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 Why Not Hamas?

POLITICS MARCH 26, 2010

Why Not Hamas?

BY EFRAIM HALEVY

The current crisis in the Obama-Netanyahu relationship should propel both leaders to reassess their basic policies toward Palestine. They must redefine their targets, to think realistically but also creatively.

Ending the conflict between Israel and Palestine is not an attainable goal. What is attainable is a clear and dramatic decrease in tension in the conflict—a goal that would, indeed, serve the necessities of American foreign policy on Iran, Afghanistan, and Yemen. Now is the moment to go back to the drawing board and to examine every option in search of a practical policy.

 

For all their recent disagreements, Israel and the United States share a common view of the Palestinians. They have jointly affirmed their resolve to coax the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority (PA) to the negotiating table, while ignoring Hamas. This is a policy that has now lasted close to four years—with, by and large, the support of the international community. Hamas, it is commonly agreed, will only make an acceptable partner for negotiation if it undergoes an ideological transformation, a transformation that is very unlikely to ever occur.

But now might be the right time to reconsider this policy, especially in light of the recent behavior of the PA. To take one recent example: When the Israeli cabinet recently designated two sites in Hebron and Bethlehem to be preserved as national heritage landmarks, the PA joined Hamas in issuing inflammatory statements exhorting the populace to demonstrate against the Jewish appropriation of Muslim holy sites. Stone throwing and violence quickly ensued. Abu Mazen, the self-styled moderate president of the PA, provocatively warned of an impending religious war. Only a stern warning sent by Israeli security authorities brought the “moderate” Palestinian leadership to its senses. And even then, it was only the Israelis who were capable of becalming Jerusalem and the West Bank, with sustained and daily operations in Palestinian-controlled areas. In a time of crisis, the shortcomings of the ruling Palestinians were exposed.

It can be difficult these days to distinguish the PA from its Hamas rivals in the West Bank. The festive inauguration of the Hurva Synagogue in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem’s Old City brought nearly identical statements from the two groups. Just like the Hamas leader Khaled Meshal, key members of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and aides to Abu Mazen argued that the reconstruction of this synagogue posed a serious threat to the Al Aqsa mosque. It all raises the question: If the Palestinians in the West Bank won’t make for good partners, then what?

 

Gaza hardly seems a more promising place to answer this question, at least at first blush. Every time a rocket is launched from the Strip, Israel holds Hamas responsible for the acts and justifiably retaliates. But Israel has also imposed an ironclad siege on Gaza—and, in so doing, it fails to acknowledge that Hamas also has a legal responsibility for the well-being of the ever-increasing population there.

What can change this state of affairs? The rump Palestinian Authority in Ramallah will never be able to restore its authority there. There’s no sign that the population of Gaza intends to rebel against the Hamas regime. And nobody on the outside—not Israel, not the international community—has a coherent policy that will redress this situation. Thus, the people of Gaza are condemned to endure the present state of affairs indefinitely.

Under the current circumstances—with the destructive gamesmanship of the Palestinian Authority and the stagnation in Gaza—the time has surely come to explore a new relationship with Hamas. Attempts to penalize the group with exclusion have failed; perhaps, the time has come for a strategy that co-opts Hamas.

For starters, let’s consider the prospect of a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority that excludes Hamas. This would be a fool’s errand. Hamas has a proven ability to play the role of spoiler, to exploit such a situation for its own political ends at the expense of peace. But we don’t even need to progress that far in our thought experiment. Right now, the decaying Palestinian administration in Ramallah doesn’t have the credibility to survive the rigors of negotiations, let alone the implementation of an agreement. Abu Mazen can only speak in the name of the West Bank, and recent events have shown that his mandate there is (at best) fragile.

Israel’s current Palestinian strategy is not a winning one. That’s because it has confined itself to playing a game with rules that place it at an inherent disadvantage. It must scramble these rules to have a chance. Bringing Hamas to the table would do just that.

Hamas has demonstrated a will and a capacity to think and act pragmatically when it believes it useful or necessary. There’s no better example of this than its governance of Gaza. Yes, it continues to play the role of peace-process spoiler when that role suits its interests. But Hamas has also demonstrated a serious capacity to exercise responsibility and restraint when that role suits its purposes. It has demonstrated its ability to control Gaza effectively, to both enforce a long-term cessation of hostilities and to withstand the combined efforts of the United States, Israel, and Egypt to bring it to its knees.

Before President Obama and Premier Netanyahu proceed to negotiate with their dispirited Palestinian interlocutors, why not reconsider the options? Bringing Hamas to the table could relieve pressure on the Palestinians—who would no longer need to worry about the Islamists attacking their credibility. It might create space for a less ideological approach to peacemaking, and it might allow for the negotiation of a more achievable agreement with Israel. Why not hammer out a temporary arrangement between the three sides that would, say, extend for 25 years with a clause for renewal? Such an agreement would make for a practical second-best outcome--a durable interim understanding.

Current policy, after all, sends Hamas the signal that it is doomed to exclusion come what may and forever. But the more that Hamas is permitted inside the tent, the better the prospects of a modest (yet historic) success. Of course, there will be those who say this is impossible. They will say Hamas is inhuman, and why would the Iranians ever allow this? The answer is that Fatah hardly behaves much better than Hamas. Besides, Fatah has limited ability to deliver any sort of peace without the consent of Hamas. As far as the Iranians go, once you start talking with Hamas, you soon discover how much they hate the guts of those renegade Shiites in Tehran. I could be wrong about all of this. But given the unworkable alternatives, surely this is worth putting to the test.

Efraim Halevy is head of the Center for Strategic and Policy Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He served as head of the Mossad from 1998 to 2002, and he was national security adviser to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2002-2003. He is the author of Man in the Shadows: Inside the Middle East Crisis with a Man who Led the Mossad.

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

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 101 comments

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

101 comments

Something wrong here. Page 1 comes up twice. Israel should announce a broad change in policy toward Gaza: That it will do nothing to impair normal life there, including ending much of its embargo, but will continue to do whatever is necessary to ensure its own freedom from attack, including the interdiction of arms and the prevention of direct commerce that is not controlled by Israel. It should explicitly declare that it demands no commitments whatsoever from Hamas, rhetorical or otherwise, but that any violence or preparations for violence will be met as Israel deems necessary for its own protection. Violence will not be tolerated. It can also declare that it welcomes the time when there is no threat of violence emanating from Gaza so it can reduce or eliminate security measures. And that's it. As long as the Gazans respect the "no violence" redline, they should be allowed to live their lives and establish their politics as they see fit. If they want to continue their rhetorical war with Israel, they can do so, but of course that will necessarily prolong Israel's control over their external commerce. The minimum necessary for security, but whatever is necessary for security. That should be the goal so that Israel can justly claim that it is not in the business of overseeing the lives of Palestinians, only of making sure that it is not itself subjected to threat or attack.

- roidubouloi

March 26, 2010 at 12:31am

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

You seem to condemn the PA because it does not issue celebratory statements in response to ever more assertions of Israeli permanent control of East Jerusalem and the West Bank (or at least choice bits thereof). You also blame the PA for not having the command and control capability of a mature state. The PA was intended to be a short-term negotiating platform for the Palestinians to last five years. It was never intended to be a de facto Palestinian government for decades. There is one and only one solution to this problem, an Israeli decision to fully evacuate the West Bank and Gaza and accept a fully sovereign Palestinian state on that land. The reason why this peace process is taking decades is that Israel has up till now refused to take that decision. It took the first 10 years for the Israeli center to even accept the concept of a two-state solution (the phrase "Palestinian state" was still anathema to even Labor leaders in the 1990's), and the Israeli version of a Palestinian state remains a moth-eaten sham. Makes no difference, in the end the Israelis will do what the British did in India, they will simply leave, because they have no other option. Well, except for granting the Palestinians full and equal citizenship. However, that notion appears to scare Israelis for some reason.

- nayyer_ali

March 26, 2010 at 12:36am

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

As before, I agree with nayyer_ali in part and also disagree. It is not the case that Israeli refusal to withdraw is the only or even the chief reason there is no peace. Immediately following the Six-Day War, Israel offered complete withdrawal in exchange for peace. The Arab response: "The Arab League summit held in the aftermath of the massive Israeli victory in the Six-Day War established the Khartoum Resolution in September 1, 1967 with the "three No's" that was to be the center of all Israeli-Arab relations after that point: No peace deals, no diplomatic recognitions, and no negotiations. UN Security Council Resolution 242, which called for normalization of Israel with the Arab states and for Israel to give up territories taken during the war, was enacted on November 22, 1967 and faced initial rejection by most of the Arab world." Long before Palestinians accepted the reality of Israel and agreed to negotiate, they first conducted a long campaign of terrorism that has yet to end. While I do not accept the Israeli narrative that Israeli policies are no obstacle to peace, it is certainly not the case that they are the only or even the principal obstacles to peace. The principal obstacle remains the unwillingness of Palestinians to abjure violence in pursuit of their political goals. There is no principal that permits such violence except in self-defense, and if Palestinians, and Arab neighbors, would desist from violence, no one would be seeking to perpetrate violence against them. They would substantially achieve their political goals in relatively short order.

- roidubouloi

March 26, 2010 at 1:05am

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

roidubouloi -- I'm picturing (with a grin) the reaction in Ramallah, and the Oval Office, and elsewhere, if Netanyahu announced tomorrow the decision to begin implementing that policy in 2 weeks. Abbas and his boys would freak out and demand peace talks without preconditions, Washington wouldn't dare continue sneering, and the Damascus Hamas crew would be left scrambling for a way to refuse this opening without really pissing off the Gazans. Israel needs to change how the game is being played, and putting down a whole new game-board would be a take charge move.

- pw01ws

March 26, 2010 at 1:58am

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

"Israel needs to change how the game is being played, and putting down a whole new game-board would be a take charge move." Absolutely pw. As someone who wants Israel to flourish, what drives my nuts more than anything else is the passivity of Israel's policies - waiting for the Palestinians to have a come to Moses moment as long as Israelis can persuade themselves that the fault lies with the Palestinians. I don't really care whether blame can be pinned on the Palestinians (something that the world at large increasingly rejects). Israel needs peace too. And when one is tactically passive, events have a way of getting out of control, as is happening. More than anything else, I want Israel to take charge of its own destiny. That does not assure its success, as life is always full of contingencies. But at least with an affirmative strategy that seeks to command events, there are fewer nasty surprises and many more opportunities to see things to a successful conclusion or avoid the worst. "putting down a whole new game-board" expresses it perfectly.

- roidubouloi

March 26, 2010 at 7:51am

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

In the context of the change in policy toward Gaza and a building freeze in the occupied territories, I would also publicly reject indirect talks as unnecessary and pointless, declaring a willingness at any time to engage in substantive discussions on all matters of concern to either side without preconditions of any kind (including the demand that the Palestinians declare their acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state). Israel should also declare a policy to do everything within its power to advance economic and civil life in the territories and to minimize the impact of its necessary security measures, and then do its best to achieve both whether the Palestinians talk or not and whether they incite or not. Whatever is necessary for security, the minimum necessary for security. Whatever can be done to advance normal life within that framework.

- roidubouloi

March 26, 2010 at 8:18am

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

One last thing: Israel should also declare that it is its own policy to achieve a functioning, independent Palestinian state that can maintain peace and security as fast as events will permit.

- roidubouloi

March 26, 2010 at 8:19am

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

To see page 2, just change the number in the url. http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/why-not-hamas?page=0,2

- perseus353

March 26, 2010 at 9:20am

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

This discussion belongs in Hebrew in Israel. It does not belong in English abroad. One suspect Halevy moves the discussion here because he has failed to conince the Israeli polity and wishes, like J-Street, to circumvent that failure by using foreigners to over-ride Israeli democracy.

- TNR.Reader

March 26, 2010 at 11:17am

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

so, change the gameboard to maybe solve Gaza? why not. nothing that Obama or the Arab League or Fatah is doing has a chance with today's (and I do mean today at this moment) chess game. of course, seems a bit tricky to get Hamas into a room with Israelis, who do not exist in the minds of Hamas. negotiations via virtual reality computer simulation? roidubouloi should expand his imagination by studying a lot more history. recommend British Empire tactics of dividing and fragmenting local populations. there is no way the Palestinians can achieve statehood, no matter who tries to manage the process with the current "leaders".

- K2K

March 26, 2010 at 11:20am

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

Perhaps you should study a lot more history K2K -- no, I take that back -- you should study even a little bit of history and take note of what has become of the British Empire. See it anywhere? Not only is it gone, but it left in its wake many of the most vexing problems of our era. The tactics of the British Empire are not something to be emulated, but something to be avoided. They were a failure. But then, K2K, those who know nothing of history are doomed to repeat it. * * * As or more important, whether the Palestinians can found a state is not entirely a matter within Israeli hands. And I do not assume that one will come into being. The point is not that Israel can simply make that happen by its own actions. The larger and more urgent issue is that, it it doesn't happen, Israel needs to be able to sustain its position indefinitely. The current position is unsustainable. This is what comes from emulating the failures of the British Empire -- or, K2K, being unable to think more than one move ahead on the chessboard.

- roidubouloi

March 26, 2010 at 11:47am

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

You are so right, TNR.reader. No one outside of Israel is capable of thinking about these things or taking note of the realities unless instructed by an Israeli such as Halevy. And if Israelis will therefore confine their discussions to Hebrew, so that no one else in the world notices what is occurring in the Middle East, why, it will be as if the rest of the world doesn't exist. But, I have a much simpler method for you: Just close your eyes and put your hands over your ears. Poof!, the world will be gone and there will no longer be any need to worry that outside forces may put an end to Israel's colonial adventures. By the way, got any opinion about the propriety of AIPAC meddling in American domestic affairs by lobbying our legislature on behalf of a foreign state? Would that constitute trying to over-ride our democracy?

- roidubouloi

March 26, 2010 at 11:53am

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

RoiDesTravelosDuBoisDeBoulogne, you're an anti-Semite & TNR should eject you.

- TNR.Reader

March 26, 2010 at 12:02pm

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

Israel needs to be able to sustain its position indefinitely. The current position is unsustainable. Nonsense. The Jews have sustained far worse. Specifically, Israel has done so quite well for the past 60 years - including its first two decades with the USA mostly in oposition (arms embargo, etc.). And the Israeli economy is (relatively) flourishing - including 4% growth even concurrent with the recent Lebanon War.

- TNR.Reader

March 26, 2010 at 12:20pm

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

TNR.Reader: I'm an anti-Semite because I happen to notice that you manage to be a blithering idiot while being Jewish at the same time? Then, by gosh, I'm an anti-Semite. I'm turning in my tallis today. You are a death-wish Jew, tnr.reader, one of those consummate fools who imagines that Israel does or can exist in perfect isolation from a world turned implacably hostile and therefore is happy to invite that hostility. That doesn't even rise to the level of stupidity. It can only be explained by the yearning to stand and die at Masada. How much of the Israeli economy can exist independent of world trade? Not much. How much of its arms industry could exist independent of world trade? None. Why not just get yourself a suicide belt today, save time, and avoid trouble for the rest of Israel. That way you can leave the planet without taking any other Jews with you as you clearly hope to do.

- roidubouloi

March 26, 2010 at 12:41pm

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

Roidubouloi should be ejected from TNR.com for being a mean, name-calling bully. which I think is now against the law in Massachusetts, so I suppose I could file charges. not worth another keystroke.

- K2K

March 26, 2010 at 2:05pm

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

I'm an anti-Semite because I happen to notice No, RoiDesTravelosDuBoisDeBoulogne, you're an anti-Semite becaus you propagate the dual-loyaty and evil-foreign-agent-AIPAC lies. You're doubly anti-Semitic in wishing to deny to Israel its democratic right to determine its own polices. You're trebly anti-Semitic in appearing to support neo-imperialist foreign intervention in Israel's internal politics.

- TNR.Reader

March 26, 2010 at 2:55pm

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

As or more important, whether the Palestinians can found a state is not entirely a matter within Israeli hands. Correct, but there is a further complication. Israel's choice is not between holding territory and ceding it to a peaceful Palestinian state. Israel's choice is between holding territory and ceding it to a hostile entity which would make it a launch pad to rain Iranian missiles and other forms of destruction on Israel's heartland. Kadimah was elected on an ambiguous platform which contemplated unilateral withdrawal. But then Hizbullah sprung the trap too soon, raining missiles on the North - and reminding Israelis that (in the words of an Israeli analyst) "missiles dwarf a fence." It was at that point that Kadimah and most of Israel decided wisely not to move forward with withdrawal from the West Bank. It was Nasrallah, not Israel, who deprived the Palestinians of a state. The world's obsession with the Jerusalem matter and the settlements is just a gullible swallowing of the Palestinian diversion.

- TNR.Reader

March 26, 2010 at 3:33pm

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

Well, all the points made above seem to me so have some validity except the bitterness between TNR Reader and roidubloi, which is unfortunate. It's ok to have different opinions without us calling each other names, this we need like a hole in the head. But, I think there's a de facto difference between Hamas in Gaza and Hamas in Syria. Maybe it's possible to tallk to them (in Gaza). In Syria, maybe not. They are really hardliners whereas in Gaza, the needs of the people are paramount and pressing. So I think the leaders there are more practical. In fact, maybe it's unavoidable to engage Hamas and see if there's some common ground underneath all the rhetoric. Hmmmm. So maybe there have been worse ideas. You know further to this - Westerners seem horrified at the idea of "hudnas" because we are used to "peace treaties" and want to solve problems at one fell swoop. But if honorably respected there are worse ideas than hudnas (for example chasing the chimera of peace without reconciliation.) Several years of calm allow for healing. People say the hudnas are used only to rearm but years without losses and grief also provide space for living and for learning. That in itself would be a big help. Also, I would include the Egyptians because I don't think, long run, Gaza is sustainable as is. The population is growing vis a vis the space available and the infrastructure is a mess. Can something be done to improve conditions for the people in Gaza (assuming nonviolence of course) and also maybe make more room for them? The economic situation there is part of the problem I think. It sure isn't helping matters.

- Sophia

March 26, 2010 at 4:57pm

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

Sophia: Can something be done to improve conditions for the people in Gaza (assuming nonviolence of course) and also maybe make more room for them? Good question. Long ago the Gazans should have been absorbed into Egypt, just as Palestinian refugees in Lebanon and Jordan should have been absorbed there. And the Jordanian option might still be a better option for a stable, peaceful West Bank than the PA option. But the Egyptian and (for the West Bank) Jordanian options are blocked not by Israel but by the Palestinians' Arab brethren who: - prefer the Palestinians miserable, the better to gin up hatred against Israel - don't want the Palestinians in their countries, due to ethnic discrimination and due to the Palestinian penchant for violence and de-stabilisation RoiDesTravelosDuBoisDeBoulogne: You are a death-wish Jew, tnr.reader A fourth instance of Roi's anti-Semtism; Roi assumes me Jewish simply because I find objectionable foreign interference in Israeli democracy.

- TNR.Reader

March 26, 2010 at 6:57pm

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

Obviously the writer of this screed is incredibly naive, and judging from his name, a self-hating Jew, probably more interested in having congenial cocktail conversation with his lefty French university friends than what's good for the Jews and for Israel. Not. Israel has poked its finger in the eye of its closest friend--America--as well as its less strident non-enemies in the Middle East--Turkey and Jordan. While this may play domestically and politically in Israel, it just looks so petty. Israel just pushes itself further out on a quaking limb. Meanwhile, Isreal is trying to build international support to do something real about Iran. Beyond its shabby intent to humiliate, its strategy is so clearly counterproductive to that goal. General Petraeus words a few weeks ago, however reframed or walked back, were a clarion call of sorts to a wide swath of Americans. They are rapidly forcing people to consider America's real interest in the region, even among many of us who share an undying commitment to the security of Israel, which I know Obama wholeheartedly shares. If Bibi wants to pal around with Republicans and "friends of Israel, like the Fox and Palin crowd, to get around Obama, he should know that these folks mostly care nothing about what is really good for the Jews. Au contraire. The writer, with his no doubt profound and serious understanding of the myriad of theats hanging over Israel's head, points to the creativity and courage that will be required to find a way for a reasonable settlement with the Palestinians. He knows that a settlement must happen. As Obama just illustrated with his passage of one of the great pieces of legislation of our generation, whether you agree or not, compromise even barely palatable dealmaking is an essential ingredient of successful leadership. Bibi will rise to the ocassion or not. But eventually there will be more than a semblence of peace between Israel and Palestinians. It is inevitable. It is the only ultimate security for Israel, the only way that the Palestinians can live with dignity, and takes a big dollop of heat off the US. Why not do it now?

- bufatutu

March 26, 2010 at 7:33pm

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

The "ironclad siege" did little to stop the flow of rockets and other weapons of war into Gaza, a point that should be clear to a former head of Mossad. The usual savior of peace in these post-Oslo-peace process days is somebody like the Holocaust denier Mahmoud Abbas or the man-without-a-constituency Salam Fayad. To look to the institution that threatened to murder Arafat if he signed the Oslo accords and that unnerves the Egyptians to be that savior is truly out-of-the-box thinking. In fact, it is outright lunacy. What is it about aging Israeli political figures like Shimon Peres or Ariel Sharon or the author of this thesis that they manifest serious symptoms of early-onset Alzheimer's disease --- the water, the air pollution, what? ! ? !

- jimprice

March 26, 2010 at 8:02pm

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

The "ironclad siege" did little to stop the flow of rockets and other weapons of war into Gaza, a point that should be clear to a former head of Mossad. What nonsense! In real life, the control experiment does not exist. In other words, in the absence of the "siege," Israel might have had not 8,000 Qassams but 8,000 Katyushas (or worse) inflicted upon the South.

- TNR.Reader

March 26, 2010 at 10:37pm

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

I believe there is a majority of Israelis who think like Halevi. I found this article quite persuasive, because it attacks the issue from a very different angle: ". The people who led Abbas to consider resigning and who refuse to talk to Hamas will find themselves in five years with a partner who reports to Osama bin Laden. Nothing is possible without Gilad Shalit. People may say that the fate of a country cannot be dependent on what happens to one abducted soldier. There is no greater mistake. The abandonment of Shalit is symptomatic of Zionism's failure, the elevation of pride over wisdom and tactics over strategy. It's the denial of the sanctity of life and redeeming prisoners, values that are at the heart and soul of the nation. Precisely here, the soft underbelly of public opinion, it would be possible to makes progress on the delicate matter of contacts with Hamas. More than 7,000 Palestinians are being held prisoner in Israel. There is one Israeli prisoner in Palestine. The suffering of both sides, and with it the tremendous joy that a prisoner exchange would produce, can and should be the lever for a stepped-up conciliation process. For years Israel and its citizens have been paying the price of choosing solutions that were appropriate for the last war. Hiding our head in the sand at such a critical stage is dangerous. We have to declare our readiness to speak with the Palestinian opposition, immediately." http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1155112.html I think past experience has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that whenever Palestinians arrive at the fork in their road, they will invariably choose the more radical and rejectionist way. Apparently it is impossible to teach them the value of compromise and self-restraint by punishing them or increasing the pressure. The greater their actual defeat is, the greater their resistance to common sense becomes, for many reasons, some of which are not always of their own doing. The inflammatory support from the likes of George Galloway, for example, intensifies an illusion that it is merely a matter of moments before they can have what their leaders tell them they want. If that is correct, and defeating the Palestinians serves to only reinforce their intransigence and radicalism, perhaps someone ought to think in terms of reverse engineering. That is, discovering through analysis of structure, function and operation what may be a new device or program that achieves the same objective without utilizing any part of the original mechanism. I agree with the author in my link that for Israel the problem is exemplified in the fate of that young man, Gilad Shalit. He has to be restored to his family. BTW, I always ask one person in Israel about how he feels about these things. And I do so because I have noticed that his position generally reflects the general mood and thinking in Israeli society. Maybe because he is one very typical Israeli, who knows what it means to live as dhimmi in a Muslim country, someone who has lived through Israel's wars, participated in some, and who has one grandchild serving as a soldier, with four younger ones whose time to join will come sooner rather than later. He tells me that Israel should be speaking to Hamas.

- noga1

March 27, 2010 at 9:29am

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

tnr.reader, You are either loonier or stupider than the run-of-the-mill right-wing nut. Probably both. Let me get this right. You find name-calling objectionable? Well, read up this thread you perfect asshole and you will find that the first instance of anyone applying a name or epithet to anyone else is you calling me an anti-Semite, one of the single funniest things I have ever heard. You are just like the rest of your right-wing brethren who live in an echo-chamber where your conversation consists of epithets directed at everyone who is not of your idiotic persuasion, to the point where you don't even realize any longer that you do this constantly. Until that is someone shoves it back in your drooling, slack-jawed faced. Then, all of a sudden, you are terribly concerned about good manners. I would call you a hypocrite, but even hypocrisy demands a level of intelligence that far exceeds yours. In your case, hypocrisy would be something to aspire to.

- roidubouloi

March 27, 2010 at 11:29am

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

Talking to Hamas may or may not be possible, even if Israel concludes that it is in its interest to do so. But the observation that defeat does not reduce Arab intransigence is certainly correct. This is in part because the defeat is the loss of only a battle, not the war, even though we refer rhetorically to war. The Arab nation is simply to vast for Israel to defeat. And, because war is not in fact a board game, there is no rule that compels a combatant to surrender even if it has lost every battle. In this, Israel is in a strategic position that is analogous in some ways to the British fighting the American revolutionaries or the Americans fighting the Vietnamese. The territory and population with which Israel is engaged is simply too vast to subdue. Therefore, the enemy cannot be forced to accept defeat and can continue to give battle, no matter how many battles it loses. One can be frustrated that the enemy refuses to accept that it is defeated and remains intransigent, but that doesn't alter the situation at all. As well, the Arab nation, while militarily inferior, does have great power, by virtue chiefly of its oil and the dependence of the industrial world on that oil. It is senseless to deny the existence of that power as if the "game" somehow required each side to match only its arms, not its entire military, economic, diplomatic, and propaganda capabilities. If one is faced with an intransigent opponent that gives every sign of being unwilling to surrender and being willing to endure punishment indefinitely in order to wait for a strategic moment in which it can bring to bear its superior power of non-military nature, maintaining the status quo is only an acceptable strategy if the advantage of waiting is on one's own side. For example, during the Cold War, the status quo was to the advantage of the West. It wisely adopted a strategy (devised by liberals over the objection of conservatives who of course demanded battle) of containment, that used its military strength to prevent the Soviet Union from augmenting its resources while slowly outcompeting the Soviet Union economically and diplomatically. The conflict between Israel and the Arabs does not exist in isolation from the rest of the world. Although the power of the rest of the world is mostly on the periphery of the theater of battle, it is there, and if it is brought to bear in a decisive manner, there is no question in my mind at least that it is capable of determining the outcome, Therefore, an Israeli policy of out-waiting the intransigent must have in mind the quiescent by rumbling power of the rest of the world. The settlement policy is a disaster in the making not because the Palestinians or even the Arabs alone have the capability to force Israel from this path or out-wait Israel while it remains on this path. Rather, it is because every indication of policy and history suggests that sooner-or-later, and at this point more likely sooner than later, the quiescent power of the world is going to be brought to bear upon Israel as a direct result of the settlement policy. I would not claim that if Israel limited its control over occupied territories to the minimum necessary for its security and allowed, indeed helped, the Palestinians to enjoy as much freedom and prosperity as possible that there would never come a time when the mere political fact of Israeli occupation would draw the power of the world. But I am certain that the lowest possible profile and control by Israel would reduce the likelihood of external interference at any given point in time, pushing it out sufficiently far in time that it might not weigh currently. Even this might not give Israel enough of an advantage in trying to out-wait the intransigent, but it would certainly tilt the balance further in Israel's direction than they are today, a balance that seems to me already to be precarious for Israel. As or more important, I think the balance of power in a waiting game would be rendered sufficiently uncertain that the Arabs would have the greatest incentive to negotiate rather than wait. That's how the world works. People, if they are smart, choose their least bad alternative and pursue that. They do not negotiate because they want to but because every other alternative is worse, as they evaluate their alternatives. Israelis try to put themselves in the place of the Arabs and think that, in the same place, they would negotiate rather than struggle on this way. But they don't really put themselves in the shoes of the Palestinians as the vanguard of a vastly larger people, only in the shoes of the Palestinians in their own neighborhood as if they were isolated in battle with Israel. If one considers the Arab strategy in its full context, it is an eminently sensible one. One can rail and protest all one wants that if the enemy were only decent it would not continue to seek victory. But so what? The enemy will continue to seek victory so long as it believes it can achieve it at an acceptable cost. That's why it is the enemy. The Arab strategy is not only sensible, it is working, largely with the cooperation of Israeli fecklessness. Israel is becoming increasingly isolated in the world. It is the subject of several rulings by world legal authorities that it is in violation of international law. American public opinion, which has no interest at all in the success of Israel's settlement policy, is slowly being lost. Calling opponents of Israeli policy anti-Semites might provide some slight short-term satisfaction or sense of self-righteousness, but has no discernible impact. Indeed, it is probably counter-productive as the Mearsheimer's and Walt's of the world have discovered the propaganda means of blunting it. It is entirely foreseeable that when the process of isolation of Israel has proceeded far enough, it will then become possible, and from possible likely, that sanctions will be imposed on Israel. If the support for them is broad enough, it will not even matter if they are not adopted by the Security Council which would require American consent. If that day comes to pass, Israel will buckle. At the very least, this would likely lead to the complete withdrawal from all territory east of the Green Line. Whether it could entail anything else is not clear, but some Arab right-of-return is not out of the question. With its settlement policy, Israel is baiting the bear. The safest thing to do is to stop, although it is so far down this road that that is not easy. One way to be seen to be stopping is to lift the siege of Gaza. It is not necessary to talk to Hamas in order to do this, although it would be helpful. Rather, it is only necessary to make clear what Israel will or will not tolerate and be prepared to enforce it. This is talking by gesture. Not necessarily the easiest way to talk, but perfectly acceptable way of communicating if there is no better means available.

- roidubouloi

March 27, 2010 at 12:10pm

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

tnr.reader (does (s)he read it or just look at the pictures?) suggests that merely to notice that AIPAC lobbies on behalf of Israel is to be an anti-Semite. I don't disapprove of AIPAC at all; I cited it merely to demonstrate the stupidity and, dare I say, hypocrisy of Israelis who are suddenly outraged by what they claim is American interference in Israeli domestic affairs and political life because of US pressure over building in Jerusalem. Of course, that is nonsense on its face as the United States is merely asserting its own interests that happen to conflict with those of the current Israeli government. This is what states do. In an odd coincidence, it appears that a Moslem group has within just the past 10 days filed a 392-page brief with the Department of Justice asking that AIPAC be regulated as a registered foreign agent of the State of Israel. I would say the odds are better than 50-50 that this is what the outcome will be. At which point Jewish right-wingnuts, Israeli and American, will no doubt claim that noticing that AIPAC is a registered foreign agent makes one an anti-Semite. The question is, how much right-wing stupidity can Israel, or even the United States, bear in a very dangerous world?

- roidubouloi

March 27, 2010 at 2:44pm

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

Is it in the interests of the United States to trash a vulnerable, yet loyal and valuable, ally and toady to Teheran? Remember, they think that America is the Big Satan. Of course, a Muslim group will file some lawsuit. Lawfare is part of the Islamist strategy. AIPAC has done a solid job of representing American citizens who have a First Amendment right to petition their government. I'm a member of that great organization. See www.aipac.com. Our readers should also consider joining American Jewish Committee (www.ajc.org) and Camera (www.camera.org). Roidubouloi is mistaken if he thinks that appeasement will assuage Arabs and Muslims. How much more is there to appease away? Some apartment blocks? Jewish national independence in the Land of Israel?

- amidut

March 28, 2010 at 9:16am

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

Cut off from my previous post: My main point to "roidubouloi" is that appeasement does not and will not work with Arabs and Muslims.

- amidut

March 28, 2010 at 9:27am

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

My opinion about the likely outcome of the Moslem brief about AIPAC is purely a legal one. I think the likely outcome is that AIPAC will be forced to register as an agent representing a foreign power because it is difficult to deny that it is. The requirement for so registering specifically includes Americans who represent a foreign power. Having so registered, the organization will then continue to do what it has been doing, with some more restrictive provisions. Of maybe it will dissolve, as its predecessor, the American Zionist Council did when required to register, and start over in the hope that it will again take a long time for the law to catch up. Any strategy that depends on a collective denial of obvious reality is not likely to be a very good one. It is more than a little hypocritical for Israelis to complain that the United States is interfering in its domestic political affairs while it openly lobbies the US Congress. We should and will continue to allow AIPAC to lobby and we should and hopefully will continue to press Israel to conduct itself in a manner that serves our interests. Is it in the interests of Israel to say fuck you to an essential ally that has overwhelmingly demonstrated its concern for Israel's security over a period of many years and toady to the haredim? Remember, they think that pretty much anyone who isn't haredi is the Big Satan. I agree that appeasement does not and will not work with Arabs, Moslems, or anyone else. That does not mean, however, that anything that you label appeasement is or that anything subtler than the application of as much repressive force as is available, all the time, to every problem is appeasement. Jonathan Chait wisely said the other day that we must apply "cunningly realistic means" if our not unlimited power is to be effective. That is correct. As with fighting terrorism, just because you yell, "Kill the terrorists," as you jump over a cliff to your death doesn't mean that you are going to kill any. The labeling of a policy or strategic alternative as "socialism," "appeasement," or the favorite disfavored term of the day is more often than not an excuse not to think.

- roidubouloi

March 28, 2010 at 10:45am

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

There are those here who believe that there is a viable military option for preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. I don't see that. I have yet to hear any plausible explanation for why we or Israel should expect to find Iran's uranium enrichment facilities vulnerable to aerial attack, whether the attack is extended or not. As well, the advocates of attacking Iran seem to assume that when we are finished, that's the end of it. Iran just shrugs, says, Oh, well, and has no response. Does that seem likely? Or does it seem as or more likely that Iran will then start pursuing revenge against its attacker and against the United States. What we will have is war. If attacking Iran has a plausible chance of severely damaging its nuclear program, it might be worth it, but the cost will be high and, if we fail to achieve the objective, we will have the worst possible outcome. Given the stakes, it would seem that at least trying everything possible to achieve the imposition severe sanctions that might move Iran is worth trying. To accomplish that, we need the cooperation of the Russians and the Chinese. I have read pretty decent arguments that if the Russians came around, the Chinese would not want to be the sole hold out on the Security Council and would buckle. Maybe yes, maybe no, but we certainly have greater possibilities with the Russians. That is not to say that we have an easy road to travel in getting the Russians to agree. Bush-the-Idiot, and Cheney and Rumsfeld, besotted with their delusions of unlimited American power, spent most of their eight years pissing on the Russians as if they don't matter any longer in world affairs. It would be difficult to overstate the stupidity of this. As a result, Obama has the unenviable task of having to retrieve the relationship with the Russians as the predicate for cooperation on Iran. Where does Israel fit in this mix? For one thing, it ought to be obvious that the United States has absolutely no interest in whether Israel can or cannot build east of the Green Line, including Jerusalem, and no interest in whether a final settlement legitimizes the settlements or grants Israel territory east of the Green Line. It has no reason of its own to oppose these things, but no interest in whether they happen. Isrealis here seem to think that some sense of loyalty to Israel (for its "loyalty" to the US, as if Israel has not been more than well-served by the relationship thus far) should move the US to support Israel's settlement policies and Jerusalem policy and that declining to do so is "toadying" to Iran. What kind of nutty notion is that? The US simply has no interest, none, nada. If supporting Israel in this matter came at zero cost, then no doubt the US would align with Israel. But it in fact comes with a significant diplomatic cost to the US. Israel's settlement policy and its annexation of East Jerusalem and environs are rejected by the entire world. Whether one thinks that is right or just, it is the fact. It is also the broad perception that the US could, by virtue of its relationship with Israel, move Israel to desist. The fact that the US has not done so (even after declaring, for example in the Road Map, that this is its policy) complicates its relations with various powers, including those from which it wants cooperation on Iran. Quite simply, to the extent that US policy is perceived as advancing the interests of Israel, it makes it more difficult for the US to secure the cooperation it needs, because other powers do not want to and do not want to be perceived as advancing the interests of Israel. Again, you can argue that this is not just or right, but I believe it is the case. In this environment, with a truly urgent problem facing us, Iran's nuclear program, it is useful to the United States to put some distance between itself and Israel. Those who think that relations amongst states ought to be a matter of sentiment -- freedom-loving democracy, loyal ally, etc., etc. -- find this hard to swallow. But I think it is how the world works. If the US is perceived as advancing its own interest, first, second, and third, and not beholden to other powers, it is that much more likely that it can gain the cooperation of other powers because it becomes that much clearer that the US is pursuing interests that matter to it. If the US were taking the opportunity to distance itself from Israel by impairing Israel's security, that would be a pretty serious matter. But what is at stake? Whether the children of West Bank settlers get to live next door to abba and eema forever? Whether some haredi Jews get housing in East Jerusalem or, god forbid, live somewhere else? Frankly, given the problem of Iran, the Israeli hysteria over Jerusalem is hard to fathom. Had Israel kept a low profile on its agreement with the US to suspend building in the West Bank but not East Jerusalem, it might have been able to keep its policy out of central focus and continue doing what it was doing without attracting attention. But that is not possible for the hubristic right. They not only need the fruits of the policy, but noisy declaration of it. Stupid beyond stupid. This may be compared with what occurred during the first Gulf War when the US asked Israel to refrain from responding to Iraqi missile attacks in order not to complicate the US problem of holding its coalition together. Israel wisely chose to refrain. I find it simply incredible that anyone in Israel does not believe that stopping Iran is the first, second, third, and fourth most important goal of Israeli policy at this time. If the place were not governed by religious nuts, hysterics, and right-wing bullies, it would be consulting relentlessly with the US about the things Israel can do or refrain from doing to assist and orchestrating its public behavior accordingly. Instead, it is fainting over apartments for haredim. For all that Israelis think that the US response to the Ramat Shlomo announcement is excessive, I think the the Israeli hysteria in response to the US -- including the insults of disloyalty, appeasement, toadying, and the rest, the abuse heaped on the US president -- are nothing short of insane. Israelis have taken leave of their senses, if they ever had them.

- roidubouloi

March 28, 2010 at 11:56am

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

"It is more than a little hypocritical for Israelis to complain that the United States is interfering in its domestic political affairs while it openly lobbies the US Congress." Lobbying done by private citizens for the purpose of persuasion is a very different game from a President making ultimatums to another country's elected PM about internal policies of where building should take place. Bill Clinton was aware of this tiny difference, and was wary of seeming to directly threaten Netanyahu into submission. What he did was send his adviser James Carvile to help Ehud Barak's election campaign. In other words, he used persuasion, not intimidation or coercion. That was not perceived as interfering. Maybe because Israelis know the difference between one kind of means and practices and the other kind of means of practices. Your president comes out looking like a bully in Israelis' eyes. And any concession made by Netanyahu to Obama's threats will be seen as concessions made to a bully, and not a friendly bully. I was rather bemused when I read in one editorial that Obama "was boiling with rage" over 1600 apartments planned for an all- Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem. I remember Larry David's characterization of the man: "He [Obama], with the ice in his veins, who doesn't panic when he's losing or get too giddy when he's winning, who's as comfortable in his own skin as [Hilary]'s uncomfortable in hers." So what was it about this particular fact concerning building in Jerusalem that caused that fabled cool-headedness to disintegrate so?

- noga1

March 28, 2010 at 12:34pm

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

Well. Yet another dozen posts from the Roi. "Obsessive" does not even begin to describe it. Noga, excellent points.

"It is more than a little hypocritical for Israelis to complain that the United States is interfering in its domestic political affairs while it openly lobbies the US Congress."
AIPAC is American, not Israeli. Oh, I forgot, Roi doesn't believe Jews have a right of free speech, whether in the USA or in Israel, unless they are secular Ashkenazi leftists.

- TNR.Reader

March 28, 2010 at 12:46pm

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

just what I have been wondering Noga! Obama FINALLY lost his allegedly eternal cool over 1,600 apartments in Ramat Shlomo??? Of course, the reports about the "boiling with rage" or "livid" may be false. I wonder how the Obama family seder will end? "Next year in Jerusalem, which is NOT a settlement"???? During the election in 2008, I remember being somewhat impressed by Obama as the anti-bully due to general tone and courtesy, not anything specific, but my internal bully-alert was never triggered by anything he said or did, in contrast to the rabid online bullying of his supporters and at least two pledged delegates. Then I started wondering what Obama really cared about, as he kept waffling on so many issues, even his church. What, besides his children, would he be so passionate about that he would die to defend [it]? I concluded, nothing seemed to arouse passion in him. Now we know: apartments for Haredi in Jerusalem. unless this is a manufactured crisis, intended to appease the Muslims.

- K2K

March 28, 2010 at 12:59pm

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

AIPAC more than likely satisfies the definition of an agent of a foreign power under American law. The fact that it consists entirely of Americans is irrelevant. The law applies to Americans who are agents of a foreign power. That does not preclude AIPAC from lobbying. Our law permits that. It does require registration and imposes certain disclosure requirements. That doesn't preclude AIPAC's right to lobby "The act requires people and organizations who are under foreign control ("agents of a foreign principal") to register with the Department of Justice when acting on behalf of foreign interests. This law defines the agent of a foreign principal as someone who: 1. Engages in political activities for or in the interests of a foreign principal; 2. Acts in a public relations capacity for a foreign principal; 3. Solicits or dispenses any thing of value within the United States for a foreign principal; 4. Represents the interests of a foreign principal before any agency or official of the U.S. government." "Samir Vincent, An Iraqi-American businessman who admitted helping Saddam Hussein's government in the oil-for-food scandal was fined $300,000 and sentenced to probation. He was charged, among other counts, with conspiracy to act as an unregistered agent of a foreign government." Notice, Samir Vincent was an American. To pretend that AIPAC does not lobby on behalf of Israel but only on behalf of the interest of American Jews about Israel is pure Talmudic hair-splitting, not likely to persuade anyone who is not wilfully self-deluded. If we are at the point where Israelis to make their case have to try and persuade anyone that AIPAC (generally referred to as the "Israel lobby") is not in fact a lobbyist for Israel, then they are truly desperate. What other delusions do you require? Any strategy that depends on the denial of obvious reality is doomed. Here's an example of wilful self-delusion: It is a very peculiar notion of interference in the domestic political affairs of another state that a nation that openly declares its own interests and pressures another state should be accused of such inteference while sending a political adviser to manage the campaign of an electoral contender is not. This is a complete inversion of reality. But, of course, in the flinging of slime to see what will stick, the standard right-wing propaganda technique, inversions of reality are the norm. Similarly the description of Obama "boiling with rage" over Ramat Shlomo. This is just a smear meant to indicate that Obama is not pursuing any actual policy interest but simply overcome with emotion. Most of us who support him wish there would be a little evidence of more than cool, but it is remote in the extreme that Obama is cool in the face of Republican opposition and wild personal attacks on him but sent into a paroxysm of rage by Ramat Shlomo. It is much more likely that Obama had a good laugh at the ineptitude of Netanyahu giving him just the opening he needed publicly to press the US agenda in opposition to that of Israel. But then, that is the right wing, all slime, all the time. If this piece of slime doesn't stick, try that one. But, be wary. Obama is relentless, and he is cool, and any notion that he is going to be slimed out of pursuing his view of American interests is very misguided. You would be lucky if Netanyahu were half the politician that Obama is.

- roidubouloi

March 28, 2010 at 1:30pm

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

Yes, Israelis are accustomed to interfering in domestic American political affairs and therefore don't think it untoward that Clinton did the same to them. They think this is how the game is supposed to be played. When incenses them is that Obama has declined to play the game according to Israeli rules, and in their fury they will level any preposterous charge at him (they had better hope that Obama is as cool as reputed and doesn't take any of it personally). Thus, we get the absurd disjunction that interfering directly with another nation's internal political affairs is NOT, but openly declaring a state's interest and pursuing it openly IS.

- roidubouloi

March 28, 2010 at 1:35pm

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

noga writes: -- Lobbying done by private citizens for the purpose of persuasion is a very different game from a President making ultimatums to another country's elected PM about internal policies of where building should take place. Every competent legal and political authority recognizes East Jerusalem to be in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. An Israeli decision to build in any part of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem, is consequently not an internal policy but an external policy of Israel to condone war crimes in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Likudnik defence of these war crimes is rather like the rapist claiming rape is not a crime because he thought the sex was good.

- ndmackenzie

March 28, 2010 at 1:59pm

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

"This is just a smear " If you google Obama “incandescent with rage”, you will find that the "smear" was largely advanced by far leftist media outlets, like the "New Statesman" and the "Guardian". So I take you do not buy the report that Obama was genuinely angry over the planned building. What was it, then, an opportunity to beat up on Israel too good to miss? Is this how policy is made in the WH these days? Waiting for countries to trip themselves so that the President can have a plausible excuse to enforce an initiative?

- noga1

March 28, 2010 at 2:00pm

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

"Every competent legal and political authority recognizes East Jerusalem to be in the Occupied Palestinian Territories" I don't know about that. The UN partition of Palestine resolution claims differently: "Resolution 181 also declared Jerusalem to be a corpus separatum - a separate body, to be run under an international UN administration. The area to be run in this way included all of Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Beit Sahour, to encompass the Christian holy sites. A map of the proposed areas is shown here. The status of Jerusalem as a corpus separatum was reiterated in UN General Assembly Resolution 303 of December 9, 1949, even though the UN supervised armistice agreements determined that Jerusalem would remain divided between Jordan and Israel." Hard to deduce from this record how "Every competent legal and political authority recognizes East Jerusalem to be in the Occupied Palestinian Territories". I also do not recall that anyone was paying any special attention to East Jerusalem when it was under Jordanian occupation and when Jordanian builders were building houses and apartments for the Arabs who resided in that part.

- noga1

March 28, 2010 at 2:06pm

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

noga writes: -- So what was it about this particular fact concerning building in Jerusalem that caused that fabled cool-headedness to disintegrate so? This was a direct insult to the American people in the personage of the Vice-President of the United States. I remember after the first Presidential debate liberal commentators bemoaning the fact that Obama missed so many obvious openings to sink the shiv into McCain. After the second debate the complaints were muted as people realised that Obama's refusal to sink the boot in had caused McCain to take up the shiv himself. And by the end of the third debate these commentators realized that Obama won the debates by letting McCain sink the shiv in deep. And Bibi learned nothing from the debates. The Obama Administration is letting out the fishing line allowing Bibi to swagger in front of the parties in his coalition as he remains too stupid to understand he is bringing an end to the status quo. And the supporters of this status quo egg him on - noga with the "internal policy" crap, and Martin Peretz with his carping - and at some point the strike will come.all Just as he did in domestic policy with healthcare reform, I believe Barack Obama will achieve the greatest foreign policy success in decades by finally gaining a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He is courageous enough and smart enough to overcome the dim-witted bullying of the Israelis who have prevented the World from reaching a solution to the conflict. Just as he did with John McCain , Obama is allowing the world to watch as Israel picks up the shiv and sticks it in deep and hard. Peace is coming to the Israel and Palestine. Peace will not come today and it will not come tomorrow. But it will come sooner rather than later.

- ndmackenzie

March 28, 2010 at 2:21pm

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

This was a direct insult to the American people in the personage of the Vice-President of the United States.
1. Biden is not the American people. 2. Only urban gangs and third-world dictators conduct their affairs on the basis of "insult" or "honor" or "respeck". To which category does Obama belong?

- TNR.Reader

March 28, 2010 at 2:42pm

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

Exposing his own stupidity, TNR.Reader complains: -- 1. Biden is not the American people. When travelling abroad in his role as Vice-President of the United States, Vice President Biden represents the American people. That is what heads-of-State do when they travel.

- ndmackenzie

March 28, 2010 at 2:49pm

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

UN Security Council Resolution 476 (1980) 3. Reconfirms that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East; 4. Reiterates that all such measures which have altered the geographic, demographic and historical character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council; 5. Urgently calls on Israel, the occupying Power, to abide by this and previous Security Council resolutions and to desist forthwith from persisting in the policy and measures affecting the character and status of the Holy city of Jerusalem; http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/399/69/IMG/NR039969.pdf?OpenElement

- ndmackenzie

March 28, 2010 at 2:50pm

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

UN Security Council Resolution 478 (198) 1. Censures in the strongest terms the enactment by Israel of the "basic law" on Jerusalem and the refusal to comply with relevant Security Council resolutions; 2. Affirms that the enactment of the "basic law" by Israel constitutes a violation of international law and does not affect the continued application of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since June 1967, including Jerusalem; 3. Determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular the recent "basic law" on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith; 4. Affirms also that this action constitutes a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East; 5. Decides not to recognize the "basic law" and such other actions by Israel that, as a result of this law, seek to alter the character and status of Jerusalem and calls upon: (a) All Member States to accept this decision; (b) Those States that have established diplomatic missions at Jerusalem to withdraw such missions from the Holy City; http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/399/71/IMG/NR039971.pdf?OpenElement

- ndmackenzie

March 28, 2010 at 2:51pm

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

Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention Declaration (2001) 3. Taking into account art. 1 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and bearing in mind the United Nations’ General Assembly Resolution ES-10/7, the participating High Contracting Parties reaffirm the applicability of the Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem and reiterate the need for full respect for the provisions of the said Convention in that Territory. Through the present Declaration, they recall in particular the respective obligations under the Convention of all High Contracting Parties (para 4-7), of the parties to the conflict (para 8-11) and of the State of Israel as the Occupying Power (para 12-15). 12. The participating High Contracting Parties call upon the Occupying Power to fully and effectively respect the Fourth Geneva Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and to refrain from perpetrating any violation of the Convention. They reaffirm the illegality of the settlements in the said territories and of the extension thereof. They recall the need to safeguard and guarantee the rights and access of all in-habitants to the Holy Places. http://www.icrc.ch/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5FLDPJ

- ndmackenzie

March 28, 2010 at 2:52pm

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

International Court of Justice Avisory Opinion (2004) 101. In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable in any occupied territory in the event of an armed conflict arising between two or more High Contracting Parties. Israel and Jordan were parties to that Convention when the 1967 armed conflict broke out. The Court accordingly finds that that Convention is applicable in the Pa.lestinian territories which before the conflict lay to the east of the Green Line and which, during that conflict, were occupied by Israel, there being no need for any enquiry into the precise prior status of those territories. The Council reaffirnned its position in resolutions 452 (1979) of 20 July 1979 and 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980. Indeed, in the latter case itdescribed "Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its populationand new immigrantis in [the occupied] territories" as a "flagrant violation"of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf

- ndmackenzie

March 28, 2010 at 2:58pm

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

Noga simply refuses to accept that Obama is pursuing a policy that he regards as in America's interest. But that is exactly what he was doing. The US was frustrated by Bibi's insistence on maintaining a different policy in East Jerusalem, but Bibi won his point. However, to stupid to leave it alone and eager to trumpet his victory to the right-wing goons with whom he makes his political bed, his government chose the visit of Biden to signal US concurrence with the Israeli position. Except it back-fired. Obama took the occasion to return to his original demand. That's what someone adroit does, take the opportunity as it arises. But, Bibi, like the Palestinians, never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Considering that Israelis are constantly moaning about the "insult" of refusing to accept the Israeli view of the status of Jerusalem -- you can read a lot of that in these pages in the past few days -- which category does Israel belong to, urban gang or Third-World dictator? Those who insist on viewing this whole episode as an expression of personal pique by Obama miss everything that is important about it. That's not surprising. Being on the right requires training oneself, like the Red Queen, "to believe six impossible things before breakfast" every day.

- roidubouloi

March 28, 2010 at 3:01pm

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

And so I could go on hour after hour demonstrating the correctness of my assertion that: -- Every competent legal and political authority recognizes East Jerusalem to be in the Occupied Palestinian Territories The central goal of Zionazism is occupation denial. In lying about the status of East Jerusalem noga is not a Jew defending a Jewish State - noga is an apparatchik supporting Zio-Nazism.

- ndmackenzie

March 28, 2010 at 3:02pm

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

"Noga simply refuses to accept that Obama is pursuing a policy that he regards as in America's interest." But only a dictator can ignore the electorate, and the American Presidency was certainly not intended to be a dicatorship. The polls would seem to indicate a greater proportion of the American public support Israel than suport Obama.

- TNR.Reader

March 28, 2010 at 3:04pm

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

Interesting to see the alignment between Mackenzie and Roid. Birds of a feather ....

- TNR.Reader

March 28, 2010 at 3:06pm

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

You know, TNR.reader, I have never previously agreed with ndmackenzie on anything. Generally, I am the position of excoriating his views. But your stupidity is so inarguable that I am constrained by a commitment to the truth to agree with him. You really are the stupidest poster that I have ever seen on these pages. There are crazier, but none stupider than you. The American system of government is representative republican. It is not a direct democracy. Leaders are elected and then have the authority to govern. If they displease the electorate, they are not re-elected. Whether and to the extent that the actions of leadership lead public opinion or follow public opinion or diverge entirely from public opinion is within their legitimate power and authority to determine. It is not infrequently the case that the actions and positions of leaders taken forcefully end up moving public opinion toward them. An adroit politician, such as Obama, understands this and is constantly searching for the boundary of what he can or cannot expect to accomplish without fatally compromising his public support. A boob like Netanyahu does not and can never do better than constantly attempting to demonstrate his fidelity to right-wing dogma. Which is the way the unbearably stupid, such as you TNR.reader, like it. You have the prime minister you deserve, TNR.reader, a dunce like you. Unfortunately, Israel as a whole doesn't deserve it.

- roidubouloi

March 28, 2010 at 3:17pm

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

Noga: "So I take you do not buy the report that Obama was genuinely angry over the planned building. What was it, then, an opportunity to beat up on Israel too good to miss? Is this how policy is made in the WH these days?" Noga, the whole building matter is a calculated brouhaha with the purpose of forcing Israel to acquiesce to a nuclear Iran (which will in turn encourage Iran's imperialist ventures in the Mideast, from Gaza to Yemen). It has also been suggested Obama is seeking regime change in Jerusalem (and Israeli democracy be damned). See http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=171364

- TNR.Reader

March 28, 2010 at 3:22pm

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

Oh my god! Suddenly, thanks to the incredibly stupid TNR.reader, everything is clear: President Obama wants a nuclear-armed Iran and is using Israel to achieve it. He undoubtedly hopes that Iran, under the protective umbrella of its nuclear capability, will engage in exciting imperialist adventures throughout the Mideast and will slip a nuclear bomb or two to terrorists to smuggle into the US and hold us all here hostage. That little devil, Obama. It is rare to encounter anyone with such penetrating insight as TNR.reader. Kol ha-kavod. Now, maybe someone can explain to him, TNR.reader that is, just why it is that I consider him an idiot, a fanatic, and a nutcase, all rolled into one jolly package.

- roidubouloi

March 28, 2010 at 3:58pm

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

To ndmackenzio- 2:50pm: Nowhere in your quote is there any reference to the reality you asserted when you said: "Every competent legal and political authority recognizes East Jerusalem to be in the Occupied Palestinian Territories"

- noga1

March 28, 2010 at 4:10pm

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

Obviously keen to demonstrate illiteracy noga writes: -- Nowhere in your quote is there any reference to the reality you asserted when you said: -- "Every competent legal and political authority recognizes East Jerusalem to be in the Occupied Palestinian Territories" And this in response to a number of posts where I provided demonstrations of competent legal and political authorities recognizing " East Jerusalem to be in the Occupied Palestinian Territories." I also pointed out that "I could go on hour after hour demonstrating the correctness of my assertion." Meanwhile noga, like some autistic idiot, prefers to repeat bald-faced lies. There is, of course, no arguing with an imbecile intent on lying so to remind everyone else here are passages where competent legal and political authorities include East Jerusalem among the Occupied Palestinian Territories: The UN Security Council stated in Resolution 478: -- Affirms that the enactment of the "basic law" by Israel constitutes a violation of international law and does not affect the continued application of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since June 1967, including Jerusalem; The International Court of Justice, the US Security Council's peer legal organization, opinied in its 2004 Advisory Opinion that: -- The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law. The High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention declared in 2001: -- The participating High Contracting Parties call upon the Occupying Power to fully and effectively respect the Fourth Geneva Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, In continuing to lie about the legal status of East Jerusalem noga seems intent on being proved a lying Zio-Nazi. noga should remember the Ninth Commandment - You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. Although, to be honest, noga would do well to remember the Second Commandment as well.

- ndmackenzie

March 28, 2010 at 4:46pm

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

tnr.reader: "But only a dictator can ignore the electorate, and the American Presidency was certainly not intended to be a dicatorship. The polls would seem to indicate a greater proportion of the American public support Israel than suport Obama." Are you for real? What have the polls got to do with anything? We decide crucial matters by regular election here, and opinion surveys are a permanently shifting indicator on feelings about various issues, not the constitutional basis for executive action. Political office-holders are representatives, not delegates. I'm assuming it's pretty much the same in Israel. Or does Netanyahu (or any other PM) consult every morning with private polling companies to see what he should do?

- ironyroad

March 28, 2010 at 4:57pm

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

ndmackenzie is correct on the legalities to the extent that Israeli settlement east of the Green Line violates international law, such as it is, in territories that are occupied. I personally cannot see any argument in Israel's favor as to the territory that Israel itself regards as occupied, everything other than the areas it has incorporated. It is also correct that, in the view of international legal authorities, the unilateral incorporation of some areas is also illegal, although I do not see much authority for that proposition. If that were a legal principle, it would call into question quite a few boundaries that have come into existence since World War II. However, to the extent that ndmackenzie assumes that the territories necessarily belong to the Palestinians, he is incorrect. The relevant UN resolutions, including the armistice resolution at the end of the 1948 war of independence, explicitly reserve the question of permanent boundaries and make clear that the armistice lines, the Green Line, are just that, armistice lines, not borders. The armistice was explicitly without prejudice to territorial claims. The history of Resolution 242 also makes clear that it does not require withdrawal from all territory captured in 1967. It should surprise no one that the various resolutions and decisions are not entirely in harmony, except on the question of Israeli settlement in an area that is defined as occupied. It is also unclear how this is to be finally resolved. The clear aspiration is that the parties would agree and conclude a peace treaty that finalizes borders. But they don't agree on borders and it does not seem particularly likely that they are going to. Israel is unlikely to concede East Jerusalem and environs, although it might concede part of it. Israel might be willingly to concede the settlements to Palestinian sovereignty if the settlers are allowed to remain, or it might not. The Palestinians appear unlikely to concede anything east of the Green Line unless the changes are trivial and purely technical -- as Jordan and Israel agreed to little-known changes in the Arava, too small to show up on any but a highly detailed map. (I know this personally because little adjustments were made in order to keep the fields of border kibbutzim within Israel, including at my sister's kibbutz. They were actually hoping they would have to surrender those fields and be compensated with land further south with better water, but it didn't happen.) This makes the conclusion of a peace quite challenging. I think this might have worked out differently, with the Israeli claim to Jerusalem being respected if it had not embarked on the larger settlement policy. Israel overreached. I think that undermined the legitimacy of Israel's position. However, it is largely too late to redeem that. The urgent need is to move to face-to-face negotiations that try to reduce the scope of disagreement to the minimum and permit matters to move forward. At this point, Israel would be wise to trade a building freeze for full, face-to-face negotiations with no pre-conditions whatsoever. I doubt Netanyahu has the wisdom, and it is almost certain that his coalition partners don't. The collapse of his government might be the best that can happen. TNR-reader should be reassured that Israeli democracy will not be imperiled. It is Israelis who will vote Netanyahu out having assessed their position in the world under his leadership. The Israeli right believes that time is on Israel's side and that it can gain through procrastination. In this, they are badly mistaken as they have always been. If the crisis with Obama jolts Israeli public awareness that the opportunity for a settlement not completely dictated by outside forces is slipping away, it will have been a great service to the people of Israel. If not, then Israel will run out the clock and have to live with whatever it gets. That will be determined by what the United States is prepared to support on Israel's behalf, because the US has the power, including the Security Council veto, to stick with whatever position it wants, much more freedom of action than Israel does. For that reason alone, an Israeli leader with some brains (of which there is no evidence in Netanyahu's case) would realize that this is the time to get in line with the US administration. Contrary to every fantasy of the Israeli right, Israel is not going to live as an outlaw nation. If the UN Security Council instructs Israel to cede sovereignty over the territory east of the Green Line to a Palestinian state, Israel will ultimately comply. How exactly this is to be

- roidubouloi

March 28, 2010 at 5:56pm

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

Noga: "Bill Clinton was aware of this tiny difference, and was wary of seeming to directly threaten Netanyahu into submission." As well, if the Israeli PM perseveres, the US president is incapable of forcing Israel into submission on core Israeli interests: http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=171997

- TNR.Reader

March 28, 2010 at 7:11pm

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

Irony: "We decide crucial matters by regular election here" It's not so simple. No branch of government, including the Supreme Court, can afford to ignore public opinion too blatantly on too many matters too often. Historically, clashes between the US and Israeli administrations have been hard on both governments. In Obama's case, it would weaken and distract from his domestic agenda.

- TNR.Reader

March 28, 2010 at 7:17pm

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

ndmackenzie is not correct in his characterization of Eat Jerusalem as "occuoied Palestinian territory". East J-m is not and never was "Palestinian territory". It was not even included in the part given to the Arab part of the partition plan. How, then, can it be "Palestinian"? And I ask again: From 1949-1967 East Jerusalem was under Jordanian occupation. Houses were built there for Arab residents. Where was outrage about this infringement of international law? Again, roi accepts that there is one law for Jews, and another - for Arabs. These is the world of interests that he is trying to pass for a rational, decent world.

- noga1

March 28, 2010 at 7:44pm

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

tnr.reader: "No branch of government, including the Supreme Court, can afford to ignore public opinion too blatantly on too many matters too often." Agreed, but there is a small but important difference between public opinion and polls. If one had gone according to polls in, say, August 2008, then one would have said, Obama is never going to win the election. Public opinion is a broader and deeper thing, however, and it shifted significantly over the next three months. Polls are unreliable in most cases -- the obvious one being the health care reform polling, which continually and perversely conflated those who were against the HCR bill because it was in existence at all, and those who were against it because it wasn't radical enough.

- ironyroad

March 28, 2010 at 8:28pm

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

noga, the resident pathological liar on The Spine, asserts: -- Again, roi accepts that there is one law for Jews, and another - for Arabs. These is the world of interests that he is trying to pass for a rational, decent world. In fact, it is Zio-Nazis like noga who insist that there is one law for Israel and one law for everyone else. As I have now demonstrated twice through direct quotation the UN Security Council, The International Court of Justice and the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention respectively use phrases like: Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since June 1967, including Jerusalem; Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem); and Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. These organizations unequivocally link the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 with the Palestinian people. And, no doubt, noga will respond with more lies in continuing a pathetic descent into a racist dementia. People like noga are deluding themselves in believing their lies can ensure the history of the last 40 years can continue for the next 40. Increasing numbers of Americans are recognizing the failure of four decades of unstinting support of Israeli oppression. Indeed, in the last year we have seen the pain of a one-time editor of The New Republic realising the errors of his ways regarding his support of Israel making him call into question the assumptions on which that support was based. The denizens of The Spine would be sorely mistaken in believing that he is alone in his renewed questioning.

- ndmackenzie

March 28, 2010 at 9:41pm

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

You know, TNR.reader, roi never previously agreed with ndmackenzie on anything but because you dare to challenge his assumptions, he is going to punish you and agree with our resident antisemite! That will teach you! Roi, a few months ago you declared with much certainty that Obama was not going to betray Israel. Today you seem to be quite in despair so much so that you even mention that your family in Israel are lucky to be in possession of American passports. I'm very curious to understand this hysterical connection. What do you think is going to happen to Israel now? What exactly is going to happen that will necessitate the use of an American passport?

- noga1

March 28, 2010 at 10:06pm

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

Irony: "Public opinion is a broader and deeper thing, however, and it shifted significantly over the next three months." In the case of support for Israel, it varies but has exceeded 50% for over a decade. The Arab-American Institute and Zogby are not exactly fanatic Zionists. Yet they found American public support for Israel at 71% last year and at 65% this year. These numbers exceed Obama's own popularity by a considerable margin. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-zogby/new-poll-on-american-atti_b_515835.html

- TNR.Reader

March 28, 2010 at 10:07pm

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

Noga: "You know, TNR.reader, roi never previously agreed with ndmackenzie on anything but because you dare to challenge his assumptions, he is going to punish you and agree with our resident antisemite! That will teach you!" Is he always such a vituperative bully?

- TNR.Reader

March 28, 2010 at 10:09pm

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

"Zio-Nazism", huh? Mckenzie is coming unhinged. This equation fails completely. It practically excuses Nazi crimes. It's shameful. Mac owes us an apology.

- amidut

March 28, 2010 at 10:17pm

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

"Is he always such a vituperative bully?" He is a great believer in bludgeoning persuasion. Apparently he applied these tactics very successfully to win support for Obama's election. Playing dirty is the name of the game and no matter what the means, the aim justifies it all. "Mckenzie is coming unhinged." He is very excited.

- noga1

March 28, 2010 at 10:48pm

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

No, tnr.reader. You are a special case. You deserve as much vituperation as a human being can heap on your sorry head. Anyone whose first response to disagreement with his opinion is to fling the epithet anti-Semite, followed by a long series of total fabrications about racism toward sub-groups of Israeli Jews that I never even so much as mentioned, has no place here or in any civilized discussion. There are a lot of harsh things said here, but I have never read anyone simultaneously as vapid and obnoxious as you. You are a liar and a boor, in a class by yourself. ndmackenzie's extremist views have more intellectual integrity than what pours out of your mouth. Noga, I was quite careful to distinguish those matters that I think are well-supported by precedent or positive international law and those matters that are rulings by authoritative bodies that in my opinion do not find authoritative support in precedent or authoritative law. I think Israel's settlement of unincorporated territory flagrantly violates the Geneva Convention on transfer of population by an occupying power to occupied territory. Since Israel itself treats most of the land to the east of the Green Line as occupied, administering it under military occupation government, I don't think it has any colorable basis for its position that it can settle its population there. None. I do think there are legal basis for the annexation of East Jerusalem and environs, although international legal bodies have ruled otherwise. I don't see the basis in law for their rulings on Jerusalem -- as when the court declined to consider the status of that land prior to the Six Day War relying on the fact that Jordan and Israel were both High Contracting Parties. If the land wasn't Jordan's to begin with, then Jordan's participation in the treaty would seem to me to be irrelevant and the court's ruling unsupported. But the ruling exists and therefore has an impact on the views of the international community. The best face I can put on those rulings is that unilateral changes in the status of land that came under Israel's control in 1967 is forbidden under Resolution 242 that contemplates that borders will be determined as part of a deal for peace. That would be a reasonable interpretation. So, no, I don't think there is one set of law for Arabs and another for Jews. However, the State of Israel does as the settlers and the Palestinians in the West Bank do not have the same legal or political status. How exactly can you possibly justify that? As for my concern about Israel's future and my family there, it has nothing to do with Obama. He has neither done nor said anything that threatens Israel's security, except for the right-wing that constantly tries to equate security with its own territorial ambitions. No one much outside of Israel is buying that story any more. It has gone on too long and there is too little evidence of any desire on the part of Israel to end the occupation. What Obama has done is express quite clearly that the US does not accept Israel's claims on territory east of the Green Line. That has always been the formal US position. It is just that the US never before put serious pressure on Israel to conform its behavior to the US position, and that clearly comes as a shock to Israel. Good. The status quo was headed nowhere because the right-wing of Israel continues to believe that procrastination will settle its claims in the West Bank. The shock you are feeling is the belated recognition that the gamble of the Israeli right that it would get what it wants out of the territory east of the Green Line by indefinite delay of a settlement may very well not pay off. It was always a stupid gamble. You just didn't notice before. My concern rather about my family's security is due to the election of Netanyahu and the fact that Israel is governed by such a combination of fools and religious nuts. The very fact that Netanyahu would not publicly accept the two-state solution, something everyone in the world knows is inevitable, in order to bring Kadima into the government tells me that Netanyahu continues to be a dangerously deluded individual, as he always was. That worries me plenty. One never knows what sort of a mess a person like that is going to make. I am very moved by tnr.reader's concern for President Obama's popularity with the American public which he now wishes to substitute for his earlier suggestion that a duly elected American president, who is charged by the US Constitution with authority for foreign policy and affairs, is a "dictator" because he is not acting in accordance with public opinion polls. However, if one wanted to bet on whether Obama or tnr.reader has a better grasp of where Obama can take American public opinion, I have to say that I would bet on Obama. Who wouldn't? And if President Obama is willing to take positions that he believes are good for teh country at the risk of offending public opinion, good for him. He was elected to make those decisions. I should add that I don't believe I ever once took issue with Bush because he failed to follow public opinion. I took issue with the substance of his policy choices because I thought they would be and were disastrous for my country. The notion that a US president is obliged to follow public opinion polls has exactly zero place in the American system of government.

- roidubouloi

March 28, 2010 at 11:24pm

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

As for this whole whiny argument by the right wing-nuts here that I am bullying them, it is always they same nonsense. All of them, to a person, constantly abuse other posters with lies, misstatements of other people's positions, epithets, you name it. That consummate ass, tnr.reader, opened his argument with me by accusing me of being an anti-Semite, almost an honor coming from one as stupid as he. That is typical. Because they are of the right, they live in a world where lies and abuse are considered normal discourse, and they are constantly cheering each other on and admiring each others inanities. Right-wing media, including these days the Jerusalem Post, is loaded with this excrement and little else. However, like all bullies, they are also all cowards. The moment someone pushes their tactics back in their faces, they whimper and whine that they are being bullied, because they are unaccustomed to it. Most of the left considers it beneath them to engage these fanatics on their own terms. I don't, because I have learned in the course of real political life, not the cyber-life that goes on here, that if you want to beat the scum, you have to get into the gutter with them. That's where they live, so that's where the battle has to be fought, and there is no way to avoid getting dirty doing it. It is a sorry state of affairs. But the right has so totally corrupted public discourse, there is no other way. So, all you right wing-nuts, that feeling you have is not me bullying you. It is your sorry, abusive, lying asses getting kicked, kicked, and kicked some more. It is no less than you deserve for your constantly abusive language. I can keep it up indefinitely and I am better at it than you. You know why? Because you live in the right wing-nut echo-chamber where every juvenile stupid thing you say is greeted with laughter and applause. So, you never really learn verbal combat. You think the things you say are clever, but invariably they are so inane and self-contradictory, so poorly thought out, that chopping them and you to bits is not hard at all. It's a nasty job, but somebody has got to do it. The good news for you is that if you can ever stop behaving atrociously, I will stop kicking your asses.

- roidubouloi

March 28, 2010 at 11:51pm

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

It really is impossible to have a civil conversation anymore -- about anything, but especially Israel. It always gets derailed into the same bullshit. I took Halevi's point as initially not trying to draw in Hamas -- but rather, undercut them. Let Gazan housewives get what they need, let them import coffee and Nike shoes and glue and lightbulbs. "Let them drink Coke," to paraphrase. Continue to go after smuggling tunnels, check everything for contraband weapons and wads of illegal cash -- but let the civilians have all the civilian goods they can afford. Then Hamas will have to deal with the lack of jobs and infrastructure, as people want to be able to buy what they need, and what is available. (What they used to be able to buy under the PA, and under Israel before that.) Make Hamas step back into a role it was finding awkward: actually governing as opposed to ruling. That was causing fissures between the Damascus Hamas Politburo and the Gaza-based politicians. Damascus reacted by appointing hard core extreme types, and that resulted in Cast Lead. Not sure Gazans really are gung ho for that again. Historically Hamas in Gaza has been a pretty independent sort of group -- they were not willing to openly wear someone else's ideology or label just for money, or take a lot of rules with their cash. Halevi is banking on that still being largely true of Gaza-based Hamas; their dislike for AQ types suggests there's still likely some of that contrariness to tap into. That's the point where a quiet invitation to 'discuss things' might start to make sense. Not right out of the gate.

- pw01ws

March 29, 2010 at 12:11am

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

tnr.reader: "These numbers exceed Obama's own popularity by a considerable margin." They exceed any president's own popularity by a considerable margin, especially for example George Bush's after 2006. Your point is either meaningless or badly obscured. What exactly are you saying?

- ironyroad

March 29, 2010 at 12:17am

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

Irony: Trace the thread upwards.

- TNR.Reader

March 29, 2010 at 6:14am

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

Kudos to pw01ws for a very civil attempt to release this thread from the hijackers who try to blah, blah, blah to death any attempt to have an on-topic thought provoking discussion. which is probably same hardwired brain circuits in the Palestinians who never lose an opportunity to lose an opportunity. ignore the online bullies.

- K2K

March 29, 2010 at 8:13am

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

How's your history lesson going K2K? Learn anything yet?

- roidubouloi

March 29, 2010 at 12:18pm

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

In particular, have you found out yet what happened to the British Empire whose tactics you urge us to emulate? Based on your knowledge of history, of course.

- roidubouloi

March 29, 2010 at 12:19pm

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

"Trace the thread upwards." That's at least as succinct a point as any other you've tried to make, tnr.reader. However, it doesn't really help us clear up the issue about polls vs. what political leaders have to decide.

- ironyroad

March 29, 2010 at 1:07pm

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

Okay, Irony, I'll spell it out: Any elected leader can diverge from public opinion for only so long and so many issues. For example, Bush diverged over and over again, and the result was minimal popularity and a strongly Democratic administration in the next election. That's the meaning of the term "political capital," and every elected leader has only a finite amount to spend. The amount of such capital used for each agenda item depends both on the immediacy to the public and the degree of public support. The Israeli-Palestinian dispute may not be very immedite to the American public, but the terrorist and Iranian threats are. Combined with the strong degree of public support for Israel, this means Obama can only continue open conflict with Israel for so long until it begins to expend political capital he needs far more critically and urgently for his domestic agenda.

- TNR.Reader

March 29, 2010 at 1:52pm

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

I am sure that Obama would be grateful for tnr.reader's political advice. But we must also consider the possibility that adopting a stance that is not merely supportive of Israel's agenda, whether or not related to its security, may in the end increase Obama political capital. Americans are not know for disliking the assertion of their own interests. There is also an important analogue to political capital, diplomatic capital. The principle that such capital is not in unlimited supply and cannot safely be expended without limit or for trivial purpose is one that seems to have no following in Israel.

- roidubouloi

March 29, 2010 at 2:08pm

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

Roid, you're not only a foul-mouthed bully, you're a cyber-stalker and not an indivdual I wish to engage. Please leave me alone.

- TNR.Reader

March 29, 2010 at 3:33pm

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

TNR.reader, you make a strong case for Obama's actually diminishing supply of political capital, most of which he exhausted with his narrow health care reform 'victory'. I would not downplay American support for Israel. America is a nation of immigrants who can NOT understand why the palestinian muslims use terror tantrums instead of doing what other groups have traditionally done: move on and create a new life. One should totally ignore online and real life bullies. They crave attention, and crave the visible impact of their bullying on their targets.

- K2K

March 29, 2010 at 4:02pm

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

tnr.reader, the point I try to make is that polls are not reliable guides to very much, especially in complex questions. Following on your own example: if you asked the same people who support Israel by a large majority the question "Do you think the president should follow primarily American or primarily Israeli interests in our Middle East policy?" I believe you would get a similar majority opting for "American interests." I also strongly disagree with K2K, as I think Obama has increased his political capital with the Health Care victory (which doesn't necessarily mean a better result for Dems in November -- it's not a simple equation). But he's shown he can win, and that a conciliatory style doesn't mean weakness.

- ironyroad

March 29, 2010 at 4:35pm

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

Not a chance, tnr.reader. Not a chance. Next time you don't want a fight, don't pick one. As long as your drivel continues, I will be all over it. And for a pig like you to refer to me as a bully is quite ludicrous. You picked a fight with your obscene epithets and accusations and your grotesque lies, you are in over your head, and now you regret it. Too bad. The good news for me is that you are so inane, that there will be no end of opportunity. As you are made to look the fool you are, perhaps your humiliation will teach you a valuable lesson about decent behavior. Most likely not, as you uneducable by any means, but perhaps. My advice to you K2K is to enjoy your status as a relatively innocent bystander. I'm more or less ignoring you because your initial nasty little shot was pretty minor and you got it back and then some. But if you want to play too, that is fine with me. I love beating up right-wing bullies, and you two aren't even close to the toughest who have shown up here and ultimately thought better of it.

- roidubouloi

March 29, 2010 at 5:33pm

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

Ironyroad, I would think most Americans, assuming they can tear themselves away from reality tv and unemployment long enough to even define "American interests" are for peace and stability, with zero tolerance for suicide bombers or missiles aimed at Jerusalem, and stable prices or a viable substitute for oil. As to Obama's political capital? ROTFL. As an apolitical historian, it is too soon to tell how Obama's presidency compares to his predecessors because we do not yet know if enough jobs will ever be created to stop American economic decline. Thirty years of de-industrialization takes a great toll, and I see no evidence that Obama has a clue about the economy. Never has.

- K2K

March 29, 2010 at 6:18pm

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

K2K -- I look around and I too see some evidence of cluelessness. Here and there, you know. But I do agree that that Obama can hardly be held responsible for 30 years of de-industrialization.

- ironyroad

March 29, 2010 at 6:32pm

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

"I look around and I too see some evidence of cluelessness." To the pious believer, anyone who does not share his/her faith is clueless. I see a lot of evidence for that type of certainty all around me, even on this blog. Can the believer and the heretic ever agree on what makes for cluelessness and what warrants certainty?

- noga1

March 30, 2010 at 3:18pm

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

But I don't think it's knowledge or even wisdom that divides the believer and the heretic, Noga, but faith. In my Catholic school all those years ago, we were always taught that faith is there precisely because belief isn't the same as validated knowledge. If we knew for certain of God's existence, we wouldn't need faith. In the quotidian world, there are indeed some things we might want to take on faith e.g. that the bill and check I mail get to the correct recipient, that the friend who says I'll meet you at 5 for coffee isn't pretending, that the paper I need to write for the American Literature Assocation conference in SF will (ultimately) make sense, and so on. But my students would be quite right to call me on it if I asked them to simply take it on faith that Herman Melville and Harriet Beecher Stowe were the same person. So K2K, while very much entitled to his arguments and opinions, nontheless cannot but be in danger of signaling a certain cluelessness if he writes something like "Thirty years of de-industrialization takes a great toll, and I see no evidence that Obama has a clue about the economy. Never has." Even if you are opposed to Obama, that statement is plain silly in ways that can be shown. It's the wrong kind of thing to take "on faith," so to speak.

- ironyroad

March 30, 2010 at 4:15pm

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

Who is the heretic and who is the believer? I regard religious faith as to matters of the operation of the real world as heresy -- the failure to understand that the real world is not ordered according to the principles of faith but in very different ways, depending, for example, on whether we are talking about human affairs or physics. In either case, with regard to the natural world, including the human world, what the believers believe god wants or has ordained is nonsense. Even if god wanted or ordained, they have no privileged position from which to discern the mind of god. They only claim to, one and all, even when their beliefs in what god wants are diametrically opposed. The believers are welcome to their opinions about the existence and nature of the deity. It would be nice if they would keep their heresy as to the natural world to themselves.

- roidubouloi

March 30, 2010 at 5:12pm

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

"In the quotidian world, there are indeed some things we might want to take on faith e.g. that the bill and check I mail get to the correct recipient, that the friend who says I'll meet you at 5 for coffee isn't pretending, that the paper I need to write for the American Literature Assocation conference in SF will (ultimately) make sense, and so on. But my students would be quite right to call me on it if I asked them to simply take it on faith that Herman Melville and Harriet Beecher Stowe were the same person." The examples you provide do not seem to be requirements for faith. It's either contractual trust or hope based on some empirical self-knowledge that what you write makes sense. There is also trust between a teacher and student when the latter is being taught that the earth is not flat. You can't always witness and experiment and observe for yourself things that are known to be true. But to suggest that Obama is (or is not) clueless about the economy is not a determination but judgment, assessment, what have you. Now when you suggest that you know for a fact that Obama knows what he is doing you show your faith. Because you trust your own judgment more than you trust another's. So it is not a matter of a knowing certainty, it is a preferred reading of a set of facts. I'm only bringing this up because I read one of Bertrand Russell's essays about exactly the same subject. Are you familiar with Russell?

- noga1

March 30, 2010 at 6:07pm

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

I don't know for a fact that Obama knows what he's doing, Noga, and I've never suggested I do. Indeed, I've often said "my sense is" or something like that in order not to assert knowledge I don't have. But there's a difference between a preferred reading and when K2K says something like, "Thirty years of de-industrialization takes a great toll, and I see no evidence that Obama has a clue about the economy. Never has." I can certainly be accused -- if accusation is the term -- of a "preferred reading" but K2K's comment is sillier than merely a preferred reading because (1) the fact that his conjoining of "Obama" and "Thirty years etc" suggests that the current president carries the responsibility for putting right decades of (according to K2K) at least inadvisable policies, and is clearly unable to do that (How does K2K know this? I'd suggest we should wait a bit); (2) the fact that any particular president doesn't necessarily "know" about X or Y in the sense of individual expertise, but that presidents have ranks of advisors who, one hopes, present them with rational options that they make the final political decision upon; and (3) the rhetorical "Never has" implies that K2K is familiar with Obama over a long period of time and, nodding sagely, can impart the regretful wisdom of his judgment on the basis of much experience. I courteously propose that this is utter drivel on K2K's part. That's all. I found "clueless" an appropriate rejoiner to "Obama doesn't have a clue," playing the interlocuter's term back to him/her. I'm embarrassed to say that I've wanted to be familiar with Russell, but have wimped out on a few occasions, e.g. failing to read his big history of western philosophy.

- ironyroad

March 30, 2010 at 10:13pm

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

Obama is advised on economic affairs by both Lawrence Summers and Christina Romer, among others. I have some serious disagreements with both of them, but they are both eminent economists, in the first rank of their generation. Summers in particular has been a prolific author of respected academic work. I don't think either could be described as clueless. Alan Greenspan, who seemed to think that Ayn Rand had important things to teach us about economics, he could be described as clueless.

- roidubouloi

March 30, 2010 at 10:17pm

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

I'm struck by the fact that neither K2K nor you are in any better position of knowledge to claim anything except faith or lack of faith in Obama's abilities. Because if K is clueless about Obama's economic abilities so are you about Obama's cluelessness. The divergence in your respective opinions stems from a difference in the amount of faith you have in your own judgments about Obama's capabilities. That's why K2K frustratedly suggests that O is clueless and this is why you take umbrage with it and suggest HE is clueless. I must say this little discussion has not rewarded me with any better understanding of what makes for cluelessness and what warrants certainty.

- noga1

March 31, 2010 at 8:31am

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

You're avoiding the main issue I addressed, Noga. On what basis does K2K ascribe long-standing cluelessness ("Never has") to Obama, within a rhetorical frame that appears to deny historical reality (the fact is, as K2K presumably well knows, presidents don't generally master every field of knowledge but have knowledgeable advisors)? He doesn't say. Hence prima facie suspicion that he doesn't really know what he's talking about, or at least that he's just sounding off. Equally, if I claimed "Obama is a proven economic genius, and will get us out the recession in style" I would be asserting flatly something that lacks any evidence, and I would open myself to an accusation of cluelessness. But I've never claimed that, or anything like it. May I point out to you that you yourself noted -- quite rightly -- a couple of weeks ago that my claim that Obama might well outlive Netanyahu politically was impossible to predict and that, in fact, Obama's position looked weaker than the PM's at that moment. I conceded your point immediately. However, a few days later Obama presided over an historic victory with the HCR law, and I thought it was amusing that in a sense you had proven your first point in a somewhat reversed context. In any case, I would simply say that there is some evidence for a claim that e.g. Obama has a lot of leadership qualities and knows how to perservere when others are running around in panic. Not everything is just pure speculation. If K2K had offered one iota of support for his contention, then I wouldn't necessarily argree with him, but at least we'd be arguing about something more than just an empty assertion.

- ironyroad

March 31, 2010 at 12:32pm

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

ironyroad, I tried to start a MyBO Group "The Economy Forum" in March 2008 when there already were ten thousand MyBO Groups. I was denied because Economy was not a valid topic for an Issues Group. The balance of my evidence has followed since the economy, and deficit, have always been my main issues. There has yet to be any focus on jobs, just a rehashing of Clinton's "green economy" concept. My point about this was to suggest that Obama's "political capital" is thin as long as unemployment stays high, and I find it a waste of words when people change the subject in order to discredit anything one writes (the topics are Hamas, and what are American interests). Health care reform was a political priority. Voters disagree. Obama had a chance to reverse thirty years of de-industrialization, but his discomfort in the world of manufacturing is very visible, at least on my tv screen when he is forced to visit a factory. I see no reason to waste TNR space proving myself on an off-topic issue just because someone wants to discredit me on every word I write. I had a career in manufacturing between 1975-2001, a too-close witness to Wall Street's monetization (destruction) of America's manufacturing base. Now I kill time by studying history.

- K2K

March 31, 2010 at 1:38pm

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

I wasn't trying to discredit every word you said, K2K, but I do think that de-industrialization has been a major problem either ignored or even enabled by more than one administration. But thanks for the elaboration/explanation, which makes me less clueless as to the perspective you are arguing from. I didn't introduce the topic of the economy and I don't pretend to be an economist or anything near it myself, but I am somewhat of a historian too, and I do know that presidents don't decide things so much as administrations have priorities they try to advance and balance against the variables that come at them every day. It may or may not have been wrong for Obama to focus on health care, but we'll see. I am optimistic. I am very surprised that the economy was not considered an issue for the Obama campaign online discussion forums in 2008, and I would be curious as to what actually happened.

- ironyroad

March 31, 2010 at 2:42pm

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

the point was our disagreement about Obama's current 'political capital'. so far, not seeing that bounce except in Obama's (and some of the media) imagination. Financial reform should have been the priority, and the stimulus should have done more to visibly stimulate job creation. So, we are where we are. 2,700+ pages of complex health care reform and a more divided country not yet able to understand what it will accomplish before 2014. You are correct that 30 years of de-industrialization has been very bi-partisan, but for the Dems to become the party for Wall Street is very sad to me. It was very illuminating to discover how impossible it was to communicate "from the bottom up" inside MyBO, which turned out to be all about raising money. I had thought it was about creating communities of interest as well. Obama's campaign was very focussed on his opposition to Iraq. Whoever structured the Issues topics for MyBO decided the economy was not important enough to be a topic. Once he secured enough delegates for the nomination in May08, he hired a 'team of Rubins' from the Clinton wing because the economy was becoming the issue. Anyway, this is not the place to rehash the Oz-like theatrics that is the Obama presidency. I am following Angela Merkel more closely because she has a spine of steel.

- K2K

March 31, 2010 at 3:30pm

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

"Now I kill time by studying history." Res ipsa loquitor.

- roidubouloi

March 31, 2010 at 4:35pm

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

"However, a few days later Obama presided over an historic victory with the HCR law, and I thought it was amusing that in a sense you had proven your first point in a somewhat reversed context. In any case, I would simply say that there is some evidence for a claim that e.g. Obama has a lot of leadership qualities and knows how to perservere when others are running around in panic." From a supporter's point of view, you may be justified in attributing greatness to Obama for the health bill. But that achievement is still very shaky as you must know. It was not a sweeping victory for socialist justice. So for you to base your claim to KNOW that Obama is this or that as proof is a bit premature. I'm sorry I disappointed you but my interest in the discussion was invoked by the play on "cluelessness" and not necessarily the substance upon which it was applied. I know nothing about economics. My husband tells me that a good CEO is someone who recognizes and recruits the most capable people to carry out the company's projects and policies. That means that the good CEO himself does not have to master the art of everything that takes place in the organization. There is very little doubt that Obama has picked out an excellent team so whether he himself is clueless about the economy should not matter much. There is such a saying in Judaism: "Aseh lecha rav" which translates into: "Make a rabbi for yourself" and actually means : Create a teacher and a leader for yourself. How do we do that? It is not enough to choose a leader. We must treat him as a leader, respect him and give him credit for wisdom etc etc . This is how you make a leader out of a merely elected person. I presume your instinct is to do just that with regards to Obama. You want to endow him with all the credentials of a good leader so that he will be a good leader. Am I right?

- noga1

March 31, 2010 at 4:41pm

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

roi can fulminate in Latin. How elegant! And scholarly..

- noga1

March 31, 2010 at 4:44pm

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

I don't make any claims to knowing, Noga, and I wish you'd stop claiming what I've already debunked more than once. I said "some evidence for," which I think is fairly modest as rhetoric goes. With regard to the leadership issue: yes, perhaps, something very like that Judaic concept, but maybe a little closer to the Celtic notion of the poet/historian/druid being a kind of daily encouragement -- generally positive but with the potential for negative critique always there -- for the chieftain to perform well (nobody wants to go down in history as a loser). Not that I'm a poet, or an historian, or even a druid.

- ironyroad

March 31, 2010 at 5:14pm

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

Full disclosure: I did write poetry once, though, but not about Obama.

- ironyroad

March 31, 2010 at 5:15pm

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

Once? Can we see? I know people are usually very shy about their poetry. Why is that, I wonder?

- noga1

March 31, 2010 at 6:22pm

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close