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 One Year Later: The Failure of the Arab Spring

TEL AVIV JOURNAL JANUARY 24, 2012

One Year Later: The Failure of the Arab Spring

BY MARTIN PERETZ

I.

A year has passed since liberal America and the liberal opinion class, in particular, went ecstatic over the Arab debut into the modern world. I know that my standing in that class is suspect. So, being a bit flummoxed myself by the not altogether dissimilar developments in the vast expanse from the Maghreb to Mesopotamia, I conquered my doubts and made a slight stab for hope. But I quickly realized that I was wrong and left the celebration. The true-believers are still there, mesmerized by some ideological mirage or preferring to look on the brighter side of things. 

For example, Nicholas Kristof found some Muslim Brothers who promised that even Copts and the ancient Coptic Church, among the first of history’s Christian fellowships, have no reason to fear their party’s electoral strength. “Conservative Muslims insisted that the Muslim Brotherhood is non-discriminatory and the perfect home for pious Christians—and a terrific partner for the West.” Yes, he actually wrote this silliness. One 24-year old Salafist he cites went reassuringly specific: “...under Salafi rule, diplomatic relations with Israel would continue unchanged and ties with America would strengthen.” Alas, less than three weeks after Kristof published his daffy attestations, the Jerusalem Post reported on an Al-Hayat dispatch saying that the deputy head of the Brotherhood, Rashad Bayoumi, pledged that his movement would not, would never recognize Israel—“This is not an option, whatever the circumstances, we do not recognize Israel at all. It’s an occupying criminal enemy.” What this means is that, more than three decades after Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin signed a more-or-less successful peace treaty, the agreement negotiated by Jimmy Carter might just be submitted to a reckless electorate. At best! And at worst? You figure it out. 

Of course, there are some coyer journalists, commentators, and television personalities who have not dallied too long (and certainly not that long) over the democratic prospect in Arab Islam or, for that matter, in the world of Islam in general. The narrative is actually repetitive and, if not repetitive, simply too grim. And if it’s really grim, like in Syria, no reporters are allowed to or no reporters want to risk it. Which is why every story about Syria is datelined Beirut. 

A few years back there was a rush of programs by American colleges and universities to set up “international” outlets in Arab countries for their own students and for students from other institutions, both American and foreign. The most successful were situated in the emirates. But even these never reached their numerical goals. As for their intellectual aims, who really knows what they were? But even in the rich little kingdoms, soon to be marbled up with extensions of the Louvre and the Guggenheim, American educational establishments confronted serious practical and conceptual difficulties from the beginning. Already near the outset of these ventures Tamar Lewin wrote in the New York Times Feb 10, 2008 of the unavoidable (and unavoided) challenges they faced. The downward spiral of the regional economies exacerbated these problems. Syracuse, Cornell Medical College, New York University, Rochester Institute of Technology, Michigan, George Mason, and Carnegie Institute of Technology were among those exposed to questions about whether a degree from, for instance, N.Y.U. Abu Dhabi is a degree from N.Y.U. at all. The answer is obvious. Some five years ago, Yale University decided to avoid the problem altogether. It has cooperative research programs all over China and elsewhere. Otherwise, it is an institution in New Haven, Connecticut. Anyway, the Middle East neighborhood is now too agitated for schools to do long-term planning. Just a few Sundays past, an article in the New York Times reported that a host of such programs are canceling. Anyway, Cairo is not Florence. I don’t know which is more interesting. But you can get killed in Egypt—or, as three American college students from Georgetown, Indiana, and Drexel have already learned, at least get yourself arrested for doing nothing. Chalk up one success for American diplomacy: It was able to get the trio released. 

(A side thought: Maybe this is my Zionist smugness. But there are no such problems with standards in ties between American institutions of higher education and Israeli ones. The ne plus ultra of this reality is the intimate connection cemented last month by Technion-Israel Institute of Technology (Haifa) and Cornell University (Ithaca, NY). The new institution to be created will be a school of engineering with a two million square foot campus at a $2 billion ultimate cost on Roosevelt Island in the East River of New York City. A very wealthy and imaginative American businessman and philanthropist put up $350 million for the project. He isn’t even Jewish but an Irish-Catholic alumnus of the Cornell School of Hotel Management, no more, no less. Betabeat explained why this development is the envy of many other American institutions. Mayor Bloomberg explained how the undertaking would transform New York and went on to say that he was negotiating with other academic enterprises to take on similar innovative responsibilities. And, yes, Max Blumenthal, self-described “cultural Marxist,” whatever that means, explained in Al-Akhbar how this venture will enhance Israeli imperialism over the Palestinians. The cornerstone for the Technion was laid in Haifa 100 years ago. It opened for classes a decade later. It has been ranked by the usually cited ratings authorities as 15th in the world in the category of computer sciences, 29th in engineering, and 38th among technological universities, more generally. Technion is not alone. The Hebrew University has been rated 57th in the general excellence category by the authoritative survey of Jlao Tong University in Shanghai. Just one more report: The Sciences, a notable scholarly publication, has for the third time rated the Weizmann Institute of Science “as the best place to work” outside a few institutions in the U.S. These are the latest results, and they help explain why no academic boycott of Israeli scholars and scholarship was ever really floated successfully. By the way, no university in an Arab land or in any Muslim country appears on any such list. In what is by now recognized as his simply silly but deeply sycophantic Cairo speech, President Obama saluted Al Azhar University for having “over a thousand years stood as a beacon of Islamic learning.” What it actually represents is spiritual benightedness and religious obscurantism.) 

II.

American expectations of the Arabs were always innocent. In the case of this administration, Obama’s delusion extends to non-Arab Muslims, that is, to the Iranians, the Pakistanis, the Afghanis. He cannot imagine that there are fundamental differences between states. But, as even he must have noticed, in many of these circumstances the very idea of compromise is blasphemous. And, given this, there may be temporary lulls between the really nasty confrontations. Basic differences—yes, of course, there are basic differences—persist and flare up unpredictably. Or, as I believe, predictably. Sometimes they call “time out” and simmer. 

Where one side governs, and governs cruelly, the other side resents. I suppose this is what we call simmering. Countries that have no satisfying process of systematic mediation turn out to be tyrannies. Despite their ethnic and ideological differences sometimes these regimes try to cover up their weaknesses by forming a union of oppressors with other regimes. One such union was the Baghdad Pact or the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO), mobilized by Great Britain at the initiative of the United States. Its real rationale was the Soviet threat. But even such a threat could not bring Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, and Turkey together or mobilize popular support. It crumbled slowly through two decades of bloodshed and revolution within the member countries. It seems like centuries ago but the Soviet Union had neutralized the pact. Iraq, a member of CENTO, was for decades an ally of Moscow. The Red Army had divisions all over the Arab world. Iran became the heart of militant Islam against the West but retained hunky-dory relations with Russia both before the fall of Communism and after. And Pakistan? Well, Pakistan does have an army. The question is: Is Pakistan a country? Iraq still has too many armies. Turkey is the only real state left standing. 

Another of those unifying fictions was the United Arab Republic or Al-Gumhuriyah al-Arabiyah al-Muttahidah, this one being a consolidation of Egypt and Syria with failed ambitions to consolidate Iraq within it. It did include North Yemen which no longer exists. The old question returns: Does Yemen itself exist? It may have a president…or it may not. He has resigned. Or has he? He has been given asylum in America. But he’s not taking it. He may not be the most brutal Arab leader of the age: That honor belongs to Bashar Assad. But, now that Qaddafi is dead, he is the nuttiest. If bombs go off in Yemen, someone does want it. Actually, too many forces want it. It is in a state of perpetual war but over no resources and a fractured population: Shia and Sunni and tribal loyalties that are dysfunctional and bloody. (It once had a Jewish king …15 centuries ago. There are no Jews now, all of them having immigrated to Israel.) 

Yet the U.A.E. was the real joke. United? The pretense of “union” intensified the cross-border hatreds while it did nothing to soften antagonisms that were always festering within the countries that had, so to speak, signed up. At its core the staging of a pan-national federation was incompatible with the deepest presence of the religion of Islam. In fact, whether it was civil Arab patriotism in the middle of the nineteenth century on the European model of 1848 or Arab chauvinism in the twentieth, there were always prominent Christians in the movement, many historians argue, to ward off Muslim fanaticism. In places like Baghdad, there were also Jews who added a certain cosmopolitanism to the idea of an Arab nation. In any case, the founder of the anti-religious Ba’ath movement, Michel Aflaq, was Greek Orthodox. The Christians of Syria are fundamentally aligned with the relatively secular Assad regime against the country’s Sunnis who are at the core of the revolt. 

When the Palestinians were finally roused from their slumber it was Christians who did much of the rousing. Greek Orthodox George Antonius’s book, The Arab Awakening,was a harbinger of falsehoods to come, both unreliable and instructive for the survival of its unreliabilities. And it is on many college course reading lists nonetheless. Moreover, the literal founders of the Palestinian national movement and terrorists besides, were George Habash, another Greek Orthodox from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and Najef Hawatmeh, a Catholic from the (Marxist) Democratic Front (also) for the Liberation of Palestine. Surely, you recall—or have been told about—the airplane hijackings, the car bombs, and the sheer slaughter carried out by these Christian idealists against the Jews, in some great measure to preserve their credibility as Arabs among the Muslims. There is a litany of these Christians: the Roman Catholic bishop Hilarion Cappuci, Leila Khalid, and then Hanan Ashrawi, inamorata of Peter Jennings who from his debut at the Munich Olympics as a television evangelist for the Palestinians, for the Palestinian terrorists, really, couldn’t say a neutral word about Israel. There are no more Christian headliners in the Palestinian movement because there are almost no Christians still in the land. No, that’s not right. Professor Ashrawi is trotted out in emergencies when smooth, heavily accented, English is required to disguise illogic and falsehood. Anyway, don’t be fooled: Most of the Christians at Christmas mass in Bethlehem’s Church of the Nativity were diplomats, NGO staffers and journalists, foreigners, of course. Mohammad Abbas also came to greet the almost unbelievably diminished number of those who worship at the Cross in the city where Jesus was born. 

III. 

It was always a fantasy that secular politics would triumph in the Arab world. Even in relatively secular Iraq under Saddam Hussein and in Syria under the Assad crime family the formula would not work. The designated victims of the regimes’ bloodshed were the most numerous of each country’s denominations, the Shia in Iraq (where their tribunes are now taking revenge on the Sunnis and the Sunnis fight back with their own unspeakable atrocities, most targeted at religious pilgrims) and, almost tit for tat, the Sunnis of Syria, who are fighting for their long suspended rights which, once won, they will mistake as a license for carnage. The B.B.C. reported on a slogan of the pious insurgents: “Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the wall.” Of course. But that is too simple. Western powers including the United States are taking credit, some of it actually due them, for the end of the dominion of the certifiable nutcase in Libya. How his surviving sons, including the oh-so-learned Saif, Ph.D. from the London School of Economics based on a dissertation written by someone else, and intellectual companion of at least two Harvard professors (who as far as I can tell were never asked about their activities: you know, academic freedom and all that), will explain their father’s longevity is a matter of great interest to many people, especially those diplomatic fixers in Washington and London who arranged the release from prison of the man responsible for the murder of 270 innocents in the Pan Am 103 bombing. Oil accounts for the tyrant’s longevity as it accounts finally for his undoing. Alas, there is little tangible interest by the same western powers in the release from captivity and servitude of the peoples who are now in struggle because those peoples will never have oil. Moreover, the choices for an interloper are not crystal clear. 

At least, these choices are certainly not clear in Egypt or, rather, not so clear that it’s evident why Washington should side with the Muslim fundamentalists and the Salafists. On the other hand, neither is it obvious that the military professionals should be the beneficiaries of American strategy. I do not envy the president his options, both of which make little sense normatively. Yes, the Islamists won the parliamentary elections hands down. Of course, the professional Arabists foretold a result that would have had the ultra-religious negotiating with the “moderates” for power. Here is another defeated fantasy. The Islamists, with two-thirds of the vote, will confab with each other over how draconian their rule will be. The military will try to restrain the parties of God and keep as many of the economic and social privileges they’ve accumulated since the socialist colonels overthrew poor King Farouk six decades ago. 

These, so to speak, socialist colonels in Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Syria became heroes to western progressives. After all, they were “non-aligned,” non-aligned between Stalinism and democracy. With the cruel African kleptocracy giving a rhetorically anti-racist patina to the whole Third World phantasm, with the Indian aristocrats Jawaharlal Nehru and G.K. Krishna Menon giving an Oxbridge polish to the neutralist phenomenon, these Arabs and their comrades convinced themselves that they were about to conquer the universe. How triumphant they all seemed at the podium of the General Assembly. But, if one reflects back, the regicide colonels and their successors were far more monstrous than the monarchs themselves. OK, you don’t believe me. Choose now between those who run republics in the Arab world and the two Abdullahs—one the king of Saudi Arabia from a family of brigands, the other the king of Jordan and descendant of the Prophet, complicated figures, each governing intricate societies, not democrats at all but also not killers, not killers by choice. 

IV.

President Obama marked the first birthday of the Arab revolutions by announcing America’s farewell to the struggle. He could have done it honestly if he had been willing to admit, at least to himself, that he’d had an infatuation with the Arab world and that this infatuation rested on two woefully mistaken assumptions. His first delusion was that their political systems operated by rational calculation and expectation instead of on coercive force, corrupt habits, and a routine of cringing by the citizenry, a citizenry that was guaranteed none of the ordinary rights of ordinary citizens. The second delusion was that “Palestine” is at the core of the entire Arab grievance and that Israel had to be brought to heel—whatever “heel” may mean in the president’s head. But what if, mirabili dictu, Palestine would suddenly be Palestine with all the Palestinians “ingathered” from their “diaspora,” even their lingo inauthentic and poached from the Zionists? What would be solved in any other Arab jurisdiction? At best, this is another distraction from the realities of domestic Arab life. And it is cynical towards the Palestinian Arabs besides. Still, we are witnessing before our eyes the invention of a new political phenomenon which professes to believe that extremism is a form of kindness. It is “moderate Islamists,” and the phrase will soon issue from the president’s lips…and, of course, from the lips of his secretary of state. Barry Rubin has posed the democratic pickle thus: “If Tourists Can Wear Bikinis But Local Women Must Wear Chadors Does That Prove The Muslim Brotherhood Is Moderate?” After all, the Islamists and Salafists won the Egyptian elections by a huge margin. Rubin had made his own earlier projection of the Brotherhood’s emerging power in the Arab world as a whole which, sad to say, seems to be right on target. 

To be sure, the chador is neither the least or the most of the impositions. But it is certainly the most symbolic. The western press and the entire media has gone bananas over the depredations imposed on ultra-religious women in Israel and the attempt to widen their scope. It is understandable why they have done so. This is a battle that the haredim are losing, one they must regret initiating. By way of contrast, the campaign in Egypt which came in the wake of a liberalizing moment will suffocate not only the power of women but their quotidian rights. Under the rule of the ayatollahs for more than three decades already, however, Iran will still appear and also be more modern, even futuristic than the society emerging out of Cairo. Tunisia, which seemed relatively free of the ugly shadows of Islamic rule, is already experiencing a dusk. 

In fact, there is barely a bright light in the Arab Middle East. Face it: The glee which affected—or rather infected—the establishment opinion makers in the U.S. and in Europe was utterly misplaced, wrong, false. Now, it is true that the administration was not quite certain how to respond to the superficially generative spirit of the streets. Nothing in its memo books had warned of the coming. So we, who had chastised it for going slow in supporting the people from the Tahrir Squares of the region, were ourselves living in a fantasy that did not materialize. Indeed, the opposite of what we imagined was the ultimate result. Of course, neither Obama nor Clinton had the courage of their ignorance. They were trapped into doing “something,” and anything they did would have been wrong. This is the destiny of the powerful in hard times. Forgive the analogy: Their fate with economic policy has been similar—though no one has been murdered as a consequence. 

V.

We have stopped counting the dead in Syria. Six thousand, 7,000, who knows? (Still far, far less than Papa Assad murdered in the one-town Sunni genocide at Hama during a few days in 1982. Here’s how the Economist depicted that mass murder: “Assad sent in the air force to bomb the rebels into oblivion, heedless of the tens of thousands of civilians he killed in the process.” In his book, From Beirut to Jerusalem, Tom Friedman depicted all fighting in the Middle East as going by “Hama rules.” No party to any conflict in the region has yet approached Assadian habits. This was perhaps the first of the Timesman’s distorting shorthands.) And who knows how many rabid insurgents and also various innocents remain fettered and gagged in the far-flung dungeons of the Assad regime? The Obama administration was intent on not being stuck sticking Bashar with the crimes of Hafez. This was very bad judgment on the part of Washington, horrible judgment. Actually criminal judgment because the appraisal was based on no hard evidence or even inferential leaks. The Saudis had long gotten over their infatuation with the Syrian republic when the American president was still sending missions and missives to Damascus. Of course, the real tease was that Israel would abandon the Golan Heights. But Jerusalem did not play…and thank God it didn’t. 

Syria is an embarrassment to the Arabs but not because it kills and often kills without target or clear objective. It is an embarrassment because its killing has not worked. To be sure, the Arab League, being otherwise mostly made up of Sunni governments, would prefer the Sunnis to govern in Damascus. After all, there is the fact of the tyrant’s (now slippery) relationship with Iran. Yes, the League sent a huge mission of inquiry to Syria with the supposed goal of stopping the murder. But its chief had been the godfather of the Sudanese genocide, the patron of the Janjaweed with hundreds of thousands of dead to its credit. Why this organization of Arab states would delegate this job to this man is not hard to grasp. It’s doubtful that any other government would have agreed to install one of its men into the bloody morass. Anyway, Lieut. General Mustafa al-Dabi is adept at keeping non-Arab authority away from criminal Arab states. Sudan, for example, his own country. He also couldn’t refuse the post: Khartoum was indebted to the other Arabs. They had insulated the Sudanese regime from the costs of their own murders. The Syrians’ killings have not run their course. Indeed, it is just possible that the revolution will die before its suppression. 

Obama’s attempted seduction of Assad has bought or brought him no sway with the Syrian president. Every week or so Washington releases some lame statement imploring or demanding that Damascus stop the killing. It should be by now an embarrassment, and maybe it is. The truth is that the Obama administration came into power haughtily reproving President Bush for distancing America from the Syrian Ba’ath. With himself as president, the United States would curb Assad’s relentless mischief in Lebanon and embark on a peace mission between Damascus and Jerusalem. Since, moreover, Obama was about to end the civil strife in Iraq (I wonder if he really believed this nonsense) by ending the American presence in the country, Syria would also liquidate its own mischievous intervention in its eastern neighbor. Is Obama an innocent or a cynic? A naif or a deceiver? I will give him the benefit of the doubt. He believes what he believes. Of course, Obama wants Assad out, and so does Hillary. He is an embarrassment to them, their old pal. This morning as I write, the insurgents are fighting in the suburbs of Damascus. Oops, they have just departed. There is nothing inevitable about Assad’s departure, not even the half-hearted wishes that he retire issued by his fellow tyrants and autocrats in other Arab lands. The Saudis have just pulled out of the Arab League’s mission in Syria, an admission that Assad is winning his battle. Egypt, Algeria, and Tunisia disagree. They want the League to bring its complaint against Assad to the Security Council where there is a structural preference to do nothing, what with Assad’s allies, Russia and China, possessing the power of the veto. Al-Arabiya reports in the meantime that Hezbollah, whose ass the Council saved from Israel with Resolution 1701 in the summer of 2006, is now supplying arms and material to its Syrian consort; meanwhile, Iran has sold 36 fighter planes to Syria, according to the Russian daily Kommersant.  

VI.

The great victims of Arab nationalism are the Kurds who, after all, are mostly Sunni Muslims. Sunni shmunni, no mercy, little remorse: They are not Arabs. Kurds are the largest intact people, mostly on what is historically their own land, without a recognized geographical polity. They were not invented in 1947 or 1967, God bless them, having shown up in history more than a millennium ago. The Kurdish population of Syria, Michael Weiss wrote in the January 20 Atlantic Online, is estimated to be between 3.5 and 4.6 million, which is from 15% to 20% of the gross estimate of Turks in Turkey. As in other Arab countries, there has been no recent census. In fact, the Syrian count goes back a half century. The Turkish interest in Syria is mainly in the country’s Kurds. Hatred of the Kurds is what ties divergent countries together on Israel’s northern salient. (That…and hatred of the Jews, of course.) The Kurds have long been (one of) Iran’s designated enemies, too. The poor Kurdish nation, and it is (in contrast with the Palestinians, pell-mell), a real nation: but they only have circumstantial friends. When Turkey was allied with Israel, the Jewish state somehow lost its interest in Kurdistan. Now that the Turks have made Israel an antagonist, not simply of the Arabs but of themselves, we will see whether Jerusalem rekindles its concern for the Kurds who are spread from Turkey to Iran, north into the former Soviet Union and south into Zion itself, these last being 150,000 Kurdish Jews who have fine fraternal memories of their Muslim neighbors. (See my Spine, “The Kurdish Example for Palestine,” May 1, 2007.) But there is now an actual Kurdistan, and it is located in Iraq from which its notional independence will develop into a real state while the dominant Shia and Sunni sectarians murder each other at prayer. 

This has nearly panicked Erdoganian Turkey which fears the specter and growing reality of Kurdish nationalism. Of course, Erdogan has one real American asset. It is the president of the United States who trusts him, another Obama infatuation based on almost zero. It is clear that Obama doesn’t worry much about freedom in countries he embraces. After all, Turkey has had so many judgments against it handed down by the European Court of Human Rights that it is hard to count and more difficult to keep track. OK, it’s Wikipedia: But Wikipedia says that the most endangered human rights in Turkey are “particularly the right to life and freedom from torture.” No matter. To be sure, the country would be no picnic to govern in the best of times. His predecessors were certainly no angels. But Erdogan has taken the route of many besieged despots. (Note: I have not called him a tyrant … yet.) Of course, he has the advantage of a fairly prosperous economy which, nonetheless, will not project Turkey into Europe. The Europeans do not want 70 million more Muslims. Anyway, Erdogan has now seen the handwriting on the wall. He will neither push nor cavil. 

Still, he has brash aspirations in the Islamic orbit. The easiest foray for him was to line up against Israel, and he did so last spring with his preposterous intervention against its blockade of Hamas. Even the United Nations inquiry on the Mavi Marmara flotilla, while criticizing the Netanyahu government for particulars of the ferry interdict, came down squarely on the side of Israel in the encounter. Take a look at Steven A. Cook’s scrupulous Council on Foreign Relations analysis of the incident. So there is just so much mileage Erdogan can get from his quarrel with Israel. (Israel’s nutsy foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, has ambitions to make troubles for the Turks with vague designs about stirring up the Armenians. If the Israelis have any luck, Lieberman will soon be indicted for all kinds of serious mischief and mayhem which will end his political career.) 

So the Israelis are no longer visiting Turkey in the summertime, and soon Americans of all sorts will forego Turkey and find other places to visit on vacation. How about Uruguay, a perfect locale? Turkey’s historic stake is among the Muslims and among the Arabs especially. There is where the empire of influence can be improvised or so Erdogan thought. He already made his triumphal tour in mid-September. Adulation was his reward and his inspiration to go forward. But the Arab world is in so much trouble and travail that the designs of Turkey are hardly germane even in Syria where the khedive’s troops hover. 

VII.

I am not made happy by the lapse of Arab spring. For a moment, the moment to which I alluded in my first paragraph, I experienced the shock of recognition, to use Edmund Wilson’s pregnant phrase. That moment has passed and apparently it is the Arabs who want it that way. At least, that is the case in Egypt where the ultra-pious have triumphed in the elections. We shall see what actually occurs in Tunisia and Libya where for a moment tolerant Islam seemed also to have a slight chance. 

Human Rights Watch is already fronting for the triumphant Muslim ultras, especially in Egypt. These ultras are a majority, after all, a huge majority, says its executive director. H.R.W. has a point. This is Egypt’s first free election. Conducted by the military, if I’m not mistaken. There won’t be a second free one if the religious permit any at all. 

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

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 184 comments

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

184 comments

Some corrections: It's Mahmoud Abbass, not Mohamed. The "chador" is worn in Iran. Burka is worn in Afghanistan. In Egypt it is the hijab. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wQ84RMxrQzU/Tsp2N1lzBVI/AAAAAAAAAAA/gRoE1cC_ic4/s320/HijabRight.jpg

- noga1

January 24, 2012 at 7:00am

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

"Al-Arabiya reports in the meantime that Hezbollah, whose ass the Council saved from Israel with Resolution 1701 in the summer of 2006, is now supplying arms and material to its Syrian consort. " I've learned from my favourite Arab blogger, Prof. Abukhalil, that Samir Quntar, (whose release (among others) from Israeli jail was demanded by Hizzbala in an exchange of hundreds of Lebanese terrorists for two coffins) was reported in Al-Arabiyya as declaring that ""Exactly three years later, Kuntar told the Syrian people that he is ready to cut off the hands of any Syrian who dares challenge the Assad regime." Who is Samir Quntar? "Samir Kuntar (Arabic: سمير القنطار‎, also transcribed Sameer, Kantar, Quntar, Qantar) (born July 20, 1962 in Abey, Lebanon) is a Lebanese Druze murderer and former member of the PLFP. On April 22, 1979, at the age of 16, he participated in the attempted kidnapping of an Israeli family in Nahariya that resulted in the deaths of four Israelis and two of his fellow kidnappers.[1] Kuntar was convicted in an Israeli court for murder of an Israeli policeman, Eliyahu Shahar, 31 year-old Danny Haran, and Haran's 4-year-old daughter, Einat Haran, whom he killed with blunt force against a rock." I somehow am not inclined to cast much doubt about the veracity of Marty's report above.

- noga1

January 24, 2012 at 7:15am

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

People who want an informed opinion about Arabs and seek out Martin Peretz must be the same people who seek out David Duke for his views on African-Americans.

- DC Spence

January 24, 2012 at 8:37am

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

"American expectations of the Arabs were always innocent" I would substitute "hopeful". And they continue to be, for many of us. Someone on here (Sophia? Noga? My apologies, I'm having a senior moment) opined that while we may kid ourselves that a liberal democracy has already sprung up, the continued anti-semitism and mysogeny proves that isn't the case. And I agree; just as it is impossible for a democracy to exist without free speech, it is impossible for a liberal society to exist where bigotry and sexism are accepted parts of everyday life. BUT... and this is what drives me nuts about Marty's pieces.... what we're seeing is a process, not an event. And while it may progress towards even worse conditions, shouldn't we have some hope that things will improve?

- Tristan

January 24, 2012 at 9:11am

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

Islam is the problem. The more Islam, the more backwardness. Democratic processes are today being hijacked by the Islamists. Only when post-Muslims gain power in Arab lands, Iran and other societies will Islam itself be subdued. Everything else is commentary.

- amidut

January 24, 2012 at 9:47am

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

No, amidut. RADICAL islam is the problem, or the biggest one anyway. I feel sorry for you. Hate is hate, whether its directed against the Jews, Christians, Muslims or any other group. Hate has never been the answer, and it never will be.

- Tristan

January 24, 2012 at 9:55am

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

http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2012/01/24/considering_a_us-iranian_deal_99854.html is a fine addendum/counterpoint to this coherent-enough Peretzian view of We are Where We Are when it comes to the reality of that CNN fantasy of Twittering Tahririans dubbed "Arab Spring". While the URL is STRATFOR's George Friedman's current analysis of Iran v USA, the most unknown of STRATFOR's unknowns rests on the Sunni-Shi'a arcs of influence, with Syria as this week's giant question mark. I remember being mocked by our now absent icarusr for noting the illusion that even 200,000 Egyptians in Tahrir Square did not represent the 80+ million Egyptians wanting the whole protest to stop so they could go back to work, even at twoUSD/per day. Well, I am looking forward to a long thread with so much meat to chew on, for the Peretz-haters, the magical thinking liberals, and those of us who always knew CNN should have re-assigned their cameras to anywhere else. Every attempt to adapt Islam to coexistence with modernity has resulted in a Shi'a sub-schism: Ahmadi, Alawite, Alevi, Ismaili...all co-opted by Iran's Twelver Shi'a, so far. Two pf Peretz's real nuggets: the impact of the Kurds, whose ancestral homeland is more than 5,000 years old (they claim proof of descent from the Medes) and controls the watersheds that Turkey, Syria, and Iraq depend on. And, tourism. Yes, uruguay IS a very under-rated lovely nation. But, considering that tourists to Turkey mostly want nice beaches and beer at afordable package rates, Greece seems to offer a wonderful alternative. Egypt offered antiquity with beaches, so why not try Italy? Help save the Euro, and let the Turks and Egyptians pondertheir own paths. I am not recommending Israel as an alternative vacation spot because so many of Egypt's tourists have been Europeans, and so many of Turkey's tourists used to be Israeli. I am surprised Peretz made no mention of Morocco - setting an example for progress in the constitutional monarchy evolution, or Algeria, the shadow over what happens in North Africa, or Azerbaijan, which makes Israel's position with both the Kurds and Armenians far more complex than just being about Turkey. For those who want "...some hope that things will improve?", you might want to do some serious reading about what happened when the Hapsburg and Ottoman Empires collapsed after WWONE. Nationalistic devolution from autocracy without a western Enlightenment never works out well for the masses. Which is why I decided to regress to the American Revolution last night. A year of reading histories of WW2, and various Russian genocides (Tsar v Circassians to Stalin v Ukrainians), and the American Civil War, it occurred to me that I had not yet read McCullough's "John Admas". Seemed a good way to better understand the revolution now occurring in America as the two-party system fractures in a time of economic peril.

- K2K

January 24, 2012 at 9:56am

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

Amidut, the same can be said about the far Christian right in America, they are hijacking the Republican party and it being one of only two generally accepted options can lead to another disaster. But there is no other choice, Democracy is messy. And I certainly don't want 86 million Egyptians to live under a dictatorship provided that dictator is friendly to Israel, better an imperfect Democracy that hopefully works towards a society based on Liberty even if it is rhetorically hostile to Israel (and that is all I think it will ever be, if I am wrong then eventually even a dictator would give in to the animalistic desires of the population) I have also noticed the glaring omission of both Libya and Tunisia, since they don't fit into Marty's ideological framework they seem to have wandered off the map completely. Yes, in Libya and Tunisia things are far from perfect, but, in Libya certainly, things are immensely better than last year and things have not degenerated into a tribal civil war, Berbers and Arabs have kept the peace between themselves. There might be some, few desperate outlaws financed by outsiders (hence the recent mess in Bani Walid) but Gaddhafi and his cohort are gone forever. Who the hell can not revel in that?

- blackton

January 24, 2012 at 10:00am

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

"For those who want "...some hope that things will improve?", you might want to do some serious reading about what happened when the Hapsburg and Ottoman Empires collapsed after WWONE. Nationalistic devolution from autocracy without a western Enlightenment never works out well for the masses." I sense you're still upset with me. I did apologize, you know. I still feel bad, if that counts for anything.

- Tristan

January 24, 2012 at 10:02am

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

amidut: no one can penetrate the magical thinking of the choir of America's postmodern transnational multiculturalists :) Criticize Obama? RACISM! Criticize Islam? BIGOT! (same now applies to criticize of anyone Mormon: BIGOT!) Have at it, y'all :) I shall return in a few days to see if any blood or oil has been spilt on TNR.com. my apologies for my typos in my previous post (all of my typos). I started reading McCullough's "John Adams" last night.

- K2K

January 24, 2012 at 10:06am

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

Tristan: I am not upset with you. I just never fell into the "hopey, changey" realm of magical thinking. I read too much history to believe in the contagion of Wilsonian "spread democracy". Woodrow Wilson was a failed president who betrayed everyone from African-Americans to the Kurds. Obama prefers magical thinking, I guess. I am retreating because I can no longer watch the utter absence of leadership, everywhere, except maybe Uruguay :)

- K2K

January 24, 2012 at 10:13am

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

"So, being a bit flummoxed myself by the not altogether dissimilar developments in the vast expanse from the Maghreb to Mesopotamia, I conquered my doubts and made a slight stab for hope. But I quickly realized that I was wrong and left the celebration." So I took the challenge and looked back at Marty's oeuvre about the Arab Spring. In his own special way -- filled with discoursive detours about Delacroix paintings and Lord knows what else -- he had a couple articles in late January 2011 in which he expressed the view that the protests in Egypt and Tunisia were not the end of the world and were not bound to lead to another Holocaust, the way some of his compadres on the Israeli right felt a year ago. Of course, this was all tinged with comments about how hopeless Arabs in general and Egypt in particular were and are, and how there was really almost no chance that any of this democracy would lead to anything good. Based on all that, I think that "a slight stab of hope" is a gross exaggeration -- it was more like a momentary flicker of optimism. But hey, if Marty wants to join the club of those bien-pensant who thought that the Arab Spring was a good thing but are now convinced that it will lead to Seventh Century redux, I'm glad he's coming out and saying so.

- wildboy

January 24, 2012 at 10:15am

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

Fair points. Nice chatting with you as always, hope you're well, K2K.

- Tristan

January 24, 2012 at 10:16am

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

DC Spence as usual got it wrong. He should have said: 'People who want an informed opinion about Martin Perez and seek out DC Spence must be the same people who seek out David Duke for his views on Jews.'

- arnon

January 24, 2012 at 10:28am

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

I have to run along now, but a few quick comments. K2K, don't go away so fast. We need you here now. Yes, things don't always improve in history. Blackton, I agree that far-right Christianity is noxious, too, and harmful to the United States. National politics is hostage to the God, Gays, and Abortion fanatics. I also agree with you about Egypt with some caveats. The problem with Egyptian anti-Israel rhetoric is that it is extreme and all-pervasive and racist. Islam is responsible for most of it. Tristan, I wish I could share your optimism. But anti-Otherism is deeply embedded in Islamic scripture and behavior.

- amidut

January 24, 2012 at 10:58am

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

It is evidently a great sport for you to blame Obama for almost everything. Perhaps an obsessive trait. The very possible failure of the Arab spriong is disaster for the cause of liberal democracy, but the United States has always stood for that cause, beginning with its support inthe early nineteenth century for the new Latin American republics, republics that would become dictatorships in many cases. So should the United States hve not backed their independence? Should we support a dictatorship because that is the best of the worst? We have done that before and with not great results. We have always dealt with de facto governments, including Stalin. Should Obama not have made an effort with Syria? Sould we turn our back to the Arab world? You re so ready to attack, and disparage and belittle, you have become something of an expert on demogogy when you wnat to be in that role. You are also a good analyst but you do not offer any alternatives for Obama. I do not see any more successful diplomacy in past administrations. What do you offer that is positive? You prefer sarcasm and harsh judgments. What could he ahve done to make the outc ome different? You need to make an effort to answer that question.

- rockh99

January 24, 2012 at 11:20am

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

k2k, so Libya and Tunisia count for nothing? Incremental change is to be ignored, only vast, sweeping change gives you hope now? And as to vast sweeping change, have you forgotten the fall of the Soviet Union and the freedom of the whole of Eastern Europe? Did you miss that in your history books, going from Wilson to Assad with nothing in between?

- blackton

January 24, 2012 at 12:09pm

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

A poster scolds amidut and urges against "hate". Another one chides K2K for being deaf to the march of history. I wonder how many voices like these were heard once, belittling the rise of Nazism and doubting what its leaders openly stated about their aims for the Jews. It simply couldn't be. Why? Because the mind cannot encompass or accept such evil as possible or probable, the best way is to mock those who are the target of the evil and accuse them of being hysterical, or worse, full of hatred. http://blogs.jpost.com/content/threatening-shadows-over-egypt "The Muslim Brotherhood has always been deeply anti-Western, viscerally hostile to Israel and openly antisemitic – points usually downplayed in Western commentary on the “Arab Spring.” Indeed, the anti-Jewish conspiracy theories promoted by the Brotherhood and its affiliated preachers are in a class of their own. This is especially true of Egyptian-born Yusuf al-Qaradawi, undoubtedly the most celebrated Muslim Brotherhood cleric in the world. The still vigorous 84-year-old, often misleadingly depicted in the West as a “moderate,” flew in from Qatar to Cairo’s Tahrir Square on February 18, 2011 to lead a million-strong crowd in Friday prayers, thereby ending 50 years of exile from his native land. He called for pluralistic democracy in Egypt while at the same time offering the hope “that Almighty Allah will also please me with the conquest of the al-Aqsa Mosque [in Jerusalem].” Two years earlier, in a notorious commentary on Al-Jazeera TV (January 28, 2009), the “moderate” Qaradawi had provided religious justification for both past and future Holocausts: Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the Jews people who would punish them for their corruption…The last punishment was carried out by [Adolf] Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them – even though they exaggerated this issue – he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them…Allah willing, the next time will be at the hands of the believers. In other words, the loathing of Jews, the Holocaust and the destruction of Israel by Muslims were linked by Qaradawi as things mandated by God himself."

- noga1

January 24, 2012 at 12:35pm

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

noga, I am not sure if you are referring to me but this is what K2K wrote: I read too much history to believe in the contagion of Wilsonian "spread democracy". Now I don't see how my pointing out that according to this both incremental change (as in Libya, Iraq, Tunisia) is therefore to be ignored lest it be labelled as falling prone to fantasy, or even more significantly how one can ignore the incredible gains in Eastern Europe and many parts of Asia. Realpolitick can be another name for pessimistic cynicism. And I don't see how the hell that would have made me deaf to Hitler. I was once of the most vociferous posters here in support of action against Gadhafi. The man was a menace to not just his own people, but to Americans as well. And you never get to the crux of the matter: Is Islam and Liberal Democracy compatible? If you believe the answer is no then that means that Islam must be eradicated in the name of the defense of Liberty. There is no ifs, ands, or buts about it, the same way we eradicated Nazism. Personally, I don't believe Islam and Liberal Democracy is incompatible, I think quite a lot of Muslims are and I have no problem arguing for their eradication. And if it is incompatible, how do you propose eradicating Islam? A Muslim dictator like Mubarak is doomed (and we are likely to wind up with far worse). Democracy itself is then impossible, so I guess it means bringing back Colonialism and permanent occupation. Where are the solutions from Marty?

- blackton

January 24, 2012 at 12:52pm

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

"A poster scolds amidut and urges against "hate"...... I wonder how many voices like these were heard once, belittling the rise of Nazism and doubting what its leaders openly stated about their aims for the Jews. It simply couldn't be. Why? Because the mind cannot encompass or accept such evil as possible or probable, the best way is to mock those who are the target of the evil and accuse them of being hysterical, or worse, full of hatred." Noga, please tell me I'm misunderstanding you, and you didn't just imply that I'm precisely the sort of person complicit in the rise of the third reich and the shoah because of my strong desire to see all of us stop hating each other.

- Tristan

January 24, 2012 at 1:03pm

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

Blackie, Marty has no solutions as we all know well by now -- or at least solutions that the still-rational half of his brain prevents the irrational other half from pursuing. He is in his full Oswald Spengler mode these days, ruing the decline of the Middle East and wallowing in the ruins. But he does want us along for the ride!

- wildboy

January 24, 2012 at 1:06pm

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

"And you never get to the crux of the matter: Is Islam and Liberal Democracy compatible?" No. "Personally, I don't believe Islam and Liberal Democracy is incompatible," What you personally feel about it is neither here nor there. You need to be able to show how these two are compatible. I can think of two basic issues where they are incompatible. There is no such concept in Islam for equality under the law. Equality is only for male Muslims. Women are not equal. Aliens are not equal. There is no such concept of separation of religion and politics in Islam. Muslims believe they understand what equality means. You may inquire those non-Muslim nations who lived under Islamic rule as to what it was like for them. (Balkans, for example). If you think Islam can reform itself, the way Christianity and Judaism have, show me where such reform is being done. And how successful it is. Muslim can live in democracies and thrive. Non-Muslims who live under Muslim rule do not thrive, as a rule. So tell me, how is Islam compatible with democracy? Or perhaps you have a diffeerent idea of what democracy is than I have? Slavoj Zizek once made a similar argument to yours. "Regarding Islam, we should look at history. In fact, I think it is very interesting in this regard to look at ex-Yugoslavia. Why was Sarajevo and Bosnia the place of violent conflict? Because it was ethnically the most mixed republic of ex-Yugoslavia. Why? Because it was Muslim-dominated, and historically they were definitely the most tolerant. We Slovenes, on the other hand, and the Croats, both Catholics, threw them out several hundred years ago. This proves that there is nothing inherently intolerant about Islam. We must rather ask why this terrorist aspect of Islam arises now. The tension between tolerance and fundamentalist violence is within a civilisation." I was thinking that if we take into consideration what we know about Islamic regulations concerning minorities, this observation that "historically [Muslin rulers] were definitely the most tolerant" makes some sense. There was not an ongoing state of perpetual agitation and attrition of minorities and therefore violent confrontations and pogroms were relatively less common than in Christendom. Which led to a sense of harmony. But what kind of harmony and at what cost? Minority members knew who they were, in relation to the dominant majority, that they were legally bound by a set of laws and rules which dictated to them every nuance of their obligations, conduct and rights relative to the Muslim owners of the land. When your own inferiority is inscribed into law, and when you know that any breach of it may entail painful judgments, and maybe death, you are not likely to walk with your head held high when you pass your Muslim neighbour in the street. Nor are you likely to pursue justice in court when your Muslim partner cheated you, since by law, your testimony counted for half the value of your adversary's. When a system is slated against you, legally, you adjust your ways and expectations and forgive a multitude of insults, slurs and crimes committed against you. It is an excellently efficient way to maintain the "tolerance" of a bellicose majority. __________ Consider the Coptic Christians in Egypt today. Consider the Palestinian Christians in the West Bank. And these are two of the more "modern" polities among Islamdom.

- noga1

January 24, 2012 at 1:13pm

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

Leave it to NOGA to accuse a couple of rational and un-dogmatic posters to supporters of the Nazis in the 1930's. NOGA is another DC Spence.

- arnon

January 24, 2012 at 1:16pm

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

wildboy, Perez is just blowing off steam. Judging by your earnest posts you are one of the few people here who take Marty seriously.

- arnon

January 24, 2012 at 1:19pm

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

Any serious discussion of the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood that leaves out Bush ll as a cause can't be taken seriously.

- arnon

January 24, 2012 at 1:22pm

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

"Noga, please tell me I'm misunderstanding you, and you didn't just imply that I'm precisely the sort of person complicit in the rise of the third reich and the shoah because of my strong desire to see all of us stop hating each other." You did not say " to see all of us stop hating each other.". You preached to amidut that he should stop hating Muslims. You made two mistakes: As far as I can tell, amidut doesn't hate Muslims. He is extremely wary of Islam which is a political ideology based on a desire for conquest, domination and extermination of Jews. If you accuse amidut of hatred but ignore the very openly-declared hatred and eliminationist antisemitism that flows from the Islamists, then explain to me what you role is in this context. Again, you punish amidut for noticing and reward the Islamists by ignoring their very real and entrenched hatreds. At the very least, you could recognize that amidut has a very valid and easily verifiable position about Islam. Did you do that? No. You attacked him as a hater. As if it starts and ends with him. If only amidut (and like minded people) would stop hating Islam, then of course everything will simply fall into place and the Arab spring will actually emerge from its evil fog.

- noga1

January 24, 2012 at 1:22pm

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

"If you think Islam can reform itself, the way Christianity and Judaism have, show me where such reform is being done. And how successful it is. Muslim can live in democracies and thrive. Non-Muslims who live under Muslim rule do not thrive, as a rule. So tell me, how is Islam compatible with democracy? Or perhaps you have a diffeerent idea of what democracy is than I have?" Noga, before you make such sweeping assertions, consider Malaysia and Indonesia as modern examples of states which are Muslim-majority and democratic and places where non-Muslim minorities (foremost among them ethnic Chinese) thrive. Neither of those states is democratic by the standards of Western Europe or North America, and both of them have had spasms of ethnic violence in recent history involving non-Muslim minorities, although that violence was more spurred by ethnic and economic factors than by religion per se. Turkey is another example, albeit a complex one, of a Muslim-majority country which has a democracy and protected minority rights. There are flaws in Turkish democracy which have been and are being exploited by Muslim-based and secular majority parties, which human rights organizations are right to criticize. There are also obviously major problems with Turkey's protection of certain minorities during its post-Ottoman history, namely the Kurds today (as Marty loves to note) and Greeks and Armenians earlier. But Turkish democracy has also respected the rights of other non-Muslim minorities in the country, including not least Turkey's Jewish community. A more reasoned argument is that Islam and democracy may not be compatible in the Arab world. Of course, there has been so little resembling democracy in the Arab world to begin with that this argument is more about the future than it is about the past or present.

- wildboy

January 24, 2012 at 1:27pm

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

Sorry, forgot to add the coda to my paragraph about Indonesia and Malaysia -- while neither is a democracy to the standards of Western Europe and North American and they both have had ethnic violence against non-Muslims, today they are both functioning Muslim-majority democracies with equal rights for non-Muslim minorities.

- wildboy

January 24, 2012 at 1:29pm

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

Looks like we're getting to the meat of the issue: if Islam and democracy are incompatible, where do we go from here? One approach is to have faith that, despite evidence to the contrary, democratic elections and the responsibilities of governance will temper Islamic radicalism. Does everyone remember the editorials urging us to look on the bright side after Hamas took power in Gaza? Can anyone today show us the signs of how moderate Hamas has become over the past five years? If the elections of Islamists in the countries of North Africa leads one nation after another into despotic, totalitarian theocratic rule, shall we consider this to be merely a transitional phase on the long road to democracy? Just cause pigs don't fly today, don't mean they can't start tomorrow, right?

- willjames77

January 24, 2012 at 1:45pm

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

amidut: I was supposed to travel today, which is so difficult that I delayed it one more day. have been in major trauma episode since January 8, and not sleeping. hence, now avoiding news and retreating to John Adams to avoid wanting death to end the cacophony - trying to make it until my estate is in order. blackton: YOU are skipping the post-WW1 breakdown of the Hapsburg and Ottoman Empires (and Tsarist Russia) that led to forms of fragile democracies being swept away by the rise of variations of totalitarianism until AFTER WW2, and then AFTER the final collapse of the USSR. I see the Arab whatever today as closer to post-WW1, NOT post-Cold War. very messy. I mentioned Peretz's failure to note Morocco and Algeria, both of which will have enormous impact on what happens in Tunisia and Libya, respectively. Tunisia will be ok because their 1st post-colonial dictator had the sense to emphasize real education, including for women. but being trapped between the dark shadow of Algeria and whatvere happens in Libya is tough for Tunisia - yet they are small and coherent enough (sense of nationality goes back thousands of years) to be ok. Not like Tunisia wants to send tanks into the Sinai... and for anyone who thinks Indonesia is a model of democracy and Islam? Yes, because, except for Aceh on the tip of Sumatra, most of Indonesia became Muslim slowly, via the Arab traders in their dhows staring in the early 14th century. Javanese Islam is very syncretic because Java was first Animist (all those volcanoes!) then Buddhist, then Hindu, and never fundamentalist. But they are burning Christian churches today even tho Christianity is a recognized official religion in their Pancasila. (Judaism is missing). Malaysia is very similar, but so much more ethnic Chinese that Malaysia just stumbles along by blaming the Jews. The real dilemma is that the Arabs and the Turks and the Pakistanis totally ignor Malaysia and Indonesia as models. Why do you think Bangladesh fought a war to separate from what is now Pakistan? The Bangladeshis like their Sufi Saints, and syncretic tradition with Hindus. Today's Turkey is so tolerant of their minorities. ROFL. The AKP will not allow Alevis (the indigenous Anatolians) to teach their religion in schools. ONLY official Sunni Islam is mandatory teaching in all of Turkey's schools. Just to confuse eanyone still reading this, Turkey's Kurds are split between Sunni and Alevi, and Alevi is so confusing that even Iran has made exceptions to formally recognize Alevi as Shi'a. The Alevi of Turkey are the most ardent Kemalists, and most of the Turks who live in Germany are Alevi. They appreciate freedom of worship. sorry to ramble. and to use a Peretz thread to cling to some mental engagement. really can not survive this USA much longer but keep thinking never mind

- K2K

January 24, 2012 at 1:56pm

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

@Noga: Here is my actual comment, again: "No, amidut. RADICAL islam is the problem, or the biggest one anyway. I feel sorry for you. Hate is hate, whether its directed against the Jews, Christians, Muslims or any other group. Hate has never been the answer, and it never will be." Now then: please tell me how what I wrote squares with your assertion that my message was "If only amidut (and like minded people) would stop hating Islam, then of course everything will simply fall into place and the Arab spring will actually emerge from its evil fog." Noga, I truly and sincerely respect your opinions on these boards. But having served in many of the world's hot spots, from the Middle East to SW Asia to Central Africa to Central and South America... I have seem nothing to dissuade me from the believe that all hate does is breed more hate. More hate and more terrible, heartbreaking bloodshed. Jews suffered unfathomable pain thanks to my fellow Christians over the last two milennia. Clearly the answer was not extermination of Christianity, but Christianity exorcising itself of the hate and bigotry that made a mockery of its supposed values (of course, I wouldn't dare say we're all the way there yet). So why should we tolerate anyone who advocates somehow sweeping aside all of Islam, as if such a thing were even possible? You cite muslim law skillfully in making your argument that their antisemitism and bigotry and anti-democratic predilections. But you seem to forget our own (Jew and Christian) history... Jews no longer put to the sword anyone openly worshipping in opposition to Jewish tenets. Christians no longer order slaves to adhere to their masters. We have, all of us (well, maybe most of us anyway) accepted that we can be believers and still reject that which was clearly written as an expression of the fear and ignorance of the time. Can it not be so for Muslims? Look, they're not going anywhere. The only sane answer is to work towards the democratic institutions and liberal cultures that force radical islamists to see that hate and bigotry are antithetical to any true faith in a loving God, just as they are to any lasting peace.

- Tristan

January 24, 2012 at 2:02pm

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

wildboy, Albania is also pretty Muslim yet has become a democracy as well. And hell, Christianity and liberal Democracy are not compatible either. I can sling a whole slew of scripture showing why it isn't. Yet Christianity reformed itself, no one has said Divine right of kings for centuries, but for most of history that was the standard. "If you think Islam can reform itself, the way Christianity and Judaism have, show me where such reform is being done. And how successful it is." There are many places where Islam and democracy co-exist. The Maldives have adopted western Democracy. In any event, you have offered no solutions yourself. How do you propose eradicating Islam from the earth, that is if you believe that Muslims when assembling themselves in a majority status are illiberal then surely it must go, so how do you propose to do it? You ask me for proof that Islam and Democracy is compatible, but in the end we have no choice but to work to make it so. Otherwise it must be death to Muslims, and I guess to be on the safe side we should make it pre-emptive, if I were to follow your logic to its conclusion. I don't believe that or permanent occupation is what you want, so again even if it Islam and Democracy is unreconciliable, we have to pretend that it is in order to convince Muslims to find a way to make it so.

- blackton

January 24, 2012 at 2:21pm

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

The thing that makes Christianity so culpable for its past is the content of its own purpose. Foolish and mean spirited hypocrisy is the biggest failing among its adherents past, present and future. That is the nature of it. The fact that such a standard exists is also its biggest strength. I recall Bill Moyers interview with Joseph Campbell and the larger measure of the purpose was to explore his take on Mythology and the Hero as the central focus. By the end of this exploration it was clear that all of the culturally important distinctions as advocated by the embrace of these 'stories' were to be regarded with an equivalence in a one size fits all with an equal moral weighting as provisioned by the aspirants and their battles due to the similarities of the means of ratification. He wound up his interview with the advice to his viewers to, " Follow your bliss." Now I don't consider myself to be brilliant or especially insightful but by my virtue of having inquired in to these territories on my own was armed with more information than your average sojourner. I saw this program and what had become of Mr. Campbell and thought more is the pity and what a crock of relativistic bullshit and wishful thinking he was promulgating. Anybody who can with a straight face in all sincerity draw a quid pro quo equivalence between Jesus and Muhammad and their heroic quests needs to have their brains examined. There IS a substantial difference between the messages I will die on your behalf that all will be made right and I will kill you for the purpose of making it right. To my knowledge the apostles and Jesus' followers didn't set out about the countryside slaying those that refused to believe. The same CAN'T be said about Islam. I find it absolutely no surprise that Muslims take Muhammad at face value in word and deed. It is not surprising of Christian failure to live up to Jesus provision. Part of the qualifications for being in the club is that you admit your propensity for failure in the 'Do unto' department. Muhammad's 'Do Unto' in the name of God is substantially different than that which Jesus put forth.

- jacko

January 24, 2012 at 2:24pm

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

K2K, as usual you pack a lot of factoids into a response that mostly demostrates that you still confuse your backside and your elbow. First of all, you claim that Indonesia and Malaysia aren't good examples of Islam being compatible with democracy because their historical circumstances are different from those of other countries. Can you name two countries with exactly the same historical circumstances? And then you go into digressions about Malaysian anti-Semitism and occasional Indonesian anti-Christian violence. As if the existence of ethnic or religious bigotry or religious violence renders a country undemocratic per se. What would you have made of America in the 1960's? As for Turish tolerance of minorities, the situation is complicated but hardly the caricature that you seem to suggest, and which Marty likes to perpetuate. Turkey has had a functioning democracy off-and-on since the 1950's, and mostly on since the mid-1980's. There have been serious infringements upon minority rights during those time periods, and continuing infringements on some of those rights. Turkey has been and should be taken to task for those infringements. State-sanctioned violence against Greeks in Istanbul in the 1950's, state suppression of the mention of the Armenian genocide by Armenians or others in Turkey and state-sanctioned suppression of the Kurdish language and ethnic rights until the very recent pasts are well-earned blots on Turkeys record. On the other hand, democracy in Sunni-majority Turkey has fully protected the equal rights of Turkish Jews, most Turkish Christians and most Turkish Shia for the past generation, and shows no signs of backsliding under the rule of an Islamist-inspired party. Oh, and your bit about Bangladesh's independence war shows how little you know about the region. Bangladesh didn't rebel against Pakistan because Bengali Muslims like their Sufi Saints and share some sort of cultural kinship with their Hindu neighbors. Banglaesh rebelled against Pakistan because of systematic discrimination against Bengalis in the Pakistani government, civil service and armed forces and the lack of any progress to redress that discrimination. Religious traditions had absolutely nothing to do with it -- go read some news accounts of the runup to the rebellion in 1970-71 and see if you find anything about religious differences between Pakistanis and Bengalis. BTW, I have some background on this as one of my father's best friends when I was growing up was from a prominent Bangladeshi family and the events of that time were seared upon his and his family's memory the same way that the Holocaust was seared upon the memory of survivors at the time of the Eichmann trial.

- wildboy

January 24, 2012 at 2:28pm

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

My apologies to K2K. In reply to Blackton and others, let's clarify further. There is Islam and there are "Muslims". Many self-declared Muslims are no longer really Muslims. They are on the road to something else. Some of them are true liberal democrats. But they live in a world still saturated with Islam, which is not compatible with democracy. Islam punishes apostasy with death. If a Pakistani shows that he has become an atheist or a Christian, he is vulnerable to summary Islamic "justice" by anybody with society's approval. Turkey and Tunisia, today, are both relatively (only relatively) progressive countries because Islam was stifled by generations of secularist dictators, beginning with Ataturk and Bourguiba. Unfortunately, their successors failed to secure their victories. Today, Islamists dedicated to rolling back secularism have to come to power in Turkey and Tunisia. They will not be deterred. Indonesia and Malaysia live off the intellectual and commercial acumen of their numerous non-Islamic people, mostly ethnic Chinese and Indians. Increasingly, non-Muslims (some of them indigenous Malays, too) are being physically attacked and politically marginalized in those countries. Religious syncretism, mentioned by K2K, is under violent attack. We can only hope that there will be nationalistic reactions to this ongoing relentless Islamization and accompanying cultural Arabization of south Asia and the Malay archipelago. A Bengali or a Malay takes an Muslim name to signify his submission to Allah and Islam. I thank Noga for her numerous other illustrations of the incompatibility of Islam and liberal democracy. Let's face it. Islam is an affront to our liberal values. The so-called War on Terror has been our misnamed defense against Islamic Jihadism.

- amidut

January 24, 2012 at 2:34pm

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

Failure? Compared to what? Slavery continued for 90 years after the Declaration of Independence, and Jim Crow for another century. Women did not have the right to vote until over 120 years after the Constitutional Convention. It took a century or more from the French Revolution to a relatively stable 'republic' in France, and so on. But Mr. Peretz----apparently, one who is all knowing and seeing, he sees "failure" already. He seems to be so blinded by his obsession with a particular and narrow focus on 'defense' of Israel (which he should worry is an increasingly undemocratic, religious fundamentalist, intolerant society---the type he doesn't like) that he can pass judgement in a year (or less). The NR is a good publication in many ways, but it remains crippled by this man's hatred, yes hatred, of Arabs and Muslims (last time I checked, not the same thing). Ken Roth's admonition in the latest Human Rights Watch report is thoughtful, modest and patient----everything that Mr. P. lacks.

- scommins

January 24, 2012 at 2:36pm

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

Blackie, thanks for the Albania and Maldives examples. Those are good examples too. A few more expamples of Muslim-majority countries which are considered democracies or "hybrid systems" containing significant democratic elements base on the criteria set forth by the Economist Intelligence Unit are Mali (90% Muslim), Bangladesh (89% Muslim), Senegal (94% Muslim), Mauritania (100% Muslim) and Niger (90% Muslim). Even the Palestinian Territories and Pakistan qualify as democracies of a hybrid nature, since both of them have elected parliaments with the power of the purse and elected executives. Just don't tell any of this to Noga, Amidut or the rest of the gang.

- wildboy

January 24, 2012 at 2:37pm

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

"Indonesia and Malaysia live off the intellectual and commercial acumen of their numerous non-Islamic people, mostly ethnic Chinese and Indians." Apply that example to native-born American Christians of European descent and the "intellectual and commercial acumen" of their fellow Americans of Hispanic, Asian or European Jewish descent, and you have a fair picture of the United States today. I guess we are all living at the edge of the abyss, eh?

- wildboy

January 24, 2012 at 2:42pm

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

I'm not sure what the piece is really saying about Obama or the administration, but one thing that Marty points out seems a quite remarkable example of a non-example, and that is the aside he made in the Cairo speech. Political leaders are sometimes strategists, and sometimes rhetoricians, as are we in our daily lives. If I visited Marty in his apartment I would probably say things like "nice view from here" or "very friendly dog" or "tasty brisket" rather than "your TNR pieces show an intelligence hollowed out from within by hostility and prejudice." So when Obama visited Cairo and made that remark about Al Azhar university he was being, of course, neither sycophantic nor brutally honest -- HE WAS BEING COURTEOUS TO HIS HOSTS BY PRAISING SOMETHING OF THEIRS. It's an old human tradition, going back to when we visited the cave next door. The president was not reading a paper at a conference on comparative higher education systems, where some analytic objectivity would be expected.

- ironyroad

January 24, 2012 at 2:51pm

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

Let's face it, religion in general, especially in its orthodox forms are not compatible with democracy. Still, the problem in the Middle East, is one of culture as well as religion. It's hard enough to overcome antidemocratic religious dogma, but when you add fragmented, tribal patriarchal into the mix you won't get democracy anytime soon. I could say the same for Orthodox Christian Russia. Democracy in the West came about as a result of a number of unique factors: religious wars that exhausted its participants, the fragmented nature of authority, a revival of the classical pagan tradition that challenged the Christian world view, economic changes, small number of dedicated thinkers who challenged the prevailing secular and religious order, the dethronement of the Ptolemaic view of the universe, etc. These were unique circumstances that would be hard to replicate anywhere including the West should we lose out to demagogic authoritarian voices with extremist points of view.

- arnon

January 24, 2012 at 3:24pm

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

How right you are, ironyroad. And many people did not fail to note that the president was paying accolades to a university whose track record is Jew hatred and Jihad: http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/2835.htm "Egyptian Cleric Miqdam Al-Khadhari on the Benefits of Al-Azhar Curricula: They are the Only Textbooks to Militarize the Students and Eplicitly [sic] Teach Jihad and Hatred of Jews," from MEMRI, March 3:" You ought to enjoy the irony in the situation. I believe Obama was not unaware of this record and probably thought his speech at the very heart of today's institutionalized antisemitism and study of Sharia would somehow influence its teachers, students and Egyptians to consider a different way of thinking. He greatly overestimated the power of his rhetoric and in the process caused pain to many Jews and Israelis by adapting their history to his rhetorical needs. Good intentions, maybe, but very little understanding showing. And there is that matter of his priorities as they came into play later. "Look, they're not going anywhere." says Tristan. And there are so many of them. So what do we do when we have 1.4 billion Muslims and only 6 million Israelis? We bring Israelis to their knees, we clip their wings, we condemn them for anything and everything, and we say Islam is a religion of peace compatible with our western values, in an attempt to placate that 1.4 billion Muslim beast. It is so much easier to do, so much more in tune with your president's worldview (see no evil hear no evil when it comes to Islam and Arabs), so much more pragmatic and clearly the only viable course of action. The path of least resistance. A human story. No more. No less. And then we spend the next half century lamenting the cruelty of man to man and then we forget it at our convenience. The history books will judge Obama to be a great president. They have no other choice.

- noga1

January 24, 2012 at 3:39pm

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

Arnon, great points about democracy's incompatibility with orthodox belief and the unique Western factors that led to its rise in Western societies. Given all that, it's always worth recalling that the intellectual cradles of Western democracy were riven by the most murderous anti-democratic forces known to humankind a short 70 years ago. That final spasm of undemocratic fever may have created truly effective antibodies against tyranny in Western and Central Europe, but we can't afford to forget how quickly democracy crumbled in the homelands of Vico, Kant, Goethe and Copernicus. On the other hand, democracy has taken what seems to be a very durable hold in much of East Asia, where the Renaissance and Enlightenment never trod and the scientific revolution was not created but rather put to use. Most rational observers of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong or the Philippines today expect those countries to backslide into authoritarianism or abandon democracy (at least without an external push). Even more volatile democracies in Thailand, India and parts of Sub-Saharan Africa are thriving today although most of those countries did not receive the Renaissance or the Englightenment except as the ambiguous gifts of Western colonial powers. At the same time, 70 years ago all those countries were either colonies, occupied territories or in the same grip of tyrannical fever that afflicted most of Europe. Go figure.

- wildboy

January 24, 2012 at 3:51pm

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

"We bring Israelis to their knees, we clip their wings, , and we say Islam is a religion of peace compatible with our western values, in an attempt to placate that 1.4 billion Muslim beast." Bullshite, pure and simple. How are we "bringing Israel to its knees" or "clipping its wings"? By asking them for a full settlement freeze in preparation for peace talks with Palestinians, praising them for a partial settlement freeze and then dropping the whole subject when the peace talks fail to materialize? All the while not penalizing Israel in any capacity, but actually INCREASING military aid to the country? By staying silent, or making some milquetoast statements of concern (no more), when Israeli politicians and government officials frequently threaten military action to stop Iran's bomb, or when Israeli intelligence drops strong hints that it is sabotaging Iran's centrifuges or assassinating its nuclear scientists and military officials? By maintaining sanctions against Iran and working vigorously with other countries to financially cripple the Iranian government, all in the name of making Iran drop that nuclear program and forego its ambitions for a nuclear bomb? And all the while by not pressuring Israel in the slightest to either acknowledge its own nuclear arsenal or, worse, agree to treaties to limit or eliminate it? How do we "condemn Israel for anything and everything"? The sum of condemnations are statements by the State Department that call settlement-building "unhelpful" or "counter-productive" or similar such diplomatic tripe. But we actually go out and strongly condemn institutions like UNESCO that do issue condemnations of Israeli and Israeli actions. And we routinely veto Security Council or General Assembly resolutions critical of Israel, often without support from any other meaningful UN member state. Maybe this isn't enough for you -- you want the US to do what Republican Presidential candidates claim to want to do, to have the US facilitate Israeli military action where needed, toapprove Israeli settlement in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, to repudiate all commitments to a Palestinian state, to withdraw from the UN and treat any criticism of Israel by any other country as grounds for the cessation of diplomatic relations. If that's what you want, just say so. But don't go around pretending that the US has somehow mistreated Israel these past four years or prevented Israel from doing what it wants to do in its own backyard and elsewhere. That's an insult to everyone's intelligence.

- wildboy

January 24, 2012 at 4:05pm

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

"So what do we do when we have 1.4 billion Muslims and only 6 million Israelis? We bring Israelis to their knees, we clip their wings, we condemn them for anything and everything, and we say Islam is a religion of peace compatible with our western values, in an attempt to placate that 1.4 billion Muslim beast." Umm... who exactly is doing any of those things you just listed? Other than the part about saying Islam is a religion of peace compatible with our western values, that is. I mean, we have quite a sizeable population of Muslims here in the US that, to my knowledge, are (overwhelmingly) no more likely to want to blow things up than any other group. But again, that part aside, who is doing ANY of the things you just said?

- Tristan

January 24, 2012 at 4:07pm

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

Wildboy, I guess we all have a choice as to whether to see the glass as half-empty or half-full. The Economist's reassurances not-withstanding, I am personally troubled by the fact that it is a capital crime in areas administered by the PLO to sell a house to a Jew. It also disturbs me that Judaism is not included among the religions recognized as "legitimate" in Indonesia. I'm not encouraged that the governor of Pakistan's Punjab province was assassinated for his role in a campaign to abolish the death penalty for blasphemy. And it bothers me that Turkey has neutered its military, has the greatest number of journalists in jail (yes, even more than China), was the first nation to recognize Hamas, and sponsored the IHH in organizing the flotilla ambush. If you think things are groovy in Turkey, read a blogger's recent account: http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/3315/full. Oh, almost forgot, Iran also has a parliament and elections. From my perspective, the glass is so perilously close to empty that only those who are ideologically committed to liberal optimism can sustain a rigor mortis smile through it all.

- willjames77

January 24, 2012 at 4:07pm

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

Arnon, while you seem to agree that West is best, this discussion annoys you. Go back to sleep! As Billy Carter said, there are more Arabs (mostly Muslim) than Jews. If there are 1.4 billion Muslims and only 12 million Jews in the world, some say we should favor the Muslims for simple demographic reasons. Needless, there are billions other people adversely impacted by Islam. But I believe that Islam, as was Communism, is weak in many places and is vulnerable to collapse. Many of its professed believers who don't really believe are still afraid to come "out". We can roll back Islam in the next generation. Islam is brittle. The Islamists are afraid of that, hence their stridency.

- amidut

January 24, 2012 at 4:08pm

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

"He greatly overestimated the power of his rhetoric and in the process caused pain to many Jews and Israelis by adapting their history to his rhetorical needs. Good intentions, maybe, but very little understanding showing." That's a very different criticism than sycophancy, Noga. I'd also suggest that Obama, unlike Marty Peretz, is clearly a human being and not a wizard of some kind, and that he makes mistakes and errors of judgment that he can learn from, or not. In this case, however, I think that the president was absolutely correct to try to reach out to Egyptians, and it wasn't all polite praise: he also (a fact that some of us like to "forget") read them the riot act about conspiracy theories about the U.S. and 9-11 too.

- ironyroad

January 24, 2012 at 4:11pm

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

"I'd also suggest that Obama, unlike Marty Peretz, is clearly a human being " What's with the "unlike Marty Peretz,"? What do you mean by this qualification? I don't understand. If you agree that Obama is only a human being then why do you bristle so when I criticize this specific human being and point to his very human hubris and even more human proclivity to think he knows best?

- noga1

January 24, 2012 at 4:20pm

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

"you want the US to do what Republican Presidential candidates claim to want to do, to have the US facilitate Israeli military action where needed, to approve Israeli settlement in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, to repudiate all commitments to a Palestinian state..." That would be a good start. I would also urge that the next president point out to the American public that the "land for peace" strategy has failed repeatedly and only the disingenous or the feeble-minded can still believe that freezing "settlements" in Jerusalem and Ma'ale Adumin will bring peace to anyone. Then I would like to see the genocidal incitement of the PA's media apparatus fully exposed, along with their repeated denial that Israel has any historical presence in its territories or any right to exist within them. I'd like the utter lunacy of Iran's murderous regime to be identified for what it is, instead of lamenting that they are "not fulfilling their obligations to the international community". The rest can come later.

- willjames77

January 24, 2012 at 4:23pm

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

Williamjames, I know full well that Turkey's democracy is flawed and the pressure on independent journalism there is a serious problem. Of course, it's hardly the only democratic country in the world that abuses (or has abusive) libel and press laws. Among other things, I'm troubled by the fact that, in the UK, a libel defendant has to demostrate in court the truth of his allegedly libelous views or else face a fine or prison sentence for failure to paid said fine. But that doesn't make me see the glass as nearly empty for British democracy. As for Turkey's embrace of Hamas or government sponsorship of the Mavi Marmara, I'm not sure how those things vitiate a country's democratic standing. When the Bush Administration extended premature congratulations to the Venezuelan generals who overthrew the then-duly-elected Hugo Chavez in 2001 (to take just one recent example), I didn't feel tremors going through American democracy since that kind of stuff is a tradition almost as old as the United States itself. I suppose I should have clarified that I don't think that the Palestinian territories or Pakistan are genuine functioning democracies, just that they have some democratic institutions and attributes of democracy. But just so you don't think that restrictions on property transfer to foreigners makes a country anti-democratic or violates human rights, consider the fact that for most of the 19th century the Republic of Haiti prohibited the sale or lease of land to foreigners as well, on the basis that permitting such sales would be lead to re-colonization. In the Palestinian case, prohibiting the sale of land to Jews is rooted in the perception (coinciding with reality) that sales of land to Zionist groups by absentee Arab landlords led to the widespread settlement of Palestine by Jews, which in turn made the establishment of independent Arab state there practically impossible. Nothing in that makes it anti-democratic, although it is anti-Jewish -- just like Haiti's policies were anti-French or anti-American.

- wildboy

January 24, 2012 at 4:26pm

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

wildboy is upset. Criticize Obama and he is out in force, settlements and all. I never even thought about the settlements. I was thinking about Iran and how Obama and his Panetta are warning the Israelis and re-assuring the Iranians that not all options are on the table. Not even the assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientist. I am not an American and I have no opinion at all about any Republican candidate, whether they express themselves in favour of Israel or not. Let me remind you that Obama expressed himself very nicely and eloquently in favour of Israel when he was seeking the presidency. It didn't take him more than a couple of weeks in office to show how truthful his words had been. No one who cares genuinely about Israel takes anything said during a presidential campaign seriously.

- noga1

January 24, 2012 at 4:27pm

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

"I would also urge that the next president point out to the American public that the "land for peace" strategy has failed repeatedly and only the disingenous or the feeble-minded can still believe that freezing "settlements" in Jerusalem and Ma'ale Adumin will bring peace to anyone. Then I would like to see the genocidal incitement of the PA's media apparatus fully exposed, along with their repeated denial that Israel has any historical presence in its territories or any right to exist within them. I'd like the utter lunacy of Iran's murderous regime to be identified for what it is, instead of lamenting that they are "not fulfilling their obligations to the international community". The rest can come later." Hoo-boy, Billy, bring a poncho for the resulting shitstorm in that case. You might as well evacuate all American embassies throughout the Middle East in advance of the cataclysm that would ensue from all that, even before we get to bombing Iran (from our new bases in Isreal, perhaps).

- wildboy

January 24, 2012 at 4:29pm

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

"As for Turkey's embrace of Hamas or government sponsorship of the Mavi Marmara, I'm not sure how those things vitiate a country's democratic standing." Do you mean that a bona fide democracy is fine with actively assisting a terrorist organization whose charter calls for the extermination of Jews?

- noga1

January 24, 2012 at 4:35pm

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

Noga, I'm only upset because you're being wilfully foolish. Can you find an example where Obama and "his Panetta" warned the Israelis not to attack Iran, or how they "reassure" the Iranians that bombing is not on the table? By walking back comments that could be interpreted by the Iranians that way? That's different from reassuring them that we won't attack or actively discouraging the Israelis from attacking. Quite the opposite -- there is nothing more than pro forma statements from the US State Department about Israeli efforts against Iran. If someone besides themselves who is holding the Israelis back, you would think the Israelis would have raised a fuss about it somewhere or somehow. But I am glad that you are coming to your senses about not believing rhetoric in an American Presidential campaign. Good for you. Since you also take rhetoric in stride but only focus on results, I would think that an Obama administration that allows Israel to continue pursuing settlement, defends it in hostile international forums and increases military aid to it as a true friend regardless of the occasional rhetorical gesture!

- wildboy

January 24, 2012 at 4:35pm

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

"As for Turkey's embrace of Hamas or government sponsorship of the Mavi Marmara, I'm not sure how those things vitiate a country's democratic standing." Do you mean that a bona fide democracy is fine with actively assisting a terrorist organization whose charter calls for the extermination of Jews? Do you have a list of organizations that engaged in terror and advocated ethnic cleansing or similar activities that were openly supported by the US, Britain or other democracies during the Cold War? From the post-World War II Baltics and Ukraine to Afghanistan to southern Africa, it's a long, long list. I'm not sure how that is so different from Turkey's support of Hamas today, except that Hamas is anti-Semitic whereas those other groups were anti-Polish, anti-Soviet, anti-Chinese, anti-Communist, etc. Clearly the very taint of anti-Semitism causes you to lose all democratic bona fides, whereas those other biases are just the collateral damage of a hard-nosed foreign policy.

- wildboy

January 24, 2012 at 4:41pm

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

wildboy, are you really suggesting that exposing "the genocidal incitement of the PA's media apparatus ... along with their repeated denial that Israel has any historical presence in its territories or any right to exist within them [and identifying] the utter lunacy of Iran's murderous regime ... for what it is" will bring about a cataclysm? Such hysterical reaction to even the possibility that historical and political truths may be openly embraced does not reflect well on your ethical position. Shouldn't we be encouraging the "new democracies" in the Middle East to shed their superstitions and conspiracy theories? Your position seems to be: let's go along with whatever it is that informs the Arab Street, lest they get mad at us. You don't seem to have much faith in the Muslim-Arab capability for learning, for all your fine words about their capacity for democracy. Isn't that rather ... Islamophobic ... of you?

- noga1

January 24, 2012 at 4:47pm

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

01/24/2012 - 3:51pm EDT | wildboy "Arnon, great points about democracy's incompatibility with orthodox belief and the unique Western factors that led to its rise in Western societies. Given all that, it's always worth recalling that the intellectual cradles of Western democracy were riven by the most murderous anti-democratic forces known to humankind a short 70 years ago." Yes, I am aware of that, But democracy won not through persuasion but through force of arms. "On the other hand, democracy has taken what seems to be a very durable hold in much of East Asia,...." For now yes, even here though it was introduced into Japan through force of arms. I wonder how long democracy would last in East Asia or elsewhere if the US were to stop being a super-power.

- arnon

January 24, 2012 at 4:50pm

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

". Can you find an example where Obama and "his Panetta" warned the Israelis not to attack Iran, or how they "reassure" the Iranians that bombing is not on the table? " http://blogs.cfr.org/abrams/2011/12/03/panettas-dangerous-mistake/

- noga1

January 24, 2012 at 4:51pm

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

wildboy "Williamjames, I know full well that Turkey's democracy is flawed and the pressure on independent journalism there is a serious problem. Of course, it's hardly the only democratic country in the world that abuses (or has abusive) libel and press laws." I hope you are not equating British democratic institutions to the very few operating in Turkey.

- arnon

January 24, 2012 at 4:53pm

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

willjames7 is right about Turkey, Wildboy.

- arnon

January 24, 2012 at 4:54pm

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

"why do you bristle so when I criticize this specific human being and point to his very human hubris and even more human proclivity to think he knows best?" Because it's so damn selective. You never seem to criticize Netanyahu or Bush or who are surely (at least) equally striking examples of those phenomena.

- ironyroad

January 24, 2012 at 4:57pm

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

Incidentally, I think it is absolutely unacceptable for CIA Director Panetta to suggest that, in fact, the Iranian nuclear targets might be difficult to hit and even more difficult to take out completely, and such a preemptive attack could have a number of very unpleasant consequences for the U.S. as well as the region. He should, unless of course he's some kind of Israel-hater, be saying "hey, it'll be a cakewalk -- success guaranteed." Anything else is just Obama-style sycophantic pandering to the Mullahs. As we know, all things involving military operations go right, always and ever.

- ironyroad

January 24, 2012 at 5:05pm

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

"You never seem to criticize Netanyahu or Bush or who are surely (at least) equally striking examples of those phenomena." I don't need to criticize n or b in this environment. Criticisms of them (such as they are) abound. And anyway whatever criticism I have of N will not resonate with these here board members. I absolutely agree that Panetta should be telling the Iranians that the US is afraid of them and doesn't know how to go about stopping their maunfacturing of genocidal nukes. Absolutely Panetta should signal that in case Iran does get the bomb (and it seems very likely), the US will be perfectly happy to live with the new situation, even if the cost is a threatened Israel that cannot defend itself. The only way is peace with honour, Obama style.

- noga1

January 24, 2012 at 5:41pm

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

Wildboy, I need my poncho every time I read the apologists in the NYT trying to put lipstick on that pig of an Arab spring, while lamenting that Israel is being held hostage by extremists. Hey did you read that some religious guy spit on a little girl because she was wearing colorful clothes? It's curious, isn't it, that this makes headlines whereas we don't hear much about the girls shot on their way to school by the Taliban. Or the women who are disfigured or blinded with acid for walking without covering their heads and faces? Wonder why that is? I think we do our best to pretend that Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and the Taliban and the Basiji in Iran are not barbarians, because acknowledging this disturbing truth would trouble our sleep. How much nicer to see it all as a "transitional phase" on the road to democracy. And to focus instead on the irrationalities of religious Jews who are always responsible in one way or another for all the evil in the world. We do agree, however, that evacuating all the American embassies in the ME would be an excellent idea prior to the commencement of any bombing campaign.

- willjames77

January 24, 2012 at 5:54pm

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

Noga, your buddy Williamjames (who really takes a great philosopher's name in vain) proudly proclaims that the US should renege on a raft of binding American commitments to a Palestinian state, some going back more than 20 years, and proceed full speed ahead to a regional war with Iran while lecturing to Arabs about nasty textbooks and anti-Semitism on the media. I would grant you that the lectures about textbooks and media anti-Semitism would probably do little harm, although they would hardly help things -- most likely, they would just involve the US in a pointless war of words with various Arab states without actually getting anything changed. By that token, we should also get into lecturing the Japanese about their school textbooks to make sure that they don't minimize Japan's atrocities in Asia during the 1930's and 1940's, lecturing the Russians about not minimizing Soviet-era atrocities so as to not offend Poles, Balts and Ukrainians, lecture the French about not minimizing the atrocities committed in the course of colonial rule in Algeria and elsewhere, lecture the British to embrace their responsibility for famines in the Raj during the 1890's and 1940's and their brutality in response to the Mau Mau insurgency, and on and on. It would be a mutually beneficial airing of other people's dirty laundry and make all of us feel a whole lot better. As for rejecting America's position on Palestinian statehood and signing ourselves off on regime change in Iran (rather than just stopping their illegal nuclear program) -- yeah, I think those actions won't be well received across the broader Middle East. There will probably be angry mobs, bullets flying and governments both newly democratic and authoritarian under immense pressure to treat the Americans the way the British and French were treated in the aftermath of the 1956 Suez Crisis. In other words, throwing away all of our regional power, prestige and authority in exchange for kicking the Palestinians when they are down and undertaking a reprise of the Iraq Fiasco, but on a scale three times the size. Won't we feel good about that when it's over!

- wildboy

January 24, 2012 at 6:00pm

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

thank you amidut, noga, and especially all written: 01/24/2012 - 4:23pm EDT | willjames77 Have any of you ever read "The Adventures of Ibn Battuta"? or the actual travel memoir he wrote on his final return to Morocco? Quite a view of the entire world of Islam from 1325-1349, the 75,000 mile journey of an Islamic legal scholar and geographer, who begins on the Haj, and keeps travelling in search of work. Side trips to Constantinople and an ambassadorship to China reveal a great discomfort of an otherwise curious and intelligent young man with being in the world of NOTMuslim. He even visited the Maldives, which was already officially muslim, but the women still went about bare breasted, to Battuta's initial dismay. Offered a temporary judgeship, he took a temporary wife. My main take-away was the difference between stability/safety where there was functioning central Government, and the high risk of being robbed or worse where there was rebellion, piracy, or diffuse tribal 'control'. And the very persistent view that Islam was so superior that it was destined to spread through the world, by sword, if persuasion failed. Battuta even volunteered to fight the Christians in what is now Spain. Dar al Islam has nothing to fear from a Romney or Rand Paul presidency. Romney refuses to express an opinion about whether apartments in Jerusalem are "settlements". In the low probability event that Ron Paul succeeds in his stealth quest for delegates (quite a few names on ballots as Romney delegates in later contests are actually Paulbots who would be free of obligation on a second ballot, and the son Rand, is poised to sub for the father), I take the Drs. Paul word that Israel should be returned to the Arabs, although Dr. Paul the elder recently changed his meme to suggesting Israel "could become like a Hong Kong". He did not specify whether any Jews would still be alive in that location. No one has yet dared to follow the Paul money trail to expose the Free Gaza donors. Although arnon would prefer metaphorical death than to agree with me, I still offer thanks for his "willjames7 is right about Turkey, Wildboy." Because one of the reasons I had such a bad night last night was knowing why this was published in the Jerusalem Post, and would never be published by ANY media in the United States: "Perry was right on Turkey and Islamic terror" By NITSANA DARSHAN-LEITNER 01/23/2012 22:42 http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=254852 "Those who befriend Iran and finance Hamas have made it clear that they are with the terrorists. In the wake of Gov. Rick Perry’s withdrawal from the Republican presidential race, pundits will argue over the reasons for his rise and fall. But one thing is for certain: Perry was the only candidate who told the truth about Turkey’s support for anti-Israel Islamic terrorists. Perry was roundly criticized after he remarked, in the January 17 candidates’ debate, that Turkey “is being ruled by what many would perceive to be Islamic terrorists.” The State Department called Turkey “a stalwart ally” of the United States that “plays a very positive and constructive role in the region.” The New York Times, in what was supposed to be an objective news report, asserted flat-out that Perry’s statement was “inaccurate” and characterized Turkey’s governing party as “moderate.” Huffington Post columnist Dorian de Wind mocked Perry as an “uninformed Texas cowboy.” But within hours, Gov. Perry’s critics were left with more than a little egg on their faces as the foreign minister of Iran, the world’s leading terrorist state, arrived in Turkey for a visit aimed at further strengthening the already-friendly relations between the two countries. Iranian Foreign Minister Ali-Akbar Salehi announced in Ankara that trade between his terrorist regime and Turkey, which had been just $5 billion annually in the past, hit $15 b. in 2010 and will reach $30 b. by 2015. Salehi, by the way, has met his Turkish counterpart, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, no less than 11 times in the past 12 months. How is that “positive and constructive”? The truth about Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his government is that they have become experts at playing both sides of the fence – making “moderate” noises when Western ears are listening, while collaborating with Islamic terrorists and terrorist regimes whenever they can get away with it. Thus while the United States has been struggling to find ways to stop Iran’s nuclear development, Erdogan has been defending the Iranians. During his visit to Tehran, the terror capitol of the world, in October 2009, he denounced Western sanctions against Iran as “arrogant.” He declared that anyone who criticizes Iran’s nukes should first give up their own nuclear arms. “We shared this opinion with our Iranian friends, our brothers,” Erdogan told reporters. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmedinejad reciprocated by praising Erdogan for his “clear stance against” Israel. In December 2010, Erdogan traveled to Libya – Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya – to receive the “Al-Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights.” Erdogan was not the least bit embarrassed to accept such an award from one of the world’s worst human rights abusers and terror sponsors. He told reporters that relations between Turkey and Libya were “growing,” and that there was “much Turkish investment” in Gadaffi’s Libya. Three months later, the US was leading the NATO assault on Turkey’s Libyan friends. Turkey’s support for the Hamas terrorists has been consistent, passionate and unequivocal. The Turkish government sponsored the May 2010 flotilla that was intercepted while attempting to bring prohibited materials to the Hamas regime in Gaza. Erdogasn’s claim that the flotilla participants were peaceful civil rights activists crumbled as the whole world watched the chilling YouTube video of the Islamic extremists on board trying to beat an Israeli soldier to death with baseball bats. Other Israeli soldiers were stabbed and nearly drowned. Erdogan said it was the Israeli soldiers who were “terrorizing” the Muslim baseball players. The Turks attempted to send a second flotilla to Gaza last year, but were thwarted by the intervention of the Israel Law Center (Shurat HaDin). Flotilla organizers complained that the Center’s lawsuits and warning letters caused insurance companies to withdraw coverage of the ships, and resulted in Greek government inspections that found the boats to be unseaworthy and improperly registered. Prime Minister Erdogan may yet try another smuggling operation to Gaza, however, because his support for Hamas has few rivals. He told PBS’s Charlie Rose last May: “I don’t see Hamas as a terror organization. Hamas is a political party. And it is an organization. It is a resistance movement trying to protect its country under occupation.” Presumably the massacre of elderly Israelis attending a Passover seder at the Netanya hotel was a political statement, and the firing of a rocket into a kindergarten in Sderot helps resist attempts by Israeli five-year-olds to “occupy” Gaza. According to media reports last month, Turkey intends to give Hamas $300 million in aid. And just two weeks ago, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh received the red carpet treatment on an official state visit to Turkey. In his famous address to a joint session of Congress in the wake of the September 11 attacks, President George W. Bush declared: “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” Those who befriend Iran and finance Hamas have made it clear that they are with the terrorists. Just like Rick Perry said." The writer is an Israeli attorney and the executive director of Shurat HaDin – Israel Law Center. http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=254852 There is a reason why Rick Perry was awarded "Defender of Jerusalem" in 2009, and it has absolutely nothing to do with his religion, which is Methodist, NOT Evangelical. Following the media coverage of Rick Perry these past six months was as disorienting and disheartening as following the echo of the choir of the Aftonbladet 'IDF murdering palestininians for the global Zionist organ-harvesting trade' story in 2009. I look forward to Iran accusing Mossad of deploying those dolphins, in reality trained by the United States Navy, to help protect the Straits of Hormuz. some people can not connect the dots. It would never occur to some that the discrimination of Bangladeshis by the Punjabis might have been in part due to the Bangladeshi fondness for their Sufi saints. I no longer want to live in Obama's America. and, no where else to go, even if I could physically manage. Hence, trying to muster the strength to clean up my estate in 2012. Probably not enough to even accomplish that. see some of you next time I come online to check the weather :)

- K2K

January 24, 2012 at 6:00pm

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

repeating for those who want to avoid bombing Iran into dust: http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2012/01/24/considering_a_us-iranian_deal_99854.html is a fine addendum/counterpoint to this coherent-enough Peretzian view of We are Where We Are when it comes to the reality of that CNN fantasy of Twittering Tahririans dubbed "Arab Spring". While the URL is STRATFOR's George Friedman's current analysis of Iran v USA, the most unknown of STRATFOR's unknowns rests on the Sunni-Shi'a arcs of influence, with Syria as this week's giant question mark.

- K2K

January 24, 2012 at 6:06pm

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

You may not feel you need to criticize Netanyahu or Bush, Noga, but if that's your position then I would simply say that your selectivity when it comes to projecting every frustration onto Obama alone drains all force from your criticism of him. It looks from here as you have only one whipping boy for all that's not going right, and it's the American president who doesn't view the world quite 100% as you do.

- ironyroad

January 24, 2012 at 6:06pm

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

"Wildboy, I need my poncho every time I read the apologists in the NYT trying to put lipstick on that pig of an Arab spring, while lamenting that Israel is being held hostage by extremists. Hey did you read that some religious guy spit on a little girl because she was wearing colorful clothes? It's curious, isn't it, that this makes headlines whereas we don't hear much about the girls shot on their way to school by the Taliban. Or the women who are disfigured or blinded with acid for walking without covering their heads and faces? Wonder why that is?" Here's a simple answer in front of your nose, should you hold your bile and care to pay attention. Israel is located 1,800 miles from Paris or about four and a half hours by air and the cost of airfare is a few hundred bucks. A journalist can stay pretty much anywhere in the country without fear and move about freely (at least outside parts of the West Bank). Israel has a large and modern news media that reports freely (much of it in English) and on a 24/7 basis on all aspects of domestic affairs and most of what goes on in the Territories, subject to some military censorship but little overt harrassment. It is hardly more difficult for a Western journalist to go to Israel and file news reports about what happens there than it is to do so from Greece or Poland. Afghanistan is about 3,400 miles from Western Europe with a flying time of over 7 hours, but with only one airport for major international flights (in a country some 15 times the size of Israel). There is independent media there, but it's largely in local languages and subject to government harrassment as well as ever-present fears of warlord and militant violence. Even the safest parts of the country are crime-ridden and unsafe to travel at night; the unsafe parts of the country require constant military escort and are the sites of pitched warfare. Traveling alone to Kabul or Herat is courting serious danger; traveling alone to Jalabad or Kandahar is practically suicidal. Given all that, in which country is it easier to report the news (any news) and in which country are outrages by religious extremists (any extremists) easier to verify and report as fact to the outside world?

- wildboy

January 24, 2012 at 6:11pm

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

"some people can not connect the dots. It would never occur to some that the discrimination of Bangladeshis by the Punjabis might have been in part due to the Bangladeshi fondness for their Sufi saints." K2K, Punjabis are also fond of Sufi saints, many of them the same ones that Bangladeshis are fond of. The discrimination against Bangladeshis was not due to anyone's fondness for Sufi saints, it was because Punjabis and Sindhis were the dominant ethnic groups in Pakistan and monopolized power in that country after independence, while the Bengalis of the East Pakistan exclave suffered discrimination in their own territory. This is a pretty common paradigm throughout the world, witness the equally Catholic Czechs and Slovaks in Czechoslovakia, equally Orthodox Russians and Ukrainians in the Soviet Union, equally Sunni Turks and Arabs in the Ottoman Empire, and on and on.

- wildboy

January 24, 2012 at 6:22pm

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

"The western press and the entire media has gone bananas over the depredations imposed on ultra-religious women in Israel and the attempt to widen their scope." Perhaps Marty might see that it's the fact that the Israeli media has covered this conflict in considerable detail that has led to it being covered elsewhere in considerable detail? He has even written about the broader issue himself in TNR. I guess somehow we were supposed to read it and ignore it -- which seems to make no sense, but there we are. It like the Queen in Alice in Wonderland: "I have drawn things to your attention that I don't wish you to attend to!." "Oh," said Alice, "that's going to be difficult."

- ironyroad

January 24, 2012 at 6:23pm

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

Here, here, ironyroad. I would second your opinion that focusing on Obama exclusively is not just. What about Tom Friedman, Nick Kristof and Roger Cohen? Indeed there are so many others that share a similar worldview that it seems unfair to pick on the President exclusively. However, in Noga's defense, it's worth remembering that Obama is the guy whose decisions matter in spades. So it's especially frustrating that he has shown himself to be stern with Israel without prodding, yet forceful with our avowed enemies only when he has no alternative. After the Senate voted unanimously to enact crippling sanctions on Iran, he proceeded to weaken them while claiming credit for moving forcefully ahead in confronting Iran.

- willjames77

January 24, 2012 at 6:24pm

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

K2K, there was a fine piece by Mark Helprin in the WSJ this week which made the case for war with Iran. Don't know if you read him, but he's a superb novelist ("A Hero of the Great War") and a military historian who teaches at Claremont: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203518404577096851732704524.html Thanks for your Jpost piece. Must be interesting for Israelis to discover that conservative Christians are paying attention while many of their liberal co-religionists remain utterly clueless.

- willjames77

January 24, 2012 at 6:32pm

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

"It looks from here as you have only one whipping boy " No doubt you feel that way, ironyroad. I consider myself as having shown remarkable restraint in my criticisms of Obama but you wouldn't know that. For you, any criticism of Obama is one criticism too many ...

- noga1

January 24, 2012 at 6:39pm

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

"... while many of their liberal co-religionists remain utterly clueless." It is imperative to preserve that cluelessness, or else they may need to re-evaluate their positions and that cannot be. A Jew's place is right behind Obama, my president, right or wrong ...

- noga1

January 24, 2012 at 6:42pm

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

To Irony and other smug liberals: Republican candidate Romney (or Gingrich) and running mate will likely make quite a bit of hay about Obama's failure to decisively confront Iran. Matters will likely come to a head by mid summer, not on Obama's preferred timetable. Events and campaign rhetoric might endanger Obama's re-election. That would be a great tragedy because most of us on this blog would rather see a pragmatic liberal regime in Washington in January 2013.

- amidut

January 24, 2012 at 6:45pm

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

Wildboy, everything you say about ease of access to Israel and respect for journalists is true. But do you really believe that Israel is held to a double-standard only because it's easier to deliver stories from there? Has Isabel Kershner or any of that crew ever written an article for the NYT that didn't show off Israel in a negative light? Have they ever focused equal attention on the shortcomings of the Arab/Muslim world which offers no shortage of shortcomings? Access is surely one dimension of the issue. Unacknowledged fear and loathing that manifests as righteous indignation is another entirely.

- willjames77

January 24, 2012 at 6:46pm

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

NOGA: " I consider myself as having shown remarkable restraint in my criticisms of Obama but you wouldn't know that." Excuse me while I puke. Noga is telling us that she hasn't called for Obama's being shot, yet. Hence she is restrained. This anti-Obama nut cases would be frightening if they weren't so pathetic.

- arnon

January 24, 2012 at 7:22pm

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

willjames77, I share your disdain about the NY Times coverage of Israel. Sometimes you can't tell the difference in that paper between an op ed diatribe and a diatribe on the front page disguised as a news story.

- arnon

January 24, 2012 at 7:25pm

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

"Republican candidate Romney (or Gingrich) and running mate will likely make quite a bit of hay about Obama's failure to decisively confront Iran." Yea, and when they get in their foreign policy will be no different than that of Obama, just more noisy.

- arnon

January 24, 2012 at 7:27pm

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

Didn't you guys have enough of Bush' foreign policy? What did the Bush attack on Iraq get us except a stronger Iran. Bush' foreign policy mavens couldn't even find an Iraqi strongman who would counterbalance Ahmadinejad.

- arnon

January 24, 2012 at 7:30pm

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

Erdogan has cancer of the colon. Be patient. The Arab spring will continue. Too early for conclusions. And now let us listen to the last big speech of the President of the USA. I am sticking with PBS, has my favorite honorable David Brooks. Obama will be assertive for a change. Or he will change.

- JAIMECHUCH

January 24, 2012 at 9:09pm

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

JAIMECHUCH "Erdogan has cancer of the colon." I hope this is not a joke. "And now let us listen to the last big speech of the President of the USA." You wish, he will be back next January, splenetic JaimeChuch.

- arnon

January 24, 2012 at 9:32pm

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

arnon I thought you were puking. You are pure puke, you smell pure puke, old fart.

- JAIMECHUCH

January 24, 2012 at 9:44pm

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

No surprises here arnon real name is wadi mujib, a river full of urine. Despicable and full of manure. Still Obama State of the Union is as articulate as ever. And arnon is in the bathroom puking over himself.

- JAIMECHUCH

January 24, 2012 at 9:57pm

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

arnon (wadi mujib) river full of urine, it is true you were an abortion of your mother. Stinking coward.

- JAIMECHUCH

January 24, 2012 at 10:02pm

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

amidut: America has not had a "pragmatic liberal administration" since Harry S. Truman. I would characterize Bill Clinton as pragmatic not-so-liberal. Obama-Pelosi destroyed Clinton's umbrella of fiscal conservatives back into the Democratic Party - and Pelosi still seems to not realize that was why she had her majority 2006-08. Those who did not lose in 2010 have been retiring, mostly from the Senate. The USA is headed to extremes on both sides with the same motto: No Compromise. willjames: I do not need any more war scenarios or rationales for Iran, but thanks anyway. Israelis have known Rick Perry for almost 20 years, and it has nothing to do with his Christian faith, which is Methodist, not Evangelical. The peculiarities of Iowa made him go overboard on pitching his faith - in the end, the two Iowa losers just happened to be the two who oppose corn ethanol subsidies, and that included the real Evangelical, born-in-Iowa, Michelle Bachman. Water under the bridge, for now, pun intended. But, Texas is now Israel's #4 trade partner, and, in addition to a partnership in water technologies, it is Texas companies at the forefront of helping Israel (and now Greek Cyprus) develop offshore natural gas, and Israel's estimated 250Billion barrels of shale oil, which the Israeli enviros are slowing down - I do not have that URL at hand, but that makes Israel the equal of Saudi Arabia on the Med. Here is The Atlantic explaining Perry's keen interest in Israel on water technologies since 1992: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/the-basis-of-rick-perrys-middle-east-policy-its-not-oil-its-water/246839/# As Texas Gov, Perry wrote to AG Holder, asking to enforce the Neutrailty Act to help stop the American boat in the 2011 Gaza flotilla. Perry knew about the lawfare through ship insurers that some Israeli lawyers were employing to stop the 2011 flotilla (as described in the JPost link), and asked if he could help. I am fairly certain the author of this defense of Perry on Turkey is one of the same lawyers. Yet, the Choir will continue to falsely stereotype Rick Perry as an "Evangelical solely interested in Israel for Rapture day". I gave up trying to prove otherwise. The Choir never deviates from their stereotypes. What was odd was seeing the same destruction of Rick Perry from the right. He's on tactical retreat (his words) for now. No way is Romney getting the nomination. It is actually more interesting to follow the tension between the Shi'a arc and the Sunni arc.

- K2K

January 24, 2012 at 10:16pm

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

JAIMECHUCH has brain cancer.

- arnon

January 24, 2012 at 10:20pm

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

I am watching "Justified" on FX. Cowboys killing the bad guys much better than enduring another speech from Obama. and, I only listened to W SOTU once, maybe 2007. Romney will not be the GOP nominee. He is not even toast, but a mayonnaise sandwich gone bad on a silver platter. ah, wildboy, if it satisfies your insecurities, you win on the Pakistan-Bangladesh split. I have only been studying the history and thenography and geography of South Asia since 2003. But, you did forget the Bangladeshi resentment of the foreign exchange from their jute exports going into the pockets of the Punjabis.

- K2K

January 24, 2012 at 10:24pm

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

arnon is puking and eating excrement of the camel manure type. An old fart and an old coward.

- JAIMECHUCH

January 24, 2012 at 10:52pm

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

arnon is puking and eating excrement of the camel manure type. An old fart and an old coward.

- JAIMECHUCH

January 24, 2012 at 10:52pm

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

I listened to the President and to the answer by the Governor of Indiana, a very fine gentleman. We got a laundry of the conditions and desirable solutions for our country. Pleasurable that it was not confrontational. Nothing too new. It fills like the end of an era. They talked and talked about the unemployed, and that is more talk. About foreclosures Obama is proposing refinancing at lower rates, when what matters is refinancing at lower principal. At any rate banks are in difficulties because of the improper foreclosure documents they used in the past. New approaches are banks auctioning properties at half the mortgages. Also instead of foreclosures the banks are letting owners to become renters. And now there is talk of rebates of $1,800.00 for homeowners (?). I was distracted by old fart arnon, the vermin of the angry one liners. It is clear arnon has been and continues to be a coward. He took his name from wadi mujib a river in Jordan. Maybe because he is very ignorant, he does not realize it. Well I will ignore him/her/it in the future . Back to watching the Australian tennis open. They are on the quarter finals. They have Summer in Australia you know. arnon is saying really? Must be the fault of George W Bush. I should feel sorry for the pucker arnon. Old, lonely and immensely ignorant. I make him puke the old fart.

- JAIMECHUCH

January 24, 2012 at 11:18pm

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

About Erdogan having cancer: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/150854#.Tx-EoqN5mSM This from December . However Erdogan has practically disappeared since then. I was surprised Martin Peretz did not mention it. Since Obama has relied heavily on Erdogan, this is worrying Obama.

- JAIMECHUCH

January 24, 2012 at 11:36pm

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

JAIMECHUCH "arnon is puking and eating excrement of the camel manure type. An old fart and an old coward." Little Jaime Chuchu has got puke, manure and camel dung on his brain and little else.

- arnon

January 24, 2012 at 11:36pm

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

More recent info on Erdogan and cancer: http://blogs.wsj.com/emergingeurope/2012/01/20/turkeys-prime-minister-seeks-to-silence-cancer-rumors/?mod=google_news_blog

- JAIMECHUCH

January 24, 2012 at 11:44pm

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

arnon you insignificant coward old fart. Are you a he/she/it or simply a pucker?

- JAIMECHUCH

January 24, 2012 at 11:57pm

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

Where do you see smugness in anything I have ever written, amidut? Two examples will suffice. Noga, I feel exactly as you do, except in the opposite direction -- I sense that I have to defend the president on these discussion boards in particular, as a lot of intentional misdirection, distortion, and willful blindness can be observed. That's why I'm less flexible than I am when it comes to other issues. I don't think it's any different from your desire not to criticize PM Netanyahu, so you've no reason to get on your high horse.

- ironyroad

January 25, 2012 at 1:32am

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

K2K, if you make it this far after stepping over the puke and piss, I just want to say that you should check out Mark Helprin, whether or not you care to read his piece about Iran. He's a historian and military analyst and someone who I think is very much up your alley. Here's a mini bio: http://www.markhelprin.com/index.cfm?page=biography

- willjames77

January 25, 2012 at 6:03am

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

"intentional misdirection, distortion, and willful blindness " ?? Are you attributing all these qualities to MY way of seeing things? You mean I intentionally interpret Obama's wise and insightful forays into the I/P conflict as wild adventures? You mean I have no reason, none whatsoever, to read his policies as endangering Israel's position? How very little respect you have, then, for my intellectual integrity, or just integrity, for that matter. But what should I expect from someone who can see nothing wrong in a president who thinks Jerusalem is a settlement and supports him when he manufactures occasions to insult and humiliate Israel and the Israeli PM? "Ironclad" commitment my foot. It was a bone thrown to American Jews, the same as in his election campaign.

- noga1

January 25, 2012 at 6:20am

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

"It is hardly more difficult for a Western journalist to go to Israel and file news reports about what happens there than it is to do so from Greece or Poland." What's more, Israel is populated by...yes, you guessed right, Jooos. And therefore you kill two birds with one stone, you can fly there easily and you can pile on the Jews. What's not to like?

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

January 25, 2012 at 7:01am

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

willjames: much easier to step over it in cyber-verbiage than to clean it up in reality - my cat is quite regular in his hairball puking :) I had read Mark Helprin's "Winter's Tale" more than 20 years ago, when I still regularly read fiction. That read was pivotal in my shifting to non-fiction, except for the occasional utopia/dystopia. So, I just read Helprin's "The Mortal Threat From Iran" from your earlier WSJ URL. Very coherent, yet still fails to convey how Twelver Shi'a really IS into martyrdom - it is a foundational concept of their schism. Yet, I did spend a summer, maybe 2004, reading all of Tom Clancy's novels, in sequence. "The Sum of all Fears" had been made into a film in 2002. The not-Clancy-based "The Peacemaker" film in 1997. My point is that Iran, nor her terror proxies, do not need full 'nuclear delivered by missile capability' to do a suitcase-size nuke, or dirty bomb that would terrorize the world. I still believe the real threat is to Saudia Arabia, because Iran wants control of that Sunni oil sitting under the Shi'a stuck in Saudi's borders, and then control of Mecca and Medina, which ould "prove" Ali's martyrdom at Karbala was somehow redeemed. Not that Shi'a Guardianship of the Two Holy Places would actually end the 1500 year schism, but I see the martyr-dom obsessed Ayatollahs as being far more willing to use the threat of a nuclear shield to achieve these more pragmatic political goals. Which is why the current mishegoss that is mostly political in creating a Sunni Arc to break Iran's Shi'a Arc, where an Alawite-controlled Syria IS essential to that Shi'a Arc, is so very critical. And, was glad to read STRATFOR's analsysis of THAT factor. I do think Helprin misjudges Russia and China in that WSJ assessment. Oh my, a young avian Cardinal couple has just graced my view. Back to Iran. No one ever mentions the wild card of offshore natural gas in the Eastern Med, and Israel's market-changing shale oil reserves, with these reserves, if developed, Europe will look at Israel quite differently. China would be far more concerned about the security of the Suez Canal than the Brits ever were. I only recently realized that Russia has permanent naval basing rights on Syria's coast. It does make sense to pay close attention to Syria, and now a far more brittle Iraq. Egypt and Pakistan's poverty-stricken masses do depend on the Sunni oil-states, who in return get the co-operation of those militaries and large populations. Arab 'democracy' is magical thinking of some, alas, including Obama, who are as dangerous a distraction as the drums-of-war-against-Iran beaters. I have long believed that all Iran has to do is one more provocation in the Arabian Sea against a US carrier group, for even Obama to have his causus belli rationale for the bombardment that Helprin alludes to. Which is why I do not worry so much about Tunisia, but still do not count out an Egyptian move to seize Libya's eastern oilfields if the Libyans descend back into chaos. Since this comment will be on page 3, I just wanted to 100% agree with: 01/25/2012 - 6:20am EDT | noga1 [to ironyroad] "...But what should I expect from someone who can see nothing wrong in a president who thinks Jerusalem is a settlement and supports him when he manufactures occasions to insult and humiliate Israel and the Israeli PM? "Ironclad" commitment my foot. It was a bone thrown to American Jews, the same as in his election campaign." I am looking forward to regime change in America's time-honored peaceful transfer of power, and relieved that Romney will not be the GOP nominee, which means that John Bolton will not be our next SecState. Most of media failed to notice Romney's full embrace of Bush43 neo-conism at a major speech at The Citadel a few months ago. Gingrich is clearly on a remaking of Jacksonian+Hamiltonian view of foreign policy/national security, which is what the world needs from America right now. I have no idea who President Gingrich will choose as SecState, mostly because I kind of wanted HIM to have that job. No mas. glad to see makover join the thread. Sorry I have to drive to my hovel with dial-up, for either one or three days, still deciding. just explaining my next absence.

- K2K

January 25, 2012 at 9:48am

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

K2K, my only quibble is with describing Twelver Shi'ism as a martyrdom religion. From the bits and pieces I've read, historically it has been more or less content with masochism in its festivals and a passive, quietist tradition of waiting for the Twelfth Imam to return. That patient waiting corresponded more or less to Jewish waiting for the Messiah or Christian waiting for the Second Coming. It was Khomeini who changed things radically by arguing that waiting was fine, but, heck, let's do something to move things along. The more sophisticated Ayatollahs understood that Khomeini in his vulgarity was literalizing a metaphor, so he put them under house arrest. Meanwhile the unwashed masses really liked the "Paradise Now!" twist that he brought to the tradition, and the rest is history. I watched a series of YouTube videos the other day that focused on Gingrich's responses to questions in a variety of venues. It impressed me how well he well he understands the notion of reframing, and how quickly and skillfully he crafts his replies. Romney by comparison is a babe in the woods. It would be so nice to not have to hear Obama and Hillary talking any more about Iran and Syria "failing to meet their obligations to the international community" while they wantonly murder and torture their people and develop their WMDs.

- willjames77

January 25, 2012 at 12:12pm

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

Oh, forgot to mention: "Winter's Tale" is one of Helprin's most surrealistic tales; "A Soldier of the Great War" is a much more realistic approach to historical fiction and, in my estimation, one the great novels of the last century. Take it with you for a weekend getaway sometime; you won't regret it.

- willjames77

January 25, 2012 at 12:17pm

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

willjames: http://www.amazon.com/Vanished-Imam-Musa-Sadr-Lebanon/dp/0801494168 by Fouad Ajami in 1992 was a key textbook for my grad school clas in 2005 on Political Islam. Musa al Sadr went to Lebanon (from Iran) in 1959 to slowly change that "quietism" tradition. Musa '"isappeared during a visit to Libya in 1978" (Iraq's Moqtada al Sadr is Musa's great-grand nephew.) This book is quite a fine read, and is one reason why I do think today's Twelver Shi'a has fully rejected that quitism that kept the Shi'a disenfranchised outside Iran for almost 15 centuries. ok, Iran only adopted Shi'ism in the 1700's, but you get my drift. Still not sure they would use a nuke - still think the tension is over getting the Sunnis to admit they were wrong to behead Ali at Karbala. Yes, Newt has a nimble connect-the-dots brain that can actually explain complex issues at an 8th grade level. He rarely uses multi-multi-syllable words. You should watch Jon Stewart's absolutely brilliant and comprehensive takedown of Romney on Jan 24 Daily Show - you have to go to comedycentral.com to view it. As much as I disagree with Obama's postmodern transnational multiculturalist world view, he has been worse on domestic policy, squandering his one-party majority on health insurance "reform". The GOP is fracturing because of Romney and the Drs. Paul. Not a good sign. well, really have to pack my car in order to drive 170 miles to my dial-up only hovel. already running an hour late!

- K2K

January 25, 2012 at 12:34pm

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

K2K, williamjames, jaime chucha, noga, and all the other loonies - I have to say I am impressed by the scale and complexity of the alternate universe you have created in your addled little brains. I have to say, though, I am glad I don't inhabit it with you guys. It looks like a truly shitty place to live, based on how fucking unhappy you always seem to be. So, K2K, the Perry juggernaut somehow collapsed in a heap on the side of the road to the presidency. Who could ever have imagined that? Never fear, "President Gingrich" will take up the banner. President Gingrich???? You actually are mentally retarded, aren't you?

- bunthorne

January 25, 2012 at 1:18pm

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

I make no apologies for defending Obama on these threads, Noga, and I permit just as much criticism to pass as you do criticism of Netanyahu. In fact, I concede readily that Obama has made errors but I think he has also corrected them where possible and in any case he may be getting rather more of the big picture than you or I or others here. Your willingness to consider that the PM might also have made some missteps is notable for its absence. The president has not insulted Israel, any more than N. deliberately waited until VP Biden was in Israel in order to publicly tell the U.S. government that it can take a running jump. I think Netanyahu is something of a bully (or at least he has a kind of default posture that comes across that way) and I do NOT believe that the lack of chemistry or trust between the two leaders is Obama's fault alone. Common sense suggests that it's a bit more complicated. The people who insist on this six-year-olds' world view (it's not MY fault, it's all HIS fault!) devalue their own larger argument.

- ironyroad

January 25, 2012 at 1:41pm

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

"So it's especially frustrating that he has shown himself to be stern with Israel without prodding, yet forceful with our avowed enemies only when he has no alternative. After the Senate voted unanimously to enact crippling sanctions on Iran, he proceeded to weaken them while claiming credit for moving forcefully ahead in confronting Iran." willjames, I have to say I scratch my head at this. I have zero clue what you mean by your comment about "forceful only when no alternative." If by "avowed enemies" you mean Islamist terrorism/Al Qaeda, then this administration has been 10x as forceful than its predecessor. If you mean Iran, then this administration has focused on the problem since day one, unlike its predecessor, and I would make the case that the president's initial experiment in offering Teheran a new potential relationship with the U.S. was part of that forcefulness. He needed to do that to lock into place that it's Iran and not the U.S. that is the source of rigid dogmatism and threat. The president has made decisions and they do matter. However, the decision-making power cuts both ways. The Senate can vote for X and Y and a side of Z when it feels like it, but it doesn't have to take responsibility for the real-world consequences (a) for which Obama will be blamed anyway and (b) that could include a major oil crisis with a whiplash effect on an already weakened world economy -- unless of course you think that's what we really need now on top of everything else.

- ironyroad

January 25, 2012 at 1:59pm

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

In fact, to put it is a slightly hyperbolic way, Obama is the first Democratic president in 40 years to have wrenched a good slice of national security credibility away from the Republicans. There is a reason why e.g. Romney's bluster about the president's (non-existent) "apologizing" gains no traction.

- ironyroad

January 25, 2012 at 2:04pm

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

Irony, you don't have to justify your support for Obama.

- arnon

January 25, 2012 at 5:04pm

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

Probably not, no.

- ironyroad

January 25, 2012 at 5:29pm

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

"you don't have to justify your support for Obama." I agree. What's there to justify? How do you justify support to the sun? To the moon? To Zeus? to Jesus? Thus Obama. No need to justify supporting Him. He is Infallible. Like the pope. Actually, even more than the pope.

- noga1

January 25, 2012 at 5:59pm

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

bun thorne = pain in the ass. A well chosen name for an ignorant putz who knows only how to stop by an insult.

- willjames77

January 25, 2012 at 6:00pm

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

"[Obama] is infallible." No, he definitely is not, noga. The president has his share of mistakes and fumbles, though I'd say he knocked one out of the park last night. To watch the slippery Eric Cantor and his fellow wingnuts seething quietly last night was just priceless. Ah, 2012 is looking better already.

- scrubby

January 25, 2012 at 6:33pm

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

Thank you, Noga. As you imply in your response to arnon, I was not "justifying" my support of Obama at all, I was explaining it and backing my explanation up with evidence from the real world.

- ironyroad

January 25, 2012 at 8:19pm

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

Yes, ironyroad, as if it wasn't obvious that YOUR response to arnon was agreement with him that support for Obama doesn't really necessitate any justification. It is so self evident. Perhaps you were anxious to avert another insult such as you being noga's sounding board.

- noga1

January 25, 2012 at 8:41pm

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

That was an insult? I didn't really take it to be so. In fact, I feel some pride in how earnestly you run your ideas past me first. :) But seriously, "justification" is often used as a kind of polite insult when, in fact, justification in the sense of an honestly offered explanation is at the very core of human communication and exchange.

- ironyroad

January 25, 2012 at 8:54pm

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

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/01/25/america_and_the_arab_spring_112902.html is JPost's Caroline Glick's view, a worthy companion read to the Peretzian view. Caroline Glick is absolutely correct about the Saudis. willjames: thanks for the differentiation re: "A Soldier of the Great War". I admit to being a bit WW1'd out atthe moment between "War Horse" and "Downton Abbey", but will check it out. I have been wanting to get back to reading John Buchan's four volume History of WW1, but the library copies are so musty that I have to read in the library with a face mask! Buchan reported as a journalist on The Great War, and wrote this compliation before he went on to invent the spy thriller with "Thirty-Nine Steps", so his WW1 History is quite a rousing read. So far, Iskipped to the Ottoman front, because I still can not imagine how even John Buchan can make the meatgrinder of the trenches in France interesting. No matter how much Obama wants to run against Romney, ain't going to happen. I highly recommend Jon Stewart's complete and brilliant dissection of Mitt on the Jan 24 Daily Show, available at comedycentral.com. Best get used to the idea of President Gingrich, unless the Choir actually thinks President Rand Paul would be better, which is a real risk, but would make Obama look better by comparison. Thanks willjames, for the apt name dissection above - from one who assumed I was absent (travel plans do change). I wish you, noga, and I could have a private chat at how Israel is so central to this entire GOP contest...but not online. It is such a fascinating story behind the stories. I expect Obama to back off on apartments in Jerusalem for the rest of his term, not that he can ever regain anyone's trust, except for his domestic Choir.

- K2K

January 25, 2012 at 10:20pm

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

Irony, Noga is jerking your chain, she will always jerk your chain by claiming to be our victim. Why do you accept her accusations? Are you that desperate for human contact? Isn't there some cute student or colleague you can take to a move, or some good old boy bar?

- arnon

January 25, 2012 at 10:32pm

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

Irony, Noga is jerking your chain, she will always jerk your chain by claiming to be our victim. Why do you accept her accusations? Are you that desperate for human contact? Isn't there some cute student or colleague you can take to a move, or some good old boy bar?

- arnon

January 25, 2012 at 10:32pm

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

Caroline Glick is of the most absurdly paranoid columnists I have ever read. She makes Chomsky look rational.

- arnon

January 25, 2012 at 10:33pm

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

I have never been a religious believer, Jewish (my ancestors' heritage), Christian (my country's main heritage), or anything else. The history of much of Christianity contains a huge amount of horror and oppression. While I am no fan of GOP-conservative-evangelical-Mormon-hybrid conglomerations of today, we've still come quite a ways from the Inquisition/King James witch burning of hundreds of years ago. As a secular person, I am no more of a fan of French Revolution /Communism horrors of secularism claiming to save the world, either. Western Europe social democracy is struggling and floundering, but even in its present crisis and confusion, it's still quite an improvement over the first half of the 20th Century. I am not an expert on Islam (compared to many here), but I have known and worked with quite a few American Muslims from all over the world. Most of them were ordinary peaceful people who want to live in peace, raise families, make a living, own a home, etc. Humans make progress toward peace and prosperity erratically with great bumps and stumbles, but slaves are free, Hitler and Mussolini are long gone, Communism is mostly dead, South Africa is no longer an apartheid nightmare, etc. Peretz seems to glory in the gloom of the Middle East's crimes and problems. Christianity (which is long gone from a unified religion) took a long time to become (mostly) civilized and humane. No matter how bad “Islam” is, it is no more one creature than Christianity is. Either it reforms, no matter how difficult the process, or we are all doomed. I bear Peretz no malice or resentment, but his endless obsessive focus on the crimes and sins of Islam or the Arab world gets us nowhere. As a child, I grew up with a father who worked on Dr. Strangelove types of projects for the military, and as a schoolchild I went through “nuclear bomb drills” in my public schools where we put our heads under our desks (where the realistic motto was, “Kiss your ass goodbye.”). In college, I was a shy virgin (too chicken to come on to women). During the Cuban missile crisis, I sat at a table in the student hub with a young woman who was so terrified (if I had possessed the male predatory wit to realize it) she would have spent the night with me for comfort. I don't regret the chance I missed to get clumsily laid. I am just glad we didn't get blown to hell. Just turning 68 today, I am grumpily prepared to kiss my ass goodbye, but I hope my 7-year-old granddaughter has a chance to live out her life in the brave new world. Marty (and everybody else), try to think how we can get ourselves out of the present pickle and stop dwelling on who did what to whom in the past or who said what in this forum.

- skahn

January 26, 2012 at 12:13am

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

I enjoy reading M.P.'s well spoken five thousand foot view of middle east events. He has background knowledge that well informs his opinions. And yet even with this wisdom he seems to expect more of Obama than he ever did of the Bushes. The reality of our foreign policy in the ME has not changed one bit in 30 years, except at the margins; a war here, a secret envoy there, but essentially it's been a real-politic agenda. The place is what it is. Obama can't change that, and no president can (just ask the Bushes). So why get all hot and bothered about a speech in Cairo or an initiative that might turn up cold? Yes, liberals by their nature tend to anticipate the best outcome in a new situation. They are natural optimists and the so called bien-pessant syndrome, if we can call it that,is an aspect of that hope. I mean, isn't that what he ran on? But governing is a different matter, and so you talk hope, but you hire Geiter and Hillary. Obama's done as good a job as anyone in the past 10 years, and as good as can be done now.

- gabriel2001@comcast.net

January 26, 2012 at 12:35am

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

arnon: "Why do you accept her accusations?" a) I don't. b) Because some so blatantly diverge from reality as to be a kind of satirical short story in themselves.

- ironyroad

January 26, 2012 at 1:12am

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

"not that he can ever regain anyone's trust, except for his domestic Choir." Think so, K2K? Maybe. But it's at least possible that the Israeli PM will become a bit more attuned as it becomes more obvious that Obama will be reelected. Please, don't repeat your Rick Perry deal with Netanyahu.

- ironyroad

January 26, 2012 at 1:17am

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

Arnon, when I first read Caroline Glick, I had the same reaction. Her view of events is considerably darker than that of most people who consider themselves sane. Now that I've followed her columns for approximately three years, I have to concede that she has been right on target more often than not: about Turkey, about the "no negotiations" strategies of the PA, about the funding of Israeli NGOs by hostile, foreign antisemitic regimes, about the disastrous consequences of the Islamists' Arab Spring, and many more topics. She writes as if she were a columnist in Berlin in 1932 who fears that things are not going well for the Jews. Ask yourself: who, among that generation of columnists, was sufficiently paranoid to foresee what was coming? Think about it for just a moment. Then maybe you can cut some slack to people like Glick who are much smarter than most of us, and who are trying their hardest to jolt some of the rest of us out of our smug complacency.

- willjames77

January 26, 2012 at 10:20am

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

willjames: I have only been reading Caroline Glick for two years. Fierce voice, and worthy of inclusion in a real dialog. I continue to prefer STRATFOR's analysis to either Perezt or Glick, but always useful to synthesize from all. Most people thought Churchill was paranoid when he warned of the threat of Hitler's Germany while Churchill was 'in the political wilderness'. NCIS' Gibbs' Rule # 40 "If it seems like someone's out to get you, they are." Season 7, episode 22 "Borderland" http://www.ncisfanwiki.com/page/NCIS%3A+Gibbs+Rules skahn: Happy birthday to you... I am 59, and was born and grew up in Miami, in what became "Little Havana". So, I was doing those under the desk drills DURING the Cuban missile crisis, while thinking "this is not going to protect anyone". And pestering my father to build a bomb shelter. He explained that the water table was too high, and that was why no one in Miami had a basement. The legacy of that level of anxiety at age 10 probably accounts for my "It is what it is" approach to the prospect of mass death, preferably one that does not solely target Jews because I had an aunt through marriage who had survived Auschwitz, who never left her seclusion. The aunt us kids never saw in person or even whispered about because she represented the unspeakable. "...Obama likes Prime Minister Erdogan even more than he hates Prime Minister Netanyahu. But what he thinks the Israelis have done to the Palestinians pales in comparison to what he must know the Turks have done to the Kurds, Greeks, and Armenians. It is open to question whether Erdogan will be calmed by such affability or will find it useful should he wish to settle old scores with the Kurds, on Cyprus, or in the Aegean. ... There is no need to review the reset flip side of estrangement from the Czech Republic, Britain, Israel, and now Canada — allies who believe in staid things like democracy, human rights, and alliances in times of peril. ..." [copied from] January 25, 2012 4:00 A.M. "The Perils of Obama’s Foreign Policy: Let’s hope we don’t have to relearn the lessons of 1913, 1938, or 2000. " By Victor Davis Hanson [an historian, albeit at odds with The Choir] http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/289123/perils-obama-s-foreign-policy-victor-davis-hanson irony: I am looking forward to Secretary of Defense James Richard Perry in the Gingrich cabinet as of January 21, 2013. Or, as Secretary of Homeland Security - it will be Rick's choice. In the event Obama manages to somehow win re-election, defying the history of the presidency, he will not be able to get anyone confirmed by the Senate for any cabinet position who is not named David Petraeus, which is a reality The Choir should start thinking about. Obama has already been holding SecTreas Geithner hostage because Obama knew he could never get anyone else confirmed in 2012, especially once odds-on favorite Jon Corzine imploded.

- K2K

January 26, 2012 at 11:11am

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

Just watched Brzezinski being interviewed by Charlie Rose. A thought occurred to me that he is actually an evil person. There is no other way to describe what he explained to Charlie about Israel. If Israel were to strike at Iran, he said, it is not because it would hope to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities because clearly it cannot achieve that. It will strike at Iran in order to precipitate Iranian response against the US. Another comment: so what if Iran becomes nuclear? No biggie. It can still be contained. http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12103

- noga1

January 26, 2012 at 2:27pm

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

Noga: Apparently he agrees with you, though, that Obama should have rounded off his Cairo-Istanbul tour in '09 with an "historic" (his term) visit to Israel. K2K: Maybe, but I don't think some dogged and hostile refusal to confirm a president's high-level appointments is exactly what the drafters had in mind when they wrote "advise and consent" -- the "consent" part of it is important too, you know.

- ironyroad

January 26, 2012 at 2:33pm

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

| willjames77 "Arnon, when I first read Caroline Glick, I had the same reaction. Her view of events is considerably darker than that of most people who consider themselves sane. Now that I've followed her columns for approximately three years, I have to concede that she has been right on target more often than not: about Turkey,..." A few months back she wrote an hysterical column claiming that the US was about to dump Israel as an ally. (that was around the time when Obama addressed AIPAC) When it didn't happen she didn't take it back she just went on makinf dire predictions. As far as predictions about Turkey or other Muslim countries in the mid East you can't go wrong if your predictions are pessimistic which is to say that the nature of these societies don't absorb either economic change or progress in human rights very easily. Hence I don't give Caroline any points for being right about Turkey, etc.

- arnon

January 26, 2012 at 5:16pm

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

01/26/2012 - 12:13am EDT | skahn "I have never been a religious believer, Jewish (my ancestors' heritage), Christian (my country's main heritage), or anything else." Just a few hours ago on another thread, the great Kahn asked me where he else he said that he wasn't a religious Jew after I told him that his religion was based on his "not being Jewish." Here is again articulating his usual prayer. The great Kahn is a grater bore.

- arnon

January 26, 2012 at 5:20pm

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

irony: can you name one Democratic Senator, who has not already decided to retire, and is on the ballot in 2012, who has asked Obama to appear on the same stage, at the same time? Not even Ohio's Sherrod Brown wants to be linked in any way to Obama. This is why Obama can only recycle those previously confirmed, or use recess appointments, for more than a year now. This is what happens with no one leading the Democratic Party. The absence of leadership in the GOP is causing a fractured nomination process leading to who knows what. Times of Peril: the legacy of the too many failures of Bush43 and Obama44 for eleven consecutive years. The American experiment has failed.

- K2K

January 26, 2012 at 6:16pm

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

willjames: "She writes as if she were a columnist in Berlin in 1932" I think we are at a later date than that. The writing is pretty much on the wall. But remember that even during the first years of the war there was a general denial about what was happening to the Jews in Europe. Not only that but an entire industry of anti-interventionists were claiming that Jews were dragging the US towards a war it had nothing to do with. Sounds familiar? But as Mr. John Zehlokorehli from the latest Latma says: President Obama is on the case already. His foreign policies are so deep and sophisticated that even he finds it difficult to understand them :) Let's recap arnon's wisdom: Israel is being openly threatened by Iran which is in its final stages of developing a nuclear weapon, in Egypt almost 80% elect crazy Islamists to rule over them (already 7 times the gas pipe has been blown up and almost a lynching at the Israeli embassy), Jewish pilgrims are barred from visiting a cherished graveside in Egypt. In the meantime, in Israel a duly elected KM praises the Palestinian Martyrs: “The shahid is honored throughout the history of nations. He is the one who blazed the trail for us. No value is more noble than martyrdom," Knesset Member Ahmad Tibi waxed poetic a few days ago on the occasion of “Palestinian Martyr Day.” Of course, he did not forget to present the obvious flip-side, whereby in Israel “the real terrorist murderer is considered a hero or a minister.” The obvious conclusion: Caroline Glick is paranoid.

- noga1

January 27, 2012 at 7:10am

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

I wouldn't throw in the towel just yet, K2K. We're still in the early stages of the post-religion cultural experiment. Without the cultural cohesion that was once enforced by a collective ideology, we're able to fragment at will, so we're at a point where every man (and every woman, of course) is free to choose their preferred mythological universe politically, sexually and religiously. In the midst of this surplus of freedom, the election process comes along periodically and we are forced to choose A or B. Even though we only partially agree with the compromise platform that A or B has made in his efforts to build a coalition. The main cultural split, it seems to me, remains along the axis of the counter-culture division from Vietnam war days. On the left we have those who yearn for social equality, who hate war and violence, who champion the rights of the oppressed and downtrodden all over the world, who support gay rights, the right to abortion, freedom to choose, etc. On the other side of the fence are those who see an epidemic of illegal immigration, rampant drug wars, infiltration of media and NGOs and academia by anti-Western ideologues, creeping Shariah in the legal system, a misguided foreign policy which is compromising American interests, the rise of a rabidly anti-American coalition in Latin America, etc. Now, where it gets interesting for me, is that each group is able to see the legitimacy of its own claims but is limited to seeing its opponents merely in terms of caricature and distortion. On the right, there seems to be an inherent incapacity to understand homosexuality as a condition of birth rather than as a religious sin. There's an inability to distinguish between child sacrifice upon an altar and simple birth control. And there's the vile tendency to dismiss those who are needy and desperate as lazy and shiftless. On the left, the idea that America offers the world something more precious than Syria or Burma is seen merely as an example of "American arrogance". Here we find those who consider themselves morally superior because they "know" that the military budget would be better spent on health, education and welfare. The simple notion that we are free because we are stronger than those who would oppress us simply does not compute. And those who point out the disturbing clouds on the horizon are ridiculed as paranoid, neo-con, war-mongering right-wing religious nut-cases. Case closed, mind closed. So, those of us who care about Israel's survival find ourselves between these two lumbering, half-blind behemoths slogging their way towards the next election. Since God obviously had a sense of humor in designing humans in this way, but maybe more as well, I think it's not unreasonable to assume that as a species we were purposefully endowed with this bifurcated mode of perceiving the world. But I keep thinking that if we could just find the means to change polarities occasionally (virtual reality goggles that flipped left-brain and right-brain?) we would be so much less stupid in dealing with the core issues of the day.

- willjames77

January 27, 2012 at 7:31am

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

Noga, I've often wondered why Brzezinski has been taken seriously as an analyst for so many decades. His hostility towards Israel and the Jews clearly endeared him to Carter who immediately recognized a fellow-traveler. But, apart from sharing the delusion that Israel's "intransigence" vis-a-vis its genocidal neighbors is at the root of all of America's problems, what does this hateful prick have to offer to anyone in the way of insight? On another theme, I don't agree that we're past 1932 in terms of the resurgence of antisemitism. The situation reminds me more of the late 19th century in Europe. We're seeing academics becoming increasing bold in denouncing the international Jewish conspiracy and its death-grip on American policy. Hysterical accusations of Israeli brutality and inhumanity are a constant drumbeat in the international media. And the unwashed rabble of Jew haters are everywhere in the comments sections of major mainstream media online. It's clear that collectively they are hoping someday to turn the US against Israel and Jews, but they still have their work cut out for them. It's unfortunate that progressive Jews in the West are sufficiently comfortable and sufficiently ignorant of history that they consider their present circumstances to be a given state of nature. Those who struggle to alert them that their current sense of well-being is fragile and requires vigilant defense are dismissed as "paranoid". As for my smug complacent comrades who know that we're entering a golden, post-nationalistic, multi-cultural new age, "Fuck'em if they can't take a poke!" And a happy Holocaust Remembrance Day to one and all.

- willjames77

January 27, 2012 at 8:51am

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

willjames: appreciate all you wrote this morning. I was more depressed after watching the 19th GOP debate last night, and then waking to the not yet melted ice storm. It is always sad to see every tree branch coated in ice - wondering where the songbirds are. No such optical technology to change any view - what strikes me (and you and noga) is how so many stubbornly cling to their worldview - it is as if critical thinking and genuine curiosity are being bred out of humans - a quixotic part of natural selection? My corrollary to your too-true observation: "...this bifurcated mode of perceiving the world" is that the 'right' consumes too much high fructose corn syrup, and the 'left' consumes too much soy? well, best to go back to sleep until the ice melts. oh, dear. my refrigerator finally decided to go on life support. it has been having seizures for months. Obama's economy is my official cause of death. three years of stress does kill.

- K2K

January 27, 2012 at 10:08am

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

K2K, not to worry about those songbirds. The Bible tells us that "His eye watcheth every sparrow". It's just the Jews that He seems to lose track of every now and then... Happy hibernation!

- willjames77

January 27, 2012 at 11:24am

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

"...happy Holocaust Remembrance Day to one and all." Swiftian irony. I didn't think you had it in you, 77, I mean, the capacity to think up such a savage locution.

- noga1

January 27, 2012 at 12:29pm

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

"On the left, the idea that America offers the world something more precious than Syria or Burma is seen merely as an example of 'American arrogance'. Here we find those who consider themselves morally superior because they 'know' that the military budget would be better spent on health, education and welfare. The simple notion that we are free because we are stronger than those who would oppress us simply does not compute. And those who point out the disturbing clouds on the horizon are ridiculed as paranoid, neo-con, war-mongering right-wing religious nut-cases. Case closed, mind closed." Possibly, but that is most certainly NOT a description of this president or his administration. That's exactly what's wrong with your sketch, willjames. You have to steer pretty far left toward the edge of the Democratic Party and beyond to find the attitude described above, but your caricature of the conservative perspective is found at the very center of the GOP.

- ironyroad

January 27, 2012 at 12:48pm

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

ironyroad, I suspect that conservative readers will argue that I distorted their perspective unfairly and was all-too-generous to the liberal left. Blake contended in 'The Marriage of Heaven and Hell' that "opposition is true friendship" and that those who would end the contest that I was describing would end human existence itself. But let me ask whether you think there is anyone in the Obama administration capable of the simple clarity of response that both Romney and Gingrich summoned when questioned about the Middle East peace process during the last debate? Have a listen from minutes 6:11 through 10:00: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1Rj4V5-SdA Aren't there times when one side sees things more clearly than the other? The truth may be complex and subtle, but, unlike the current administration, I don't believe we always get at it by splitting the difference between conflicting viewpoints.

- willjames77

January 27, 2012 at 5:05pm

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

He did say "ironclad" commitment to Israel ... :)

- noga1

January 27, 2012 at 5:13pm

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

will, I think there are a lot of people "capable of the simple clarity" of response in the administration, but when you're the administration you have a whole set of responsibilities you don't have when you're just a Republican candidate looking to sound tough in a state with lots of Jewish retirees. I found the whole thing a little weird -- as it happens, oddly enough I thought Gingrich was a little better with his answer than Romney -- because the original questioner was a Palestinian-American who must have been crazy if he expected anything different from the podium. It was almost like a reverse set-up. However, leaving that aside, if you genuinely believe that the solution to the Middle East situation is a combination of instructing the Pals that they aren't in fact a people, moving the U.S. embassy (against the practice of every administration for half a century) to Jerusalem, and declaring that U.S. foreign policy will never ever deviate one millimeter from Israel's, then I would courteously suggest that that's equivalent to turning this country into the branch office of another. And to be honest I don't actually believe that either Mitt or Newt would do any of those things even if one of them got to the White House. So much for "clarity."

- ironyroad

January 27, 2012 at 5:26pm

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

Perhaps he meant "ironyclad" . . . ?

- ironyroad

January 27, 2012 at 5:30pm

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

wj "...when questioned about the Middle East peace process during the last debate?..." if only Ron Paul had been asked the same question, just to see if he would say 'give Israel back to the Arabs' or the new idea 'maybe Israel could become the Hong Kong of the Mediterranean'. Instead, Dr. Paul got to be the likeable grandfather who can bicycle for 25 miles in Texas heat while still delivering funny one-liners. well, I just read the Gallup polls on presidential polarization linked at RCP, and sort of reassuring to learn that the last seven years have indeed been the most polarizing presidential years since Gallup started polling, which was during the Eisenhower era. Which is why irony thinks willjames characterization of the right is "the very center of the GOP". only because more than 50% of Americans are either watching sports, reality tv, or otherwise given up on what passes for the 2-party system since 2000. noga: on Obama's " "ironclad" commitment to Israel" - measured in hardware and Iron Dome anti-missiles. still, it does seem as if Obama has decided to drop regime change in Israel (until after the USA election) and dream of East Asia, except for when building the Sunni Arc intrudes. when The Choir stops shouting "racist" at every criticism, I may believe there is a glimmer of hope for America. watching both parties fracture simultaneously is beyond my ability to find any distraction. Even reading McCullough's bio of "John Adams" is too depressing, because America has lost the morality of such people (Abigail has an equal role). What MCCullough describes got lost in the HBO mini-series. Too manythink "the world changed on 09/11/2001". Wrong. The world changed in the last fourteen weeks of 2008. The financial meltdown, and Cast Lead - the perfect storm to blame the Jews for everything.

- K2K

January 27, 2012 at 5:47pm

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

irony: Romney has waffled on everything Israel during the campaign. Gingrich has not. Most of Florida's Jews are registered Democrats, not allowed to vote in this Jan 31 primary. I have forced myself to be immersed in the GOP nomination contest because I do intend to die if Romney gets the nomination. So, please stop inserting your opinions about any of these candidates, especially on Israel, because you never take the effort to try to look through multiple prisms. And, it is not your life that is threatened by any American president. Us Jews know better.

- K2K

January 27, 2012 at 5:54pm

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

Obama's "ironclad" reassurances were cut from the same cloth as the Republican candidates' avowals to Israel. They were a campaign pitch, meant for Jewish ears (those Jews who still have a decent sentiment in their hearts about Israel, now that it is so unpopular with democrats); nothing more nothing less. It is ironic how someone can be so attuned to the Republican spin while maintaining a tin ear for Obama's falsities.

- noga1

January 27, 2012 at 6:26pm

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

Willjames: "The situation reminds me more of the late 19th century in Europe. " It took 40-50 years for antisemitism (a "politically-correct" term invented in the latter part of the 19th century to designate hatred to Jews based on scientific logic and not on religious bias, which had gone out of fashion with the enlightenment) to develop into extermination theory. The muscle has already been exercised. Muscles remember. It will be much faster this time around. We already have in existence and full practice the modern equivalent of the politically-correct term: Anti-Zionism. It is highly popular on campus, not just European but American as well. There is open and free talk about the annihilation of Israel by respectable professors at American universities, and Brzezinski is already spreading the message that Israel is out to implicate the US in war for its own nefarious ends (the modern day equivalent of Jewish power behind every war). Not mainstream yet? Don't worry. It will get into TNR soon enough. Dissent is not an option in these circles. Just look around you. I give Obama great credit for achieving what no other president has ever achieved before: aligning a very large chunk of American Jews against the state of Israel. History books will be written about his brilliance in this regard.

- noga1

January 27, 2012 at 6:52pm

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

K2k, being a member of the chorus section in your aforementioned Obama choir, I can assure you that I don't know of any fellow member who thinks *every* criticism of Obama is rooted in racism. Though I've knocked you a few times (perhaps a couple of them unfairly) for criticizing the president, I don't think racism drives your opinion of the man. But I'd further say that it would be ignorant, and perhaps deceitful, for anyone to say that none of the criticism directed at the president is racially motivated. You, with your Jewish roots, should understand this better than most.

- scrubby

January 27, 2012 at 7:19pm

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

Would love to continue this stimulating conversation, but it's 2:00 am where I live and the kids get up at 7:00 am. So, I'm down for the count. Noga, if my dreams are fitful tonight, you should know it's all your doing...

- willjames77

January 27, 2012 at 8:22pm

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

"So, please stop inserting your opinions about any of these candidates, especially on Israel." I beg your pardon, K2K. I didn't realize certain subscribers to TNR had to run their thoughts and opinions past you before they got onto the discussion board. But I may have misunderstood. In which case, apologies. I'm not exactly certain how to take "insertion" but perhaps you mean something like a jigsaw where different shapes are inserted in order to gradually build up the whole picture.

- ironyroad

January 27, 2012 at 8:23pm

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

Noga, I don't believe that Obama is being "false." I mean, it makes no sense -- how is he being false? Because he doesn't see things as Netanyahu sees them? I think Romney and Gingrich are being hyperbolic, and that's why I take issue with willjames's invocation of "clarity." I think the president has laid out how his administration regards the larger issues and certainly he has focused more on (a) the Iranian threat and (b) fighting Al Qaeda than imo the guys who preceded him. Also, I made a point above that everyone has studiously ignored -- Brezhinsky on the Charlie Rose show actually came out with exactly the point that Noga and others have made now and again, that Obama could have made a trifecta of his Cairo-Istanbul speeches with an historic visit to Israel. That makes him "evil"?

- ironyroad

January 27, 2012 at 8:34pm

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

Brzezinsky is a man after your heart, ironyroad? I seem to recall you expressing some admiration for him in the past. You agree with his malevolent prescriptions and attributions to Israel? So much so that you are only too eager to pick up the minuscule fig leaf as the only thing that is worthy of our attention while the bulk of his position gets dismissed out of hand. Cleansing this reptile. Shudder. A reminder of another prescription from this evil man: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/09/brezinski_fantasizes_about_us.html "DB: How aggressive can Obama be in insisting to the Israelis that a military strike might be in America's worst interest? Brzezinski: We are not exactly impotent little babies. They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch? DB: What if they fly over anyway? Brzezinski: Well, we have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren't just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a Liberty in reverse." Let's repeat: "it could be a Liberty in reverse."

- noga1

January 27, 2012 at 9:25pm

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

I thought it was something more than a fig leaf.

- ironyroad

January 27, 2012 at 9:36pm

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

Oh, Zbig -- yes, it wasn't so long ago, but I couldn't find the thread. I think it was on the lines of Zbig's cutting Polish aristocratic style as he leaves the estate on his horse to head toward the town, pausing only to bring his whip down on the shoulders of the peasant who opens the gates too slowly; he then gets his boots from the Jewish shoemaker who is awarded a cold smile of contempt along with payment, and finally he nods curtly as he rides past the new German minister at the Lutheran church, not because he respects Germans or Lutherans but deliberately to annoy the parish priest across the street. I don't agree with everything he says, no.

- ironyroad

January 27, 2012 at 9:47pm

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

Two comments. One simple and short and constructive. Why there is so much conflict in the Middle East I do not know, and do not much care. That was then; this is now. Doesn't much matter whose dad did what to whose dad. Either we learn to live together in peace and harmony, or we destroy ourselves.

- skahn

January 27, 2012 at 11:59pm

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

My second comment, neither short, nor constructive. When I contemplate who is the least interesting, least constructive, and most irritating contributer to these discussions I have to say, I try my best to live up to that gold standard. On the other hand, it might be BCDEFGHIJKLMPQSTUVWXYZ.

- skahn

January 28, 2012 at 12:08am

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

Zbigniew is classic antisemite from the old school. Now that people I know travel to Poland and enjoy the warmth and hospitality of the Polish people, it's useful to have aging reptiles like Zbig still around. They help to clarify why out of 3,000,000 Jews living in Poland before the war, there are now 5000 who remain. It seems to be the ones who made it to Israel that have continued to make this an imperfect world, and to trouble Zbig's serenity.

- willjames77

January 28, 2012 at 5:49am

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

"Either we learn to live together in peace and harmony, or we destroy ourselves." skahn, there's an intermediate step that you left out that I would describe this way: While we pray for peace and harmony to come someday, we take the time to identify the promoters of violence and hatred, and we do what we can to make their work more difficult. The Jews have been praying for peace and harmony every day for three thousand years. It is not the Jews who are destroying themselves. Or maybe you haven't been paying attention? Turning your back on history as irrelevant is a useful approach only for someone who doesn't want to take the time to understand what's going on. As for your second comment, I'm afraid that only you and God understand what you were trying to say. And, since you don't believe in God, that may further restrict your potential audience.

- willjames77

January 28, 2012 at 6:07am

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

irony, your brief literary excursion on Zbig was delightful. Why aren't we treated to more of these vignettes from time to time?

- willjames77

January 28, 2012 at 6:17am

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

willjames: Are you sure, as a Jew, you are qualified to identify an antisemite? Aren't you, as a Jew, too encumbered by history and experience, to be able to make that call? https://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-big-lie-returns/ "A blurb on a book jacket would seem an unlikely vehicle for the introduction of a new and sinister tactic in the promotion of an ancient prejudice. But in September 2011, a word of appreciation on the cover of The Wandering Who launched a fresh chapter in the modern history of anti-Semitism. And when the dust had settled—what little dust there was—on the events surrounding the blurb, it had become horrifyingly clear that the role of defining the meaning of the term anti-Semitism did not belong to the Jews. It may, in fact, belong to anti-Semites."

- noga1

January 28, 2012 at 8:18am

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

Final paragraph in Ben Cohen's fine essay in "Commentary": "Since the Holocaust, Jewish communities have mistakenly concluded that the relative absence of anti-Semitism reflects a greater awareness that anti-Semitism, as understood and experienced by Jews themselves, is a grave social ill. There is no basis to think that anymore. As long as the adversaries and enemies of the Jews control the meaning of the term anti-Semitism, Jews will remain vulnerable to that most sacred of anti-Semitic calumnies: that they alone are the authors of their own misfortune." No doubt some people around here subscribe to Edward Said's opinion of Commentary magazine. I believe arnon cited it as a far right magazine or something like that. Ben Cohen, however, comes from the school of the British website "Engage", a group of leftist British Jews engaged in fighting anti-semitism while adamantly refusing to call themselves Zionists. A few years ago I believe Ben proceeded to openly embrace his Zionist side and founded the website "Z-word blog" together with Eamonn MacDonagh, an Irish blogger in Argentina. After a few years of operation the blog merged with the "Propagandist" in which Canadian journalist, author and professor and Terry Glavin is a contributor, among others. Just saying.

- noga1

January 28, 2012 at 8:31am

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

Superb article, Noga. And deeply disturbing. I'll be chewing this over for some time to come... What's curious about the present state of affairs is that it's become a sort of free-for-all. Anybody is free to make any claims they like (except of course, that radical Islam is violent and dangerous). All you need are a few folks like Chomsky and Mearsheimer who write wacko books, and then others can quote them as authorities until the cows come home. Maybe it's always been this way? I'm not sure. But it does seem as if the threshold has been lowered for half-truths and outright distortions to be treated as material worthy of discussion--as long as there's an audience that's interested. Unfortunately, it appears that a dark side of the internet phenomenon is that a mass audience for antisemitic trash is no longer hard to find.

- willjames77

January 28, 2012 at 9:27am

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

http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2012/01/28/the_zionist_imperative_99861-2.html "...You don't have to be a Zionist to support poor Jewish refugees and you don't have to be a Zionist to support democracy. You do have to be a Zionist however, to defend the Jews in Israel and throughout the world in a coherent manner when the predominant form of Jew-hatred is anti-Zionism. You have to be willing to accept and defend the right of the Jewish people to freedom and self-determination in our national homeland against those who deny that right. You have to be a Zionist to defend Israel's right to survive and thrive even though it is no longer poor and its democratically elected government is not liked by the Obama administration. And you have to be a Zionist to realize that since Jewish survival is dependent on Jewish power, and anti-Zionists reject the right of Jews to have power, that anti-Zionists seek to bring about a situation where Jewish survival is imperiled. The weakness of American Jewry's response to Iran's genocidal intentions towards Israel is of a piece with its weak response to the forces of anti-Zionism generally and to Jewish anti- Zionists particularly. ... In a speech this week at the Knesset, Netanyahu explained the different lessons the Holocaust teaches the international community on the one hand, and the Jews on the other. As far as its universal lessons are concerned, Netanyahu said, "The lesson is that the countries of the world must be woken up, as much as possible, so that they can organize against such crimes. The lesson is that the broadest possible alliances must be forged in order to act against this threat before it is too late." As for the Jews, Netanyahu embraced Zionism's core principle: "With regard to threats to our very existence, we cannot abandon our future to the hands of others. "With regard to our fate, our duty is to rely on ourselves alone." We must hope that world Jewry will recognize today that the fate of the Jewish people in Israel and throughout the world is indivisible and rally to Israel's side whatever the social cost of doing so. But even if they do not recognize this basic truth, the imperatives of Zionism, of the Jewish people, remain in place." K2K's selective edit of Caroline Glick's January 27 op-ed in the Jpost, which drills down into the way American Jews in particluar find rationales to support Israel. I am a second-generation American Jew, who has alternated betwen Glick's full-throated Zionism, and the assimilationist path, the latter was a complete failure due to the ever-present, albeit 'below-the-radar', Jew-hatred that is in America, even in NYC aka Hymietown, circa 2012. America was the first nation to never exclude Jews from full citizenship which is why we can be deluded into believing we are 'safe'. In 1995, in a private room, my boss (pure German surname) said something to me about being careful to not have "too many Jews" in the department. I said nothing, but still remember my immediate thought was to pack a bag and flee America - I assume some responses are hardwired into the brains of Diaspora Jews after 3,000 years of expulsions, pogroms, and genocides. Reading Glick this morning, on Zionism, helped me understand why I have not felt safe in America since 1995, and regret that I did not make aliyah earlier, and am now not physically able to do anything but fight online for Israel's right to exist as a sovereign nation and homeland for all Jews no matter what the political winds. My support for Rick Perry had a lot to do with my admiration for his multi-dimensional support for Israel, almost all of it based on economic growth and technology. Texas is now Israel's #4 trade partner. How refreshing for a Methodist who does not see "Jews", but "people". I assume Gingrich sees Israel, as the historian he is, with what must be a genuine belief in the historical Jewish presence and claim in what is now Israel, or Adelson would not be writing those PAC-checks. Romney mouths the words he thinks he should say about Israel to that day's audience. I have been confounded by the ardent support for Romney at Commentary's Contentions bloggers. in case scrubby has read this - I do not include scrubby in The Choir. The Choir has only one prism, and always assumes Racist! or Bigot! to anyone who deviates. I still remember The Choir consistently calling me a Bigot! for my opposition to the Mosque at Ground Zero solely on the merits of historic preservation of the building itself. Rather instructive to be automatically labelled a Bigot! when you are presenting the historical preservation argument. When it comes to Israel, The Choir does remind me of the Dreyfuss era, late 19th century secular France. Is there a Zola to stand up on the global stage and shout J'Accuse! So far, only Gingrich even tries. He knows why Reagan won New York in 1980.

- K2K

January 28, 2012 at 10:11am

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

willjames: you can trace the tipping point to 4thQ2008. Consider how Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, link to the financial meltdown. and the IDF with Cast Lead. Fertile ground for the rise of Israel as a surrogate for Jew-hatred. signing off.

- K2K

January 28, 2012 at 10:15am

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

"antisemitic trash" is actually very hard to avoid, especially at the places where I like to explore :) In order to be able to maintain the faith in the Arab Spring it is very important NOT to know what the Arabs and Muslims say to themselves. Antisemitism today is much fed by anti-Zionist sentiments. And "Zionist" is a euphemism for the more honest "Jew" of the past. People use "Zionists" and are secure from charges of antisemitism. Here is a recent example from my favourite Arab blogger, professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus and visiting professor at UC, Berkeley: "... I was told that University of Leeds has the biggest Zionist presence of any other British campus ... " He is safe, then. He speaks of Zionists whom it is fine to demonize. Not Jews. Here is "the biggest Zionist presence of any other British campus " http://www.cjs.leeds.ac.uk/research-projects/research-project-1/ Prof. AbuKhalil is a respectable member of American Academia. I'm sure he manages to keep his loathing and genocidal hatred for Israel concealed from his students.

- NR165279

January 28, 2012 at 10:45am

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

oops. | NR165279= Noga

- NR165279

January 28, 2012 at 10:45am

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

"irony, your brief literary excursion on Zbig was delightful. Why aren't we treated to more of these vignettes from time to time?" Thanks willj -- I enjoy doing them as they are (a) fun and (b) they can sometimes open up exactly that different prism that K2K accuses me of not possessing. The reason I don't do them as often as I'd like is mainly that the html capability of this site is so meager. The problems with uncontrollable italics etc, the lack flexible tabs/paragraphing, and so on mean that it's practically impossible to do screenplay-style sketches or (a onetime favorite of mine) Shakespeare pastiches. Or to do them well, at least. A fond memory from an earlier location is that I once invented a non-existent academic book title and faked a blurb -- and Noga bought into the whole deal for at least an hour or so. The book was called 'Shakespeare in Palestine,' (I think) and the blurb was a kind of pompous Edward Said/postmodern/faux-political mash-up.

- ironyroad

January 28, 2012 at 1:32pm

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

"Romney mouths the words he thinks he should say about Israel to that day's audience. I have been confounded by the ardent support for Romney at Commentary's Contentions bloggers." Romney has a very clear advantage over Obama in this regard. On the Middle East and the I/P conflict, he has not been educated by the likes of Rashid Khalidi. Romney is also a Mormon, which makes him a member of a genuine religious minority. I believe that he would be more sympathetic to Israel without having to resort to the very strenuous effort it takes for Obama to be sympathetic to Israel :)

- noga1

January 28, 2012 at 1:37pm

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

It was "Shylock in Palestine" or "The Palestinian Shylock". And it happened at a time when our political differences were not as cosmic as they are today. But it was very well done. I was recounting this story to my friends only this week. They cannot understand the term "cyber friend", poor dears. The reason I bought into it was its perfect pitch in employing Said's thesis about Shylock's orientalism which appropriates the figure for the Arabs and somehow manages to circumvent the significance this character had in Jewish history. There was a blurb and an "endorsement" from that Churchill fellow, he who called 9/11 victims "little Eichmanns". So just to read it made me angry (I have a sort of a claim over Shylock) and anger, as everybody knows, makes you stupid. So stupid that I missed the clue inserted into the mock-up which should have alerted me to the deception. But in my opinion, ironyroad's finest moment that I know about, was his fantasy of what the sit-com "Cheers" would play like if located in Baluchistan. If he allows, I can send it to willjames for his enjoyment.

- noga1

January 28, 2012 at 1:50pm

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

I thought we disagreed over Obama and his approach to Israel and the ME in general (including Iran). It's important, certainly, but failure to agree in and of itself is hardly cosmic. I see a difference between issues at stake (which can be cosmic) and disagreements over how to deal with same (should not necessarily be). Oh yes, send the Cheers thing to willj by all means, he might enjoy it. I was thinking about that piece recently, and wondered if it makes sense any more (post-OBL, I mean). Did I really think up an endorsement for the fake book by that Churchill guy? I have no memory of that. But it was fun parodying that kind of academic book description.

- ironyroad

January 28, 2012 at 2:01pm

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

Yes, there was an "endorsement" from Ward Churchill.

- noga1

January 28, 2012 at 2:19pm

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

Occasionally it's refreshing to realize, and important to remember, that hopeless as things seem, they could always be worse. And, if even Caroline Glick can write schtick for Latma, I need to try harder to keep my sense of humor. Thanks for sharing the neighborhood bar scene in Baluchistan; very funny and done with perfect pitch. Don't let the html snafus tie your thumbs together. Irony, I'm wondering if you've ever read Nabokov's Pale Fire? It's an amazing piece of verbal wizardly that purports to be one thing, undercuts itself on another level and plays various games at the same time that are pointless but so ingenious that you are left gasping. If you don't know it yet, I think you would love it. And now, it's time to call it another day. So, as they say in the neighborhood, "Cheers!"

- willjames77

January 28, 2012 at 6:45pm

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

Will James, To a considerable extent, I agree with much of what you said to me. As I’ve said, if someone disagrees with me in a coherent and sensible way, I will read what you say with careful attention. As it is bed time, after a pleasant day of birthday celebrations with my extended family of granddaughter with two moms (present) and two dads (in Chicago) I will refrain from expressing some reservations and distinctions that come to my mind. I did want you to know I read what you wrote with interest and appreciation.

- skahn

January 29, 2012 at 1:44am

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

noga: Finally found the new Latma at carolineglick.com - was NOT at the Latma Youtube channel. The segment, about 8 minutes in, with "John Zelokoreli (John It'snothappeningtome), Pres.Obama's Reality Perception Adviser. John discusses the administration's plan for keeping the Egyptian-Israeli peace. " was priceless. Humour, even when facing the cataclysm, is why Jews keep surviving. I firmly believe that is also part of our 3,000 years of DNA. Still, I do wish the world would start blaming the Armenians for everything :) and, noga, I disagree with you about Romney - he has no spine, on anything, except his personal ambition to be president. hmmm, I wonder if Islam classifies Mormons as "people of the book" due dhimmitude, or with the far more hated heathens like the Hindus. I suppose THAT could work in Romney's favor, but I still see no way he wins the GOP nomination, or, if he does, he will lose to Obama BIG TIME, which would be quite a feat of failure.

- K2K

January 29, 2012 at 11:41am

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

skahn, somehow I missed that you were celebrating your birthday. My apologies. Let me extend my best wishes. May you enjoy many more years of celebration with your family! Thanks for the considered response; to be continued.

- willjames77

January 29, 2012 at 12:13pm

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

K2K, the intensity of your antipathy toward Romney puzzles me. I agree that he's more wishy-washy as a personality type than Gingrich. But in terms of foreign poilicy, he seems to me to be on the right page. What makes you so suspicious and disdainful of him? Really, I'm curious....

- willjames77

January 29, 2012 at 12:41pm

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

K2K, if you are interested in getting some Armenian blamin' on the road, you might be interested to know that Glendale (in Los Angeles) is ground zero. Armenians have been there for half a century or more (check out Brand Ave on a Saturday night -- it's all shiny black cars, girls in silk with clanging jewelry, and guys with crisp white shirts open several buttons), but the Anglo population STILL hasn't made its peace with the scent of roasting lamb on the summer breeze. Willj -- I read Pale Fire a long long time ago, and I don't think I understood it properly. It's going on my 'near future' list. Glad you enjoyed the Baluchistani Cheers.

- ironyroad

January 29, 2012 at 3:05pm

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

To Will James: First, thank you for the birthday wish. We had a good time at a busy tea room in Seattle. As for your second comment, I'm afraid that only you and God understand what you were trying to say. And, since you don't believe in God, that may further restrict your potential audience.. I am too subtle. Examine the missing letters. Check the screen name of the person most addicted to insulting me at TNR.

- skahn

January 29, 2012 at 4:04pm

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

Again to Will: In regard to While we pray for peace and harmony to come someday, we take the time to identify the promoters of violence and hatred, and we do what we can to make their work more difficult.. The soundtrack/filmstrip of my social cause/moral life has included in order of interest/involvement 1) black/white racial relations [teacher in semi-ghetto racially diverse schools, white resident in black ghetto]; Jewish persecution [tales told by Eastern European immigrant grandparents, baseball cap stolen by child screaming “The Jews killed Jesus!”]; feminism [“uppity” women relatives/classmate who attended Cal Tech and worked on Hubble Telescope Project]; homosexual rights [disgust with obvious homosexually-panicked homophobes, wholesome tolerant heterosexual role models, family of lesbian daughter/her partner and their homosexual male even more extended buddies/clan]. So I will start with American black-white history At first we analyze and point out. Did someone (perhas George, or Ben, or James, or Alexander] say to Tom, “Great writing on that Dec of Independence document; perhaps you ought to free your own slaves and stop screwing that Sally wench, just saying, Tom?” Then sometimes we get a little more forceful. I live near and interact with many old hippy “peace and love” pacifists who tell me violence and guns are never the answer. Perhaps if they had been around during the time of the “War Between the States,” they would have told Lincoln not to declare war. Certainly, there is such a strategy as non-violent action for justice. Not only is it admirable, it often works fairly well. It is expensive, though. Check in with a couple of fellows named Mahatma Ghandi and MLK, Jr. about the price you sometimes pay. When you go vigorously pacifist. In the Middle East (and environs), Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc. are all there right now, and none of them are going to move soon or close up shop soon. We can analyze them a great deal; we can bomb, shell, and drone them a great deal; we can talk with them and at them a great deal; in the end, they and we either learn to live with each other and with us, or we go nuclear about the whole matter. I don't know how to do it. However, just as Barak Obama apparently reads TNR (though probably not my comments, unless he is really goofing off), I have little doubt that the leaders of the aforementioned countries are also reading TNR and paying careful attention to the advice dispensed here.

- skahn

January 29, 2012 at 4:06pm

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

skahn, I figured out the secret code. Yes, probably too subtle for most mere mortals. Your antagonist is not an ignorant guy but definitely has a temper problem and somehow can't manage to disagree without denigrating and despising and insulting. That's been a running problem in these conversations for as long as I've been following them. Usually, the interesting comments outweigh the dreck. The rest of the time, I just put on my boots and step over it. I don't pretend to have any solutions to offer to the distressing scenarios we're seeing unfolding in so many parts of the world. My main concern is often just to push people a bit to see the ugly facts and then draw appropriate conclusions. So many among us want to believe that everything is groovy, and they have all kinds of names for those who point out unpleasant truths.

- willjames77

January 29, 2012 at 5:52pm

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

irony, it's also been years since I read Nabokov. But I remember having the opinion during my grad school days that he and Conrad were the two finest English prose stylists. And I attributed their virtuosity in some measure to the fact that they both learned English as a second language. They both wrote without ever lapsing into cliche, possibly because they never were at home enough with the language to use it unconsciously. Yeah, Pale Fire is a hoot. (n.b. I have since revised my opinions regarding the occasional use of cliche...)

- willjames77

January 29, 2012 at 6:01pm

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

"I live near and interact with many old hippy 'peace and love' pacifists who tell me violence and guns are never the answer. Perhaps if they had been around during the time of the “War Between the States,” they would have told Lincoln not to declare war." Needless to say, skahn, had the pacifists had their way during the last world war, German would be the national language of Europe today, and not a single Jew there would be alive.

- willjames77

January 30, 2012 at 5:49am

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

willjames: "the intensity of [my] antipathy toward Romney" is in this order: 1) intense disdain for Harvard MBAs who engaged in even one Private Equity Leveraged Buyout that destroyed any industrial company since 1978 - the most immoral and unethical waste of capital in a completely unnecessary destruction of America's manufacturers whose only "failure" was to not be profitable "enough" (I have gone into detail elsewhere - a bit in Peretz's "Epstein" thread, 2) disgust with someone whose personal ambition to be President has meant all he has done for five years is run for President. If he cares so much about the economy, why not DO SOMETHING creative to help in past five years? At the last GOP debate, Romney still only offers his resume as rationale - and I completely disagree that he understands the REAL economy, only immoral and unethical financial engineering; 3) absence of any qualities that inspire confidence, or leadership. His tension is contagious. He has never played a team sport. He is a bully with a glass jaw who would never risk anything, no personal courage. 4) the waffling on every possible issue, including apartments in Jerusalem (sorry - no time to find the transcript of his Yom Kippur, 2011 interview with Judy Woodruff on PBS NewsHour, where she asked him three times and he refused to answer if he thinks apartments in 'east' Jerusalem are "settlements". 5) dragging his wife Ann onto the campaign trail when it became politically expedient for her to 'humanize' him by discussing her multiple sclerosis, currently in remission. 6) that neither Mitt nor his five adult sons ever contemplated military service, not even the National Guard or Reserves. That Mitt never engaged in a single team sport - in prep school, he did some solo cross-counrty running. 7) Foreign Policy? at a major staged speech at Charleston, SC's The Citadel, maybe in September, Romney embraced full metal Neoconism. The same as Bush43, who I consider a failed two-term president, but at least his wife Laura is smart and delightful, and not used as a campaign prop. I do not trust a single word that Mitt Romney says, about anything. I am not sure I would even feel ok if he was SecTreas, because he inspires ZERO confidence. As a corollary, I had no idea why Herman Cain had any credibility on any issue, but at least I could see him in charge of the USDAgriculture's School Lunch Progam. The only remaining GOP candidate who is a real danger is Ron Paul, but at least that is because of his firm belief in dangerous policies. I agree with Paul on the War on Drugs (abysmal failure) and the Patriot Act (mostly the bits about library books and internet searches), but Romney does not lay a finger on Ron Paul. Why? Because part of Romney's plan to buy the nomination is to make him seem the safe alternative to Ron Paul, who, for reasons of his own strategy (which is a brokered convention from which the nominee Rand Paul emerges), has not yet laid an attack on Romney.

- K2K

January 30, 2012 at 9:20am

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

irony: the Armenian diaspora is far flung beyond Glendale, California. The Jews need an alternative for the global conspiracy theorists who like to blame everything on a religious minority that is globally cosmopolitan and financially successful. skahn: "Did someone (perhas George, or Ben, or James, or Alexander] say to Tom, “Great writing on that Dec of Independence document; perhaps you ought to free your own slaves and stop screwing that Sally wench, just saying, Tom?” The answer is YES, Abigail Adams expressed that concern about the Virginians at the 1776 Congress re: not being reliable on liberty when they owned slaves, in her letters to John Adams. Abigail did not mention Sally Hemings because Mrs. Jefferson was still alive, but those same letters to John were very much about "Remember the Ladies" when considering ending the Tyranny of Men. One of my favorite parts about the northern Peace Democrats aka Copperheads during America's Civil War was when NYC Mayor Fernando Wood tried to secede with the Confederacy. Cotton trade was cenral to NYC economy at the time. And, by 1864, Lincoln failed to get the Republican Party nomination due to their split on a peace settlement. Lincoln actually won as a 3rd party candidate, which is how we got stuck with Andrew Johnson, who continues to ranked the absolute worst president in US history.

- K2K

January 30, 2012 at 9:45am

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

Thanks for the Romney summary, K2K. That was helpful. A "bully with a glass jaw". Great line - I'll have to remember that one!

- willjames77

January 30, 2012 at 4:00pm

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close