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 Netanyahu Is Not the Problem

TEL AVIV JOURNAL NOVEMBER 11, 2011

Netanyahu Is Not the Problem

BY MARTIN PERETZ

At the G20 Summit last week in Cannes, Nicolas Sarkozy held only four private meetings. One was with Barack Obama and a second was with Manmohan Singh, prime minister of India. (It’s not clear whether Felipe Calderon, the president of Mexico, met alone with the French president or whether his country was a fully deserved separate topic on the agenda, perhaps as a “disaster in the process.”) The other two privileged to have Sarkozy alone face-to-face were Hu Jintao, president of the People’s Republic of China, and William Gates, co-chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, literally the only people in attendance representing enterprises that are financially solvent. Take a look at these primarily optimistic documents and try to assess the honesty of the reports. Actually, this is the measure of our politics: deception, self-deception, duplicity, hypocrisy, pretense.

It was at this jamboree of whoppers that Sarkozy chose to confide to President Obama that he “can’t stand Netanyahu anymore. He is a liar.” And the president responded, sort of in kind: “You’re fed up with him. But I have to deal with him every day.” Of course, this was one of those moments that journalists dream about. The microphone was on when it was supposed to be off. Now, Sarkozy is not exactly known for his verisimilitude and neither is Obama, whose foreign policy, in particular, is based on the silliest improvisations of history. He has certainly made up his narratives on Muslim culture, in general, and on American-Arab relations, in particular. This accumulated flim-flam has made U.S. policy in the orbit of the crescent a laughing-stock for, well, everyone.

But Sarkozy’s prevarications are closer to fibs, although they arise from deep within his character. Just a few days ago the London Daily Mail detailed his pathetic attempts to make himself appear taller than his 5’5”, four inches less than the first lady, Carla Bruni. The official entourage of the president of the Fifth Republic carries around a variety of height falsifiers, platforms for every situation and every need. He cannot speak without a riser that buoys him almost aloft. Even Napoleon, actually two inches shorter, was not that vain. So Sarkozy has risen, so to speak, to new heights in his deceptions.

He is also full of portent in other aspects of his public life. You can find lurid reports all over the media on how Sarkozy had the French exchequer refurbish an $82 million Airbus 330 at a cost of $410 million. Which allowed $110,000 (!) for a double oven (to bake baguettes just like le president gets at the Élysée Palace). Presumably, the craft also has a crib for Carla and Nicolas’s newborn baby. But it is definitely equipped with two separate showers, one for the man and the other for his spouse. When you read about the rich tastes of this presidential couple you realize that Michelle Obama is actually a skinflint with our dollars.

I am actually happy that Sarkozy let slip his dislike for Bibi Netanyahu. It will put a crimp in his cynical jumping from one side to another on “the question of Palestine.” France voted for the admission of Palestine to membership in UNESCO. So what! UNESCO is composed of nearly 200 member-states, gives out dozens and dozens of prizes, has dozens and dozens of offices, certifies dozens and dozens of “world heritage sites,” and spends hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, minus the $60-odd million that the U.S. withdrew last month and the further cash that Canada will not donate. Other states will try to get out of their commitments, too, and this will harm the world not at all. If you don’t believe me read the document labeled on the web as Programme & Budget (C5). The truth is that the Palestinian “government” (aren’t there actually two Palestinian governments?) belongs in UNESCO because the organization is composed of paper programs. The aforementioned document includes a detailed roughly three quarters of a billion dollar budget. Here’s an instance of how they use the language: “Biennial Sectorial Priority 2: Advocating the inclusion of culture and intercultural dialogue in development policies to foster a culture of peace and non-violence.” Then there’s a 50-page addendum dealing with the “expected results at the end of the biennium.” So the Palestinian fantasy and the UNESCO fantasy mesh.

The Security Council will not behave as it was expected to on Palestinian membership in the U.N. itself. And Israel and my Zionist comrades should give credit where credit is due, that is, credit to President Obama who may finally have grasped—I’m not really sure of this—that the Palestinian Authority is not ready to govern because the political culture of the Palestinians is not yet governable. All the hosannas to Salam Fayyad notwithstanding. If Obama has in some way internalized this it is great progress.

Still, the president remains fixed on the matter of housing in Jerusalem. Let me try to explain this to my readers. The Arabs have held up history for at least 65 years. Bobby Kennedy (who was assassinated by a Palestinian terrorist, if you recall) recognized this on his visit to British Mandate Palestine a month before Jewish independence was proclaimed. Arab statesdeclared war on the nascent commonwealth and lost. However, the army of Jordan captured and annexed what was supposed to be Arab Palestine and also old Jerusalem including the ancient Jewish Quarter which, according to the Partition Plan, was to be a part of an internationalized city. With great remorse, the Jewish Agency for Palestine, the interim Zionist government, had accepted this heart-rending provision. But from 1948 to 1967 Israel was actually separated from the very heart of Zion. When Jordan joined Egypt and Syria in what became known as the Six Day War but lost, it surrendered the West Bank, including the Arab sections of Jerusalem and also the places, sacred and quotidian, of Jewish history.

Since big power pressure had never been mustered to fulfill the Jerusalem internationalization provisions of the Partition Plan, Israel immediately began to repopulate the Jewish quarter and to build Jewish communities here and there in the new city. And the Arabs continued their war. Gilo is one of those communities, started in 1973, not incidentally in east Jerusalem but in the southern part of the city and on Jewish-owned land. Stupidly, the administration has stridently objected to new housing even in this area.

What the administration and the Quartet are doing is to permit the recalcitrant Palestinians to impede the natural development of Jerusalem. Similarly, Obama goes apoplectic every time a few hundred apartments are built in areas of the West Bank adjacent or very close to the Partition Plan lines. Everybody knows deep down that Israel will never give over to Palestinians the choke points around city.

I have my own intuitions about the resignation of Dennis Ross as the president’s chief adviser on the conflict. He could not have been happy during the time when Obama was fantasizing about the intentions of the Arabs, in general, and of the Palestinians, in particular. Of course, it’s not as if his dealings with Israel were always smooth sailing either. He also had to tolerate the insistent stupidity of George Mitchell who couldn’t rid himself of the notion that Palestine was Ireland. Ross has been on this Palestine case for decades. It will not be solved now. Ross is rejoining the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank that has few illusions.

Netanyahu is not the problem. The problem is that the Palestinians want to reverse history. And they can’t. More than that, their Arab brothers and sisters are otherwise engaged. My guess is that Arab Winter is fast approaching. 

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

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 222 comments

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

222 comments

Netanyahu is not "the problem" but he is a problem.

- arnon

November 11, 2011 at 12:04am

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

The ravings of senile dementia.

- roidubouloi

November 11, 2011 at 12:08am

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

C'mon roi, I don't blame Mr. Peretz for his anger. My one and only isn't Jewish, in fact he is German, and he was shocked and upset by this. For one thing it looks like two big monster countries, or the leaders thereof, once again are kicking the dog whilst prevaricating bigtime as usual. (While we're on the subject, we could use the $410 million OR the Airbus, if anybody is giving them away; just sayin'. So could the Greeks probably, or Italy!) Oh PS anybody got a good plan for Libya now? Just wondering. A Jew went there and had to flee, isn't that a fact? Democracy! Viva la France! And NATO, which means us, which does all the work, of course; what did this cost? As much as a tricked out Airbus? Meanwhile how many people have been killed in Syria? But what, no NATO? Also, I was thinking the other day about who's killed more Arabs since, say, 1948: Jews, Israelis, Syrians, Palestinians, Iraqis, Lebanese, Americans, British, French, etc??? Sheese. Has anybody kept track in Libya before or after the great liberation thereof? One is afraid to ask about Egypt, what's really going on, will happen, how that situation will evolve. But people are hysterical about Israel. And make cracks like that with a straight face, about another national leader; it's ugly and un-called for. Also, speaking of prevarication, folks rant about "apartheid" and somehow miss women's issues in the Arab League; this is amazing. It is AMAZING. The big lies are SO BIG nobody can even see them, like being blinded by the sun; so I guess they might as well quibble about housing on Jewish land in Jerusalem and continuing to claim that The Creation Of Israel Is The Single Biggest Injustice In History. Right? So yeah, Bibi can be a pain in the kazoo but so is the bs about Jerusalem and so are the delusions about what the Palestinians want or will accept and what they won't. And Peretz's history isn't wrong. In the event, I think President Obama should have zipped his lip. Period. Just said nothing, talked about the weather. No. We're the ones who've been lied to. We've been told that ROR for all the millions of "refugees" was only an extreme position when in fact it's apparently core. And so is the non-recognition of Israel. They go hand in hand actually do they not? Meanwhile what is the Palestinian position on Jewish or Israeli residents or citizens? Do you guys honestly see any real progress on these issues?

- Sophia

November 11, 2011 at 12:40am

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

Sophia writes, "I was thinking the other day about who's killed more Arabs since, say, 1948: Jews, Israelis, Syrians, Palestinians, Iraqis, Lebanese, Americans, British, French, etc?" A few years ago, the Israeli journalist Ben Dror Yemini wrote a series of three articles on this question in Maariv, “And the World is Silent”. In the past 60 years, some 65,000 people (40,000 Arabs, 25,000 Jews) have been killed in all the Israeli-Arab wars and Palestinian attacks. During that same time, some 11 million Muslims have been killed in wars and terror attacks--mostly at the hands of other Muslims. France is responsible for between ½ and 1 million deaths (during the Algerian war of independence) and Russia/USSR for between 1 and 2 million deaths (in Afghanistan and Chechneya). But an overwhelming majority—approximately, 8½ million individuals—were killed by other Muslims in internecine conflicts: e.g., in Lebanon, 150,000 deaths; in Algeria, 200,000 deaths; in Somalia, 400,000 deaths (since 1991); in Bangladesh, 1½ to 2 million deaths, in Iraq, 1½ to 2 million deaths; in Iran, ½ to 1 million deaths, in Somalia, ½ million deaths, and im Sudan, 2½ to 3 million deaths. Syria killed almost 30,000 Muslims on February 2, 1982 at the Hama massacre. Jordan killed 25,000 Muslims in its war against Black September in1971. The original Hebrew text can be found at: http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/482/564.html An English translation can be found at: http://www.mideasttruth.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8877.

- JPKatz

November 11, 2011 at 5:02am

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

"should have zipped his lip"? How would you feel if someone said that to you? I think it is reasonable for the president to express his frustration in a private conversation, and I think that frustration is justified. I also think it's absurd that so much attention has been given to a comment that was rather mild, particularly for private conversation. I'm sure that world leaders routinely have much harsher criticisms for each other in private, including their allies. Calling Obama's comment "ugly" is simply ridiculous.

- kluhman

November 11, 2011 at 7:44am

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

I don't understand how revealing the height embarrassment of a French leader shows he is a liar. If talking about this will bring peace to Israel, I will let all my friends know right away.

- Nusholtz

November 11, 2011 at 7:57am

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

Netenyahu is not the problem. The breeding-like-rabbits ultra orthodox are the problem. They are changing Israel to the point that if the Arabs ever get enough past their superiority-complex (is there a minority anywhere in the Middle East that has more than Jim Crow status and/or doesn't live in fear of pogrom-like violence or worse) to allow an independent non-Muslim nation in their midst, Israel won't be able to agree to it. They're also about to turn off a large number of Jewish-Americans through semi-excommunication: they think if they pass that law de-recognizing converts to Reform and Conservative, which excommunicates their maternal lineage as well, American Jews will grumble but will ultimately do nothing. They're wrong.

- Lymon1

November 11, 2011 at 8:04am

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

"whose foreign policy, in particular, is based on the silliest improvisations of history."? Seriously? "Obama goes apoplectic..."? Seriously? Is this journalism? Is this responsible editorialising? I mean, if you want to echo Tea-party talking points, surely there's other venues for doing that? Fox-News is always looking for commentators. Just because Obama is hopelessly naive when it comes to Israel, and able to shoot himself in the foot occasionally, doesn't mean that he's not well meaning. The truth (and this magazine) is not well served by irrational propaganda, whether spewed from the left or the right.

- AllanL5

November 11, 2011 at 8:19am

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

http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2011/11/with-friends-like-these.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+kramerlinks+%28Linkage+by+Martin+Kramer%29 "The slurs against Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu voiced by French President Nicolas Sarkozy and US President Barack Obama after last week's G20 summit were revealing as well as repugnant. Thinking no one other than Obama could hear him, Sarkozy attacked Netanyahu, saying, "I can't stand to see him anymore, he's a liar." Obama responded by whining, "You're fed up with him, but me, I have to deal with him every day." These statements are interesting both for what they say about the two presidents' characters and for what they say about the way that Israel is perceived by the West more generally. To understand why this is the case it is necessary to first ask, when has Netanyahu ever lied to Sarkozy and Obama? This week the UN International Atomic Energy Agency's report about Iran's nuclear weapons program made clear that Israel - Netanyahu included - has been telling the truth about Iran and its nuclear ambitions all along. In contrast, world leaders have been lying and burying their heads in the sand." Does anybody here really believe that Obama's schmoozing in this way with Sarkozy deserves respect? Don't we have much greater expectations of discretion and practical wisdom from THE world leader who knows that every word he says could mean the life or death of someone? Doesn't anybody feel embarrassed for America? Such weakness of character exhibited in the need to nudge/wink with the French president, this is what Americans have elected as their president?

- NR165279

November 11, 2011 at 8:36am

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

Sarkozy is in re-election mode, and his unforgiveable J'Accuse of Netanyahu can be seen as a political pander, whether or not Sarkozy knew that microphone was open. Obama, also being in re-election mode, should have changed the subject. I can imagine Rep. Steve Israel's groans, since he has the thankless job as DCCC chair and knows all of Long Island including his own CD will again be seriously contested over Obama's strange obsession with apartments in Ramat Shlomo and Gilo. Peretz should have done an edit before hitting POST, but he does make valid points. is that noga quoting Glick? One point I would add about Jerusalem is based on the fact that all the religious channels on DirectTV follow The Weather Channel (which ends the news channel sequence). Due to my interest in recent weird weather events, I started noticing that one of the adjacent Christian channels frequently has programs titled "Tour Jerusalem". The palestinians are really stupid to think that so many Christians will allow the muslims to once again deny access to what is the #1 pilgrimage destination for dhimmis.

- K2K

November 11, 2011 at 9:21am

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

natanyahu is a problem. but the real problem is and was the collection of genocidal palestinian leaders. grand mufti, his cousin arafat, the under and above ground muslim brother leaders, all in opposite to the countless decent palestinians are genocidal maniacs, just driven by the hope to steal a penthouse in tel-aviv, and leave the refugees in sabre-shatilla, al-bureijeh, deheshia....

- sf4200

November 11, 2011 at 9:44am

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

"is that noga quoting Glick?" Yes. I forgot to change back from access mode. Apropo, UNESCO, check out this latest craziness: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/unesco-files-complaint-against-israeli-delegation-over-haaretz-cartoon-1.394889 "When he met with Eric Falt, UNESCO's assistant director general for external relations and public information, Ambassador Nimrod Barkan was stunned to be handed a copy of this cartoon and an official letter of protest from UNESCO's director general, Irina Bokova. Falt told Barkan the cartoon constituted incitement. "A cartoon like this endangers the lives of unarmed diplomats, and you have an obligation to protect them," Falt said, according to an Israeli source. "We understand that there is freedom of the press in Israel, but the government must prevent attacks on UNESCO." Barkan pointed out that the government has no control over editorial cartoons printed in the papers. "Ask yourselves what you did to make a moderate paper with a deeply internationalist bent publish such a cartoon," he suggested. "Perhaps the problem is with you." After Barkan reported the conversation to the Foreign Ministry, it cabled back: "What exactly does UNESCO want of us - to send our fine boys to protect UNESCO's staff, or to shut down the paper? It seems your work environment is getting more and more reminiscent of 'Animal Farm.'" Can you believe this story? I reminds me of the time when Mubarak repeatedly lodged formal complaints with Arik Sharon because an Israeli comedian, Yatzpan, was making fun of him in his stand-up routines. This is where we are today: UNESCO behaving like an Arab dictator.

- noga1

November 11, 2011 at 9:54am

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

I felt that given the subject, saying that "I have to deal with this guy every day" was not only a kind way of putting it but understanding a quotidian situation that must be very challenging. Just being in the same room with that flat footed slippery right winger Netanyahu would be challenging. Marty Peretz and Benjamin Netanyahu can have each other; they make a perfect pair.

- MrCookie1

November 11, 2011 at 9:59am

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

Maybe this is UNESCO's top brass pay-back to those "Jews" for blocking their preferred candidate for Director-General UNESCO, back in 2009. Who was he? "Egypt's culture minister is a top candidate to head the United Nations's main intellectual body," Why was his nomination frustrated? "Farouk Hosni's candidacy could now be doomed, after he told the Egyptian parliament that if any Israeli books were found in Egyptian libraries, he would burn them." http://www.nysun.com/foreign/egyptians-bid-for-un-post-in-doubt-over-burn-quip/78844/ And indeed he was not elected. And blamed it on .. who else but ... the Joos? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/world/middleeast/29egypt.html “America, Europe and the Jewish lobby brought down Farouk Hosni,” read a headline in an independent daily newspaper, Al Masry Al Yom. The foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, criticized “international Judaism and Western powers” in a television interview. Mr. Hosny himself helped stoke those sentiments, saying, “There was a group of the world’s Jews who had a major influence in the elections who were a serious threat to Egypt taking this position.” BRAVE NEW WORLD

- noga1

November 11, 2011 at 10:05am

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

And Marty has ZERO solutions, and neither does Netanyahu who seems to labor under the misapprehension that if he ignores the Palestinians they will somehow go away. If land is in dispute then don't build on it. Is that so damn hard? I don't care how right you feel about it. When I thought settlements might be useful in pushing Palestinians towards peace then I saw some logic to it, but it didn't work and only emboldened the settler movement. I don't care about military occupation, just stop the damn settlements, there is nothing sacred about East Jerusalem, it is just land, Serbians used the same damn excuse to kill Kosovar muslims, that Kosovo was a "sacred" part of Serbia for Serbians alone. Iran is but a few years away from a nuclear bomb, the Palestinians on the West Bank can not possibly see a way to have either a state or meaningful citizenship, remaining a conquered and occupied people. This is a truly scary combination. Impose the Barak peace plan on the Palestinians, who cares if they can or can't govern themselves, that is their choice...not Marty's. A state will provide hope, a people with hope will not choose nuclear suicide. And does Netanyahu have a single friend in the world, not just reflexive friendship by the fundies in America. He really is a snake. Sharon, Rabin, etc. were far, far better PM's then he is.

- blackton

November 11, 2011 at 10:43am

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

Netenyahu isn't the problem, Obama is -- and I wrote that without reading the article!

- wildboy

November 11, 2011 at 10:44am

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

I can see no one is even attempting to answer Glick's question: "when has Netanyahu ever lied to Sarkozy and Obama? "

- noga1

November 11, 2011 at 10:59am

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

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Except that you are very kind to anti- Semite Obama making him sound like he is mistaken in his machinations. In fact he is a run of the mill anti- Semite for a long time if you consider his long association for example with Wright and Farrakhan who visited their buddy Khadafi in Libya. Or the known fact that Obama was a organizer of The Million men march when the multitudes cheered every Farrakhan rant against Jews and Israel. In 2012 I will vote for anyone chosen to run against anti- Semite Obama. I can't do otherwise as an ex- Democrat and a survivor of the Shoa. 7,000,000 Jews in Israel are targeted for annihilation by either an Iranian nuclear bomb or by "Palestinians" who's Charters specify the reason for their existence: The destruction of Israel and replacing it with an Arab Islamic state.

- Poupic

November 11, 2011 at 11:08am

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

I hardly ever read anything by MP anymore, simply because in his dotage, he has become so predictable and tiresome. I noticed that even in this article, he went into full b****h mode and cattily commented on Sarkozys' height and his wife's spending habits. Tell us what you think of her perfume while you're at it Blackton is correct: Peretz never offers any solutions and even when faced with an inferior and incompetent PM like Netanyahu, he is so blinkered that he refuses to see or acknowledge how obdurate this guy is and how that obduracy hurts Israel and the USA. I feel for Obama that because of the USA-Israeli alliance, he has to put up with such a blockhead like Netanyahu, who has bedeviled American Presidents before. I so applaud Peretz that he held back his usual anti semitism card but sure as baby rabbits, his dwindling platoon of acolytes like Poupic did it for him.

- MrCookie1

November 11, 2011 at 11:23am

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

Poupic, give us a break. Obama, like every other president, backs Israel and her right to exist with the full power of the US military, and would assist in her defense and punich her attackers. Obama, like his predecessors, continues to give massive amounts of economic aid to Israel, as befitting our closest ally in the region and one of our dearest allies in the world. Obama, like his predecessors, has continued to affirm our committment to Israel and has supported Israel and sided, as expected, with Israel against a Palestinian declaration of statehood. What you and Marty and other dim bulbs on here seem to expect is carte blanche support, no matter what the stance belonging to whomever happens to be PM of Israel. That's silly. America is the world's lone superpower, has the largest economy, and has a responsibility to at least TRY and do the right thing with regards to the planet, not just Israel. We're entitled to disagree with her without the president being called "anti-semite", just like Bush could publicly rebuge Mugabe without being called a bigot. Do you truly find Bibi (and all Israeli PMs) infallible? If not, and you concede that these are men and men can, occasionally, be wrong, then do you claim the right thing for the leader of the most powerful nation in the world is to publicly ignore the fact that they disagree with the PM and instead simply do whatever Israel happens to want at the time? This makes sense to you? Friends sometimes disagree. And with respect Poupic - eminent, heartfelt respect - at your surviving the Shoa, America, as she should, is going to everything in her power to back Israel's defenses and guarantee Israel endures. No matter who is in the oval office.

- Tristan

November 11, 2011 at 11:45am

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

Sarkosy meeting with Mexico president Felipe Calderon. There is a French woman imprisoned in Mexico because she was deeply involved in kidnappings in Mexico. Sarkosy has been trying unsuccessfully to have the French criminal woman extradited to France. Sarkosy has been utterly adamant about this. He even had a state visit to Mexico dedicated solely to this. Mexico is holding that woman in prison with the maximum sentence. It bugs me Sarkosy, the French woman committed the crimes in Mexico, why should she be extradited to France? Is this a matter of French national pride? Is this the meat of a true leader? Surely does not help to take Sarkosy too seriously. Thus his comments about Netanyauh don't hold peanuts, plus his partner at the microphone look what it is a Mutt and Jeff cartoon. Sarkosy latter declared his eternal friendship to Israel. Is this to be considered an apology? How banal and superficial these leaders are. Quite mediocre. What really they can not stand is the superb intelligence of Bibi Netanyauh . How articulate Bibi is with his English with Philadelphia accent where he grew up where his father a distinguished scholar specialized on the inquisition was a distinguished professor . His father is 100 years old with all his wits and brilliant ideas about Israel and their unfriendly neighbors. A truly truly mehaie. How delighted I am to belong to my clan.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 11, 2011 at 12:04pm

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

Tristan: thank you for your service on Veteran's Day. But, the USA ONLY "gives" Israel military aid, not one cent of economic aid, and that military aid was a condition of the Camp David peace treaty with Egypt (as is US military aid to Egypt), and Israel MUST spend 75% of US military aid, now less than THREEBILUSD/year, on US purchases. Blackton: It matters a great deal in distinguishing between neighborhoods in North (Ramat Shlomo) and South (Gilo) Jerusalem that were built after 1967 on previously long-vacant land that happens to be east of the 1949 armistice lines aka "1967 borders", and actual settlements in Judea and Samaria aka West Bank. If Obama had made a public fuss over Ariel, I could understand that. BUT, not the two Obama chose for public diplomatic rifts with Israel, Ramat Shlomo in March 2010, and Gilo in the past month or so. noga: as you know, the stereotype of the Jew includes that we "are all shifty liars only interested in money, and drinking the blood of baptized babies, after we finish stealing their kidneys and poisoning the water." My use of quotations is to try to make sure that readers try to understand that I am condensing the most common current vicious stereotypes in a tone that noga understands. After all, I have not been called a Christ-killer by a Catholic since 1995.

- K2K

November 11, 2011 at 12:19pm

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

I commend JPKatz for his blog. By the way in the Hama massacre in the 80's, the Syrian general in charge was mighty proud of telling that he had killed more than fifty thousand men women and children. They were followers of the Muslim Brotherhood Have the anti Israel crowd demanded trial of these Syrian murderers for crimes against humanity? Noooo... Has the ultra left Oslo Norway demanded justice? Again it is a resounding nooooo... Have they tried to stop junior Bashar al Assad of resuming massacre of Syrian civilians. Noooo..... Well Sarkosy and friend Barack Hussein Obama are more concerned with Bibi's charm that red blood, Muslim blood, human blood. This is the height the height of criminals by association. And these characters imply to bring peace to Israelis and Palestinians? it makes me vomit to say the least.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 11, 2011 at 12:21pm

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

When I was young, I thought grownups knew what they were doing. Now I am a "grownup," and I am disillusioned about the other grownups I know, and about myself. I thought that POTUSs [how to make plural?) and other world leaders were more grown up than ordinary growups. I thought the writers for TNR and even the other readers and comment posters of TNR were smarter and more mature than I am. Perhaps when we finally die, we don't die of cancer or heart disease or whatever, but we actually die of terminal disillusionment, not to mention self-awareness. However, if Marty Peretz is indeed mature and grown up, he is welcome to tell me about it, and if you are indeed mature and grown up you are welcome to tell me about it, though actions speak louder than words.

- skahn

November 11, 2011 at 12:29pm

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

K2K, fair point on the aid. Still, giving aid is giving aid, and if the president signs off on continuing to give Israel what amounts to billion of $$s in free US weapons, I would think people like Marty, Poupin, etc should be able to at least infer that the president is committed to Israel's defense. Thank you for the Vet's Day greeting... on another note, back to something you posted yesterday, my deepest sympathies for your ill health and my sincerest wishes for a full recovery, however elusive the possibility of recovery may seem at this moment to be. You're one of the most prolific posters on here and a valued voice, and I pray the time you have remaining to be many many years longer than what they currently predict for you. May God bless you and watch over you and your family, my friend.

- Tristan

November 11, 2011 at 12:29pm

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

Tristan the paid Iranian blogger confuses Barack Hussein Obama US aid that is really an investment. Israel spends that money and more in buying American military supplies. USA gets more much more back. Where do you think half witted Tristan and K2K the drone technology has come from ? The intertwining of military technology between Israel and the USA is very factual and strong. And of all comments about these finances, USA has gotten and gets more profit from Israel than not. Just go and learn about Intel Microsoft and all top technology companies deep rewards from their dealings with Israel. It gets me when these half witted dishonest Tristan and K2K try to get a free ride. Barack Hussein Obama is no friend of Israel. The American people are. And Tristan and K2K Are to put it in tristan's idioms just camel manure.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 11, 2011 at 12:50pm

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

OK, here's where I get off, generalized ranting at President Obama isn't fair under the circumstances. Mentioning specific mistakes is and so is discussing the broader situation of the ME in which Israel is supposed to be THE hugest problem EVER and the really big problems are just ignored. Further, people selectively have human rights depending who they are. Libyans have human rights sufficient to call in NATO, Syrians, apparently not. Why is this? Women, hmmmmmmmm. We have a right to mention these issues even if they result in some of us being called names. For the record I don't see what Sarkozy's height has to do with anything but I found this exchange upsetting, as stated above world leaders are supposed to be bigger than that, in the mental sense. I guess Obama was kind of trapped but still. Couldn't he just talk about the weather? If you are trying to advance an agenda, why deliberately provoke a person you are trying to reassure and persuade? It doesn't make sense. As for the ultra-orthodox, oy.

- Sophia

November 11, 2011 at 1:16pm

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

Barack Hussein Obama is no friend of Israel. He has tried hard to appear friendly to his Muslim half half brothers and sisters. By taking the approach of being mean to the Israelis. His obnoxious behavior has lost the sympathy of the Israelis. Has lost the sympathy of the Muslims. I wonder what Barack Hussein Obama thinks since he is supposed to be an intelligent hubris. His lack of attention to the millions unemployed Americans is legendary. His only fans left are half witted Tristan and half witted K2K. And Tristan and K2K go hand by hand kissing each others eight cheeks, two on top, two on bottom multiplied by two. Who but a paid Iranian blogger would bring the old canard of USA aid not aid investment in Israel? By the way Tristan, and you too K2K, go and educate yourselves read Start Up Nation about the Israeli miracle of miracles. Read Avi Nasr books, the Shia revival, Forces of Fortune the future growth of the Muslim middle class. You are in dire need to educate yourselves about subjects you write and know nothing but nothing about. Find this books by going to Amazon or other sites. Get up and help your half witted brains for the sake of us all. Patience patience with these silly ignorantimuses.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 11, 2011 at 1:16pm

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

Oh by the way, 11-11-11 the Egyptians have closed the great pyramid; in some quarters it is feared a Masonic or Jewish plot will occur there otherwise. C'mon guys. Look at the real problems in the ME, please!

- Sophia

November 11, 2011 at 1:17pm

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

Sophia I am really shocked at complaint ranting about Barack Hussein Obama. The man represents leadership, he should watch when tongue is loose should apply brains. And the height problem of Sarkosy shows his inferiority complex. On the same agenda is Ahmadenijad concerns about being too short, if anybody around him mentions it gets his head chopped off literally. Thus. You have two shorties with deep mental concerns about their height. Sarkosy and Ahmadenijad , joined by tall as a spigot Barack Hussein Obama. And the three of them take their frustrations on brilliant Bibi Nethanyauh Two for being shorties, the other ... For having ears that are too small. They used to say that big ears indicate a strong leader. Ah that is the reason fail fail me yes Barack Hussein Obama, short ears no more.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 11, 2011 at 1:32pm

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

Sophia please list the real problems in the ME. You sound pretty assertive more appropriate for a woman named Sarah. Is the closing of the Egyptian pyramids or the terrorism suddenly appearing in "liberated" Egypt Great consequences of the Arab spring and my Mubarak removal, and freedom going back to the masses. Those Muslim Brotherhood rascals joined by Hamas Gaza's joined by Iranian terrorists (really Tristan ). At the end of the day is the fault of the Israelites building with their suet and backbones those fantastic pyramids. I really enjoy your posts Sophia even if your name is not Sarah.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 11, 2011 at 1:43pm

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

I knew this was coming. Anyway, of course Netanyahu is the problem and he is now in a position to start World Wars III and IV, so that even more people can suffer and die because of the intransigence of one man, the weakness of another, and the derangement of the former's supporters.

- mlottman

November 11, 2011 at 1:54pm

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

mlottman. Come down from your monkeys tree. You sound paranoid. Do not blame Bibi for your frustrations. Besides Bibi is quite popular in Israel and admired and appreciated by most Americans. If any war ensues it is the fault of terrorists like Ahmadenijad and his master the one wearing skirts Ayatollah Khameini. Ask Tristan the paid Iranian blogger and he will tell you the Iranian truth of them all. Iran has planted thousands of missiles in Hizbollah Lebanon, Assad Syria, Hamas Gaza. Now is trying to go nuclear. Iranian leaders have made clear they want to blow up Israel forever. To blame, chastise Bibi Nethanyauh is the height of negligent thinking and behavior. And that Mutt and Jeff the new duo of Sarkosy and Barack Hussein Obama Are irritated by brilliant smart Bibi shows how stupid they are these two leaders, or should I say lathers ladders lousers. Mutt and Jeff what a duo. No wonder Michael Cain is a misogynist. And do not blame the pheromones just the sweat. Darn it I can see in the future Michael Cain chasing the female chancellor of Germany. Watch it Michelle here comes horny Michael Cain. Whatever.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 11, 2011 at 2:18pm

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

JAIMECHUCH gets the award for best impression of a hero in a Faulkner novel.

- wildboy

November 11, 2011 at 3:55pm

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

I was thinking more of Klaus Kinski in Aguirre, Wrath of God: From Wikipedia: "...Aguirre is now the ruler of a group of slowly starving, hallucinating men. The group gapes in awe at a wooden ship perched in the highest branches of one of the tall trees. In a final Indian attack, all remaining survivors including Aguirre’s daughter are killed by arrows. Aguirre remains alone on the slowly circling raft. The raft becomes overrun by monkeys. The crazed Aguirre tells them: 'I, the Wrath of God, will marry my own daughter and with her I will found the purest dynasty the world has ever seen. Together, we shall rule this entire continent. We shall endure. I am the Wrath of God!'"

- ccarrick@vzavenue.net-old

November 11, 2011 at 4:31pm

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

wildboy. Well what's the use. A waist of space. There are some half witted beaten by their wild girl, or their brains that don't have. Nethanyauh is tops. You like it or not. Martin Peretz writes it with superb eloquence, honesty. Somebody there asked for solutions from MP. The solution is obvious. Get read of Mutt and Jeff. Barack Hussein Obama and Sarkosy do not meet the standards. Mutt and Jeff. Next.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 11, 2011 at 4:34pm

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

Xenophon join the crowd. We have plenty of space. They remind me of Sancho Panza riding in his donkey. The donkey is Xenophon. The donkey is wildboy. And Tristan and K2K? Au revoir mes enfants il sont pas les miserables il sont les tet demi et demi. Et tampis plu tot tampi.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 11, 2011 at 4:46pm

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

blackton Building in the liberated territories is central to provide jobs for the Palestinians, they're the construction workers. Now that Israel collect taxes and give the money to their Palestinian leaders, is shameful indeed. That money belong to the Palestinian workers and their impoverished families. Yes Rabin had quite a friend Yassir Arafat. And it went loud and clear that the Israelis kept saying haver haver, friend friend. Well blacktorn, whatever your name implies, Nethanyauh to your distress and other left-handers is enormously popular in Israel, even lefties like him. Now that blackthorn, and MrCookie1 with his flat footed remark take the admiration for Nethanyauh to new hights. With all mistreatment of Nethanyauh was standard by Bill Clinton who day in and day out had Arafat come to the White House more than any other leader. Well Arafat died of AIDS, the mysterious blood illness promoted by his gang. Then have Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary trying to ostracize Bibi. They have failed miserably. And good old Buba is still attacking Nethanyauh. The jackass that used his cigars on Monica Lewinsky, is still a jackass. And believe me I have no love for Jimmy Carter the nemesis of Buba Bill. So the anti Israel gang headed by the new York times revived the vilification of Nethanyauh . When they failed they just put their tails into their legs. Pity poor losers. But that Barack Hussein Obama is still at it shows that his non friendliness towards Israel is unchangeable. And he is running for re-election. He must think that people are not only dumb but dumber. Mutt and Jeff indeed.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 11, 2011 at 5:33pm

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

Sophia, I agree with you completely, but I do have to ask: Do you believe that the settlements are good for the US?

- MOLLYSIMON

November 11, 2011 at 6:39pm

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

Is JAMIECHURCH for real? Bizarre! Poor grammatical construction, misspellings everywhere, evidence of magical thinking, Manichaean delusions and a fixation on Barack Obama's middle name. The quality of Spine acolytes has dropped dramatically; at least jacksondyer, though snarling and addled with a Tourette's like hair trigger, could communicate and express his ideas in a coherent fashion. This JAMIECHURCH wretch presents as one of God's Special Children...

- MrCookie1

November 11, 2011 at 7:01pm

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

More springtime in Egypt: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/11/egypt-great-pyramid-closes-111111?newsfeed=true "Panicked by unconfirmed rumours in the local press that the activities would include Masonic rituals and the attempted placing of a Jewish Star of David atop the pyramid itself, the authorities moved this week to shut down access to the Great Pyramid altogether, blaming essential maintenance work for the move." You can't make this stuff up.

- arnon

November 11, 2011 at 7:07pm

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

Sorry Sophia just saw your post above about the same story.

- arnon

November 11, 2011 at 7:09pm

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

"Do you believe that the settlements are good for the US?" Depends which settlements you mean, Plymouth, Mass., or Puerto Rico.

- noga1

November 11, 2011 at 7:14pm

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

"Nethanyauh is tops. You like it or not. Martin Peretz writes it with superb eloquence, " Jaimechuch: you must have missed all those articles where Marty could barely contain his bile, as he practically spat out Netanyahu's name in loathing. This is his attempt to repair the damage that he did before. Some Jewish American journalists have to show they can hate Netanyahu better than the Arabs hate him, better than Obama hates him. As if this would somehow augment their bona fides anywhere. I'm reading this thread and I can't believe how people are trying to cleanse this sheretz of an tongue slip. Netantyahu is navigating the Israeli ship in very stormy waters, caused by prevarication and experimental charm offences in lieu of solid and firm policies. This is not what Israelis ought to be hearing from the French and American presidents. Tweedledum and Tweedledee Agreed to have a battle; For Tweedledum said Tweedledee Had spoiled his nice new rattle. Just then flew down a monstrous crow, As black as a tar-barrel; Which frightened both the heroes so, They quite forgot their quarrel

- noga1

November 11, 2011 at 7:28pm

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

8:14 pm EDT noga: Manhattan is a settlement! The name is from the original Leni Lenape tribe: Manahatta means "land of many hills" or "island of hills". Debatable whether it is good for the USA until the UN is evicted and Wall Street contained :) 1:29pm EDT | Tristan: thank you for your kind thoughts, although I regret having revealed so much because nothing ever disappears from the internet :) Maybe someday we can find a post on the F35 JSF where we agree! 5:31pm EDT | Xenophon: thanks for the Kinski image, because, since I do not recall ever supporting Obama on his Israel (or anything else) 'strategy', the wrath of JC on me in this thread is quite odd. He reminds me of AE at israpundit.com, the blog run by basman's cousin Ted, a true gentleman. Where I occasionally vent (different screen name) with the Greater Israel and beyond folks, since no one there is politically correct when it comes to the a-rabs :)

- K2K

November 11, 2011 at 8:10pm

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

MrCookie1. It is a pity that apart being half-witted you don't know how to read and if you read you don't understand what you are reading. Poor jack ass.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 11, 2011 at 9:09pm

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

I am a little curious about the lies President Netanyahu has been accused of telling. From my perspective, Israel is one of the honest speakers in the neighborhood. Is President Sarkoy claiming he is getting the truth from Mssrs Assad or Erdogan. Perhaps the Kings of Suadi Arabia or Yemen have been a little more open or honest than he believes he is getting from Israel. What exactly is France doing with Israel that Netanyahu could be undermining? I really don't see where Sarkozy could be taking this.

- CRS9TNR

November 11, 2011 at 9:11pm

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

MrCookie1 write my name correctly is JaimeChuch. You blew it again. Recommendation is for you to go to night school. But when you are half wit nothing helps. MrCookie1 suddenly becomes MrDreck1. And these are the critics of Nethanyauh? The supporters of Barack Hussein Obama? He is mighty proud of his middle name he said it loud and clear in his Cairo speech. But you did not hear about it. How could you you don't understand English or any other language.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 11, 2011 at 9:24pm

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

Xenophon. Whatever. I remember kinski in the wrath of God referring to the natives as bare ass savages. Sort of an indirect reference to the natives.....of some present disputed

- JAIMECHUCH

November 11, 2011 at 9:32pm

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

Yup, these are the critics of Nethanyauh. As for Peretz, he is no longer sane or coherent regardless of whether Nethanyauh (or Netanyahu for that matter) is the greatest political leader Israel has ever had or ever will have rather than a serial and committed violator of the human rights of the residents of the West Bank.

- roidubouloi

November 11, 2011 at 9:46pm

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

One can surmise that western leaders believe that Netanyahu, rather than seeking honestly to achieve a settlement with the Palestinians, rather seeks at every turn to make that impossible with provocative acts so that Israel can continue in occupation of the West Bank. I would consider that enough reason to call Netanyahu a liar. And I do. He does not cease to be such because there are real threats to Israel and profound obstacles to peace also created by the Palestinians.

- roidubouloi

November 11, 2011 at 9:50pm

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

Provocative acts , like building apartments in Gilo.

- noga1

November 11, 2011 at 10:09pm

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

roidubouloi. Please translate your name what does it mean. Then about the liberated territories do you refer to the Israelis or the terrorists among the Palestinian populace. Human rights eh. Do you care to discuss the Syrian respect for human rights. Or should Israel follow Syrian respect for human rights? roidubouloi do you know what baloney is ? No how could you in your neck of the woods you don't eat cheap ham, you don't eat pig. For you I say Salam a la jara. Gold Meir said it right ,when Palestinians will love their children more than anything in life, then there will be peace. Unfortunately a very unlikely occurrence.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 11, 2011 at 10:10pm

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

"Provocative acts , like building apartments in Gilo." Quite so. "Gilo (Hebrew: גילֹה‎) is a neighborhood in southern East Jerusalem[1][2] with a population of 40,000, mostly Jewish. It is one of the five ring neighborhoods of Jerusalem and is built on land in the West Bank that was annexed to Israel in 1980 under the Jerusalem Law.[3][4][5] The international community regards it as an Israeli settlement that is illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this.[6] The area around Gilo has been inhabited since at least the Iron Age, though Gilo itself was only established in 1973. Previously the area was ruled by the Ottoman Empire before becoming part of the British Mandate of Palestine and subsequently captured by Jordan during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. It lay beyond the 1949 armistice line until Israel captured it during the Six Day War in 1967.[7] The expansion of Gilo has been a cause of controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." ______________________ I appreciate that it is very difficult for you to understand this, Jaime, but the Palestinians resident in the West Bank do not cease to have human rights guaranteed to them by the Fourth Geneva Convention, to which Israel is a signatory, because of Syrian violations of human rights, Chinese violations of human rights, Korean violations of human rights. The United States cannot justify violating human rights because Israel does. Israel wishes to be a part of the western world, but it wants its human rights policies to be judged by comparison to the rest of the world, including many of its most oppressive societies. Why? Is this appropriate in your view? My screen name is a pun on the rue du Bouloi, a very small street in Paris where I once lived. Bouloi are either a vanished tribe that inhabited the area across the river from the Parisi or bowling alleys. In either case, it means king of nothing and no place.

- roidubouloi

November 11, 2011 at 10:43pm

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

JAIMECHUCH. Whatever your name is, you are hardly worth the time for a response. I cannot recall a more juvenile or tiresome electronic pest, even on The Spine. I shudder to even imagine what would compel you to write the things you write.

- MrCookie1

November 11, 2011 at 11:43pm

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

11/11/2011 - 11:09pm EDT | noga1: "Provocative acts , like building apartments in Gilo." Gilo is the "provocative act" of 2011. The "provocation" of March 2010 was building apartments in Ramat Shlomo, built on a rocky hillside previously used for goat grazing during the Jordanian occupation and British Mandate and Ottoman occupation. I am sure that Rep. Gary Ackerman of NY4 and Rep. McCarthy of NY5 are going to find themselves defending maps of North and South Jerusalem as "provocative acts" for the next year. The arab goat lobby will no doubt be funding their campaigns. JC v R - my bet is ten more rounds. Time better spent on anything else, like counting grains of sand...see you later noga.

- K2K

November 11, 2011 at 11:53pm

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

I was quite unaware that UNSC resolutions do not apply if the land in question was previously used for grazing goats. Good to know.

- roidubouloi

November 12, 2011 at 12:18am

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

roidubouloi. Human rights indeed. Israelis capture daily indeed daily would be Palestinians would be terrorists. You know blowing of innocents in Israeli buses or restaurants is to be stopped by any means. These people are imprisoned and taken care of. The daily showers of rockets from Hamas controlled Gaza into Israeli civilian villages has to be stopped by all means. Israel resorts to attack and destroy the originators of the rocket attacks not the indefensible civilians. Do not be a low darn hypocrite. In reality an adjuvant of the criminality of terrorist Palestinians. I disagree with Israeli reactions to these attacks. The response should be for Israelis to shower Gaza with thousands of rockets into the areas where the Hamas , Islamic Jihad originate the firing of rockets. Where does it come your hypocrisy. International Geneva , United Nations , agreements of human rights? If you don't defend yourself you are doomed. You and people like you only criticize Israel, like the Palestinians were innocent bystanders. And to make the most ridiculous of ridicule. The Israelis provide jobs to the Palestinians in building construction in the liberated territories. then give the taxes collected to their corrupt criminal leaders. If it were not for the sadness of the situation these would be more comic than the three stooges. And the Palestinian leadership, secular and religious, shower with anti Israel hatred the Palestinian population. International courts. My foot. Either you are naive to the extreme, or are no friend of Israel, or your brain needs repair. Geneva convention. Switzerland contributed two main things tonthe world, the cuckoo clock and the superb tennis payer Roger Federer. And of course the secretive banking system where Arafat placed the six billion dollars he robbed from his people. Abbas and Sayad were members of the gang. Yes Geneva agreements. By the way Bill Clinton and Europeans gave that money. After the Saudis had stopped supporting good old Yasser. Just to add to Martin Peretz about the recent resignation of Dennis Ross. In a TV interview sometime back Dennis Ross indicated that each time he met with Arafat he kept saying where is my money. And then we had the Oslo accords by the triangle Rabin -Peres -Arafat. Maybe it had worked if instead we had had the " Geneva Accords". I really prefer Geniver, the old and the new, this gin I can not get in Philadelphia as of late. You remind me of Chamberlain. We have peace we have peace here is the proof showingbthe signed documents. Naivite but with class of my old rue a Paris.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 12, 2011 at 1:27am

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

Illegal settlements, in violation of the human right of the Palestinians not to be colonized, are not in Israel's defense. Israel is entitled to defend itself by all necessary means. That does not include human rights violations that not only do not contribute to Israel's defense but render it less secure. The illegal settlements are also the very reason that Netanyahu lies. He cannot have peace and the illegal settlements. He wants the land, not the peace, and hence does whatever he needs to to render peace impossible while claiming otherwise.

- roidubouloi

November 12, 2011 at 6:53am

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

Particularly appalling is the standard defense of the settlements by Israel and its so-called friends: The Palestinians won't make peace even if we stopped violating their human rights. So, we might as well keep on violating them. This argument appears in a variety of forms some of which can be found right here.

- roidubouloi

November 12, 2011 at 6:55am

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

I'm wondering when the term "human rights" began to encompass building on empty land won fair and square in a defensive war, even if its ownership is somewhat disputed. I thought "human rights" applies to "human", not rocks and hills. Whatever the settlements' legal status is, no one can claim with any credibility that they are a violation of Palestinian human rights. Gilo was built 40 years ago. I'm not sure Netanyahu was Prime Minister then. I'll have to check.

- noga1

November 12, 2011 at 7:52am

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

K2K was right roidubouloi and yours truly JC have reached a Mexican standoff. As a so called friend of Israel I will continue applauding construction in the liberated lands of Israel. They provide jobs for the Palestinians and provide housing for Israelis. Palestinian leaders will not make peace ever with Israel. Certainly is true of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Anyhow any document they sign will never be implemented. The Oslo accords were followed by explosive terrorism by the Palestinians. Well Arafat was in charge. Barak- Clinton offer was rejected. Then Olmert offered and offered and Abbas rejected. Present Abbas does not want to talk to Netanyauh . Abbas plans to retire. Maybe. Egypt and Jordan have implemented their signed agreements, although after the Arab Spring, there are forces in Egypt abrogating canceling the Egypt-Israel peace agreement. We will wait and see after Egyptian elections and further future. The present scenario has Iran threatening Israel with total destruction, irrelevant of Palestinians. Thousands of missiles are planted in Hezbollah Lebanon, Assad Syria, Hamas Gaza. Iran is going nuclear to add to the Iranian threats. So what else is new? Only a strong Israel, a resolute Israel will protect Israel.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 12, 2011 at 8:05am

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

"I'm wondering when the term "human rights" began to encompass building on empty land won fair and square in a defensive war, even if its ownership is somewhat disputed." In 1949, when the Fourth Geneva Convention, to which Israel is signatory, came into force. Here is what the Jewish Virtual Library says: "The Fourth Geneva Convention on Rules of War was adopted in 1949 by the international community in response to Nazi atrocities during World War II. The international treaty governs the treatment of civilians during wartime, including hostages, diplomats, spies, bystanders and civilians in territory under military occupation. The convention outlaws torture, collective punishment and the resettlement by an occupying power of its own civilians on territory under its military control." One could hardly ask for a simpler explanation.

- roidubouloi

November 12, 2011 at 9:05am

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

It says nowhere that settlement is a violation of HUMAN RIGHTS.

- noga1

November 12, 2011 at 9:28am

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

Following the June '67, Six-Day War, the situation in the Middle East was discussed by the UN General Assembly, which referred the issue to the Security Council. After lengthy discussion, a final draft for a Security Council resolution was presented by the British Ambassador, Lord Caradon, on November 22, 1967. It was adopted on the same day. This resolution, numbered 242, established provisions and principles which, it was hoped, would lead to a solution of the conflict. Resolution 242 was to become the cornerstone of Middle East diplomatic efforts in the coming decades. The Security Council, Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East, Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security, Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter, Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles: Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force; Affirms further the necessity For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area; For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem; For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones; Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution; Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible. ______________________________________________________ Since the military withdrawal is from "territories," not "all territories," that Israel can stay on some of the territory must imply that who all the territories will go to is an open question. If it's an open question, then ownership is an open question. If so, one can't say definitively that it's all Palestinian land because if it was then the U.N. would have had no right to let Israel stay on some of it. How could it? If that is so, that unclarity, that proprietary open-endedness, demanding resolution by negotiation, ousts the clear applicability of Fourth Geneva Convention Article 49(6). That being so, who can say that Israel with all of its historic ties to the land cannot settle some of the lands, those settlements subject to ultimate resolution as was the case in Gaza, resolution in that case coming from its unilateral withdrawal, with the settlements dismantled?

- basman

November 12, 2011 at 9:32am

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

"It says nowhere that settlement is a violation of HUMAN RIGHTS." What then? Goat rights? Rock rights? The Geneva Conventions are human rights conventions. _______________________ "Who can say that Israel with all of its historic ties to the land cannot settle some of the lands, those settlements subject to ultimate resolution as was the case in Gaza, resolution in that case coming from its unilateral withdrawal, with the settlements dismantled?" This might be a legitimate argument if Israel were willing to make peace based on withdrawal, but it is not. That is exactly why Netanyahu lies and why the settlements are an obstacle to peace. Netanyahu will not make peace based on "the settlements dismantled." Hence, he will not make peace and lies about it. "If so, one can't say definitively that it's all Palestinian land because if it was then the U.N. would have had no right to let Israel stay on some of it. How could it?" The UN remains the sovereign in the territories that are part of the Palestinian Mandate and not recognized as belonging to any state. Therefore, the UN is the only party that can make legal disposition, or consent to the agreement of the interested parties as to its disposition. This is why the world rejects Israel's unilateral claims on any part of what was conquered in 1967. You cannot hold adversely to the sovereign not matter how you came into possession. "Since the military withdrawal is from "territories," not "all territories," that Israel can stay on some of the territory must imply that who all the territories will go to is an open question." You improperly conflate several issues. That Israel is not obliged ultimately to withdraw from every inch of occupied territory does not at all imply that it may unilaterally determine their disposition. 242 is precisely to the contrary, "emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." Israel seeks to achieve with its settlements in occupied territory the very outcome prohibited by 242. Further, the historical record of 242 makes quite clear that boundary adjustments were contemplated for security reasons, not as a basis for Israeli settlement. Finally, and most important, the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits transfer of population to occupied territory. Outside of the annexed areas of and around Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, the territory is without question occupied because even Israel recognizes it as occupied, not incorporated, governing it under Military Occupation Government that denies to the inhabitants political rights. Israel cannot have it both ways, claiming the territory and not according the inhabitants equal political rights lest it be guilty of the crime of apartheid. Therefore, it does not claim the territories as incorporated. If there were a negotiated settlement under 242, then Israel would be able to dispose of the land within its defined border. As long as the territory is occupied, settlement is forbidden. That the border is ultimately to be determined by negotiation is neither here nor there as to the legitimacy of settlement in the interim. I do not at all see how the demand for resolution by negotiation can be understood to relieve Israel of its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention. As long as there is no settlement, Israel can violate the convention at will? All of its provisions, or only some of them? This makes no sense.

- roidubouloi

November 12, 2011 at 10:03am

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

"This might be a legitimate argument if Israel were willing to make peace based on withdrawal, but it is not. That is exactly why Netanyahu lies and why the settlements are an obstacle to peace. Netanyahu will not make peace based on "the settlements dismantled." Hence, he will not make peace and lies about it." Please note how the writer shifts from " make peace based on withdrawal," to "peace based on "the settlements dismantled.", as if those two statements carry exactly the same meaning. I thought the Geneva Convention is about regulating the rules and laws of war, not Human Rights, per se.

- noga1

November 12, 2011 at 10:39am

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

Roi I'll answer you at a better moment, maybe still today. Gotta' run.

- basman

November 12, 2011 at 11:06am

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

goats dancing on the head of a pin era. Fourth Geneva Convention Article 49(6) was adopted because Denmark wanted tens of thousands post-WW2 displaced Germans out of Denmark. Too bad the Danes did not just put those Germans in cattle cars, destination Greece.

- K2K

November 12, 2011 at 11:26am

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

I didn't shift from "withdrawal" to "settlements dismantled." The latter was basman's argument for the legality of the settlements, that they can be dismantled in the context of a peace settlement. Israel won't dismantle them. Nor will it withdraw from the territory leaving the settlements in sovereign Palestine. It insists as its condition for peace that the Palestinians both legitimize the illegal settlements and abandon their legal claims west of the Green Line. As peace cannot be had on that basis, quite understandably so, Israel refuses to make peace. Netanyahu does his best to obscure that reality by creating as much provocation as necessary to make peace impossible while also doing his best to cast responsibility for his truculence on the Palestinians. That is more than enough reason to consider him a liar. The "rules and laws of war" are but a part of human rights law. This is a distinction without a difference. However, the reason for using the term human rights in this context is in order not to give rise to the implication that what Israel is doing in the occupied territories is a war crime, a worse category of violation. Would you prefer that the settlements be considered war crimes? There are many who make that argument, albeit incorrectly in my opinion. ____________________ Later, b.

- roidubouloi

November 12, 2011 at 11:33am

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

K2K: You have a mean sense of irony. I mean it as a compliment.

- noga1

November 12, 2011 at 11:33am

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

Really? Let's say, shooting captured enemy soldiers is more egregious than packing civilians into gas chambers? Where does it say that "war crimes" is a worse category than "crimes against humanity"?

- noga1

November 12, 2011 at 11:36am

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

...But I do have to ask: Do you believe that the settlements are good for the US?" This isn't a question, it's a statement. Still, if the settlements were good for the US would that mean they were acceptable? There is also an implied assumption in the comment that Israel isn't "good for the US." Finally, what do the settlements on the West Bank have to do with the US?

- arnon

November 12, 2011 at 11:46am

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

There was more to the Sarkozy/Obama exchange: "The Arret sur Images website said Sarkozy was responding to Obama’s concern that the French leader had not warned him about France’s surprise vote in favor of Palestinian UNESCO membership. The website also reported that Obama asked Sarkozy to try to “convince” the Palestinians to slow down their bid for U.N. membership. "You have to pass the message along to the Palestinians that they must stop this immediately," Obama said of the membership bid, according to Reuters. Sarkozy confirmed that France would not take any unilateral decisions during the forthcoming Security Council debate on the subject. "I am with you on that," Obama replied, according to Reuters. " http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/11/08/3090190/adl-calls-sarkozy-obama-exchange-unpresidential Sarkozy's comment on Netanyahu is a private matter between them. No one knows about the private dealings between these two. Moreover criticism of Netanyahu is not criticism of Israel.

- arnon

November 12, 2011 at 11:58am

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

"But Sarkozy’s prevarications are closer to fibs, although they arise from deep within his character. Just a few days ago the London Daily Mail detailed his pathetic attempts to make himself appear taller than his 5’5”, four inches less than the first lady, Carla Bruni. The official entourage of the president of the Fifth Republic carries around a variety of height falsifiers, platforms for every situation and every need. He cannot speak without a riser that buoys him almost aloft. Even Napoleon, actually two inches shorter, was not that vain. So Sarkozy has risen, so to speak, to new heights in his deceptions." Martin Peretz Is this supposed to explain why Sarkozy called Netanyahu a liar?

- arnon

November 12, 2011 at 12:03pm

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

No. It is supposed to show his readers that he can be just as petty, vain, and vainglorious as the diminutive Sarkozy. Marty needs to take up a regime of anti-bile medication.

- noga1

November 12, 2011 at 12:22pm

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

I had such great hopes pinned on Sarkozy when he was elected. Power seems to corrupt even fine intellects.

- noga1

November 12, 2011 at 12:23pm

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

Sarkozy is not anti-Israel but he does seem to have a personal problem with Netanyahu.

- arnon

November 12, 2011 at 12:34pm

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

The recent Latma news report picks up on arnon's meme: It is all Bibi's fault. I'll try to post a link when it is available with English subtitles. In the meantime, here it is for those who can understand the Hebrew: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NGpPCizISCM The relevant excerpts: 4, 7.5 minutes.

- noga1

November 12, 2011 at 1:07pm

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

Crimes against humanity, as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum, "are particularly odious offenses in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. Murder; extermination; torture; rape; political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes under discussion."[1] ______________________ A human rights violation would be a lesser offense than a war crime which would be a lesser offense than a crime against humanity. In each case, the lesser offense may be a "lesser included offense," meaning that the greater offense fits both categories. Thus, a crime against humanity can be a war crime and almost certainly would be a human rights violation. But a human rights violation is not necessarily a war crime or a crime against humanity. The settlements are a human rights violation, but not a war crime, under the Fourth Geneva Convention. That they are not a war crime and other acts would be hardly makes the excusable.

- roidubouloi

November 12, 2011 at 1:08pm

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

A standard defense of inexcusable behavior is to carry it to a rhetorical extreme. Plenty is Bibi's fault, including doing what he can to frustrate peace while trying to avoid blame for so doing. That does not imply that everything is Bibi's fault. Ergo the fact that not everything is Bibi's fault does not imply that nothing or little is his fault. The whole style of argument is inherently absurd.

- roidubouloi

November 12, 2011 at 1:10pm

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

A standard defense of inexcusable behavior is to carry it to a rhetorical extreme. Plenty is Bibi's fault, including doing what he can to frustrate peace while trying to avoid blame for so doing. That does not imply that everything is Bibi's fault. Ergo the fact that not everything is Bibi's fault does not imply that nothing or little is his fault. The whole style of argument is inherently absurd.

- roidubouloi

November 12, 2011 at 1:10pm

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

Apartheid is a crime against humanity. If the occupation of the West Bank and its division between the privileged class of Israelis and the disfavored Palestinians goes on long enough, Israel will get there.

- roidubouloi

November 12, 2011 at 1:14pm

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

Arnon, I think the territories are a big problem for the US. We don't stop Netanyahu and his ilk from continuing to settle, and the Arab world grows distrustful of us--as does the free world. I can't imagine how you can't see that our completely tolerance of Israel's "crimes against humanity," as Roi puts it, makes us look good. So no, they have nothing much to do with us, insofar as they don't affect our education programs or social security. But as for our international reputation, it ain't all that helpful.

- MOLLYSIMON

November 12, 2011 at 3:04pm

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

"Bibi's fault, including doing what he can to frustrate peace while trying to avoid blame for so doing" Let's say that frustrating the peace process with a recalcitrant and maximalist partner is in Israel's best interests, then what Bibi is doing is exactly what an Israeli leader should be doing, including the effort to avoid being blamed for avoiding something that the world consider good but Israelis consider bad.

- noga1

November 12, 2011 at 3:22pm

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

Re: 11/12/2011 - 10:03am EDT | roidubouloi The argument that the argument I posed might be legitimate if Israel were willing to make peace based on withdrawal "but it’s not" doesn’t make sense to me. First, you are running together legal and historical-political considerations. My argument is a legal one starting from the text of Resolution 242. If my argument (of course it’s not “mine” as such) has legal legs, then it does and historical-political judgments, which are judgments and not objective truths, about Israeli unwillingness to make peace don’t affect the argument. The legal answer to Israeli intransigence and bad faith, if that is what they are, is for the Security Council to modify 242 or otherwise pass another resolution addressing that foul conduct. But my point here is that to grant the arguable legitimacy of my argument from 242 contingent on proper historical action is (perhaps unwittingly) to concede more than you might want, especially in the historical light of Palestinian bad faith and intransigency. For by that concession, there is nothing, I’d say, to impugn the legality of Israeli settlement. Your second point about U.N. sovereignty over the territories—if is that correct legally, I’m not certain about that—strengthens the original argument from 242 and my comments above. For by the text of 242, which contemplates an overall negotiated sorting out of, in the largest terms, “land for peace,” nobody but the U.N. can call Israel pisher. The last vote before the Security Council failed to do that in February 2011 by virtue of the U.S. veto, which, legally, is all that’s needed. Insofar as the U.N. is sovereign in the territories, the logic of that seems to me to lead to conclusion that the Palestinians have no greater rights than Israel in them. If they do, why do they, and in what are those greater rights legally grounded? As well by what authority, legally grounded where, are specific interim (interim in the sense of before final resolution) measures by either side illegal? And, still on your second point, you say the world rejects Israel’s unilateral claims on any part of what was conquered before. I don’t know what portion of the argument from 242 this goes to, or why it matters, notwithstanding the annexation of East Jerusalem. For our purposes, it causes the argument from 242 no weakness that there can be no unilateral claim by other side. Rather, legally, to repeat final rights will come, under 242, from a final negotiated land for peace resolution. Your third point about my putative conflation starts again with your knocking down of a straw man—that something short of total withdrawal does not imply unilateral rights to predetermine outcomes. Who says otherwise in the argument from 242? And regardless of 242’s overarching recognition, that you note, of not gaining land by war, it is precisely the specific terms of 242 which allow for the particular argument from its text that I’m trying to advance. (I note that as a kind of aside Israel now at least rhetorically is committed to negotiations without preconditions; the Palestinians are not, which is to say, not even rhetorically. So, respectfully, I see nothing persuasive in this branch of your comments. The point about security reasons does not provide a basis for judging illegal what the Palestinians and Israelis do before ultimate resolution. There may be other bases for judging illegality with respect to specific actions but none that flow from 242. Your “most important” argument based on the Fourth Geneva Convention is problematic. Here’s the problem: Resolution 242 was so drafted, it must be stipulated, with Article 49(6) in mind. Therefore, to the extent that 242 makes legitimate what Article 49(6) would otherwise arguably forbid, 49(6) must bend to what 242 allows. It contemplates ongoing military occupation, for one thing. Even stronger, 242 as I read it does not speak of immediate partial military withdrawal. Rather it ties military withdrawal to the simultaneous “…Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” On top of that there has been partial military withdrawal since 67 and there continues some military presence in the territories just as 242 stipulates there can be. Article 49 (6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention has, legally, comes in an unhelpful second in this. Generally, my immediate underlying point is a narrow one: it is to say there is no black and white legal case against Israel here. At a minimum there are legal arguments that can be made on both sides of the question. My larger point is that what must happen, with an eye to the legal framework 242 provides, is a good faith negotiated resolution of land for peace.

- basman

November 12, 2011 at 3:29pm

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

I fear that in the effort to engage all of your arguments, basman, I have over-complicated what is really quite simple: Occupied territory may not be settled by the occupier. Even the Jewish Virtual Library manages to state the principle just that simply. The territories other than Jerusalem and the Golan is indubitably occupied, not incorporated, as Israel holds it explicitly in the status of occupied territory. Whether Israel has a bona fide claim to all or part of the territory, arising from 242 and/or from some other source, is irrelevant. It would have to assert that claim and incorporate the territory, as it has done in the vicinity of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, according all residents equal political rights (or, failing the latter, be guilty of the crime of apartheid, a worse offense) in order not to be in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The question of the status of Israel's claims is a different question. The UN, including the Security Council, has repeatedly expressed that it considers to be illegal and a violation of its resolutions any unilateral Israeli action to alter the legal status of occupied territory, specifically including Jerusalem. See e.g. UNSC resolution 252 of 1968 treating as null any Israeli legal changes to the status of Jerusalem and environs. See also 446 declaring null legal changes in the territories, insisting that Israel refrain from settlement or any demographic changes, and specifically invoking the Fourth Geneva Convention. In short, the UN has repeatedly called Israel "pisher." It has not imposed sanctions because of the US, but that day may yet come. In the absence of agreement between the parties that is then accepted by the UNSC, it is for the UN, not for Israel, to determine the disposition of the territories. Israel has no claim against the UN. Nor do the Palestinians. Their respective claims have exactly as much or as little status as the UN will accord them. It is perfectly clear that the UN accords no validity to Israel's unilateral changes in the demography or its unilateral efforts to change the legal status.

- roidubouloi

November 12, 2011 at 3:56pm

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

"territories . . . are" The ICJ, including specifically the Israeli justice, is also of the view that the settlements are illegal. According to the Israeli justice, the security barrier may be legal to the extent that it is necessary for the security if Israel, but is illegal to the extent that it is for the security of the illegal settlements. Can't be plainer than that.

- roidubouloi

November 12, 2011 at 3:58pm

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

Also, your argument about the equal status of unliquidated claims can be applied equally to territory west of the Green Line that is not part of the Jewish partition. That territory is, however, considered to be part of Israel because it is recognized as such. The territory east of the Green Line is not recognized as such by the UN or any state other than Israel. The applicable standard says that Israel has at best a claim on the occupied territories but no accepted right to any of them.

- roidubouloi

November 12, 2011 at 4:02pm

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

MOLLYSIMON, your post isn't well thought out. Israel should withdraw from most of the West Bank but it's insane to think that staying there is a crime "against humanity." This is just lawyerly babble. Are you a lawyer, Molly?

- arnon

November 12, 2011 at 4:22pm

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

"Occupied territory may not be settled by the occupier." In the last hundred years "occupiers" have built settlements in many countries in Europe, Asia and Africa. Tibet is one example. Then there is Poland and the Czech Republic All Israel needs to do is annex the settlements close to Jerusalem and withdraw settlers from all other parts of the West Bank which is about 97 percent of the land or more. Give the Pals Israeli land by way of compensation. Keep the army there till the Palestinians decide to negotiate. I doubt though Netanyahu is ready to do so.

- arnon

November 12, 2011 at 4:31pm

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

"Israel should withdraw from most of the West Bank but it's insane to think that staying there is a crime "against humanity." btw: Molly, if staying on the West Bank is a "crime against humanity" and if gassing Jews and others is a crime against humanity then Jews are like the German Nazis. Is that what you are saying. You should rethink your categories, Molly.

- arnon

November 12, 2011 at 5:07pm

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

Roi if you're interested, and, again, when I have a better moment, I'll try to answer yours back to me.

- basman

November 12, 2011 at 5:18pm

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

That may be "all that Israel has to do," but the UNSC has repeatedly told Israel that it cannot and that its efforts to do so are a legal nullity. This might be achieved by "mutually agreed land swaps," except that Israel's idea of mutual agreement is not bargain for exchange in which it offers something the Palestinians want in exchange for what Israel wants. Israel's idea is that it gives the Palestinians desert that no one wants in exchange for the settlement it wants. Plus, the Palestinians are supposed to throw in to the pot the abandonment of their claims west of the Green Line. Why would anyone on the Palestinian side make a dumb deal like that? As Israel obviously cannot make a deal on that basis, Israel refuses to come to the table.

- roidubouloi

November 12, 2011 at 5:20pm

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

Sure, b.

- roidubouloi

November 12, 2011 at 5:20pm

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

"This might be achieved by "mutually agreed land swaps," except that Israel's idea of mutual agreement is..." I don't see either side being ready to negotiate. Netanyahu cares more about his coalition which is to say staying in power than he does about the long term interest of his country.

- arnon

November 12, 2011 at 5:38pm

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

According to roidubouli it is a principle of international law that occupied territory may not be settled by the occupier. Does this apply when the territory was unlawfully seized in the first place? Prior to 1948, there were Jewish communities in areas now occupied by today’s Israeli settlements, e.g., the Old City, Hebron, and the Etzion bloc outside Jerusalem. These Jewish communities were destroyed by Arab armies, militias, and rioters, their inhabitants in many case murdered. If international law bars the reconstitution of Jewish communities that were destroyed through aggression and slaughter, then it seems that it is simply freezing the rights of Arab occupiers, no matter how unlawful their conduct.

- JPKatz

November 12, 2011 at 7:22pm

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

It's noticeable that Obama, presumably with every justification for enthusiastically confirming Netanyahu's habit of making a nuisance of himself at every opportunity, did not respond to Sarkozy's "liar" remark. The fact that Marty was reduced to describing Obama's response as "sort of in kind" reveals that he noticed this as well. The president's comment strikes me as neutral in comparison with Sarko's venting.

- ironyroad

November 12, 2011 at 8:38pm

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

There's nothing more "political" than "history" based on assertions about who was living in a place 75, 100, 200, 5,000 years ago.... Which chunk of time is truly "important", what is fair, what is objective reality? You have to be careful, or we'll have the Lene Lennape and Cherokees owning 95% of continental U.S.A.

- JohnC

November 12, 2011 at 8:41pm

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

ironyroad, your calling Obama's response "neutral" is on par with your interpretation of Obama's bow to the Saudi as being due to the fact that either 1. The Saudi was much shorter (actually, he was taller than Obama) or 2. He was seated at the time (which was an incorrect memory). X to ironyroad: Noga is such a pain in the ass ironyroad to X: Tell me about it! I have to deal with her each time Obama is mentioned! Let me just add that a man who would bow to the Saudi, or glad hand with Chavez is just the type of man who couldn't resist the temptation of spending some time with an interlocutor he does not otherwise like all that much "exploring a shared contempt". http://bluestarchronicles.com/2009/06/05/obama-snubs-sarkozy-obama-refuses-dinner-with-french-president/ Not at all a proud moment for Obama.

- noga1

November 12, 2011 at 9:03pm

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

http://bluestarchronicles.com/2009/06/05/obama-snubs-sarkozy-obama-refuses-dinner-with-french-president/ Not at all a proud moment for Obama.

- noga1

November 12, 2011 at 9:04pm

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

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g4JlrBvvzulfAUIXJl9FYDFKAxSw?docId=CNG.36de6969dd783898e1327c54da605a42.4e1 "And with speculation rife over the possibility of an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear programme, a Haaretz poll last week showed 52 percent expressed confidence in Netanyahu's ability to handle "the Iranian issue." Gabriela Shalev, former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, says that such apparent slights ultimately have little effect on Israeli public opinion. "Those who think that the whole world is against us and that Netanyahu is the only one who can stand up for Israel, have had their opinions strengthened," she told AFP. "Others who worry that Israel is becoming increasingly isolated (as a result of his policies) also have their beliefs confirmed," she said."

- noga1

November 12, 2011 at 9:17pm

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

As I said, it's noticeable how "sort of" sneaks into Marty's polemic.

- ironyroad

November 12, 2011 at 11:26pm

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

"Gabriela Shalev, former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, says that such apparent slights ultimately have little effect on Israeli public opinion. "Those who think that the whole world is against us and that Netanyahu is the only one who can stand up for Israel, have had their opinions strengthened," she told AFP. "Others who worry that Israel is becoming increasingly isolated (as a result of his policies) also have their beliefs confirmed," she said." The problem isn't that he can't "stand up against them." The problem is he is alienating the few friends Israel has in the international community and for what? Netanyahu is just trying to show how tough he is. In the long run his toughness will weaken Israel.

- arnon

November 12, 2011 at 11:27pm

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

ok, this is truly weird in that I had to login to TNR, which takes you to the home page, so I went to page 3 bookmark, and suddenly am hearing the ad for Easy-off Oven Cleaner from the Newsy embed in the lower right corner. Truly a bad ad for a thread on Israel...and generally annoying. compliment appreciated noga. I do get frustrated when apartments in Ramat Shlomo and Gilo are conflated with "the occupation" that is so terrible that Israel is on the brink of pariah-state status. I have to go watch Klavan's YouTube of the One-State Solution again.

- K2K

November 12, 2011 at 11:58pm

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

There is no one State solution. One State means an eventual Muslim State with Jews in the minority which means with no rights. A one State solution means no Jewish place of refuge. One State means Jews a wandering people all over again. We know what that means don't we?

- arnon

November 13, 2011 at 12:12am

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

for arnon: "Klavan's One-State Solution: Give the Middle East to the Jews" http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uIEeiDjdUuU for everyone: http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell latest is "Useful Idiots for Palestine" amazing Condell is still alive, G-d bless him! noga: Latma is all Hebrew - no English. Maybe Glick was asked to reduce "incitement"?

- K2K

November 13, 2011 at 12:18am

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

What kind of settlement activity are we talking about? http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/erekat-olmert-offered-palestinians-territorial-equivalent-of-west-bank-1.393484 "an aerial photograph provided by European sources shows that settlements have been built on approximately 1.1% of the West Bank,"

- noga1

November 13, 2011 at 7:36am

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

http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2011/11/11/why-did-sarkozy-and-obama-dis-disrespect-bibi/2/ "Obama’s administration has endorsed Israel’s deadliest enemy and the most important antisemitic group in the world — the Muslim Brotherhood — coming to power in Egypt. A similar stance is being taken toward Tunisia and Libya; U.S. policy is treating the Islamist regime in Turkey as its closest ally in the Middle East despite that country’s leader making hysterical anti-Israel rants and virtually threatening war on Israel. The Obama administration is also helping Islamists in Syria and doing lots of other dangerous things on a regional level. In the face of this long list of damage being done by Obama to Israel, he has a lot of nerve to snap about Netanyahu. Meanwhile, we are still being told from certain quarters that Obama is the most pro-Israel president in history, practically Jewish, and we should shut up about any criticism, get down on our knees and vote for him. A little lesson in diplomacy: the king of the land is the king. Israel must get along with Obama to the best of its ability. It cannot criticize him in public and must be circumspect in discussing even his policies. It must take the course of a university official in a Terry Pratchett book who told his boss: “You’re right, sir, but I can tell you how to be even more right!” Suppose you were to ask an Israeli official what he thinks of Obama and his policies? If completely candid, that person would respond: It doesn’t matter what I think, we have to do our best to get along with him. Ironically, Obama says that he is ashamed of past U.S. bullying and arrogance, its treatment of smaller countries. Often, however, that only seems to be true regarding countries hostile to the United States. The fact is that Israel’s existence is on the line and Obama is playing with that country’s fate. I won’t go further here but if I make the mistake of talking in front of a microphone that I think is “off,” I might get caught complaining that we have to deal with Obama every day."

- noga1

November 13, 2011 at 8:00am

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

Roi, I'm still in Montrreal for the weekend and am driving back to Toronto later today. So I'll make a further comment this evening.

- basman

November 13, 2011 at 9:54am

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

Just saw Jon Huntsman on CBS' Face the Nation, and I can not believe that Huntsman buys into the moral equivalency that US aid to Israel (which is 100% military, a condition of the Camp David treaty, and 75% has to be spent on US hardware) is balanced with the [K2K preface: never-ending welfare payments] of "foreign aid" for palestinians. noga: thanks for the tip Barry Rubin's post. I confess it was more interesting to find a PJM post that points out the deadline for stockpiling incandescent light bulbs in 2011. I had thought I had another year to do so. Predicting black market in incandescents for the surviving readers in the USA to rival the War on Drugs :)

- K2K

November 13, 2011 at 1:33pm

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

For eight years we had to deal with George Bush and Dick Cheney every day, Noga. There are stresses and stresses. In general, the problem may be neither Obama nor Netanyahu (political leaders have personalities too and some connections just don't function irrespective of what happens on the policy side). The problem may be a cluster of volatile historical and ideological parts in the Middle East, moving in uncertain directions, and none of which are really under anyone's control.

- ironyroad

November 13, 2011 at 2:19pm

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

To ironyroad: This is the bottom line: "The fact is that Israel’s existence is on the line and Obama is playing with that country’s fate." I've had that impression for many months now. He has been experimenting with being extra nice and solicitous towards the Arab world, extra nice and solicitous towards the Palestinians, imagining, I presume, that if only there was in the WH someone who really really understood their suffering and aspirations, they would reciprocate with similar generosity. Well, we see where that delusional rapprochement brought us. You guys are making fun of the Republican candidates and their inexperience. I doubt any one of them would have played with foreign policy the kinds of games Obama has indulged in.

- noga1

November 13, 2011 at 3:42pm

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

"You guys are making fun of the Republican candidates and their inexperience. I doubt any one of them would have played with foreign policy the kinds of games Obama has indulged in." Any one who trusts the Republicans long term to stand by Israel more than the Democrats is deluded. That or they don't know much about American history.

- arnon

November 13, 2011 at 4:45pm

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

http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/3190.htm "Following are excerpts from statements made at a rally of the Palestinian Al-Ahrar movement in Gaza, a pro-Hamas group that split from Fatah, which aired on Al-Aqsa TV on November 3, 2011: Rally organizer: Praise be to you, our Lord. You have made our killing of the Jews an act of worship, through which we come closer to you. […] Allah's prayers upon you, our beloved Prophet [Muhammad]. You have made your teachings into constitutions for us – the light with which we dissipate the darkness of the occupation, and the fire with which we harvest the skulls of the Jews. […] Yes, our beloved brothers, even though the entire world moves closer to Allah through fasting, through hunger, and through tears, we are a people that moves closer to Allah through blood, through body parts, and through martyrs. […] Oh sons of Palestine, oh sons of the Gaza Strip, oh mujahideen – wage Jihad, wreak destruction, blow up and harvest the heads of the Zionists. Words are useless by now. The lie of peace is gone. Only weapons are of any use – the path of [recently killed] Yousuf and Ali, the path of martyrdom and Jihad. Only our wounds talk on our behalf. We speak nothing but the language of struggle, of Jihad, or rockets, of bombs, of cannons and of martyrdom-seekers. This is the language in which we talk and negotiate with the Zionist enemy. […] We say to the Zionists: Like a bad seed, we shall uproot you from our land, so that it can blossom in the light of the everlasting sun of our Jihad, and of our invincible religion. Jerusalem is not yours – get out of it! Haifa is not yours – get out of it! Tel Aviv is not yours – get out of it! Oh Zionists, get out before we expel you. these are the words of the mujahideen. " This hatred, needless to say, is all Bibi's fault. Netanyahu is a liar. And they hate him for that.

- noga1

November 13, 2011 at 5:03pm

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

Ironyroad “In general, the problem may be neither Obama nor Netanyahu (political leaders have personalities too and some connections just don't function irrespective of what happens on the policy side). The problem may be a cluster of volatile historical and ideological parts in the Middle East, moving in uncertain directions, and none of which are really under anyone's control.” I agree, but the changes are occurring not just in the Mid-East. There are changes occurring in Europe and perhaps in the US. These changes are economic but they will drive some deeper social changes. I also don’t think that the changes are being drive by “progressive forces,” however one defines them. The world I fear in the next decade or so will start to look more like the pre-WW2 world then it does the post WW2 world. Israel will become even more vital to Jews than it does now even though the Jewish left doesn't yet see it that way. The Jewish right too is deluded if thinking they can rely on post WW2 covenants and understanding. I have no solutions and no prescriptions except that I view the current political thinking in Israel as inadequate.

- arnon

November 13, 2011 at 5:40pm

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

Noga's links are irrelevant as usual.

- arnon

November 13, 2011 at 5:41pm

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

I don't know if anyone here watched the Republican debate were Rick Perry again mis-spoke this time about Israel. He said that he wanted to stop foreign aid and then see how he would reinstate it. He was asked if Israel too would stop getting foreign aid and he said YES then he caught himself. This verbal slip wasn't it seems to me a pure accident. It's as if he were thinking one thing but needed to say something else and being Rick Perry he got all mixed up. Would anyone here buy a used foreign policy from Rick Perry?

- arnon

November 13, 2011 at 5:45pm

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

Any sort of fanatic devotion to one man, one idea, scares me. And what I see is a sort of fanaticism in the refusal to recognize the damage that Obama is doing to Israel. It began with his attempt to mollify the Arabs by refusing to include in his Cairo speech a reference to Jewish history in Israel. It continued with the manufactured outrage on "settlements" in Jerusalem. Now, there is a grave doubt within the administration as to whether Jerusalem is in Israel. All this, under Obama's watch. I wonder if I wanted to ever study in the States, whether my degree from the Hebrew university of Jerusalem, a university that gets its authority from the state of Israel, would be considered valid, under Obama's Khalidian view of Israel. I am actually pleased with the open mick incident. It removed any doubts whatsoever from the guesswork about Obama's real sentiments. A visible lion is always a less dangerous lion than a hidden one. Or, if you like, sunlight is a good disinfectant.

- noga1

November 13, 2011 at 6:13pm

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

I have the feeling that if I had to deal with Netanyahu every day, a heartfelt "I have to deal with him every day" might be heard from me too. Incidentally, it was terrible how the Obama administration recently betrayed Israel by supporting the Pals attempt to get UN membership! Oh, wait . . . !

- ironyroad

November 13, 2011 at 6:33pm

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

The White House is not responsible for the academic recognition of foreign degrees, Noga.

- ironyroad

November 13, 2011 at 6:36pm

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

There is a trickle down effect, ironyroad. How long before this issue will pop up at, let's say, Columbia U or Berkeley? You are satisfied with your president's incontinence, are you, ironyroad? You are content with his behaviour towards Israel, right? You said absolutely nothing of substance in your comment. No explanation, no justification, nothing, except the magic word: "Bibi".

- noga1

November 13, 2011 at 7:19pm

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

11/13/2011 - 5:45pm EDT | arnon: [on last night's GOP debate and Gov. Perry on foreign aid]: "He said that he wanted to stop foreign aid and then see how he would reinstate it." Arnon - you should try listening instead of watching. Gov. Perry said he would use zero-based budgeting for foreign aid. He has used zero-based budgeting as governor of Texas. IMO, zero-based budgeting for all Federal (or state or city) expenditures is a good idea, although perhaps better for a year 1 baseline for the four year Presidential term since Congress seems to find it impossible to actually produce an annual budget. Governor Perry has the strongest position on Israel of any candidate, since his first visit to Israel in 1992 as Texas Agriculture Commissioner. Perry's depth on Israel as America's most reliable and important ally in the Middle East is based on his direct experience on economic, trade, technology, and military views of Israel. I do think Perry, in the debate last night, should have clarified the distinction between foreign aid and military aid, but zero-based budgeting is a very good idea. US aid to Israel is 100% military, a condition of the Camp David treaty, and 75% has to be spent on US hardware, which is the subject of some serious debate in Israel because it comes with strings attached. Israel also is compelled by the USA to sell Israeli technology to Turkey as NATO member, but is constrained from selling Israeli technology to India, as one example. Don't get me started on how the USA is treating Israel on the F35 Joint Strike Fighter! Gov. Perry had the courage of his convictions to stand next to MK Danon in NYC in September, at an event organized by former Huckabee supporters, who tend to be Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox. MK Danon continues to champion the Greater Israel concept. Perry's said that Obama's policy on Israel was "naive, arrogant, misguided, and dangerous", words that influenced Obama's speech later that weekat the UN on Palestinian statehood. Yeah, I am following Gov. Perry very closely.

- K2K

November 13, 2011 at 8:06pm

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

noga makes a valid point, in addition to ALL the valid points made in her 6:13 pm EDT comment. I remember that my elite New England college would NOT accept transfer credits from most accredited American colleges and universities, in the early 1970's. I seem to recall they would accept credits for Oxford and Cambridge Universities in the UK. signing off with the thought of "the dingo ate my baby" in honor of Obama finally making his much delayed official visit to Australia where Ron Paul must be thrilled that the USA is building a permanent base for the United States Marines, I assume with a port for MEU carrier groups. Prawns on the barbie and good beer for all, from the shores of Australia to the , oh, never mind!

- K2K

November 13, 2011 at 8:15pm

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

"Any sort of fanatic devotion to one man, one idea, scares me." You mean the devotion to Netanyahu? In that case I agree. There is a kind of fanaticism in that devotion. On the other hand, I don't know too many people who are fanatically devoted to Obama. I would have preferred Hillary or Biden or some other Democrat that would have been tougher on wall Street, the Republicans, and on Iran. But Obama is what we have and I think he is a lot better head of State than Netanyahu.

- arnon

November 13, 2011 at 8:29pm

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

"Incidentally, it was terrible how the Obama administration recently betrayed Israel by supporting the Pals attempt to get UN membership! Oh, wait . . . !" you can't say that to the fanatic Obama haters. Whatever he does that they like (such as approving weapons systems to Israel) they just thing he did for the wrong reasons. They did love, though GW Bush, even though he allowed Hamas to take over Gaza.

- arnon

November 13, 2011 at 8:32pm

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

Under stress Arnon demonstrates his Manichean thinking. If you resent Obama's treatment of Netanyahu then you are a fanatic devotee of Netanyahu. God help us from such conditional supporters of Israel as him. It's almost as bad as people (like Mearsheimer and co) telling Jews who is a good Jew. Puke worthy.

- noga1

November 13, 2011 at 8:58pm

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

Noga “Under stress Arnon demonstrates his Manichean thinking.” What a bizarre reply. What stress am I under? What Manichean thinking? This woman doesn’t know what stress is doesn’t know what Manichean thinking means.

- arnon

November 13, 2011 at 9:05pm

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

George Bush was a friend to Israel, in words and actions. Disagreements were settled as between friends. Israelis knew that and could tolerate his occasional scolding. I do not hate Obama. I am disappointed that he turned out to be such mediocre, petty, predictable leader so resistant to understanding, to truth. Lover of Palestinians, hater of Israel. He couldn't get more cliche than that, in the general atmosphere of aleihum in the circles of Left. http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=819 "It is Wasserman Schultz who is now on the hot seat due to Obama’s childish attempt to one-up Sarkozy in the bash Bibi derby. Wasserman Schultz made this pitch for Obama to Florida’s Jewish voters earlier this month. "As Jews, we want to look into someone's heart and know where they stand and that they stand with us. And I've looked into Barack Obama's heart and his kishkes. I know that he feels the issues that are important to us ... I've seen what's in his kishkes, and I know that this is a mensch that we have in the White House." While it may be possible for some analysts overseas to excuse the comments by Sarkozy and Obama as indications of distaste for Netanyahu, but not for Israel, per se, that will be a much tougher sell in the U.S. In addition to the poll numbers discussed earlier, when Netanyahu addressed a joint session of Congress a few months back, the Israeli prime minister was treated as a conquering hero, just days after admonishing Obama publicly on Israel’s basic security needs, which did not allow for a return to the pre-1967 lines. The Netanyahu-Obama press conference followed the release of Obama’s call for such lines as the basis for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, announced while Netanyahu was in the air on the way to D.C. That too, like the comments to Sarkozy, must have been a reflection of what was in Obama’s “kishkes," more than that of undying love for Israel. There are reports that Sarkozy will try to make amends with a visit to Israel in the near future. Presumably, he can tell Netanyahu he was just kidding. Obama, who has visited dozens of countries, some of them multiple times since taking office, has not yet made a visit to Israel as president. If he makes one now, it will almost universally be seen as pandering, following the latest incident at the G-20. "

- noga1

November 13, 2011 at 9:15pm

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

"This woman doesn’t know ... " Sexist, too.

- noga1

November 13, 2011 at 9:16pm

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

Noga, I don't know what you mean by "Obama's incontinence." But otherwise I'm broadly satisfied with Obama's foreign policy directions, so far at least. I think several of them were situations in which all choices seemed to be loaded with potential downsides, and that many presidents might have gritted their teeth at and made the best of a bad lot. For a brief list of praiseworthy bits: 1. Hunting down Al Qaeda and OBL 2. Making the attempt to give Teheran an opening to talk, so that at least our position on Iran was strengthened internationally thereafter. 3. Strategic Arms treaty with Russia 4. Closer to India vis-a-vis Pakistan 5. Libya (I still think it was the right thing to do). 6. A brave attempt to put U.S.-Islamic countries on a new footing -- trying in a sense to reach a new constituency in the Muslim world -- maybe it will bear fruit in the future (sometimes FP is really a long-term thing) Broadly, I'd say that the Obama strategy is "Hit really hard and accurately when you hit, but try not to act like a total dick the rest of the time" as opposed to the Bush-Cheney variant, which was at its worst exactly the opposite.

- ironyroad

November 13, 2011 at 9:23pm

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

"Sexist, too." I would be if you were sexed.

- arnon

November 13, 2011 at 9:26pm

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

Is there a myopic right wing guru like Richard Baehr whom Noga hasn't quoted? Israel Hayom (today) is another anti-Obama blog.

- arnon

November 13, 2011 at 9:28pm

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

noga1 “George Bush was a friend to Israel, in words and actions.” GW Bush, he pushed the democratization project that led to the overthrow of Mubarak. He allowed Hamas to take control of Gaza. He has made it possible for Iran to become a power in the region. God keep Israel from friends like him. The hysterical attacks on Obama have more to do with the right wing’s supporters of Israel inability to face what Bush has allowed to take root in the Middle east. The recent rise of Islamic regimes in the region has more to do with Bush than Obama.

- arnon

November 13, 2011 at 9:34pm

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

"The hysterical attacks on Obama have more to do with the right wing’s supporters of Israel inability to face what Bush has allowed to take root in the Middle east." Very insightful, but I think it's also the distrust of Jews of a certain age. They don't like blacks. Whether this is Farrakhan-and-his-ilk related or not, I don't know. Of course, some blacks are anti-semitic, but plenty aren't.

- MOLLYSIMON

November 13, 2011 at 10:38pm

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

roiduboulois: Great set of posts and as noted there are parts I agree with, but (and maybe I’m missing something or a few things): The principle that “occupied territory may not be settled by the occupier” has to be put into a relevant legal framework. Everything I read on the subject of a modern legal analysis of these issues and everyone I speak to who is knowledgeable (and you’re that certainly) starts with UNSC Resolution 242 as at least the foundation of that framework. So I don’t understand how 242 is irrelevant for the reasons you suggest: 1. the principle of no occupation settlement; 2. The need for Israel to assert a claim and incorporate what it has claimed; 3. the application of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. I’m repeating myself, but if, as you say, If the U.N. remains sovereign in the Territories, which are not de jure settled, (and the tension between de facto and de jure here is very complicating) then by 242 the U.N. has spoken and what it has said is that withdrawal, need not be from all the Territories and that it, the termination of claims or states of belligerency, acknowledgement of sovereignty, territorial integrity, secure and recognized borders of all states and so on in the area are to be resolved as is directed by the Resolution’s terms. The very principle you cite rather than displacing the relevance of 242 is set out within it—“The Security Council....Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war...”—hardly the basis for 242’s irrelevance. And if 242 forms the legal framework for the resolution of differences, it does not lie within Israel to claim and incorporate, a prescription worse and more illegal than interim settlement. These points are reinforced by the international law doctrine that the principle of no settlement via occupation does not apply to land taken in the defence against wars of aggression. As you say, “The question of the status of Israel's claims is a different question.” No argument there I don’t think. And as I noted, I make no argument for Israel’s unilateral legal right to claim for itself parts of the Territories (and that includes those parts of Jerusalem beyond the Green Line, and technically Jerusalem itself, (which latter technical point generates the lis in the just taken up Zivotofsky case by your Supreme Court.) To the extent that the U.N. S.C. has spoken via other of its resolutions post 242 that may be a problem for my position and I will have to look at consider what you cite. I don’t have time to wrestle this all to the ground now but I remember a distinction between Security Council Resolution of binding legal force or of only moral or precatory force depending under which branch of the U.N. Charter it was passed and that possibly being the reason why in some instances the U.S. abstains rather than vetoes as it did in February of this year concerning the illegality of the settlements. (Like the U.N. resolutions you cite, I don’t have the time now to consider the effect of ICJ decisions.) In any event I agree with this as well stated by you: ...In the absence of agreement between the parties that is then accepted by the UNSC, it is for the UN, not for Israel, to determine the disposition of the territories. Israel has no claim against the UN. Nor do the Palestinians. Their respective claims have exactly as much or as little status as the UN will accord them. It is perfectly clear that the UN accords no validity to Israel's unilateral changes in the demography or its unilateral efforts to change the legal status... But as I noted before I don’t see how this affects the precise question of the legality of the settlements. They are under the argument from Resolution 242 mere way stations along the way to a final status resolution to be reached by agreement or in the case of Israel unilateral withdrawal as in Gaza. If Israel continues to create certain “facts on the ground” in the face of sheer Palestinian belligerence, terrorism, holocaust intentionality, irredentism, rejectionism and so on, that is realpolitik in response, going back to the “No, No, No” of Khartoum in 1967, that creating may be ugly and unwise, but why, given the terms of 242, illegal? Your concluding comments about “unliquidated claims” and recognition are well taken and all go to the point of the complicated interface between what is so and not so de facto and what is so or not so de jure and to the ultimate point that finally these matters will be resolved by agreement, if ever, and until then remain in a state of legal indeterminacy.

- basman

November 13, 2011 at 10:54pm

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

Now it will be impossible to ever see Debbie Wasserman-Schulz's face again with this image of her looking into Obama's kishkes "And I've looked into Barack Obama's heart and his kishkes. I know that he feels the issues that are important to us ... I've seen what's in his kishkes, ..." Does Debbie know what kishkes are? My grandmother Lena, may she rest in peace, made the BEST kishkes (and even better BEST gefilte fish) from scratch. I actually can NOT stop laughing at this image, even if Debbie W-S did mean it as a metaphor. Really looking forward to the DNC and DCCC fundraising totals for 4Q2011. Debbie W-S and Steve Israel as the respective chairs give new meaning to "court Jews". But, of course, in the Gospel According to Arnon, everyone can just blame it all on Bush43. Not the UN. Not the EU. Iran? sure, why not. Russia and China have nothing to do with Iran. anyway, noga, thanks for the laugh. I really do miss Lena's kishkes, the silkiest kasha-stuffed cow colon ever! irony still does not get it. Obama is going to trade places with Petraeus at the CIA. Obama really loves those Predator drones, even if they are part-Jewish as in, part Made in Israel. Gosh, I wonder if that includes Jerusalem? The rest of TNR must be recovering from two GOP debates only three days apart. Dissection of zero-base budgeting awaits!

- K2K

November 13, 2011 at 11:44pm

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

"They don't like blacks. Whether this is Farrakhan-and-his-ilk related or not, I don't know. Of course, some blacks are anti-semitic, but plenty aren't." I don't think race has much to do with it. We are living in a time when political ideology trumps race. Look at the embrace of Cain by ultra conservative Republicans. The Republicans don't like Obama because his policies are too liberal and many Jewish neo-cons are playing to the religious conservative base. It's those folk who are calling the shots on Israeli policy among conservatives. And many of these ultra right wing distrust Jewish support for their cause. This is why they had a hard time and needed to talk away Obama's UN speech where he told the world that the Palestinians need to enter negotiations with Israel if they hope to become UN members. The Jewish right wing needs to show that they are conservatives in good standing.

- arnon

November 14, 2011 at 12:16am

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

"irony still does not get it." He has indeed discovered that about many things in life. He finds himself surrounded, though, by folks who think they've gotten it all so good they don't even have to try anymore.

- ironyroad

November 14, 2011 at 12:58am

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

"The Jewish right wing needs to show that they are conservatives in good standing." Oh, the irony of the cognitive dissonance in this statement. What a silly person. Pompous and clueless.

- noga1

November 14, 2011 at 6:18am

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

Ironyroad: by "incontinence" I meant Obama's inability to constrain himself when Sarkozy offered the opportunity of sharing his contempt of Netanyahu with him. I'm less angry with Obama after he was confronted with a direct question about it last night and did not try to dodge it. I didn't change my mind about his continence but I could see how, in the context of what had gone on just before the hot mick, one could get carried away, and be a little less on guard and likely to say unkind things about the subject. To take an example from here. There was this time when you were trying to "defend" me against icarusr's outlandish accusations and once you said your piece, you added something like: look, I understand you perfectly. If you have 25 things to hold against her, I have 37 things or even 42 ... Your advocacy of yours truly did not impress her too much but I can see how you would consider it still a moral achievement of some sort. I think this is what happened to poor Obama. It's a little bit like the time he was caught admiring a beauteous young woman's derriere. Oddly enough, that moment was also shared by Sarkozy: http://shoeblogs.com/2009/07/09/scenes-from-the-g-8-meeting/ "Manolo says, apparently the American and French administrations share the matters of mutual interest."

- noga1

November 14, 2011 at 6:36am

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

noga1 "Oh, the irony of the cognitive dissonance in this statement. What a silly person. Pompous and clueless." Noga is out of touch with American political reality which is why everything she says about American politics is irrelevant. The woman reads blogs that reflect her mindset.

- arnon

November 14, 2011 at 9:46am

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

I don't agree with Horowitz's view of Obama but he did get it right when he blamed Bush and the Neo-cons for pushing a democratic agenda in illiberal places that led to Islamicist victories. "But whatever I wrote about the war in support of the democracy agenda, inside I was never a 100% believer in the idea that democracy could be so easily implanted in so hostile a soil. I wanted to see Saddam toppled and a non-terrorist supporting government in its place. I would have settled for that and a large U.S. military base as well. But I allowed myself to get swept up in the Bush-led enthusiasm for a democratic revolution in the Middle East. I remained on board until the Beirut spring began to wither and got off when election results in Gaza came in and put a Nazi party into power. That spelled the end of my neo-conservative illusions." David Horowitz in "why I am not a neo-Conservative."

- arnon

November 14, 2011 at 9:52am

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

Noga, my point was that Obama did not, in fact, take the opportunity offered by Sarkozy, whose principal beef was that Netanyahu, according to the Sarko, is "a liar." He responded in a rather different way, that emphasized how much of a pain in the ass the PM can be when he puts his mind to it, and that rather like the chair of a committee vis-a-vis an irritating but generally within-his-rights member with a particular agenda, the president has to put up with him. Why the scare quotes around 'defend'? Either I was defending you or I wasn't.

- ironyroad

November 14, 2011 at 10:18am

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

When the political leader of a permanent member of the UNSecCouncil uses the word "liar" to describe any Israeli Prime Minister, he/she immediately fuels suspicion over the duelling narratives that so many use to delegitimize Israel, especially since Cast Lead in 2006. Call Netanyahu "difficult" or "stubborn", but "liar" is the gravest diplomatic error. And, Obama, regardless of the context, should have made Sarkozy that he was repeating French history with his J'Accuse moment. Quite ironic, considering that the Dreyfuss Affair was the tipping point for the Zionist project, and the French boast that they invented modern nation-state diplomacy.

- K2K

November 14, 2011 at 10:35am

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

As a footnote I should underline that I am perfectly aware that, from the Israeli standpoint, Netanyahu's dogged inflexibility may be thoroughly justified and even an inspired strategy. I'm just saying that there is more than one valid perspective here.

- ironyroad

November 14, 2011 at 10:37am

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

K2K "When the political leader of a permanent member of the UNSecCouncil uses the word "liar" to describe any Israeli Prime Minister, he/she immediately fuels suspicion over the duelling narratives that so many use to delegitimize Israel..." This is crap, K2K. Sarkozy called Netanyahu a liar in a private conversation and it was directed at him personally and not at Israel. Sarkozy is no enemy of Israel.

- arnon

November 14, 2011 at 1:22pm

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

So K2K when you and your right wing friends call Obama a liar are you trying to de-legitimize the US?

- arnon

November 14, 2011 at 1:56pm

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

"Jewish Vote Not a Problem for Obama GOP May Be Fooling Itself by Hoping for Big Electoral Slice" By Jim Gerstein Read more: http://forward.com/articles/145934/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=The%2520Forward%2520Today%2520%2528Monday-Friday%2529&utm_campaign=Daily_Newsletter_Mon_Thurs%25202011-11-15#ixzz1di0HN1jk

- arnon

November 14, 2011 at 2:14pm

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

Just for quicks I checked in the Wikipedia human rights. it is the development of the West Judeo Christian civilization. As for Asian and Muslim civilizations human rights, democracy is totally foreign. Totalitarian benign regimes is the way to go. Leaders of Singapore and Malaysia, state these facts. Please read the Wikipedia. I kept wondering why Roidubouloi kept ignoring my counterpoints about what was going on in Muslim countries on gross human rights violations . And keeping going back to chastise Israel about the constructions in the liberated territories as human rights violations. As far as Muslim and Asians these is legal proper behavior. Somewhere along the dialogue R discontinued bring it up the human rights issue. And at the end I started to conclude that what we are experiencing is the development of a Judeo Christian Muslim civilization in the liberated territories. But to make it totally kosher I believe that a solution is to offer the Palestinians conversion to Judaism which is equal to Islam. After all Sunnis are so similar in their believes to Judaism. As Jews they will be totally accepted by Israel. They will choose love and reject hatred, they will choose commerce, science, technology and reject war. And they can choose to be whatever they want from Secular to Reform Conservative Orthodox Gay Atheists. Women will be respected. We only need to have 80% Jewish and 20% Muslim, just like in Israel. This is not an arrogant proposal. Islam Sunnis and Judaism are very very similar. This is a practical proposal. I would love to hear Palestinians from the liberated territories about this. Professor Nusseibhi from Al Quds University in Jerusalem had similar ideas. Although he foresaw inevitable intermarriage between the young Israeli Jews and the young Palestinian Muslims. It takes time of which we have plenty. The fact is that Palestinians from the liberated territories are different from those in Gaza and those in Jordan, Lebanon Syria. Their interaction with Israelis has produced a different state of mind. And I go one step forward. There will be three Jewish-Muslim States.: Israel, Judea and Samaria, and the West Bank. Hopefully they will be friendly to each other. And as a Buddhist that I am, Humans are in this world to be happy. Yes Tristan, my outbursts of the past were a product of negative anger. And do not bring up the meds. It takes time and big effort to have rational positive thinking to take over. All of this is a consequence of my confrontation with an irrational anti Jew blogger in Tablet Magazine that took the whole weekend for the moderator to remove those insane comments. They were part of the article on Albert Camus. Maybe I felt guilty of having done that in the past. Am I apologizing? Maybe I am.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 14, 2011 at 3:29pm

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

Sarkozy must be anti-Israel, right? "Sarko is sorry" "French President Nicolas Sarkozy apologized to Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu for calling him a "liar" on a hot mic, the Israeli press reports: 'My dear Binyamin, allow me to express my friendship for you. There is no influence on this friendship from either our divergent viewpoints or the stories that appear in the media.' Obama also wrote Netanyahu a condolence letter on the death of his father-in-law, but made no reference to the gaffe, a White House official said." http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1111/Sarko_is_sorry.html

- arnon

November 14, 2011 at 8:08pm

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

"Why the scare quotes around 'defend'? Either I was defending you or I wasn't" Not "scare quotes" just an indication that it was hard to know whether you were defending me or not. Perhaps you were using the form of defending me while actually taking the opportunity to agree with ick. I wouldn't know.

- noga1

November 14, 2011 at 8:34pm

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

11/14/2011 - 1:56pm EDT | arnon "So K2K when you and your right wing friends call Obama a liar are you trying to de-legitimize the US?" 1) I have never written online that Obama is a liar, which is not the same as being a failed leader, or clueless about a specific issue. 2) the palestinian narrative denies any historical link between Judaism and any square inch of what they think is Palestine, including Jerusalem as one key foundation of their delegitimization campaign against the 'Zionist, racist Occupiers'. So, it DOES support that false narrative when the political leader of one of the five UNSC permanent members calls ANY Israeli Prime Minister a liar, under any circumstances. The arabs already feed off the vicious stereotype that all Jews are cunning liars. J'Accuse! 3) I continue to be a registered democrat in NY17, and 11/14/2011 - 1:56pm EDT | arnon "So K2K when you and your right wing friends call Obama a liar are you trying to de-legitimize the US?" 1) I have never written online that Obama is a liar, which is not the same as being a failed leader. 2) the palestinian narrative denies any historical link between Judaism and any square inch of what they think is Palestine, including Jerusalem as one foundation of their delegitimization campaign against the 'Zionist, racist Occupiers'. So, it DOES support that false narrative when the political leader of one of the five UNSC permanent members calls ANY Israeli Prime Minister a liar, under any circumstances. The arabs already feed off the vicious stereotype that all Jews are cunning liars. J'Accuse! 3) I continue to be a registered democrat in NY17, and no longer discuss politics or Israel in real life, except with transient strangers, which is the main reason I comment on Israel at TNR. Israel is such a great topic to sneak into a conversation about the merits of Greek-style yogurt while shopping at Trader Joe's :)

- K2K

November 14, 2011 at 8:48pm

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

noga: LatmaTV is back in English today! quite funny - blame it on BiBi :) TNR really has to drop these ad video embeds that run automatically and chew up buffer memory.

- K2K

November 14, 2011 at 8:51pm

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

K2K you are off on a tangent again.

- arnon

November 14, 2011 at 9:07pm

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

"Perhaps you were using the form of defending me while actually taking the opportunity to agree with ick." Maybe, but it doesn't sound like me. Do you have the full post? That would probably tell us.

- ironyroad

November 14, 2011 at 9:14pm

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

arnon - time for you to watch the embed ad/video to the right of this text, and learn "How to Make a 5 Minute Chocolate Cake". very useful skill.

- K2K

November 15, 2011 at 1:45am

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

No, ironyroad, I was speaking from memory.

- noga1

November 15, 2011 at 4:49am

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

2k2 watches too many videos, no wonder his head is so full of mush.

- arnon

November 15, 2011 at 9:02am

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

The canard of USA foreign aid to Israel. Checking facts in the Wikipedia. Per year. USA aid to Israel 3 billion USD. Israel GDP. 240 billion USD Military Israeli expenditures 16 billion USD All of military purchases by Israel are from USA companies. Where did the 3 billion USD go? Israel has never defaulted in loan guarantees. Has always paid back. In summary Israel is a helluva of a partner with the USA. Those that criticize have not done their homework. For the rest of the semester they will be punished and stand in the corner wearing their donkey hat. Shame on you.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 15, 2011 at 10:27am

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

Canard: a false unfounded rumor or story. A fabricated story. Shame on you Tristan. That is why he is a paid Iranian blogger. And I kid you not.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 15, 2011 at 10:38am

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

"K2K you are off on a tangent again." And that is wrong because...?

- noga1

November 15, 2011 at 12:18pm

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

Paid in rials or $$?

- ironyroad

November 15, 2011 at 2:09pm

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

noga: just caught up on Latma Tribal Updates. I usually check once a week or so, but there were no new ones, or so I thought, since the tent protests. Now, that I have caught up, I assume Glick held back posting in English until this Sarkozy/Obama open mike. The Minister of Uncontrollable Rage at the UN was bitingly funny, but the Turkish navy was the real gem. Tangent for some, sanity for all :)

- K2K

November 15, 2011 at 5:45pm

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

Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/user/LatmaTV#p/a/u/0/siGbFqu047I

- noga1

November 15, 2011 at 6:16pm

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

noga: thanks - I had also seen that one - very funny on the judges. Since yesterday, Latma added Russian subtitles to English and German.

- K2K

November 16, 2011 at 9:26am

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

Yes, the judges sketch is pretty funny.

- ironyroad

November 16, 2011 at 1:08pm

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

I thought that ditzy woman panelist was hilarious. I have no idea who is being mimicked here but it seems very authentic.

- noga1

November 16, 2011 at 3:45pm

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

There is Latma; and then, there is this: http://mickhartley.typepad.com/blog/2011/11/my-shoe-commands-more-respect-than-you.html#comments

- noga1

November 16, 2011 at 6:03pm

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

"ditzy woman" seemed to be mocking of no-brain bloggers who use buzzwords "Revolution". seems authentic because we have so many of them here in NA, certainly in the USA, land of the talking points. noga: do you have access to USA channel's "Covert Affairs"? The episode last night was emotionally gripping, a recurring character, a Mossad agent in WashDC to avenge a specific 2002 terror attack on the Golan. And that was after I had already watched NCIS (with ex-Mossad Ziva David at her best) unravel a Taliban terror plot against girls in schools; and then NCIS-LA unraveling new mass murder on the border of South Sudan.

- K2K

November 16, 2011 at 7:20pm

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

No. I'm sure they are mocking a certain person. I'll see if I can find out. In which channel is "Covert Affairs" featured?

- noga1

November 16, 2011 at 8:35pm

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

basman, I do not think that 242 is relevant at all to the question of the legitimacy of Israeli settlement and will explain why. But, if it is, then the Security Council has made it abundantly clear by subsequent resolutions that its own understanding of 242 renders the settlements, and the incorporation of Jerusalem, illegitimate. So, if one is trying to invoke the acts of the UNSC as justification, it is barking up the very wrong tree. 242 addresses the conflict and how it should be resolve, with some broad contours. One is that the acquisition of territory by force of arms is unacceptable, even if the use of force were legal because in self defense. A second is that the armistice lines of 1949 are not a border. Hence, they are not inviolate. However, modifications must be agreed upon in the context of a settlement. They cannot be unilaterally imposed without violating the premise of no acquisition of territory by force. Third is that there is no legal basis for continued armed conflict and the dispute is to be settled by negotiation. Unstated is what is to happen if the parties cannot reach a settlement. However, if the occupied territory cannot be unilaterally claimed by Israel, as 242 and subsequent resolutions make clear, and it is not a part of any other state, then either the Palestinians can declare one there and/or the UN retains its mandatory jurisdiction to dispose of the territory. What other conclusion could there be? The UNSC has overwhelmingly rejected, time and again, any construction that Israel may make unilateral changes in its boundary, whatever the legal status of that boundary. As to the Fourth Geneva Convention, nothing in 242 purports to modify it and subsequent UNSC resolutions rejecting Israel's behavior have invoked it. Fundamentally, it addresses a different question than the legitimacy of borders and territorial claims. Its subject is the human rights of persons, including civilians, in the event of war. One of the human rights there set forth is the right of an occupied people not to be colonized. This is the injunction that an occupying power may not settle its own population in occupied territory. In this case, there is no question that the territory is legally "occupied" and not incorporated, because Israel itself governs it under military occupation government. I think that is the end of the matter. Whether Israel has a claim of right to the territory, whether the source of that claim is history, resolution 242, the fact that it came into possession legally, is irrelevant. In order to settle the territory without running afoul of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel would have to incorporate it and subject it to its own municipal law, as it has done with Jerusalem and the Golan. Even if the incorporation were illegal, I don't think it would then bre a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The territory would be claimed as of right and the persons residing their subjected to a single law. This brings us full circle back to 242 and subsequent resolutions. While it may not be a human rights violation for Israel to incorporate and settle what is now considered Greater Jerusalem, the UNSC is unequivocal that the incorporation violates UNSC resolutions. What is the consequence of incorporating territory in violation of UNSC resolutions? First, their violation does not seem to me to give rise to any legal claim -- however evanescent -- by the people in the incorporated territory. The claim for as such against Israel for a violation of UNSC resolutions is a claim of and by the UN, not by the Palestinians in the incorporated territory. Thus, it is for the UNSC alone to decide what will be the consequences. The settlement of occupied territory is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention (and the UNSC appears to consider it a violation of its resolutions as well). Violation of the Geneva Convention does give rise to legal claims by the Palestinians and might ultimately result in ICJ rulings, prosecutions, or the convening of the Convention (sort of a Congress of signatory nations) to consider what action to take. If nothing else, it subjects Israel to opprobrium that it can ill afford. As for the claim that Israel has settled only 1% of the West Bank and that its illegal settlement should therefore be legitimized by a peace agreement: 1. A report of the World Banks says this: "The physical access restrictions are the most visible, with 38% of the land area reserved by the Government of Israel to serve settlements and security objectives and a system of checkpoints, road closures, the Separation Barrier, and permit requirements for access that constrain movement of people and goods within and out of the West Bank. Recurrent destruction of trees, private homes and public infrastructure, as well as settlers’ encroachments on private land create a permanent state of insecurity that deters Palestinian investment in Area C." 2. If 1% is so trivial without regard to where it is located, then one assumes that Israel would have no problem in giving the Palestinians their choice of an equal amount of land in Israel. It would "only be equal to 1% of the West Bank" after all. Clearly Israel will do nothing of the kind. Not only will it not give the Palestinians their choice of what land they want, it will not even bargain in good faith for land swaps, offering only desert that no one wants and then expressing its shock and outrage that the Palestinians will not accept this fool's deal. 3. The settlements are illegal. There is no reason for the Palestinians to legitimize them unless Israel is willing to offer in exchange something that the Palestinians want. Israel offers nothing other than land swaps no one wants and to end its occupation (not entirely at that). Basically, all Israel does is continue to hold the Palestinians hostage against their concession of both the illegal settlements and their claims west of the Green Line. Again, a deal for fools. And just to be on the safe side, Netanyahu makes sure to make negotiations impossible. That way, Israel never has to be reasonable and never has to come to its senses. Meanwhile, Israel's strategic situation deteriorates. It has but one friend left in the world, a friendship that it constantly strains with its illegal settlements as the US too has never accepted their legitimacy. There are thousands of missiles in Lebanon that can reach targets as far away as Tel Aviv making any large new war potentially very costly. And anyone who thinks Israel has the technical means to prevent Iran from getting the bomb is self-deluded. In the face of all of this, Netanyahu presses onward with settlements and apartments. That makes Netanyahu a fool. He is indeed most of the problem.

- roidubouloi

November 16, 2011 at 8:49pm

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

If the Palestinians were really smart, and little by little they are getting there, they would offer publicly to accept any plausible arrangements for Israeli security, including border modifications that are justified by security rather than by Israel's desire to legitimize the settlements, in exchange for the end of occupation and agreement to liquidation of the settlements, inviting the UNSC to satisfy itself as to the sufficiency of the security arrangements. They would also declare that they will not negotiate the claims of Palestinian refugees, any alternate future of settlements, or any non-security related modifications of the Green Line while Israel remains in occupation, but only as an equal sovereign state free of force and duress. If they did this, and meant it, and showed the world that they meant it, Israel would be at a complete loss to defend its continued occupation or the settlements and would be hard-pressed to hang on to East Jerusalem. Little by little, the Palestinians are getting smarter. At approximately the same rate, Israelis are becoming blinder and more self-deluded about what the future holds.

- roidubouloi

November 16, 2011 at 9:01pm

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

noga: Here is the plot synopsis, Season 2: A Girl Like You. The synopsis is so bland compared to the script. USA Network repeats, but, if you do not get that channel in Canada, the episodes seem to get posted online for download a few weeks later. http://www.usanetwork.com/series/covertaffairs/theshow/episodeguide/episodes/s2_agirllikeyou/ And, in case anyone wants to watch 34 minutes on China with the two Jews who probably should be running the world, here are George Friedman of STRATFOR and the writer Robert D. Kaplan on China. The US-China relationship is so complex, quite refreshing to listen, and great use of maps. http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20111115-stratfor-conversation-george-friedman-and-special-guest-robert-kaplan?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20111116&utm_term=kaplan&utm_content=copy3&elq=e47a470f7b744759a9e00776bc48a234 When Herman Cain gets the question about China, he will gather his twirling thoughts and eventually ask if the question is about whether he shops at Pottery Barn. I need two days off from online - have had high-speed access for almost four months, and finding it gets addictive.

- K2K

November 16, 2011 at 9:05pm

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

"If the Palestinians were really smart..." someone else needs to watch Latma TV :)

- K2K

November 16, 2011 at 9:07pm

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

"Palestinian Diplomacy, Lost at Sea" http://blogs.cfr.org/abrams/2011/11/16/palestinian-diplomacy-lost-at-sea/

- noga1

November 16, 2011 at 10:24pm

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

I like the MEMRI-TV clip as it reminds us how utterly corrupt and empty our pathetic maintenance of civility in public media discourse is. There are many viewers in the United States -- and I confess to being among them -- who at times wish a certain TV panelist, invited expert, or moderator got a glass of cold water flung over them rather than a mealy-mouthed "Now back to X -- do you disagree with what Y said?"

- ironyroad

November 17, 2011 at 2:36am

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

I agree, ironyroad. I believe American media has a lot to learn from Al-Jazeera's journalistic ethics.

- noga1

November 17, 2011 at 2:32pm

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

It seems to have been a discussion on some channel called Murr TV, in Lebanon.

- ironyroad

November 17, 2011 at 4:59pm

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

That's hardly the point, pedantic Mr. Road. The ethics are the same in all Arab media, some better some worse but always you will find the same. Think MSNBC on steroids, if you like and then multiply by a factor of 10 to 50 and you will get the idea. When I was in Israel I watched al Jazeera in Arabic (believe it or not, it is offered as part of the cable packages). You didn't have to know Arabic in order to understand what was going on.

- noga1

November 17, 2011 at 5:07pm

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

Noga, here's more pedantry: I don't quite get how the network or the show is at fault here. The moderator guy is moderating away, and the two panelists then come to blows after getting into a male aggression cycle (You got a problem with that? Maybe I got a problem with you! etc etc). If I'm following the subtitles correctly, the moderator was not deliberately provoking this escalation. It seems to me more like the ability of political spokespersons to engage in discussion is being exposed here, rather than broadcasting ethics. Or do you mean that there is something about the style (voice?) of Arab TV that calls forth aggression, whether or not any individual moderator or anchor is doing it deliberately?

- ironyroad

November 17, 2011 at 7:36pm

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

Yes, that's what I'm saying. The style of engagement is belligerent and sarcastic, always defensive and ready to attack, always biased in one direction, always self-righteous. I have to indicate that I did see an exception in one or two cases on some Lebanese TV but I remember it because it was such an exception. Arab media is suffused with anger, grievances, sarcasm, simmering rage. Every piece of news is served with a gravy of contempt for something or someone, with innuendos and belittling comments. It is impossible to subsist on a diet of such media and not live in a state of constant anger and victimology.

- noga1

November 17, 2011 at 8:05pm

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

Competition to lay claim to the status of chief victim seems to be THE defining characteristic of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. How do Israelis, despite Israel's evident superior power and control in fact of the Palestinians, manage to maintain their own sense of superior victimhood without the aid of media behavior such as noga describes in the Arab world? (I wouldn't know, but am willing to take her word for it.) It would seem that there are other routes to victimhood than aggressive TV commentators.

- roidubouloi

November 17, 2011 at 10:48pm

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

Let's paraphrase the gist of roi's comment: If Arabs act like victims, it is the fault of their media that indoctrinate them into that mindset. If Jews behave like victims, they have no one to fault but themselves; it must be something in the genes.

- noga1

November 18, 2011 at 4:31pm

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

"...Please let us remember that we American Jews are protected from the threat of annihilation only by the strength of Israel, the resolve of the United States and the Atlantic Ocean. ... If we consider the facts (who did what, when, with what justification), and proceed to logical extrapolation (who intends, or proclaims he intends, to do what now), a dispassionate (which is to say peaceful) observer will conclude that the peace the State of Israel seeks, as it has not been brought about by 65 years of concessions, can only be achieved at the moment through military defense and that, further, military defense without military reprisal, or its threat, is no defense at all. The peace the Palestinians want, which they proclaim and which proclamations are borne out by 65 years of actions, can, at this moment, only come to them through the eradication of the Jews of Israel and the Jewish State. With whom do you chose to stand? And let us bear in mind that either choice will cost you. ..." November 17, 2011 Opinion: "Conflict, choice and surrender" By David Mamet http://www.jewishjournal.com/opinion/article/conflict_choice_and_surrender_20111117/ [K2K confesses that Mamet's into is powerful, still struggling with a few points, but quotes above? David Mamet is 100% correct. ]

- K2K

November 18, 2011 at 8:34pm

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

Bad paraphrasing and utterly missing the point to boot. It is noga, not I, who suggests that Arab media behavior is critical to convincing the Arabs that they are the true victims. I think there may be more to it, as evidenced by the fact that Israelis manage to consider themselves the true victims without such media behavior. I didn't offer any particular explanation for why and how this might be so. Only that the competition for the status of victim seems to characterize the conflict. Right on cue, here comes K2K to tell us why it is in fact Israelis who are the true victims. Now, while David Mamet, quickly becoming as extreme and incoherent as Martin Peretz, may believe that the only peace that the Arabs will make is based on the annihilation of the Jews (not a practical possibility at this point), the Arabs might believe that the only peace that Israel will makes is based on their continued domination by Israel in their own home. Would one really want to claim that there is better evidence for the former than the latter? There will be no peace as long as one side insists that its narrative be accepted as the condition to peace. Right now, it is Israel that so insists. The Palestinians have recognized the State of Israel. In the face of Netanyahu's new demand that Israel not only be recognized as a state but as "the Jewish state," Abbas has not attempted to retreat from the recognition of Israel but has repeated it. Meanwhile, Israel continues illegally to colonize the Palestinian and to insist that is illegal colonization be legitimized as the price of peace. Whatever the history and the accumulated grievances and claims to victimhood, Israel is in the wrong. Tactically, this might be a good idea if time were on Israel's side. But time is not on Israel's side. Its situation continues to deteriorate, as even its friends observe and lament. What kind of dummy must Netanyahu be not to see that his course does not have a good end for Israel? A fanatic dummy, fatally in bed with a bunch of Jewish religious nuts who are as odious as religious nuts everywhere? Or just plain old stupid?

- roidubouloi

November 18, 2011 at 10:05pm

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

As for Mamet, I choose not to stand with those who claim self-defense as false justification for violating the human rights of others and continuing to dominate them. And I don't want my country standing there either. I want my country to be better than that, even if Israelis insist on going down that dark path. They can go without the company of America if they must go there.

- roidubouloi

November 18, 2011 at 10:10pm

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

Emigration to Norway is quite open for Americans who value human rights.

- K2K

November 19, 2011 at 12:49am

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

correction: Emigration to Norway is quite open for Americans who value the human rights of palestinians more than the right to life for Jews.

- K2K

November 19, 2011 at 12:51am

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

"Bad paraphrasing and utterly missing the point to boot. " What roi means is, of course, that Noga exactly got the point.

- NR165279

November 19, 2011 at 4:41am

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

Correction: "Bad paraphrasing and utterly missing the point to boot. " What roi means is, of course, that Noga exactly got the point.

- noga1

November 19, 2011 at 6:20am

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

When one has no persuasive response to a point, it is so much easier simply to make up one's own point and pretend to respond to that. A technique with a long pedigree. _____________________ Ah, yes, "America, love it or leave it." The oh so familiar rallying cry of American fascists. I should think one would be embarrassed to reprise this given its sorry history. In any case, I prefer to stay and fight for my country rather than surrender it to the right and their phony über-patriotism. One of the things I would like to see is my government tell the government of Israel that our continued diplomatic and military support requires the end of illegal settlement activity. Can I better achieve that from Norway do you suppose? In any case, I prefer Amsterdam to Norway and Paris to Amsterdam and repair there as necessary for respite from American political life and chaos. Meanwhile, I am proud to report that it appears that the Democrats will score a decisive win in my local election just held following a campaign I helped to manage (as in thought up the campaign strategy, wrote the bulk of its literature and ads, and contributed about an eighth of the campaign budget). I just don't know how I would do that from Norway, but everyone here whose politics I don't like is welcome to move there (if the Norwegians would have them which I highly doubt).

- roidubouloi

November 19, 2011 at 10:06am

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

"When one has no persuasive response to a point, it is so much easier simply to make up one's own point and pretend to respond to that." Your method of choice for persuasion. Fact is you have nothing to say for yourself following that verbal fart about Jews being victims so you make up as you go. Israelis do not pretend they are victims. They act as independent and responsible agents who look out for their own fate and this is what upsets you so much. It would be so much easier to have contemptuous generosity for them if they acted like victims, wouldn't it? Like it used to be in the fifties and sixties and seventies before it became apparent to all that the Jews of Israel were serious about maintaining their own state and their security.

- noga1

November 19, 2011 at 10:15am

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

Now that's a good laugh given the endless public lamentation by Israelis, and Jews on their behalf, about their superior victimhood. I mean, on any given day the current victimhood of Israelis will be rhetorically supported by historical claims extending anywhere from last year back 3,000. Just look at what Pharaoh did to us! Agency? Nonsense. Israelis are masters at denying responsibility for anything they do. The incessant excuse for the illegal settlements is that, "The Arabs make us do it by refusing peace on our terms." Some agency. Some security. Despite the bravado, Israel cannot in fact defend itself without the support of the United States. The power it exercises over the Palestinians is in large measure borrowed. But it is possible, and necessary, for us to separate our support for Israel's security and existence from its illegal domination of the Palestinians, as bona fide security requires no such thing. Of course, friends of Israel, not least apologists for Israel's human rights violations, do everything in their power to link the two so that our support for Israel's security becomes de facto support for its settlements. We can stop that.

- roidubouloi

November 19, 2011 at 10:24am

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

Really? You actually read or heard Israelis complain "Just look at what Pharaoh did to us! " by way of presenting themselves as victims???

- noga1

November 19, 2011 at 10:54am

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

Do you not read these dialogues at TNR and the copious literature in which present day human rights violations by Israel, of the rights of human beings currently living, are justified by resort to historical recitations that take in, as the case may be, the history of modern Israel, Nazism, the Dreyfus affair, the Middle Ages, the Romans, and beyond? All as proof that the True Victims are the Jews, who therefore are now perfectly justified in victimizing others. And have you not noticed that there is a large segment of the Israeli population that justifies the illegal settlement by reference to the Bible and "the promises of God to Abraham and Moses?" What planet are you living on?

- roidubouloi

November 19, 2011 at 12:38pm

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

Roi: You said that Israelis complain "Just look at what Pharaoh did to us! " by way of presenting themselves as victims. You must know that was a piece of nonsense of the first degree. Provide some proof to support your wild accusations, proof, without your helpful"interpretations", that is.

- noga1

November 19, 2011 at 6:15pm

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

Gee, noga, welcome to the real world: "Danny Danon, a far-right Likud member of the Knesset, had already distinguished himself by calling the Obama administration's objections to construction of new Jewish neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem "racist", but this weekend, with Passover approaching, it seems to me he outdid himself: “As Jews around the world prepare to celebrate Pessah – the festival of freedom – President Obama’s condescending and insulting behavior reminds us of how we were treated by Pharaoh in Egypt,” Danon said. “President Obama must understand that we are a sovereign nation in our own land and won’t bow to foreign rulers.” http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/03/america_and_israel_2

- roidubouloi

November 19, 2011 at 8:06pm

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

Nonsense of the first degree? Seemingly not. Of course, Danon is only an member of the Knesset so one shouldn't think that his opinions reflect any actual strain of Israeli thought on the subject. Here's the link eaten by TNR: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/03/america_and_israel_2

- roidubouloi

November 19, 2011 at 8:08pm

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

THis example does not correspond to your claim earlier that Israelis present themselves as victims by stating ""Just look at what Pharaoh did to us!". Danon is using the bible story merely as a metaphor, to describe Obama's contempt for Israel. Maybe a little like Black ministers invoking Pharaoh when they complain about white racism. Your claim remains an unproven nonsense of the first order.

- noga1

November 19, 2011 at 9:02pm

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

Sorry, noga. You lose. Here is Danon doing exactly what I say Israelis and their soi-disant friends do all the time, proclaim themselves perpetual victims, for proof reaching back anywhere from yesterday to 3,000 years ago. Or did you think I meant that living Israelis were victimized by Pharaoh through some sort of time warp? Taking the Passover claim that "we were there" a bit literally aren't you? You asked for an example, you have it. The reality is indeed appalling, but you get nowhere by simply declaring that that which is is not.

- roidubouloi

November 19, 2011 at 10:26pm

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

I neglected to point out that this particular case is an example not only of the general tendency of Israel to proclaim its victimhood, but a precise example of the use of victimhood to justify building in defiance of UNSC resolutions. According to Danon, for Israel to desist would be again to be the victim, as in Pharaonic Egypt.

- roidubouloi

November 19, 2011 at 10:31pm

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

It won't do, roi. You failed to make any case whatsoever for your ridiculous proclamations and you know it. You can bend facts out of shape only this much without exposing your uberschmuckitude. Go on and proclain your "victory", you know you made a fool of yourself.

- noga1

November 19, 2011 at 10:38pm

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

Actually, noga, I've made a fool out of you. But I cannot really take the credit for that. You do 99% of that work all by yourself. I need only point in the right direction.

- roidubouloi

November 19, 2011 at 11:02pm

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

How can you claim that with a straight face, roi? You went out on a limb and made some ludicrous statements about Israeli Jews liking to think themselves victims, because of what they suffered in Egypt as slaves. When asked to provide some support for this astonishing piece of idiocy, you quoted an Israeli MK saying that he thinks Obama's contempt for Israel was like the contempt Pharao had for the Hebrew slaves. How this type of hyperbole is proof that Israelis feel sorry for themselves today because they were oppressed in Ancient Egypt is a mystery to me.

- noga1

November 19, 2011 at 11:49pm

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

Of course it is a mystery to you because, as ever, you display a flawed grasp of the English language. I didn't say that Israelis consider themselves victims "because they were oppressed in Ancient Egypt." I said that, "On any given day the current victimhood of Israelis will be rhetorically supported by historical claims extending anywhere from last year back 3,000. Just look at what Pharaoh did to us!" And this is exactly correct. In trying to prove their status as perpetual victims, they will invoke history anywhere from yesterday to Ancient Egypt, just as Danon did. I didn't make a claim about causality or about the reasons, psychological or otherwise, for the insistence on the status of most victimized. I made a claim, a correct one, about the rhetoric deployed in support of that insistence. Are you confused as to the difference between rhetoric and causality? Do you require further explanation?

- roidubouloi

November 20, 2011 at 12:42am

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

"On any given day the current victimhood of Israelis will be rhetorically supported by historical claims extending anywhere from last year back 3,000. Just look at what Pharaoh did to us!" That is, victimhood of Israelis supported by historical claims [such as]... Just look at what Pharaoh did to us!" Exactly what I said: "You ... made some ludicrous statements about Israeli Jews liking to think themselves victims, because of what they suffered in Egypt as slaves. " Maybe you need to be less contemptuous of your subject when you fulminate, roi. You'll be less likely to make such outlandishly puzzling, and really really moronic, allegations. Let me just add that it amuses me, as always, to see you tie yourself in knots trying to show how you did not really say what you so clearly did say.

- noga1

November 20, 2011 at 7:09am

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

And it amuses me to see that you have learned nothing and are the same as ever. When you are at a loss to respond to something you don't like but for which you cannot think of a condign response, more often the case than not, you invariably place other words in the speaker's mouth and then take issue with those. And, inevitably, when it is pointed out that you have done so, yet again, you describe this as "tying yourself in knots." There are only knots in your imagination. The rest of us understand the language and can usually say something on behalf of our own positions. You are an outlier here in your consistent inability to do so. Your debating games are as unavailing as ever. You always end up in a dead end if anyone musters the effort to deal with you.

- roidubouloi

November 20, 2011 at 9:04am

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

I wasn't debating you, roi. There was nothing worthy of that term in your continued stupid reckless allegations. All I need to do is point back to what you actually said, doesn't take any exertion whatsoever.

- noga1

November 20, 2011 at 9:50am

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

MK Danny Danon is the worst nightmare for America's ghettobrained Jews who wring their hands over apartments in Jerusalem as the root for the absence of peace with the professional refugees unto the sixth generation of arabs suddenly threatened with no more charity. Only in the ghettobrain of a psycopath would MK Danon's statement be Orwellized into "Israeli victimhoodism" 11/19/2011 - 9:02pm EDT | noga1: "THis example does not correspond to your claim earlier that Israelis present themselves as victims by stating ""Just look at what Pharaoh did to us!". Danon is using the bible story merely as a metaphor, to describe Obama's contempt for Israel. Maybe a little like Black ministers invoking Pharaoh when they complain about white racism. Your claim remains an unproven nonsense of the first order." YES, absolutely correct response to the insanity of roid citation "proving" Israeli victimhoodism. Only in the ghettobrain of a psycopath would MK Danon's statement be Orwellized into "Israeli victimhoodism" copied from previous page of comments: "Danny Danon, a far-right Likud member of the Knesset, had already distinguished himself by calling the Obama administration's objections to construction of new Jewish neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem "racist", but this weekend, with Passover approaching, it seems to me he outdid himself: “As Jews around the world prepare to celebrate Pessah – the festival of freedom – President Obama’s condescending and insulting behavior reminds us of how we were treated by Pharaoh in Egypt,” Danon said. “President Obama must understand that we are a sovereign nation in our own land and won’t bow to foreign rulers.” Perfect metaphor from the champion of Greater Israel, MK Danny Danon.

- K2K

November 20, 2011 at 1:26pm

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

But you don't "point back what I actually said." You create your own version and point to that. I do agree with you to this extent, noga: What you say is invariably idiotic. ______________________ Contra to what K2K manages to extrude, in this case Danon was not merely harkening to Pharaoh in Egypt for the daily history of Jewish victimization, but declaring Israel in the present to be the victim of Obama. What a pathetic lot all three, Danon, noga, and K2K. The founding Zionists who saw Israel as the opportunity for Jewish self-determination and agency would retch at their incessant self-declarations of victimhood in all its various forms, as also shared with us by K2K above. And, no, abiding by the law of nations and the treaties that Israel, acting as a sovereign nation, has entered into is not bowing to foreign rulers, nor is it being a victim. It is being a responsible and moral agent in the world, something noga and K2K, in their debasement, are incapable of understanding. You just go with that Greater Israel thing, K2K. Depravity becomes you.

- roidubouloi

November 20, 2011 at 2:46pm

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

"And, no, abiding by the law of nations and the treaties that Israel, acting as a sovereign nation, has entered into " Really? Israel has entered into treaties in which it committed to not build apartments in neigborhoods in Jerusalem? Which treaty was that?

- noga1

November 20, 2011 at 3:23pm

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

Israel is, as far as I know, a member of the United Nations and a signatory to the UN Charter. It is in defiance of a host of relevant UNSC resolutions. If the day comes when Israel is sanctioned for it -- a day that will come exactly if and when the United States so allows by declining to interpose its veto -- you will no doubt say, "Who us?" as if in complete surprise. _______________________ ". . . .Clearly, then, substantial resettlement of the Israeli civilian population in occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, is illegal under the [Geneva] Convention and cannot be considered to have prejudged the outcome of future negotiations between the parties on the location of the borders of States of the Middle East. Indeed, the presence of these settlements is seen by my Government as an obstacle to the success of the negotiations for a just and final peace between Israel and its neighbors. . . ." U.S. Permanent Representative to the U.N. William Scranton, before United Nations Security Council, March 23, 1976 _______________________ Senator Paul Sarbanes: "Is it the present position of our Government that East Jerusalem is occupied territory? Secretary Cyrus Vance: "That is the position, yes." Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, before Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, March 20, 1980 __________________________ "My position is that the foreign policy of the United States says we do not believe there should be new settlements in the West Bank or in East Jerusalem. And I will conduct that policy as if it's firm, which it is, and I will be shaped in whatever decisions we make to see whether people can comply with that policy. And that's our strongly held view. We think it's constructive to peace--the peace process--if Israel will follow that view. . . ." President George Bush, press conference, Palm Springs, CA, March 3, 1990

- roidubouloi

November 20, 2011 at 4:04pm

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

You said, roi, that Israel violated treaties in building apartments in Jerusalem. Don't quote to me what Vance said. I want you to indicate to me EXACTLY which treaty Israel violated by building apartments in Jerusalem. We know what the "world" thinks. That does not stand in for treaties. Yet. Nazi Germany legislated that Jews cannot sit on public benches. The international bodies can legislate that Jews cannot live in Jerusalem.

- noga1

November 20, 2011 at 6:03pm

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

noga wrote"...international bodies can legislate that Jews cannot live in Jerusalem." you forgot to mention that palestinian goats now have their petition for self-determination making the rounds. Norway already signed up :) Roid must have been expelled from the New School for having blood relatives allegedly living in Israel, east of the 1949 armistice line. Thus, the Volcano of Likud-hatred erupts...

- K2K

November 20, 2011 at 6:18pm

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

He can hate the likkud as much as he likes but he shouldn't be making up stuff about the mindset of Israelis or Israel's "violating" international treaties. What's the point of having a position which you can only sustain through lies and slanders? There is not one party I would vote for in Israel today. Not one politician who has my trust (with the possible exception of Dan Meridor).

- noga1

November 20, 2011 at 7:20pm

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

It appears, noga, that your ignorance on the subject of international law and Israel's treaty obligations as a member of the UN knows no bounds. __________________________ Article 25 of the UN Charter states: “The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.” The International Court of Justice took the view that this applied to both Chapter VI and Chapter VII resolutions. In an Advisory Opinion on 21 June 1971 (which arose from a request by the Security Council for an advisory opinion on the legal consequences for member states of the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia), it stated: “It has been contended that Article 25 of the Charter applies only to enforcement measures adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter. It is not possible to find in the Charter any support for this view. Article 25 is not confined to decisions in regard to enforcement action but applies to ‘the decisions of the Security Council’ adopted in accordance with the Charter. Moreover, that Article is placed, not in Chapter VII, but immediately after Article 24 in that part of the Charter which deals with the functions and powers of the Security Council. If Article 25 had reference solely to decisions of the Security Council concerning enforcement action under Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter, that is to say, if it were only such decisions which had binding effect, then Article 25 would be superfluous, since this effect is secured by Articles 48 and 49 of the Charter.” (Paragraph 113) _____________________ Do I need to furnish you with the long list of UNSC resolutions on Jerusalem that Israel is defying, or can you manage to look those up on your own?

- roidubouloi

November 20, 2011 at 8:52pm

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

No one in my family lives east of the Green Line. They live in Tel Aviv, Modi'in, or in the Arava or are on active duty in the IDF.

- roidubouloi

November 20, 2011 at 8:53pm

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

What treaty has Israel violated by building apartments in Jerusalem?

- noga1

November 20, 2011 at 11:22pm

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

According Abbas' map of Palestine, Tel Aviv is an "illegal settlement". Whack-a-Goebbels practitioners of The Big Lie is so 1938.

- K2K

November 21, 2011 at 1:20am

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

The treaty Israel is violating by building east of the Green Line, including in Jerusalem, is called the United Nations Charter. It is a multilaterial treaty that obligates all members to comply with the resolutions of the Security Council, the body delegated to act within its jurisdiction on behalf of the world organization, as quoted above. To defy the Security Council is a breach of the treaty obligations contained in the Charter. There are many relevant resolutions on Jerusalem that Israel is defying. Here is but one of them, resolution 478 (1980): The Security Council, Recalling its resolution 476 (1980), Reaffirming again that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible, Deeply concerned over the enactment of a "basic law" in the Israeli Knesset proclaiming a change in the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, with its implications for peace and security, Noting that Israel has not complied with resolution 476 (1980), Reaffirming its determination to examine practical ways and means, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, to secure the full implementation of its resolution 476 (1980), in the event of non-compliance by Israel, 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; 6. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the implementation of the present resolution before 15 November 1980; 7. Decides to remain seized of this serious situation. _______________________ There are arguments one might advance as to why Israel should defy the UN and ignore its treaty obligations. But the insistence that no such thing is in fact occurring, and the delusion that there will never be consequences, is quite on a par with belief that the earth is flat and the center of the universe, that the world and everything in it was created by God in six days a few thousand years ago with no evolution of species, or that the earth is not getting warmer as a result of human actions. Naturally, when confronted with reality, delusional deniers just start to yell more loudly and insist that it is all lies. A possibly amusing game if there were not serious stakes, including the continued existence of Israel. To the club of deluded deniers, one must welcome none other than Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel. He will go down in history alongside Neville Chamberlain.

- roidubouloi

November 21, 2011 at 8:16am

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

According to the Likud map, Palestine does not exist and there is a single Greater Israel stretching to the Jordan. Where does this place Netanyahu re Goebbels and the Big Lie circa 1938?

- roidubouloi

November 21, 2011 at 8:18am

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close