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 Won’t Obama List Israelis Among the Victims of...

TEL AVIV JOURNAL SEPTEMBER 8, 2011

Why Won’t Obama List Israelis Among the Victims of Terrorism?

BY MARTIN PERETZ

I wish it would be historically possible—that is, historically honest—for Israel to be omitted from the long list of target countries that have been the victims of terrorism. Alas, it is not. But President Obama has a habit of making such lists, and he always fails to include Israel (or anyplace within its borders) as a target of this distinctive and most vicious form of warfare. 

Still, the fact is that, as early as the 1970s, Palestinian liberationists had begun to perfect the careful tactics of random battle against Israelis. If not precisely Israelis, then some other Jews. Why not? It’s at least a back-handed admission of the fact of Jewish peoplehood. If not blowing up a bus in the Negev, then a shoot-out at the El Al counter at Leonardo da Vinci Airport in Rome. A family massacre in the Galilee, a mass murder of Olympic athletes in Munich, two high-toll bombings in Buenos Aires. In a Jerusalem Yeshiva, on a Tel Aviv thoroughfare. And the liquidation of five members of a family, yes, a family that lived in a settlement. But its three-month-old didn’t really know that. Knife across the neck anyway.

The omission is surely deliberate. Here’s the latest one, linking 9/11 to terror elsewhere, from The New York Times, August 29, 2011:

As we commemorate the citizens of over 90 countries who perished in the 9/11 attacks, we honor all victims of terrorism, in every nation around the world. … We honor and celebrate the resilience of individuals, families, and communities on every continent, whether in New York or Nairobi, Bali or Belfast, Mumbai or Manila, or Lahore or London.

And here on July 24, 2008 in Berlin:

We can join in a new and global partnership to dismantle the networks that have struck in Madrid and Amman; in London and Bali; in Washington and New York.

All of these locations suffered the attacks of barbarians, and with these attacks thousands upon thousands of victims. And many more thousands with the victimhood of being robbed of those they loved and of those for whom they cared. Nobody has yet estimated the count of people affected by this epidemic. I do not wonder why. It is not that such an estimate, close to accurate, cannot be undertaken and honestly completed. 

If truth be told, President Obama has a direct interest in keeping these statistics fudged. For, aside from Belfast, every location he mentions is a place where Muslim extremists have shed blood—and shed the blood of innocents, shed the blood of those who do not even know how to ask why they have been targeted, if indeed they have been specifically or personally targeted which most of them have not been. In fact, none of them have been. They are innocents in a crowd. But not according to their killers. They are guilty by being. 

This is not the president’s narrative. Apparently and actually, he has no narrative. But he owes us a narrative, his narrative. After all, our soldiers are being killed and they are also killing. And innocents are being killed daily by adversary forces Obama will not name or characterize or define. Who does he really think we are fighting? The Bahai, maybe? Opus Dei? The Lubavitchers? If Obama does not think that we are besieged by several strands of Islam, what explanation has he for the wave of terrorism that has taken place in recent decades?

P.S. I’ve made an observation about Obama’s omission of Israel in another list of his once before. In my ex-blog, The Spine, I observed last January that in the president’s litany of countries that aided Haiti in its terrible need and despair he’d omitted Israel. Given the depth of Israel’s rescue work, it cannot have been an oversight. So was it Obama himself who flinched when he saw the troublesome country’s name in the text prepared by his staff? Or did his staff not name Israel in the first place? There’s a story to be told about his speechwriters. And it might just be that they know his prejudices.  

P.P.S. Maybe you are too young to recall the ghastly Munich Massacre, which took place 39 years ago this week. But I remember everything I saw on ABC television from the very moment that a Cape Cod neighbor summoned me to see “a pogrom going on in Munich.” Already then, when Palestinian terror was still in the blush of youth, so to speak, there were respectable people apologizing for it. Peter Jennings sticks in my memory most of all because his excuse for the terrorists was that history had treated their people badly, the excuse that every terrorist sympathizer gives. (After 9/11, Jennings pasted together a public broadcasting program for teenagers showing how kind Muslims are to women.)

Anyway, here is an account of this great day in Palestinian terror, perhaps its greatest day, all but forgotten. So this is a reminder by the careful and honest historian Mitchell Bard.

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

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 101 comments

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

101 comments

I agree.

- Sophia

September 8, 2011 at 1:22am

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

I assume that the -- or one -- answer is that the administration wants to not annoy the PA in the hope that they'll put a hold on the UN nationhood recognition project. Fat chance, one might say. We'll see. But probably the idea is to avoid suggesting that Palestinian aspirations are connected with terrorism in the post-9/11 variety.

- ironyroad

September 8, 2011 at 1:40am

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

"I assume that the -- or one -- answer is that the administration wants to not annoy the PA in the hope that they'll put a hold on the UN nationhood recognition project." The price for keeping the "peace" process going on is to relegate Israeli humanity to a subcategory of humanity: not quite making that grade, they are not entitled to the same consideration and compassion all humanity has a right to expect. Obama is a pupil of Rashid Khalidi. He cannot see Israel as anything but sub- whatever.

- noga1

September 8, 2011 at 6:55am

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

Another guess might be that the references to all the named places (save Belfast) was a reference to attacks by Al Qaeda or groups that actively affiliated themselves with Al Qaeda. In Obama's or his speechwriters' mind, that's the enemy -- not terrorism by Muslims generally. Goes pretty well in hand with the attitude of most Americans, who don't think that the US should be pursuing Muslim terrorism all over the world where it doesn't come from groups that are dedicated to attacking America or Americans. As for the Belfast reference -- maybe they wanted something that started with "B" to match it up with Bali. They could have named Beersheva, of course. I, for one, have never seen clearer proof of anti-Semitism from a government official since Joseph Goebbels spoke his last.

- wildboy

September 8, 2011 at 9:23am

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

No disrespect to any of my fellow bloggers, but isn't the administration's complete lack of support for a Palestinian declaration of statehood at least SOME evidence that denunciations of Obama as an anti-semitic hater of Israel might be just a tad harsh? If Obama truly couldn't stand Israel, considered himself blood brother to all manner of muslim extremists who want to push all Israelis into the sea, blah blah blah, wouldn't he jump all over the chance to support palestinian nationhood in the UN?

- Tristan

September 8, 2011 at 9:39am

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

Well, sure, and why doesn't Obama insist on recognition of Taiwan's status as the REAL Government of China while he's at it? The answer is, because Israel is not America, Israel has a tiny population compared with America, and the real answer is that calling out Israel as a "victim of terrorism" will only inflame the Middle-East. They're busy pretending that the PA is the "victim of terrorism". You really don't want to open that unresolvable tit-for-tat can of worms at this point. If it ain't broken, don't mess with it, or you WILL break it. Another answer is that "victim of terrorism" was a cynical Republican ploy to justify two illegal wars. What, you want to use a bogus Republican ploy to further destabilize the Middle-East? Whose side are you on again?

- AllanL5

September 8, 2011 at 9:49am

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

". . . a reference to attacks by Al Qaeda or groups that actively affiliated themselves with Al Qaeda. In Obama's or his speechwriters' mind, that's the enemy -- not terrorism by Muslims generally." Broadly, that was the case in George W. Bush's mind and his speechwriters' minds, too (even after Iraq). It appears to be one of those basic distinctions worth making.

- ironyroad

September 8, 2011 at 10:04am

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

The "Obama hates Israel" narrative has now become perfectly self-confirming. It's based entirely on symbolism, as it must be, because in the sphere of action Obama has continued the strong support lent to the Jewish state by his predecessors. As a corollary, of course, Netanyahu is allowed to be as rude and dismissive as he likes without ever being called on it by the likes of Peretz. When the administration kills the statehood vote, I'm sure he'll already have his reasons lined up for why this doesn't prove anything, that he was clearly forced into it, or it's all down to Hillary, etc. etc. etc. If Jeffrey Goldberg and Jonathan Chait both trust Obama on Israel, that should be good enough for anyone fancying themselves a liberal Zionist - unless someone seriously wants to argue that both those gentlemen are deluded/misinformed/self-hating/kapos.

- Shorpe

September 8, 2011 at 10:08am

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

@irony It's not just a distinction worth making, it's a distinction that must be made. Otherwise, we're effectively declaring war on the world's entire Muslim population instead of a small portion of it, which may not be a smart fight to pick. Of course, Marty has been fighting said war singlehandedly for most of his career, but that doesn't oblige us to join him.

- Shorpe

September 8, 2011 at 10:12am

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

Good thoughtful comments by all on possible theories explaining Obama's actions, which far from being transparent, would seem to require psychic interpretive powers. Kudos and thanks.

- JackR

September 8, 2011 at 10:15am

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

I'll take a stab at an explanation. Obama is concerned that if he mentions Israel as a victim of terror, that the Arab/Muslim world would tune out what he says. He ignores that in doing so he feeds the notion that terror against Israel can be treated differently from terror against others. There again, if he truly supported Israel he wouldn't feed the notion that anti-Israel terror is separate from other terror. Take issues that he does care about, like fiscal stimulus. It's not like in that realm he would talk about deficits at the same time feeding the notion that the Republican's meme that deficits are a greater threat than joblessness, would he?

- sighthnd

September 8, 2011 at 10:22am

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

The recent attacks in Eilat emanating from Northern Sinai were perpetrated by an al Kaida affiliate.

- arnon

September 8, 2011 at 11:04am

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

"I assume that the -- or one -- answer is that the administration wants to not annoy the PA in the hope that they'll put a hold on the UN nationhood recognition project." The US will veto their proposal and they know it. How much more can you do to annoy them. Hence, didn't couldn't be the explanation. Terrorism predates 9/11. Prior to the demise of the Soviet States terrorism was sponsored by them. Arafat and his cohorts had Soviet support. The left was always ambivalent about terrorism because of that. Even now the left still associates terrorism with anti-colonialism. This is one of the main problems with the left's view of it. They define terrorism according to the ideology of the terrorists and not according to nay other criteria. In the definition of terrorism motives shouldn't matter. If you kill civilians you are perpetrating a terrorist act no matter how pure your motive is.

- arnon

September 8, 2011 at 11:40am

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

Another answer: Because Israel's "war on terror" has been going once since the nation was formed. To now equate what Israel has been through with the much more recent Al-Quaida/Taliban (yes, I know they're different) wave of terrorism is to equate two very different things. Not to mention, with Israel's wall, they're dealing quite effectively with Palestinian terrorism already. So, there's no reason to antagonize possible Middle-East allies against Al-Quaida, by equating our anti-terrorism efforts with Israel's.

- AllanL5

September 8, 2011 at 12:13pm

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

"If you kill civilians you are perpetrating a terrorist act no matter how pure your motive is." Israeli soldiers killed civilians in Gaza and Lebanon. Your formula is what allows Leftists of the Indecent type to call Israel a terrorist state. But to the subject: the problem with Obama is that he understands the Indecent left all too well when it comes to Israel. He separates Israeli terrorism victims from the other terrorism victims because he probably accepts, deep in his heart, or maybe not so deep that we can't see it through the cracks, the distinction that the radical philosopher ted Honderich made between the two cases: "[T]he Palestinians have a moral right to their terrorism within historic Palestine against neo-Zionism. The latter, neither Zionism nor of course Jewishness, is the taking from the Palestinians of at least their autonomy in the last one-fifth of their historic homeland. Terrorism, as in this case, can as exactly be self-defence, a freedom struggle, martyrdom, the conclusion of an argument based on true humanity.[2]" http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/26/critics-should-respect-my-decision?INTCMP=SRCH By the way, to Tristan above, it is my opinion that it is not Obama who is antisemitic in his milieu. He has never said anything that could be interpreted as antisemitic. But he chose personal friends who are; Khalidi is one such. And he has never said one word about Jewish historical connection to Jerusalem. When he visited Israel during his campaign, he went to pray at the Western Wall. But in light of his Cairo speech, which he made as president, the earlier gesture can be seen as nothing but a dog and pony show, meant for American Jews.

- noga1

September 8, 2011 at 12:24pm

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

noga1 "Israeli soldiers killed civilians in Gaza and Lebanon. Your formula is what allows Leftists of the Indecent type to call Israel a terrorist state." What nonsense, self defense against terrorism is not terrorism no matter what the "human right" groups say. There has hardly been a counter-terrorism operation in which civilians have not been killed by mistake. To consider this terrorism is like considering death by so called friendly fire murder. Terrorists deliberately target civilians counter terrorism operations don't.

- arnon

September 8, 2011 at 12:48pm

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

AllanL5 "Another answer: Because Israel's "war on terror" has been going once since the nation was formed." You are mistaking two different phenomena. Israel has been in a State of war since 1948 with all of the Arab States. After 67 when the Arabs realized that they were not going to win a war with Israel resorted to terrorism by arming and helping the PLO and other Palestinian Arab organizations. There was terrorism before but it was linked to the war of attrition that was being waged by Egypt, Syria, and to a lesser extent Jordan. After 67 and especially after the Sinai agreements with Egypt terrorism took on a life of its on. It was aided by far leftists as well as Arabs. (The hijacking that took a plane to Entebbe was conducted by German "red army" leftists as well as Arabs. Japanese leftists too were involved in massacres.) The Munich massacres can be seen as an opening shot in this new terrorist campaign.

- arnon

September 8, 2011 at 12:58pm

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

And, there's the can of worms. Frankly, it's long been American Presidential policy NOT to mention the status of Jerusalem. Sure, we all know that Israel wants Jerusalem as their capital, and treats it that way -- that's where the Knesset is physically located, after all. By not mentioning it, the American President(s) allow Israel to claim it, without antagonizing all the Arabic countries into uniting against Israel. Obama is a bit of a bull in a china shop, on this issue. If he was wise, he'd just leave it the hell alone, since there is no short-term solution, and continuing to try to FORCE a short-term solution (as he's tried to do) will kick off yet another Intefada. At this point, if all the various Arab Springs could result in some non-tyrannical Governments that are at least not calling for the immediate destruction of Israel, Obama and Israel both would be quite happy with that result.

- AllanL5

September 8, 2011 at 1:06pm

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

Both allied and axis air war strategies in WW2 involved major and sustained attacks on cities as centers of population -- this was even more undeniably the case in the Cold War when the nuclear balance of terror pivoted on the possibility of millions of one's -- and of the opponent's -- citizens being annihilated. One can of course argue that in those circumstances we were dealing with institutionalized military systems under political control, rather than terrorism -- but a lot of people would question the real moral relevance of such a distinction. And even the phrase "balance of terror" is a kind of a giveaway.

- ironyroad

September 8, 2011 at 1:08pm

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

Thank you for your clarification, "arnon", I wasn't able to get in to all of that. You haven't changed my basic point -- what Israel has been going through is quite different from what the US is calling their "war on terror". And to equate the two is wrong.

- AllanL5

September 8, 2011 at 1:08pm

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

An elemenatry distinction distinguishing terrorism is the purposeful targeting of civilians as opposed to collateral damage to civilians as an escapable part of most military campaigns.

- basman

September 8, 2011 at 1:11pm

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

basman: "An elemenatry distinction distinguishing terrorism is the purposeful targeting of civilians as opposed to collateral damage to civilians as an escapable part of most military campaigns." ""What we did was insane and monstrous, we covered entire towns in cluster bombs," the head of an IDF rocket unit in Lebanon said regarding the use of cluster bombs and phosphorous shells during the war." http://www.haaretz.com/news/idf-commander-we-fired-more-than-a-million-cluster-bombs-in-lebanon-1.197099

- SMacEachern2

September 8, 2011 at 1:37pm

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

"The recent attacks in Eilat emanating from Northern Sinai were perpetrated by an al Kaida affiliate." Actually, Arnon, that's not correct. According to IDF intelligence, the attacks were perpetrated by the Gaza Popular Resistance Committees, a shadowy militant group that works with Hamas and may have links to Hezbollah in Lebanon. But that group has never announced that it was affiliated with Al Qaeda -- perhaps because doing so would make Hamas suppress them. Just for the record, Al Qaeda was likely behind the 2002 attacks on Israeli tourists in Mombasa, Kenya and the simultaneous unsuccessful attempt to shoot down an Israeli passenger jet over the Red Sea. But, again, those attacks were perpetrated in Kenya, not in Israel, and the attack in Mombasa killed mostly Kenyans.

- wildboy

September 8, 2011 at 1:59pm

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

I've been running into something ecently, and that's a reluctance to even mention the word "Israel" in certain circles. It is unfashionable. There are plenty of people here in the US, which is where I encountered this, who simply won't mention the word, at all, period. Anyway, darn right Israel isn't in the same situation as the US vis a vis terror. We are not existentially threatened. We are a huge country not in the middle of a hostile world and they are a tiny country in the middle of a world that honestly believes that having Israel disappear would solve all their problems. The fact that this is absurd doesn't seem to bother anybody.

- Sophia

September 8, 2011 at 2:15pm

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

Malahat I've been looking for you. I'm gonna' be in your neck of the woods in late wit my entire family in December early January. Let me know if you want to get together maybe for a beer and some of that old time rock and roll. If so, I'll give you my email address in some furtive way.

- basman

September 8, 2011 at 2:35pm

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

Late december early January that is.

- basman

September 8, 2011 at 2:36pm

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

SMacEachern2 (where did 1 go?) I can't open that Haaretz story. Each time I try my computer virtually freezes. I'll try again later.

- basman

September 8, 2011 at 2:38pm

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

malahat: "Going back to the question in the title of MP's post, I think JackR's elegantly withering observation just about says it all." It has an elegant wither going, I agree, but I also think that Shorpe made the very relevant point that "in the sphere of action Obama has continued the strong support lent to the Jewish state by his predecessors." So there is some difference here between rhetoric and actual policy.

- ironyroad

September 8, 2011 at 3:12pm

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

Obama can't stand Netantyahu. And since he cannot say it declaratively, he does it esoterically, though gestures like this one. And many of his fans will excuse him, since, you know, ... Bibi ...

- noga1

September 8, 2011 at 3:29pm

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

Sophia is right. It's not "polite" to speak sympathetically about Israel in Left or academic circles. I know that some people have careers and livelihoods to protect, but some of us don't and we need to be more "rude". The Left does not have our back. Although I despise Republicanomics, Rick Perry, and the neocon ideology, the Left and Obama are not friends of the Jews and Israel. And Obama should be dumped in favor of a more dynamic Democratic presidential candidate in 2012. He has failed to aggressively defend the New Deal legacy.

- amidut

September 8, 2011 at 3:32pm

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

While I heartily agree with Shorpe's well reasoned posts, I agree with Marty here. I am very hard on Marty, don't much like him, don't hide it and I'm sure the feeling is mutual. I still think the idea of calling Obama an anti-semite is absurd and the picture of petulant immaturity - a refusal to face facts. But. Israel has clearly been a victim of vicious acts terrorism since her inception and remains at great risk of attack daily - period. However complicated the politics are, it is offensive and relativistic to concoct ways to leave that great nation off this list. It is glaringly wrong and Marty is absolutely right for saying so.

- WandreyCer

September 8, 2011 at 3:48pm

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

What does it mean to be a "Jew.?" Are we a "racial group?" Are we a "chosen people?" Do we have a special relationship with God? Are we a religious belief? If so, what do we believe? Jews have been much persecuted throughout history. There is no justification for such attitudes and behaviors. However, as 1) my ancestors were Jewish (or so I was told by my parents and grandparents) and 2) I do not believe in the existence of the being described as "God," what does this mean to me? Given the Jews were dispersed and persecuted, I find it understandable that many Jews supported the creation (or recreation of) a homeland. I am not sure that was a good idea, but now that it exists, the inhabitants should be able to be safe. However, as a person who does not believe in God, it strikes me as unsettling and worrisome that an area regarded as "holy" by so many groups is also one of the most violent and conflict-ridden areas of the world. I am not sure that "blame" is a particularly useful attitude. Where do we go from here?

- skahn

September 8, 2011 at 4:33pm

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

I agree with Wandreycer's balanced comment. Malahat, here's my furtive delivery of my email address: itzikbasman@sympatico.ca. Send me an email and we'll tee something up. p.s. Three cheers for Big Bill: if you're white you're all right and so on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0c1c0ZsTLA

- basman

September 8, 2011 at 5:18pm

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

According to rules of the Spanish Inquisition, it took 20 generations for a person to recuperate from Jewishness. Even the Nazis were less strident about it; for them 8 generations was enough. And it didn't matter if you were a Christian, an Atheist or a German nationalist. Now I always wonder about people who declare themselves "Jews" only to declare their repudiation of their Jewishness, something that seems to give them some sort of allowance to speak patronizingly and drearily about other Jews who actually prefer to be Jewish, and not apologize about it to anybody. If you don't want to be Jewish, fine. Why, however, do you need to keep telling everyone that you are actually Jewish but don't want to be, or see no point in being? Does that make your case any more interesting?

- noga1

September 8, 2011 at 5:18pm

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

Clearly Netanyahu and Obama don't have a good chemistry going. This happens -- LBJ and De Gaulle, John and Paul after Yoko came on the scene, Nikita Kruschchev and Imre Nagy, and so on -- but here as often it's very difficult to pin the blame on just one of those concerned.

- ironyroad

September 8, 2011 at 5:21pm

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

“Thank you for your clarification, "arnon", I wasn't able to get in to all of that. You haven't changed my basic point -- what Israel has been going through is quite different from what the US is calling their "war on terror". And to equate the two is wrong.” Well, “AllanL5,” no two battles against Islamic terrorists are alike. Even WW2 the countries and peoples who fought the Nazis were not fighting for the same reasons. The Jews were fighting for their lives as individuals and as a people, while Nation States were fighting to stay free of Nazi domination. They were fighting for their freedom but not their lives. The war in Eastern Europe was a different war than the war in Western Europe. Yet we still talk about WW2. Similarly here, the fight against Islamic terror is a fight against an ideology that wants to dominate some and extirpate others. Jews in Israel are fighting Hamas whose aim is to annihilate the Jewish State and its people and to establish a Muslim Caliphate. The US and others are fighting al Qaida whose aim is to kill non-Muslims and establish a caliphate. Both organizations have their roots in the Muslim Brotherhood. I think one can safely talk about a common war on terror and equate the two conflicts. If you can equate India’s fight against Muslim terrorism with that of the West then you can surely equate Israel’s struggle.

- arnon

September 8, 2011 at 5:24pm

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

ironyroad "Clearly Netanyahu and Obama don't have a good chemistry going." Neither did Churchill and Stalin or Roosevelt and De Gaulle but that didn't stop them from cooperating in their war against the Nazis.

- arnon

September 8, 2011 at 5:26pm

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

Leave it to the Jew hating SMacEachern2 to quote a four year old opinion piece that quoted an unnamed "batallion commander."

- arnon

September 8, 2011 at 5:32pm

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

wildboy "Actually, Arnon, that's not correct. According to IDF intelligence, the attacks were perpetrated by the Gaza Popular Resistance Committees, a shadowy militant group that works with Hamas and may have links to Hezbollah in Lebanon." I did read that the organization does have some ties with al Qaeda. I'll loook it up when I have some more free time.

- arnon

September 8, 2011 at 5:34pm

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

"But. Israel has clearly been a victim of vicious acts terrorism since her inception and remains at great risk of attack daily - period. However complicated the politics are, it is offensive and relativistic to concoct ways to leave that great nation off this list. It is glaringly wrong and Marty is absolutely right for saying so." Well put.

- arnon

September 8, 2011 at 5:37pm

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

Kahn, do we need to go into metaphysical or even anthropological arguments about what is a Jew? If you refuse to be a member of the Jewish people then not a hundred arguments no matter how well reasoned would convince you. I am speaking only of people like Kahn who claims to have "Jewish ancestry" but says that he isn't a Jew.

- arnon

September 8, 2011 at 5:39pm

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

This thread reminds me of how lively this place was when Peretz blogged here. Too bad that vitality has drained out and only surfaces on occasion, usually when he writes something.

- basman

September 8, 2011 at 5:49pm

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

Arnon, You might have seen something like this about the connection between Al Qaeda and Popular Resistance Committees. They may have cooperated with a Gazan organization called Jaish Al-Islam (as well as Hamas) in the operation that resulted in the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit. Some Israeli analysts have speculated that Jaish Al-Islam has affiliations with Al Qaeda, but that's not entirely clear. As you can see from the attached article, Jaish Al-Islam has been suspected of terrorist bombings in Egypt and the kidnapping of a British journalist in Gaza. Given the nebulous links between these sorts of groups and Al Qaeda or its named affiliates, I can see how a White House speech writer could get the word from the State Department not to mention the Eilat bus attack (or the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit, for that matter) as an example of Al Qaeda terrorism. And yes, I agree with various commentators who opine that there is also some reluctance to include Israeli victims of Arab terrorism that is not associated with Al Qaeda among the victims of terrorism generally, for the reason of not further inflaming the issue with the Palestinian Authority or Arab governments and publics generally. I think you know my views on whether this is smart policy or "offensive and relativistic", but it's not out of bounds to argue either way. Just out of bounds to think that the White House is doing it because Obama or someone else in the West Wing is an anti-Semite or a member of the Israel-hating "Left" or a bosom friend of any of the foregoing. http://jerusalemcenter.wordpress.com/tag/popular-resistance-committee/

- wildboy

September 8, 2011 at 6:02pm

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

"Neither did Churchill and Stalin or Roosevelt and De Gaulle but that didn't stop them from cooperating in their war against the Nazis." arnon, I agree -- that is, I think, what I and Shorpe and a couple of people have been saying: that on the pragmatic level (intelligence exchange, technology, Iran) the collaboration between the U.S. and Israel is mostly experienced and effective. It's not the case that interactions between leaders are necessarily negative or positive for the relationship downstream -- it certainly affects the political decision-making in some way, but the rails that actual policies run on can be pretty firm and unshakeable (e.g. even during the Freedom Fries nonsense, the American-French intel sharing on terrorism chugged along as before, by all accounts).

- ironyroad

September 8, 2011 at 6:20pm

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

When I read a post by someone like skahn, it always brings to mind the comment of the late 19th century Zionist, Max Nordau, who wrote: ""It is the greatest triumph of anti-Semitism that it has brought the Jews to view themselves with anti-Semitic eyes." So, by way of reply to Noga's and Arnon's responses to skahn's post: The various strategies of dis-identification with Judaism that many contemporary Jews employ all seem to me to reflect this simple truth: that the well was poisoned time and again and we had no choice but to drink from it. We came away from the experience having absorbed and internalized some of the hatred lavished upon us by our neighbors. For better or worse, we are members of a tribe that has been relentlessly maligned and tormented and murdered. It's easy to understand why many Jews feel only the most fleeting and circumstantial connection to their heritage. But I think that once you can recognize this as a simple defense mechanism, a survival strategy, you have at least a fair chance of re-establishing a connection to the heritage that fear has kept you away from.

- willjames77

September 8, 2011 at 6:22pm

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

One example proving Peretz is nothing more than a racist liar animated entirely by hatred of the President: http://bit.ly/nTyzwx Then, there's this: "But he owes us a narrative, his narrative." What Peretz really wants is for the President to stand up on his Oval Office desk and beat his chest. It's that simple.

- JTester

September 8, 2011 at 6:35pm

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

wildboy: You are making two different arguments. On you al Qaeda point we not want to see it involved in anti-Israel terrorism but its clear from their communications that Israel along with America is one of their main targets. Your other argument is very weak: "And yes, I agree with various commentators who opine that there is also some reluctance to include Israeli victims of Arab terrorism that is not associated with Al Qaeda among the victims of terrorism generally, for the reason of not further inflaming the issue with the Palestinian Authority or Arab governments and publics generally." If the US gives in on this point why should these same pro Palestinian Arab governments not expect them to give on other more vital issues. Your third tangential point is not worth responding to.

- arnon

September 8, 2011 at 7:03pm

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

"For better or worse, we are members of a tribe that has been relentlessly maligned and tormented and murdered." William James, in my case its never for worse. There is a positive content to being Jewish and I feel sorry for Jews who are aware of it or have renounced it.

- arnon

September 8, 2011 at 7:06pm

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

The bigot, JTester, is never at his best-er.

- arnon

September 8, 2011 at 7:07pm

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

I agree and he should also recognize the murdered palestinians in the hands of the racist "we-are god's-chosen-ones IDF, particularly the once used phosphorus bombs or pregnant women shut to kill both the mother and the baby as victims of terror. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8149464.stmhttp://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/15/israel.gaza.report/index.html http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/idf-soldier-suspected-of-killing-palestinian-still-hasn-t-been-charged-1.282952 http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/family-who-lost-29-members-in-gaza-war-we-envy-the-dead-1.5943 http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/lawyers-in-eu-draw-up-list-of-alleged-idf-war-criminals-1.5386 http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/74906 etc, etc.

- MSA70

September 8, 2011 at 8:47pm

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

"If the US gives in on this point why should these same pro Palestinian Arab governments not expect them to give on other more vital issues." It only logically follows that the pro-Palestinian Arab governments (a redundancy, BTW) would expect the US to give on "more vital issues" if the sum total of communications between those countries occurs through public statements of condolence, admonishment, etc. Of course, it doesn't, and the representatives of those countries know quite well that just because the US President does or doesn't make public references to something doesn't necessarily mean that such US President will now embrace a position that deviates from the US's existing line. Egyptian, Saudi or Turkish diplomats and rulers are not so dense to think that, if a Presidential speech about the victims of terror doesn't mention Israelis directly, it follows that this President also belives that, for example, Israel ought to recognize Hamas or stop the blocade of Gaza without demanding the release of Gilad Shalit, that Israel is no longer entitled to US military assistance or that the US will not veto a Palestinian motion to be recognized in the United Nations as a state based on the 1967 borders of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza.

- wildboy

September 8, 2011 at 8:48pm

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

Boy, the Jew haters like MSA70 are out in force with links that don't even work. "404 - Page Not Found This might be because you typed the web address incorrectly. Please check the address and spelling ensuring that it does not contain capital letters or spaces. It is possible that the page you were looking for may have been moved, updated or deleted."

- arnon

September 8, 2011 at 8:52pm

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

"Of course, it doesn't, and the representatives of those countries know quite well that just because the US President does or doesn't make public references to something doesn't necessarily mean that such US President will now embrace a position that deviates from the US's existing line." So what's is the fuss all about. "It only logically follows that the pro-Palestinian Arab governments (a redundancy, BTW)" In that case, let's remember that The so called Israeli Palestinian conflict is really an Arab-Israeli conflict. The President should speak his mind and he knows that. Everyone knows where the US stands on this issue. If Obama, then refuses to see attacks on Israel by Islamic Jihadists as similar to their attacks on non Jewish targets then he's got a problem.

- arnon

September 8, 2011 at 8:57pm

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

With respect, Arnon, et.al., some of the worst acts of terrorism against Israel but also against other Arabs and people around the world have been committed by Christians. Carlos wasn't a Muslim, neither was George Habash, etc. and what about the Japanese and the Germans? There are pro-Syrian, anti-Israel factions in Lebanon which are Christian even today. Some apparently support Hezbollah. They implicit support "the resistance." Therefore, I think one has to be careful about associating terrorism with Islam, not only because it stereotypes Muslims but also because it is inaccurate. Indeed it's only been since 9/11 that we've seen all acts of political terror involving the M.E. characterized as "radical Islam." That may play conveniently on Main Street but it wasn't accurate in the past and probably isn't today. Where Israel is concerned, some of the very worst antisemites are Eastern Christians and of course they have counterparts in the West. As for skahn, being part of am Yisroel doesn't mean you believe in G*d. Many of us don't but we certainly understand our shared history, heritage and values and our relatives are still plenty dead, religious or otherwise.

- Sophia

September 8, 2011 at 9:52pm

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

I meant, "implicitly," apologies. Also, one should mention, before the fall of the Soviet Union much terrorism was supported by the Soviet Union. Example, they armed and funded the UAR, Gaddafi, the PLO, Syria, etc.

- Sophia

September 8, 2011 at 9:54pm

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

arnon: "Leave it to the Jew hating SMacEachern2 to quote a four year old opinion piece that quoted an unnamed "batallion commander."" I wasn't aware that Haaretz was an anti-semitic journal... But don't worry, the article (not an opinion piece) may be four years old, but UXBs are pretty much forever. And keep flogging 'Jew-hatred', man... you and yours have prostituted the term so thoroughly that a little more won't have much effect.

- SMacEachern2

September 8, 2011 at 9:57pm

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

Sophia "With respect, Arnon, et.al., some of the worst acts of terrorism against Israel but also against other Arabs and people around the world have been committed by Christians." Last I heard the "Christians" as you call them didn't kill Israelis in the name of Christianity. They did so because of their ideology. That there are many Christian antisemites is a fact. However, the Catholic church and most Protestant Churches don't have the same antisemitic views of Jews as they did in the past. Many Arab Christians, while they haven't come to terms with a secular and pluralistic world yet, are following the lead of their Muslim "hosts" when it comes to Jews. I hope some day in the future we could talk about Muslims antisemitism as an historical and not actual fact.

- arnon

September 8, 2011 at 10:22pm

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

SMacEachern2 "I wasn't aware that Haaretz was an anti-semitic journal.." You are not Haaretz. The article printed there was offered as an opinion and the source of the quote you posted was not identified.

- arnon

September 8, 2011 at 10:24pm

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

arnon: "You are not Haaretz." Quite right... so how is it 'Jew-hatred' to quote an article from Haaretz? And sorry, but it's not an editorial, and the mere fact that a battalion commander didn't want to risk retribution by being identified no more makes it an opinion piece than does the use of anonymous sources in other news sources. Israel used cluster munitions as a weapon of terror in Lebanon, and the effects are still being felt there.

- SMacEachern2

September 8, 2011 at 10:50pm

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

"Quite right... so how is it 'Jew-hatred' to quote an article from Haaretz?" Your one quote from the article didn't prove anything, especially since it was not attributed. Besides that was one part of an ongoing story and investigation about the IDF conduct during the war and wasn't the whole story. You made it seem as if it were the whole story.

- arnon

September 8, 2011 at 10:54pm

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

I don't understand why the administration would leave Israel off the list of terror victims. Has anybody bothered to ask them for an explanation? Did former presidents include Israel?

- scrubby

September 8, 2011 at 11:27pm

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

Islamic Jew-hatred is a fact and a factor in the Arab war against Israel. Look at this: http://mickhartley.typepad.com/blog/2011/09/not-blue-peter.html "Oh Jerusalem, oh Jerusalem, Your name is in the hearts of millions. We will take you from the accursed Jews, Who killed and massacred many people, Many poor children, women, and the elderly, And before them, they killed the prophets and messengers. Nevertheless, you will continue to belong to the Arabs and Muslims." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alkJkN5Dkbk&feature=player_embedded

- noga1

September 8, 2011 at 11:44pm

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

Most of the time my comments seem to disappear in the general scrum, but there are two topics where anything I write seems to provoke strong (and to me, rather strange) reactions no matter how carefully I try to write them. One is abortion. The other--the one that by far takes the top of the list--is about being a Jew. I wrote what I thought were some straightforward (if perhaps difficult) questions. There were several responses I find puzzling, with a lot of strange affect that seems way out of proportion and not very enlightening. It's late and I am tired, so perhaps if I read them more carefully when I am more awake they will make more sense to me...but I doubt it. Is being a Jew a racial identification? Can this be identified by DNA analysis? I am not putting a value on this positive or negative--I am simply asking a question which should have a factual answer. Please try to answer calmly if you choose to answer. Is being a Jew a sociological category (which may or may not have some racial identity per previous question)? Is this sociological category involve some danger, some need for wariness, or some need for affinity with others in the category? Again, I am trying to ask this as calmly and unemotionally as possible. Whenever I touch on this topic here it seems to provoke reactions whose strength of emotion and criticism puzzle me. It's hard to hurt (not impossible, but difficult) to hurt my feelings, so if someone goes on in the same manner as say, "When I read a post by someone like skahn, it always brings to mind the comment of the late 19th century Zionist, Max Nordau, who wrote: ""It is the greatest triumph of anti-Semitism that it has brought the Jews to view themselves with anti-Semitic eyes." I am not disturbed, but I am puzzled. The implication seems to be that I am "anti-Semitic." This may be, but I would prefer it if someone could and write a clear and unemotional explanation what this means. During my 67 years of life in the United States, I encountered a few, very slight experiences and remarks that I would characterize as anti-Semitic. I have read about and seem films about terrible persecutions of Jews. Grandparents from Ukraine and other parts of Eastern Europe talked about pogroms and persecution by Cossaks (thought not in detail). I do not discount this. I am aware that if I had lived somewhere else, or if circumstances change drastically, I would not be exempt from such things happening to me. But again, there is some reaction to what I write and ask that I find very strange and rather excessive, and no one seems to be able to explain it in a coherent and logical manner. Well, i am going to bed. Good night, all.

- skahn

September 9, 2011 at 1:41am

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

So cute, arnon! So very cute! I'll take the White House Statement linked, thanks. Honestly, it'd probably get a bigger audience long-term on the internet than most single pieces of Presidential oratory. I'm really sorry I hurt your delicate fee-fees, arnon, but the suggestion by this blogger and his sycophants that the President of The United States is blind to the suffering of Israelis makes me quite angry because it is not the least bit bloody true. It's not supported by the facts of our foreign aid set-up, it's not supported by the way this administration handled the likes of the bin Laden hit and the massively unfair ganging-up Israel faced after the flotilla raid, and it's not supported by the President's words. Try your little trick out for awhile beyond an agreeable internet thread or two, and I'm sure you will find many others similarly ticked. I trust the Rick Perry presidential campaign will appreciate your and Peretz's endorsement, eventhough the Texas governor has done nothing to show he isn't the kind of fool who wants to use Israel as some kind of pawn in his own religious and civilizational war. On "narrative," I'd argue that POTUS tried to establish one with the Cairo speech. There was no guarantee it'd stick, in my view, and it's still on the rocks, but if there are no grand statements at this time and we instead go with: "On foreign policy, America just does the damned job," would that be entirely inaccurate? The work's not sexy and it's never been so. I can't claim to have done my part and Peretz shouldn't, either. "We" are fighting? No, Marty: you, me, your critics and your friends sit down time and again to the same computer screens and leave our words. There's no "fight" here, people express themselves and leave the message board. That's not a fight; that's a graffiti-ing. I'd welcome ideas from Peretz on how he'd have Obama kickstart this sweeping foreign policy vision he wants. I once asked if M.P.'d have POTUS move to reinstate the draft. Should Obama up drone strikes-a mixed bag-even more? I wish Peretz would think this sort of thing through, but doubt he will. Much easier to bait and bash one's opponents.

- JTester

September 9, 2011 at 3:31am

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

"Ah, what a price to pay... The years when he was a child and I loved him and talked with him and held him under my tallis when I prayed... 'Why do you cry, Father?' he asked me once under the tallis. 'Because people are suffering,' I told him. He could not understand. Ah, what it is to be a mind without a soul, what ugliness it is... Those were the years he learned to trust me and love me... And when he was older, the years I drew myself away from him... 'Why have you stopped answering my questions, Father?' he asked me once. 'You are old enough to look into your own soul for the answers,' I told him. He laughed once and said, 'That man is such an ignoramus, Father.' I was angry. 'Look into his soul,' I said. 'Stand inside his soul and see the world through his eyes. You will know the pain he feels because of his ignorance, and you will not laugh.'" --Chaim Potok, The Chosen

- noga1

September 9, 2011 at 7:10am

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

Skahn: I meant no personal offense, and I do appreciate your personal disclosures and your efforts to share your views sincerely. The implication of Max Nordau's comment that I quoted was not that you are antisemitic. It's rather that you seem to have a kind of tangential, peripheral and bemused relationship to your Jewishness—rather than a strong feeling of affinity. I know that this is true for many American Jews, and I believe that it is the cumulative result of our collective historical experience of antisemitism. Many Jews who grew up in the States—and experienced very little personal harassment in their own lives—tend to forget that their ancestors came here to escape being murdered by their neighbors elsewhere. The historic legacy of expropriations and forced expulsions, pogroms, ovens and death marches is not something that we personally ever faced, but it remains on the periphery of every Jew's awareness, even in the best of times. I have become convinced that this darkness on the edge of town, this subliminal fear, is what keeps many Jews from exploring their traditions and from identifying more positively with their tribe. In the most extreme cases, you get "polarity reversal" where people internalize the antisemitic paradigm and don't realize they've been poisoned, e.g. the Noam Chomskys, Dennis Bernsteins and those who fast in solidarity with Hamas. But, all along the spectrum, one finds those who put a certain safe distance between themselves and the rest of the tribe. They acknowledge that they are Jewish, but don't want to be "too Jewish"; they support Israel, but, God forbid, don't want to be accused of being Zionists, etc. I invite you to think about this as you listen to some of the arguments on these boards between those who appreciate Marty Peretz's posts and those who find his unabashed support for the Jewish state psychologically intolerable.

- willjames77

September 9, 2011 at 7:10am

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

skahn, you seem to have a personal Jewish problem. You don't consider yourself a Jew, yet you obsess about it. Jews don't obsess about you, and no one is asking you to be Jewish, so why bother your head about it?

- arnon

September 9, 2011 at 8:15am

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

Fuck off, JTester. You are nothing if not a pro Palestinian antisemite.

- arnon

September 9, 2011 at 8:17am

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

good to catch up here. Have been reading "Strange Lands and Friendly People "By William O. Douglas, published in 1951, but includes his travels in Lebanon, Syria, Trans-Jordan, Jerusalem, and Israel in 1949, including visits to various Arab refugee camps. The eyes of a Christian when seeing Old Jerusalem under Jordanian control. But, once he transits the temporary armistice border (this is in 1949) to New Jerusalem, literally barbed wire manned by machine guns one hundred feet apart, he marvels at what the new Jewish state has already achieved, especially in farming and the new legal system, compared to everything he had seen in Arab and Kurdish lands. I can not find it online, so I am only going to transcribe this part of one story: Douglas intro:"First, they created Israel; second, they won a war; third, they took in all the Jewish immigrants who applied for admission." "How could the Jews achieve so much?" the puzzled friend [in NYC] inquired. "There are two reasons," the returning [from Tel Aviv in 1949] replied. "One is natural and the other is supernatural." "What was the natural one?" "The Jews had G-d and justice on their side." "And what was the supernatural one?" "The Jews knew how to shoot." An insightful view from FDR's other choice for VP in 1944, the legendary SCOTUS William O. Douglas. Some of you may really enjoy his view from 1949.

- K2K

September 9, 2011 at 12:57pm

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

willjames: my American experience since 1952 has had MANY very direct bumps into blatant anti-semitism. Including inside Fortune100 corporations through the 1990's. and in grad school at Lehman College in the Bronx 2003-2005 from students and a few professors. Named after Herbert Lehman. Al Sharpton and Farrakhan have a long reach in the New York metro area.

- K2K

September 9, 2011 at 1:06pm

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

“"First, they created Israel; second, they won a war; third, they took in all the Jewish immigrants who applied for admission." "How could the Jews achieve so much?" the puzzled friend [in NYC] inquired.” Cute story, but it misses the point. The questioner assumed that the Jewish State started in 1948 and what was achieved was achieved since independence. The truth is more mundane and also more interesting. Jews started building civil society in Palestine at the beginning of the 20th c. Much before independence and before WW1 the Jews were already thinking about independence and how to achieve it. Hence the legal system that was put in place was already in the works in the 1920’s and 30’s. The fight both diplomatically and then military for independence never took precedence over creating a civil society with a strong reliance on law and a strong economy. This is why when 1948 came around the Jews were ready for independence while the Arabs were not. Had the Jews relied mainly on military power alone, they never would have succeeded. Today Netanyahu and especially Lieberman seemed to have forgotten that lesson, which is why they are currently playing a dangerous game with Turkey. No previous PM would have allowed a confrontation to have reached a stage were military action is a real possibility.

- arnon

September 9, 2011 at 2:23pm

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

Just a note on SKahn's comments and the responses to them. He seems to be, as I read him, indifferent to his Jewishness and is just saying so. I don't see him admonishing, hectoring, patronizing or scolding anyone, just rather trying to articulate his own perplexities and confusions. His posts here, with all due respect to him, do not seem to be that coherent or to go anywhere helpful but I agree with him that some of the reactions he provoked here are over the top. And, as an atheist but feel my own Jewishness innately in ways hard for me to articulate, and feel a kind of umbilical connection to Israel, even though my birth pre dates the modern state, I am, like SKahn aghast at the notion, and its implications, of Israel as holy land. Penultimately, just as a matter of interest, I disagree with both Skahn's and willjames7's view of Nordau's cited quote. It does not mean, as I read it, that SKahn is anti-Semitic; nor do I think it means one finally winds up with "a kind of tangential, peripheral and bemused relationship to (his) Jewishness"—rather than a strong feeling of affinity" although this is an excellent characterization of SKahn's relation to it, such that it is. I think, rather, it means that anti Semitism's chief triumph is when Jews themselves internalize the anti Semites' views of them and see themselves as anti Semites do. This I do not read SKahn to do in his posts on this thread. Finally, WillJames7, I don't agree with your psychological/historical explanation for Skahn's attenuated view of his Jewishness. I find, with respect, that for all its possible general explanatory power, that explanation reductive in the particular case. For who knows why, due to what contingencies and formative happenstances, he has wound up feeling away the he does? I only dwell on Skahn's comments and the responses to it because, I share some of his bemusement, though not his disconnection, and because his case raises--at least for me-- interesting issues generally about our relation to our Jewish identities and the grounds for that relation.

- basman

September 9, 2011 at 5:00pm

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

Barack Hussein Obama is a fanatic anti-Israel. No doubts about. So what to do about it? Just vote him out. However the republican tea baggers are enemies of the middle class. Barack Hussein Obama is no better. What a conundrum.

- JAIMECHUCH

September 9, 2011 at 5:13pm

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

Just an analytical point in the interest of (hopefully) clear thinking. At the risk of being too binary, two theories animate the discussion here of why the Obama adminstration doesn't list Israel as a victim of terror: one, his, its, animus toward it, this theory exemplified by the post just preceding mine; two, a kind of realpolitik calculation. Now it would formally exclude middles to say that these two theories are necessarily mutually exclusive. But the more theory two prevails, the more it displaces the power of theory one. The more it prevails the more the issue becomes one of calculation as against principled declaration. Me, I don't think that Obama has an anti-Semitic bone in his body or a reflexively anti-Israeli one in there either and find these accusations both shrill and virtually paranoid.

- basman

September 9, 2011 at 5:56pm

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

"09/08/2011 - 2:15pm EDT | Sophia I've been running into something ecently, and that's a reluctance to even mention the word "Israel" in certain circles." http://www.fighthatred.com/recent-events/academic-hate/774-table-talk-by-eve-garrard "Bloody Jews,' he said. 'Bloody Jews, bugger the Jews, I've no sympathy for them.' I gazed at him, aghast. Where had this suddenly come from? The encounter I'm here describing took place very recently, in the course of a large academic dinner at a University in another city, not my own one. It was a pleasant occasion, and the people at my table were innocuously and comfortably talking about sociological issues connected with the economic crisis, all completely harmless and (relatively) uncontentious. And then I heard the academic on my right hand side say to the person opposite him, 'Bloody Jews.' When he saw my appalled stare, he said impatiently, 'Oh well, I'm sorry, but really...!' 'I'm glad you're sorry,' I replied politely, collecting myself together for a fight. But then he asked, 'Are you Jewish?' When I nodded, this academic - whom I'd met for the first time that day - put his arm around me and said, 'I'm sorry, but really Israel is terrible, the massacres, Plan Dalet, the ethnic cleansing, they're like the Nazis, they're the same as the Nazis...' "

- noga1

September 9, 2011 at 6:24pm

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uIEeiDjdUuU "The One-State Solution" well arnon, I did suggest people read the whole book. Douglas covers the pre-1948 Jewish development quite well as background for what he is seeing in 1949, although he spends most pages on Israel's economic development and agriculture. I solely transcribed the second funniest 'story' in the whole book. The funniest was, also in 1949, walking with muleteers through Lebanon, near Laqlouq, when a Lebanese farmer asked him if America had come to take over the country. When Douglas says no with laughter, the farmer's "...face fell. After a few minutes he said, "It's too bad you are not going to take the country over." [Douglas] "Why is it too bad?" "Because someone should take it over and run it." ... Everywhere, he said, was corruption. ... "Strange Lands and Friendly People " is a fascinating travel memoir, mostly about Persia and Kurdistan, but, after the three chapters on 1949 Israel, Douglas ends with four chapters on India in 1950.

- K2K

September 9, 2011 at 6:55pm

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

Why doesn't President Obama list the Indigenous people of the America's as victims of terrorism, what about African Americans who were terrorized in the South, the names of informants and witnesses that are terrorized by gangs? God promised the "Holy Land" to the Israelite's not to the Jewish people. The closest we probably come to Israelites are the Ethiopian Jews. I just don't think we should support a group of people who come to claim a piece of land promised to them in a book that is 5000 years old. We broke treaties with the Indigenous people of the America they were only written 200 some years ago. Should we all get ready to move back to Europe or be pushed into Refugee tents?

- DDS112097

September 9, 2011 at 7:25pm

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

First of all, thank you to basman for a thoughtful and courteous response. We can't change the past, but we all react to our pasts as individuals and as members of groups. I am not a doctor, but the mashup of the Hippocratic Oath that is provided as "First, do no harm," is not entirely possible as an ideal, but is a fine goal to strive for. I don't want to go on about what it means to be a "Jew," or whether Israel should or not have been re-established in the Middle East, but it is there now, the Palestinians are there now, the Arabs are there now, the Iranians are there now, the Turks are there now, so lets try to sort it all out and make the best of it we can.

- skahn

September 9, 2011 at 8:21pm

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

"...well arnon, I did suggest people read the whole book." Justice William O Douglas was a good man, I my comment wasn't aimed at him. I was commenting on the exchange. I don't have time to read his book right now, but as some point I'll have a look at him. Other Americans visited Israel in the 30's and 40's were the Kennedy Brothers, John and Robert. They each wrote marvelous first person accounts. Also worth reading. They each saw the communal spirit of the Jews who lived there. Too bad that as the country grew riches some of that communal spirit was diminished. Given the ongoing threats that spirit is going to be needed as it was needed in those early years.

- arnon

September 9, 2011 at 9:22pm

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

skahn, being Jewish means belonging to a people and you can't really belong to a people if you don't know its history, its language, (in this case languages) and participate in its culture. Being religious, ironically, is not a requirement, but knowing its religious culture is. Most Jews learn these things as they grow up. Today there is this view that people are just individuals and many Jews have decided that being Jewish is a matter of choice. This isn't the case for most of us. You are Jewish the way you are say, Haitian or French. You are born into it or you adopt it as your culture. Antisemitism isn't a good reason to either be Jewish or stop being Jewish.

- arnon

September 9, 2011 at 9:28pm

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

Arab spring, a spring to hatred and violence: "Protest of Thousands in Cairo Turns Violent" http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/10/world/middleeast/10egypt.html?_r=1&hp Notice how the NY Times reporter is trying to vindicate their previous reports on the demonstrations.

- arnon

September 9, 2011 at 10:07pm

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

pre-emptive strike before Peretz posts about Mel Gibson producing a biopic about Judah Maccabee is this link to Jeffrey Goldberg's partial interview with Gibson: http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/09/mel-gibson-on-judah-maccabee-christopher-hitchens-and-circumcision/244828/?google_editors_picks=true Like Goldberg, I still enjoy Mel Gibson's films, and thought the brouhahah over "Last Temptation of Christ" was overblown once I saw it - it was re-released when I was taking a grad school course on the history of anti-semitism - and I thought it showed the Romans as the bad guys.

- K2K

September 10, 2011 at 9:41am

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

"I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap and share common principles, principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. " (B. Obama) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKwyRdgDvlI Notice the fudging and underhanded thumbs-up in the way the Sky reporter frames the story.

- noga1

September 10, 2011 at 9:54am

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

noga - too kind - that Sky reporter went out of his way to make it seem 'ineveitable' and 'Israel's fault'. OTOH, thinking about the repercussions more broadly, might make a few democracies in EU and South America (Chile) re-think a yes vote in the UN GA on pal-statehood, seeing what is happening in post-Mubarak Egypt. Going to get a lot worse when Egypt can not buy enough wheat to feed half their population.

- K2K

September 10, 2011 at 10:56am

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

"OTOH, thinking about the repercussions more broadly, might make a few democracies in EU and South America (Chile) re-think a yes vote in the UN GA on pal-statehood, seeing what is happening in post-Mubarak Egypt. Going to get a lot worse when Egypt can not buy enough wheat to feed half their population." I wouldn't count on that. Countries seldom "re-think" positions. Most often they act under some kind of pressure or because it's in their interest.

- arnon

September 10, 2011 at 4:04pm

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

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/09/11/israeli-embassy-the-egyptian-bastille/ how will nations react to pal-statehood when they see the Egyptian military completely impotent in controlling mobs attacking embassies?

- K2K

September 11, 2011 at 9:32am

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

"how will nations react to pal-statehood when they see the Egyptian military completely impotent in controlling mobs attacking embassies?" They don't see it this way. They probably consider it "legitimate criticism" of Israel's policies.

- noga1

September 11, 2011 at 9:54am

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

As an after thought, this is probably the reason "Why Won’t Obama List Israelis Among the Victims of Terrorism?". It is not terrorism, per se, if it is directed against Israeli civilians. As we know, there are no Israeli civilians: they are all soldiers or Mossad spies.

- noga1

September 11, 2011 at 9:58am

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

"Netanyahu praised the United States for intervening with Egypt in order to rescue the Israelis. “I would like to express my gratitude to the President of the United States, Barack Obama. I asked for his help. This was a decisive and fateful moment. He said, ‘I will do everything I can.’ And so he did. He used every considerable means and influence of the United States to help us. We owe him a special measure of gratitude,” Netanyahu said." http://www.forward.com/articles/142649/#ixzz1Xes9Tz6v

- arnon

September 11, 2011 at 11:31am

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

Noga, take a break.

- arnon

September 11, 2011 at 11:33am

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

Yawn

- noga1

September 11, 2011 at 6:42pm

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

Just posted by Adrian Blomfield, Daily Telegraph's Jerusalem reporter - sounds plausible: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/8756111/Egypts-military-rulers-ignored-pleas-from-US-as-mob-attacked-Israeli-embassy.html [Headline] "Egypt's military rulers ignored pleas from US as mob attacked Israeli embassy Egypt's military leaders have been accused of turning a blind eye to the mob attack on Israel's Cairo embassy at the weekend as it emerged that they ignored repeated telephone calls from the Obama administration." [Text] "With six Israeli security guards fending off an angry mob rampaging through the mission, Leon Panetta, the US defence secretary, tried for two hours to get hold of Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi, Egypt's de facto head of state, to demand an immediate rescue operation. Aides told Mr Panetta that the general could not be found, Israeli officials were quoted as saying. The response prompted fury in Washington, and threats of US retribution. Field Marshal Tantawi's mysterious disappearance intensified speculation that Egypt's generals had deliberately failed to protect the embassy for political gain. The armed forces, which are running Egypt until a civilian government is elected at the end of the year, are thought to be desperate to retain the political influence and financial privileges they enjoyed under President Hosni Mubarak, who was toppled by protests in February. Officials in Israel, as well as a number of political activists in Cairo, have claimed that Field Marshal Tantawi turned down an opportunity to rein in the violence at the embassy in order to prove that, without a strong army, Egypt would descend into violence and anarchy. Israel was forced to send military aircraft to Cairo to evacuate its ambassador and more than 80 diplomats after a mob, angered by the killing of three Egyptian border guards by Israeli forces last month, laid siege to the embassy. As the Egyptian police and army stood by, unwilling or unable to intervene, the rioters broke through the mission's defences and ransacked the building. The incident has plunged relations between Israel and its oldest Arab ally deep into crisis. ..."

- K2K

September 11, 2011 at 7:05pm

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

[what I thought sounded the most plausible motive -from Blomfield's news report in the Telegraph cited above:] "...The armed forces, which are running Egypt until a civilian government is elected at the end of the year, are thought to be desperate to retain the political influence and financial privileges they enjoyed under President Hosni Mubarak, who was toppled by protests in February. Officials in Israel, as well as a number of political activists in Cairo, have claimed that Field Marshal Tantawi turned down an opportunity to rein in the violence at the embassy in order to prove that, without a strong army, Egypt would descend into violence and anarchy. ..."

- K2K

September 11, 2011 at 7:08pm

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

I did read the article in the Telegraph, along with it one should also read this: "Of Arms and Imams – The Egyptian Armed Forces and the Muslim Brotherhood’s chances for power" This is a guest post by Abu Faris http://hurryupharry.org/2011/09/11/of-arms-and-imams-%E2%80%93-the-egyptian-armed-forces-and-the-muslim-brotherhoods-chances-for-power/ "I move to Cairo just before it all kicked off in January; I quit Cairo just before it kicks off in September. However, I do live and work in Alexandria, a volatile city at the best of times. If it goes “Boom!” here, they do it large. After all, Alexandrians have been rioting, shouting a lot and gesticulating wildly since the time of, well, Alexander. They are all rather excitable. I shall be talking with a very voluble bunch of middle class Alexandrians tomorrow – who to the last one have already pressed upon me their strong opinions about almost everything under the sun. I am sure they will have something to say tomorrow. The real creeping horror here is the following scenario that more reflective Egyptians are trying not to think about. It plays out horribly: The mass and truly popular demonstrations of the revolutionary days of January have spent their force. The demonstrations and mass-meetings have become more partisan and selective with groups boycotting each other. The unity is dissipating, the people are not attending the meetings in the breadth and numbers once they did. In this the armed forces have allowed the truly livid Egyptian people to vent their fury and has very cleverly gently ratcheted up the level of control over demonstrations and mass meetings through a combination of very patient, controlled, yet firm policing, together with a clever political strategy of engagement and cooperation with the political faces of the democratic revolution. This has allowed the armed forces to both control the streets without too much violence, instigate a strategy of arresting and charging revolutionary activists and generally “kettle” the entire revolution and bend it to their own wishes...." Read it all.

- arnon

September 11, 2011 at 8:22pm

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

Must have been an exciting few days in Washington and Jerusalem. While most people were busy with past's 9/11 some in the government were busy with potential future 9/11's or even worse.

- arnon

September 11, 2011 at 9:32pm

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

Russia will support a Palestinian state at the UN. So much for those in the likud who argued that Israel should stop relying on the US and make alliances with countries like Russia.

- arnon

September 12, 2011 at 1:07pm

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

Why would Russia do this, Arnon? They have oil, so what's the cozying up about? Is it simply a way to stick it to us? This is symbolic. Whatever is going on between Russia and Israel isn't getting derailed because of this. I'm sure there are higher interests.

- MOLLYSIMON

September 12, 2011 at 4:00pm

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

MOLLYSIMON “Why would Russia do this, Arnon? They have oil, so what's the cozying up about? Is it simply a way to stick it to us? This is symbolic. Whatever is going on between Russia and Israel isn't getting derailed because of this. I'm sure there are higher interests.” I have no single answer to why is Russia supporting the Palestinian position at the UN as well as why they are also supporting the Assad regime in Syria. I have tried to find some persuasive analysis but so far nothing beyond the usual conspiracy “theorizing.” My sense and this is that the Middle East and Eastern Europe especially Russia is moving back to pre-20th century dynamics mutatis-mutandis. In this scenario the Arab world will come to rely more on Turkey and Russia will see this as a threat. Perhaps by supporting the Palestinians (as well being friendly to Israel) they are hoping to lessen the need for Arab reliance on Turkey. There is also the economic factor: Syria bought a billion dollars-worth of arms from Russia and they may think that if the Assad regime falls they will lose the money. In any case these are just guesses. What struck me though is how wrong (which I argued at the time) some Israeli policy makers were when they speculated that Israel could lessen its dependence on the US (because of some mild criticism Washington—there aren’t a lot of grown-ups in Netanyahu’s circle) and make deals with countries like Russia, China and India. I thought such views were and are nuts. I also think that the crises with Turkey, while not one hundred percent Israel’s fault, could have been handled more diplomatically. Avigdor Lieberman is the worst foreign minister Israel has had. Too many in Netanyahu's inner circle have been listening to American Jewish conservatives like Podhoretz and Elliott Abrams. These are the folks who advocated "democratization" in the Middle East something the region hasn't had in its five thousand year history. From Iraq to the horrific attack on the Israeli embassy in Cairo was but a small step. It also helped bring Hamas to power way back when Ms. Rice called for "free" elections in territories.

- arnon

September 12, 2011 at 8:14pm

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

Interesting and convincing ideas, Arnon. Thanks.

- MOLLYSIMON

September 12, 2011 at 11:59pm

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

Russia had a severe brain drain to Israel (and the US). They want the secular pork-eating Russians in Israel to come back, as long as they also are also technology wizards. Tough choice: arab terror or pogrom revivals...

- K2K

September 13, 2011 at 12:42pm

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

09/12/2011 - 8:14pm EDT | arnon Strong and thoughtful post.

- basman

September 14, 2011 at 12:59pm

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close