the dangers in the real world in which Israel has to try to survive?" By Daniel Gordis http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/the-dangerous-myopia-of-american-jewish-leaders.premium-1.483618 "From coast to coast, as Progressive American rabbis continue to call for peace, they are inadvertently revealing their tragic inability to acknowledge that the world in which they once formulated their positions on Israel has changed almost beyond recognition. The gaping disconnect between the world that these rabbis pretend exists and the one that actually exists renders their message both irrelevant and......"

- arnon1

December 9, 2012 at 4:27pm

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

basman, I have to say that I planned not to get involved in this discussion, partly because I was somewhat emotionally compelled by Wieseltier's piece but knew that (a) it was a superficial feeling and (b) there was little point to jumping into the swirl of other people's reactions, none of which would be more than vehement like/dislike responses to LW. Clearly, my intentions in this context are as reliable as my New Year resolutions on wine (consuming less of it). roid: your response seems to confirm what I thought I read. There was no presentation of a counter-proposal at Camp David, but rather an incident of a senior Israeli participant (in his account at least) catching a view of a Palestinian map that might have been part of a proposal -- but we don't know, as there wasn't one. The actual presentation of maps was an event at the tail end of the already moot Taba discussions. Fwiw I begin to think about strange things happening when I go one click further on "The National" and find the following: "Gourmet Abu Dhabi 2013 have announced that Irish celebrity chef and cookbook author Rachel Allen will be appearing at next year’s festival." I think "Irish" in the same sentence as "celebrity chef" is as thought-provoking a juxtaposition as "Gourmet Abu Dhabi."

- ironyroad

December 9, 2012 at 4:50pm

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

I'm wary of comments implying an equivalence between Likud and Hamas, an implication altogether to be avoided, for all the criticism that might be levelled at Likud. As to: ...Anyone embarrassed to be a Jew over E-1 needs to become a Buddhist, and find a comment thread about the very real ethnic cleansing of Tibet... absolutely, for all the criticism that might be levelled at the E1 ANNOUNCEMENT.

- basman

December 9, 2012 at 4:53pm

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

"Blame Canada! The Palestinian Version" (LatmaTV 2:42 minutes) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByzbRonVqqM&feature=player_embedded basman, yes, correct clarification: the E-1 ANNOUNCEMENT. I grew up on Superman comics, never knowing a Jew created Superman), and still think of the duelling narratives as Bizarro World. So, only in Bizarro world are words equal to facts on the ground, altho I do find it interesting that part of the E-1 announcement has to do with illegal palestinian and illegal Bedouin building, but the Bedouin are building to make sure they get on the Israeli side. I read the entire assessment of the trans-national Kurds yesterday, after posting the URL here. Truly astonishing what they have endured since the betrayal of 1923.

- K2K

December 9, 2012 at 5:13pm

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

In his example of "ironic fire," ironyroad states (how else?) ironically: "Oh yes, I almost forgot, the Palestinians should just get their rights anyway so why bother negotiating!" The nerve! It's like they think they're human beings or something! And then there's this little quip: I think "Irish" in the same sentence as "celebrity chef" is as thought-provoking a juxtaposition as "Gourmet Abu Dhabi." Right! I thought they just eat figs and camels!

- bunthorne

December 9, 2012 at 5:58pm

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

Malahat my friend I did take that implication from that comment but know you wouldn't think that. But it read that way to me and I wanted to make a general point to seek to help avoid even the rhetorical possibility of such equivalence slippage.

- basman

December 9, 2012 at 6:07pm

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

"From coast to coast, as Progressive American rabbis continue to call for peace, they are inadvertently revealing their tragic inability to acknowledge that the world in which they once formulated their positions on Israel has changed almost beyond recognition. The gaping disconnect between the world that these rabbis pretend exists and the one that actually exists renders their message both irrelevant and......" Yet again we see the effort to divert attention from the reality that Israel violates the human rights of the Palestinians every day, refuses to stop, thereby intentionally provokes endless conflict, and then does its best to blame the Palestinians for it. If you poke a dog in the eye with a sharp stick and it attacks you, you have the right to defend yourself, even to kill the dog if necessary. But you still bear moral responsibility for the outcome. Israel does what it can to evade its responsibility for provoking the very conflict that it claims to want to end. Most recently, the threat of Netanyahu to build in E1 expresses Israel's intention to provoke war indefinitely. If Israel gets its wish, Iran is attacked, oil markets are severely disrupted as a result, and prices rise catastrophically, that might just be the catalyst that provokes Europe at least to say enough is enough. It will happen eventually, although only a seer can say when. ________________ Irony, the quoted passage says that the Palestinians did present maps at Taba. Your editorializing that the process was by then dead is just that, your editorializing on the basis of no facts that you set forth. We do not hear from Ben-Ami that Israel expressed any willingness to negotiate at Taba or afterwards on the basis of the Palestinians' maps. Nor did we hear from Ben-Ami that, having been shown Palestinian ideas at Camp David in the form of a Palestinian map, Israel expressed any willingness to discuss it. Despite the standard effort to claim the Palestinians will not make peace, the history is in fact quite clear that Israel has only been willing to consider a deal in which it gets the settlement blocs, the Arabs receive in exchange bits of desert that no one wants, and the Arabs surrender their refugee claims east of the Green Line. They would have to be fools to accept such a lopsided arrangement. The Saudi proposal of two-states based on the 1967 borders with full recognition of Israel has been on the table for a decade. Israel ignores it. Israel does not seek to determine security arrangements on that basis, to resolve the problems of Jerusalem or refugees on that basis. The simple, indisputable fact, no matter what the rhetoric hurled between the parties or the smoke and obfuscation here, is that Israel refuses to vacate the land that belongs to the Palestinians, land that Israel has no right to, land that Israel has been instructed repeatedly by the UNSC it may not settle, in order to achieve peace. It wants the land, it is indifferent to the peace. Not only does Israel refuse to vacate the Palestinians' land to achieve peace, it continues to settle it. If the Palestinians can find some good lawyers, perhaps the next stop on this road is the International Criminal Court. We will see first whether the court accepts Palestinian accession to the Rome Statute and whether the convention of state parties to the Geneva Conventions likewise accepts Palestinian accession. The action of the General Assembly, and the fact that the United States does not even participate in the ICC, suggest that these things will happen (even while K2K awaits various outcomes in various Arab states before reaching his decisions on these matters).

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2012 at 6:39pm

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

bunthorne, irony is Irish and is allowed to have some fun with Irish stereotypes. As for the Palestinian Arabs it is you and not he who is the racist. The Arabs feels (as apparently you do) that the Jews had no right to live in the country of their ancestors. They take it for granted as you do that Jews should always live or die at the pleasure of their host country. They also feel humiliated not just because they lost a war or two but because they lost a war or two to those cowardly and inferior Jews. The whole Arab world has been besides themselves that some inferior Jews should have bested them in war. This is why they don't want to negotiate with Jews, this is why they don't even want acknowledge their existence as a free nation. This isn't about Palestinians as I am sure you know very well since you seem to approve of the Arab racist attitude, this is about Jews: how dare they not accept their status as second class dhimmis. Your whole post bunrthorne smacks of arrogance.

- arnon1

December 9, 2012 at 6:43pm

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

Just to be clear, ironyroad, the second part of the quote from Ben-Ami makes quite clear that Israel would not consider discussing the Palestinian map at Camp David. That is not because the map was not a proposal, but because Israel was only willing to swap desert, "dunes," for settlement. This is evident from Ben-Ami's comment. To him it was literally unthinkable, shocking, that there would be consideration of swapping equally valuable land, proximate to Jerusalem, for the land that Israel wants.

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2012 at 6:46pm

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

"Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran routinely use terms such as "resistance", "liberation", etc. for terrorist acts or annihilationist policies against Israel. These labels seem to work particularly well among not only their own constituencies, but among useful idiots in the West." Yes, and Israel routinely invokes its ancient claims to the land of Israel for its policy of colonialism and apartheid in the West Bank, ignoring the fact that the UN resolved the competing ancient claims by partitioning Palestine and that has repeatedly, unambiguously made clear to Israel that its settlement of the West Bank is illegal. This labeling by Israel seems to work particularly well, not only for its own constituencies, but among useful idiots in the West.

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2012 at 6:50pm

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

Then of course there is the Israeli/AIPAC/Jabotinsky-ite propaganda that settlement of the West Bank is the just dessert of the Six Day War, ignoring that the Security Council in resolution 242 declared the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war and has since repeatedly told Israel that Israel is violating its resolutions. This Israeli propaganda seems to work particularly well among not only among its own constituencies, but among useful idiots in the West.

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2012 at 6:54pm

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

"Yet again we see the effort to divert attention from the reality that Israel violates the human rights of the Palestinians every day, refuses to stop, thereby intentionally provokes endless conflict, and then does its best to blame the Palestinians for it." Fuck you RIODODO you don't want to understand what is being said. To you it's the fault of the Jews. The Muslim Brotherhood and their desire to annihilate the Jewish State means nothing to you. The Palestinians are being used by people who don't even believe in national sovereignty. They believe in the Muslim Ummah which is supra national community of Muslims and every one within needs to live according to Muslim laws and those others are relegated to dhimmi status. This is what Rabbi Gordis is referring to and you like the good little ignorant "progressive" that you are refuse to face up to the reality of the situation.

- arnon1

December 9, 2012 at 6:54pm

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

The Haaretz article, cited above, criticizing progressive American Jewish leaders, says this: "Jews do not easily surrender hopes for peace. But increasingly, beginning with the Second Intifada, Israelis have come to doubt the possibility of a “land for peace” deal." The writer implies that "land for peace" is on offer from Israel to the Palestinians, but of course it is not. It is on offer to Israel from the Saudis on behalf of the Arab world, but Israel ignores that.

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2012 at 7:00pm

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

All the ROIDODO sees is "Israeli propaganda" he sees no Arab Propaganda, just as Charles Lindbergh never saw German propaganda; only Jewish propaganda that wanted to "get us to fight the innocent and oppressed Germans. You are quite the asshole.

- arnon1

December 9, 2012 at 7:00pm

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

"The writer implies that "land for peace" is on offer from Israel to the Palestinians, but of course it is not. It is on offer to Israel from the Saudis on behalf of the Arab world, but Israel ignores that." Bullshit, Gordis writes about the Muslim Brotherhood and the fact that they are about to take power in most Arab countries. The Saudis have no sway over the MB. Moreover, Turkey under Erdogan has become and enemy of Israel. Many American Jews, including you, are scared to face facts just as American Jewry was afraid to face facts about what Hitler was about.

- arnon1

December 9, 2012 at 7:05pm

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

malahat, As I said, if you poke a dog in the eye with a sharp stick and it attacks you, you have the right to defend yourself, even to the point of killing the dog. There is no moral equivalence between the dog and the person, even though the person has done evil harm to the dog. However, that does not absolve the person of moral responsibility for the outcome. The fact is, it does not matter whether the Palestinians engage in violence, make threats of violence, eschew violence, or refrain from violence. Israel's response to all of these is exactly the same -- it continues illegally to settle the West Bank and refuses to vacate its illegal settlements to achieve peace. It refuses even so stop its illegal building in order to enter negotiations. It refuses to consider the Saudi peace proposal. Moreover, when the Palestinians resort to diplomatic and legal means to achieve their goals, Israel threatens their government and promises even more illegal building and settlement. Israel provokes conflict and refuses to settle the conflict on the basis of land for peace. Netanyhu has for decades been explicit that he does not accept the principle of land for peace. He set out to scuttle Oslo, declared his intention to do so (although without knowing he was recorded), and he did. There is no moral equivalence between terrorism, annihilationist policies, and colonization, but everywhere and and at all times colonization has been the cause of war. Israel cannot knowingly provoke war with its illegal acts, refusing to desist, and then absolve itself of moral responsibility for ongoing conflict.

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2012 at 7:09pm

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

"Saving Israel: How the Jewish People Can Win a War That May Never End" by Daniel Gordis I was surprised how good and well researched the book was. here is more: http://danielgordis.org/about/ Gordis is widely cited on matters pertaining to Israel. Professor Alan Dershowitz has called him “one of Israel’s most thoughtful observers,” while Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic has written, “If you asked me, ‘of all the people you know, who cares the most about the physical, moral and spiritual health of Israel?’ I would put the commentator and scholar Daniel Gordis at the top of the list.” Leonard Fein has written that Gordis is “perhaps the single most popular speaker on Israel to American Jewish audiences.”

- arnon1

December 9, 2012 at 7:12pm

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

Malahat you want the National Post you got the National Post http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/08/conrad-black-a-better-two-state-solution/

- basman

December 9, 2012 at 7:16pm

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

The writer implies that "land for peace" is on offer from Israel to the Palestinians, but of course it is not. It is on offer to Israel from the Saudis on behalf of the Arab world, but Israel ignores that. Moreover, Abbas has just stated publicly that he accepts Israel as the land west of the Green Line with Palestine a separate state east of the Green Line. In response, Netanyahu scoffs. It is quite clear which party will not accept the principle of land for peace, Netanyahu, who has always publicly rejected land (the Palestinians own land) for peace. It is equally clear which party accepts the principle of land for peace, Abbas, the Arabs, the Saudis. Israel will not discuss it. Defenders of Israel, like the climate-deniers, the creationists, the flat-earthers, must invent a separate reality for themselves. The portion of the world that accepts the alternate reality, including in America, including amongst American Jews, keeps shrinking. That is to be expected. As long as Abbas sticks to a policy of non-violence, the pool of those who agree to accept the alternate reality will keep declining until it consists only of Israelis, right-wing Jews, and a few evangelicals. Nice company.

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2012 at 7:17pm

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

"The fact is, it does not matter whether the Palestinians engage in violence, make threats of violence, eschew violence, or refrain from violence..." "However, that does not absolve the person of moral responsibility for the outcome." Here we go again, with "moral responsibility." "Israel's response to all of these is exactly the same -- it continues illegally to settle the West Bank and refuses to vacate its illegal settlements to achieve peace." Israel under the dreaded bad boy Sharon evacuated its "illegal' settlements" in Gaza. But for course it doesn't matter what Jews do. Jew haters will always hate and attack Jews. Imlike the way ROIDODO uses the word "violence." He makes it seem as if it were a slap on the face: violence by Muslims against Jews includes blowing up women and children, the murder of whole families. It includes the murder of little Jewish girls in France. Just as the Nazis did so do Muslims who follow the principles of the MB. I suppose Roidododo thinks European Jewry was "morally responsible" for what was done to them. Why not: "The occupied German territory.

- arnon1

December 9, 2012 at 7:22pm

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

bunthorne -- if you'd read my post you'd see that I was ventriloquising nayyer-ali with the comment about Palestinian rights, and not saying that that was either my position or not but rather pointing out a problematic argumentative jump that I have seen from several people discussing Camp David who seek to justify Arafat's walkout. Obviously Palestinians do have rights and fwiw I am a supporter of a Palestian nation-state next to Israel. And I think the satirical Gourmet Abu Dhabi jab was (a) aimed as much at Ireland as at Abu Dhabi and (b) was actually quite approving, while jocular. And nothing wrong with figs either (although I suspect the attention to local cuisine might be limited, but I don't know). I'll try to come back to roid's counter-argument later, which I may have to preface with one of those "and I'm against cruelty to animals too!" arguments that I remember from the Cold War (What about those Russian missiles then, eh? Eh?)

- ironyroad

December 9, 2012 at 7:24pm

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

".... right-wing Jews, and a few evangelicals. Nice company." Left wing Jews and Islamic members of the Muslim Brotherhood. (Do I need to link to news reports were the two groups protested Israel defending itself against Hamas and Hezbollah with placards that read "Jews to Auschwitz."

- arnon1

December 9, 2012 at 7:25pm

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

"According to the CBC, 87% of Canadians approved the elevation of Palestine to observer status at the United Nations last week, and disapproved the stance of the Canadian government opposing this move." According to the author of the National Post piece, the Canadian public is deluded.

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2012 at 7:26pm

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

But arnon, all that will be left to defend Israel's colonialism and apartheid in the West Bank will be Israelis, right-wing Jews, and a few evangelicals. The rest of the world increasingly does not believe Israeli propaganda about who is perpetuating the conflict, nor should it. I don't believe a word of it. It is patent that Israel refuses to accept a Palestinian state consisting of even the West Bank without Gaza, land given to the Arabs for their state by the UN. Israel will not accept one state, Israel will not accept two states. That the Muslim Brotherhood is and will likely remain extremist is neither here nor there. There will always be extremists. There is certainly no shortage of extremist Jews.

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2012 at 7:32pm

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

"I suppose Roidododo thinks European Jewry was "morally responsible" for what was done to them. Why not: "The occupied German territory." Funny, but I have never previously read that the Jews occupied Germany by force of arms, established colonial settlements there, and ran an apartheid regime in the area they occupied in which Jews, but not Germans, enjoyed full political and civil rights and freedom of movement. It should trouble anyone who supports Israel's right to exist within secure and recognized borders that its conduct must be defended with such preposterous arguments as we see above. With friends like these, enemies are an after-thought.

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2012 at 7:37pm

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

"According to the author of the National Post piece, the Canadian public is deluded." The author must know something you don't. The Canadian public was against allowing Jews to me admitted to Canada as refugees even after WW2 when what was done to them became apparent. Canadians favored the immigration of Germans over those of Jews. The phrase none is too many was coined by some Canadian politician who expressed his views about Jews coming to Canada.

- arnon1

December 9, 2012 at 7:38pm

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

says arnon, "Here we go again, with 'moral responsibility.'" Yes, just imagine, moral responsibility for illegal acts, acts declared war crimes under the First Protocol to the Geneva Conventions. What an absurd notion, moral responsibility. That there are those who reject the very notion of moral responsibility pretty much tells us all we need to know about them, at least as far as morality is concerned.

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2012 at 7:41pm

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

" Funny, but I have never previously read that the Jews occupied Germany by force of arms, established colonial settlements there, and ran an apartheid regime in the area they occupied in which Jews, but not Germans, enjoyed full political and civil rights and freedom of movement." Yes it's very funny but German antisemites believed that Jews occupied German territory with money and that they were a secret society that excluded non Jews. You don't know much about the history of antisemitism. The Nazis claimed when they deported Jews from conquered countries that they were "liberating"those countries.

- arnon1

December 9, 2012 at 7:42pm

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

Surely, arnon, you don't think Canada and Canadians have any moral responsibility for their actions. You don't believe in moral responsibility. So what if the Canadians favored immigration of Germans over Jews? According to you, everyone gets to do what they want and there is no moral responsibility for anything. At least not for Jews. Maybe for Canadians, or Arabs. But not for Jews. They have been given a license by god, or you, to commit whatever crimes they want with impunity, and no responsibility.

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2012 at 7:44pm

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

Do you mean to say, arnon, that the accusations levied by the Nazis against the Jews were false? Do you mean that when the Nazis deported Jews from conquered countries and claimed to be liberating those countries, they weren't? Do you mean to say that reality is not whatever you claim it to be? For example, Israel claims it is liberating the West Bank and exercising the ancient right of Jews to settle there (and apparently govern the Arabs undemocratically and deny them equal political and civil rights while also ignoring the mandates of the UN and the Fourth Geneva Convention). Do you think maybe Israeli propaganda, like Nazi propaganda, is full of self-serving falsehoods that no one other than a blinkered moron would believe?

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2012 at 7:49pm

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

"That the Muslim Brotherhood is and will likely remain extremist is neither here nor there. There will always be extremists. There is certainly no shortage of extremist Jews." There are millions more Muslims in the world than Jews and hence their extremists pose a greater danger to Jews everywhere than do the Jewish extremists who care mostly about 'Judea and Samaria." That the world is on the side of the Muslim Arabs is no surprise. Most of the world supporter Fascism, Hitlerism and Stalinism at one time.

- arnon1

December 9, 2012 at 7:49pm

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

"Noga, you spent years trying to paint me again and again into an ideological connection with others on TNR with whom no such connection -- as you knew full well -- existed, not to mention using me as a general target area for all your pet frustrations of the moment. So I hope that answers your question." Better still, what answers my question is roi's schmoozing with you that more or less confirms that you and he share a certain bond and a style of engagement. Otherwise why would he rush to hug you in you commiseration? He and icarus are much more your natural friends than I ever was. Now that you have succeeded in insulting me (congratulations!) and have formally joined the politically correct group, I wish you much joy of them.

- Noga

December 9, 2012 at 8:29pm

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

Yes, the answer to the danger of Muslim extremism and the reality of many, many millions of Muslims who may potentially sympathize with them is definitely illegally to colonize them in Palestine and subject them there to an oppressive apartheid regime in which the Israeli settlers enjoy political and civil rights, and privileged access to movement and water and employment, that the Arabs do not. If there is one sure means of fighting Muslim extremism, that is surely it. Why doesn't the world see that? Must be anti-Semitism.

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2012 at 8:38pm

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

It's strange that some Jews have adopted traditional anti Jewish attitudes without knowing it. To antisemites whenever non Jews show a friendly attitude towards Jews it's because of Jewish "influence." It's Jewish propaganda which makes non Jews take the sides of Jews. However, when people show hostility towards Jews it's always from this point of view because Jews deserve the opprobrium dished out. One can see this at work in the Arab Israeli conflict: Obama is said to have been bought by Jews while Chavez of Venezuela is said to disdain Jews because the Jews deserve it. Besides there are those Palestinians that Chavez cares so much about.

- arnon1

December 9, 2012 at 8:41pm

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

It's impossible to separate traditional hatred of Jews from views held about the Arab Israeli conflict. The views that Jews are nefarious and have to much pernicious influence everywhere is of long standing and play a decisive role in views about the conflict.

- arnon1

December 9, 2012 at 8:43pm

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

Don't worry, irony. I didn't rush "to hug you in commiseration," as noga claims. I expressed no sympathy at all for you. However, as I noted that you had made the same observation that I have made many times about noga's vile behavior here, I took advantage of the opportunity to point out that I am not the only one who has so noticed that particular tactic. It was not about you, irony. I was all about the execrable behavior of noga.

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2012 at 8:43pm

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

It is strange that some Jews have adopted traditional racist and fascist attitudes without knowing it.

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2012 at 8:45pm

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

"If there is one sure means of fighting Muslim extremism, that is surely it. Why doesn't the world see that? Must be anti-Semitism." Take this view to its logical conclusion: Abolish the Jewish State. The best way to fight Muslim extremism is to deny Jews a State of their own anywhere in the world, especially in their ancestral homeland. This is how the world always fought extremism: throw the Jews to whomever hates them, be they cassocks or Muslims or Catholic inquisitors. Throw the Jews to the dogs that will stop them from barking.

- arnon1

December 9, 2012 at 8:47pm

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

Marx' essay on the Jews ends with his infamous call to eradicate Jewry: "Once society has succeeded in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism – huckstering and its preconditions – the Jew will have become impossible, because his consciousness no longer has an object, because the subjective basis of Judaism, practical need, has been humanized, and because the conflict between man’s individual-sensuous existence and his species-existence has been abolished." "The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism."

- arnon1

December 9, 2012 at 8:58pm

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

This is not to say that I either like or trust Netanyahu. I think he has been one of the worst PM Israel ever had. Worse even than Yitzhak Shamir.

- arnon1

December 9, 2012 at 9:09pm

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

"It is strange that some Jews have adopted traditional racist and fascist attitudes without knowing it." Not strange at all, it happens all the time in history. Especially at a time when few people think historically. People adopt views without knowing its history and their true historical meaning.

- arnon1

December 9, 2012 at 9:11pm

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

We're they worst than LBJ the war criminal of Vietnam and your favorite president?

- JAIMECHUCH

December 9, 2012 at 9:22pm

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

Were they worst than LBJ the Vietnam war criminal and your favorite president?

- JAIMECHUCH

December 9, 2012 at 9:26pm

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

""... , the Canadian public is deluded." Unfortunately, it is true. I know people who consider themselves very educated and enlightened about the conflict who believe that the Galilee is part of the occupied territories. Why is that? Maybe the Palestinians who enlighten them do not really bother to tell them that when THEY speak of the OT, they mean all of Israel. I know educated Canadians who think that Iran is an Arab country and that Israel shares a border with Afghanistan. I know educated Canadians who think that Canada having some basic rules about immigration is the same policy as "none is too many". I know one very educated Canadian, a highly respected politician, who supported the flotilla projects because the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is the same as the humanitarian crisis in Japan after the tsunami. I know a Canadian professor of Philosophy who referred to Michael Ignatieff as a fascist because the latter had supported Israel's right to defend itself against Hizzbulla in 2006. In fact during that war there was a great rally in Montreal with thousands of Canadians yelling: We are all Hizzbulla!

- Noga

December 9, 2012 at 9:30pm

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

Noga: "Better still, what answers my question is roi's schmoozing with you that more or less confirms that you and he share a certain bond and a style of engagement." I'm impressed. It's so beautifully typical of you that you misread a "style of engagement" as closer to someone else's than to yours. As as for insult, your familiarity with it as a form of discussion would be challenged by no-one, and certainly not by me. roid: I'm not sure what is going on here, but are you deliberately sowing confusion? The account in the document you linked to says nothing about any Palestinian counter-proposal at Camp David (other than that there wasn't one) and it takes some mental gymnastics to take a remark about seeing a map in an accidental context and reshape it into having that map presented as part of a formal negotiating step. It's entirely your assumption -- roughly similar to nayyer-ali's -- that the Taba negotiations (where there was, it seems, a map presented) had any reasonable status or prospects at all and imo that assumption has less ground beneath it than my assumption that Camp David was where the action was at and Arafat walked away from said action. Why would subsidiary discussions trump major negotiations directly under sponsorship of the American president? I am not arguing with you about the illegality of the settlements or any such issue. I am suggesting with emphasis that you are presenting a skewed reading of one account of the 2000 talks. I ask again, where is the part that says that the Palestinians presented a counter-proposal to Barak and the Israeli team at Camp David? Because nayyer, for example, doesn't think they did.

- ironyroad

December 9, 2012 at 9:31pm

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

If there is hope for the future of the Mideast it will come from the Arabs themselves and it will have nothing to do with Jews or Israel who are just a side show. The demonstrations in Egypt are important: even if they don't overthrow Morsi. "Opponents of Egypt’s Leader Call for Boycott of Charter Vote." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/10/world/middleeast/egypt-mohamed-morsi-protests.html?pagewanted=all Events are still unfolding and it's hard to tell who will gain the upper hand.

- arnon1

December 9, 2012 at 9:47pm

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

"I know educated Canadians who think that Iran is an Arab country and that Israel shares a border with Afghanistan." I am having a hard time accepting all of your examples. I know people like that too, but they don't follow the news and don't think much about foreign policy. "I know one very educated Canadian, a highly respected politician, who supported the flotilla projects because the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is the same as the humanitarian crisis in Japan after the tsunami." This is easier to believe. "Personal experience" doesn't prove much, Noga. I was talking about statistical data.

- arnon1

December 9, 2012 at 9:54pm

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

I really have no idea how to respond to your comment, arnon. What's it got to do with what I had written? Anyway I'm entirely indifferent to what you believe or don't believe. As if there is some scientifically quantifiable value in what you believe that renders it true!

- Noga

December 9, 2012 at 10:00pm

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

fwiw, that ' 87% of Canadians poll ' cited a page ago, was from an online only poll, making the results completely meaningless, except to those who need the propaganda stat.

- K2K

December 9, 2012 at 10:04pm

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

Just looking at the comments list (and seeing 225) and reading a few from "the usual suspects" flaming at each other, I can see indeed there is no reason to have any hope for Israeli-Palestinian hope. I am quite sure Leon is quite aware of this without my giving him a "heads up." In fact "heads down, incoming" seems to be the only sensible advice to follow. At least it indicates that TNR has hundreds of readers.

- skahn

December 9, 2012 at 10:16pm

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

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/haaretz-poll-netanyahu-poised-to-retain-premiership-as-right-wing-solidifies-lead-1.483720 "The voters have picked their premier, but they're not stupid: By a large majority, poll respondents said Netanyahu's motives for deciding to build thousands of homes in the territories, starting with the E-1 corridor between Ma'aleh Adumim and East Jerusalem, were political and not nationalist, as he claimed. " Of course the Israeli public is not stupid. They are the most savvy bunch of voters in the world, even if I do say so myself:) I wrote in the past that the Israeli public does not like Netanyahu (for his taxation policies and particularly his wife) but they trust him as they do not trust any other leader. I'm hoping that Livni will manage to win an impressive enough number of seats, so that Netanyahu will be obliged to entice her into his coalition. Then there will be a majority of secular parties in the coalition with some leverage to enact some constitutional foundation concerning the role of religion in public life. With the Middle East boiling on every border perhaps Israel will finally succeed in consolidating at least some solid framework of its ethos. Who know, if Livni wins big and if she has learned anything from her past experience, she may yet achieve some greatness.

- Noga

December 9, 2012 at 10:19pm

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

"He and icarus are much more your natural friends than I ever was." Noga - 225 comments, and I have studiously avoided getting into this discussion. You can't keep help yourself, can you. KEEP ME OUT OF IT. My only "natural friends" here are those who do not maliciously lie and distort. Other than that, I have no ideological allies here or elsewhere. Above all, KEEP ME OUT OF IT. Fwiw: I agree with Irony re Nayyer. Not because I am a "natural friend", but because I agree with his point on negotiations. Regardless of what "offer" was on table from Israel, Arafat knew only the blow-up kind. He is the greatest disaster to befall Palestinians, who have never lacked bad leaders. It is a sad irony of history that the decade in which peace appeared at least within reach, was bookended by monumentally stupid strategic decisions on the part of the Palestinian leadership - Arafat: Hugging Saddam in 1990, and calling for the Second Intifada in 2000.

- icarus-r

December 9, 2012 at 10:33pm

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

Post the link before the text, or between paragraphs. It works for me.

- Noga

December 9, 2012 at 10:33pm

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

Malahat: Put a space in the link. It won't be a "link", but at least it will give the address.

- icarus-r

December 9, 2012 at 10:34pm

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

"Fwiw: I agree with Irony re Nayyer. Not because I am a "natural friend", but because I agree with his point on negotiations. Regardless of what "offer" was on table from Israel, Arafat knew only the blow-up kind. He is the greatest disaster to befall Palestinians, who have never lacked bad leaders. It is a sad irony of history that the decade in which peace appeared at least within reach, was bookended by monumentally stupid strategic decisions on the part of the Palestinian leadership - Arafat: Hugging Saddam in 1990, and calling for the Second Intifada in 2000." Very well said.

- arnon1

December 9, 2012 at 10:36pm

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

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2229/palestine_s_strangely_stubborn_state_of_mind " Even as the PLO replaced Arab leaders as the standard bearer of Palestinian aspirations, their cause did not advance –the late PLO leader, Yasser Arafat, skilfully played Arab intramurals and non-aligned movement politics, but never renounced the old compromise-averse all-demands-and-no-concessions’ stand of Palestinian nationalism. He relied on whichever Arab leader would champion his cause – and fought anyone who dared encourage compromise with Israel. That brought more grief onto the Palestinians than all the wars with Israel combined. Arafat’s brief stint in Jordan ended with its king, the late Hussein, slaughtering thousands of Palestinians to save his throne. Arafat’s reliance on Saddam Hussein cost hundreds of thousands of Palestinians their livelihoods in Kuwait in 1991 – after the emirate was liberated – and in Iraq in 2003 after Saddam was deposed. The one leader who sought to negotiate a compromise for the Palestinians was Anwar Sadat – and Arafat called for his assassination to thank him for that “crime.” In the end, no patron could do for the Palestinian cause more than the Palestinians were prepared to do themselves. For a brief moment, in the early phases of the Oslo process, the PLO realized that, if it ever was to fulfil its dream of statehood, it would have to negotiate directly with Israel instead of relying on others to deliver its goals on a silver platter. That the Oslo process turned into a failed opportunity is largely due to the fact that, as the moment of truth beckoned, Arafat chose to revert to habit and put his people’s fate away from direct negotiations and back into the hands of armed gangs on the ground and the international community in the corridors of diplomacy. Hoping that international pressure could deliver him the deal that talks with Israel could not, in late 2000 Arafat unleashed the Second Intifada. Twelve years later, and eight years after his death, Palestinian leaders are still grappling with this legacy, unable to fully distance themselves from the path of violence embraced by Hamas and still tempted to believe that the international community can deliver what Israel cannot or will not concede through direct talks."

- Noga

December 9, 2012 at 10:47pm

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

It is interesting that the most interesting thing about Benvenisti isn't mentioned; he's an advocate for a binational state.

- jacob111

December 9, 2012 at 11:40pm

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

Me too: with Arnon and the guy who's waxen wings are melting, and good on the progenitor of all this effusion of agreement, a sweet convergence on an essentially sour thread, I give you the music and the man, Ironyroad!!!

- basman

December 9, 2012 at 11:43pm

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

And Malahat too, a pivotal figure in said convergence.

- basman

December 9, 2012 at 11:44pm

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

me: That the Muslim Brotherhood is and will likely remain extremist is neither here nor there. There will always be extremists. There is certainly no shortage of extremist Jews. arnon: There are millions more Muslims in the world than Jews and hence their extremists pose a greater danger to Jews everywhere than do the Jewish extremists who care mostly about 'Judea and Samaria. me: Yes, the answer to the danger of Muslim extremism and the reality of many, many millions of Muslims who may potentially sympathize with them is definitely illegally to colonize them in Palestine and subject them there to an oppressive apartheid regime in which the Israeli settlers enjoy political and civil rights, and privileged access to movement and water and employment, that the Arabs do not. If there is one sure means of fighting Muslim extremism, that is surely it. Why doesn't the world see that? Must be anti-Semitism. arnon: Take this view to its logical conclusion: Abolish the Jewish State. _________________________ No, arnon, that is not at all the logical conclusion. The logical conclusion is that Israel should stop illegally colonizing the West Bank and should be prepared to vacate its illegal settlements there to achieve a peace agreement unless it is willing to trade their preservation for something the Palestinians want, rather than scraps of desert they don't want. Ben-Ami expresses shock that, in exchange for legitimizing some settlements, the Palestinians wanted other land contiguous to the West Bank. Why is that shocking? Of course they would. Why should they concede to Israel pieces of there 22% of the land between the Jordan and the sea in exchange for scraps of desert that no one wants? ____________________ Ironyroad: The standard account of Camp David and Taba is that Arafat never made counter-proposals to Israeli offers. Yet, Ben-Ami, who was there, was asked: "Throughout this whole period, didn't the Palestinians present maps of their own? Was there no Palestinian geographical proposal?" He answers, "They did not present maps at all. Not before Taba. . . . " I don't know any way of understanding this other than that the DID present some alternate map or maps at Taba. What else could it possibly mean? You say, oh well, by Taba it was too late, the talks were effectively dead. How do you know that? And if the Palestinians did make some kind of proposal at Taba, why wasn't Israel as obliged to negotiate with respect to Palestinian proposals as everyone thinks Arafat was with respect to Israeli proposals? Barak suspended the talks pending the election, Sharon was elected, and, according to wiki at least, he refused to meet with Arafat. There is also this from wiki: In 2006, Shlomo Ben-Ami [the same person quoted above] stated on Democracy Now! that "Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well. This is something I put in the book. But Taba is the problem. The Clinton parameters are the problem" referring to his 2001 book Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy. Finally, as I noted earlier, even though the Palestinian map that Ben-Ami saw at Camp David was not offered as a proposal, it seems clear from his comments that Israel was only willing to trade desert, "dunes," for the settlements it wanted. There is also this from wiki regarding the Camp David talks of 2000: "The Palestinian negotiators indicated they wanted full Palestinian sovereignty over the entire West Bank and the Gaza Strip, although they would consider a one-to-one land swap with Israel. They maintained that Resolution 242 calls for full Israeli withdrawal from these territories, which were captured in the Six-Day War, as part of a final peace settlement, although Israel disputes this interpretation of Resolution 242. In the 1993 Oslo Accords the Palestinian negotiators accepted the Green Line borders for the West Bank but the Israelis rejected this proposal. They wanted to annex the numerous settlement blocks on the Palestinian side of the Green Line, and were concerned that a complete return to the 1967 borders was dangerous to Israel's security." It appears that the Palestinians and Arabs have numerous times asserted their willingness to make peace based on the Green Line as a border. The have apparently also expressed willingness to swap land 1:1 to accommodate some of Israel's demands, but Israel consistently interprets this such that the Palestinians are to receive desert that no one wants rather than an offer to Israel to bargain in good faith for a mutual exchange of land that both parties want. It seems to me that all historical accounts lead to the same conclusion: The Palestinians will make peace (affirmed again recently by Abbas) based on the Green Line as the presumptive border with mutually agreeable swaps. Israel refuses because it wants to keep the settlements and does not offer anything that the Palestinians want in exchange, not recognition of refugee claims, not land that the Palestinians want. I would say again that Israel is offering the Palestinians a deal for suckers but hopes to impose it by holding the Palestinians and their state hostage. I also believe that persistent and patient diplomacy on the part of the Palestinians will result in the failure of this Israeli plan, as long as he PA continues to eschew violence. Israelis scream that the willingness of the Palestinians to accept two states with the Green Line as the presumptive border is a plot to eradicate Israel. That seems a patent cover-up for Israel's consistent refusal to vacate the West Bank, land given by the UN to the Palestinians that the UN has consistently denied to Israel.

- roidubouloi

December 10, 2012 at 12:07am

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

The article linked by noga, near its conclusion, says this: "All this was avoidable – the other option was direct negotiations between the parties, a process which demands give and take. Palestinian history, unfortunately, offers no precedent for that." I fail to see what Israel offers to give. The only question it is willing to consider is just how much of the Palestinians' land it is going to take, in exchange for which it offers only some scraps of desert that no one wants and demands that the Palestinians abandon their claimed right of return of refugees. Doesn't appear that Israel understands negotiations as a process of give and take at all, except in the limited sense of, "You have to give what we want to take."

- roidubouloi

December 10, 2012 at 12:22am

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

"No, arnon, that is not at all the logical conclusion." Gosh, you told arnon off, didn't you?

- arnon1

December 10, 2012 at 12:47am

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

one factor that has changed, in the past four or so years, is the discovery of massive shale oil deposits in Israel, and some in Jordan. I was just reading up on St. Catherine's monastery at the base of Mount Sinai, in South Sinai, to clarify why it is not part of the Coptic Church. After extricating from rerading about the Byzantine schisms of the Byzantines, it seems that St. Catherine's, being a fortress, not only survived the onslaught of Mohamed's armies, but has the original promise of protection document signed by Mohamed. Barring the sudden appearance of an promise of protection signed by the Prophet himself that produces a map for two states, I do think Ambassador Michael Oren's tentative position on Syria risking becoming another Islamist Sunni state, I think the 2002 Arab plan is what is percolating while the non-monarchy arab nations get a grip on their own governance.

- K2K

December 10, 2012 at 12:58am

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

I didn't tell you off, arnon. I explained the obvious to you. Based on your comment, that was necessary.

- roidubouloi

December 10, 2012 at 1:21am

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

Henry Siegman, former Senior Fellow and Director of the U.S./Middle East Project at the Council on Foreign Relations and former Executive Director of the American Jewish Congress, wrote in the Financial Times on April 26, 2007 that: The Arab League meeting in Cairo yesterday was unprecedented in its overture to Israel, offering to meet Israeli representatives to clarify the peace initiative that the League re-endorsed at its meeting in Riyadh on March 28. The two events underscore the complete reversal of the paradigm that for so long has defined the Israeli-Arab conflict.... The Israeli response to this tectonic change in Arab psychology and politics was worse than rejection: it was complete indifference, as if this 180-degree turnround in Arab thinking had no meaning for Israel and its future in the region. Ehud Olmert, prime minister, and his government have reflexively rejected every Arab peace offer, whether from Saudi Arabia, Syria, the Arab League or Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president. Ariel Sharon's and Mr Olmert's policies these past seven years have shaped a new paradigm in which Israel is the rejectionist party. The Three Nos of Khartoum have been replaced by the Three Nos of Jerusalem: no negotiations with Syria, no acceptance of the Arab initiative and, above all, no peace talks with the Palestinians

- roidubouloi

December 10, 2012 at 1:22am

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

I don't know anything about Henry Siegman. It is obvious, however, that he too must be an anti-Semite. But here is this article from just this past October: http://forward.com/articles/163410/behind-henry-siegmans-turn-on-israel/?p=all After reading it, I would say that my views are pretty much identical to Siegman's. “If Israel believes that in this part of the world it can permanently deprive millions of Palestinians of their rights, that is absurd. Israel is signing its own death warrant,” he said, calling the policy of Netanyahu’s government “suicidal.”

- roidubouloi

December 10, 2012 at 1:31am

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

roid: "I don't know any way of understanding this other than that the DID present some alternate map or maps at Taba." And I don't know any way of understanding this except to say that (a) Taba January 21-26 wasn't Camp David in December and (b) the more important point is not whether X or Y presented a map but whether there was a serious attempt to negotiate at Camp David, whether with maps or without. You were the one who noted a surprising discovery that there had been. Now, there can be many arguments about whether Ben-Ami is a reliable witness or not, but assuming that you can't advance the same witness as truthful and untruthful at the same time, then I have to say that his testimony is that there was no counter-proposal from Arafat at Camp David. Merely repeating what you believe to be the nature of the Israeli position doesn't change that fact, any more than if you and I were negotiating over a court settlement, and I left the room after your opening statement declaring that I couldn't get anywhere with you, that my declaration should be accepted as the truth merely because you set out an initial negotiating position that I disagreed with. Either you negotiate or you don't. There maybe good reasons for the one or the other, but they remain the one or the other, i.e. different things. "The music and the man"? Eeek! I confess to having a harmonica on my desk that I blow occasionally for inspiration, but more than that? . . . you know your way around blues/country/soul more than I could ever learn, basman.

- ironyroad

December 10, 2012 at 2:05am

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

"Israelis scream that the willingness of the Palestinians to accept two states with the Green Line as the presumptive border is a plot to eradicate Israel" Not at all. Israelis worry about the Palestinians' absence of will to accept that the partitioning of Mandate Palestine was to be between two states: one Jewish, one Arab. The matter of the borders was to be settled during subsequent negotiations. Either you do not at all understand this very simple principle or you are trying to lie and pretend otherwise. Israelis also do not wish to return to the Auschwitz borders of pre-67. But that matter could be negotiated if the Palestinians has displayed the slightest wish to meet Israel's basic condition of being recognized for what it is: A Jewish state. I actually think, roi, that when you declared that "I think that what I most object to about Israel re-declaring itself the Jewish state is that it becomes impossible for me both to be Jewish and to disassociate myself from your disgraceful behavior ... Just leave us here alone, why don't you?" you in effect discredited yourself from having any legitimate position about this essential matter and everything that follows from it. You can present your position, but people who read here must understand that you are speaking from an utterly self-serving and therefore irrelevant interest. The way you feel about how Jewish statehood compromises your standing with your anti-Zionist friends is simply irrelevant.

- Noga

December 10, 2012 at 6:32am

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

roi's manner of reasoning: A: Your sister is a whore. B: But I don't even have a sister. A: She is still a whore.

- Noga

December 10, 2012 at 6:37am

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

Good to know how Iran's media translates what they read at TNR.com: http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9107125154 News number: 9107125154 13:04 | 2012-12-08 "US Think Tank: Regional Streams Find Common Ground in Battling against Israel" "...The Washington Near East Policy in an article titled 'The end of the forty-year peace between Israel and Arab states', wrote by Robert Satloff, reiterated that all regional streams, including in Syria, Bahrain, Iran, Egypt and Qatar are united in opposition to Israeli policies, which does not create an appropriate landscape for Israel's strategic situation in the future. ..."

- K2K

December 10, 2012 at 7:14am

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

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=295242

- K2K

December 10, 2012 at 8:19am

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

Yes, irony, let us pass by the question of whether Ben-Ami is a reliable witness. You ignore the response of Ben-Ami that he did not see any Palestinian proposals in the form of maps until Taba. Or, rather, you dismiss it by declaring that "Taba January 21-26 wasn't Camp David in December." Is that somehow material? No, January is not December and Taba is not Camp David, but the Taba negotiations were intended to be, and were in fact, the continuation of the negotiations begun at Camp David. Having made this distinction between Taba and Camp David, you then declare that it isn't really important (I quite agree). The question, you say, is rather whether there were serious negotiations. By all accounts of Taba, there were. Those negotiations were suspended by Barak in the face of the pending elections, he lost, Sharon would not return to the negotiations. The accounts I recall were that Sharon would not resume the negotiations because he disapproved of what had been offered there by Israel. Does that constitute serious negotiation by Israel? In any event, the point that I was making was not about the "seriousness" of the negotiations. The claim has been made repeatedly that the Palestinians never offered counter-proposals, that they only said no while expecting the Israelis to negotiate with themselves. Ben-Ami was asked directly whether this was so, whether there were ever Palestinian counter-proposals in the form of maps. His answer appears to be, "Yes, at Taba." Did Israel negotiate seriously from the Palestinian proposals? It does not appear so from any accounts. However, whether it did or did not, Ben-Ami gives the lie to the claim that the Palestinians never made counter-proposals. Rather, it appears that Israel refuses to take Palestinian proposals seriously, insisting on negotiating only from its own, and falsely claiming that the Palestinians will not make proposals and negotiate. By negotiating with itself (and the United States), all the while noisily insisting that settlement can only by had by negotiations between the parties, Israel has simply persuaded itself that it is entitled to keep the illegal settlements and that it is some demented failure of political will on the part of the Palestinians that they refuse to accept this. The Palestinian refusal to legitimize Israel's illegal settlements is claimed to be Palestinian refusal to make peace. Not so. What is in fact quite clear over an extended period of time is that the Arabs have repeatedly offered peace on the basis of the Green Line, including consideration of mutually agreeable land swaps. Israel rejects outright or ignores that offer and repeatedly proposes instead so-called "land swaps" that have Israel keeping its illegal settlements in the form of multiple sovereign enclaves in Palestine in exchange for scraps of land that neither side wants. In addition, Israel, while proposing to chop up Palestine to maintain most of its settlements (do look at the maps in Wasserstein's book if you get the chance), demands that the Palestinians abandon the claims of refugees west of the Green Line, claims that do have a serious basis in international law I don't know exactly what Ben-Ami was referring to when he said that, if he were the Palestinians, he would not have accepted Israel's Camp David proposals, but I certainly would not have if I were in their shoes. I did a lot of negotiating of deals at one time. I never attempted to cut a deal that I thought I would not accept if I were in the other guy's shoes. It never occurred to me to try, as I assumed both that it would be rejected and that the good will necessary for negotiations would be destroyed by what would appear to my negotiating partner to be an attempt to play him for a fool. You don't conduct "serious negotiations" that way. There is no evidence that Israel has ever negotiated based on the Arab proposal of the Green Line as the border (see the article I linked about the views of Howard Siegman, former Executive Director of the American Jewish Congress) accompanied by any effort to swap land on a mutually agreeable basis, to bargain and trade, to negotiate. Rather, Israel proposes various versions of the same thing, all of which are only a question of how much of the Palestinians' land Israel is going to take in exchange for . . . nothing, other than the end of occupation and the Palestinian statehood to which they Palestinians are entitled as of right anyway if Israel's legitimate security needs are met. Israel has no right to occupy Palestine in order to obtain the cession of Palestinian land to which Israel has no legitimate claim. The land was given to the Arabs by the UN partition. The UNSC has told Israel repeatedly that it may not take it. The record appears to be quite clear that Israel will not accept two states separated by the Green Line, something the Palestinians and the Arab world have repeatedly offered. In justification for Israel's refusal, the hysterical claim is made that the Palestinians will not actually accept their own offer (which Israel will not of course put to the test). This appears to be a patent effort to divert attention from Israel's refusal. The Arab League as a whole has made the same offer, including the offer to recognize Israel, giving the Palestinians ample political cover to accept the deal. If there is any sticking point in the Saudi plan, it is the right of return. The way is open to Israel to barter for the abandonment of the right of return in exchange for the abandonment of its settlements, or to have settlements remain in Palestine east of the border in exchange for some recognition of Palestinian refugee claims west of the border, or genuinely to barter settlements for land that the Palestinians want. Israel refuses. Israel insists on Palestinian cession of the settlements AND Palestinian cession of refugee claims. In justification of its position, Israel says, "We cannot have returnees because there must be two states for two peoples." Somehow, when it comes to Palestinian land, the principle of two states for two peoples is immediately forgotten. That is not serious negotiating. It is an attempt to play the Palestinians for fools, and when they refuse to play along, Israel claims that they will not make peace. It is Israel that will not make peace.

- roidubouloi

December 10, 2012 at 8:32am

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

Ah, noga, ever the completely unscruplous propagandist. And here we see you again playing the Goebbels game of accusing me of doing exactly what it is that you are doing. There is no more succinct description of exactly what you do here than this: "roi's manner of reasoning: A: Your sister is a whore. B: But I don't even have a sister. A: She is still a whore." You reliably place your own words in other people's mouths and then take issue with them. When they deny, or even point out in detail that you are lying, you merely insist that the sister is a whore anyway. So, let us again undertake the process of demonstrating that you are a liar who never does anything else. To begin with, you are again playing your typical game of editing my words, and removing the context, to alter their meaning. Here is the actual exchange between me and makover: makover: "Israelis have no "self pity". You leave us alone, we will leave you alone, you will f..k with us, we will kick your ass." [Note: makover appears not to consider you an Israeli.] me: "I think that what I most object to about Israel re-declaring itself the Jewish state is that it becomes impossible for me both to be Jewish and to disassociate myself from your disgraceful behavior. A very unfortunate position to be in. Why don't you declare yourselves to be the Maccabbean state or the Davidic state or something, get off the US security teat, stop meddling in US politics, and then do whatever you want and suffer the consequences? Just leave us here alone, why don't you?" Oh my, it seems that you omitted both the context, makover's claim that Israel just wants to be left alone, and the language about how Israel, contra makover, depends on the US and interferes in our politics to that end, declining to be left alone with the consequences of its own actions. Now, you may disagree with my characterization. That would be a disagreement of substance, something that is always quite beyond your intellectual reach, noga. However, it is quite evident that what I wrote will not remotely bear the meaning that you attempt to place on it, anti-Zionism. That's why you had to edit my words, to make them fit your mis-characterization. Please do see your own little fable, above, about whores and sisters. Now, as to the geopolitical nonsense that you spew, such as this: "Israelis worry about the Palestinians' absence of will to accept that the partitioning of Mandate Palestine was to be between two states: one Jewish, one Arab. The matter of the borders was to be settled during subsequent negotiations. Either you do not at all understand this very simple principle or you are trying to lie and pretend otherwise." What sort of blather is this? All the land in the West Bank is part of the Arab partition of the West Bank. The Arabs have abandoned their claims to those portions of their partition that Israel incorporated after the 1949 armistice. The refuse to give Israel pieces of the remnant unless Israel will give them something they want in exchange. This Israel refuses to do. The Arabs have repeatedly offered to make peace on the basis of the Green Line as the border. On that basis, they would have only land that was part of their partition. Clearly, it is Israel, not the Arabs, that refuses to accept the partition. When resolution 242 was adopted, what was contemplated, according to the history, was the possibility of border rectifications for purposes of security. Acquisition by Israel of the land it occupied in the war was explicitly stated to be inadmissible. Certainly it was not contemplated that Palestine would be chopped into Swiss cheese with Israel maintaining multiple enclaves for settlements. There were no settlements at that time. Could Israel then settle the land and demand border adjustments on that basis, claiming that this is not acquisition of territory by war? Without question, the answer is no. The Fourth Geneva Convention forbids it and the Security Council has repeatedly admonished Israel that this is not permitted. Israel simply flouts the resolutions of the UNSC that it is bound by the UN Charter to observe and then demands that the Palestinians legitimize Israeli violations by ceding the territory that Israel has wrongfully settled. Then you say this: "Israelis also do not wish to return to the Auschwitz borders of pre-67. But that matter could be negotiated if the Palestinians has displayed the slightest wish to meet Israel's basic condition of being recognized for what it is: A Jewish state." The "Auschwitz borders" claim is that the 1967 lines are inherently too insecure to be rendered as final borders. And, resolution 242 was adopted in contemplation of border rectifications for purposes of security. However, the notion that maintaining most of the major settlements as enclaves is somehow in aid of the security of what is legitimately Israel is utterly preposterous, ridiculous, absurd. Plainly, they compromise security. Given the nature of modern warfare, if there is any border or line that matters for purposes of security, it is the Jordan, certainly not the boundaries of Ariel. Is Israel going to extend its borders to the Jordan in order not to have so-called "Auschwitz borders?" Not hardly. That would mean incorporating the whole Palestinian population, which Israel refuses to do although the Palestinians appear to be willing. The security alternative then is not incorporation of settlements, but the de-militarization of Palestine together with some sort of arrangements along the Jordanian border that prevent arms from coming in illegally. There is no other security issue. Palestine without access to arms poses exactly no security threat to Israel. The claim that Israel's demand for the settlements has anything to do with security is a lie, a lie you are only to happy to repeat, noga, because lying, about pretty much everything, is all that you do. Finally, your insistence that the Arabs refuse to "recognize Israel as the Jewish state." What you clearly mean by this is ethnic cleansing, and you have declined repeated invitations to explain exactly what you do mean by it. The Arabs have repeatedly said they will recognize the legitimacy of Israel west of the Green Line, its part of the partition for a Jewish-majority state, plus the portions of the Arab partition occupied by Israel at the time of the armistice. Palestine has already done so and Abbas has recently re-affirmed that recognition. There is no such thing in diplomatic practice as "recognition as a __________ state," only recognition as a state. Perhaps what you mean by recognition as a Jewish state is the meaning that Michael Oren explained in the pages of The New York Times, that the Palestinians must abandon their claimed right or return so that Israel can remain a Jewish-majority state. That is a matter that Oslo specifically consigns to the final status agreement. When there is a final status agreement, Palestine will, by definition, have agreed to terms regarding the refugee claims that Israel has accepted. Ergo, by Michael Oren's definition, Palestine will have recognized Israel as the Jewish state. But peace cannot be had until Israel agrees to accept the partition plan and get off of the Arabs' land. Israel refuses. The security claims, the "Jewish state" nonsense are all obfuscation, intended by you, and Israel, to obscure the simple fact that Israel will not get off of the Palestinians land and accept the reality of two states for two people. It will not accept a one state solution, it will not accept a two state solution, it will not accept a solution. Israel perpetuates the war on account of its illegal settlement of Palestine. Get lost, noga. You are nothing but a liar, ever and always, and when it comes to international politics, you are an ignoramus. Tell us about Jane Austen why don't you? It is time for one of your little Jane Austen interludes.

- roidubouloi

December 10, 2012 at 9:18am

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

roi, why do you deny that you said what you said, so clearly? Where is the courage of your convictions? Is it possible that ,for all your noise and rumbling you are actually nothing but a coward? BTW, if you think someone is a liar and an ignoramus, the way to discourage them is not to respond with over a 1000 word comment. It's interesting that you find fault with Shlomo Ben Ami, a most scrupulous politician and the doviest of doves in Israel's politics. It says something about your own appalling lack of judgment and discrimination. Since you are incapable of admitting a mistake you will spend thousands of words trying to persuade yourself that you didn't actually say what you said, that because Ben Ami's testimonial does not fit into your narrative it must be that he is an unreliable witness (a liar in other words). You are the quintessential Stalinist, a fanatic, a thug, and the worst kind of rascal. "When someone is honestly 55% right, that’s very good and there’s no use wrangling. And if someone is 60% right, it’s wonderful, it’s great luck, and let him thank God. But what’s to be said about 75% right? Wise people say this is suspicious. Well, and what about 100% right? Whoever say he’s 100% right is a fanatic, a thug, and the worst kind of rascal." (Czeslaw Milosz’s The Captive Mind)

- Noga

December 10, 2012 at 9:52am

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

Some more fuel for fire: www.camera.org. My favorite Israel-advocacy organization, They have high standards. I agree with them about 95% of the time.

- amidut

December 10, 2012 at 10:05am

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

More Goebbels games from noga. You never tire of aping him, do you noga? No shame, no embarrassment, no scruple, ever. I do not deny I said, you goon, I quote myself. But I quote all of what I say, not with elisions as you do, so that it is clear that it does not support the malign interpretation that you try to fit there. Do I think you are a liar and an ignoramus? Oh, I think much worse of you than that. I think you are a self-pitying whiner too, and a lot of other much worse things I don't want to bother repeating at the moment. Only so much time in the day. Particularly as lies, notably your lies, are so economical. It takes but a sense to tell a lie. It often requires, well even a 1,000 words, to marshal the evidence and arguments to demonstrate without question that it is a lie. It is a tedious effort, but I am up to the task, and you are an inviting target because you tell such big, fat, juicy, and invariably stupid lies. You are quite stupid, you know. Any here again we see you stupidity on plain display. It was irony, not I, who questioned whether Ben-Ami is a reliable witness. I didn't want to be drawn into arguing the point (for what it is worth, I assume he is a reliable witness) because it was beside the point I was making. As we see, there is no matter to trivial for you to lie about it or attempt to distort it. Does your husband check his soup for poison? He should. This does however remind of something I should have made explicit in my response to irony but omitted: Irony, you say, that either Ben-Ami should be taken as truthful or not. I take him as truthful. However, the question whether he was shown any map of a Palestinian counter-proposal is a question of fact. His characterization of the Palestinians as "not negotiating" is a matter of his opinion. I can accept his testimony as to a matter of fact that he witnessed while remaining agnostic about his opinion. His testimony is that there was a Palestinian counter-map at Taba. That is negotiating, in my opinion, but in any event directly contradicts the oft-repeated claim that the Palestinians refused to make any counter-proposals. You may consider that counter-proposals advanced at Taba were of no importance given the timing. That is your opinion. If Taba was of no relevance and had no possibility of success, one wonders why it was convened in the first place. And if, as accounts say, progress was made, one wonders why Sharon refused to return and continue. Sharon, not Arafat.

- roidubouloi

December 10, 2012 at 10:22am

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

"It takes but a sentence to tell a lie. It often requires, well even a 1,000 words, to marshal the evidence and arguments to demonstrate without question that it is a lie."

- roidubouloi

December 10, 2012 at 10:24am

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

"the hysterical claim is made that the Palestinians will not actually accept their own offer" Republicans routinely reject their own offers - see Heritage plan for health care, McConnell plan for the debt ceiling - so this might well be a bit of projection, hysterical or not. As well, until 1994 at any rate, it is objectively true that one side of the negotiations denied the right of the other to exist; and until the Arab League realised that the Second Intifiada was not going to work - thanks mostly to the Wall, which they opposed - there was no peace proposal on their part. To question their good faith in this is not irrational, from a negotiating perspective. In any event, relitigating the past is always fraught. You know, from your own negotiating experience, that just as proposing an absurd position is poisonous, so is not seizing the moment. From this perspective, even if one were to accept the proposition that in January, a set of maps showing demarcations amounted to a negotiating position that Barak, and then Sharon, rejected/ignored, it does not alter the central point of Irony's comment: Arafat had an ill-judged tantrum in Camp David. It was a uniquely missed opportunity, because Clinton was so desperate for a deal; because Barak was so desperate for a deal; because the writing was on the wall that Sharon was coming in; because the First Intifada had already been a terrible mistake; because ... that is to say, with an ounce of strategic sense, instead of walking out and loosening his suicide bombers on the Israeli population, he would have hunkered down, called Barak's bluff, taken Clinton's $10 billion offer and gone home - perhaps (most likely) to a martyr's death, but at least, he would have shown the way forward to his people. But, the man who took a pistol to the UN, who embraced Khomeini and Saddam in succession - the scion of one of the wealthiest non-Saudi families in the Arab world - he could not help himself. I think that in this, Nayyer actually puts the case starkly - more than you are willing to admit: Arafat walked out because, in his view, negotiations were pointless. Whether he thought that Palestinians should simply be given their human rights, or should take them by another wave of human misery, is only in Arafat's (even then, most likely addled, and now of course blissfully decomposed) brain. The possibility of a deal was dead when he left Camp David. None of which actually undermines the central point that you are making about the state of affairs today about the Settlements. But I am not sure it helps relitigating 2000.

- icarus-r

December 10, 2012 at 10:29am

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

Here is a fine example of the high standards of camera.org: The newspaper [Der Spiegel] apparently rejects the official interpretation of UN Security Council Resolution 242, that defines the territory as "disputed" not "occupied". This would mean that Israel was building on land of undetermined ownership, not Palestinian land. The UN resolution also establishes the firm precedent that the status of the territory would only be changed through negotiations, something the Palestinian Authority has turned its back on by going to the UN General Assembly. Furthermore, Israel took possession of the land from an illegal occupier, Jordan. 1. There is no such thing as an "official interpretation" of resolution 242. 2. Contra camera, Resolution 242 nowhere uses the word "disputed." Also contra camera, it does, however, call for, "(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;" See that word in there, "occupied?" 3. The unilateral settlement of the occupied territory was not changing its status in violation of resolution of 242? Really? Fortunately, the Security Council itself clarified its intentions, not with an "official interpretation," but with an "official resolution," resolution 446 of 22 March 1979: The Security Council, Having heard the statement of the Permanent Representative of Jordan and other statements made before the Council, Stressing the urgent need to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, Affirming once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 1/ is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, 1. Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East; 2. Strongly deplores the failure of Israel to abide by Security Council resolutions 237 (1967) of 14 June 1967, 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968 and 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971 and the consensus statement by the President of the Security Council on 11 November 1976 2/ and General Assembly resolutions 2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V) of 4 and 14 July 1967, 32/5 of 28 October 1977 and 33/113 of 18 December 1978; 3. Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories; 4. Establishes a Commission consisting of three members of the Security Council, to be appointed by the President of the Council after consultations with the members of the Council, to examine the situation relating to settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem; 5. Requests the Commission to submit its report to the Security Council by 1 July 1979; 6. Requests the Secretary-General to provide the Commission with the necessary facilities to enable it to carry out its mission. 7. Decides to keep the situation in the occupied territories under constant and close scrutiny and to reconvene in July 1979 to review the situation in the light of the findings of the Commission. _______________________ An instant review strongly suggests that camera.org, in sharp contrast to its title, Committee on Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, is just more of the same Israeli/AIPAC tendentious bullshit and propaganda.

- roidubouloi

December 10, 2012 at 10:34am

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

That first paragraph, beginning with, "The newspaper [Der Spiegel] . . . should have been in quotes. It is taken from the camera.org website.

- roidubouloi

December 10, 2012 at 10:35am

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

Do you really think, roi, that this: "I think that what I most object to about Israel re-declaring itself the Jewish state is that it becomes impossible for me both to be Jewish and to disassociate myself from your disgraceful behavior. A very unfortunate position to be in. Why don't you declare yourselves to be the Maccabbean state or the Davidic state or something, get off the US security teat, stop meddling in US politics, and then do whatever you want and suffer the consequences? Just leave us here alone, why don't you?" changes the meaning of this: "I think that what I most object to about Israel re-declaring itself the Jewish state is that it becomes impossible for me both to be Jewish and to disassociate myself from your disgraceful behavior"?? Quite the contrary. It further expands on your antisemitic sentiment. Only you , who attaches to words different meanings than designated for them in the dictionary, can claim that with a straight face and dare to call me a liar for pointing it out. You have no conception of what "truth" is, roi, as befits the Stalinist that you are.

- Noga

December 10, 2012 at 10:52am

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

Icarus, I have been quite explicit, multiple times, including on the Israel threads of the past couple of days, that, apart from being immoral, Arafat made an enormous strategic error by leaving the table and again resorting to violence. However, he returned to the table at Taba, by all accounts progress was made, Barak suspended the negotiations pending the Israeli elections, and Sharon, after he won, would not return to negotiate with Arafat. As to your characterization that Arafat should have accepted the Israeli proposal of Taba, that is a separate matter. I don't agree with you. I don't know why he would have or should have. Although Israel has persuaded itself that the Palestinians owe it to Israel and peace to legitimize the patently illegal settlements, I don't see why it is not rather Israel that ought to accept that it has no legitimate claim to the West Bank, under all of the original partition plan, the Fourth Geneva Convention, and a slew of UNSC resolutions. (See, e.g., UNSC Resolution 446 quoted above it its entirety). Israel has the right to insist, as a condition to peace, to adequate measures for its own security. I would accept that there is a very good argument that this includes limiting or extinguishing Palestinian claims west of the Green Line. I have also said repeatedly that Israel ought to be more than willing to vacate the settlements, to which it has no legal claim, in exchange for extinguishing Palestinian claims west of the Green Line as they do have a colorable basis in international law. Trading something to which you don't have a claim to get rid of a colorable claim against you would be smart, and I think it is doable in this case. In any case, Israel does not have the right to hold peace, a Palestinian state, and Palestinian freedom within that state hostage to illicit demands for Palestinian land. That is exactly what it is doing and was still doing at Taba. Israel's Taba map was an improvement over Camp David in that regard (see the maps in the Wasserstein book), but was still the same basic offer: You give us land that is yours in exchange for some scraps of desert and you surrender your claims west of the Green Line to boot. It is a lousy deal for the Palestinians. They have repeatedly refused to accept it while also repeatedly offering to recognize Israel with the Green Line as the border (and Palestine has already done so). The Palestinians and Arabs bear the lion's share of the blame for this conflict, overwhelmingly so. But as Henry Siegman, former Executive Director of the AJC points out, it is now Israel that is in the position of refusing to make peace. Moreover, no matter how bad the Arabs may be at negotiating (according to our norms), that really does not excuse Israel from refusing to accept a peace that is on the table and has been since 2002 when the Arab League first made its offer to recognize Israel, all 22 Arab states, if Israel will withdraw to the Green Line. The Palestinians even offered to barter over the border, but Israel does not barter in the sense of offering land that the Palestinians want. It persists in demanding that they cede their land as part of the settlement in exchange for the fig leaf of scraps of desert. When my negotiating partners made mistakes, as they often did because they were negotiating the once in a lifetime sale of their businesses and I was a professional acquirer, I would not capitalize on their errors, but quietly repair them. Not only did I consider it the ethical thing to do, not to capitalize on the mistakes of amateurs, but, as our deals always contemplated some continuing minority ownership, I knew it was unwise to make a deal that my counter-part would come to resent. The casting of blame for failure is really quite irrelevant. Israel needs to fulfill its international legal responsibilities and it needs to make a deal within the bounds of its international legal responsibilities, despite the fact that there is much blame for failure that can be assigned to the Palestinians. Neither side is excused because of the blameworthy behavior or errors of the other. Moreover, Israel needs the deal more than they do. Strategically, time is not on Israel's side. Only the nitwit Netanyahu thinks so.

- roidubouloi

December 10, 2012 at 11:00am

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

From Martin Kramer's sandbox: "Here is the Khaled Mash’al speech, in all its rabid, hate-filled, Palestine-is-ours-alone glory. Some people, even in Israel (those who say Israel should “talk to Hamas”) are in a state of shock. Give me a break. If you’ve been paying attention, or even just reading my posts, you couldn’t possibly be surprised. This is Hamas, and it doesn’t get better than this. A problem awaiting its inevitable solution." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0DiQRO_49M&feature=youtu.be If you are not careful, you will find this man making this speech from Ramallah, an hour after a handshake.

- Noga

December 10, 2012 at 11:04am

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

The first step to advancing the peace process is that there is not one international conflict, but two intranational conflicts, that is the conflict between accommodationists and rejectionists on each side. The self-righteous chest-thumpers, if they have any effect, can only strengthen the position of the rejectionists on each side and thus only serve to prolong the conflict.

- sighthnd

December 10, 2012 at 11:05am

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

Good laugh, noga. "Dare to call you a liar." You are nothing but a liar, today and always. Let me reaffirm, as I have written here repeatedly, that Israel's declaration of itself as "the Jewish state" makes it impossible for me, as a Jew, to disassociate myself from its deeds, just as, as an American, I cannot disassociate myself from the deeds of America. No matter what I do, it is, as I say, impossible. I resent the bad deeds, deeds that the Geneva Conventions and Protocols, make a war crime from which I cannot disassociate myself. The best I can do, as I have also said repeatedly, is criticize the bad deeds of Israel and of America, when they occur, so that I have done my part to police the behavior of the communities to which I belong. If I had been a German in the 30s, I would like to hope that I would have had the courage publicly to criticize the Nazis. However, as I am not at all under an physical threat, I would be that much more derelict for failing to desclaim the illegal acts of Israel and its violations of the human rights of the Palestinians, deeds that you are happy to affirm and will tell any sort of preposterous lie to justify. That Israel is a Jewish-majority state as a matter of fact and welcomes Jews as returnees to their homeland does not demand its recognition as "the Jewish state," whatever on earth that would mean. France is in fact "the French state," but is not "recognized as the French state." It is recognized as the Republic of France, just as Israel is recognized as the State of Israel. The tendentious nonsense about "recognition of Israel as the Jewish state" does not place on obligation on me, as a person, a Jew, or a Zionist, to participate in the nonsense or give it credit. I know that you right-wing fanatics insist that the rest of us agree to be stupid and bend the knee to your stupidity and obvious lies. Not . . . going . . . to happen. Take your evil self somewhere else, noga. You soil everything you touch.

- roidubouloi

December 10, 2012 at 11:17am

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

Oh gee. Hamas is rejectionist. Who knew? Thanks noga for clearing that up. That of course makes it perfectly appropriate to decline to accept the PA and Arab League offer of peace with the Green Line as the border. Netanyahu and Hamas are two sides of the same coin. They both believe that, if the conflict can be prevented from coming to rest long enough, they will ultimately prevail in subordinating the other. Both therefore do whatever they need to to frustrate negotiations. When it looks like Israel might be moved toward the peace table, there is Hamas to make incendiary speeches to shock Israelis. When it looks like the Palestinians might be moved toward the peace table, there is Netanyahu with some new provocation, such as the demand that the Arabs recognize Israel as "the Jewish state," (which Michael Oren, Israel's ambassador to the US, helpfully explained in The New York Times meant that they must abandon their claimed right of return in advance of negotiations, despite the fact that that very matter was consigned by Oslo to the final settlement). Netanyahu and Hamas cannot both be right that time is on their side for the achievement of their maximalist designs. My appraisal is that Hamas is right in this and Netanyahu is disastrously wrong. That is why I refer to him as a clod and strategic nitwit.

- roidubouloi

December 10, 2012 at 11:25am

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

Roid: "When my negotiating partners made mistakes, as they often did because they were negotiating the once in a lifetime sale of their businesses and I was a professional acquirer, I would not capitalize on their errors, but quietly repair them. Not only did I consider it the ethical thing to do, not to capitalize on the mistakes of amateurs, but, as our deals always contemplated some continuing minority ownership, I knew it was unwise to make a deal that my counter-part would come to resent." But, Roid, the Arabs are experienced acquirers. They are not political innocents. They acquired North Africa and most of the Middle East, arabacized it, and still control it. They are simply unable to acquiesce to any Jewish statehood in the middle of their world. Even if it were just a tiny city-state of Tel Aviv. That would be contrary to Shariah laws governing the status of Jews (and other dhimmis). Arafat and the rest of the Muslim world is unable to make a pragmatic deal. The Zionists were, if nothing else, usually willing to negotiate, give and take, and abide by agreements. I find your stance somewhat maniacal. Look into yourself for a change. I am perplexed by your hysteria.

- amidut

December 10, 2012 at 11:27am

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

This, again, sighthnd, is the reflexive need for the fetishization of balance. As if the two sides are equal. Who are the accommodationists on the Palestinian side? I can name one (Sari Nusseibeh). Maybe you can name two others. Who are the accommodationists on Israel's side? The greater part of society, perhaps even as many as 80% of it. You have to be careful when you make these comparisons. There are no comparisons. Israel is ready for brutal sacrifices, for the right end. Palestinians have not succeeded in internalizing the very idea of accommodation. It is a concept alien to them. How do you negotiate with an enemy whose entire moral universe is the very opposite of yours? An enemy for whom there couldn't be a greater betrayal than compromise?

- Noga

December 10, 2012 at 11:33am

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

only the Iranian media is now reading roid's comments. and even they are desperately trying to find another source for their propaganda machine. What's Persian for "my eyes, my eyes!" ?

- K2K

December 10, 2012 at 11:35am

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

Saying that I did not capitalize on the mistakes of my negotiating partners is hysteria? Taking note of the FACT that the settlements are illegal under international law is hysteria? Taking note of the FACT that Israel refuses to accept peace based on the Green Line as the border between Palestine and Israel is hysteria? Really now. Aren't you getting a little hysterical? You say: "They are simply unable to acquiesce to any Jewish statehood in the middle of their world. Even if it were just a tiny city-state of Tel Aviv. That would be contrary to Shariah laws governing the status of Jews (and other dhimmis). Arafat and the rest of the Muslim world is unable to make a pragmatic deal." Palestine has recognized Israel and declared that it accepts and will accept in a peace agreement the Green Line as a border. The Arab League offers that all 22 Arab states will recognize Israel on the basis of the Green Line as the border. Israel refuses. It is unwilling to make a pragmatic deal, giving the Palestinians back their own land in exchange for peace and security. It made that deal with Egypt, but won't with the Palestinians because religious nuttery insists that Judea and Samaria are sacred and the Jews have a sacred right to them, and to hell with the United Nations partition plan. That is hysteria, religious hysteria. On what possible basis do you claim that the Arabs will not "acquiesce to any Jewish statehood in the middle of their world?" This appears to be naught but the repetition of tendentious Israeli/AIPAC propaganda. The Arabs "acquired" North Africa and the Middle East by conquest 1,400 years ago. I don't quite see the relevance to negotiations today. A cute play on words perhaps, but really not meaningful given the weighty matters at hand.

- roidubouloi

December 10, 2012 at 11:37am

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

Please, K2K, do not read my posts and please od carry out your threat of over a year now (two perhaps?) to cancel your subscription to TNR. You will not be missed. It is often impossible even to make sense of your posts.

- roidubouloi

December 10, 2012 at 11:39am

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

Is the Iranian media now reading roid's comments? Maybe that's the answer to amidut's perplexity :) Roi is in good company, if he got noticed by official Iranian media. Right next to George Galloway and Gilad Atzmon (a kindred spirit of roi. He too is ashamed of being a Jew because of Israel). Roi: as you carpet the thread with your anti-Israel animus, it is useful to remind the readers from time to time who it is you are rooting for.

- Noga

December 10, 2012 at 11:43am

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

"Israel is ready for brutal sacrifices, for the right end. Palestinians have not succeeded in internalizing the very idea of accommodation." The Palestinians and the Arab League offer peace, security, and recognition on the basis of the Green Line as the border between Israel and Palestine, leaving them with only land given them by the UN partition, but less than all of it. Abbas says he accepts that he is a refugee and cannot return to Safed. Israel refuses. Hamas likewise refuses, but it is utterly implausible that Hamas in tiny Gaza could maintain the conflict with Israel after the PA and the Arab League have accepted a settlement.

- roidubouloi

December 10, 2012 at 11:44am

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

"As to your characterization that Arafat should have accepted the Israeli proposal of Taba, that is a separate matter." I don't think I said or implied anything of the kind. What I said was that at Camp David, there were proposals on the table that could, and should, have been taken as starting point for negotiations, requiring, at that time and place, a counter-offer in good faith. This was not done. It was not done because Arafat was an ingenou or made a mistake; it was done because Arafat had a history of tantrums, bad faith and violence or, to put a more charitable interpretation on it, because Arafat feared for his life if he agreed to anything (sow, reap, whirlwind, that sort of thing). After Camp David, it was already too late. Look, Rabin paid with his life for that pained hand-shake; for that reason alone, I am willing to accept that Barak was open to a settlement in Camp David. Not that Arafat should have taken the deal when it was offered, but that Arafat should have risked a negotiation. He did not; and Barak went down to defeat. Frankly - and I am not a conspiracy theorist by inclination - I wonder if Arafat did not secretly rejoice in Sharon's ascendance. There is no question that the two deserved each other, just as there is no question in my mind that neither the Israelis nor Palestinians deserved either of them.

- icarus-r

December 10, 2012 at 11:46am

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

Thank you for you kind advice, oh kindred spirit of Josef Goebbels, Josef Stalin, and Vladimir Lenin. One should always consider seriously the advice on "useful rhetoric" coming from one such as you. I am not ashamed of being a Jew, ever. As a Jew, I am shamed by the bad deeds of Israel. But you will persist in trying to conflate and confuse status and behavior, being and deeds. Indeed, the obliteration of that distinction lies at the very heart of fascism, noga. And you are a fascist. Not a crypt0-fascist, not a wannabe fascist. An actual fascist. That you are also a thug and a goon just goes with the territory. There are no fascists who are not.

- roidubouloi

December 10, 2012 at 11:49am

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

I have agreed, icarus, repeatedly, that Arafat should have counter-offered at Camp David. That does not mean he ought to have accepted Israel's offer. Even Ben-Ami said that he would not have accepted Israel's offer if he were the Palestinians. But they did return to the table at Taba. The negotiations there, by all accounts, made progress. Barak suspended them, Sharon would not return to them. For all I know, that made Arafat deliriously happy. It really is irrelevant to the present. There is plenty of bad history on both sides. But, really, the history does not justify the failure to move forward today. If that were the case, then it would never be possible to bring peace to any conflict. It is only too late if the parties refuse to make peace. Otherwise, it is not too late. Right now, and as at Camp David and at Taba, Israel refuses to make peace based on its withdrawal to the Green Line as the border between Israel and Palestine. The Arabs have offered it, Israel will not accept, but it is in no sense too late to do so.

- roidubouloi

December 10, 2012 at 11:56am

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

"On what possible basis do you claim that the Arabs will not "acquiesce to any Jewish statehood in the middle of their world?" This appears to be naught but the repetition of tendentious Israeli/AIPAC propaganda. " The evidence is everywhere. In their school textbooks, in their mosques, in their media, in their newspapers, in their political parlance. However the question in itself is testimony to your abject cowardice. You have a big mouth when you speak to Jews. Let's see you employ the same tactics speaking to Arabs and Muslims. _________ "As a Jew, I am shamed by the bad deeds of Israel" An ashamed Jew. You are a cardboard stereotype already, roi. http://engageonline.wordpress.com/2010/07/28/howard-jacobson-on-his-new-novel-the-finkler-question/ "Every other Wednesday, except for festivals and High Holy-days, an anti-Zionist group called ASHamed Jews meets in an upstairs room in the Groucho Club in Soho to dissociate itself from Israel, urge the boycotting of Israeli goods, and otherwise demonstrate a humanity in which they consider Jews who are not ASHamed to be deficient. ASHamed Jews came about as a consequence of the famous Jewish media philosopher Sam Finkler’s avowal of his own shame on Desert Island Discs. “My Jewishness has always been a source of pride and solace to me,” he told Radio Four’s listeners, not quite candidly, “but in the matter of the dispossession of the Palestinians I am, as a Jew, profoundly ashamed.” “Profoundly self-regarding,” you mean, was his wife’s response. But then she wasn’t Jewish and so couldn’t understand just how ashamed in his Jewishness an ashamed Jew could be."

- Noga

December 10, 2012 at 12:08pm

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

As a Jew, I am shamed by the bad deeds of Israel" An ashamed Jew. You are a cardboard stereotype already, roi. http://engageonline.wordpress.com/2010/07/28/howard-jacobson-on-his-new-novel-the-finkler-question/ "Every other Wednesday, except for festivals and High Holy-days, an anti-Zionist group called ASHamed Jews meets in an upstairs room in the Groucho Club in Soho to dissociate itself from Israel, urge the boycotting of Israeli goods, and otherwise demonstrate a humanity in which they consider Jews who are not ASHamed to be deficient. ASHamed Jews came about as a consequence of the famous Jewish media philosopher Sam Finkler’s avowal of his own shame on Desert Island Discs. “My Jewishness has always been a source of pride and solace to me,” he told Radio Four’s listeners, not quite candidly, “but in the matter of the dispossession of the Palestinians I am, as a Jew, profoundly ashamed.” “Profoundly self-regarding,” you mean, was his wife’s response. But then she wasn’t Jewish and so couldn’t understand just how ashamed in his Jewishness an ashamed Jew could be."

- Noga

December 10, 2012 at 12:09pm

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

"But, really, the history does not justify the failure to move forward today." On this at least we agree. Reading Hobswam's Age of Extremes. If Germany and France, or for that matter, Germany and Russia can get along, there is no reason for permanent failure in the Middle East.

- icarus-r

December 10, 2012 at 12:12pm

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

Our press, and indeed the world press, continues to invert I-P situation. Case in point; one of our prominent weekly news magazines puplished a picture entitled "Hole in the Wall." The caption prompted me to write the following letter to the editor as follows: Reference is made to the picture entitled "Hole in the Wall" in the "World Briefing " section of the Dec. 10th issue. It depicts a Palestinian girl inspecting the damage of her school through a hole in a wall of a Gazan school. The caption reads " ---- a November 21 cease fire ended hostilities but only after more than 150 Palestinians, including civilians were killed; six Israels died." Six Israelis died but the Palestinians were killed!! How did the Israeli's die, in auto mobile accidents, from complications of the flu, from a construction project collapsing? NO, they DIED because they were KILLED by rockets specifically aimed by Hamas to KILL Israelis. The Palestinians died because their "leaders" chose to use them as human shields. As long as he press continues to apply this kind of moral equivalence to a country trying to protect itself against an organization whose avowed purpose is to wipe it off the map the world will continue to ignore the basic moral injustice of this whole issue. The six Israelis died because they were MURDERED as sure as a sniper had hunted each and every one of them down. COMMENT: They chose not to publish my communication

- hjoelg

December 10, 2012 at 12:28pm

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

Noga, the non-Jewish Mrs. Finkler character is, of course, right on target. If I am to accept Roid's ideal of self-effacing ethical nationhood, how do we deal with the fact that our interlocutor, Islam, has no such comparable concept?

- amidut

December 10, 2012 at 12:34pm

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

"If I am to accept Roid's ideal of self-effacing ethical nationhood, how do we deal with the fact that our interlocutor, Islam, has no such comparable concept?" Curious comment. Islam is an abstract entity; it cannot be the "interlocutor" to anyone. More to the point, surely as a matter of principle, ethical behaviour, though context-dependent, is independent of conduct of interlocutors. Isn't this kind of thinking precisely what got us into the moral morass of Abu Ghraib?

- icarus-r

December 10, 2012 at 12:46pm

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

Germany may now be able to "get along" with France and Russia, but seems the German people see Islam as incompatible with peace: "Germany: Image of Islam 'Devastating'" by Soeren Kern December 10, 2012 at 5:00 am http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3487/germany-fear-east-west "...Germans are overwhelmingly mistrustful of Islam and Muslim immigration, according to a new research survey, which concludes that the image of Islam in Germany is "devastating." The findings -- which corroborate the conclusions of other recent studies -- show a growing divide between ordinary Germans, who are concerned about the consequences of mass immigration from Muslim countries, and Germany's political elites, who are determined to build a "multicultural" society at any cost. The 28-page study, "Fear of the East in the West" [Die Furcht vor dem Morgenland im Abendland], was produced by the Allensbach Institute for Public Opinion Research, and was published by the center-right German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on November 21. Those who participated in the survey were asked to choose which of 21 statements about Islam most closely reflect their own views. The research shows that more than half of the German population believes that Islam is prone to violence (64%); has a tendency toward revenge and retaliation (60%); is obsessed with proselytizing others (56%); and strives for political influence (56%). More than 80% of Germans believe that Islam deprives women of their rights, and 70% say Islam is associated with religious fanaticism and radicalism. By contrast, only 13% of Germans associate Islam with love for neighbors, 12% with charity and 7% with openness and tolerance. The high level of mistrust of Islam in Germany is also reflected in other questions. For example, 44% of those surveyed answered "yes" to the question, "Do you think there will be serious conflict between the Western Christian culture and the Arab Muslim culture in the future?" ... The 103-page study, "German-Turkish Life and Values" (abridged version in German here), was jointly produced by the Berlin-based INFO polling institute and the Antalya, Turkey-based Liljeberg research firm, and was released to the general public in August 2012. The study found that Islam is becoming an increasingly important component of the value structure of Turks in Germany, especially among the younger generation of Turkish-Germans, who hold religious views that are more radical than those held by their parents. Almost all Turks surveyed (95%) said it is absolutely necessary for them to preserve their Turkish identity, and 62% said they would rather be around Turks than around Germans. Only 39% of Turks said that Germans are trustworthy. At the same time, 87% of those surveyed said they believe that German society should make a greater effort to be considerate of the customs and traditions of Turkish immigrants. Of those Turks surveyed, 72% believe that Islam is the only true religion; 18% say Jews are inferior people and 10% say Christians are inferior. Most Turks (55%) believe that Germany should build more mosques. Arguably the most sobering finding of the study is that 46% of Turks say they hope that Germany will one day have more Muslims than Christians."

- K2K

December 10, 2012 at 12:48pm

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

K2K - thanks for the illuminating post about how Germans and Turks living in Germany view one another. Which point, valid or not, is entirely irrelevant to the point I was making about the influence of history on getting along in the present. Reminds me of an old Persian saying: Lover: "You have such beautiful almond eyes!" Beloved: "Ah, reminds me, I want a marzipan cookie."

- icarus-r

December 10, 2012 at 12:56pm

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

More of your twisted nonsense, noga. Is this your malevolence or your stupidity at work? In English, to say that "Israel shames me," does not mean that I am ashamed of myself. It means that I am ashamed of you. I am ashamed of myself only when I do something wrong. By speaking out when my community mis-behaves, when Israel mis-behaves, I don't have any reason to be ashamed of myself. If I were silent, I would. You really are a living, breathing nightmare, utterly devoid any moral sensibility. But then, what should I expect from a true fascist?

- roidubouloi

December 10, 2012 at 1:00pm

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

In English, we sometimes say to our children, when we are extremely disappointed by their behavior and particularly its moral, "I"m ashamed of you." One wonders what Israeli parents say in Hebrew.

- roidubouloi

December 10, 2012 at 1:01pm

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

"In English, to say that "Israel shames me," does not mean that I am ashamed of myself. It means that I am ashamed of you" _______ ``Because honour, decorum, prudence, nay, interest, forbid it. Yes, Miss Bennet, interest; for do not expect to be noticed by his family or friends, if you wilfully act against the inclinations of all. You will be censured, slighted, and despised, by every one connected with him. Your alliance will be a disgrace; your name will never even be mentioned by any of us.'' ``These are heavy misfortunes,'' replied Elizabeth. ``But the wife of Mr. Darcy must have such extraordinary sources of happiness necessarily attached to her situation, that she could, upon the whole, have no cause to repine.'' ``Obstinate, headstrong girl! I am ashamed of you!"

- Noga

December 10, 2012 at 1:07pm

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

"You have a big mouth when you speak to Jews. Let's see you employ the same tactics speaking to Arabs and Muslims." Let's see Israel stop procrastinating, suspend its illegal activities in the interest of negotiations (and because it is obliged to do so in any case), and accept the principle of the Green Line as the presumptive border. Then we will find out who is willing to make peace and who is not. It is perfectly obvious to anyone with eyes in their head that Israel accuses the Palestinians of refusing to make peace because that is precisely what Israel is doing. The Arab League offer has been on the table since 2002. It is ignored by Israel. The tactic of accusing the other of your own bad behavior as a propaganda technique is one you well understand. You do it all the time. Fortunately, less and less of the world is buying Israel's bullshit. Naturally, you attribute that to anti-Semitism. Doesn't even matter if it is. The end result is that Israel will eventually be forced out of the West Bank. If Netanyahu were not a clod, he would negotiate his way out rather than wait to be pushed. But then we can only expect the worst from a government that wraps its arms around fascists and racists like Feiglin plus a wide assortment of religious nuts.

- roidubouloi

December 10, 2012 at 1:08pm

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

Ah, Jane Austen at last. That is English, noga. Or hadn't you noticed? When I am ashamed of you, or you shame me, you, not I, are the one whose behavior is shameful. Try harder.

- roidubouloi

December 10, 2012 at 1:10pm

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

"Lover: "You have such beautiful almond eyes!" Beloved: "Ah, reminds me, I want a marzipan cookie." Seems perfectly apropo. Marzipan is made of almonds. It is delicious and usually made in pretty shape and can satisfy a momentary craving. Unlike pretty but vacuous words about eyes like almonds.

- Noga

December 10, 2012 at 1:15pm

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

This is the map of start-ups in Israel, Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. http://mappedinisrael.com/

- JAIMECHUCH

December 10, 2012 at 1:20pm

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

roi: Actually, Lady Catherine means it in exactly the same way you say it means. The point was not to correct you but to illustrate how ridiculous YOU look when you use these kinds of locutions. Anyway, it is too late to reverse your initial statement which is there for all to see: ""I think that what I most object to about Israel re-declaring itself the Jewish state is that it becomes impossible for me both to be Jewish and to disassociate myself from your disgraceful behavior" Yes, you are an ASHamed Jew and our hearts go out to you.

- Noga

December 10, 2012 at 1:20pm

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

"You have a big mouth when you speak to Jews. Let's see you employ the same tactics speaking to Arabs and Muslims." Let's see Israel stop procrastinating" No. Let's see you speak with Arabs and Muslims the way you allow yourself to address Jews.

- Noga

December 10, 2012 at 1:22pm

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

Noga: you will have noticed that I held to my word of not commenting on your stuff unless my name were taken in vain, or you made a comment on mine. You can't help it, of course. As usual, you miss the point, whether it is deliberate or not, who knows - and who cares. And, as usual, you distract, whether it is deliberate, who knows - and who cares. No point in explaining the finer point of Persian love poetry; I concede - surrender - on marzipan. K2K's point about Germans and Turks is about as irrelevant one could get, both in respect of this thread, and the point I was making. Leave it at that. AND LEAVE ME ALONE.

- icarus-r

December 10, 2012 at 1:28pm

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

Israel's Good News Newsletter to 9th Dec 2012 In the 9th Dec 2012 edition of Israel’s good news, the highlights include: · Israeli researchers have made major discoveries about bacteria and malaria infections. · A huge international turnout at Israel’s top heart surgery conference. · CNN shows Israeli hospitals treating injured Gazans and Israelis together. · An Israeli company is developing a process that burns coal without any pollution. · Demand for Israeli hi-tech skills soars at Apple, Intel and KLA-Tencor · Alanis Morissette’s Tel Aviv concert was a sell-out – and just a little “ironic”. · Israel’s Funtactix has won Variety Entertainment’s award for the film industry’s top Internet game. · Last week’s JPost Israel Good News descriptive summary Click here for “Time to be Proud of Israel” AND EVEN MORE. ................... http://www.verygoodnewsisrael.blogspot.com/

- JAIMECHUCH

December 10, 2012 at 1:35pm

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

TIME TO BE PROUD OF ISRAEL http://blogs.jpost.com/content/time-be-proud-israel

- JAIMECHUCH

December 10, 2012 at 1:38pm

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

I"thought you said it was "an old Persian saying". Now it has turned into "the finer point of Persian love poetry". "unless my name were taken in vain" ?? Who do you think you are? God?

- Noga

December 10, 2012 at 1:39pm

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

I will mention your Internet name when I like and wherever I see fit, even at the risk of getting these extremely emotional comebacks from you. Or maybe because of them. Who knows?

- Noga

December 10, 2012 at 1:42pm

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

The intensity of the "extremely emotional comebacks" correlates with personal insecurity that can only be vented via personal attacks, directed at those of us immune to their Moral Pronouncements.

- K2K

December 10, 2012 at 2:17pm

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

I went out for a walk in New York's warm (60o F) weather. Lo and behold, this discussion has "progressed' to page 7!

- amidut

December 10, 2012 at 2:21pm

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

"extremely emotional comebacks" Don't flatter yourself. There is no emotion whatever involved in responding to you - a measure of disgust, perhaps, like wading in an open sewer, or unpleasantness, like changing the diapers of a child not related to you, but that's about it. And certainly nothing extreme. Yet another case of projection on your part, given the ridiculous ease with which you descend into hysterics and frothing at the mouth. (See Peretz, Romney, racism.) As for Persian "sayings" and "love poetry" ... "almond eyes" comes from Persian love poetry. The "saying" builds on that. Simple really, if you were not so literal, or trying to be a wise-ass. As for mentioning me - knock yourself out. Every time you do - and given your history of distortions - expect to be corrected and disciplined like a wayward child.

- icarus-r

December 10, 2012 at 3:01pm

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

K2K - I corrected your as-usual moronic nonsequitur. There was no personal attack. Like Tweedledumb and Tweedledumbfuck, though, once Noga releases her bile, you lap it up, eager and stupid as a puppy. If you want to avoid personal attacks, don't make them; if you do, expect to be flayed and served, with no increase at all in my blood pressure.

- icarus-r

December 10, 2012 at 3:05pm

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

Over on the American Conservative, they seem to be reading Noga:

One of the immediate effects of the culture of offence is to encourage the thinning of skins, and the raising of sensitivities. Persons are trained to be suspicious to the point of paranoia of all differing viewpoints, a suspicion that enables them to put the worst possible construction on the words and actions of their opponents and critics .
Uncanny.

- icarus-r

December 10, 2012 at 3:28pm

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

Noga and K2K make many useful observations and often provide new information. There's no wisdom or useful new information in Icarus-r's comments, just the odor of perfumed camel dung.

- amidut

December 10, 2012 at 3:36pm

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

Wow, after all those diatribes, thousands of paragraphs copied from Wikipedia did roid convince anybody here (maybe with exception of Ali) that Israel committed such heinous crimes against humanity that it needs to be abolished? It's citizens (who are not really Jews but a bunch of shegets) slaughtered and dispersed throughout the diaspora ala Nebuchadnezzar and the land turned over to suffering Palestinians heroes of Hamas? Will this make the poor boychik roid not feel ashamed anymore, poor baby, his goyishe friends will not bully him anymore and quit throwing his glasses in the toilet? irony, if you still there somewhere, did you ever read "Critique of Cynical Reason" by Peter Sloterdijk? If you didn't you must, you must! Great book. It might be used to analyze roid and his Jewish shame complex from a cynic point of view. Something like Till Eulenspiegel view of Jewish guilt complex and identity crisis. Difficult subject yet so rewarding.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

December 10, 2012 at 3:41pm

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

"just the odor of perfumed camel dung" Must be because of my last visit to your house; people always warn me about associating with racists and ignoramuses. Go back to your pen and don't get involved in the discussions of your betters.

- icarus-r

December 10, 2012 at 3:43pm

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

I'm a mere kibitzer on this thread and, in that vein, having noted how vituperative it has been, wanted just to add a few cents just on that. Roidubouloi, who I disagree with here and have argued out with him some of those disagreements a couple of times, is a formidable, fierce and relentless polemicist who will always, at a minimum, give as good as he takes. He needs not my defence and hasn't asked for it. Nor is this a defence anyway, just an observation. There is no equivalence, in my judgment, in the spraying of invective here. Roidubouloi is not to be faulted. When people engage with him civilly with reasoned arguments they get that back, and come away either persuaded otherwise or better understanding their own position. But if personally attacked, he doesn't shrug it off. He attacks back. Some might not. He does and is perfectly right to. Virtually unfailingly, he don't start the ad hominems and the personal diatribes, but he doesn't back away from them. And that's how I read the vituperation on this thread: the fault lies with those who attacked him personally first.

- basman

December 10, 2012 at 4:17pm

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

amidut, the quality of your attack on Icrus is pretty low. I didn't expect it from you. From any one else yes, even from me, (though directed at some low lives here) but not from you. I have noticed that the longer a thread goes on the chances of shrill and vitriol going up rise and rise till it reaches very low places. Does anyone think that people will re-read or even read most of the drivel here?

- arnon1

December 10, 2012 at 4:45pm

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

Arnon, I accurately described Icarus's meager contribution here. If he is only able to cite Pat Buchanan's "American Conservative", which specializes in anti-Jewish paranoia, then my impression of him is further confirmed.

- amidut

December 10, 2012 at 5:05pm

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

" Persons are trained to be suspicious to the point of paranoia of all differing viewpoints, a suspicion that enables them to put the worst possible construction on the words and actions of their opponents and critics " I would say this fits your profile perfectly. I still remember my utter astonishment when , in response to something I wrote about Obama (I think it was a bout how, aside from his two published books, it is impossible to find anything he wrote as a law professor, or the editor of the Harvard Law Review), you accused me of believing he is a "mooslim terrerrist nigger". You must know the Arab proverb about the camel and his hump eh? ________ amidut: No need to defend me against this lot. And certainly not by resort to scatological insults.

- Noga

December 10, 2012 at 5:21pm

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

Yes, I am ashamed, noga. I am ashamed of you and that your foul behavior reflects badly on the Jewish people. My heart does not go out to you at all. Rather, I detest you.

- roidubouloi

December 10, 2012 at 5:23pm

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

And there is plenty there to detest.

- roidubouloi

December 10, 2012 at 5:23pm

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

I have no influence with Arabs and Moslems, noga, and therefore nothing to say to them nor much about them. I do have some ability to influence American opinion about Israel. And I aim to do it until my government forces your government to stop its illegal settlement of the West Bank and agree to get out of Palestine in order to make peace. It would of course be better if no one had to force Israel to do the right thing. But given the growing numbers there of right-wing extremists, religious nuts, and fascists such as you, it would be very unrealistic to hope for that. More realistic to help Americans see that they are being used and abused by Israel to bad ends.

- roidubouloi

December 10, 2012 at 5:28pm

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

"anti-Jewish paranoia" Quite evidently, nothing in what I cited from TAC has anything to do with Israel or Jews or paranoia of any kind. It has to do with offence-takers, of which, in a neat twist of irony, your post is the prime example. In any event, I subscribed to TNR for a long time despite Peretz, and can read TAC without being sullied by Buchanan (whom I find an odious toad). The rest of TAC is not remotely "anti-Jewish", though they do question the US's Israel policy - the two are not the same and conflating them demonstrates a paranoia of a different kind. Come to think of it, even writing in response to your vomitous writing makes me feel like I have been dragged through camel dung (no doubt, yet another racist riff by you, but no matter); time for a Silkwood rub.

- icarus-r

December 10, 2012 at 5:30pm

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

makover says: "Wow, after all those diatribes, thousands of paragraphs copied from Wikipedia did roid convince anybody here (maybe with exception of Ali) that Israel committed such heinous crimes against humanity that it needs to be abolished?" Typical right-wing wacko Israeli hysteria and hyperbole. When I say such things as, "Israel has an absolute right to defend itself but no right to colonize the Palestinians," how on earth does makover conclude that I am advocating the abolition of Israel, for whatever reason? He can't. He just makes stuff up as it suits him. That is why I refer to him from time to time as "noga's pet boy." Lying beneath makover's fiction, however, is the insidious falsehood that the requirement that Israel stop illegal settlement and be prepared to vacate the occupied territory, territory that belongs to the Arabs, not to Israel, in order to achieve peace is itself a threat to Israel's existence. It is not. The refusal of Israel to do what is required of it has nothing whatever to do with its security and everything to do with its greed and a disregard of the Palestinians as people with human rights guaranteed to the them by the Fourth Geneva Convention, to which Israel is a party. In other words, it is racist claptrap. Should we expect anything else from noga's pet boy?

- roidubouloi

December 10, 2012 at 5:43pm

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

" I do have some ability to influence American opinion about Israel. " Like I said, a modern day incarnation of Pablo Christiani. FWIIW, I don't believe you. If you did have any influence you would not be wasting your time posting comments on the TNR's message boards, talking to the choir, for the most part.

- Noga

December 10, 2012 at 5:46pm

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

You don't know who is reading here. There are many people who would not venture an opinion lest they be attacked by a vicious animal. That would be you. In between fending off you and your goon squad, I manage to make the political arguments that I think ought to be made, for whomever cares to read them and may reflect upon Israel's role in perpetuating war and putting us all at risk for illicit ends. I recognize that the inevitable result will be thuggish attacks by you and your goon squad and that I will then have to pause periodically to kick your pathetic ass. I only wish I could outsource the task to icarus. He has an economy of style when "flaying you" that I envy.

- roidubouloi

December 10, 2012 at 5:51pm

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

It is worth noting that threads concerning Israel here at TNR invariably stand out for the level of personal attacks and vituperation. basman at least has noticed the reason. It is a sad sign of just how little the friends of Israel have to say on its behalf that they manage to slime every thread in which they participate. Fortunately, we don't much hear from them elsewhere at TNR. There are occasional flame wars elsewhere, but nothing like this.

- roidubouloi

December 10, 2012 at 5:56pm

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

"A Silkwood shower is a very long, hot shower taken to disinfect and decontaminate oneself from environmentally acquired smells such as smoke or food. The term stems from the name Karen Silkwood. She was a chemical technician who died under mysterious circumstances after raising issues of contamination at the plant where she worked."

- roidubouloi

December 10, 2012 at 5:58pm

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

Malahat: from the movie "Silkwood". www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Silkwood%20shower Otherwise known as the Silkwood Shower.

- icarus-r

December 10, 2012 at 6:01pm

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

roi: You response is puzzling. After all you just made the claim that "" I do have some ability to influence American opinion about Israel. ". People reading this claim will have assumed that you write for some mass distributed magazine, that would make it possible for you to reach many readers and influence their positions. But then, why would you waste your time commenting copiously here? So this little braggadoccio means that you are relying on these message boards for your missionary objectives. That means you are either hallucinating or have very small ambitions in this respect. How many subscribers does TNR have? How many of them actually read the articles about Israel? How many of those read the comments? So you in fact admit that you are spending all this time and effort in the expectation that a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of TNR's readership will read your comments. How many readers are we talking about, then? A few hundreds, at most? And this is the extent of your ability to ïnfluence "public opinion"? So, did you mean that claim as a joke?

- Noga

December 10, 2012 at 6:12pm

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

You can consider me as hallucinating or of small ambition, noga, or whatever you want. If you would like to go somewhere else because you consider the readership here too small or unimportant to be worthy the attention you lavish, please do. It will be a welcome relief for most. But, if you really believe that, for example, what I say here falls on very few ears and those mostly deaf, it is difficult to understand why you expend so many words and much energy attacking me. Why bother? In other words, noga, this is just one more matter as to which you are completely full of crap.

- roidubouloi

December 10, 2012 at 6:27pm

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

What a bizarre thing to say! It wasn't I who made those claims about "influencing public opinion", so why are you sending me somewhere else? I am posting here for the mere pleasure of exchanging opinions with brilliant minds like yours, not under any illusion that what I say might influence anybody. I'm sorry if I spoiled your illusions of grandeur.

- Noga

December 10, 2012 at 6:35pm

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

http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2012/12/10/israel-gets-better-reception-from-berlin/?singlepage=true [links to an interview of PM Netanyahu by Die Welt:] http://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article111836124/The-Palestinians-want-a-state-without-peace.html Netanyahu: "... When it comes to Israel, for many, history didn’t exist before the Six Day War. Everything happened on the day we happened to walk into the territories. I mean the fact that we were attacked from these territories from 1920, for half a century before 1967 – what was that all about? The Palestinian Arabs held those territories. Arab countries held those territories. Why did they attack us from them? If those territories are the source of the conflict, why were we attacked for 47 years? Because it’s not the source of the conflict. The source of the conflict was the opposition to the State of Israel in any borders. The constant repetition of anti-Israel propaganda has turned the results of Arab aggression into its cause. The fact is that we are in those territories as a result of an attempt to choke our country in the Six Day War, which we prevented. Now it’s become the cause, but when we walk out of territories that we took over in 1967 like Gaza, they keep firing the rockets at us, and we ask them: "Why are you doing it? I mean, if we walked out of Gaza, why are you firing on Tel Aviv?" They say: "Because we want to liberate Palestine." We say: "What do you mean, the West Bank? You mean where the other Palestinians are?" They say: "No, Tel Aviv. We want Tel Aviv; we want Haifa; we want Jerusalem; we want Ashdod; we want Beer Sheva." That is the root cause of the conflict: the unwillingness to make peace with Israel in any borders, and the minute you have Arab leaders willing to make a genuine compromise, recognize the State of Israel and make peace with it – as in the case of Anwar Sadat of Egypt or the late King Hussein of Jordan – Israel made peace. I would make peace in a heartbeat with Abu Mazen if he wanted peace, but he went to the UN. His speech in the UN was not the speech of a man who wants peace. It was terrible incitement, full of venom. It wasn"t the way that a leader speaks to his people preparing them for peace. And when that changes, he’ll see Israel respond very rapidly. ..." [the entire interview is worth reading, if only for an antidote to anything in American/British msm]

- K2K

December 10, 2012 at 6:41pm

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

The self hatred Jew hemor..roid imagines he is the king, he is educated, he is the grand lawyer, and now he imagines he has great influence. In his crusade he demonizes Israel, the Jews. And oh yes he has imagined being a great Don Juan. This guy looks at the mirror and asks mirror mirror on the wall who is the greatest of them all? And when he is denied he goes and writes lengthy nonsense in his blogs. You are really very very off. Be careful or you will land on a straight jacket.

- JAIMECHUCH

December 10, 2012 at 6:47pm

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

noga: you should remember who now owns TNR.com. And, never underestimate which Manhattan dinner parties one gets to attend once one says "Israel" and "apartheid" in the same sentence.

- K2K

December 10, 2012 at 6:48pm

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

I don't know who owns TNR now. I have seen the changes. And I have not yet read any article about Israel that accuses it of Apartheid here. Maybe I missed some.

- Noga

December 10, 2012 at 6:53pm

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

Great links K2K.

- JAIMECHUCH

December 10, 2012 at 6:59pm

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

From The Forward article about Henry Siegman, formerly the Executive Director of the American Jewish Congress: "Siegman’s journey to the far-left corner of the Middle East worldview began with his early childhood, hiding in a cellar in Belgium as his family evaded the advancing Nazi troops until finally leaving occupied Europe. He told The New York Times in a previous interview that it was this childhood experience that helped him understand Palestinian fear. At the family’s new home in Baltimore, Siegman grew up surrounded by leaders of the Orthodox Zionist movement and amid ample Zionist ideology. “I also bought into the slogan that Palestine is a land without people for a people without a land,” he said. Siegman was an ordained Orthodox rabbi at Yeshiva Torah Vodaas, a right-wing but still Modern Orthodox school at the time, and served as a chaplain in the Korean War. In 1978, Siegman was appointed executive director of the now-defunct AJCongress, a position he held until 1994. The Congress, as it was known at that time, was among the top Jewish organizations. It focused on human and civil rights and on ensuring separation of church and state. The group was known for being left-of-center while always maintaining strong support for the State of Israel. But Siegman grew increasingly uncomfortable within the confines of the organized Jewish world, which he saw shifting toward a single focus on Israel and unquestioning support of any Israeli policy. In 1988, Siegman was behind a joint effort of the AJCongress, alongside the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League and B’nai B’rith, to break away from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel Washington lobby, because of AIPAC’s hard line on issues relating to Israel and the Arab world. * * * In an unusual move at the time, Siegman transitioned from the AJCongress to the think tank world, joining the Council on Foreign Relations as a Middle East expert. As complaints from Jewish members at CFR mounted, Siegman’s program, the U.S./Middle East Project, gained independence from the council. A leading scholar and a visiting professor at the University of London, Siegman chose to live outside the consensus and was becoming increasingly critical of Israel, which he called a “de-facto apartheid” state. _______________________ I'll bet Siegman is just making the rounds of Manhattan dinner parties chatting amiably about Israel and apartheid. But that figures, a Jewish guy who hid from the Nazis as a child and then grew up to be the Executive Director of the American Jewish Congress and has Israeli grandchildren, of whom he is quite proud, serving in the IDF has both anti-Semite and schnorrer written all over him. The keen insights of some of the posters here continue to amaze me. No wonder noga comes her to engage these brilliant minds.

- roidubouloi

December 10, 2012 at 7:20pm

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

" No wonder noga comes her to engage these brilliant minds." What I said was: "brilliant minds like yours".

- Noga

December 10, 2012 at 7:34pm

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

roi posts an article from some online magazine about Henry Siegman. roi then posts what he thinks some people would think about said Henry Siegman. roi then lashes out at all those posters whom he think would think what he had written about Henry Siegman. roi concludes by mocking noga for associating with those posters whom he think would think what he had written about Henry Siegman. It couldn't get any more surreal than this. Reminds me of the fable about a milkmaid who, having milked her cow, goes to the market to sell the bucket of milk. She sits to rest on the way and begins to ponder: With the money I get for the milk, I'll buy me a pretty scarf. I'll wear the scarf for the dance next Saturday. A very handsome farmer will want to dance with me, so pretty I'll be in my new scarf and all. He will ask me to marry him. We will have a rambunctious and good looking son. I'll ask the boy to go collect the eggs from the chicken coop. If he refuses and is rude to me, I will raise my hand and slap him across the face! with that the fair maiden raised her hand and struck at the bucket, which turned over, spilling all the milk.

- Noga

December 10, 2012 at 7:52pm

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

malahat: Goldman aka Spengler usually posts different pieces at PJM than he does at ATimes. roid: save your tactics for someone who does not know your real identity. Dec. 27 is my last day at tnr.com. I already am skeptical about the new owner's expertise at data mining solely for ObamaNation. and, offline rest of this week. Last visit to yet another great doctor not wanting Medicare patients in 2013.

- K2K

December 10, 2012 at 8:17pm

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

As quoted by K2K, Netanyahu, the liar, says, "That is the root cause of the conflict: the unwillingness to make peace with Israel in any borders, and the minute you have Arab leaders willing to make a genuine compromise, recognize the State of Israel and make peace with it – as in the case of Anwar Sadat of Egypt or the late King Hussein of Jordan – Israel made peace. I would make peace in a heartbeat with Abu Mazen if he wanted peace . . ." Of course, Sadat insisted that every square inch of Egyptian territory occupied by Israel be returned to Egypt and would not have made peace on any other basis. Since 2002, the Arab League has offered peace, security, and full recognition of Israel by all 22 Arab states based on Israeli withdrawal to the Green Line, returning the Palestinian land occupied by Israel. Israel refuses, indeed ignores the Arab offer. Doesn't even ask to discuss such matters as security and refugee rights or Jerusalem on the basis of the Arab offer. Abu Mazen has said that he accepts Israel as the land west of the Green Line with Palestine east of the Green Line and accepts that he personally cannot return to Safed. Netanyahu scoffs and insists again that Abu Mazen will not make peace. It is Netanyahu, the liar, who will not make peace. In addition, we have that little weasel word of Netanyahu's, "compromise." How innocuous, how ordinary, how necessary. But what that little word means is that Netanyahu will not compromise. It refuses to return the Palestinians's land while demanding that the Palestinians surrender their claims to return to Israel, claims with more than a colorable basis in international law. Total nonsense from the liar. ___________________ Do pardon me, noga. I had misunderstood and thought that one of the posters from your little goon squad had actually said this: "Never underestimate which Manhattan dinner parties one gets to attend once one says "Israel" and "apartheid" in the same sentence." I therefore assumed that Henry Siegman is spending a lot of time at Manhattan dinner parties, despite holding exactly the views that you insist are anti-Semitic, blah, blah, blah, whine, whine, whine, self-pity, victimhood, etc., etc., etc. Getting a little embarrassed are we at being outed for a fascist thug? You're a loser. Get lost.

- roidubouloi

December 10, 2012 at 8:23pm

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

Should I be surprised, noga, that you don't know what The Jewish Daily Forward is? And here I thought you were literate.

- roidubouloi

December 10, 2012 at 8:28pm

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

I thought it couldn't get any more surreal but I was wrong. It can. roi is having conversations with imaginary interlocutors. Nothing wrong with that, I daresay, except that he insists those interlocutors have the same names as real people. He posts an article. Makes a comment about it as if it were made by some other poster of another position. Responds to that comment. Concludes by insulting noga. What a fierce intellect.

- Noga

December 10, 2012 at 8:33pm

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

""Should I be surprised, noga, that you don't know what The Jewish Daily Forward is? And here I thought you were literate."" The ASHamed Jew speaketh.

- Noga

December 10, 2012 at 8:41pm

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

Yes, I speaketh about you, an embarrassment to the Jewish people. Just as JaimeChuch links us to the Jews we can be proud of, there are those we should be ashamed of. You definitely make the cut. I am ashamed of you. You should try to become a human being.

- roidubouloi

December 10, 2012 at 8:57pm

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

Roidodo: "Siegman’s journey to the far-left corner of the Middle East worldview began with his early childhood, hiding in a cellar in Belgium as his family evaded the advancing Nazi troops until finally leaving occupied Europe. He told The New York Times in a previous interview that it was this childhood experience that helped him understand Palestinian fear.” Henry Siegman was and is a windbag. I know many Jews who as children saw far worse than Siegman did and drew different conclusions, they became lifelong supporters of the Jewish State. I also know some Germans who grew up as Nazis who as children huddled in basements afraid of the allied bombers flying overhead and dropping bombs on their city. Should the allies not have bombed Hitler’s cities? Is that the conclusion that Siegman would have reached? One’s personal experience doesn't guarantee that one will draw the right conclusion in matters of life and death. The world is too complex for that. That Siegman doesn't understand that is his misfortune and out loss.

- arnon1

December 10, 2012 at 10:50pm

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

I would just reiterate that extended counter-arguments that in and of themselves make good points don't counter any original argument if the central disagreement is not addressed. The key difference of opinion here is whether (a) Camp David in fall/winter 2000 was a crucial moment of opportunity for both Israelis and Palestinians (and of course for President Clinton, but one notices how he is not suffering the results of the failure while both Palestinians and to an extent Israelis still are) which was torpedoed by Arafat for whatever complex of motives, a maneuver that has been continuously justified/explained away/defended by pro-Palestinian advocates since then but not very convincingly; or (b) Camp David was merely a minor unimportant stage -- after all, they could have met in the Courtyard by Marriott at Nashville Airport with the city mayor as sponsor, and they could have gotten 14 days free parking -- in a broader process and the Taba meetings were more promising and the fact that the Camp David failure hung over them like Voldemort in a bad mood was irrelevant and who cares about the Israeli elections and a new president in the U.S., it's all Israeli intransigence and hey!! I'm forgetting, why do the Palestinians even have to negotiatiate anyway! although they were negotiating, or not, or yes, or no, or . . . The mere repetition of the fairly indisputable fact of the settlements being illegal under international law und so weiter und so fort does not retrospectively say anything at all, I repeat, at all, about a correct assessment of the Camp David talks, that I regard as a major tragedy for Palestinians as a smart negotiating strategy would at least have put Israeli leadership to the test. In fact, historically, it put Palestinian leadership, at least Arafat's, to the test.

- ironyroad

December 11, 2012 at 12:25am

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

From the Wikipedia "Early life and education Siegman, a Jewish American, was born in 1930 in Frankfurt, Weimar Republic (now Frankfurt, Germany).[2] Moving to the United States, Siegman studied at City College and New School for Social Research. He was ordained as an Orthodox Rabbi by Yeshiva Torah Vadaath. He served as a chaplain in the Korean War, where he was awarded the Bronze Star Medal, along with the Purple Heart.[3]" However when you google Yeshiva Torah Vadaath distinguished alumni , Siegman is not mentioned. An anti Israel basher, probably they are embarrassed by him. Or he doesn't practice orthodoxy. Reminds me of Jackie Mason. He and his brothers were ordained Rabbis. But Jackie didn't practice, so his brothers were ashamed and did not talk to him. But a fine comedian and a strong supporter of Israel.

- JAIMECHUCH

December 11, 2012 at 2:51am

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

They all dance together the virulent anti Israel crowd. Siegman, Chris Hedges and Noam Chomsky. Two self hatred Jews and one goy.

- JAIMECHUCH

December 11, 2012 at 3:05am

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

"The Palestinians and the Arab League offer peace, security, and recognition on the basis of the Green Line" So in other words, Israel has to capitulate in order to satisfy you. Roid, did you read the blog post yesterday about gay rights and Brown v. Board of Ed.? The important part: "They opened the desegregation front not with public high schools, and associated National Guardsmen and spitting, screaming white parents. They started by challenging all white local law schools and other graduate programs. Unlike the separate but unequal public lower schools, the states usually maintained no black graduate programs at all. ... The solons of the racial civil rights movement knew that the white majority would be much less threatened by the prospect of an adult education PhD than numerous children of a different race at the grammar school. Only when, over decades of litigation, they had isolated the separate but equal doctrine to an island of incoherence did they take it on directly in Brown." Your self-righteous chest-thumping about the settlements is equivalent to ignoring all the legal work building up to challenging K-12 segregation. It should also be noted, that unlike the case of school segregation, where there was no legitimate interest for whites in having blacks excluded from their kids' classrooms, there is a legitimate interest for Jews living in Hebron and the vicinity of Jerusalem.

- sighthnd

December 11, 2012 at 9:01am

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

Noga: "This, again, sighthnd, is the reflexive need for the fetishization of balance. As if the two sides are equal." You impute beliefs to me that are not accurate and you miss my point. As for my beliefs, there are far more Palestinian accommodationists than you recognize, but you have to extend you focus beyond those in any position of power to identify them. Inside the PA, the only possible accommodationists are Sari Nusseibeh and Salaam Fayyad, as you say. Outside, there are the likes of Khaled Abu Toameh, Hisham Jirallah, various village chiefs and some tradesmen. I make no moral point about either side for having both rejectionists and accommodationists. As for my point, it is that peace will not come from imposing on the powers that be to accept the diktats of the world's VSPs. Rather, peace will come by convincing each side to put the its accommodationists in power (on the Palestinian side, that would also require giving them the means to put them in power once they do make that choice). On the Palestinian side, empowering the accommodationists will requiring demonstrating that they can deliver something for the people that the rejectionists cannot. On the Israeli side, this will require convincing the people 1) that the accommodationists will not give away too much and 2) that the concessions will lead to a permanent end to hostilities. Now's for how the self-righteous chest-thumping, for which roid is most notable on this forum, fits in this framework. On the Palestinian side, if Abbas can deliver a hate-filled screed and get the UN GA to recognize Palestine, the message to the Palestinian people is that the absolute maximum that the international community will help them with under any circumstances, the international community will help them with if they are led by rejectionists. Under that circumstance, there is absolutely nothing else for which the accommodationists could gain international support. On the Israeli side, the self-righteous chest-thumping sends a message to the vast middle of society that recognizes Palestinian rights to self-determination but also that Jewish rights should not end at the Green Line, that the accommodationists might be too quick to acquiesce to truncating Jewish rights at the Green Line and that there will be no consequences to the Palestinians, even after Israel makes concessions, if their rejectionists get their way.

- sighthnd

December 11, 2012 at 9:32am

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

Irony, while there is no argument that Arafat made a mess in the after-math of Camp David, not because he didn't negotiate in a manner that the Israelis and Americans understood and accepted or left without concluding an agreement on Israeli and American terms (the United States is not exactly a neutral arbiter in this as both the US and Israel declare themselves to be allies), but because he returned to violence. Not only was this morally outrageous, especially given that there were negotiations, but it was a huge tactical and strategic error. Arafat did not understand that there was nothing more that could be achieved with violence at that point in history. He had outlived his time. On the other hand, if one is capable of setting aside moral judgment of Arafat and the Arabs for the purposes of analysis, I can understand why a rational person in Arafat's shoes might believe that the interests of the Palestinians were best served by a return to violence. What have the Arabs gotten from Israel with non-violence? Despite Israel's rhetoric, the objective fact that most of what it has ever yielded it has yielded in response to violence, to the terror attacks of the 70s and 80s, to the grinding asymmetric warfare in southern Lebanon, to the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit, and, most recently, operation Pillar of Defense, in which, to obtain a ceasefire, Israel agreed to cease its targeted assassinations and to open crossings and stop restricting movement. Indeed, at the time of Camp David, Israel's withdrawal from south Lebanon had only just been concluded. Israel rhetorically espouses a doctrine that Israel can only prevail with resolute force. There are clear roots in the writings of Jabotinsky, the founder of the movement that is now represented in Israel by the Likud: "The Arabs loved their country as much as the Jews did. Instinctively, they understood Zionist aspirations very well, and their decision to resist them was only natural ..... There was no misunderstanding between Jew and Arab, but a natural conflict. .... No Agreement was possible with the Palestinian Arab; they would accept Zionism only when they found themselves up against an 'iron wall,' when they realize they had no alternative but to accept Jewish settlement." Perhaps Arafat in 2000 was a student of Jabotinsky. On the other hand, at the time of the Oslo Accords, there were 136,000 Israeli settlers, not including East Jerusalem. By the time of Camp David in 2000, there were 193,000. At Camp David, the entire discussion was on Israeli/American proposals for the cession of the illegal settlements to Israel in exchange for scraps of desert that neither side wants. The acceptance of "two states for two peoples" on the premise that the land west of the Green Line is Israel and the land east of the Green Line is Palestine -- in accordance with the UN partition of Mandatory Palestine, UNSC resolution 242, declaring the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war, and UNSC resolution 446, unambiguously prohibiting Israeli settlement in the occupied territories -- was not even on the agenda. Why should Arafat have believed at Camp David that there was any prospect from negotiations other than either Israel continuing to consume the West Bank in the absence of settlement or the legitimization of the illegal settlements, and as nayyer_ali correctly says, a final map of the West Bank that looks like a Swiss cheese, punctured with multiple sovereign Israel enclaves? Is there anywhere in the world, today or in history, where a so-called "border" consists of such multiple enclaves (and necessarily the connections to support them)? The only historical precedent is the Bantustan "solution" to apartheid that was rejected by the entire world and ultimately came to nothing. I think Arafat had a duty, morally, politically, and to his people, absolutely to exhaust the possibilities of negotiations, and then some, and then make his case to the world that Israel was unwilling to make peace on the basis of either a one-state solution or a two-state solution respecting UN mandates for the disposition of Palestine going back to 1947. But even Ben-Ami doesn't think Camp David was a lost opportunity. There would have been no agreement concluded at Camp David unless Arafat had been willing not only to abandon Palestinian claims west of the Green Line and cede to Israel the pieces of Palestinian land that it covets east of the Green Line OR Israel had been willing to proceed from the premise that the land east of the Green Line does in fact belong to the Arabs in accordance with the UN partition of Mandatory Palestine, UNSC resolution 242, declaring the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war, and UNSC resolution 446, unambiguously prohibiting Israeli settlement in the occupied territories. We know that Arafat would not accept the concession of land east of the Green Line, and the Palestinians never have. Even Ben-Ami says that, if he were the Palestinians, he would not have accepted that deal. It is equally obvious that Israel was not then and is not now willing to accept peace on the basis of two states for two peoples, Israel west of the Green Line, in land allocated to it by the UN PLUS Arab land it occupied during the War of Independence, and Palestine east of the Green Line, in land allocated to it by the UN LESS the land lost in the War of Independence. ________________ Sighthnd, I don't have time for you at the moment. But for now, suffice to say that: (1) If I prefaced my comments on what you say by repeatedly appending the words "pompous bloviating" whenever I refer to you, it would not enhance my argument any more than you do with "righteous chest-thumping;" and (2) You have profoundly tendentious misreading of he history of the civil rights movement and Brown v Board of Education. The outcome was not the result of some sort of accommodation between segregationists and anyone else, but of the imposition of the rule of law by the Federal government. A better historical analogy for Israel in its present state would be South Africa under apartheid or the American South before the Civil War. In both cases, the people in possession were on the wrong side of morality and history and were desperately trying to convince themselves otherwise. At the same time, they were trying to convince everyone else that there needed to be all sorts of incremental adjustment, in the interest of peace, rather than the frank abandonment of an illicit regime.

- roidubouloi

December 11, 2012 at 1:08pm

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

"You have profoundly tendentious misreading of he history of the civil rights movement and Brown v Board of Education. The outcome was not the result of some sort of accommodation between segregationists and anyone else" Nor was the judicial decision reached in a vacuum. There was a series of rulings on less "threatening" matters before bringing a direct challenge on the issue that affected every white southerner with school-age children. In contrast, you're going directly to what is most threatening to anyone who believes that Jewish rights should not end at the Green Line. "If I prefaced my comments on what you say by repeatedly appending the words 'pompous bloviating' whenever I refer to you" Can you distinguish between that and calling everyone who denies the PNM the right to unilaterally make Judea and Samaria judenrein an outlaw? "A better historical analogy for Israel in its present state would be South Africa under apartheid or the American South before the Civil War. In both cases, the people in possession were on the wrong side ..." A Palestine with less than 100% of Jordan's 1949 conquest would not constitute anything closely representing what the blacks of apartheid South Africa or the American South faced. Any comparison of that proposed solution to South Africa is as risible as those accusing you of advocating the dissolution of Israel. "and as nayyer_ali correctly says, a final map of the West Bank that looks like a Swiss cheese, punctured with multiple sovereign Israel enclaves?" As I keep saying, solving that does not require ceding 100% of Jordan's 1949 conquest. Leaving southwest Samaria, northwest Judea, part of the Jordan Valley, a corridor to Hebron and the Jerusalem suburbs in Israeli hands would not fundamentally alter Palestine once the remaining settlements were either abandoned or their residents transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction. Hungary lost land as a result of siding with Germany, why should that principle not apply to Jordan?

- sighthnd

December 11, 2012 at 3:27pm

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

"Why should Arafat have believed at Camp David" " Not only was this morally outrageous, especially given that there were negotiations, but it was a huge tactical and strategic error. Arafat did not understand that there was nothing more that could be achieved with violence at that point in history. He had outlived his time." "I think Arafat had a duty, morally, politically, and to his people, absolutely to exhaust the possibilities of negotiations, and then some, and then make his case to the world that Israel was unwilling to make peace on the basis of either a one-state solution or a two-state solution respecting UN mandates for the disposition of Palestine going back to 1947."
The second and third sentences cited above reminded me of the following quote from The Lion in Winter in response to the first sentence cited: "There's no sense asking if the air is good if there's nothing else to breathe." Arafat thought there was: the intoxicating perfume of blood. You're right. It was not that he walked out - it's that he walked out to launch another war. We can talk about the perfidy of the negotiating tactics of Barak and Clinton all you want. Arafat had a choice to walk or not; he also had a choice as to what to do when he did walk. Why should he have believed Clinton and Barak? Because Clinton forced Rabin to shake his bloody hand, for which Rabin gave his life. Did Arafat ever risk as much? The rest is just revisionism gone wild.

- icarus-r

December 11, 2012 at 3:55pm

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

Ach ... "Why should Arafat have believed at Camp David" " Not only was this morally outrageous, especially given that there were negotiations, but it was a huge tactical and strategic error. Arafat did not understand that there was nothing more that could be achieved with violence at that point in history. He had outlived his time." "I think Arafat had a duty, morally, politically, and to his people, absolutely to exhaust the possibilities of negotiations, and then some, and then make his case to the world that Israel was unwilling to make peace on the basis of either a one-state solution or a two-state solution respecting UN mandates for the disposition of Palestine going back to 1947." "I can understand why a rational person in Arafat's shoes might believe that the interests of the Palestinians were best served by a return to violence." Your second and third sentences remind me of the best answer to give to your first sentence: (From The Lion in Winter): Henry II: There's no sense asking if the air is good if there's nothing else to breathe. You're right - the biggest issue is not that Arafat walked, but that he walked to launched another war. For him, there was an alternative to air: the odour of congealed blood on asphalt. And that is why I think the fourth sentence quoted above does not make sense. Something that does not make sense strategically or morally or tactically cannot be rational. Arafat's recourse to it in 2000 was not the work of a rational mind in any sense in which that word can be viewed: I stress again, this is the same oik who thought it "rational" to embrace both Khomeini and Saddan in succession, and bring untold miseries upon his people. In 2000 and following Camp David, recourse to violence was and ought to have been the one tactic completely off the Palestinian menu. Harping on the perfidy of Clinton or Barak and their negotiating tactics is bad historical revisionism.

- icarus-r

December 11, 2012 at 4:04pm

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

Noga, I found your reference to medieval disputations between Christians and Jews to be quite illuminatiing with respect to Roi's particularly repulsive character and behavior. The insight that I gleaned was that Roi argues with the vehemence of a Jew who has recently converted to Christianity, and who now loathes his former tribe. His hatred for Judaism and those who defend the Jewish state is relentless and indefatigable. Yet, interestingly enough, he claims to be a Jew. Just a different kind of Jew, more enlightened, one who champions the legitimacy of Arab claims and boldly dismisses the shallow pretense of Jewish arguments for security, defensible borders, and all the rest. Instead of a rabid Christian convert turned vengefully against his former tribe, we have an AsaJew who ruthlessly exposes the diabolical machinations of the wicked kind of Jews, i.e., those who haven't internalized the viewpoint of their genocidal adversaries. I have to admit that I find it quite pleasing to have finally been able to formulate to my own satisfaction the strange pathologies and psychic splits that animate this noisome creature.

- willjames77

December 11, 2012 at 4:52pm

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

Icarus, I am quite clear that violence should have been off the table, and I am consistent in saying that right to the present. However, that is not the same thing as thinking that violence is irrational. It is often a very rational means of achieving particular goals if you don't have any moral scruple about it. I think Arafat was deeply mistaken, certainly morally because he had not pursued non-violent means with sufficient commitment of time, effort, or will. I also think he was wrong strategically, that the correlation of forces, very much including those bearing in from the international community was such, that he could only make matters worse with violence. But I can understand how one could view the long history of the conflict going back to before the Balfour Declaration and from Arafat's vantage point make the strategic error without at all being irrational, malevolent, but not irrational. As a general matter, I also think it is generally a mistake to adopt the posture that one's enemies are irrational. That leads to a great deal of error. Better to assume that the enemy is rational and try to infer what his actions then imply about how he views is circumstances, opportunities, and objectives. That provides insight into what he is likely to do and why, viewing the world from inside his own head. I would not at all accuse Clinton and Barak of perfidy, but, in my opinion, they both demonstrated the near completely inability to understand the world from the Palestinian perspective. The soi-disant friends of Israel won't even be bothered to try because they regard the Palestinians as evil beyond redemption. However, to be a good negotiator demands being able to understand the other party's point of view and anticipate how proposals will appear to him. One way to avoid misperceptions is to cultivate the ground more before entering into face to face negotiations where they stakes become much higher. Arafat was I think right in saying that the groundwork for Camp David had not been done and that it was premature for that reason. It is not historical revisionism to observe simultaneously that Arafat was wrong, both morally and strategically, to return to violence while also observing that he was being offered only a lousy deal. Camp David did not fail because of bad tactics on either side. It failed because there is a fundamental disagreement: Israel insists on keeping parts of the West Bank that simply do not belong to it as spoils of war. The UNSC has ruled that out, multiple times, but Israel persists. The Palestinians offer peace if Israel will get off their land. Israel refuses. That is why all of the negotiations have failed and, in my opinion, will continue to fail. Israel does not accept a two-state solution on the basis that it no longer has claims east of the Green Line, because the UN extinguished its claims there just as it did Arab claims to the west of the Green Line. ___________________ Sighthnd, you ought to look at the maps proposed by Israel at both Camp David and at Taba before you express any more views about how easy it. You can believe what you like, there are no Jewish claims to sovereignty east of the Green Line. Historically there were, but they have been extinguished by the UN partition, resolution 242, resolution 446, and others. If you refuse to accept the legitimacy of UN action to settle the competing claims in Palestine, then you are in the position of the Arabs of refusing to accept the legitimacy of Israel. You can insist upon Jewish refugee claims east of the Green Line, a matter different than Israeli sovereignty there, but then you are in a pretty difficult spot to deny Palestinian refugee claims west of the Green Line (or claims by proxies in lieu of the persons actually displace from either side of the line). I have said repeatedly that I think the better solution for all sides would be for some portion of the settlements, or even all of them, to remain in Palestine with an equal number of Palestinian Arabs given the opportunity to settle in Israel. And, given the fraught history, I would let Israel decide the numbers. But if Israel insists that all claims of the Palestinians west of the Green Line (and their claimed right of return does have a sound basis in international law) are to be extinguished, it is no position to press Jewish claims east of the line. You want it both ways, indeed all ways. You want Israel to take from Palestine the land that it wants will extinguishing all Palestinian territorial and human rights claims to the west. You can say that Israel is entitled to these things as the spoils of war, but, again, the UN has repeatedly said no. Your position has no legitimacy in international law and there is no reason that I can think of for the Palestinians to agree to it. You might say, Tough, let them refuse and then the status quo will be maintained. But it won't be. If this were a cage fight in which the only two parties were Israel and the Palestinians, then Israel could likely succeed in subjugating them in the manner of the Native Americans. But they are not alone. They are part of a very large nation, and an even larger religious community, that has not abandoned them and doesn't appear likely to (in spite of plenty of back-stabbing along the way). The French invaded by the Germans were not alone. Alone they were helpless. With allies outside of their theater, they were not. The Arabs have financial and diplomatic power, they have great numbers, their ability to deploy military technology will increase with time. So, if you are hanging your hat on the ability of Israel to achieve your objectives by force of arms alone, you are sadly mistaken. _________________________ You, willjames, are simply an idiot. I don't at all dismiss Jewish arguments for security and defensible borders. I make those arguments, indefatigably. But there is no argument whatsoever that Israel taking the settlements from Palestine is either necessary or even an enhancement to Israel's security. The fact that you have to attribute to me views I neither hold nor express in order to attack me tags you as just another fascist goon. So, go fuck yourself, you miserable piece of shit. I will not be spending any time pondering what pathology animates you. You aren't worth 10 seconds of my time.

- roidubouloi

December 11, 2012 at 6:21pm

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

" but then you are in a pretty difficult spot to deny Palestinian refugee claims west of the Green Line (or claims by proxies in lieu of the persons actually displace from either side of the line)" Article 11 in the original UN resolution on which Palestinian RoR is based, reads: ""The General Assembly) Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date." The key phrase for the"Palestinians is "should be permitted to do so". The key phrase for Israel is: " refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours". The experiences of the last 120 years, the Palestinian Charter, the Hamas Charter, the education system that weans students on hatred of Israel, Israelis and Jews, the media propaganda to the same result, all of these factors do not bode well for the prospect of Palestinian capability to live in peace with their Israeli neighbors. Since this is key, it is hard for me to see how the two cases are comparable. Is there any indication whatsoever that returning Palestinians intend to live in peace within Israel? What are their dreams made of? I'll quote one reliable source: "On this day in 1187, Jerusalem was liberated by Arab armies. There was no Obama or Bush to rescue the crusaders. There will come a day when there will be no Obama or Bush to rescue the Zionists. Stay tuned." "Imagine there is no...Israel " "The enemy state of Israel Yesterday, I saw a glimpse of tourist propaganda for Israel on US TV. I got so upset. I wrote this on Facebook and I shall translate: لا يغيظني شيء أو يستفزّني مثل رؤية مشاهد ترويج "سياحي" لدولة إسرائيل العدوّة: أصرخ في داخلي. الحجارة ليست لكم (أو لكنّ). الأزهار ليست لكم. الشواطيء ليست لكم. الغيوم ليست لكم. زرقة السماء ليست لكم. ستعود كلّها إلى أصحابها. عندها, كل شيء سيكون أجمل وأبهى. (Nothing incenses me or provokes me like watching scenes of "tourist" promotion for the enemy state of Israel: I scream in my inside. The stones are not yours. The flowers are not yours. The beaches are not yours. The clouds are not yours. The blueness of the sky is not yours. All will return to their owners. Then, everything will be more beautiful and more splendid.)" "I don't like flags, and I don't like nationalisms but for Palestine and the Palestinians, everything and anything." (Prof. AbuKhalil, now professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus and visiting professor at UC, Berkeley.) _____________ Words of rationality from the most rational poster on this board: " The fact that you have to attribute to me views I neither hold nor express in order to attack me tags you as just another fascist goon. So, go fuck yourself, you miserable piece of shit. I will not be spending any time pondering what pathology animates you. You aren't worth 10 seconds of my time." One can understand how a person who can write such vituperation is in a good position to understand Arafat's rational thinking in bombing babies and kids on buses and pizzerias.

- Noga

December 11, 2012 at 7:38pm

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

Can someone say something that hasn't bees said already? Something that will change somebody's mind?

- arnon1

December 11, 2012 at 7:47pm

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

Israel has killed many more Palestinians, including women, children, and babies, than Israelis have been killed in all the wars. That disturbs noga not at all. She is a racist. For her they are sub-human. And it matters not at all to her whether Arabs killed in the wars are guilty of anything at all other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time, perhaps even because they have nowhere else to go (unlike the hundreds or perhaps thousands of Israelis such as noga who now live in Canada or the US). Those innocents who are killed in Israeli air attacks are just as dead or maimed as those killed on buses and in pizzerias. For that reason, it doesn't even occur to her to be disturbed if Israel perpetuates the conflict, provoking conflict and refusing to make peace, in pursuit of illicit goals, illegal goals, illegitimate goals. Her hatred suffices to justify whatever Israel does and for whatever reason. It is very simple. If the Palestinians think like noga, they would never, ever make peace but will endure conflict as long as it takes until they are able to destroy Israel. And if we do indeed live in noga's world, why shouldn't they? If there is no morality, no justice, no law, nothing but hate and the exercise of raw power, why should the Palestinians, if they are willing to suffer long enough, not wait for the time when they have the power and then use it? In a world fashioned by such as noga, there is nothing but endless violence, endless retribution, endless grievance with no ability to say, this matter is settled, compromised, arbitrated and done. If the territorial claims of Israel are not settled, some in their favor and some not, by the actions of the UN going back to 1947, then neither are the claims of the Arabs. If they both insist on this, then they can fight forever, but there is no reason for this country to lend its power, arms, wealth, or prestige to their battle. It makes sense for us to support Israel's security. It makes no sense for us to support Israel's colonial adventures. If Israel insists on yoking the two to try and compel us to support the latter, we should walk away.

- roidubouloi

December 11, 2012 at 9:08pm

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

It is of course only to be expected that noga approves of falsely and malignantly placing words in other peoples mouths in order to defame them. She does this every time she graces these boards with her vile self. This great Israeli patriot sits in Canada spewing filth and accusing everyone from Tom Friedman to the New Israel Fund of anti-Semitism. If we Jews were all like noga, there would be more than enough justification for anti-Semitism. Who could fail to despise us if we were all like noga? She and willjames deserve each other. Two miserable pieces of shit.

- roidubouloi

December 11, 2012 at 9:22pm

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

sighthnd, I wish to clarify the last point I made. If you take the position that Israel can take what it wants from the Palestinians because it won the war, you are in fact advocating the position of Hamas, that all that matters is who wins and who loses. By that rationale, there is every reason for them to continue to fight as long as they have the will to do so in the hope they will someday win. Because, on that day, they would likewise be entitled to take what they want. I don't believe that. As imperfect as it may be, I think that we do live in a regime of international law in which it is not permissible for any nation with power to take what it wants from any nation with less. The Arabs have been in the wrong because they were obligated to accept the UN partition plan as the final decision of the world body and they would not. Israel is no less in the wrong if it perpetuates the conflict because it refuses to accept the decisions of the world body as to legitimate sovereignty within Mandatory Palestine. The West Bank was given to the Arabs for their state. If you say that they can no longer claim it because the waged aggressive law and lost, you are wrong for the same reason: The UN has said that acquisition of this specific territory by war is inadmissible, without regard to whether it was a legal and just war or not. If there was a question whether the settlements did in fact violate the Fourth Geneva Convention and UNSC resolutions, the UNSC definitively answered that too in resolution 446. The matter is closed, and all members of the UN, including Israel, are bound to accept it. A system of law is not a guarantee of perfect or divine justice. It is a system of managing and preventing conflict through peaceful adjudication of disputes. Some results are flawed and justice is not done. But if we can ignore the adjudication because we think the outcome unjust, the system completely falls apart and the harm is much worse than that of tolerating some injustice for the sake of the finality of decisions. In almost every case someone will feel the outcome was unjust. If they can ignore it for that reason, there is no system of law at all. This is why the members of the legal community, in this case the members of the UN, are bound to observe the outcomes of UN decision-making. The question of sovereignty in Palestine has been settled. To occupy Palestine in order to undo, by force of arms, the decision of the UN is to wage illegal war. It is not for nothing that illegal settlement has been made a war crime under the First Protocol to the Geneva Conventions. That Jews or Arabs continue to hold contrary beliefs about the wisdom or justice of the UNs decisions, whether grounded in history, religion, or something else, is of no importance. They are all bound to observe them anyway, both Jew and Arab.

- roidubouloi

December 11, 2012 at 9:49pm

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

arnon: Can someone say something that hasn't been said already? Oh, that is easy; banana cart bumble on wednesday As to changing everyones minds, well, you can't afford my supersecret plan for the Middle East but I will give you a hint, it involves lots and lots of sex, preferably done by me. I stayed away from this thread because it is way too depressing. Michigan just became a right to slave state so things are depressing enough here, I don't need to go outside this country to get more depressed.

- blackton

December 11, 2012 at 10:26pm

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

"Israel has killed many more Palestinians, including women, children, and babies, than Israelis have been killed in all the wars" The IDF does not target women, children, and babies. Unlike Palestinian terrorists who target only women, children, and babies. And I won't repeat the well known argument about how many Germans were killed in WWII compared to Americans. I think your brainwashing is now complete, roi, if you resort to using this depleted, stupid pathetic argument. Israelis do not celebrate the death of innocent Palestinians, you immoral ignoramus. They feel sorry for them. They deeply wish it was not necessary to fight anymore. But what would you know about it.

- Noga

December 11, 2012 at 10:46pm

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

"Michigan just became a right to slave state so things are depressing enough here, I don't need to go outside this country to get more depressed." I am with you on that. God, I am relived that I don't live either in Michigan or Wisconsin another right to slavery (as you say) though not yet right to "work" state.

- arnon1

December 11, 2012 at 10:47pm

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

roidubouloi "Israel has killed many more Palestinians, including women, children, and babies, than Israelis have been killed in all the wars." It is ridiculous to aggregate the number of dead in wars. I'd like to see the break down in terms of battles in which different kinds of people were targeted. Your statistics like much of what you say, ROIDODO mean zilch. The US killed may more Japanese in WW2 (as well as Germans) than Japanese (or Germans) killed Americans including women and children, what conclusions do you draw from that?

- arnon1

December 11, 2012 at 10:52pm

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

This Roido-dodo do go don't he know?

- arnon1

December 11, 2012 at 10:56pm

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

The fact of death is rather more important than whether or not it is celebrated. It is not morally acceptable to kill merely because the killer does not celebrate. If you use force in pursuit of illicit ends, you cannot avoid culpability for deaths that ensue. Nor can you wash the blood off your hands by exclaiming how you didn't want to do it and how you wish you didn't have to keep doing it. You are an obvious racist whose hatreds are only exceeded by your self-pity, noga. Given your execrable behavior here, the notion of your holding forth on any question of morality is utterly ridiculous. There is a good reason why you were dubbed the Gargoyle of the Spine. Crawl back into your pool of slime and filth. And take the lying sack of shit willjames with you. The couple from hell.

- roidubouloi

December 11, 2012 at 11:03pm

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

Noga is sentimental but hardly a racist. Roidodo uses the term racist as an insult the way other use Nazi. Noga has said that she has Muslim relatives that would hardly make her a racist. There are unsentimental people, though who use the law to deploy their own racist and antisemitic views.

- arnon1

December 11, 2012 at 11:13pm

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

moron1, "The US killed may more Japanese in WW2 (as well as Germans) than Japanese (or Germans) killed Americans including women and children, what conclusions do you draw from that?" I draw the conclusion that the deaths were morally justified because the war against the Japanese and Germans was morally justified. It was not a war fought by the United States in pursuit of illicit ends, such as the acquisition of territory by force of arms, but to defend civilization from aggressive war and worse. We held the Germans and Japanese liable for war crimes for engaging in aggressive war and worse. One of the results was the Fourth Geneva Convention and the First Protocol thereto under which the transfer of the occupier's population into occupied territory -- colonization -- is a war crime. Deaths caused to defend the continuing commission of a war crime are morally culpable because they are incurred in the pursuit of illicit ends. It does not suffice to relieve guilt that the government ordering the deaths did so immediately in self-defense. You have to stop committing the crime that provokes the war.

- roidubouloi

December 11, 2012 at 11:13pm

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

If noga had been there, she would have been a Nazi. Here and now, she is a racist, a fascist, and a vicious liar. No doubt she despises her Muslim relatives and they would be wise to despise her. She would dance on their graves for a nickel.

- roidubouloi

December 11, 2012 at 11:16pm

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

"If noga had been there, she would have been a Nazi. Here and now, she is a racist, a fascist, and a vicious liar." This isn't an argument, it's insane invective from a deluded Roidododo and a fool. Sentimentality aside when Palestinians deliberately murder women and children they are war criminals like the Japanese in Manchuria, the Chinese in Tibet and Nazis all over Europe. Fighting back against armed assassins is not a war crime. Most of what Roidododo says is pure bullshit and wouldn't stand up in any legitimate court of law. You are lucky that your opponents like Noga and some others can't match your legal vitriol. Try and argue against someone who can and you'll see how far you get. But then no one with any sense would take you seriously. Calling me moron is about as profound as you ever get, you dimwit.

- arnon1

December 11, 2012 at 11:36pm

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

See I am having fun, while Roidodo works very hard at winning an argument. He is more earnest than a zealous fanatic, more impassioned than an ascetic. More Roidodo than an extinct Diplodocus. More of more than the most Iguanodon. He must have lost lots of moot court encounters for him to work overtime to beat poor Noga. How sad.

- arnon1

December 11, 2012 at 11:48pm

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

From the ICRC website http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule130 Practice Relating to Rule 130. Transfer of Own Civilian Population into Occupied Territory I. Treaties Geneva Convention IV Article 49, sixth paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” Additional Protocol I Article 85(4)(a) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides that “the transfer by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” is a grave breach of the Protocol. [Note: Grave breaches are then defined to be war crimes later in the article.] ICC Statute Under Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[t]he transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts. The website includes a variety of other material, including the views of various nations regarding Israeli settlements. With regard to the United States, there is this: United States of America In 1980, the US Secretary of State stated: US policy toward the establishment of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories is unequivocal and has long been a matter of public record. We consider it to be contrary to international law and an impediment to the successful conclusion of the Middle East peace process. In 1991, the Secretary of State stated that Israeli settlement activity “does violate the United States policy”. United States of America In 1992, in its final report to Congress on the conduct of the Gulf War, the US Department of Defense declared that it regarded the transfer of the Iraqi population into occupied Kuwait in violation of Article 49 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV as a war crime. _____________________ For what it is worth, at the dawn of the settlements in 1967 Theodore Meron, legal adviser to Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, was asked to advise the government of Israel on the legality of settlement in the occupied territory. He wrote this, in a then secret memo since disclosed: "At your and Mr Raviv’s request, I am enclosing herewith a copy of my memorandum of 14.9.67 on the above subject, which I submitted to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention." Levi Eshkol ignored the opinion and went ahead anyway. Judge Meron is now the President of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Hague. Born in Poland in 1930, some references cite that he is a Holocaust survivor. One reference I have seen but cannot at the moment find again quotes him saying recently that he has the same opinion of the settlements today. Of course, according to the pro-Israel thugs who frequent these boards, this is all the product of my purportedly anti-Semitic imagination. Where Israel is involved, we are all expected to be rendered stupid, unable to see what is right before our eyes. According to the thugs, to do otherwise is to be an anti-Semite.

- roidubouloi

December 12, 2012 at 12:04am

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

"No doubt she despises her Muslim relatives and they would be wise to despise her. She would dance on their graves for a nickel." This must be the dumbest thing anyone has ever written here including Noga. She is definitely entitled to mock your poltroonery and cowardice. If I were her I would dance on your grave for nada (as the nada que eres doesn't merit recompense) and get mucho satifaccion.

- arnon1

December 12, 2012 at 12:08am

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

Given that you don't say anything, moron1, even when you purport to be talking, calling you a moron is more than sufficient. Actually, for you it is rather a compliment. I do like this one though: "You are lucky that your opponents like Noga and some others can't match your legal vitriol. Try and argue against someone who can and you'll see how far you get." Well, at least you understand that neither you nor noga has the wit or the knowledge actually to frame an argument about anything. That does not, however, excuse you for resorting to nothing more than childish insults in your frustration at being incompetent to address any matter seriously. As for legal argument, I think that in the company of Judge Meron, I am on pretty safe ground. Not that you could tell. Sheesh, what a dolt you are.

- roidubouloi

December 12, 2012 at 12:10am

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

You can dance, moron1? I don't believe you can even tie your shoes.

- roidubouloi

December 12, 2012 at 12:12am

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

I was struck by V.S. Naipaul's statement in Isaac Chotiner's recent TNR interview that lots of people think that Jane Austen's novels are crap but they don't have the balls to say so openly. I think the Palestinians' problem (and that of many of their supporters) is that they don't have the balls to say openly that Arafat lost a century-in-the-making chance of a Palestinian nation state at Camp David. If they did say it, it might be (a) really healthy and (b) open up some new dialogue. But they can't say it. It's not unlike the Republicans' inabilitiy to be honest about why Romney lost. And yes, I'm pleasurably comparing Palestinians to Republicans, and vice versa. Comparing is not stating equivalence, of course.

- ironyroad

December 12, 2012 at 12:16am

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

Tell it to Shlomo Ben-Ami, one of Israel's delegates to Camp David, who has written that he wouldn't have accepted Israel's offer had he been in the Palestinians' shoes. Obviously, Shlomo Ben-Ami has no balls.

- roidubouloi

December 12, 2012 at 12:23am

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

And do look at the map on page 142 of Bernard Wasserstein's book, "Israelis and Palestinians," so that you will be informed about just what it is that Arafat rejected at Camp David and at Taba.

- roidubouloi

December 12, 2012 at 12:26am

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

The paralyzed semite Rodododo has invoked some International court of something they call "Justicia?" Que es la justicia en Caracas? Es lo que el que va morirse muy pronto, el cara caca, dice que es. Roidodo invokes a mythical court of jusitce because he knows that it will never put on trial Israel because there is no judge in this world who can show that their country isn't as guilty of ten time the crimes they would accuse the Jewish State. Sri Lanka, South Africa, Libya, Iran, Turkey, China, the Mayor of Malmo in Sweden, or perhaps the new Egyptian Pharaoh? The possibilities are endless. Let those without the slightest smudge of Jew hatred cast the first nuclear tipped missile at the accused Jewish State!

- arnon1

December 12, 2012 at 12:27am

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

"Obviously, Shlomo Ben-Ami has no balls." You certainly don't, Roidodope.

- arnon1

December 12, 2012 at 12:29am

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

" I don't believe you can even tie your shoes." Another wrong belief held by ROIDODOPE. They keep mounting up, asshole.

- arnon1

December 12, 2012 at 12:30am

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

"Bernard Wasserstein" and who is he? If writing a book would make some one right, then lots of Roidodopes would claim to be in the truth.

- arnon1

December 12, 2012 at 12:32am

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

ironyroad "I was struck by V.S. Naipaul's statement in Isaac Chotiner's recent TNR interview that lots of people think that Jane Austen's novels are crap but they don't have the balls to say so openly." Hey, Mark Twain was there first both on plain Jane and on the desiccated country of "Palestine"( that mythic Arab Kingdom full of fertile farms and world famous industrial products).

- arnon1

December 12, 2012 at 12:37am

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

The Palestinians didn't have to accept Israel's offer, roid. They could have said "Dude, no way!" and come back with a counter-offer. It's called negotiation. And I think if you read Ben-Ami's account carefully you'll see that that's what he's talking about.

- ironyroad

December 12, 2012 at 12:48am

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

Roidododo fascista doesn't know the first thing about "negotiation." Like all Jews on the make he wants to impress his some special goy who is also a jew or part jew who is also trying to impress his own chosen goy and so it goes. These pretentious assholes really think that their "special" goy cares what they think or say. But this is why he has to attack Noga and insult other Jewish posters here. It's all about looking good in front of a make believe "goyish jury."

- arnon1

December 12, 2012 at 12:59am

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

moron1, Professor Bernard Wasserstein was born in London in 1958 and educated at Oxford and Hebrew University. From 1980 to 1996, professor of history at Brandeis University (with which you are probably unfamiliar). 1996 to 2000, President of the Oxford for Hebrew and Jewish Studies. Whether he is "right" has nothing to do with the the maps of what Israel offered at Camp David and Taba. The negotiations resumed at Taba in January of 2001 and at the closing the parties jointly issued a statement saying: 'The sides declare that they have never been closer to reaching an agreement and it is thus our shared belief that the remaining gaps could be bridged with the resumption of negotiations following the Israeli election'." After Sharon was elected, the talks were not resumed.

- roidubouloi

December 12, 2012 at 1:08am

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

I insult you, moron1, not because you are Jewish, but because you are a moron. Above all, you may not have noticed that I only start smacking you around and calling attention to what an asshole you are after you first have adopted personal attacks as your mode of discourse. However, it must be said that you don't really do anything else. You are far too stupid.

- roidubouloi

December 12, 2012 at 1:11am

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

Your racism is on display again, moron1. You might want to be a bit more discreet about that in public, although I realize that discretion is likely too demanding for one as mentally challenged as you.

- roidubouloi

December 12, 2012 at 1:13am

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

moron1 quotes me and responds: " I don't believe you can even tie your shoes." Another wrong belief held by ROIDODOPE. ______________________ Oh, come on, moron1. Do you really expect anyone here to believe that you can tie your shoes? That's just too much of a stretch. And with that, good night.

- roidubouloi

December 12, 2012 at 1:18am

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

Jane Austen's novels are crap? Like the legacy of Arafat? What a brilliant analogy. I'm not sentimental. If I were I would be following roi's lead here. If you want to know what sentimentality is, you should go read all those bloggers deemed by Mearsheimer and Walt to be "righteous Jews". I try to be as clear headed as I can about these matters. I have sympathy for Palestinian children, who are being used cynically and deprived of any possibility of a decent future life. roi is the embodiment of the pitying fascist, romanticizing the idea of Palestinian suffering, as if this imbues them with superior virtue and rights that transcend the humanity of others, while demonizing Israelis, and mocking their suffering. You look at him, you read his words, his perversion of all that is good and decent, his compulsive need to villify, and you say to yourself, this cannot be for real. There cannot be such a distorted human being, no matter what demons he has to wrestle with in his personal life. He is a frightening person. A good thing he is not in any position of authority or influence over other people's lives. BTW, I wouldn't worry too much about roi's insults. I always remind myself that the phenomenon of the antisemitic Jew is as logical a consequence of millennial and relentless Jew-hatred as the death camps were. At some point some people break, like Irene Nemirovsky, who thought that writing novels with antisemitic content would redeem her from her identity and fate as a Jew. I would have some pity for him, if he were not such an uberschmuck.

- Noga

December 12, 2012 at 6:51am

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

And now, for some levity, apropo Jane, Arafat and and Palestinian resistance:: http://simplyjews.blogspot.ca/2012/12/gazan-m-75-perfume-scent-of-future.html "A new perfume created in Gaza will bear the name of a missile designed by Hamas, which was fired at Jerusalem and Tel Aviv during Operation Pillar of Defense. A local cosmetics company, decided to name a new scent M-75, saying “the fragrance is pleasant and attractive, like the missiles of the Palestinian resistance.”

- Noga

December 12, 2012 at 7:12am

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

"I have sympathy for Palestinian children, who are being used cynically and deprived of any possibility of a decent future life. roi is the embodiment of the pitying fascist, romanticizing the idea of Palestinian suffering, as if this imbues them with superior virtue and rights that transcend the humanity of others, while demonizing Israelis, and mocking their suffering." A new version of noga's nauseating self-pity. There is not enough pity for Israeli suffering! The struggle has nothing to do with justice or morality or law. It is only a question of who has the greatest claim to suffering. Needless to say, noga is lying again. If noga's lips are moving she is lying. I have never attributed any virtue to the Palestinians, let alone superior virtue, due to their suffering or indeed for any other reason. I have never said that any of their bad deeds should be condoned because of their suffering. Nor have I attributed any special rights to them. Nor have I mocked that suffering anyone. That is the foul noga's specialty. Noga is projecting, of course, because it is she demands is that Jews by attributed special virtue and rights because of their suffering (and not even their present state, historical suffering of people long gone will do). My view, rather, is that the weighing of suffering is absurd and irrelevant. The Palestinians have human rights, and they have legal rights. Israelis have human rights and legal rights. Each is bound to observe the law and the human rights of the either and the violations of one are not excused by the violations of the other. The violation of law and human rights by either party causes suffering, in the present, to living people on both sides. Israel is the party with greater power. It is in control of the occupied territories. It perpetuates war in order to obtain an illicit object, the theft of Palestinian land that it has no claim to and has settled in flagrant violation of humanitarian and international law. Israel refuses to stop violating the law in order to make peace. Israel refuses to make peace unless the Palestinians agree to legitimize Israel's violations of law. The State of Israel thereby perpetuates the suffering of all who suffer in the conflict, including its own people. That is all.

- roidubouloi

December 12, 2012 at 7:52am

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

And I have no pity for you, noga. None a shred. You are simply evil and vicious, and there is no excuse for you, not even millennial Jew-hatred. You cannot blame Jew-hatred for making yourself so hateful and foul. That you broke under the terrible strain of life as a Jew in Canada (the horror! the horror!) cannot be blamed on others. The moral failure is yours. You are responsible for your bad behavior. You have no license because Jews in some other time or place suffered or still do.

- roidubouloi

December 12, 2012 at 8:00am

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

Geneva Convention IV Article 49, sixth paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” Additional Protocol I Article 85(4)(a) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides that “the transfer by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” is a grave breach of the Protocol. [Note: Grave breaches are then defined to be war crimes later in the article.] ICC Statute Under Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[t]he transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts. _____________________ There is no amount of self-pity, by noga, who lives a secure life in Canada thumbing her copies of Jane Austen and dreaming of her vicarious victimhood, that gives license to commit war crimes.

- roidubouloi

December 12, 2012 at 8:09am

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

" humanitarian and international law." ?? What then is the difference between Jews settling in Haifa and Tel Aviv, and Jews settling in Hebron? Wouldn't that be against HUMANITARIAN law, as well?

- Noga

December 12, 2012 at 8:21am

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

You use the Geneva Convention the way some Christian fundamentalists use the Bible and mullahs the Quran. I really don't think it impresses anybody.

- Noga

December 12, 2012 at 8:26am

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

Dancing around genocide: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324439804578105691046734674.html

- Noga

December 12, 2012 at 8:27am

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

From elsewhere in TNR today: "THE LAW OF the literature of suffering is fairly basic: the greater the suffering, the better the literature. But equally important is that the suffering be warranted. The Nazis were savaged at Stalingrad, but tell it to the judge." For noga, who lives life vicariously through Jane Austen novels while imagining herself to be a tragic victim, life is supposed to be lived according to the aesthetic of literature. The worst evil for her are those characters who refuse to play their assigned roles. It ruins theuf picture for her. Suffering is not suffering, it is currency. How utterly banal.

- roidubouloi

December 12, 2012 at 8:36am

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

it is of no surprise that noga cannot discern the difference between positive law created by living human beings for their own governance and the Bible or the Quran. She imagines that we are meant to venerate laws such as the Geneva Conventions rather than live by them. The thing to do when violating the law is not search for romantic or literary analogies to try and justify the violation, but to stop doing it.

- roidubouloi

December 12, 2012 at 8:40am

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

"What then is the difference between Jews settling in Haifa and Tel Aviv, and Jews settling in Hebron? Wouldn't that be against HUMANITARIAN law, as well?" How ridiculous. Haifa and Tel Aviv are part of the land that the UN either allocated to Israel, the Jewish state, or that became incorporated into Israel as a result of the armistice and the acquiescence of the UN. Hebron is part of the land allocated to the Arabs and the UN has not only not acquiesced to its incorporation or settlement by Israel, it has forbidden it, citing among other things the Fourth Geneva Convention. It is legal for Israel to authorize settlement anywhere in Israel by anyone that Israel wishes to allow to settle there. It is not legal for Israel to authorize settlement in occupied territory. If Israel were to incorporate the occupied territory, it would no longer be a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, that is of humanitarian law, to settle there because it would no longer be occupied. It would be a violation of UNSC resolutions that have forbidden Israel to incorporate the occupied territory. Were Israel to incorporate the occupied territory so as not to be in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, it would have to accord full political and civil rights to all inhabitants or be guilty of the crime against humanity of apartheid. The Arabs might actually agree to incorporation, which would render the UNSC prohibition moot. However, incorporation would be the one-state solution that Israel does not consider because, for obvious demographic reasons, it is contrary to the Zionist ideal of Jewish self-determination in Israel. If Israel cannot and will not incorporate the occupied territory, it may not settle its civilian population there. There is no such issue with regard to Tel Aviv and Haifa that are an integral part of metropolitan Israel. "Under Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[t]he transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts." I do not "use" the Geneva Convention for any purpose here other than to draw attention to the fact that Israel is in flagrant violation of it, refuses to cease violating the law in order to make peace, and insists on the legitimization of its violations as the price of peace, thereby perpetuating war and suffering for both Arabs and Jews.

- roidubouloi

December 12, 2012 at 8:54am

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

From the 1967 memorandum of Theodor Meron, counsel to Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to the Prime Minister of Israel. The quoted material was written specifically with reference to Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. "The prohibition therefore is categorical and not conditional upon the motives for the transfer or its objectives. Its purpose is to prevent settlement in occupied territory of citizens of the occupying state. If it is decided to go ahead with Jewish settlement in the administered territories, it seems to me vital, therefore, that settlement is carried out by military and not civilian entities. It is also important, in my view, that such settlement is in the framework of camps and is, on the face of it, of a temporary rather than permanent nature."

- roidubouloi

December 12, 2012 at 9:07am

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

"it is of no surprise that noga cannot discern the difference between positive law created by living human beings for their own governance and the Bible or the Quran" Does that mean you believe the Bible and the Quran were written NOT by human beings? The Bible and the Quran are considered to be authoritative texts according to their believers. The most extremist among the religious of any religion are those who take the sanctity and the word of these texts at their most literal, simplistic meaning. You, roi, treat the Geneva Convention as the ultimate and only arbiter of human conflicts. In that respect you are exactly like the mullah and the fundamentalist Christian. You quote from it like a mullah quotes from the Quran, in the belief that it provides the answer to all questions. It is not I who cannot discern the difference between positive law created by living human beings and the Bible or the Quran.

- Noga

December 12, 2012 at 11:25am

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

"If you use force in pursuit of illicit ends, you cannot avoid culpability for deaths that ensue." But interdicting attacks from an enemy territory is a legal objective. With that, the operative clause is proportionality, and I don't mean the politically correct understanding of it that casualties on your target can't exceed casualties on your side. If you will say that the attacks only occur because of the illicit provocations: 1) prove that the attacks would stop if the "provocation" ends and 2) what justification can there be for Hamas' attacks that would not allow a response? "You are an obvious racist whose hatreds are only exceeded by your self-pity" How can anyone characterize that as anything other than self-righteous chest-thumping? "Sighthnd, you ought to look at the maps proposed by Israel at both Camp David and at Taba before you express any more views about how easy it." The map is relevant only to whether that map should have been accepted. Even if it is unacceptable, that does not mean that it is impossible to draw a map that gives the Palestinians less than 100% of Jordan's 1949 conquest that fulfills all of their needs. "You can insist upon Jewish refugee claims east of the Green Line, a matter different than Israeli sovereignty there, but then you are in a pretty difficult spot to deny Palestinian refugee claims west of the Green Line" There are two differences. One is that a substantial number of Palestinians who left completely voluntarily at the urging of the Arabs. This is not to have any baring on those expelled by Israel, but those leaving voluntarily should not be granted the same status as the Jews forcible expelled from Hebron and Etzion. Second, many of those expelled were from communities that had given quarters to the Arab armies, creating a nexus between them and the enemy forces. The Jews of Hebron and Etzion were not quartering the Israeli army. With all that said, if I could be convinced that they would seek no representation in the Israeli government more than the Palestinian diplomatic mission, I would have no problem with the Palestinians moving west of the Green Line. However, that would be an extremely high bar to cross, especially given Abbas' turn to the ICC less than a week after gaining recognition at the UN when up until that recognition he claimed he had no interest in doing so. "A system of law is not a guarantee of perfect or divine justice. It is a system of managing and preventing conflict through peaceful adjudication of disputes. Some results are flawed and justice is not done. But if we can ignore the adjudication because we think the outcome unjust, the system completely falls apart and the harm is much worse than that of tolerating some injustice for the sake of the finality of decisions." Wow. I never realized that the American Civil War could have been avoided. All it would have taken would have been for all Americans to accept the finality, whatever the injustice, of the adjudication rendered during the Constitutional Convention. "The thing to do when violating the law is not search for romantic or literary analogies to try and justify the violation, but to stop doing it." So the freedom riders should have just stopped sending black and white riders to the south together instead of looking for romantic or literary analogies to justify such activities.

- sighthnd

December 12, 2012 at 11:31am

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

You are not answering my question, roi. I asked you "What then is the difference between Jews settling in Haifa and Tel Aviv, and Jews settling in Hebron? Wouldn't that be against HUMANITARIAN law, as well?" You decided to insert that most recent addition in your arsenal of anti-Israel poison bombs, "äccording to humanitarian law". You answer according to International law. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I accept your application of International law in this case. But what about humanitarian law? I deliberately capitalized the word "HUMANITARIAN"in order to prevent you from ignoring this part of your contention. Please now explain, "What then is the difference between Jews settling in Haifa and Tel Aviv, and Jews settling in Hebron? Wouldn't that be against HUMANITARIAN law, as well?" Is humanitarian law the same as International law? Is it above International law? Or bellow? And who decides that? You? And if they are the same, why itemize both?

- Noga

December 12, 2012 at 11:32am

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

ROIDODO IS BARKING AGAIN HE MUST BE HUNGRY. HE SPENDS HIS DAYS AND NIGHTS HERE BECAUSE HE IS LONELY. WHAT A WORTHLESS PIECE OF SHIT HE IS. THE LAWYER WITHOUT ANT WORK TO DO.

- arnon1

December 12, 2012 at 11:45am

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

AN INSULT BY ROIDODO IS A SIGN THAT YOU ARE ON THE RIGHT TRACK THAT THIS PRETENTIOUS MAN OF THE LAW IS UNABLE TO ANSWER AN ARGUMENT EXCEPT BY INSULTS. I TAKE HIS "INSULTS" AS A BADGE OF HONOR. Signed MORON TO DEFORMED ROIDOMOROS.

- arnon1

December 12, 2012 at 11:50am

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

"What then is the difference between Jews settling in Haifa and Tel Aviv, and Jews settling in Hebron? Wouldn't that be against HUMANITARIAN law, as well?" The difference is the time frame which you left out: Jews do have a right to settle in Hebron just as Arabs have a right to settle in Paris. However, Jews will have to live under Palestinian law as Palestinian Jews just as Arabs in Paris have to live as French Arabs and not impose their laws on the rest of the country. The way Jews will live in Hebron will obviously have to be decided through negotiations. Jews (and Arabs) in Haifa, btw, live under Israeli law.

- arnon1

December 12, 2012 at 11:58am

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

There is not a post by Roidomoros that he hasn't cribbed from book somewhere the half-man is obviously incapable of individual thought.

- arnon1

December 12, 2012 at 12:00pm

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

The Bible and the Quran were certainly written by human beings. None of them is now living. Many of the writers of the Geneva Conventions are still here. More important, however, the governments that continue to agree to be bound by the Geneva Conventions are in present existence representing people all of whom also presently exist. The Geneva Conventions, although written several decades ago, are still the undertakings of current societies. Any state can withdraw from a treaty that it has entered into, although other states may respond negatively to that. That is the price of belonging, in the present, to the society of the world. For those who believe the Bible or the Quran have authority as law, the authority comes from their belief that they are of Divine origin, that they are the Word of God. I don't think that the Geneva Conventions are the Word of God anymore than I think the laws of the State of New York or of the State of Israel are the Word of God. They are the work of society, in the present, for its governance. Members of the particular society have a moral duty to observe the law adopted by society, even when it is not a democratic society. This is the price we pay for being members of society with a justified expectation that others will obey the law. Moreover, our own obligations don't stop when others break the law. You have the right to defend yourself, your home, your family, even strangers. You don't have the right to pursue someone who has hurt you and extract vengeance. There are complex questions relating to conscientious objection to particular laws as requiring heinous acts. There is no plausible basis for claiming that the Geneva Conventions require heinous acts. It is surely not a heinous act to NOT colonize another people. International law is a broader category than humanitarian law. The latter is a part of the former. The resolutions of the UNSC are binding upon members of the UN. Those resolutions are a part of international law. They are not, however, a part of the body of humanitarian law. Nor, as far as I know, would an international court have authority to interpret UNSC resolutions because the UNSC is itself in continuous existence with its own authority to decide or modify its own resolutions. Thus, the arguments about what resolution 242 might have implied with regard to the legality of Israeli settlement in the occupied territories have been rendered completely moot by resolution 446 that makes it unambiguously clear that the settlements are prohibited. The Geneva Conventions are part of the body of humanitarian law and the prohibition against colonization is a piece of the law for the protection of civilians in the midst of war. The Geneva Conventions apply in circumstances of war when the normal governance of a state no longer exists and binds states in their actions towards others combatants and non-combatants who are not subject to their normal jurisdiction. Humanity has agreed that there are limits to what you can do to your enemies. It is up to a state in general to determine who may come from outside and settle in that state. Thus, it is for Israel to decide who may come and settle in Israel. Historical claims of Arabs who, as citizens of the Ottoman Empire may have had the right or permission to migrate within the Empire to what became the State of Israel after the partition, were extinguished by the partition. This indeed was the entire complaint of the Arabs about the partition, that a portion of the land in which they had been free to live and to which they had been free to travel, would thereafter be closed to them, unless the Jewish state chose to admit them. Similarly, historical claims of Jews to a right to settle in Hebron were extinguished by the UN partition. That's what the partition means, two states, for two people. And you do not have a right to be admitted to a state of which you are not already a resident. That state may give you permission to enter, temporarily or permanently, or it may not. And, of course, if the state does give you permission to enter, you will have to observe its laws, live under its laws, while you are there. Tel Aviv and Haifa are not occupied territory. They are a part of the State of Israel, governed by its domestic law. Hence, there is no application there of the provision of the Geneva Convention regarding colonization. Hebron is not part of the State of Israel. It is in occupied territory. Hence, the Fourth Geneva Convention applies. (See, e.g., the opinion of Theodor Meron to the Prime Minister of Israel and the opinion of the ICJ in the case about Israel's security barrier referred to it by the General Assembly.) Thus, it is humanitarian law that prohibits Israel from settling in Hebron. If the West Bank were incorporated into Israel, annexed and subjected to Israel's municipal law, the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention would not apply. However, the UNSC has prohibited Israel from doing so. Thus, it is international law, but not humanitarian law, that prevents Israel from incorporating the occupied territory. It is humanitarian law, a portion of international law, that prevents Israel from settling the unincorporated, occupied territory. Whether a state can avoid the application of the Fourth Geneva Convention by annexing parts of occupied territory that it wants to settle, excluding other parts, and thus claim not to be settled occupied territory is not a question that has ever been answered or even addressed by a competent body as far as I know. But the UNSC specfically recited the Fourth Geneva Convention in resolution 446 barring Israel from making status or demographic changes in the territory occupied in the Six Day War. The right of an individual displaced person to return to his or her home is different from the claim that, for example, "Jews have a right to settle in Hebron," or "Arabs have a right to settle in Haifa." The right of the specific displaced person to return after a conflict is over is protected by the Geneva Conventions. There is no such protection for the group, culturally, ethnically, or religiously, to return or settle. If there were such a group right, the UN partition of Palestine would have had no meaning. There would be a unitary state between the Jordan and the sea. There are sound arguments that individuals, Jews and Arabs, who were displaced in Israel's War of Independence would have a right of return after there is peace. There are arguments that could be made on the other side as well, both as to security and as to the larger displacement of Jews from Arab countries, that a population exchange occurred and cannot be undone, just as few would claim that persons who migrated in the separation of India and Pakistan now have a right to return to their former homes. But no one should suppose that there is no colorable legal basis for the claimed Palestinian right of return. Whether such a right of return applies to descendants is unclear. I don't know that it has ever been addressed. I would think the answer would be no, but it is far from certain. In any case, it is all but impossible to argue that Jews displaced from east of the Green Line enjoy a personal right of return but Palestinian Arabs displaced from west of the Green Line do not. As Israel very much wishes to extinguish Arab claims west of the Green Line, it would be in a precarious position if it began to argue for Jewish rights east of the Green Line. ______________________ Please, moron1, google anything that I write here and see if you can find the book or books that you imagine I am cribbing from. That will be good for a laugh. However, do understand that legal thought is not creative writing. To know what one is talking about, it is necessary to read both the underlying documents and articles and legal opinions written about them. Try it some time. See if you are capable of articulating an informed opinion about something.

- roidubouloi

December 12, 2012 at 1:48pm

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

"But interdicting attacks from an enemy territory is a legal objective." There is no question about Israel's right to defend itself, even from attacks that it might be said to have provoked. Everyone in conflict will always claim that attacks were either in defense or provoked. Settlements are not self-defense. Nor can maintaining a state of war so that it can continue to commit prohibited acts with impunity be construed as self-defense. Israel refuses to stop settling to make peace and it demands that its illegal settlements be legitimized as a condition of peace. Neither of those is permissible. "There are two differences." No, there aren't. The right to leave and return to one's home after a conflict is over applies whether one leaves voluntarily or involuntarily. People in the midst of armed conflict are not obliged to stay put in the middle of a battle to maintain the right to return to their homes when it is over. They claim that Arabs were justly expelled because they were quartering armed forces is one I hadn't heard before, but even if it had legal weight, which I rather doubt, that would not be a basis for denying people's right to return on a collective basis. "Wow. I never realized that the American Civil War could have been avoided. All it would have taken would have been for all Americans to accept the finality, whatever the injustice, of the adjudication rendered during the Constitutional Convention." The process of abolition was ongoing through legal, constitutional processes. The abolitionists did not go to war in order to abolish slavery, nor as far as I know did anyone ever threaten to other than perhaps John Brown or Nat Turner. The war began because the south would not accept the inevitability that slavery would be abolished by legal, constitutional means and took the extra-legal step of rebellion. "So the freedom riders should have just stopped sending black and white riders to the south together instead of looking for romantic or literary analogies to justify such activities." In part, the Freedom Riders were invoking the very protection of federal laws against segregation on interstate buses that were being ignored in the south. In part, they were engaged in civil disobedience ignoring segregation laws. Civil disobedience is a complicated subject, but by definition civil disobedience is not to do any harm to anyone else. Do you really want to analogize colonizing the Palestinians, prohibited by the Geneva Conventions and Protocol I as a war crime, to civil disobedience to end racial segregation? The system of Jim Crow would likely under current definition itself be considered the crime against humanity of apartheid. You really cannot invoke the civil rights movement as precedent for the colonization of the Palestinians. I won't bother to characterize that.

- roidubouloi

December 12, 2012 at 2:10pm

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

"If the West Bank were incorporated into Israel, annexed and subjected to Israel's municipal law, the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention would not apply." I should have noted at that point that if Israel were to incorporate the West Bank it would have to accord all the inhabitants equal political and civil rights or be guilty of the crime of apartheid. It is for this very reason that Israel will not incorporate the West Bank. This would be the one-state solution, acceptable to the Arabs but not to the Jews. sighthnd's notion that Palestinians who were themselves displaced could be permitted to return without political rights is fanciful for similar reasons. Petty apartheid won't work either. There is a strong argument that the system within the West Bank, under which different law applies to Israelis and Arabs and Israelis there enjoy a variety of privileges that Arabs do not, is already a system of apartheid and hence a crime against humanity. There is nothing about the fact that the territory is formally maintained by Israel as occupied rather than incorporated that would seem to make the crime of apartheid inapplicable. The trick of chopping up territory, and claiming different law applies in different spots, is essentially that of Bantustans, including the claim that the "residents" of Bantustans were foreigners who therefore did not properly enjoy the rights of citizens of South Africa. It is highly doubtful that the Bantustan would be a successful defense against the crime against humanity of apartheid.

- roidubouloi

December 12, 2012 at 2:20pm

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

Roido is still here making dodo.

- arnon1

December 12, 2012 at 3:11pm

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

The dodohead has taken over the discussion. He is like a "settler" unwilling to move. We will hav to liberate the discussion from this. Malicious imperialist.

- arnon1

December 12, 2012 at 3:14pm

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

The dodohead has taken over the discussion. He is like a "settler" unwilling to move. We will hav to liberate the discussion from this. Malicious imperialist.

- arnon1

December 12, 2012 at 3:14pm

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

Back to my earlier point about the difference between solving a single international conflict and solving two intranational conflicts. If it is one international conflict, then outside actors issueing diktats to the powers-that-be on each side, if successful in getting the PTBs to accept the diktats would solve the conflict. However, if there are two intranational conflicts, then even getting the PTBs to accept the diktats would fail to do the job because the powers-that-aren't that reject the terms of the diktats will scheme to undermine it or become the next PTBs in order to outright repudiate it. In order to secure a deal with any chance of enduring, it is necessary to strengthen the internal position of accommodationists on each side. Here, the first thing to do is to recognize who is and who is not an accommodationist. Roid, you continously assert that Abbas is an accommodationist and cite as proof his statements accepting Israeli sovereignty west of the Green Line. Tell me, in your legal career, do you believe every defendant who has ever plead not guilty is actually innocent of the charge? Further, his claim that he did not wish to press charges in the ICC proved to be no restriction on his behavior once his claim successfully procured from the international community what he wanted. So the question is, is his professed acceptance of Israeli sovereignty west of the Green Line genuine or nothing more than a strategic ploy to secure international assistance in gaining control of the West Bank from which to launch the next stage in the effort to eliminate the rest of Israel? On the side of genuineness, there is the security cooperation between the PA and Israel. On the side of a strategic ploy, there is Abbas' crusade against normalization and his use of every media organ under PA control to deny that there is any historical connection whatsoever between the Jews and "Palestine" and that the Palestinians will one send the interlopers back where they came from while barring all opposition with the exception of open rejectionism on the level the Putin restricts all opposition. So the question becomes how to strengthen the accommodationists. On the Palestinian side it comes down to what can the accommodationists deliver to the people that the rejectionists can't. Given the VSPs determination to give Abbas the 1949 Armistice lines, unless they're willing to give Wasatia the 1947 partition, there's nothing the accommodationists can deliver that the rejectionists can't. The message from the world's VSPs to the Palestinians is that they can be rejectionist as they please and as long as they don't press in any language understood outside the Arab world for anything beyond the Green Line, the world's VSPs will back them to the hilt in their quest. As to what can be done for the accommodationists? The first thing would be recognition as a special interest group. Beyond that, some indication that the rejectionist tendencies will not be rewarded, but that once the accommodationists gain power that they would be able to get the major items they want. As a demonstration of this, it may be feasible to grant concessions to individual villages that act on the agenda of the accommodationists. On the Israeli side, at least the accommodationists are allowed to freely advocate their position and are given prominent attention in the international media (witness the references to BTselem). While there is a loud rejectionist movement, which is growing larger, moralizing will not help to contain it. What's needed is to appeal to the broader part of the electorate that admits that a Palestinian state must come into being, is deeply cynical about Abbas and the rest of the PNM and is split about how far Jewish rights should extend. The surest way to alienate that group is to echo every demand that Abbas pronounces in English while ignoring his rhetoric in Arabic. What would get them on your side would be to push for enabling freedom of movement for the Palestinians between Qalqiliya, Tulkarem, Jenin, Nablus and Ramallah and initially only require concessions as to fulfill that objective. A further incentive for the vast middle of Israeli society to support the accommodationists would be for the Palestinian accommodationists to receive greater prominence, at a minimum to be a counterweight to Hamas within Palestinian politics.

- sighthnd

December 12, 2012 at 3:55pm

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

arnon: I find roid's positions as odious as you do. However, your personal attacks on him do absolutely nothing to counter them. basman is right that roid does not stoop to personal attacks unless personally attacked first. If you don't have something to say about his argument, don't say anything.

- sighthnd

December 12, 2012 at 4:12pm

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

Although I don't doubt Palestinians in the West Bank feel under occupation to a greater or lesser degree, or that some Israelis regard Palestinians and/or Arabs in general as a lower order of human being, it's not all all clear to me that there is anything in Israeli social, cultural, or political life seriously resembling the philosophy behind apartheid in South Africa. The very fact that there are black African Jewish Israelis, for example, would suggest that the kind of racial "theory" that undergirded Boer dominance is not at home there; the fact that Israeli national identity is not tied noticeably to conservative gender or familial models likewise; and the fact that 20% of Israeli citizens are non-Jews. I think one should reserve "apartheid" for situations in which the theory of a clearly racial or ethnic hierarchy underpins a policy of complete (as possible) segregation allied to complete political disenfranchisement of a part of the population. This is not the case in Israel proper, of course, and the status of the West Bank is obviously one that has changed over time and can change significantly again. It's worth pointing out too that while one method of control in South Africa was the Bantustan, the equivalence to the PA is undermined by the latter having its public service apparatus paid for by Europe and the US, a state of affairs enjoyed by no Bantustan that I am aware of. I think one can arguably refer to the West Bank as being occupied but the use of "apartheid" is a bit like the aggressive use of "settler" when talking about Ulster Protestants in Northern Ireland. It has no real basis other than in a desire to delegitimize the presence or history of a particular group in a particular location.

- ironyroad

December 12, 2012 at 4:19pm

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

"Roid, you continously assert that Abbas is an accommodationist and cite as proof his statements accepting Israeli sovereignty west of the Green Line. Tell me, in your legal career, do you believe every defendant who has ever plead not guilty is actually innocent of the charge? Further, his claim that he did not wish to press charges in the ICC proved to be no restriction on his behavior once his claim successfully procured from the international community what he wanted." I am unaware that Abbas said he did not wish to press charges in the ICC. The United States pressured the Palestinians to agree to that in advance of the General Assembly vote and the Palestinians declined. As Erekat said at the time, the way to stay out of criminal court is not to commit crimes. I have no way to judge Abbas's sincerity other than to put it to the test. Israel should accept the offer of two states for two people with the Green Line as a border, bartering in good faith if it wishes for land it wants to keep, or settlements it wants to remain in Palestine, by offering something the Palestinians want in return. That means either land they want, not scraps of desert, or recognition of their claimed right of return, or some mixture of the two. I don't buy your ruminations as to how the accommodationists are to be strengthened. The single greatest thing that weakens them is stasis, and what you prescribe is a long, drawn-out stasis during which Israel will continue illegally to colonize Palestine. That is a dead end, as it has proven to be over an extended period of time. When in a dead end, back up. In my opinion, not only is Israel obliged to cease its illegal activity, but doing so and returning to negotiations would be the single strongest step to strengthen accommodationists on the Arab side. If Israel wants them to eschew violence, there needs to be a demonstration that they achieve more through non-violence than through violence. Sadly, the history has been just the reverse. This is what fuels the Hamas narrative. They are not stupid. They can observe, as can I, that Israel has only moved in response to violence that it finds intolerable, does not move in response to violence at a level it thinks it can tolerate, and that the lack of violence only brings more Israeli aggrandizement at the expense of Palestine. 136,000 settlers at the time of Oslo (not including East Jerusalem), 193,000 seven years later at the time of Camp David. What would you infer from that as a rational person? If it is a matter of these two sides each staring down their rejectionists and making peace on the basis of the partition, UNSC 242, UNSC, 446, Oslo, and the Road Map, it is quite clearly never going to happen without considerable outside pressure, just the reverse of what you advocate. If Israel, an organized state that is not physically threatened -- yet -- by its rejectionists only moves ever more firmly into their psychotic embrace, what chance does the week PA, faced with armed rejectionists on one side and an immovable Israel on the other, have of doing so? Realistically, none. I think that the pressure is building and will within the next decade reach such a level that Israel will be forced to accept that it must get out of Palestine, abandoning its pursuit of sovereignty east of the Green Line. Once that happens, I think it will be possible to craft a peace that settles the matters of refugees, Jerusalem, security, and water. A step along the way will be whether the ICC accepts Palestinian accession to the Rome statute and an investigation is commenced. Israeli officials are not going to like the prospect of being convicted war criminals, even if they don't leave Israel and risk arrest. If any are convicted, the pressure on European governments to start bringing sanctions against Israel to bear will be enormous. The United States, under the pressure of AIPAC, will not lead. The risk to Israel is that, once the process of international pressure gets off the ground in a manner that the US is no longer able to stymie, it may not be turned off on the terms Israel likes. Israel may find itself backed up to the Green Line, including being ousted from East Jerusalem, with a Palestinian right of return recognized. The enormous strategic error of Netanyahu, quite on a scale with the refusal of the Arabs to accept the partition, is the belief that time is on Israel's side. It is not. Because Israel, backed by the US, has evaded any serious pressure thus far does not at all mean that it is not going to happen. And the more Netanyahu engages in provocative acts, such as his declaration of intent regarding E1, the faster he brings on the pressure. He has succeeded for quite a while in giving the world the finger. He thinks he can do it forever. I don't think so. Next move is at the ICC.

- roidubouloi

December 12, 2012 at 4:28pm

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

" If you don't have something to say about his argument, don't say anything." I have said it all, and so have you and so have most people who disagree with him. Still, he repeats the same comments time and time again. You can agree that the settlements are a problem but that is not enough for him. You must agree with his every point about "international law" which I for one find odious and you must agree that the settlers violate human rights and are therefore legitimate targets for whatever sadistic throat slasher who goes about his sanguinary business. The PA could import the Manson gang and Roidododo woulds say that they were merely reacting to occupation. I am sorry you feel that attacking dodo personally is not in good form. I think that his repeated comments are a form of filibustering real debate and is in worse for.

- arnon1

December 12, 2012 at 4:36pm

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

The term apartheid has no clear definition in law, irony, although efforts to craft one are underway. That enables you to entertain whatever definition entertains you. But Henry Seigman is not an enemy of Israel. He is the former Executive Director of the American Jewish Congress and a Holocaust survivor. He thinks that there is a de facto apartheid regime in Israel and surely is not interested in de-legitimizing Israel. You may disagree about what constitutes apartheid, but you don't have any reasoned basis to characterize the opinion you disagree with as without a basis or as motivated by the desire to attack, destroy, or de-legitimize Israel. My own view is that a system of dual law, in which some inhabitants, based on membership in a preferred group, by race, religion, or ethnicity, enjoy political and civil rights as well as economic privileges not open to the people outside of that group, is sufficient for apartheid. It does not require any particular state of mind. It is the fact of the system that is the crime, not how people perpetrating it think about it. Bantustans are not what make apartheid apartheid. Rather, they were an attempt to rescue the system by chopping up the land into different purported sovereignties and claiming that the reason that some were denied equal rights was only because they were citizens elsewhere, in a Bantustan. Israel does much the same thing in the West Bank regarding the governance of the settlements and the governance of the rest of the West Bank. I don't see that the funding for the PA has anything to do with anything. The definition of apartheid is surely not exactly what occurred in South Africa and nothing more nor less. It is forever and ever the claim of the right-wing, back to Rome and beyond, that those who criticize the bad deeds of the state are traitors, motivated by the desire to destroy it. Is this the crowd that you wish to be a part of? __________________ I should like to say, sighthnd, that I don't find your views odious. I think you are wrong in many cases. You also incline toward superficially clever verbal points that don't bear any weight, such as your point about Freedom Riders. In this, you strike me more like a creative lawyer with a bad case doing his best to confect something or other that will confuse and distract.

- roidubouloi

December 12, 2012 at 4:43pm

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

12/11/2012 - 11:03pm EDT | roidubouloi The fact of death is rather more important than whether or not it is celebrated. It is not morally acceptable to kill merely because the killer does not celebrate. If you use force in pursuit of illicit ends, you cannot avoid culpability for deaths that ensue. Nor can you wash the blood off your hands by exclaiming how you didn't want to do it and how you wish you didn't have to keep doing it. ___________________ 01/08/2009 - 12:55am EDT | roidubouloi "... you fail or refuse to tell us what tactics Israel should employ that will successfully stop Hamas at less human cost than what Israel is now doing. That makes your protest so much pious nonsense. Even more objectionable, outrageous in fact, is your blithe assumption that Israel's purpose is "retaliation." If it were, then nothing Israel is doing would be acceptable. It is unacceptable, completely, to respond to attacks on civilians by killing other civilians, not culpable or themselves a threat, merely as punishment. Indeed, even combatants may not be killed if they no longer pose any threat, as for example when they have dropped their arms and offered their surrender, even though moments before they may have been slaughtering dozens. Why is that, George? Because the only legitimate purpose of war is to put a stop to aggressive violence and the continuing threat thereof. Once the threat is gone, a violent response is no longer permitted. And thus, if Hamas offered to desist and took appropriate action to do so, there would be no legitimate basis for Israel to continue the battle. Of course, you may object that while Israel claims that its purpose is to stop Hamas' attacks, it's real purpose is simply retaliation. But that brings us back to the same point. If you want to make that claim, which is tantamount to the accusation of war crimes, then you have a moral obligation to tell us how Israel can and should conduct itself so that it can successfully end the attacks upon it without useless bloodshed. If you cannot do so, if you cannot even suggest any improvements to the tactics being used, then you are merely making an empty and scurrilous accusation"

- Noga

December 12, 2012 at 4:45pm

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

Irony: "I think one can arguably refer to the West Bank as being occupied" As usual, The Lion in Winter comes to the rescue:

Henry II: The Vexin's mine. Philip II: By what authority? Henry II: It's got my troops all over it; that makes it mine.
Are there Israeli checkpoints in the West Bank? If so, there are two conditions the law sees: Israel either occupies or owns the West Bank. It would be interesting to see what you would see as the argument that the West Bank is not occupied ("arguably" implies the existence of doubt, but doubt underscored by what alternative or opposing argument?). If it is not occupied, by what authority are Israeli troops all over it, other than a claim of ownership? And if the latter, how would you characterise the status of Palestinians in the West Bank. To be clear - I am not making any judgements about 1947 or 1967, or whether Palestinians are historically a "people"; and let us not use morally laden terms, as you suggest. And if there is a different state of being than "occupied" and "owned", at least in international law, it would be useful to hear it.

- icarus-r

December 12, 2012 at 4:49pm

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

Thank you very much, noga, for retrieving these words of mine from 2009. One would think they would put to rest here, forever, the false claim that I think Israel does not have the right to defend itself and to use sufficient force to achieve freedom from attack. I have always said this and have never wavered, contra the false accusation of willjames. Now, please re-read the points I have made about what is and is not an illicit end. Self-defense is without qualification justified. You can continue to defend as long as the other party attacks, and you can do what is necessary to destroy his will and ability to attack you. That is indeed the meaning of proportional force. However, illegal colonization of Palestine is not a licit end. Israel refuses to make peace and terminate its occupation, itself a use of force, unless the Palestinians will legitimize the illegal settlements, built on land upon which Israel has no legitimate claim. To the extent that the occupation is maintained in place out of the need to protect Israel's security, it too is legitimate. To the extent that it is maintained in place and Israel refuses to negotiate peace an security in order to keep the settlements, it is not legitimate. It is absolutely predictable that there will always be elements of any society that will resort to violence in the face of colonization. Therefore, although it has a right to defend itself, Israel has both a legal and moral duty to remove the illegal provocation. If it does not do so, as it has not, then it bears responsibility for death and suffering that ensue. They are in part the inevitable product of the crime of colonization. You may consider as an analogy the ICJ opinion of Justice Buerganthal, also a Jewish Holocaust survivor, in the case about the security barrier. He thought that more consideration should be given to the extent to which the barrier serves a legitimate security end. But he was unequivocal that, to the extent that the barrier was routed to protect the settlements, themselves illegal, the security barrier was also illegal. It is not really that complicated. Israel can defend itself. It cannot maintain the illegal settlements by force, as it does, and is culpable for the foreseeable consequences of doing so.

- roidubouloi

December 12, 2012 at 5:01pm

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

"... although efforts to craft one are underway." I'll bet the efforts to craft it are tailored to the situation in the West Bank more than South Africa. It will probably concentrate much more on "dual law" schtick and a lot less on the rationale that animated Apartheid, institutionalized racism. Even Nadine Gordimer, Jewish, South African Nobel winner, and a harsh critic of Israel's policies, refuses to accept this analogy: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/opinion/29iht-eddiament.1.13311975.html?_r=0 "Gordimer said that it was incorrect and wrong to paint Israel and South Africa with the same brush. "White people can not lay claim to a single inch of Africa," she said. The Jews, on the other hand, have a historical claim on the land of Israel. "In this, they are not at all comparable and Israel is not an apartheid state."

- Noga

December 12, 2012 at 5:01pm

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

That is a great article, malahat. I hope everyone will read it. Congressman Gary Ackerman, whose remarks are part of the subject of the article, is the first cousin of my Israeli brother-in-law. My sister and my brother-in-law (he too is American, they met in high school) are among the founders of a kibbutz in the Arava. Everyone in the Ackerman family is very smart.

- roidubouloi

December 12, 2012 at 5:13pm

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

Gordimer may think that the essence of apartheid is that the white South Africans had no right to be in South Africa, but they are there now despite the end of apartheid. I rather doubt that when the crime is more precisely defined it will say anything at all about the historical or ethnic origins of the ruling class and will speak only to the civil, political, and economic rights of all groups within the nation. Withal, Israel does not have any longer a claim to the West Bank. That is sort of the whole point. The Jews of Palestine insisted on partition, over the objections of the Arabs, and they got it. That means that the Jews have Israel and the Palestinians have Palestine. The whole partition was the Jew' demand in the first place. Now they don't want to accept it at the same time that they don't want to undo it and create a unified state. Pure schizophrenia. There is no claim that Israel is an apartheid society within its own municipal boundaries.

- roidubouloi

December 12, 2012 at 5:19pm

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

" The Jews of Palestine insisted on partition, over the objections of the Arabs, and they got it." The partition idea did not start with the Jews, who had been promised the entire territory of Palestine by the League of Nations ( hence the origin of the Likkud's Both banks of the Jordan). It was proposed by the Peel commission in 1937, which included this statement: "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?" It 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. In response, according to the German political scientist Matthias Kuntzel: "In the 1930s, the mufti of Jerusalem, Amin el-Husseini, rigorously courted the Nazis. When, in 1936, he launched his terror war against the Jewish Yishuv in the British controlled Palestine Mandate, he repeatedly asked the Nazis for financial backing, which began arriving in 1937." "From 1936-39 Husseini's terror army murdered 415 Jews. In later years, Husseini noted that were it not for Nazi money, his onslaught would have been defeated in 1937. His movement was imbued with Nazism. His men saluted one another with Nazi salutes and members of his youth movement sported Hitler Youth uniforms."

- Noga

December 12, 2012 at 5:43pm

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

roid: "The definition of apartheid is surely not exactly what occurred in South Africa and nothing more nor less." No, but consider this: as the term is an Afrikaans term, and came to global awareness as a result of the state of affairs in South Africa, some reference as to the term's origins is, I think, legitimate. I also think that, as we are not in a court of law here, whether or not there is a precise legal definition is interesting but not necessarily determining for the debate. There has been now and again an unpleasant tradition on TNR of those purporting to have legal knowledge trying to close debate in their favor by locking up the meaning of a key term or phrase tighter than non-specialized but intelligent discussion would normally permit. There was (and is, for all I know) antisemitism in the United States, as there was in Weimar Germany. However, as it led to two rather different states of affairs in the former as opposed to the latter (unpleasant and sometimes contemptuous social exclusion in one, state-organized genocide in the other), it would be misleading to claim that antisemitism is a term that satisfactorily covers the history of the Jews in both the U.S. and the Third Reich. It might seem that one wanted to either over-emphasize the nature of American antisemitism to imply an equivalence with Nazi German, or downplay the particular practical manifestation of German antisemitism. To that extent, I am not without any reasoned basis characterizing an opinion I disagree with as "motivated by the desire to attack, destroy, or de-legitimize Israel." I am arguing that the use of a particular term sometimes heard in debates on Israeli policy or history vis-a-vis the Palestinians is open to question, and one of those questions is whether that term is being used entirely polemically. The fact that X or Y uses the term is useful to know but again not conclusive. ick -- I'm not sure I made myself clear that time -- if I just delete "arguably," would that make more coherent sense? I wasn't in fact trying to say that there were good arguments that the West Bank is NOT occupied -- I think if I had meant that I would have said "debatably" or something.

- ironyroad

December 12, 2012 at 6:15pm

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

This is what makes the Israeli occupation rather than the Arab refusal to negotiate peace leads to: http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2012/12/how-academic-boycott-works.html "How academic boycott works" I am sure people like Roidodo would approve of this form of modern antisemitism and they would offer lots of international "legal mambo jumbo" to support their views. Still, boycotts of Israel would never get Jews to accede to demands made by antisemitic boycotters.

- arnon1

December 12, 2012 at 6:27pm

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

Apartheid was an evil especially seen kin the context of European Nazism and Fascism because of the fear that it could lead to some final solution. Still ironically, Stalinists who had their own and by no means inferior form of a final solution to the "bourgeois" problem were in the fore front in the fight against apartheid. (Many are also in the forefront of the fight against zionism.) But how was South Africa worse than Saudi Arabian and other Muslim regimes' own apartheid systems? It's obviously a good thing that the tyrannical Afikaner regime is history, but are most Black Africans better off today than they were under the Afrikaner regime? BBC News Online asks how life has changed after a decade of democracy. Siphiwe Mthembu, Mpumalanga South Africa: Life today http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/africa/04/photo_journal/life_today/html/1.stm "Life is still not good. It has changed for some people, not for others. Some people still have no jobs. People are hungry. I live with my mother. She is not working. I want to go to school. I went up to grade five, but stopped last year because there was no money. My sister has two children, so she says "I have no power to help you"."

- arnon1

December 12, 2012 at 6:51pm

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

arnon: "You can agree that the settlements are a problem but that is not enough for him. You must agree with his every point about 'international law' which I for one find odious and you must agree that the settlers violate human rights and are therefore legitimate targets for whatever sadistic throat slasher who goes about his sanguinary business. " Exactly what I believe. You can repeat that over and over again without resorting to name calling. I refer to his calling the settlers human rights violators, even if they do nothing more to provoke the Palestinians than simply existing in their neck of the woods, as "self-righteous chest-thumping." It's only the assaults on his intelligence with no reflection on any of the content that does nothing. "I have said it all, and so have you and so have most people who disagree with him. Still, he repeats the same comments time and time again." From Rav Hirsch, "Don't refrain withhold the truth saying no one will hear. Eventually it will be heard."

- sighthnd

December 12, 2012 at 8:00pm

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

Of course, now we are back to the nonsense, sighthnd. You make some arguments that are not very strong, even flippant, as well as some that require serious engagement. Some are shot down easily, others are met with reasoned response, and then you are out of gas. You cannot ever say you may be mistaken, you have not thought something through thoroughly, even though you have no response. Instead, like the other "friends of Israel," you have to start inventing words, ridiculous words, to put in my mouth so that, by ridiculing the ridiculous words you have placed in my mouth, you can pretend to yourself that you have made your point. Nor impressive, sighthnd. If you disagree about some point I make about international law, why, state a reason. If I disagree with you, I state the reasons, as cogently as I can. I have surely never suggested that settlers are legitimate targets for anyone for any reason whatsoever. I am not surprised that arnon would invent such a grotesque idea to attribute to me. He's a moron. You ought to know better than to agree with such nonsense. Although not exactly grotesque, I have also never said or even hinted that I think settlers are human rights violators. The settlements are a human rights violation -- not because I say so but because the Fourth Geneva Convention says so and virtually all respectable legal opinion and all responsible international bodies agree. That includes Judge Theodor Meron and Judge Thomas Buergenthal, both Jewish Holocaust survivors who surely have no axe to grind against the Jews or Israel. Meron was counsel to the Israeli Foreign Ministry. That makes the government of Israel, and likely individual government officials who have had relevant authority personally, guilty of violating the Geneva Conventions. If they persist now that Palestine is a recognized state, they may even find themselves in the dock in the Hague. That, however, is different from holding everyone who benefits or in some way participates in the violation to be a criminal. Fact is, I don't really have much of an opinion about how far down the chain of command responsibility goes. I don't think about it because it is both difficult if not impossible to determine and also a singularly uninteresting question. No one is going to pursue the settlers, nor is it necessary to do so to do justice and end the conflict. All this amounts to is you and arnon re-stating the claim that the settlements violate human rights law in an absurd, hyperbolic manner so that you can shoot down the absurd hyperbole and then proceed to thump your chest self-righteously, which you surely do. _________________________________ irony, I think you are arguing with yourself. I offer my interpretation of the meaning of apartheid and its application to the West Bank. You can offer yours and disagree. But suggesting that those who think that the system in the West Bank is apartheid are merely polemical (in some manner that you think you are not) is evasive. That is addressed to the intentions of the speaker, not to the content of the speech. If you cannot make a substantive point about the appropriate understanding of the term, you certainly have no basis to accuse anyone of misusing it. I call your attention to Henry Seigman, not because his opinion is definitive. I don't even know his reasoning. Rather it is to make clear that you cannot get by merely by impugning the motives of the people who raise the point. He is surely above reproach in this, yet he is of the opinion that there is a de facto apartheid in Israel. I give you my reasons, having to do with the existence of a system of second-class citizenship. What are yours? Arguing that there are distinctions that can be drawn between Israel and South Africa is also beside the point. No two crimes are exactly alike. One always asks what are the facts relevant to whether something fits the definition of a crime. Gordimer thinks that the critical distinction is that white South Africans had no right to exist anywhere in Africa (except that she does). Hence, the predicate of the crime is that you don't have a right even to be there in the first place. I can well understand why a Jewish South African wants to find distinctions. Holocaust survivors also don't like anything being compared to the Holocaust. However, the notion that the identity of the person who engages in the prohibited acts is critical makes no sense to me. Would it have been apartheid if the whites in South Africa were there but did not maintain a system of state subjugation of a particular racial or ethnic group? Conversely, if the system of state Jim Crow laws still existed in the United States, would you care to argue that it would not be apartheid merely, by Gordimer's definition, neither Europeans nor Africans have any right to be in North America? It does not make any sense, despite the emotional appeal. Finally, to take your own example, would you care to argue that the Nazis were not anti-Semitic because the term embraces attitudes and behavior that fall far short of genocide? or would you care to argue that every anti-Semite is a Nazi, bearing the same moral responsibility as Adolf Eichmann? I cannot imagine that you would. If you have arguments to offer about how apartheid should be understood, by all means offer them. But they should be to the point of how apartheid should be understood and why, not addressed to the intentions of the speaker, that you surely don't know, or to the mere notice that nothing elsewhere is just like it was in South Africa. What is relevant to the crime and what is not? What do you take to be the elements? You don't have to be a lawyer to address that question.

- roidubouloi

December 12, 2012 at 8:41pm

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

Roidodo argues as if he were in some kind of court of law. Of course he is merely a poster on TNR blogs no different from Chuch or me or irony or McEachern. He tends to forget that he is neither a lawyer nor a judge he only a poster. How deluded can one get?

- arnon1

December 12, 2012 at 9:13pm

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

Yeah, moron1. Everyone here should be like you, an empty head who can do better then call people names while becoming publicly unhinged. You should look back over what you have written here. You are really embarrassing yourself.

- roidubouloi

December 12, 2012 at 9:18pm

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

As for the South Africa and apartheid analogy it makes no sense because there have been systems much worse than apartheid. Stalinist Russia was much worse yet that didn't stop Stalinist from accusing apartheid South Africans of being like "Nazis." These same Stalinists built concentration camps in which millions perished. I would argue that Saudi Arabia is worse in that it segregates women and in one case let them burn to death in a school because they weren't allowed men to come to their rescue. Iran under the Ayatollah's is much worse and the list goes on. Settlements on the West bank are bad for Israel for many reasons but they don't even come close to making the Jewish State anything close to South Africa or Saudi Arabia and certainly not like the USSR. The Australians who boycott Israel are hypocrites because they live on a Continent they stole from an indigenous population. At least Jews have an historical connection to Israel. In some ways South Africa today is as bad as South Africa under apartheid. The world tends to pick some country to scape-goat and the county it picked today is Israel. By blaming Israel for all the evils under the sun it can ignore real evils all over the world. It's no accident that the world was glad to focus on the Gaza war were few people died while forgetting about Syria where tens of thousands were killed.

- arnon1

December 12, 2012 at 9:25pm

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

This isn't a court of law deluded asshole and you are no judge. So go fuck yourself. Your head is filled with anti-Israel bile you got from some book, you shithead. An empty head is preferable to a head filled with legal bigotry.

- arnon1

December 12, 2012 at 9:27pm

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

"You are really embarrassing yourself." You have embarrassed yourself since you started posting here long time ago.

- arnon1

December 12, 2012 at 9:28pm

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

Poor little thing. You are becoming deranged before our very eyes. You should get some help, arnon. You need it.

- roidubouloi

December 12, 2012 at 9:29pm

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

Well, there you have it from arnon. Apartheid isn't so bad. There is much worse in the world. Why then should anyone care if Israel does have a system of apartheid in the West Bank? The friends of Israel will stlll be able to engage in their favorite pastime of excusing anything and everything that Israel does on the grounds that someone, somewhere is doing something worse and getting away with it. Anyone who has not read the article linked by malahat owes it to himself to do so.

- roidubouloi

December 12, 2012 at 9:32pm

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

"Well, there you have it from arnon. Apartheid isn't so bad." No Apartheid wasn't as bad as the Stalinist Gulags (yet the Russians were the lords of the UN) it wasn't as bad as Mao's re-education camps, or its occupation of Tibet yet its one of the leaders at the UN. It's not as bad as the apartheid in Iran, or Saudi Arabia. It was not as bad Cambodia under PolPot or the genocide in Nigeria's Biafra. There are more examples of worse places than apartheid SA. But that doesn't mean that Israel should build settlements on the West bank but it does mean that comparing SA to Israel is insane. It is what antisemitic Stalinist did and it's what Nazis like David Duke do. It's also what the earnest shithead Roibododo does. What an embarrassing asshole.

- arnon1

December 12, 2012 at 9:42pm

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

"Poor little thing. You are becoming deranged before our very eyes. You should get some help, arnon. You need it." This means that, "I Roidodododo can't answer what is said to me." Poor little Roidodo he is at a loss for words so he resorts to psychiatric language. This is what tyrants always do they use both law and psychiatry to shut up their critics. Roidododo walks in their shoes.

- arnon1

December 12, 2012 at 9:48pm

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

Small point, but noga's claim that the Jews were promised all of Mandatory Palestine is incorrect. They were promised no particular piece of Palestine, but a "home" in Palestine in recognition of their "historic connection" to that place. The mandate preamble says: "Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917 [the Balfour Declaration], by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." Whether or not the origin of the idea of partition was with the Peel Commission (it almost certainly was not, the Commission was responding to demands for partition), it remains the case that in 1947 it was the Jews who wanted the partition, so that they could have a Jewish majority state, and the Arabs who did not want the partition. When the General Assembly approved partition, the Jews of the Yishuv were dancing in the streets. The Arabs were stunned. Even if the Jews had been promised "all of Palestine" as noga claims, what would they do with all the people there? If Jordan and Israel and Palestine were joined in a single state, the Jews would be swamped. This is the argument of someone at war with herself, claiming that which she refuses to accept. People here argue here that history entitles the Jews to all of Palestine, or all of the land between the Jordan and the sea. This is the same historical argument advanced by the Arabs. The conflicting claims were settled by UN partition, at the insistence of the Jews and over the objections of the Arabs. Having insisted on the partition, Israel now will not recognize its legitimacy, the creation of two states for two peoples, one a Jewish state, the other an Arab state, one of which does not belong to the Jews.

- roidubouloi

December 12, 2012 at 9:50pm

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

I read Malahat's link. What I found was how American Jews, as lovers of rights and democracy, find they cannot support Israel which they are being taught is not really a democracy and violates rights of Palestinians. Without their support, the author suggests, that America's friendship towards Israel is in peril, including the financial aid for developing its defensive systems. Sounds to me like a threat dressed in pleading tones. Israel should do what is good for American Jews' self-image as the world's most righteous universalists. If Israel is a bad boy, Israel will be sent to bed without supper. Is America's support for Israel predicated only on the support of American Jews? Is that the Mearsheimer&Walt's doctrine, differently articulated?

- Noga

December 12, 2012 at 9:55pm

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

moron1, the only reason I cannot answer what you say is that you don't say anything. All we see above from you are the ravings of a lunatic, incensed, frustrated, and sputtering wildly. Take a pill or something. You're going to give yourself a heart attack.

- roidubouloi

December 12, 2012 at 9:56pm

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

"moron1, the only reason I cannot answer what you say is that you don't say anything." More doodoo from Roidodo: it makes him feel like an ubermtensch calling me "moron." If someone doesn't say anything then why would an ubermentsch like Roidododo even bother to insult him. Must be that something is gnawing at him.

- arnon1

December 12, 2012 at 10:02pm

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

Wieseltier's contribution is another superficial article. Perhaps, all readers could look up the Gene Sharp statement: "Palestinian leaders have a faith in violence" The peace will come when the Meshaals, Ahmedinejads.... leave us alone.

- sf4200

December 12, 2012 at 10:02pm

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

Roidodo is like a man who accuses someone of committing an awful crime and when challenged that spitting on the side walk is not "an awful crime" cries out, are you telling me that the man didn't commit any crime and goes on to compare this crime to what torturers do. This is how this how the king of doo doo argues.

- arnon1

December 12, 2012 at 10:07pm

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

You're quite right noga. Israel does not need the support of American Jews to survive. I expect AIPAC, hearing this news, will decide to close shop and go out of business forthwith. Why waste time and money on nothing? America does not need Israel. Israel is an American client. Not its ally, and barely its friend. Strictly as a matter of strategic interest, the benefit to America of supporting Israel is merely in demonstrating the benefits of American patronage, so that we can maintain in general a system of clientage that advances our interests. At some point, however, Israel's clientage becomes too taxing. It is in our interest to support Israel's security as its patron. It is not in our interest to support its colonial adventures. That is why the US has consistently opposed the settlements. The US makes clear its policy, but Israel chooses to pay no attention. But for AIPAC and the rest of the Jewish lobby, I do not doubt for a moment that the US would long since have put its foot down and insisted that settlement construction stop. It has obtained that undertaking from Israel, in the Road Map at least, but has never had the will to insist when Israel proceeds to ignore its undertakings. Noga's reading of the article linked by Malahat is not at all what the article says. What it says is that American Jews will not indefinitely support what they perceive to be an undemocratic Israel despite the fact that they are Jews and Israel is the Jewish state. Nor should they. It is utterly perverse that noga insists that Jews both owe Israel special loyalty, but then have no reason to concern themselves about what Israel does. The point of the article is not at all that Israel should behave in a manner that please American Jews, but rather that American Jews will not give unqualified support to a country that they see as behaving unjustly. Then Israel will have to go it alone as it has no other friends left of any importance. That's what happens when you give the finger to the entire world. You are alone. The price for being a member of society is to bend to the will of society in some matters. Always has been, always will be. No one can be a law unto themselves and be a member of society, including world society, at the same time.

- roidubouloi

December 12, 2012 at 10:10pm

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

Really arnon, now you are reduced to potty talk on the level of a three-year old? Don't you have any self respect at all? arnon says this: "Roidodo is like a man who accuses someone of committing an awful crime and when challenged that spitting on the side walk is not "an awful crime" cries out, are you telling me that the man didn't commit any crime and goes on to compare this crime to what torturers do." The answer is simply this: Geneva Convention IV Article 49, sixth paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” Additional Protocol I Article 85(4)(a) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides that “the transfer by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” is a grave breach of the Protocol. [Note: Grave breaches are then defined to be war crimes later in the article.] ICC Statute Under Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[t]he transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts. _______________________ It may come as a surprise to arnon that I did not write the Geneva Conventions, the Protocols thereto, or the Rome statute creating the ICC. I did not issue the opinion of the ICJ in the security barrier case. Nor did I wrote the 1967 opinion of Theodor Meron, then counsel to the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs and today an eminent international jurist who is still of the same opinion that the settlements violate Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Nor do I run a vast, magical conspiracy in which I conjure these sources out of thin air for the benefit of TNR's readership.

- roidubouloi

December 12, 2012 at 10:25pm

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

Psst, arnon. Let me give you a hint, because I know it won't matter and it gives me a good laugh: The reason I respond to you is because it enrages you, and then you become even more incoherent and embarrass yourself even more. Then everyone must look away from you, because it is simply too uncomfortable for other people to witness you falling apart this way in public. You have turned into another JaimeChuch before our eyes and you don't even know it.

- roidubouloi

December 12, 2012 at 10:30pm

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

"(it almost certainly was not, the Commission was responding to demands for partition)," Can you provide a reliable source for this? You are misrepresenting my comment. I was merely reminding people of the history of Israel's foundation and the way it devolved from historic Palestine to its present day borders. I'm not expressing in any way my own wishes. The mandate was given to Britain on the understanding that they will administer the territory and help the Jewish community and immigration towards statehood, within the borders of Mandate Palestine which clearly included both sides of the Jordan. It is a well known fact of history that the Brits reneged on their promises, when they realized the level of Arab hostility towards the Jews. They re-considered and decided that their best interests would be better served by currying favour with the Arabs. I'm surprised that roi is trying to exonerate them of their historical failure. roi is re-writing history with strong prejudice. Some readers may well believe his distorted versions of the records because he uses such legalistic language that can impress as authoritative and knowledgeable. I quoted roi's comment from 2009 in order to remind people here how eloquently he argued for Israel. The point about roi is that he needs to win an argument against those who for some reason aroused his ire. He is not arguing from any deeper concern for truth or justice. What is surprising in all this is that despite the odds, Israel did manage to emerge as a state, and a very fine state at that. I read somewhere that when UN partition plan was passed, most of those voting for it were convinced it was just an empty gesture, and that there was no way they could see the Yishuv surviving the war that the Arab countries had been threatening it with.

- Noga

December 12, 2012 at 10:33pm

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

Well, noga, you are incorrect as to the history. What was originally contemplated was a Jewish homeland "in Palestine," not that all of Palestine, or indeed any piece of it, would become a separate Jewish state. That came later. And it was explicitly contemplated that nothing be done in derogation of the rights of the existing population. There is no doubt that the British began to limit and resist Jewish immigration in response to Arab pressure and displeasure. But the British were after all a colonial power in Palestine, not its owner even with the mandate, while the Arabs were the people living there. And states do tend to do what is in their interests as I constantly try to remind you. What is peculiar, to say the least, is that you regard the mandate of the League of Nations as a sacred undertaking while you at the same time think that Israel is perfectly free to ignore the injunctions of the UN Security Council. That does not seem very principled, does it? As for why I argue what I argue, perhaps you should try reading what I say as an argument that expresses its own reasons rather than persisting in trying to attribute to me a particular state of mind that I can assure you do not know or understand. The state of mind of a speaker is really beside the point. It is an evasion of the substance of the matter.

- roidubouloi

December 12, 2012 at 10:45pm

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

" arnon. Let me give you a hint, because I know it won't matter and it gives me a good laugh: The reason I respond to you is because it enrages you, and then you become even more incoherent and embarrass yourself even more..." what a laugh, the idiot imagines that i care enough about what he says to become enraged.

- arnon1

December 12, 2012 at 10:53pm

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

"The price for being a member of society is to bend to the will of society in some matters" This is the core of roi's worldview: conformity.

- Noga

December 12, 2012 at 10:56pm

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

"The answer is simply this:" Geneva Convention IV" another one of Roidodo's little jokes. Geneva Convention IV app;lies only to Israel not to the US not to the UK not to China or Pakistan or to any other country. This is the imaginary stuff with which the imaginary being called Roido thinks he can enrage any one.

- arnon1

December 12, 2012 at 11:02pm

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

"What is peculiar, to say the least, is that you regard the mandate of the League of Nations as a sacred undertaking while you at the same time think that Israel is perfectly free to ignore the injunctions of the UN Security Council." Not at all. I commented before on how "International law" which you hold to be sacred, has changed in the last 90 years to reflect the changing interests and circumstances. First there was the British Mandate, enshrined by International Law, and then there was the partitioning resolution, and then there was Resolution 197, and then 242, and then Oslo, and then Palestine. At each phase the law was changed in some way. So it is totally unrealistic to refer to any International Law as an unimpeachable constant, the way you do. I'm wondering if you can tell the difference between opinion and just statements of facts and records. You seem incapable of differentiating between the two.

- Noga

December 12, 2012 at 11:04pm

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

Conformity? Yes, we must all conform to the dictates of the law in our respective societies. Otherwise we get clapped in prison and are excluded from society. Strange that a Jew of all people should object to conformity with law. One wonders what noga thinks Judaism is about. Maybe just a tribal thing with her. Or perhaps she doesn't actually know anything about Judaism, just likes the way it sounds. Come to think of it, she seldom refers to Judaism, only to Jews, and then chiefly as the objects of hatred or as sufferers, not as people who believe in Judaism.

- roidubouloi

December 12, 2012 at 11:05pm

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

Which countries were prosecuted under the Geneva Convention IV?

- arnon1

December 12, 2012 at 11:06pm

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

"Strange that a Jew of all people should object to conformity with law" Jews who object to conformity reinterpret the law. But Roido wold know nothing about that.

- arnon1

December 12, 2012 at 11:08pm

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

The law does indeed change and evolve. I have never suggested that it is immutable. Indeed, that is the distinctive feature of positive law, that adopted by the act of a qualified body, as opposed to what is supposed about divine law. And all along the way, we are still expected to abide by it. We don't get to observe the law as it once was, permitting slavery let's say, or the law as it will be in the future. We must observe the law of our time and place. As of today, the Fourth Geneva Convention remains in effect, as it has since 1949. That may change, but right now the signatories are bound to observe it, as UN member are bound to observe the mandates of the Security Council.

- roidubouloi

December 12, 2012 at 11:11pm

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

Me: "Which countries were prosecuted under the Geneva Convention IV?" "12/12/2012 - 11:11pm EDT | roidubouloi The law does indeed change and evolve. I have never suggested that it is immutable. Indeed, that is the distinctive feature of positive law, that adopted by the act of a qualified body, as opposed to what is supposed about divine law. And all along the way, we are still expected to abide by it. We don't get to observe the law as it once was, permitting slavery let's say, or the law as it will be in the future. We must observe the law of our time and place. "Which countries were prosecuted under the Geneva Convention IV?" In other words, no country was ever sanctioned under Gen. CON. IV Not China, nor the US nor Russia, nor the UK, no one. It's just used to preach to Israel. What a joke.

- arnon1

December 12, 2012 at 11:16pm

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

The Fourth Geneva Convention does not provide for prosecution. Prior to the establishment of the ICC, this was done by the establishment of tribunals by the UNSC, such as the tribunal for Rwanda, or the tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. I believe that there It is not in any case countries that are prosecuted, but individuals. Sanctions against nations are the province of the UN Security Council. The UNSC can request opinions from the International Court of Justice, but it is not obligated to do so. It can also refer matters to the ICJ, conferring jurisdiction to issue a binding opinion even when nations have not acceded to jurisdiction. But it is then up to the UNSC to act on the decisions of the ICJ. The ICJ has no enforcement powers. Before the ICJ, states are the parties. Individuals are brought before the ICC. From wikipedia: "The Court [the ICC] can generally exercise jurisdiction only in three cases, viz. if the accused is a national of a state party, if the alleged crime took place on the territory of a state party or if a situation is referred to the Court by the United Nations Security Council.[22] It is designed to complement existing national judicial systems: it can exercise its jurisdiction only when national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute such crimes.[23][24] Primary responsibility to investigate and punish crimes is therefore left to individual states.[25] To date, the Court has opened investigations into seven situations in Africa: the Democratic Republic of the Congo; Uganda; the Central African Republic; Darfur, Sudan; the Republic of Kenya; the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire.[26] Of these seven, three were referred to the Court by the concerned states parties themselves (Uganda, Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Central African Republic), two were referred by the United Nations Security Council (Darfur and Libya) and two were begun proprio motu by the Prosecutor (Kenya and Côte d'Ivoire[27]). Additionally, the government of Mali has referred the situation in the country to the Prosecutor. As Mali is a state party to the Rome Statute, the Prosecutor can now directly open a formal investigation once she has concluded the preliminary examination.[28] It has publicly indicted 30 people, proceedings against 24 of whom are ongoing." If Palestine is permitted to accede to the Rome statute, then crimes committed on its territory would be prosecutable by the ICC. When in 2009 Palestine attempted to accede, the ICC Prosecutor opined that he could not determine whether Palestine was a state within the meaning of the Rome statute, a determination to be made by the UN Secretary General in the first instance. With the recognition of Palestine by the General Assembly, it may now be able to accede to the Rome Statute. If it does, then crimes committed on its territory would be prosecutable. Whether this would include crimes committed prior to the creation of jurisdiction, I don't know. Obviously in the case of the ad hoc tribunals, the crimes involved were committed prior to the creation of the tribunal. Thus, the timing does not per se resolve the matter. One would have to read the Rome statute carefully.

- roidubouloi

December 12, 2012 at 11:25pm

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

Without question, many people have been prosecuted, from the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and other conflicts, for "grave breaches" of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

- roidubouloi

December 12, 2012 at 11:31pm

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

So the Geneva convention was never applied to China's invasion of Tibet, to Russia devastation in Chechnya, to American destruction of civilian life in its recent wars (that one supports these wars matters not), it wasn't applied to the deaths of millions of people since 1949 till now. Yet it is being used as a cudgel to attack the Jewish State, that's what I thought. The Geneva convention is useless and if it should be used to destroy the Jewish it will end up destroying the grounds ob which the Geneva convention are based it will end up destroying the legitimacy of the UN. This is what Roi-dodo's sermons amount to, Rien. Now, go yell at passers by on 42 nd street.

- arnon1

December 12, 2012 at 11:34pm

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

"Without question, many people have been prosecuted, from the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and other conflicts, for "grave breaches" of the Fourth Geneva Convention." Ha, ha , ha, million's die and some forty to fifty people are prosecuted. More of Roi-dodo's little joke.

- arnon1

December 12, 2012 at 11:35pm

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

Obviously, Israel and the US are concerned that Palestine may accede to the Rome statute which would provide a means of prosecuting grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention without action by the UNSC where the US wields a veto. That is why the US, at the behest of Israel, was pressing Palestine in advance of the General Assembly vote to agree that it would not seek prosecutions against Israel (or rather against Israeli officials). Palestine refused.

- roidubouloi

December 12, 2012 at 11:36pm

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

More G C jokes.

- arnon1

December 12, 2012 at 11:39pm

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

The Geneva Conventions cannot somehow be used "to destroy the Jewish state." It is possible that they might be used to bring illegal Jewish settlement in Palestine to a close. All the more reason for Israel to negotiate a settlement with Palestine rather than wait for the world to force it into a settlement. If any Israeli official, most likely Netanyahu I should think, were indicted, let alone prosecuted, it would be very hard for Europe to avoid imposing sanctions on Israel if it then continued with illegal settlement. And the indicted official would be at risk of arrest any time he traveled outside of Israel.

- roidubouloi

December 12, 2012 at 11:43pm

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

"The Geneva Conventions cannot somehow be used "to destroy the Jewish state."" Tell that to the Western supporters of Hezbollah and Hamas.

- arnon1

December 12, 2012 at 11:46pm

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

23 important members of the Third Reich were prosecuted at Nuremberg. Several hundred lesser figure were also prosecuted.

- roidubouloi

December 12, 2012 at 11:50pm

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

Tell them yourself.

- roidubouloi

December 12, 2012 at 11:50pm

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

"23 important members of the Third Reich were prosecuted at Nuremberg. Several hundred lesser figure were also prosecuted." Thousands of Nazis were executed on the spot by the allies and Russians when captured. There were hundreds of impromptu trials and executions. That did more to tame the ferocious Nazi beast in Germany that your precious Geneva convention.

- arnon1

December 13, 2012 at 12:03am

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

It would appear, arnon, that you are indeed a devotee of unlawful violence, summary execution, lethal vengeance. Why am I not surprised that there is really nothing that separates you from Hamas other than your ethnic identity?

- roidubouloi

December 13, 2012 at 12:33am

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

It would appear that you are very simplistic in thinking that law can exist without the threat of violence.

- arnon1

December 13, 2012 at 12:45am

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

" there is really nothing that separates you from Hamas other than your ethnic identity?' How about belief in god? How about the fact that I don't speak Arabic. How about my belief in human equality? How about my belief in worker's unions? How about my belief in women's right to education? How about my belief in that women make very good judges? The only think we probably have in common is the belief that you are a dork. Though even here Hamas would throw you (and me for different reasons) of some rooftop, while I would just laugh at you.

- arnon1

December 13, 2012 at 12:49am

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

How about that's all just so much bullshit, because you are outed. Nope, you and Hamas are just two peas in a pod. You would throw one of them off a rooftop, probably me too, in a minute, and just laugh about it.

- roidubouloi

December 13, 2012 at 1:20am

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

Human equality, sure. With just a souçon of obvious racism and delight in the subjugation of those you hate. Boy you are one sick thing, arnon. And here I thought you were mostly just stupid.

- roidubouloi

December 13, 2012 at 1:23am

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

"Arguing that there are distinctions that can be drawn between Israel and South Africa is also beside the point. No two crimes are exactly alike." roid -- Indeed. But the finding as to whether there is a crime or not is -- at least ideally -- subject to more rigorous criteria that the decision of one side in a dispute to deploy an historically localized term in a polemical manner. I would add as a footnote that there is often, also, a deliberate confusion sown in this debate by those (not including you) who try to fudge the distinction between Israel and the Occupied Territories. The implication is very often that Israel is an apartheid state on the RSA model on its own national territory as well.

- ironyroad

December 13, 2012 at 1:40am

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

Europe always anti Israel always antisemitic. http://www.timesofisrael.com/four-eu-states-reportedly-tried-to-foil-condemnation-of-mashaal-hate-speech/

- JAIMECHUCH

December 13, 2012 at 2:14am

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

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-takes-bible-quiz-trophy/ RELATED TOPICS INTERNATIONAL BIBLE CONTESTGIDEON SA'ARREFAEL MEYUHAS Netanya resident Raphael Meyuhas, 26, won the International Bible Contest for adults Wednesday night in Jerusalem, beating out 15 other candidates from around the world for total Bible knowledge supremacy. Correctly identifying obscure biblical quotes, and displaying a dizzying knowledge of esoterica on everyone from Adam to Nehemia, Meyuhas notched a perfect score and became the first adult to take home the prize after a 32 year break in which the contest was not held. In the final stage, Meyuhas managed to correctly answer every one of the eight questions posed to him by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, winning the NIS 40,000 prize (almost $10,000). Rabbi Ezra Fraser of the USA was the runner up, followed by Canadian contestant Dr. Lenny Werner. “The Hebrew Bible is the birth certificate and identity card of every Jew,” Education Minister Gideon Sa’ar said at the event. “The International Bible Contest contributes to the strengthening of the people’s spirit and tightens the bond between all parts of our nation.” Twenty-seven contestants from around the world were brought to Israel to compete in the event, 16 of whom made it to the final round. Attending the televised contest were representatives from 14 different countries which included Spain, India, Panama and France. Like us on Facebook Get our newsletter Follow us on Twitter

- JAIMECHUCH

December 13, 2012 at 2:45am

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

The usual Roid-do-do poop. When he calls you a racist then you are a racist no evidence needed. The guy is a bolshevik of the spirit and an unconscious nazi and if he denied it will only prove that this is true. So much for Roid reasoning. And he is a lawyer and he wants to condemn Israel. I suppose he is just imitating his European idols. Fuck off Roid you are worse than a racists you are a hypocrite. When Roid calls you a racist you know you won the argument.

- arnon1

December 13, 2012 at 5:46am

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

The Geneva Convention is just so much horse shit. It's a racist document used to condemn mainly Israel.No wonder the racist Roid loves it.

- arnon1

December 13, 2012 at 5:48am

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

"Strange that a Jew of all people should object to conformity with law" roi I was responding to this statement of yours: "The price for being a member of society is to bend to the will of society in some matters". As you can see, there is no mention of "Law" in it. And I suspect it is not an oversight. You really think that the individual ought to conform to the conventions and currents of society. And following from my statement of resisting conformity, you immediately move to casting aspersions on my level of Judaism. In this you follow in the footsteps (almost inevitably so) of any religious or political zealot that ever lived: the (announced) suspicion that I'm not loyal enough, not devout enough. And you do that without the tiniest evidence whatsoever. You speak of the spirit of Judaism? What about one of its most central tenets: Leshon Harah? The Spanish Inquisition acted on this impulse. As did Robespierre, Lenin, Stalin, McCarthy, etc.

- Noga

December 13, 2012 at 7:14am

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

"subject to more rigorous criteria that the decision of one side in a dispute to deploy an historically localized term in a polemical manner." This just assumes its conclusion. If there is a "dispute" on a question, then it is necessary to articulate the other side of the dispute. "I would add as a footnote that there is often, also, a deliberate confusion sown in this debate by those (not including you) who try to fudge the distinction between Israel and the Occupied Territories. The implication is very often that Israel is an apartheid state on the RSA model on its own national territory as well." I am explicit that I do not think there in anything like an apartheid regime in metropolitan Israel, only in the occupied territory where there exist two classes of citizen, Jew and Arab. __________________ Pish tosh, noga. It is perfectly clear from the reams written here alone that I am talking about Israel conforming its behavior to international law, neither more nor less. This is a feeble fabrication even for you. Your corrupt and relentlessly dishonest behavior marks you as a a Jew by extraction perhaps, but in no sense an observer of Judaism. Indeed, it is comical for a self-professed Jew to have so little understanding or sympathy for the role of law in the world. You plainly know nothing about Judaism even if you are observing every ritual. And then, for you even to mention Lashon Hara is ridiculous. You don't do anything else. This is just another version of the same Stalinist, Leninist, McCarthyite propaganda trick of trying to cover your tracks by accusing the other of doing exactly what you are doing. The lie placed always in the mouth of the other is pretty much all you ever do here. Today is no different. Back under your rock you go, creepy, crawly thing

- roidubouloi

December 13, 2012 at 7:55am

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

I should add, irony, that often the game you describe is played the other way too. Defenders of Israel respond to the charge of apartheid by reciting the freedom and (imperfect) equality of Arabs in metropolitan Israel, ignoring what Israel does in the occupied territory.

- roidubouloi

December 13, 2012 at 8:05am

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

" I am talking about Israel conforming its behavior to international law, neither more nor less."" I think the cat is out of the bag, roi. Your Freudian slips are a wonderful illustrations for this term. First you let out that as a Jew, you are ashamed of Israel calling itself a Jewish state. Then you formulate the principle of conformism you have been advocating as: "The price for being a member of society is to bend to the will of society in some matters". This is an avowal of a general value, which guides your understanding of the relationship that ought to exist between society and the individual, and it informs your position about Israel versus the world.

- Noga

December 13, 2012 at 8:52am

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

Think what you like. As ever, you have nothing to say to the point, everything you do say is an ad hominem attack, and you have to invent the person you are attacking in order to do it. Nothing but lies, all day every day. If your lips are moving, you are lying. "The price for being a member of society is to bend to the will of society in some matters." That you can even take issue with this is either a sign of your desperation to find something you think you can dispute or a level of immaturity that I would not have expected. That is a new side of you. Arnon we know is a child. You we understand to be a sociopathic liar. But, I must confess, although I know you are without scruple, I had not previously thought you evaluate the world with the mind of a small child. I shall read with fresh eyes in the future.

- roidubouloi

December 13, 2012 at 9:56am

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

Silly me. I neglected to mention that even in this trivial case, you had first to edit my words in order to try to impart a meaning that is not there with which you could then take issue. The full paragraph is this: "The price for being a member of society is to bend to the will of society in some matters. Always has been, always will be. No one can be a law unto themselves and be a member of society, including world society, at the same time." Notice the word "law." You really are a one-trick pony, noga.

- roidubouloi

December 13, 2012 at 10:17am

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

""Think what you like."" Thanks. I do. "" As ever, you have nothing to say to the point,"" I did make my point, that you are a conformist and that disposition can explain the narrowness of your views and your reliance on one text to provide the answer for all issues pertaining to the I/P conflict. I don't know how many times you have recited from the Geneva Convention by now, 50? 100? 500? BTW, this tendency for denunciation, demonization, and verbal violence are classical symptoms of a fanatical mindset. I called you all sorts of things in the past, but I never called you an insect or a bug, never suggested you are less than human, or referred to your family in any way. Your language is the language of pure irrational boundless hatred. Posters here who flatter you are complicit in this hatred. There should be no mistake about it.

- Noga

December 13, 2012 at 10:34am

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

Geneva Convention horse shit Roido-dodo is baaack. Posting all by his lonesome, ha, ha, ha,

- arnon1

December 13, 2012 at 10:48am

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

The following speaks to sighthnd's point about the rejectionists versus the accommodationists: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3492/radical-moderate-palestinians "When Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas returned from New York to Ramallah and told the Palestinians that he obtained UN recognition of a Palestinian state within the pre-1967 lines -- namely, the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem -- fewer than 5,000 Palestinians, many of them civil servants who receive their salaries from the Palestinian Authority government, turned out to greet him in Ramallah. When Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal came last week to the Gaza Strip and told Palestinians that armed struggle and jihad were the only way to liberate all Palestine, "from the river to the sea," and that there was no room for the Zionists in Palestine because the country belonged only to Muslim and Arabs, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians showed up to welcome Mashaal and voice support for his plan to eliminate Israel and replace it with an Islamic state. Even many Palestinians in the West Bank expressed support for Mashaal, especially when he said that the Palestinians would never "give up one inch of Palestine."

- Noga

December 13, 2012 at 10:53am

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

d

- arnon1

December 13, 2012 at 12:19pm

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

Two questions: Malahat, how does the U.N. vote, which I thought a good thing on balance, cause the following: ...When they made this statement, did the rabbis realize that, according to the vote, the Western Wall (the holiest site in Judaism) is being illegally occupied by the Israeli government... as well an the other legal horribles Dershowitz lists? I can understand other possible arguments for their illegality, which I don't agree with, but I understand them, but the legal nexus between the vote and those listed illegalities I don't. How does any cat jump out of this mostly anodyne bag: ....The price for being a member of society is to bend to the will of society in some matters. Always has been, always will be. No one can be a law unto themselves and be a member of society, including world society, at the same time...? Save for the overemphasized on world society, international law, and unilaterality vitiating membership, how are these self evident words revelatory of anything except a basic truth of social, lawful living in a state, and how can anyone infer "conformism" from these words?

- basman

December 13, 2012 at 12:21pm

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

Thanks for the article, malahat. Just subscribed to Israel Times.

- arnon1

December 13, 2012 at 12:22pm

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

One more thing, roi. You will not get away from your own distortions so easily. "Silly me. I neglected to mention that even in this trivial case, you had first to edit my words in order to try to impart a meaning that is not there with which you could then take issue. The full paragraph is this: "The price for being a member of society is to bend to the will of society in some matters. Always has been, always will be. No one can be a law unto themselves and be a member of society, including world society, at the same time." http://www.englishclub.com/ref/esl/Idioms/L/a_law_unto_themselves_653.htm "a law unto themselves Meaning: If somebody is a law unto themselves, they do things their own way and follow their own ideas about how to live instead of following what others do." As you can see, I got the meaning of your words EXACTLY right. You are willing to even distort your own words in order to win an argument.

- Noga

December 13, 2012 at 12:31pm

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

roid: "This just assumes its conclusion. If there is a 'dispute' on a question, then it is necessary to articulate the other side of the dispute." I've read your first statement several times, and it appears to be meaningless (or just flat wrong). The second sentence is uncontroversial and I would accept it without objection -- but as I said, one does not have to accept the one or the other side's terminology without demur. "I should add, irony, that often the game you describe is played the other way too." Possibly, although I think that's less effective, for some fairly obvious reasons. But it is a game, as you say, which was largely my point. I think this is my last contribution on this thread -- I'm probably not the only one happy to read that.

- ironyroad

December 13, 2012 at 12:41pm

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

"'ve read your first statement several times, and it appears to be meaningless (or just flat wrong)." Irony to Roid There are many, many meaningless comments in Roid's posts. It's useless to argue with him because he is "a true believer" (In Eric Hoffer's sense) in his own infallibility.

- arnon1

December 13, 2012 at 1:03pm

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

"I think this is my last contribution on this thread -- I'm probably not the only one happy to read that." It probably want matter to you, but I am not happy to read the above declaration, Irony. Your dispassionate comments were a breath of fresh here, here.

- arnon1

December 13, 2012 at 1:05pm

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

You are ridiculous noga. You make a stupid claim, based on your usual tendentious editing of my words, and then try to rescue yourself with a reference to an English language site for non-English speakers, like you. Try this: "a law unto itself or a law unto himself" Definitions . a person or thing that is outside established laws Geez, you only get worse. ___________________ Re Dershowitz: Of course, Dershowitz thinks that it is now time for all Jews to unite in support of Israel, to stop criticism, to accept whatever the Likud government does or doesn't do with shows of support. (This, of course, is because he, like noga, thinks that Israel does not need the support of the wider Jewish community to survive. He only says this, I suppose, because he thinks it would be nice.) The right-wing always thinks it is time to unite behind right-wing government. This is but a slightly veiled version of the classic right-wing accusation that those who criticize right-wing government are traitors. Fortunately, what Dershowitz says invariably falls on deaf ears or those who are already persuaded of his point of view. American Jews are increasingly unwilling to support Netanyahu and the Likud, for good reason. Dershowitz is not going to turn back that tide. ______________________ The view of George Friedman's Stratfor is that Operation Pillar of Defense strengthened Hamas and weakened Fatah. It is easy to understand why. Despite the bluster of Netanyahu, the actual outcome was the perception of rocket threat to the core of Israel combined with Israeli concessions, to cease its targeted assassinations and to reduce its control over flows of people and goods in and out of Gaza. Hamas thus makes concrete gains with a policy of violence. In contrast, Abbas pursues legal and diplomatic avenues, including declaring again that he recognizes Israel west of the Green Line. What does he gain from Israel? Nothing but scoffing and threats. It is rather obvious to anyone who watches this little drama that violence against Israel works and non-violence does not, exactly the wrong set of incentives if Israel actually want negotiations and peace. Peres tried by welcoming Abbas's re-affirmation of recognition, but he is not the government. Is this a miscalculation by Netanyahu, the inadvertent strengthening of Hamas, the rejectionist faction, against Abbas and the PA, the accommodationist faction? I don't think so at all. I think Netanyahu's goal is precisely to strengthen the rejectionists both to relieve any pressure from within Israel to negotiate and to allow him to paint the Palestinians as the reason why there are not negotiations. Hamas is Netanyahu's cat's paw to avoid negotiations while avoiding the appearance of doing so. Why? Because Netanyahu likes the status quo. He does not want peace, he wants Palestinian land. He believes that the longer he delays any peace settlement, the more Palestinian land Israel can hold onto and the more certain it is that Israel can do so. And if there is never peace and the status quo continues indefinitely, that is fine with him as long as the level of violence doesn't get too high. But eventually it will. Netanyahu's cynical game of walking the line of just enough violence but not too much will eventually explode, either diplomatically or militarily or both. Given his hubris, Netanyahu himself my light the match by attacking Iran. If the world-wide economic consequences of that are severe enough, I think the world will turn fiercely on Israel. Next stop, the ICC.

- roidubouloi

December 13, 2012 at 1:06pm

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

"I've read your first statement several times, and it appears to be meaningless (or just flat wrong). The second sentence is uncontroversial and I would accept it without objection -- but as I said, one does not have to accept the one or the other side's terminology without demur." Sorry, irony, but merely to claim that the use of a term is polemical without being able to say anything to the point of what the term does or should mean in context is merely assuming your conclusion -- that merely to state that a term is used polemically suffices to prove the point. With all the circumlocution, you don't manage to explain why you don't think it is correct to state that the Israeli regime in the West Bank is apartheid other than 1) it isn't like South Africa and 2) the PA gets international funding. If you have persuaded yourself, good. I think that is not much and that your claims are purely polemical. One of course does not have to accept anything without demur. But if you cannot state reasons other than that you demur, it is neither persuasive nor even worthy of much credit. You demur. Hence, you demur.

- roidubouloi

December 13, 2012 at 1:12pm

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

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/a+law+unto "a law unto yourself a person who does things differently and ignores the usual rules" http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/be-a-law-unto-yourself Definition to behave in a way which is independent and does not follow the usual rules for a situation

- Noga

December 13, 2012 at 1:35pm

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

Idiom: be a law unto oneself To act as one wants and not according to laws or custom. http://www.writersevents.com/Words_Starting_with_B/batting_be_after_someone/be_a_law_unto_oneself_definition.html Of course, idiomatic expressions, like words, can have multiple meanings and the correct understanding depends on the context. In the context of several thousand words on the application of international law and humanitarian law to the State of Israel, which reading makes sense? Defiance of law, defiance of custom, or defiance of social expectations? You made a ridiculous point, noga, in your desperation to make some point. You can quote and cite until you're blue (probably would look good on you). It is still obviously stupid.

- roidubouloi

December 13, 2012 at 1:58pm

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

There are a few documents that discuss the legal status of the Western Wall. Here is one that includes a history: http://www.jiis.org/.upload/the%20temple%20mount%20and%20the%20western%20wall%20in%20israeli%20law.pdf Short version: according to International Law, The Western Wall is part of the "administered territories" that Israel came into possession of, following the 6 day war.

- Noga

December 13, 2012 at 2:02pm

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

But let's take your definition and then agree that Israel is not following the usual rules for the situation of military occupation. Some of the rules for a situation may just be the criminal laws. In this case, the consequences may be therefore be much greater than social or even diplomatic opprobrium. They may include criminal prosecution at the ICC. Because these rules have the force of international law as embodied in the Fourth Geneva Convention, to which Israel is a party and to which Palestine may soon be a party, and the Rome statute, to which Palestine may soon accede. The jurisdiction of the ICC is defined in such a manner that crimes committed by Israel on the territory of Palestine would then be prosecutable even though Israel has not acceded to the Rome statute and has declared that it will not do so. arnon thinks this is a joke. I doubt that those convicted and doing time in the Hague think it is a joke. He has a strange sense of humor.

- roidubouloi

December 13, 2012 at 2:04pm

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

"Administered territories" is another term for "occupied territory." Both the UNSC and the General Assembly have declared Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem as null and void. The UNSC action alone trumps any interpretations of international law. The UNSC makes the law. The author of the monograph linked by noga takes the view that Jordanian annexation of East Jerusalem was illegal under the UN partition plan as Jerusalem was to be internationalized. That it was. However, he then concludes that, because Jordan had no legitimate sovereignty in East Jerusalem, Israel, having seized it from Jordan in a defensive war, does. This is a very odd form of reasoning as it states that Israel can obtain a legal status by seizure from Jordan that Jordan itself never had. The author also claims that there was a "void of sovereignty" that Israel has filled. This assumes that by illegal annexation Jordan managed to void the sovereignty of the UN as successor to the League of Nations and the mandator in Palestine. There is not really much precedent to argue from as the history of the League of Nations and the UN is short and there really is no other instance that I can think of regarding the "voiding" of UN authority by the unilateral act of a state. In general, the law is that no one can take from the sovereign without the sovereign's consent. Was the UN a "sovereign" in Palestine? One can argue both sides. However, all the argument about what the law should be or might be in the absence of UNSC action is completely moot. The UNSC declared Israeli annexation of Jerusalem to be illegal and null and void. That pretty well settles the question as a matter of international law. Now, personally I find the prospect of a re-divided Jerusalem very sad to contemplate. I hope it does not come to that. They way to avoid that is to reach a settlement with Palestine. If Netanyahu and Israel keep postponing settlement so that one is finally imposed by the UN, an inevitability in my opinion, it is highly likely that the the imposed settlement will embody the UNSC declaration that Israel's unification of the city is null and void. This is why I refer to Netanyahu as a clod and a strategic nitwit. The handwriting really is on the wall. Instead of recognizing that time is not on Israel's side, that its strategic and diplomatic posture are in decline, and making the best deal as soon as possible before Israel's hand becomes even weaker, Netanyahu and the messianic nuts who populate his government procrastinate. They are fools in the thrall of religious craziness. If they continue to over-play Israel's hand, they may in the end lose everything they are trying to gain.

- roidubouloi

December 13, 2012 at 2:22pm

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

The General Assembly does not have the authority to over-rule the Security Council. But the General Assembly recognition of Palestine does not appear to me to be in conflict with UNSC 242. Think of it as if Palestine were a state in 1967 comprising the West Bank and East Jerusalem. There was a war. Palestine in its entirety was occupied by Israel. You can make perfect sense out of resolution 242 if that were the case. Israel attempted to annex East Jerusalem and environs. The UNSC declared that null and void. This is exactly why Israel has a much weaker hand than the Likud and the messianic nuts seem to believe. It actually has no claim in Palestine other than with respect to its security. If Israel trades its occupation for a unified Jerusalem, the extinguishment of the Palestine right of return except to the extent that Israel will accept it, and an accommodation that at least does not require the settlements to be vacated by the settlers, it will have achieved what is in fact a diplomatic and historic negotiating coup, trading nothing other than the fact of occupation for a great deal. By procrastinating, Netanyahu puts all that at risk.

- roidubouloi

December 13, 2012 at 2:32pm

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

...The General Assembly does not have the authority to over-rule the Security Council... Beats me to the punch, which still leaves me pondering Dershowitz's nexus. Palestine, whatever the precise content of its "Statehood" is via the recent vote, does not have boundaries. Its "statehood" such as it is includes no final de jure territorial integrity. That integrity, coincident with established boundaries, awaits resolution under 242's explicit terms by way of negotiation between the parties. The recent G.A. vote don't touch that. Roi your sweet agreement with every single person on this thread makes it abundantly clear what a conformist you are. So that question asked, that question answered :-)

- basman

December 13, 2012 at 2:50pm

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

I cannot help myself, basman. I crave approval. I initially had the exact same thought as your third paragraph, beginning with "Palestine . . ." But I went to look up the text of the GA resolution, A/RES/67/19. to confirm my understanding (which was based on news accounts). I had thought to make the point that Dershowitz was exaggerating, without any basis, the actual legal import of the recognition of Palestine. However, when I did, I found this: "1. Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967; * * * 4. Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfills the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;" I think this renders the matter somewhat ambiguous. There are states that have long-standing border disputes and do not cease therefore to be states without any recognized territory. Certainly, the border of Israel and Palestine remains unsettled, but that is also not the same as saying that there exists no integrity to either as a state. It is a bit muddled, as things tend to be pending the outcome of a dispute. It is also not clear to me whether the GA resolution is to some extent in conflict with UNSC resolutions given that the UNSC has flatly barred Israel from unilaterally annexing or changing the legal status of any territory occupied in 1967. On the other hand, the GA says "basis of the pre-1967 borders." "Basis of" is not the same as, "These are the borders, as they stood in 1967" (leaving aside that the 1949 armistice line was not de jure a border but became one de facto through long UN acquiescence). In any case, if there were a conflict between the resolutions, the UNSC resolution would govern. I think my best answer would be that there is an inchoate border at the 1967 lines that the UNSC could at any time declare to be the de jure border between Israel and Palestine. The sense of UNSC resolution 242 is not that the UNSC does not have the authority to decide this, but that it wants the parties to negotiate to a solution that is first of all mutually agreed upon and second is generally in the nature of border rectifications rather than wholesale change. At some point, the UN may, and in my opinion will, say, "Okay, we wanted you to settle it between you, but since you have not, here it is," much as it settled the Jewish-Arab dispute with the 1947 partition plan. What does seem absolutely clear is that nothing east of the Green Line can be said to belong to Israel unless Palestine or the UN agrees. That is precisely why I think Israel very much needs to get on about reaching agreement with Palestine. No passage of time, and no amount of illegal settlement, will suffice to secure for Israel even an inch of territory occupied in 1967 as against the writ of the UN. The insistence of Israel that peace can only be had as the result of negotiation and agreement may be true in the sense that only the parties can be peaceful as between them. It is not, however, at all the case that the legal issues, including borders, cannot be settled by the UN, as was the case in 1947. It has the same power not that it did then. The necessity for agreement between the parties is so only as long as the US supports Israel's position, as the UNSC cannot act over a US veto. The US has made clear repeatedly, although Israel declines to listen, that US policy interests do not include Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem or the settlements, including by failing to interpose its veto in the UNSC when the UNSC declared these illegal. Israel is not listening. When push comes to shove, I am sure the US will not abandon Israel's security, but it will not extend its support for Israel's territorial claims over the Green Line. The US has, through inaction, enabled Israel to build over the Green Line, because the price to the US of doing nothing has not been too high and the domestic political cost of imposing upon Israel has been too great. As soon as the price somehow begins to rise, whether due to Iran, or China or Russia competing for influence in the Arab world, or for some other reason, I think that will change, and perhaps quite abruptly. With the Road Map, the US came closest to imposing its will about the settlements but then lapsed again into passivity. I simply do not believe that the admonition and invitation of the UNSC to settle the conflict based on peace, security, and withdrawal from occupied territory (with the possibility of negotiated border rectifications) will remain open forever. I think there is a race going on and that American Jews hold the outcome in their hands because they are the linchpin of American policy. If the become disenchanted with Israel's recalcitrance fast enough, Israel may get out of its rut and come to the table. If American Jews continue to enable the status quo, the UN may win the race, and Israel will be the loser. Unfortunately, I don't see any prospect that Israel's domestic politics will get it out of the mess it is in. Only a crisis of some kind will do that (which might include indictment by the ICC).

- roidubouloi

December 13, 2012 at 3:36pm

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

malahat beat me to the punch this time. :-)

- roidubouloi

December 13, 2012 at 3:37pm

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

I'm going to have to read Roi's last post carefully but, *subject to it,* from what I understand, regardless of such de jure status as the recent GA vote is able to confer on Palestinian statehood, I fail to understand how any wording, including references to SC resolutions, can trump the clear intent and language of 242, including "on the basis of the pre-1967 borders." All such language is precatory and nothing legal turns on it. Again, and subject to my same-just-above qualification, the GA has no power to override what the SC has resolved. As a legal matter the GA can vote unanimously it sees the moon as blue any number of times, but if the SC has resolved it's to be seen as yellow, then yellow it's to be seen by the U.N. until the SC repeals or amends or otherwise overrides itself.

- basman

December 13, 2012 at 4:00pm

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

The latest affirmation by the security council about Palestine independence on "Palestinian Territory" begs the question oaf which Palestinian territories" they mean. Thev1967 resolution by the UN dueling with the same issue left the question of "which territories " open to interpretation. It was assumed that the parties would come to an agreement through negotiations.

- arnon1

December 13, 2012 at 4:18pm

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

The latest affirmation by the security council about Palestine independence on "Palestinian Territory" begs the question oaf which Palestinian territories" they mean. Thev1967 resolution by the UN dueling with the same issue left the question of "which territories " open to interpretation. It was assumed that the parties would come to an agreement through negotiations.

- arnon1

December 13, 2012 at 4:18pm

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

...Thev1967 resolution by the UN dueling with the same issue left the question of "which territories " open to interpretation. It was assumed that the parties would come to an agreement through negotiations.. That in a nutshell is my view.

- basman

December 13, 2012 at 4:34pm

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

I agree, basman, and said so above, that to the extent there is a conflict between a Security Council resolution and the General Assembly resolution, the Security Council resolution controls. That said, the UNSC has unambiguously barred Israel from changing the legal status of any territory occupied in 1967, and declared void all attempts by Israel to do so. It has also declared the settlements illegal. I conclude that Israel cannot therefore assert any recognizable claim east of the Green Line unless the UN or Palestine agrees. In the latter case, the UN would simply acquiesce in the agreement of the parties. UNSC 242 de facto recognized the Green Line as Israel's border in that it does not contemplate any Israeli withdrawal from land west of the Green Line. If the Green Line is Israel's eastern border and it cannot claim west of the Green Line without UN or Palestinian consent, I think that makes the Green Line the more-or-less recognized border, inchoate so to speak. Into this semi-void of any authoritative determination of the final border, the General Assembly has recognized the Green Line as "the basis" of the border, a somewhat ambiguous term but one that clearly does not contemplate large changes. And there it sits. Regarding the ICC, assuming that it permits Palestine to accede to the Rome statute, which will likely occur as the General Assembly would be the point of departure for the Secretary General, then there is a question what territory Palestine submits to the jurisdiction of the court. I think that in a case about human rights in the occupied territory, it would likely default to the occupied territory if it wants to take the case or prevaricate if it does not. The fact that the ICC has no obligation and is not in any manner overseen by the US or Israel, both of which have declined (along with the Sudan I believe) to accede to the Rome statute, would make the court much less sensitive to their political concerns. It is I believe also within the power of the Convention of State Parties to the Rome statute to allow Palestine to accede and thence to determine the jurisdictional issue. Given the overwhelming vote in the General Assembly, I assume this would happen by and by if the ICC does not itself accept jurisdiction. The United States and Israel would not even have a seat at the table in the Convention as neither has acceded to the Rome statute.

- roidubouloi

December 13, 2012 at 4:55pm

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

I should have said, in light of my own comments, that Dershowitz's admonition that we must all back the intransigence of the Netanyahu government has matters exactly backwards. It would be far better if Netanyahu's friends here were able to persuade him to find a way back to the negotiating table rather than further enable his intransigence and procrastination. But I doubt that right-wing American Jews would ever do such a thing. It will require continued the decline of American Jewish support for Israeli policy, combined with a crisis of some sort, for the US government finally to ignore AIPAC and set a course that puts American interests ahead of Israeli interests.

- roidubouloi

December 13, 2012 at 5:00pm

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

Netanyahu is not the only or ven h main problem. Abbas is as much of a waffles and delayer as is Netanyahu. Both need to be read the riot act by the Obama administration. All the UN declarations is justvmpty rhetoric because they have no way of nforcing their decisions. Whether it's China in Tibet or Turkey oppressing Kurds, or Russia in Chechnya, you cannot deal with without the use of power. Notice tags te Paletinian area lot better off than thesevothe groups yet they jump to th head of th line of oppressed people. This is why I keep pointing out the hypocrisy involved in international politics.

- arnon1

December 13, 2012 at 5:10pm

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

Roi you will remember that I've had a couple of exchanges with you, which I quite enjoyed btw, over some of the ins and outs and implications of 242. I don't have the strength to re-rehearse them or the will to dip into my own bath water. So I'm going to leave 242 at that.

- basman

December 13, 2012 at 5:15pm

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

Basman, I have to confess it is a muddle in my head. I have the same problem keeping things sorted that you have with the bath water. But leaving 242 at that is just fine. I don't really have anything to say about 242; I find the problem of the interaction between the Security Council and the General Assembly sort of interesting. _____________________ The UNSC certainly does have means of enforcing its decisions, when it chooses to do so, with sanctions and with the sanctioning of armed force. Whether the UNSC is consistent or hypocritical in its decisions is neither here nor there. It has power when the permanent members agree to use it. We also now have the precedent, thanks to the case of Iran (and perhaps South Africa although I don't really recall), of states adopting their own sanctions that are viewed as legitimate even without being authorized by the UNSC once the UNSC has issued a condemnation. It is all just a matter of the alignment of political forces in the world. That alignment is not moving in Israel's favor, although the shifting is a slow thing and sometimes not immediately discernible.

- roidubouloi

December 13, 2012 at 5:40pm

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

I don't believe that the alignment "is not in Israel favors." "Alignments" which is to say military and diplomatic formations are always shifting. As long as countries like China, India, and Japan get some sort of economic advantage from being aligned with Israel they will not change positions. Russia signed a huge gas deal with Israel. Turkey is becoming more hostile but it's internal affairs are a mess. It is involved in a civil war with its Kurdish citizens who may become a majority in the country soon, or at the very least a huge minority. (I wouldn't rule out a kind of Egyptian style anti-Islamic uprising there too.) Syria will be too busy, assuming it can stay together as a single nation) cleaning up the mess made by the Assad clan to be much of a threat to Israel. Of course the Muslim Brotherhood could come up on top in Egypt and assist Syrian and Turkey as Nasser did Syria in the 1950's. But this is a far fetched scenario. Iran will lose a lot of influence once Syria changes regimes. And Hezbollah will be weakened considerably. They may try to launch the rest of their missiles at Israel but I doubt they will be re-supplied by an economically weakened Iran. Actually the worst outcome for Netanyahu's government would be if Egypt becomes truly democratic and Syria stabilizes under some kind of liberal and multicultural regime and If Iran frees itself of the Ayatollahs. Then Netanyahu will not have any excuse for not dealing with a Palestinian P A led by a less radical leader. I wouldn't hold my breath that it will happen.

- arnon1

December 13, 2012 at 8:09pm

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

While I was offline, and 200 or so comments later, it is curious that the UNGA voted for an entity that itself has failed to develop a state that can schedule regular elections, even for city councils, and part of Abbas' 'weakness' is that he is in the ninth year of a four year term. Does he have any legitimacy amongst Fatah supporters? I can only imagine the conversations in Somaliland which, under far desperate condition, managed to separate from Failed State Somalia, and organized into a state, complete with elections followed by peaceful transfers of power. Yet, Somaliland's patient application for Statehood is ignored by the UNGA. I spent 2011 studying WW2, and Truman, and the Marshall Plan. In Truman's WH memoirs, his deep belief in the promise of the United Nations to prevent war, was as prominent as his fury with Stalin over post-war Poland. The contrast between that ideal, and today's reality, has led me to believe that the UN is a failure. In the same vein, the Geneva Conventions were also part of that post-WW2 new basis for international order. Is the UN effective at anything? in a world with almost as many border disputes as UN member nations, and the worst enduring frozen conflict, Korea, amongst many frozen, and not so frozen (Congo) conflicts, where Sudan can brazenly conduct inernal genocides and population transfers. (I give India a lot of credit for resolving their internal autonomy of Nagaland.) well, I think time is on Israel's side. Of course, I await the phase of the Syrian implosion/explosion where someone finally diasarms Hezbollah. The Buddhists get away with anything. Sri Lanka - they finished the job. Burma with the Rohyingya, and Burma gets a US presidential visit. And, who decided that all the textbooks in post-WW2 Germany and Japan were re-written to ensure the future generations would never cross all those lines of genuine horror of total war? Why was that not done by a UNSCres 242-ABC? yeah, too little sleep, but time for the legitimacy of the United Nations to be seriously questioned. whilst offline, it seems there is a new Shalom! channel on Cablevision, at least in The Bronx. I watched some bits of the recent Jerusalem Post conference, which included Dershowitz. He seemed very upset about Beinart.

- K2K

December 13, 2012 at 8:42pm

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

This evening I attended a panel discussion, hosted by the US Holocaust Museum, on the Responsibility to Protect. The panelists were Madeline Albright, Richard Williamson, and Nicholas Kristof. Albright, how served under Clinton, and Williamson, who served under Bush II and was a foreign policy adviser to the Romney campaign, both agreed, unequivocally, that the UN is very useful to the US while acknowledging that it has distinct limits, particular when any of the five permanent members of the Security Council (that Williamson called the "Perm 5," an expression I had never heard before) is willing to interpose a veto. The organization works when the Perm 5 agree. Otherwise, it doesn't. That is the way the US wrote the UN Charter, so that we would have a veto, which meant giving other major powers a veto (although separate vetoes for the UK and France are by now an anachronism). Because of the veto, they all agree that the UNSC is a flawed vehicle for implementing the Responsibility to Protect, but multi-lateral action seems to have at least partially filled the breach. No one on the stage seemed to think that the answer is for the US simply to go around the world intervening whenever there are atrocities, and all said that is politically impossible. None had a better suggestion than multi-lateral action, either through the UNSC or through other multi-lateral organizations such as NATO, the African Union, etc. Perhaps there is the possibility of forming regional organizations specifically to implement the R2P.

- roidubouloi

December 13, 2012 at 11:47pm

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

"Perhaps there is the possibility of forming regional organizations..." That's been my view all along.

- arnon1

December 13, 2012 at 11:54pm

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

Also, all agreed that shaming and "accountability," in particular the ICC, have had a practical impact in inhibiting war crimes and atrocities. Williamson told the story of how he played a key role in getting Bush to allow the referral of the case of Sudan's Bashir to the ICC (via the UNSC) even though the US is not a party to the Rome statute. Albright and Williamson also thought that the individual tribunals that preceded the ICC were important (all authorized by the UNSC and hence with US consent). It wasn't clear from what Williamson said just what US reservations are -- he mentioned vagueness and that every US president going back to FDR could have been indicted under the Rome statute -- but he mentioned that when the Rome statute was voted on in the Senate it was defeated 99-0. Israel I believe refused to accede to the Rome statute specifically because illegal settlement in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention was made an indictable war crime. However, it is Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, of 1977, that made violation of Article 49 a war crime be making it a "grave breach" rather than merely a breach. Israel has not acceded to Protocol I either. But, as I have said, if Palestine does accede to the Rome statute, a war crime committed by Israel in Palestine (as determined by the court itself) would be indictable.

- roidubouloi

December 14, 2012 at 12:38am

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

Oh crap the ICC had no impact on Rwanda on Tibet, on the Congo killing fields. The failures of the ICC and the UN outweigh the successes in terms of human tragedies that the UN and the ICC didn't stop, didn't lessen, and didn't ameliorate such as Cambodia. To compare these to the building of houses on the West Bank is insane. The Palestinians actually even on the West Bank live longer than most Arabs and their longevity passes that of many Russians. The population of Palestinians has increased from around half a million to some five or six million people. Whatever the problems Palestinians face being massacred is not one of them. Some people are insanely obsessed with the Palestinians. These kinds of obsessions is doing the Palestinians more harm than good. I propose that if people like Roido would stop their obsession with the Palestinians the health and welfare of these people will actually get better.

- arnon1

December 14, 2012 at 12:50am

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

Yeah, those pesky Palestinians just don't appreciate the joys of being colonized. Like the black South Africans, who had a higher standard of living than blacks elsewhere in African but just didn't appreciate it. Or the Tibetans, whose standard of living has risen markedly under Chinese rule, but are self-immolating none-the-less. Then there are all those ethnic groups in the former Yugoslavia who didn't want to be dominated by the Serbs any longer. Not to mention Chechens and other minorities in Russia and the former Soviet Union that didn't want to be dominated by the Russians. Or the Moslems in India who didn't want to be dominated by the Hindus. There are the Catalans who want independence from Spain, the Basques of course, the Protestants of Northern Ireland who didn't want to be a minority in the Republic of Ireland, and the Catholics of Northern Ireland who didn't want to be a minority in Northern Ireland, and Scots who are angling for independence from the Angles. The Gibraltans don't want to be absorbed into Spain, and the Falkland Islanders don't want to be part of Argentina. And of course the Jews of Palestine who didn't want to be a minority in an Arab state of Palestine. And needless to say, having friends just build some houses in your neighborhood is nice. That's why Israelis want any Palestinian Arabs who used to live there to come back and build nice houses in their neighborhoods. It's all so perfectly benign that everyone wants people to come from other countries and develop their neighborhoods, take their land and water, make them take circuitous routes to get places. What's wrong with all these people? What is all this business about self-determination? What's so bad about being colonized anyway? As arnon pointed out, apartheid wasn't so bad, was it? There are a lot people worse off than those who were living under apartheid. Why was the world so damned sympathetic to them when there were all these worse things going on? Can't the world get its priorities straight and realize that, until all the worse problems are solved, another 100 years of Israel colonizing the Arabs is nothing to worry about?

- roidubouloi

December 14, 2012 at 1:26am

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

And here's the really tricky thing. Those people who are obsessed with the Palestinian Arabs got Article 49 written into the Fourth Geneva Convention and tricked Israel to sign up in 1952 KNOWING that someday Israel would occupy the rest of Palestine and be stuck with the treaty it entered into in 1952. That is way devious. The Jews should have seen that coming a mile away.

- roidubouloi

December 14, 2012 at 1:29am

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

The man with the article of the Geneva convention. That won't do a thing for peoples being mistreated elsewhere will help the Palestinians. In a pig's eye, it will.

- arnon1

December 14, 2012 at 5:42am

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

If the PA wants peace they need to negotiate face to face with their enemies, there is no other way.

- arnon1

December 14, 2012 at 5:43am

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

"If the PA wants peace ... " Peace is the means, not the end, for Palestinians. I think there is little doubt about this. Except that people hope, that once there is some sort of peace and stability, the Palestinians will be so content that they will give up their strategic objective and just settle down to have a good life. But we did have that situation before. After Oslo, when mutual relationship between the two peoples had reached a very satisfactory level of prosperity. Israelis used to flood the Palestinian cities, every weekend, buying, buying, buying. The casino in Beit Lechem was always full to the brim, doing very brisk business. Companies cooperated. In fact, when the second intifada broke out, there was a computer show in Tel Aviv, in which almost half the companies on the floor were Palestinian, caught by complete surprise by the recent turn of events. I remember there was a feeling among Israelis that that was it. That war and hostilities were over, at long last. The viciousness of the second intifada was such a shock that it dealt an almost immediate blow to all the dovish movements in Israel. None of them has recovered from that in any meaningful measure to date. During those days I used to read the CNN message boards. Knowing what I knew about the situation in Israel, And reading what was said by Palestinians and their supporters on the message boards, was like witnessing parallel universes. The level of animus expressed and the longing for a violent revenge on the "Jews" was unmistakable. I remember one particular poster who wrote with explicit savagery about how he was sharpening his sledge hammer, in expectation of things to come. It was almost surreal, considering the real state of affairs on the ground. When I read these types of comments, I could feel the growing excitement among their writers and I couldn't understand. The Internet was not yet as developed as it is today, no such thing as blogs where you could visit and get a whiff of how other people think and feel. Then, the wave of suicide bombings began, and it made sense. People may recall that there were multiple major suicide bombings during the nineties, almost immediately following Oslo, and Israel stayed put and continued to cultivate cooperation with the PA forces and government. But following CDII the bombings grew exponentially and there was no longer any possibility to ignore them. The Oslo accord was an experiment Rabin (who was never a dove by any measure) agreed to undertake in order to test if a settlement with the Palestinians was possible. Barak in 2000 also wanted to test that possibility. Sharon tested the same possibility by other means (withdrawal from Gaza). Now the "INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY" is preparing to another lab test of its theories about peace making, with the generous assistance of Righteous Jews. Perhaps you might recall how Gertrude Stein submitted a recommendation to Oslo to nominate Hitler for the peace Nobel Prize: " "I say that Hitler ought to have the peace prize, because he is removing all the elements of contest and of struggle from Germany. By driving out the Jews and the democratic and Left element, he is driving out everything that conduces to activity. That means peace ... By suppressing Jews ... he was ending struggle in Germany" (New York Times Magazine, May 6, 1934).

- Noga

December 14, 2012 at 9:56am

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

חבר הוועד המרכזי של פת"ח, עבאס זכי: המטרה היא "קיצה של ישראל" אבל "אתה לא יכול להגיד זאת" תמליל: "ההסדר מבוסס על גבולות ה-4 ביוני [1967]. וכאשר ההסדר הוא על גבולות ה-4 ביוני, הנשיא [מחמוד עבאס] מבין, אנחנו מבינים, וכולם יודעים שלא ניתן להגשים את הרעיון ההשראתי, או את המטרה הגדולה במכה אחת. אם ישראל תיסוג מירושלים, אם ישראל תעקור את ההתנחלויות, 650,000 מתנחלים, אם ישראל תסיר את גדר (הביטחון) - מה יהיה עם ישראל? ישראל תגיע אל קיצה. אם אני אומר, שאני רוצה להסיר אותה מהקיום, מעולה, מעולה, [אבל] זה דבר קשה. זאת אינה מדיניות [מוצהרת]. אתה לא יכול להגיד זאת לעולם. תגיד את זה בינך ובין עצמך." Abbas Zaki, member of the Palestinian Central Committee and ambassador to Lebanon: http://www.palwatch.org.il/main.aspx?fi=450&fld_id=450&doc_id=6587 Our objective is to put an end to the state of Israel. But you cannot say it openly. The agreement is based on the 4 June borders [1967] and when the agreement is about the June 4 borders, the president [Mahmoud Abbass] understands, we understand, and everybody knows, that it is impossible to realize the inspirational idea, or the great goal, with one fell swoop. If Israel withdraws from Jerusalem, if Israel uprooted the settlements, 650,000 settlers, if Israel removed the security barrier, what will happen to Israel? Israel will come to its end. If I say that I want to end Israel's existence, excellent, excellent [but] it is difficult. This is not a [declared] policy, you cannot say that to the world. We can only say it amongst ourselves"

- Noga

December 14, 2012 at 10:36am

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

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4319759,00.html

- basman

December 14, 2012 at 10:38am

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

This one, with the same Abass zAki, has English subtitles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol8FCf-wq_o

- Noga

December 14, 2012 at 10:48am

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

"I remember there was a feeling among Israelis that that was it. That war and hostilities were over, at long last." Yes, too bad Israel exploited the peace to continue its illegal settlements. 136,000 settlers (not including East Jerusalem) at the time of Oslo and 193,00 by the time of Camp David. How Israelis have managed to talk themselves into the belief that peace and colonization of the Palestinians can both be achieved at the same time is absolutely beyond me. It is a truly fantastical delusion.

- roidubouloi

December 14, 2012 at 10:57am

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

Interesting, basman. Here's another take on exactly the same thing: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/1204/Israel-faces-lowest-point-in-Europe-relations-in-decades

- roidubouloi

December 14, 2012 at 11:07am

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

"Peace is the means, not the end, for Palestinians." This could of course as easily be said of Israel, for which peace is subordinate to the desire to take Palestinian land east of the Green Line -- peace as a means to permanent seizure of their land rather than to secure Israel in its own land.

- roidubouloi

December 14, 2012 at 11:11am

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

Would Israel make peace based on the recognition of Palestinian sovereignty east of the Green Line, the extinguishment of Palestinian claims west of the Green Line, including the claimed right of return, condominium in Jerusalem, and measures adequate to ensure that Palestine is demilitarized and remains free of prohibited weapons?

- roidubouloi

December 14, 2012 at 11:16am

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

We all know the answer to my question. Israel refuses.

- roidubouloi

December 14, 2012 at 11:16am

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

This statement, from Malahat's link: "up to and including Benjamin Netanyahu’s petulant approval of the E1 project east of Jerusalem which would render a Palestinian state unviable " was already debunked here, in this article in "Perspective": http://www.presspectiva.org.il/cgi-webaxy/item?230 The map at the bottom of the article shows that " If indeed israel reteats to the Green Line, as it is demanded from her, the corridor that remains to the Palestinians in the East is the same distance as the corridor that will remain to Israel in the west, as we can see in this map: both corridors are 15 km wide. Let's not pretend, the topography and the engineering problems are different, but have you heard or read any pundit advancing the notion that the Palestinian state would render the state of Israel territorially unviable?" ולסיום, נקודה למחשבה בנוגע לאופן הצגת טענת "הרצף הטריטוריאלי" על ידי הפרשנים הרבים. אם אכן ישראל תיסוג לקו הירוק כפי שדורשים ממנה, המסדרון שיוותר לפלסטינים במזרח שווה ערך ברוחבו למסדרון שיוותר לישראל במערב, כפי שניתן לראות במפה הזו: מדובר ב-15 ק"מ בשני המסדרונות. לא ניתמם - כמובן שהטופוגרפיה היא שונה והאתגרים ההנדסיים הם שונים, אבל האם שמעתם פרשן כלשהו מתייחס לשטח המדינה הפלסטינית במונחים של קטיעת רצף טריטוריאלי ישראלי?

- Noga

December 14, 2012 at 2:02pm

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

That assumes that the settlements become part of Israel, an unwarranted assumption of which Israel has convinced itself by negotiating with itself. It should be recalled that Israel used to claim that the settlements were not a violation of the Geneva Conventions because "temporary," able to be removed in the context of a final settlement. It was a patent subterfuge that has come home to haunt. I for one am in favor of Netanyahu continuing to be a putz, pissing on the shoes of the American president and poking his finger in the eye of the European Union. The more obnoxious he is the better, as the more quickly he succeeds in alienating every country in the world that supports Israel, the sooner the conflict will be brought to an end. Perhaps if the ICC Prosecutor now accepts Palestine's accession to the Rome Statute, Israel will begin to read the handwriting in plain view on the wall. The ICC is not subject to the veto of the US as is the UNSC.

- roidubouloi

December 14, 2012 at 2:20pm

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

From the piece linked by malahat: "The flaw in Wieseltier’s pointed and earnest take on the contemporary standoff, thus, is that it is contemporary, that it is short-sighted. In electing to attach all of his dreams and inspirations to the likelihood of Benjamin Netanyahu sitting down at a negotiating table and doing a damn thing to aid the coming of the two-state solution, he is doomed to inhabit a condition of hopelessness." Amen to that. ______________________ Also from the piece linked by malahat: "I stressed that we can only understand the present real estate dispute when we comprehend the land as having been twice-promised, two peoples having two strong claims to the same stretch of terrain." This is absolutely true, but the author fails to take note that the over-lapping claims were settled in 1947 by the UN partition plan and the general acquiescence in the 1949 armistice lines as de facto borders. There are no longer colorabl over-lapping claims to the same stretch of terrain, except in Jerusalem which was granted to neither party in the partition plan. It is a tremendous irony that for decades Israel rightly accused the Arabs of making or urging aggressive war for failing to accept the UN partition. Now the Arabs do accept it by publicly and repeatedly recognizing Israel and its legitimacy west of the Green Line. But Israel, the very party that urged the partition over the profound objections of the Arabs, now refuses to accept it, making claims east of the Green Line that no longer have any basis. The historical claims are gone, liquidated, settled. Israel's claims east of the Green Line cannot be supported as "spoils of war" because the same UN that, acting as successor to the League of Nations mandate in Palestine, partitioned Palestine and created the State of Israel, has said no, unequivocally, unambiguously, in UNSC resolution 446 among others. Sadly, it is now Israel that refuses to accept the writ of the UN, walking in the footsteps of the rejectionist Arabs and making the same error. “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.” Karl Marx.

- roidubouloi

December 14, 2012 at 2:37pm

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

Since the Partitioning Plan which roi seems to have fixated upon, as if it is the only date and document that have any legal validity and sanctity, a lot has happened, including a few wars and a few ceasefires and a few rounds of negotiations, and a few understandings, and two peace agreements. In the Perspectiva article, the author mentions that :רוס, השליח של הממשל האמריקאי למזה"ת בימיו של ביל קלינטון והמתווך הראשי בין הישראלים לפלסטינים בפסגת קמפ-דייויד בשנת 2000, מסביר: שעה ששום מפה לא הוצגה בסבבים הסופיים בקמפ-דייויד, מפה זו משרטטת את הפרמטרים של הצעתו של קלינטון, אותן דחה ערפאת: שליטה פלסטינית על 91% מהגדה המערבית ברצף טריטוריאלי, ונוכחות ביטחונית ישראלית ב-15% מהגבול עם ירדן... למרבה הפליאה (של הפרשנים), מפה זו מכלילה את כל גוש אדומים בשטח ישראל, כולל שטח E1, ובכל זאת היא מגדירה את המדינה הפלסטינית העתידית כבעלת רצף טריטוריאלי. למה זה היה בסדר אז, והיום לפתע מדובר במכת מוות לפתרון שתי המדינות? _____________ (hasty translation) Ross, Clinton's envoy to the Middle East, and the main negotiator between Israelis and Palestinians in Camp David 2000 Summit, explains that while no map was presented during the final talks in CD, this map is drawn according to the parameters set by Clinton's proposal, that Arafat rejected: Palestinian domination over 91% of the WB in territorial contiguity, Israeli military presence along 15% of the border with Jordan ... Remarkably enough, this map included Adumim block within Israel proper, including E1, and still it defines the future Palestinian state as territorially viable. Why was it all right then, and now it is suddenly the death knoll to the two state solution? ________________ If anything, this history proves that , unlike roi's preferred narrative of Israel's self delusion etc, it appears that President Clinton himself not only supported Israel's position but even drew his famous proposal in accordance with the reality of the large settlement blocks to remain under Israel's jurisdiction.

- Noga

December 14, 2012 at 3:23pm

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

To remove any ambiguity, here is the quote cited in the article from Ross's book: ... while no map was presented during the final talks in CD, this map is drawn according to the parameters set by Clinton's proposal, that Arafat rejected: Palestinian domination over 91% of the WB in territorial contiguity, Israeli military presence along 15% of the border with Jordan ...

- Noga

December 14, 2012 at 3:26pm

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

Most sane countries don't make foreign policy decisions based on ideology or even on religious dogma but on raisin d'etat. J This has been true since France since Richelieu in the 17th C opened up diplomatic relations with Turkey. Hence I was not surprised by the news story Basman linked to. It's ironic that Turkey a beneficiary of the policy of Raison d' Etat has decide to regress to a foreign policy based on ideology vis a vis Israel. I expect tat it will suffer the consequences if it doesn't change course.

- arnon1

December 14, 2012 at 3:27pm

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

Yes, a great deal has happened since the original partition, including multiple UNSC resolutions telling Israel that it may not build in occupied territory and may not unilaterally change their legal status and that any attempt to do so is null and void. Israel, in the hubris of its religious nuts and über-nationalists chose flagrantly to ignore the UNSC. Now Israel wants to hold the Palestinians hostage until they agree to relieve Israel of the consequences of this enormous strategic error. The Palestinians have in fact indicated a willingness to bargain for border changes that would allow some settlements to remain in Israel, if that is their right to their land is acknowledged. This is called "mutual bargain for exchange" in which each side gets something it wants in exchange for giving the other something it wants. Israel refuses to bargain. It will not offer the Palestinians land of comparable value proximate to Jerusalem and other important towns in the West Bank. It will not offer the Palestinians recognition of their right of return in some meaningful numbers. It will not consider accepting Palestinian sovereignty over settlements. What Israel demands rather is that its theft of Palestinian land be legitimized in exchange for nothing other than some scraps of desert and the statehood and freedom from occupation that the Palestinians are entitled to in any case so long as they are not a threat to Israel. In other words, Israel is engaged in extortion and is incensed that its extortionate demands -- so-called "realism" in the minds of Israelis -- are not accepted. Bill Clinton is not god. He is not the UN. He was the president of a country that Israel claims as its closest ally. As such, he was hardly a neutral mediator while in search of his Nobel Peace Prize at Camp David. Nor does not speak for the Palestinians. At Camp David, the Israeli negotiators made a deal with Clinton. They do not seem even to have considered how to make a deal with Palestine. This despite the fact that Israel never shuts up about how the settlement must be reached between the parties. If Israel were willing to bargain rather than extort, that might actually happen. But Netanyahu has no interest in a deal, ever. He has forever been opposed to two states. Although he has been forced by the US and the world to mouth the words, he will continue to do whatever is necessary to prevent a solution, exactly as he sought deliberately to destroy Oslo and did. Let us at least recognize Israeli professions to peace for the farce they are under the Likud and Netanyahu. We are not obliged all to be willfully stupid to satisfy Israeli propagandists.

- roidubouloi

December 14, 2012 at 10:52pm

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

God, Roid is an obsessed racist. Many countries since the fourth Geneva convention have committed genocide and other horrendous crimes yet the racist Roid doesn't care about what happened to Chechnya's, or to Africans, or to Algerians. Roid's racisism and antisemitism is on display in almost every one of his posts.

- arnon1

December 14, 2012 at 11:56pm

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

roid is Obsessed? Oh yeah, major league obsessed, enraged that Likud exists. A hyper-partisan obsession that is triggered by politics.

- K2K

December 15, 2012 at 7:18am

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

TNR is blessed to count among its readership such deep thinkers as these.

- roidubouloi

December 15, 2012 at 8:25am

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

Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum.

- roidubouloi

December 15, 2012 at 8:26am

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

"Oh yeah, major league obsessed, enraged that Likud exists." I too don't much care for the Likud, but I am not obsessed with it.

- arnon1

December 15, 2012 at 11:06am

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

The obsessed racist Roido has given his typical answer.

- arnon1

December 15, 2012 at 11:06am

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

roi keeps referring to Barak's disingenuous offer to the Palestinians, to Israel's dishonesty in dealing with the Palestinians since 1947 and concludes by demonizing Netanyahu and the Likud, as if they are to blame for the whole conflict. Barak was PM for the Labour. Ben Gurion was Labour. Begin, of Likud, was the first PM to sign a peace agreement. Olmert, who goes before J-street conferences and denounces Netanyahu, presided over two relatively long wars which were less than conclusive and triggered the Goldstone Report as well as a multitude of international condemnations. The short recent war in Gaza was the first war in which Netanyahu was PM. The windmills of roi's mind defy comprehension. All he can come up by way of solution is to bend to the collective will of the International community, give up any historical claims Jews may have in Jerusalem without a fight, cringe and bow and scrap and deny your own interests, even the possibility of your own future, so that he, roi, can schmooze in comfort with his antiZionist friends. Don't forget his declaration in this thread, that Israel's intransigence puts HIM, roi, to shame, as a Jew.

- Noga

December 15, 2012 at 2:03pm

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

what defies comprehension is that any literate human still believes Israel is intransigent in wanting peace. However, there IS enormous peer pressure to spout that the problem is Bibi, Likud, 'settlements' in some neighborhoods of NYC. Meshal's missilepalooza sent a tremor that might shift that (and Syria is far more compelling), assuming any of these people can read a real map, one that includes topography.

- K2K

December 15, 2012 at 10:11pm

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close