The New Republic

Great piece. Thank you.

- MOLLYSIMON

February 4, 2011 at 12:39pm

Good point about Mubarak's fall putting the 1978 agreement in question. I suspect you're putting way too much weight on what the Palestinian leadership might have been willing to agree to. First of all, though they SAY they might concede, actually being ABLE to concede is quite a jump. Yet your characterization of Netanyahu as "irresponsible" hinges on that jump. I agree though, this is a very delicate time for Israel, depending on what people and attitudes inform the new Egyptian government.

- AllanL5

February 4, 2011 at 12:44pm

I heard some guy on a BBC panel this morning explaining that the treaty between Egypt and Israel was bad because it upset the balance of power in the Middle East. He claimed that the treaty permitted Israel to attack Lebanon and that the Middle East would be better off if Israel had more enemies. I did not catch his name.

- Nusholtz

February 4, 2011 at 12:47pm

As MollySimon wrote, thanks for giving clear articulation to my own thoughts. As a supporter of the Jewish State, I listen to Netanyahu and feel sick. My friend, Yariv, of half Yemenite/half Polish background who grew up on the streets of Tel Aviv, jokes that Israeli politics are screwed primarily because of one dynamic; the political class has, what he calls "the baba ganush addiction." Specifically, it's a bunch of power-hungry guys (and a few women) who love to be at the cocktail parties and meetings where things get done. They're hungry not to impact change but to eat more baba ganush and be part of the meetings. There is no vision - no end game. Just eternal politicking. And Israelis keep them in office because they have swallowed all the fear mongering. Which itself is addictive and is reinforced by anti-Jewish bigotry of their enemies. Obviously the rockets of Hezbollah and the Iranian leadership sickness doesn't help. But Israel is infected, itself. I always thought that so long as self-hatred lived among the Jews that Hitler had won. In some way, Hezbollah wins with men like Netanyahu leading Israel, because he's leading it nowhere else but war.

- sollyman2

February 4, 2011 at 12:59pm

"Why in Herzl’s name would Netanyahu wish to alienate the Palestinians in the West Bank now? The answer, of course, is that he wishes to alienate them always. “Israel Digs in On Peace Process With Egypt in Turmoil,” The New York Times reported last week. But Netanyahu was dug in on the peace process also before Egypt was in turmoil. Whatever he says, his history shows that in his view the time is never right." _________________ Now start counting the minutes for the Spine refugees to arrive and pour their bile out upon Wieseltier for daring to utter the truth. For all his evenhandness about the right and the left in his closing words, the left to which Wieseltier refers, at least in America, is but a tiny fringe. Unfortunately, the right to which he also refers comprises the entire American right., but for a tiny fringe.

- roidubouloi

February 4, 2011 at 1:11pm

For once I agree wholeheartedly with Leon Wieseltier. Netanyahu is a disaster, and is leading Israel to disaster. I have family in Jerusalem and am terrified for them; they are dual citizens and I would give anything to be able to convince them to come here where I can keep them safe. Yet not long ago, just a few years now, I actually considered buying a small pied a terre in Tel Aviv or Jreusalem because things were improving and I love to visit. Not anymore; and Egypt has nothing to do with it. It is Israel that gives me pause. I do wish the Egyptian people well, though, and hope they will still help to keep the peace.

- kimberly

February 4, 2011 at 1:54pm

"The Al Jazeera leaks and the Olmert memoirs have abundantly demonstrated that the Palestinian Authority has been capable of significant concessions in the pursuit of a deal." According to Olmert's memoirs, agreement was within very easy reach of Abbass' hand: Offered a pen, he refused to sign. How could he? All you need to look at is the reaction in the "ARAB street" to the (as yet to be validated) Al-Jazeera leaks. http://www.zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2011/01/25/the-curious-concessions-of-the-palestinian-papers/ "The veracity of the papers is doubtful, though they are probably close to some version of the truth. That is, some like the proposals were discussed perhaps. They may have been hypothetical. One Israeli theory is that they are the notes of a dissident pro-Hamas negotiator, intent on embarrassing the Palestinian Authority. The absence of any Israeli concessions is suspicious: Bernard Avishai, an Israeli writer who has interviewed Mr. Olmert and Mr. Abbas on the deal that they nearly reached, said the only thing that surprised him in the leaks was what was left out: “They focus on Palestinian concessions without presenting the other side of the negotiations. The Palestinians were going to get a great deal for their concessions.” None of the enticing and imaginative scenarios so far discussed in these papers ever actually took place. For example, Israel did not negotiate peace with Syria and did not give up the Golan Heights. No peace deal of any kind was concluded between Israel and the Palestinians. All these “revelations” could have the same truth value as the tales of the 1001 Arabian Nights. Having been published, there is no doubt that these “documents” will be used as “evidence” in someone’s narrative. That does not mean any of it ever happened. The motives behind the publication of the “documents” by Al-Jazeera and by the Guardian terror groupies are fairly transparent. If anyone misses the point, two op-eds in Al Jazeeragive the message that the release of the the documents was meant to convey: The US-backed Palestinian Authority leadership betrayed the Palestinian people and the U.S.-backed peace process and the two-state solution is at a dead end. Matched set, lock-step editorials in The Guardian announced “Secret papers reveal slow death of Middle East peace process” and “Palestinian leaders weak – and increasingly desperate.” Officials of the Palestinian Authority protested that Al-Jazeera declared war on the Palestinians. The Palestinian Authority has undertaken a bitter campaign against Al Jazeera and Qatar. It is likely that Qatar, which has aligned itself with Iran and its Hamas and Hezbollah clients, has declared war on the Saudis, and on the U.S.-backed Palestinian Authority and the peace negotiations. Israeli government officials involved in these negotiations are sworn to secrecy. This is an inter-Arab fight of a type that had to erupt sooner or later. Inevitably, the documents raised a chorus of reflex anti-Israel criticism in the West, but that was not the purpose of their publication, which was intended to assert the Hamas agenda and to kill the peace process in the Arab arena. Evidenty it was successful. "

- noga1

February 4, 2011 at 2:23pm

"It is painful, for someone who admires the Jewish state for its democratic character, to see it emerge as an enemy of democratization. Jews should not rely on Pharaohs." In what way is Israel is now "an enemy of democratization"? Because it doesn't rush to divest itself of any consideration to Mubarak? What's the rush to jump on this rather dubious bandwagon, anyway? Democratization is a worthy cause when it is a genuine movement. It is not a worthy cause when it uses a term to conceal a very different kind of movement. Wieseltier ought to learn from Michel Foucault's experience with "democratizing movement"s: http://ww3.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue37/Afary37.htm "The Iranian experience also raises some serious questions about Foucault's thought. First, it is often assumed that Foucault's suspicion of utopianism, his hostility to grand narratives and universals, and his stress on difference and singularity rather than totality, would make him less likely than his predecessors on the left to romanticize an authoritarian politics that promised radically to refashion from above the lives and thought of a people, for their ostensible benefit. However, his Iran writings showed that Foucault was not immune to the type of illusions that so many Western leftists had held toward the Soviet Union and later, China. Foucault did not anticipate the birth of yet another modern state where old religious technologies of domination could be refashioned and institutionalized; this was a state that combined a traditionalist ideology (Islam) with the anti- imperialist discourse of the left, but also equipped itself with modern technologies of organization, surveillance, warfare, and propaganda." ________________ Here is Benny Morris in the Guardian, explaining why there should be some cincumspection in endorsing this "revolution": http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/03/egypt-muslim-brotherhood-west-democracy "But it has endorsed Mohamed ElBaradei as its choice to head a transitional regime. He is not exactly a household name in Egypt – he has lived abroad for the past three decades. As the head of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), a position he left in November 2009, he was frequently critical of the United States and Israel and was seen by some as an appeaser of Iran. No doubt his behaviour appealed to Egypt's Islamists. But ElBaradei is western-educated and appears to be a secularist, and he is likely to be shunted aside by the religious fanatics once they feel confident enough to emerge from the shadows. ElBaradei will then have filled the role of the Mensheviks, who paved the way for the eventual Bolshevik takeover of Russia in 1917. For now, the Brotherhood will be satisfied with toppling the hated Mubarak regime, which, following the Gamal Abdel Nasser (1954-1970) and Anwar Sadat (1970-1981) regimes, has serially imprisoned and tortured the Brotherhood's cadres for decades. Above all, the organisation no doubt wants the prospective interim regime to organise and oversee free and fair general elections, say in six months' time. But once the campaigning for these elections gets under way, we will see the country awash with Muslim Brotherhood activists and placards, broadcasts and sermons; perhaps even a measure of intimidation and violence. The Brotherhood's aim is to take over the state through the democratic process, and is likely, as one of its first acts, to annul Egypt's 1979 peace treaty with Israel. It is possible that the movement will follow the model of Turkey's Islamists and try to follow democratic norms and adopt a stance of neutrality between Iran and the west. But it is more likely, given Egypt's position and history, and its own history, that the Brotherhood will follow the model of Iran and the Gaza Hamas. Both have employed extreme violence to crush their potential and real rivals to maintain power. The Brotherhood is anything if not patient. It has looked to take over, and "purify", Egypt since the movement's foundation by Hassan al-Banna in 1928. Given the power of its enemies and the state's institutions, the movement's leadership has traditionally advocated a non-violent route to power (it was usually the movement's more impatient breakaways, like the Jama'a al Islamiyya, who murdered Sadat in 1981, who went in for blatant violence). But observers in the west should not delude themselves. This is not a movement for which democracy has any appeal, worth or value. Its leaders see democratic processes merely as means to an end, an end that includes an end to democracy."

- noga1

February 4, 2011 at 3:10pm

Wieseltier ought to learn from Michel Foucault's experience with "democratizing movement"s: http://ww3.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue37/Afary37.htm "The Iranian experience also raises some serious questions about Foucault's thought. First, it is often assumed that Foucault's suspicion of utopianism, his hostility to grand narratives and universals, and his stress on difference and singularity rather than totality, would make him less likely than his predecessors on the left to romanticize an authoritarian politics that promised radically to refashion from above the lives and thought of a people, for their ostensible benefit. However, his Iran writings showed that Foucault was not immune to the type of illusions that so many Western leftists had held toward the Soviet Union and later, China. Foucault did not anticipate the birth of yet another modern state where old religious technologies of domination could be refashioned and institutionalized; this was a state that combined a traditionalist ideology (Islam) with the anti- imperialist discourse of the left, but also equipped itself with modern technologies of organization, surveillance, warfare, and propaganda." ________________ Here is Benny Morris in the Guardian, explaining why there should be some cincumspection in endorsing this "revolution": http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/03/egypt-muslim-brotherhood-west-democracy "But it has endorsed Mohamed ElBaradei as its choice to head a transitional regime. He is not exactly a household name in Egypt – he has lived abroad for the past three decades. As the head of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), a position he left in November 2009, he was frequently critical of the United States and Israel and was seen by some as an appeaser of Iran. No doubt his behaviour appealed to Egypt's Islamists. But ElBaradei is western-educated and appears to be a secularist, and he is likely to be shunted aside by the religious fanatics once they feel confident enough to emerge from the shadows. ElBaradei will then have filled the role of the Mensheviks, who paved the way for the eventual Bolshevik takeover of Russia in 1917. For now, the Brotherhood will be satisfied with toppling the hated Mubarak regime, which, following the Gamal Abdel Nasser (1954-1970) and Anwar Sadat (1970-1981) regimes, has serially imprisoned and tortured the Brotherhood's cadres for decades. Above all, the organisation no doubt wants the prospective interim regime to organise and oversee free and fair general elections, say in six months' time. But once the campaigning for these elections gets under way, we will see the country awash with Muslim Brotherhood activists and placards, broadcasts and sermons; perhaps even a measure of intimidation and violence. The Brotherhood's aim is to take over the state through the democratic process, and is likely, as one of its first acts, to annul Egypt's 1979 peace treaty with Israel. It is possible that the movement will follow the model of Turkey's Islamists and try to follow democratic norms and adopt a stance of neutrality between Iran and the west. But it is more likely, given Egypt's position and history, and its own history, that the Brotherhood will follow the model of Iran and the Gaza Hamas. Both have employed extreme violence to crush their potential and real rivals to maintain power. The Brotherhood is anything if not patient. It has looked to take over, and "purify", Egypt since the movement's foundation by Hassan al-Banna in 1928. Given the power of its enemies and the state's institutions, the movement's leadership has traditionally advocated a non-violent route to power (it was usually the movement's more impatient breakaways, like the Jama'a al Islamiyya, who murdered Sadat in 1981, who went in for blatant violence). But observers in the west should not delude themselves. This is not a movement for which democracy has any appeal, worth or value. Its leaders see democratic processes merely as means to an end, an end that includes an end to democracy."

- noga1

February 4, 2011 at 3:11pm

Revolution?

- Bukharin

February 4, 2011 at 3:19pm

Here is an op ed piece by Aaron David Miller: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/04/AR2011020402774.html “For Egyptians, who hunger for freedom and better governance, democracy will probably secure a brighter future. For America, Egyptian democracy, however welcome in principle, will significantly narrow the political space in which U.S. administrations operate in the region. On any number of fronts, a more representative Egypt will be far less forgiving and supportive of Washington. On U.S. efforts to contain Iran, on the Middle East peace process, on the battle against terrorism and Islamic radicalism - especially if Egypt's own Islamists are part of the new governing structure - there is a great deal of uncertainty about how much cooperation we can expect. The irony is that the challenges a new Egypt will pose to America and Israel won't come from the worst-case scenarios imagined by frantic policymakers and intelligence analysts - an extremist Muslim takeover, an abrogation of peace treaties, the closing of the Suez Canal - but from the very values of participatory government and free speech that free societies so cherish. In a more open Egypt, diverse voices reflecting Islamist currents and secular nationalists will be louder. And by definition, these voices will be more critical of America and Israel.” Via: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0211/Egyptian_democracy.html It is obvious that the threat of “democracy” to Israel comes from the Arab masses as well as from some of their governments. The social atmosphere in Egypt and elsewhere is anti-Jewish. This is not surprising since the governments in Egypt and Jordan while at peace with Israel did not attempt to address such hatred. Mubarak contributed to this state of affairs, but Wieseltier is also right to point out Netanyahu’s own contribution to this state of affairs by offering excuses rather than a credible peace plan. In itself this wouldn’t curtail the anti-Jewish hysteria in the Arab world, but it would have taken away an important excuse for this hatred.

- arnon

February 4, 2011 at 4:37pm

Another version of "democratizing movements" a la Bernard Lewis: "One man, one vote, one time."

- basman

February 4, 2011 at 4:56pm

It didn't take long for all the "experts" to come out of the woodwork. Full of self righteousness and sanctimony they are preaching to the Israelis. Pretending to know what will be the consequences of the riots in Egypt they already tell us that it will be not as bad as we suspect. They are trying to convince everybody that Muslim Brotherhood is not as bad as we thought it was, it was cleansed after all by the democratizing and oh so important speech of President Obama in Cairo. Who could resist the cleansing experience of this speech? And even if they were not democratized, they don't want any power and control, well maybe yes, but not really. And after all " White House will be cunning enough to prevent it from becoming a Muslim Brotherhood government". And so on and so on. To this one must say-kalam fadi. And therefore, after returning the entire Sinai peninsula to Egypt, after withdrawing it's forces and settlers from Aza and getting missiles in return, Israel must take additional risks with with the Palestinians just because the peace with Egypt seems to be in jeopardy? And why? Because the Palestinian leadership has been exposed as spineless bunch of liars and losers who talk one thing to their Israeli interlocutors and something completely else to their Palestinian and Arab brothers. Oh no, they never said this or that. This is just Al Jazeera's lies. To claim that Israel missed any opportunities is to misunderstand the situation completely. I agree, to defend Natanyahu and Barak is difficult indeed. Barak is brilliant strategist and brilliant military leader who is nevertheless infected by hubris, thinking that he is Julius Ceasar. For him "sic transit gloriam mundi" is an appropriate. And Natanyahu should better control the lunatic fringe of his party. However now is not the time to take risks. Now is the time to wait and see.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

February 4, 2011 at 5:20pm

I think that democracy is in some ways a collective self-education process, and Egyptians are going through a version of that now. We don't know how or where or whether it will terminate. There is always a possibility, if the civic culture and the experience is not there, that a nation can become an open-air theater for paranoia and extremism. However, dictatorships are even better locations for breeding those pathologies, and thus an Egypt with a more open political system and media landscape can develop protections against them. Not a certainty, but still. However, there is probably a situation not dissimilar to Iran in 2009: Mubarak and the system are not without support. Probably less support than Achmedinejad enjoyed, as the economy doesn't suck as much in Iran. In a surge of enthusiasm for the anti-regime movements, one shouldn't forget that they don't necessarily represent 51% of the population. As someone pointed out elsewhere, the Muslim Brotherhood has been around for about 70 years and yet has really failed to put its stamp on Egyptian politics. Its recent rise in prominence has been 90% enabled by Mubarak's suffocation of all other roads to democratic political expression. As Fouad Ajami (whom I normally disagree with) said on Charlie Rose the other night -- it is the re-entry of the Egyptian people into their history, and that looks like an irreversible process.

- ironyroad

February 4, 2011 at 5:40pm

What am I missing? I thought , most broadly, that Olmert and Livni spent about two years trying to make a deal with Abbas. offered him "everything," and more than Barak had, and could get nowhere. Is my broad general understanding wrong?

- basman

February 4, 2011 at 5:43pm

irony: http://youtu.be/cjI4p8_NZVc

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

February 4, 2011 at 5:45pm

"it is the re-entry of the Egyptian people into their history, and that looks like an irreversible process." The Egyptians had many "irreversible processes" that were promptly reversed.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

February 4, 2011 at 5:49pm

basman: You are not missing anything. Your description is absolutely correct.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

February 4, 2011 at 5:53pm

Leon, great piece, but the western border of Israel is the Mediterranean sea. Not sure what Iranians are doing out there, but perhaps you were referring to its Eastern border?

- nbbrown

February 4, 2011 at 6:08pm

"It didn't take long for all the "experts" to come out of the woodwork. Full of self righteousness and sanctimony they are preaching to the Israelis. Pretending to know what will be the consequences of the riots in Egypt they already tell us that it will be not as bad as we suspect. They are trying to convince everybody that Muslim Brotherhood is not as bad as we thought it was, it" This is certainly the case and it reminds one of the way governments and some intellectuals tried to convince themselves that the National Socialists, after they formed a government were not as bad as the Jews feared. “"and therefore, after returning the entire Sinai peninsula to Egypt, after withdrawing it's forces and settlers from Aza and getting missiles in return, Israel must take additional risks with with the Palestinians just because the peace with Egypt seems to be in jeopardy? “ I think you have it backwards, peace with the Palestinians is an end in itself. It is the right thing to achieve if it can be achieved. I don’t see how Barak fits into this discussion. He is not the PM. Whatever happens in Egypt tomorrow might have easier for Israel to bear if it had come to some kind of understanding with the Palestinians.

- arnon

February 4, 2011 at 6:18pm

“it is the re-entry of the Egyptian people into their history, and that looks like an irreversible process." I don’t who came up with this glib phrase but it doesn’t make sense. It offers us a strange definition of history. In what way were the Egyptians outside history before the demonstrations of Mubarak broke out?

- arnon

February 4, 2011 at 6:23pm

“I think that democracy is in some ways a collective self-education process, and Egyptians are going through a version of that now.” The weasel phrase “in some ways” doesn’t justify the idea that democracy is a “collective education process.” Probably most Americans are ignorant of what democracy is, yet we still live in a democratic country. For democracy to become reality democratic institutions like an independent judiciary is more important than “a collective education process.”

- arnon

February 4, 2011 at 6:28pm

Why is "in some ways" a weasel phrase, arnon? And why do you think that the phrase is a "justification" for the descriptive term that comes after it when it's obviously a qualification? Would "to a certain extent" do the job better? I wanted a qualifer because I don't think democratic action is entirely a collective education process, so "in some ways" offered itself as a suitable candidate. What Ajami meant about "reentering history" is surely not so difficult to grasp: in an authoritarian system or a dictatorship most people can't risk public involvement in politics and have no way of influencing their government's policy on various crucial issues. In a democratic system, the potential for such influence is there, or at least for accountability on the part of an elected government (clearly policy isn't done by daily plebescite). Thus Egyptians have been moving from a situation in which they had basically nothing to say and nowhere they could say it to at least an imagined situation where they took the responsibility on their shoulders to express themselves on the state of their nation. makeover: True, it's all been downhill since Rameses III (I don't know if there was a Rameses III or not, I'm just guessing).

- ironyroad

February 4, 2011 at 7:14pm

"Thus Egyptians have been moving from a situation in which they had basically nothing to say and nowhere they could say it to at least an imagined situation where they took the responsibility on their shoulders to express themselves on the state of their nation." A few years ago I read in interview with some Arab intellectual who said that in Egypt you could say anything about anything except for one subject: Mubarak and his family*. Thus when Mubarak was once asked, in a charlie rose interview, why he did not do anything to curb the outpouring in Egyptian media of antisemitic canards that Egyptians like to lap up as "legitimate criticism of Israel", he smirked and said he couldn't interfere with the media's freedom of speech. I took that to mean that he approved of such indoctrinated hatred. I presume because it kept the populace happily engaged elsewhere so that they wouldn't notice that he was grooming his son to be his successor. My theory is that this tactic boomeranged. The hatred towards Israel reached a certain critical mass, like some huge carbuncle full of poison that had to rupture under its own weight. Since they cannot do anything about their hatred for Israel, they turned it on their leader and his many corruptions. A classical Freudian case of displacement, only massively so. Had Mubarak taken steps to curb the Der Sturmer-quality antisemitism in Egypt, had he done so in a properly educative manner, teaching his people that this kind of hatred was uncivilized and ill-fitting to a people of such presumptions, the way might have been paved towards to a more democratic ethos, an event that Israelis would have welcomed. As it is, I think, Wieseltier's attempt to paint Israel as "anti-democratic" for failing to cheer on "democracy" to a deeply antisemitic, hate-filled, superstitious, reckless populace is a rather shabby trick. Israel is not to blame for what is happening in Egypt, nor are Israelis to blame for not joining in the general celebrations. _____ * a few years ago the israeli comedian Yatzpan made a series of skits in which he satirized Mubarak. Il Rais was offended and appealed to Sharon to put a stop to it. Here is one of those skits, featured on Sandmonkey, the Egyptian blogger: http://www.sandmonkey.org/2006/08/07/yatzpan-does-mubarak/

- noga1

February 4, 2011 at 7:46pm

"Why is "in some ways" a weasel phrase, arnon?" Because it could mean anything. "What Ajami meant about "reentering history" is surely not so difficult to grasp: in an authoritarian system or a dictatorship most people can't risk public involvement in politics and have no way of influencing their government's policy on various crucial issues." So, according to this guy Ajami China hasn't yet entered history, and Russia had no history till the Soviet Union collapsed and stopped having a history when Putin go into power. This idea doesn't make sense to me.

- arnon

February 4, 2011 at 8:05pm

...My theory is that this tactic boomeranged... This theory and its subsequent elaboration in 02/04/2011 - 7:46pm EDT is truly the most bizarre account of what's happening in Egypt that I have read anywhere in any responsible media.

- basman

February 4, 2011 at 8:25pm

arnon, "in some ways" means "to a certain extent" = not in every way. It doesn't "mean anything." No that's not -- as far as I can judge -- what he meant. He was distinguishing between the population of a country and the political system that it inhabits and discussing the Soviet Union and China would require some nuances at least. I should note that Ajami was one of the most enthusiastic supporters of the Iraq invasion, so from my point of view, he doesn't have the best track record. But if you want to see his extended comments in the discussion with the NYT's Anthony Shadid and others, then they are here: http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11439 Noga, I don't think anyone -- apart from some pro-Mubarak forces in Egypt itself who are trying out the nationalist paranoia line -- is "blaming" Israel for what's going on in Egypt, which is a result of what was going on in Tunisia, which was a combination of public anger at a triggering event and a corrupt oligarchy looking suddenly weak and vulnerable. Indeed, "blame" is an odd word to use when such a broad array of voices across the political spectrum seem to be supportive of Egyptians' desire for something different. That doesn't change the fact, however, that Mubarak was Israel's partner-in-chief in the security configuration of the past 25 years or so. If I were in Israel, I would not be cluelessly optimistic about the changes that might come; neither, however, is painting a catastrophic picture as if it were a betting certainty a good idea. I don't know about "feckless," but so far Egyptians seem to be showing a lot of maturity and self-control and Mubarak's attempt to plunge the country into chaos seems not to have worked the way he planned.

- ironyroad

February 4, 2011 at 9:03pm

Sorry -- I don't know what happened there, but my second comment (for Noga) was more or less as follows: I don't think "blame" is relevant here and I haven't heard anyone use that term in relation to Israel, or at most as an implication at second remove where the U.S. is made responsible for Mubarak's regime. I don't see any evidence that in the real world the Egyptian events, which were caused by the Tunisian upheaval, had anything whatsoever to do with Israel. There has been, of course, one exception: the pro-Mubarak camp has been trying to use the national paranoia line, claiming that foreigners (read the U.S., Israel) are trying to destroy Egyptian national autonomy. The "feckless" Egyptians seem to be acting with a fair amount of maturity so far, at least.

- ironyroad

February 4, 2011 at 9:09pm

I am not paying Charlie Rose any money just to listen to him. Bad enough I can't avoid hearing or reading about what he and his guests babbling.

- arnon

February 4, 2011 at 9:11pm

"This idea doesn't make sense to me." If you ever read or heard Fouad Ajami, you would know that this is just the kind of thing he likes to say. He speaks in Arabesque style, full of the cadence of wit and flourish you can find in classical Arab writings. It's his schtick. I am a great fan of Ajami so I usually pay attention when he speaks. He went from describing Mubarak as a thuggish policeman (which sounded plausible) to describing him as a brutal despot. So one wonders, which is closer to reality and why he changed his mind from one day to the next. Perhaps Ajami is being nostalgic about his more youthful inclination, when as a young idealist Arab from South Lebanon he got carried away by the intoxicating fumes of Nasserite pan-Arabism.

- noga1

February 4, 2011 at 9:14pm

"There has been, of course, one exception: the pro-Mubarak camp has been trying to use the national paranoia line, claiming that foreigners (read the U.S., Israel) are trying to destroy Egyptian national autonomy. The "feckless" Egyptians seem to be acting with a fair amount of maturity so far, at least." I did read about this. My reaction was that if the Mubarak regime thinks that it can retain power by turning on Israel they in dire straits indeed.

- arnon

February 4, 2011 at 9:15pm

"I don't think "blame" is relevant here " What do you think Wieseltier meant when he wrote: "It is painful, for someone who admires the Jewish state for its democratic character, to see it emerge as an enemy of democratization. Jews should not rely on Pharaohs." He seems sooo agonized that Israelis are not swooning with joy over the "democratization" of Egyptians.

- noga1

February 4, 2011 at 9:25pm

"The Dangers of Taking Events in Egypt at Face Value" http://www.nationalreview.com/david-pryce-jones "When President Obama and Prime Minister Cameron and their spokesmen come out with denunciations of Mubarak, threaten to cut off aid, and speechify about “orderly transition” as though it were some Holy Grail, they are taking the events unfolding before them at face value. Their haste to jump to conclusions that don’t correspond to the situation is partly the fault of the Euro-centric perspectives that the media pump up, and partly stems from ignorance about the invisible springs of action in the authoritarian Arab state. These Western leaders look like earning the contempt of those in power and those seeking to wrest power. A remarkable achievement."

- noga1

February 4, 2011 at 9:30pm

This is the best description of the "demonstrations" I've seen. "The Story of the Egyptian Revolution" by Samuel Tadros http://www.telospress.com/main/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=416&zenid=bdb8d9ab4256f73fda598ccab475c6dd

- arnon

February 4, 2011 at 9:55pm

I'd like to apologize, arnon. I didn't know. Perhaps if you let us have a list of the references and media broadcasts you don't like, we'll try to avoid referring to them or mentioning them in our posts in the future.

- ironyroad

February 4, 2011 at 10:11pm

Nathan Sharansky is not quite so pessimistic: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704150104576122882240386172.html "Even if the U.S. embraces linkage, Egypt's September election could be quite problematic. "Only when the basic institutions that protect a free society are firmly in place—such as a free press, the rule of law, independent courts, political parties—can free elections be held," Mr. Sharansky wrote in "The Case for Democracy." In Egypt, those "free, developed institutions," he tells me, "will not be developed by September." What can develop over the next eight months, Mr. Sharansky says, is a U.S. policy making clear that "whoever is elected cannot continue to survive—he cannot continue to rely on the assistance of the free world in defense, economics, anything—if democratic reforms are not continued and if democratic institutions are not built." After several years of such democracy-building, he says, when dissidents like Mr. Ibrahim enjoy the ability to build institutions like trade unions and women's organizations, "then in a few years you'll have a different country, and you can have really free elections." For this to happen, "there must be consistent policy in the free world," says Mr. Sharansky. That means "no compromise for the sake of stability with those who will come to power—and who, inevitably, if they have the opportunity to lead as dictators, will try to lead as dictators." "There is a real chance now," he says. "And the fact that it happened with the country which has the [second-] biggest level of assistance from the United States makes this chance for success even bigger if the leaders of the free world—and first of all the United States of America—play it right." What shouldn't happen is a repeat of the 2006 election in Gaza, when Hamas won office without demonstrating any commitment to democracy, and Palestinian society had no checks in place to prevent the outcome from being one man, one vote, one time. But the Gaza scenario seems unlikely in Egypt, says Mr. Sharansky. "Hamas really used a unique opportunity. First of all, there was the policy of Yasser Arafat, who really turned the daily life of Palestinians into a mafia [environment] with racket money paid by all the population to the leaders. That's why you saw when there were elections, many Christian villages like Taiba were voting for Hamas. Why is a Christian village voting for Islamic fundamentalists? Because they were like the Magnificent Seven, saving the village from the mafia. . . . Second, geographically, it was like there was a special closed area, Gaza, which was brought [to Hamas] on a plate by us." So can the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt replicate Hamas's electoral coup in Gaza? "Only in one case: if the systematic practice of keeping people under dictatorship—so the dictatorship becomes more and more cruel against any dissident thinking— continues and strengthens. Then it'll unite people more and more around the only force which can resist this and get military and organizational and financial support: the Muslim Brothers. . . . "

- noga1

February 4, 2011 at 10:31pm

"I'd like to apologize, arnon" apology accepted.

- arnon

February 4, 2011 at 10:41pm

arnon, I'm so relieved. So what's on your list?

- ironyroad

February 4, 2011 at 11:23pm

Anything you post, ironyroadster.

- arnon

February 5, 2011 at 12:03am

Oh ok. Pity. Well, as the actress said to the bishop: I did try.

- ironyroad

February 5, 2011 at 12:27am

Yes, Olmert offered Abbas "everything," except he forgot to include either withdrawing from or submitting to Palestinian jurisdiction the illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank. These of course are nothing. Hence, despite their omission from the territory of Palestine, Israelis will claim with hands on their hearts, to have offered Abbas everything. Indeed, it is precisely because they are of such little account, a nothing of a nothingness, that Israel insists on keeping them as a condition for making peace. Israel prefers the land it occupies in the West Bank to peace, a truth that no amount of self-serving rhetoric can conceal from the world outside Israel. It is not necessary for us to lecture Israelis. It is simply necessary for us to stop providing the political, diplomatic, and military support for their excellent little colonial adventure, an adventure that they could not sustain for more than a few moments without that support.

- roidubouloi

February 5, 2011 at 12:44am

whilst the literary editor of TNR dives into the meaning of the protests of a small slice of Egypt's population, amplified out of proportion by the news media, and not enough, so far, attention to the "it's the economy, stupid", my favorite reads this week: "Egypt's Economic Apartheid" FEBRUARY 3, 2011 WSJ. By HERNANDO DE SOTO [Peruvian economist] "More than 90% of Egyptians hold their property without legal title. No wonder they can't build wealth and have lost hope." "...The Egyptian government has long been concerned about the consequences of this marginalization. In 1997, with the financial support of the U.S. Agency for International Development, the government hired my organization, the Institute for Liberty and Democracy. It wanted to get the numbers on how many Egyptians were marginalized and how much of the economy operated "extralegally"—that is, without the protections of property rights or access to normal business tools, such as credit, that allow businesses to expand and prosper. The objective was to remove the legal impediments holding back people and their businesses. After years of fieldwork and analysis—involving over 120 Egyptian and Peruvian technicians with the participation of 300 local leaders and interviews with thousands of ordinary people—we presented a 1,000-page report and a 20-point action plan to the 11-member economic cabinet in 2004. The report was championed by Minister of Finance Muhammad Medhat Hassanein, and the cabinet approved its policy recommendations. Egypt's major newspaper, Al Ahram, declared that the reforms "would open the doors of history for Egypt." Then, as a result of a cabinet shakeup, Mr. Hassanein was ousted. Hidden forces of the status quo blocked crucial elements of the reforms. ..." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704358704576118683913032882.html "Food and failed Arab states" Feb 2, 2011 By Spengler [channeled by David Goldman] "Even Islamists have to eat. It is unclear whether President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt will survive, or whether his nationalist regime will be replaced by an Islamist, democratic, or authoritarian state. What is certain is that it will be a failed state. Amid the speculation about the shape of Arab politics to come, a handful of observers, for example economist Nourel Roubini, have pointed to the obvious: Wheat prices have almost doubled in the past year. Egypt is the world's largest wheat importer, beholden to foreign providers for nearly half its total food consumption. Half of Egyptians live on less than $2 a day. Food comprises almost half the country's consumer price index, and much more than half of spending for the poorer half of the country. ..." http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB02Ak01.html [actually quite interesting how Spengler manages to drill down into wheat with excellent charts while including the failure of Mubarak to change public opinion on female gential mutilation as an example of how most Egyptians apparently cling to their traditions.] [Since Egyptian military are heavily invested in tourist development along the Sinai coast, I suspect they will not want to be ordered to war with Israel, assuming the tourists come back]

- K2K

February 5, 2011 at 1:18am

It is very hard for me to imagine Israel as a Jewish state fifty years from now and it's not clear to me that that would be a good thing. My hope would be a pluralistic state that would include all the various people that inhabit Palestine/Israel. The revolution brewing in the Arab world might make this more possible someday. We have demonized the Arabs. I have travelled in the Arab world and I have encountered some of the most generous and kind people I have ever known. That gives me hope.

- paskunac

February 5, 2011 at 6:39am

irony: No Ramses for you but I will give you Cleopatra. Since she was Greek it must be her fault. By the way, wasn't Ramses a name of American brand of condoms? pascudnac: "It is very hard for me to imagine Israel as a Jewish state fifty years from now" Yes , the Arabs have shown how well they "play with others". We are all impressed by their treatments of minorities. We have demonized Arabs? Who is "we"?

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

February 5, 2011 at 7:31am

The best way to describe Wieseltier's J streetishness is quoting the Tanach. "Vyiftach Elohim et pi haaton" (Then God opened the she ass's mouth). "The Palestinians" nation never existed before the 60's and was invented by the Arabs who everywhere want the Jews dead and Israel replaced by a Islamic state even when they have a cold peace with Israel. Arabs created two refugee groups, Arab refugees they refused to absorb while Israel absorbed the more numerous Jewish refugees from all Arab states and Persia. That is where the account should start. In spite of this Israel recognize the Palestinians while the un elected Abbas refuses to recognize the Jewish state of Israel. The PLO and Hamas charters spell out exactly what their aim is: The destruction of Israel and replacing it with an Islamic state. Mr. J street crawl back under your rock!

- Poupic

February 5, 2011 at 10:06am

makover: transnational multi-culturalists (and the Bedouin?) see the world differently from "we" :) "Bedouin Arms Smugglers See Opening in Sinai" FEBRUARY 5, 2011. By MATT BRADLEY in El Arish, Egypt, and JOSHUA MITNICK in Nitzanei Sinai, Israel http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704570104576124363132383924.html "...The isolated Sinai Bedouin—who number in the hundreds of thousands—have long felt mistreated by Egyptian authorities, complaining about heavy-handed treatment by the police and about being excluded from the Sinai Peninsula's recent economic windfall from tourism and mineral resources. Now, some Bedouins say they have been arming themselves to prevent police from returning to the peninsula. "The Bedouin need freedom. They need respect. The Bedouin are not hungry for food, they are hungry for honor," said Mosa Delhi, a Bedouin leader. ... In Sinai, most Bedouin—a largely nomadic ethnic group that live in desert regions across the Middle East—are herders and ranchers, and live isolated lifestyles bound by strict codes of honor and loyalty. They tend to resist national loyalties, choosing instead to hew to tribal alliances and family connections. ... Menachm Zafrir, a former civilian security liaison at the border farming cooperative at Nitzanei Sinai, said he has noticed in the past week that Egyptian border forces are no longer facing toward Israel. They have turned around toward Sinai, he said, "to make sure the Bedouin don't slaughter them.""

- K2K

February 5, 2011 at 10:10am

Hi, There's lot I could say, but I'll refrain except for one thing. You keep referring to the Egypt-Israel peace agreement as taking place in 1978. But the agreement was signed on March 26, 1979. It's a small thing, I know, but still worth pointing out.

- pmchai

February 5, 2011 at 11:26am

Contra poupic, Abbas has repeatedly reaffirmed, specifically in the context of Netanyahu's demand that the Arabs now recognize not only the State of Israel but that Israel is "the Jewish state" (shades of the Iranian theocrats!), the Palestinians' recognition of Israel. Increasingly it seems that the rhetorical defense of Israel depends on an invented history -- that the Palestinians will not recognize Israel, or that Olmert offered them "everything" when he did nothing of the kind. That Israel and its defenders feel compelled to invent facts to support their position is but evidence of how shaky Israel's diplomatic and strategic position has become due to the fecklessness of its right-wing governance and colonial adventurism. Israel has exploited to peace with Egypt not as an opportunity to make peace from a position of strength, but as a license to repress and colonize the Palestinian Arabs (for which purpose it matters not whether they became Palestinians yesterday or 1,000 years ago or do not have any national identity at all -- you don't get to colonize them on the grounds that they have no national identity). Israel policy has been a moral and strategic disaster. Sharon understood and tried to turn back. Netanyahu is far too stupid and too much the coward.

- roidubouloi

February 5, 2011 at 11:38am

“It is very hard for me to imagine Israel as a Jewish state fifty years from now and it's not clear to me that that would be a good thing. My hope would be a pluralistic state that would include all the various people that inhabit Palestine/Israel. The revolution brewing in the Arab world might make this more possible someday.” This is the kind of cliché thinking that doesn’t give one much hope about peace in the region. One state thinking is the kind of thing the anti-Jewish left likes to indulge in. One State doesn’t mean a “pluralistic State.” It means an Arab Muslim dominated state with few rights for the minorities it means a State like Lebanon or Iraq or Egypt where the Christian minority is being slaughtered. The best hope for peace is a two State solution with giving up most of the West Bank and Palestinians refugees being compensated and resettled in the Palestinian or some other Arab State of their choosing.

- arnon

February 5, 2011 at 11:43am

“We have demonized the Arabs. I have travelled in the Arab world and I have encountered some of the most generous and kind people I have ever known. That gives me hope.” I have travelled a little too and every place there were Muslim Arabs the Jews were being demonized and physically attacked by them.

- arnon

February 5, 2011 at 11:45am

"Jewish refugees from all Arab states and Persia. " Jewish refugees from Iran? When did that happen? __________ "Wieseltier's J streetishness " Well said.

- noga1

February 5, 2011 at 11:49am

“… Abbas has repeatedly reaffirmed, specifically in the context of Netanyahu's demand that the Arabs now recognize not only the State of Israel” Both Netanyahu and Abbas are at fault for a lack of agreement. “… that Israel is ‘the Jewish state’…..” Israel is the only Jewish State. Palestine will be one of many Arab/Muslim States.

- arnon

February 5, 2011 at 11:51am

"Wieseltier's J streetishness " I don't see much commonality between J Streets and Wieseltier's views.

- arnon

February 5, 2011 at 11:55am

You seem to be a bit behind on the learning curve, arnon. As Abbas pointed out, Israel can call itself whatever it likes, but states only recognize other states as such, not ss "the Jewish state of," the Moslem state of," or "the moonbat state of." As well, Michael Oren very helpfully wrote an op-ed in the NY Times explaining that what this demand by Israel actually means is that the Palestinians must abandon their claimed right of return in advance of negotiations, although this was a matter specifically consigned by Oslo to the final settlement. Thus, you see, just as Wieseltier claims, any time there is the possibility of progress, Netanyahu goes out of his way to do something that will frustrate that progress. The only problem with the right-wing strategy pursued by Netanyahu and the settler movement is that they have never been able to figure out a successful eng-game because there is none. Among other things, did they really imagine that peace with Egypt and Jordan would endure despite the indefinite colonization of the Palestinians based on patently phony claims about security. (Oh yes, settling Orthodox Jewish mommies and their eight babies in the West Bank is JUST what Israeli security requires.)

- roidubouloi

February 5, 2011 at 12:06pm

"I don't see much commonality between J Streets and Wieseltier's views." Don't you? They share a sentiment and practice: Declare you love Israel and are only concerned with its own good as you attack it consistently and cooperate with her enemies, as can be evidenced in this statement: "It is painful, for someone who admires the Jewish state for its democratic character, to see it emerge as an enemy of democratization. Jews should not rely on Pharaohs." I ask you: Is Israel an enemy of democratization? Do Israeli Jews rely on Pharaohs?

- noga1

February 5, 2011 at 12:11pm

"You seem to be a bit behind on the learning curve, arnon." Didn't know there were "curves" in learning.

- arnon

February 5, 2011 at 12:26pm

A few months ago, Mr. Wieseltier deplored Peter Beinart's article, "The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment" (NYRB) in which Beinart advocated for what Beinart called "liberal Zionism" over against "comfortable Zionism. According to Beinart's concept, liberals who love Israel should work to build up such things as free speech and minority rights in Israel, and should abandon political alliances with anti-Arab racists. Mr. Wieseltier called Beiniart's piece "pseudo-courageous" and hinted that Beinart's words came from Jewish self-hatred ("[Beinart] has produced yet another theory of AIPAC as SMERSH."). I wonder if Mr. Wieseltier would have responded differently if Beinart had written now, and if the occasion for Mr. Beinart's piece had been the apathy towards the democracy movement in the Arab world that exists in some American Jewish organizations.

- Ambrose

February 5, 2011 at 12:36pm

A few months ago, Mr. Wieseltier deplored Peter Beinart's article, "The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment" (NYRB) in which Beinart advocated for what Beinart called "liberal Zionism" over against "comfortable Zionism. According to Beinart's concept, liberals who love Israel should work to build up such things as free speech and minority rights in Israel, and should abandon political alliances with anti-Arab racists. Mr. Wieseltier called Beiniart's piece "pseudo-courageous" and hinted that Beinart's words came from Jewish self-hatred ("[Beinart] has produced yet another theory of AIPAC as SMERSH."). I wonder if Mr. Wieseltier would have responded differently if Beinart had written now, and if the occasion for Mr. Beinart's piece had been the apathy towards the democracy movement in the Arab world that exists in some American Jewish organizations.

- Ambrose

February 5, 2011 at 12:36pm

"They (Wieseltier and J Street) share a sentiment and practice:" Share a "sentiment" and "practice?" I am no expert on J street but I do know that it is an organization with members who have more than one view/sentiment. I suppose that Wieseltier like you or me share some sentiments with some J Street members. But which sentiment do they share "in common?" Maybe a passion for predicting outcomes to political disputes? And what practice do they share? Eating breakfast before 7 am?

- arnon

February 5, 2011 at 12:42pm

You are so drole and witty, Arnon.

- noga1

February 5, 2011 at 12:48pm

arnon: "Didn't know there were 'curves' in learning." It's an idiom. The curve is shallow or steep, depending on how slowly or how fast you have to learn something new. Noga, I take your point that one can fault Wieseltier for demanding some particular (enthusiastic) reaction from Israel as if the situation from the Israeli perspective was entirely one-dimensional and clear of ambiguity. However, my point about "blame" not being relevant is to remind people that it was Tunisia that triggered Egypt, and to that extent it's the pro-Mubarak forces that are trying to drag the U.S. and Israel into the melee. The origins of these events have little to nothing to do with Israel and indeed with the U.S. (apart, perhaps, from wikileaked cables that told Tunisians pretty much what they already guessed about their rulers). I'd add that it's not necessarily the case that the people marching against the regime in Cairo are the same people who believe that Mossad sharks are attacking swimmers. Indeed, given that it was a state news agency story, shark legends would appear to be part of the spider's web of propaganda and polemic that the regime has been deploying for years and decades, in other words, precisely what this new movement is challenging.

- ironyroad

February 5, 2011 at 12:52pm

Ditto to noga on arnon. I loved, especially, "Didn't know there were "curves" in learning." Funny. Ha ha.

- icarusr

February 5, 2011 at 12:54pm

"I wonder if Mr. Wieseltier would have responded differently if Beinart had written now, and if the occasion for Mr. Beinart's piece had been the apathy towards the democracy movement in the Arab world that exists in some American Jewish organizations." What a strange fulmination. It seems a foregone conclusion that whoever comes after Mubarak will be bad for Israel's security yet here is a person who seems to insist that Jews ought to be happy for Arabs even if it means more future dead Israelis. So what if Israel becomes a more dangerous place for Jews to live in? The question for me is: why didn't the American administration do more to make Egyptian rulers curb the rabid antisemitism that has been instilled in the populace so that when democratization did take place (if it does) the result would have been a natural affinity between democracies rather than the suspicion and fear on Israel's part and the overflowing hatred and fulminations from the "democratizing" crowds against Israel? http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2011/02/zionists-will-freak-out-when-they-see.html

- noga1

February 5, 2011 at 1:02pm

But seriously folks ... Noga: it is possible that Ajami is right; but for a little while now, I get the sense that he has become the Court Arab to the Republican/Right wing media. His analyses have lost their sharpness and originality they had in 1990; instead, whatever the issue, you can pretty well write his script in advance. No matter how much K2K wishes to minimise what is happening in Egypt (or what happened in Tunisia, or what might have happened in Jordan), that there is discontent, and widespread discontent, ought not be in dispute. That the origins of it are in part economic and in part political should also be clear: as I remember Iran in the 1970s, you cannot have an educated middle class, connection with the West and western ideas, and active models of different political structures, and STILL expect people to continue to behave as if they are infants in need of protection by Papa Shah or Mubarak or Ben Ali. K2K is all the more stupid for his "a few thousand demonstrators" comment, and Ajami all the more blind for his analysis, because of the response of the regime itself to the street. If Mubarak is unsettled, it is because he realises that the situation is unstable; HIS situation is unstable. Surely, whatever one might thing of the man, we ought to respect the fact that he knows a little more about his country and his "street" than we do. If it were a few malcontents, he would not have acted as he did; we are talking about the timing of his resignation, and Gamal has left for London, because the foundations of the Egyptian Republic as in the dumps. I really don't think this has anything to do with Israel or the Jews. And I think it is a mistake - a profound mistake - for the supports of Israel to MAKE it about Israel or the Jews. Yes, the Arab street is unpredictable and Arab Democracy might well be an oxymoron; but surely in this day and age, we ought to find a better way of protecting and defending Israel's interests than to bemoan the departure of an eight-two year old kleptocrat with a record of brutality that is matched only by Ghaddafi in the Arab world?

- icarusr

February 5, 2011 at 1:08pm

"I'd add that it's not necessarily the case that the people marching against the regime in Cairo are the same people who believe that Mossad sharks are attacking swimmers." Ah ironyroad, when I read such stuff from you I think about angelic choir boys with rosy rounded cheeks and sweet voices singing hymns. Try to peruse this blog, by a professor of political science at California State University, and UC, Berkeley and tell me you still believe what you are writing: http://angryarab.net/

- noga1

February 5, 2011 at 1:09pm

"And I think it is a mistake - a profound mistake - for the supports of Israel to MAKE it about Israel or the Jews." I totally agree with you, icarus. But let me remind you that it was Wieseltier who wrote the article making such a connection, and we are all respondents here.

- noga1

February 5, 2011 at 1:13pm

But look who else is in favour of democratization: http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=206932 "Egypt's foreign minister has told Iran to mind its own business after Iran's top leader praised the Egyptian uprising as an appropriate response to dictatorial rule. Ahmed Aboul Gheit told reporters Saturday that Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei seems to have forgotten about the crushing of widespread protests in Iran two years ago."

- noga1

February 5, 2011 at 1:29pm

Leon's polemic needs to be understood in the context of a long-standing tradition of Jewish apologetics. Because Jews have been besieged for so long, the weaker and more cowardly souls among them succumb to the temptation of feeding their own kind to the dragon at the gates. They argue that if only we choose a few of the misfits to throw over the wall, the dragon will depart and we'll be able to live in peace. Needless to say, there is often internal disagreement over who the misfits might be. The Geman Jews believed that it was the Jews of Eastern Europe with their backward ways that caused antisemitism. The pious Jews believed it was those who had departed from orthodox teachings that had caused misfortune for the Jewish people. And so on. The modern updated version of these delusions is the argument found in Leon's essay. It's those right-wing fanatical settler Jews who are the cause of Arab hatred and hostility. If only they weren't building houses on land that our neighbors want for themselves, we could have peace. It's a comforting thought. The alternative reading of the situation is more disturbing, namely, that the Palestinian leadership has no interest in peace or compromise. And that the only disagreement between Hamas and Fatah is when and how to destroy Israel and murder its inhabitants. But why confront reality? It's certainly easier throw Netanyahu and those damn settlers to the dragon and hope it works.

- willjames77

February 5, 2011 at 1:32pm

Noga, the link you posted is to a Lebanese-American academic at CSU Stanislaus (a party school, I hear!) who seems to have a punchy and predictable Chomsky-ish take on the Middle East, with the usual blind spots. I don't think I see any connection to the Egyptian reform movement at its present moment of emergence. Are you saying that what we're hearing from Egypt is the same as what's on this guy's blog? That hasn't been my impression. Or are you saying that it will inevitably become, in the near or medium term future, what we're hearing from Egypt?

- ironyroad

February 5, 2011 at 1:40pm

"The question for me is: why didn't the American administration do more to make Egyptian rulers curb the rabid antisemitism that has been instilled in the populace so that when democratization did take place (if it does) the result would have been a natural affinity between democracies rather than the suspicion and fear on Israel's part and the overflowing hatred and fulminations from the "democratizing" crowds against Israel?" ____________________ Perhaps because the obstacles that the US faces in trying to get an Egyptian regime to do its bidding are no less formidable than the obstacles it faces in trying to get Israel to do its bidding. It seems self-evident to Arabs that the US can force Israel to desist from colonizing the Arabs of the West Bank while Israelis insist that they will defy any such pressure and will do their best to manipulate the American political system to frustrate it. It likewise appears self-evident to Israelis that the US could have forced Mubarak to control Egyptian rhetoric (both his own and that of the public) although the US has never had the same leverage with Egypt that it has with Israel. ________________ Above we see one of the standard apologies for Israel's project of illegal colonization: The Arabs would not make peace even without the Israeli colonization. Therefore, Israel's colonization is just find. Colonization, whether or not illegal under international law, is the consequence of Arab hatred and hostility. Colonization is not the cause, or even a cause, of Arab hatred and hostility. (We know this of course because of the long tradition of people greeting their colonizers by strewing flowers at their feet). Why confront reality indeed? No need to confront the fantasy of perpetual Israeli domination of a justifiably hostile population. We can make excuses forever. Hence, the fantasy should last forever, as long as the excuses don't run out. Wieseltier's point, among others, is that whatever happens in Egypt will be for Netanyahu an excuse to postpone peace because that is what Netanyahu is determined to do in the recognition that peace can only be had by abandoning Likud's hopeless settlement project. Netanyahu, unlike Sharon, would much rather keep Israel at risk than admit to political and strategic error. Throw Netanyahu and the Likud to the dragon. That might work. As I said above, Israel exploited the peace with Egypt and Jordan in order to solidify its grip on the West Bank, rather than see it as an opportunity to make peace from strength. In this way, the Likud has squandered much of the opportunity. Israel will be forced out of the West Bank in the foreseeable future and the terms are likely to be less to its liking than those it might have negotiated had it had the will and the foresight. Oh well. Everyone deserves the government they elect.

- roidubouloi

February 5, 2011 at 1:49pm

"The Geman Jews believed that it was the Jews of Eastern Europe with their backward ways that caused antisemitism." Hannah Arendt wrote extensively about this "exceptional Jew" syndrome. Joan Cocks , in “Individuality, Nationality, and the Jewish Question Social Research, explains: “Arendt provides a Proustian account of French salon society, which found exceptional Jews magnetic and the mass of Jews obnoxious. Berlin repeatedly represents England as a liberal and tolerant society in which Jews could feel themselves equal to all other citizens. Nevertheless, the realities of English anti-Semitism should make us wonder … Berlin resembles the assimilating Jews he describes in "Jewish Slavery and Emancipation," who for survival's sake had "to make themselves familiar with the habits and modes of behaviour" of Gentile society, to "get this right" and "not miscalculate." … The figure of the exceptional Jew as Arendt analyses it would help explain Berlin’s remark, so incongruous with his long and happy existence at the pinnacle of English society, that Marilyn Berger reports in her New York Times obituary for him. "Of course assimilation might be a quite good thing, but it doesn't work. Never has worked, never will. There isn't a Jew in the world known to me who somewhere inside him does not have a tiny drop of uneasiness vis-à-vis them, the majority among whom they live ... one has to behave particularly well ... [or] they won't like us." When.. "it was suggested to him that he was surely the exception ... he had an immediate response: 'Nevertheless, I'm not an Englishman, and if I behave badly...'" Arendt might have phrased the point somewhat differently: "I'm not an Englishman but an exceptional Jew, and that is precisely one reason why they salute me. But if I act like an ordinary Jew..." There is a great deal of bitter insight in these attempts to understand and describe how some Jews try to manage and negotiate their Jewishness in a world which has become fed-up with and unsympathetic to, Jewish history. Unfortunately, with such baggage, carried by both the purveyors of “antizionism”, as well as their intended and unintended, audiences there is so much pain and noise interfering that even if there is a kernel of useful value in what they preach, it gets lost in the ruckus. Wieseltier is no Isiah Berlin, of course. Fact is Berlin was very much aware of the risks to his fundamental integrity that were part of being embraced by the society in which he dwelt. Thank you, willjames, for having the patience to map out so clearly the problematic cowardice in this article. There was certainly a dire need for the "Court Jew" in pre-emancipation Europe but today? In these United States?

- noga1

February 5, 2011 at 1:53pm

"I don't think I see any connection to the Egyptian reform movement at its present moment of emergence." If you don't see a connection, then you don't. I guess you have your own blind spots and I know from past conversations that it's useless to try to persuade you to take a different perspective. I'll spare you the need to respond that I am also prone to my blind spots. I accept it. The difference is that I do try to look at sources other than mainstream media to try to find out about things, even when I might encounter plenty of unpleasant information there. BTW, you didn't mind that Fouad Ajami is a Lebanese Shi'ite when you quoted him as some sort of authority on the situation in Egypt.

- noga1

February 5, 2011 at 2:01pm

Arnon, thanks for the link to the Telos article. It's definitely the most informative account account I've read of the actual goings on.

- willjames77

February 5, 2011 at 2:09pm

"And I think it is a mistake - a profound mistake - for the supports of Israel to MAKE it about Israel or the Jews." There is a choir of journalist/pundits in the US who are using the Egyptian riots to show that they must somehow be connected to Israel/Palestine issue. This group who's leading voice is Tom Friedman, and whose leading paper is NY Times never misses an opportunity to remind Americans every day that if Israel would just refrain from building this or that apartment building in Jerusalem peace would descend upon earth. The Arabs would become democratic and peace loving, respectful of minorities, women and gays. Hamas would change it's charter and Hizballah would disarm and become liberal party, keen on preserving human rights. Why do those "pundits" think so? I tend to agree with Williamjames77 that the prominent Jews in the diaspora tend to be very concerned about their own status and very critical of anything they see as jeopardizing it. Thus "It's certainly easier throw Netanyahu and those damn settlers to the dragon and hope it works". Hana Arendt pointed out those tendencies in her book "Eichman in Jerusalem" in which she accused the pre-war Jewish leadership of unknowingly cooperating with the Nazis (although she was much less critical of Martin Heidegger, a known Nazi supporter). It is as idiotic as it is myopic to assume that the riots in Egypt will bring Athenian democracy to a country of 85 million people 50 percent of whom live as second class citizens. Whose literacy is approximately 65% and whose literacy among women is less than 50%. A country that with the exception of Korans publishes in a decade less books than Israel publishes in a month. This is a country that is ranked as 123 in the Human Development Index. So yes, lets hope that Egypt becomes a liberal democracy as obviously Wieselthier, Beinart and Friedman expect it to become, but lets not loose our grip of the facts that it probably will not, that it probably will become another theocratic failed state. Let's hope for the best but let's be prepared for the worst.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

February 5, 2011 at 2:34pm

Noga, what I meant was, if you see that connection, can you lay out in just a little more detail what it is? Or, to put it another way, what is it in the Lebanese/CSU guy's blog that I should read as embodying a strong connection to the, I think you'll agree, so far quite diverse Egyptian reform movement? That's true about Ajami, you know, I hadn't thought of that -- maybe it's because, even when I disagreed with him, Ajami just appeared to be a smarter person. I tend to gravitate toward people who at least seem intellectually rich and full-bodied.

- ironyroad

February 5, 2011 at 2:59pm

irony: Interesting, among Arabs I know Ajami was always referred to as "the Persian".

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

February 5, 2011 at 3:02pm

makover: Comparing Friedman and Wieseltier to the Judenrat is simply wrong, on many levels. Arendt's "exceptional Jew" concept was made in relation to prosperous Jewish communities in times of relative peace. And anyway, Arendt's depiction of the role of the Judenrat was so ugly and venomous that when I read it I was wondering how she couldn't see the irony in herself acting exactly like the "exceptional Jew" whom she understood so well. There are good arguments by which to criticize Wieseltier for his intellectual cowardice without suggesting he is actually collaborating with genociders.

- noga1

February 5, 2011 at 3:07pm

I am not comparing them to Judenrat. I am simply saying that the tendencies of the Jewish elites in diaspora never bode well for the masses. I have never said that either of them is collaborating with "genociders" but that consciously or not they are collaborating with Israel's enemies by portraying Israel as morally corrupt. Arendt was unfortunately not blessed with self reflection. Her response to the Heidegger's scandal was exemplary of her lack of self criticism.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

February 5, 2011 at 3:16pm

As always, eloquently and persuasively stated. However, the approximately 1.5 billion dollars annually the US contributes to the Egyptian economy (the military, anyhow) is a persuasive and pragmatic inducement to continue the "cold peace" with the hated enemy no matter who takes over. If an Islamist group becomes ascendent, they can continue to fulminate against Israel with total abandon, but I suspect they will keep a lid on armed conflict and uphold the treaty not because they want to, but because they need to. While the deficit could certainly be made up by wealthy Arab states, there is no record of them ponying up funds, especially when they are used to prop up a popular revolution against an established autocracy: the precedent would be too close to home and too ironic for even their populations to ignore.

- kacomess

February 5, 2011 at 3:19pm

"...what is it in the Lebanese/CSU guy's blog that I should read as embodying a strong connection to the, I think you'll agree, so far quite diverse Egyptian reform movement?" The Angry Arab has been providing insights based on information he claims to be getting from sources, often in Arabic, in Egypt. In order to understand you have to wade in and peruse his "coverage" in recent days. I can't do that for you. Do you think he is irrelevant and doesn't know what he is talking about? Do you think his sentiments are exclusive to him and do not really reflect the aspirations of the "quite diverse Egyptian reform movement"? I certainly hope so, but I'm sceptical. Very.

- noga1

February 5, 2011 at 3:26pm

"... consciously or not they are collaborating with Israel's enemies by portraying Israel as morally corrupt." Yes. I agree with this statement.

- noga1

February 5, 2011 at 3:28pm

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=206685 "ISRAEL’S INDIFFERENCE to democratization of the Arab world has been a cause of consternation for some of its traditional supporters in conservative circles in the US and Europe. Israelis are accused of provincialism. As citizens of the only democracy in the Middle East, we are admonished for not supporting democracy among our neighbors. The fact is that Israeli indifference to democratic currents in Arab societies is not due to provincialism. Israelis are indifferent because we realize that whether under authoritarian rule or democracy, anti-Semitism is the unifying sentiment of the Arab world. Fractured along socioeconomic, tribal, religious, political, ethnic and other lines, the glue that binds Arab societies is hatred of Jews. A Pew Research Center opinion survey of Arab attitudes towards Jews from June 2009 makes this clear. Ninety-five percent of Egyptians, 97% of Jordanians and Palestinians and 98% of Lebanese expressed unfavorable opinions of Jews. Threequarters of Turks, Pakistanis and Indonesians also expressed hostile views of Jews. Throughout the Arab and Muslim world, genocidal anti-Semitic propaganda is all-pervasive. And as Prof. Robert Wistrich has written, “The ubiquity of the hate and prejudice exemplified by this hard-core anti-Semitism undoubtedly exceeds the demonization of earlier historical periods – whether the Christian Middle Ages, the Spanish Inquisition, the Dreyfus Affair in France, or the Judeophobia of Tsarist Russia. The only comparable example would be that of Nazi Germany in which we can also speak of an ‘eliminationist anti- Semitism’ of genocidal dimensions, which ultimately culminated in the Holocaust.” That is why for most Israelis, the issue of how Arabs are governed is as irrelevant as the results of the 1852 US presidential elections were for American blacks. Since both parties excluded them, they were indifferent to who was in power. [-] If the media reported on the overwhelming Jew hatred in the Arab world generally and in Egypt specifically, it would ruin the narrative of the Arab conflict with Israel. That narrative explains the roots of the conflict as frustrated Arab-Palestinian nationalism. It steadfastly denies any more deeply seated antipathy of Jews that is projected onto the Jewish state. The fact that the one Jewish state stands alone against 23 Arab states and 57 Muslim states whose populations are united in their hatred of Jews necessarily requires a revision of the narrative. And so their hatred is ignored. But Israelis don’t need CNN to tell us how our neighbors feel about us. We know already. And because we know, while we wish them the best of luck with their democracy movements, and would welcome the advent of a tolerant society in Egypt, we recognize that that tolerance will end when it comes to the Jews. And so whether they are democrats or autocrats, we fully expect they will continue to hate us."

- noga1

February 5, 2011 at 4:31pm

Israel is a corrupt society, and this is nowhere more evident than in the characterization of anyone who says so as a collaborator with Israel's enemies. But, of course, the right, especially those with fascist leanings, will always characterize critics of society as collaborators with enemies. It was thus in the United States with regard to protesters against the Vietnam War and is no different today. The corruption of Israeli society is the inevitable consequence of unnecessarily dominating, subjugating, and colonizing another people, in violation of the moral norms of the modern world and Israel's own solemn agreement to the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention. As Orwell explained so well, faced with the moral monstrosity of its own actions, the society must corrupt language itself in the constant effort to justify and explain what cannot be justified. Thus, for example, we see above the commonplace apologist characterization of the colonial enterprise as "just a few apartments in Jerusalem. The absurdity of this is evident if you but turn it around: "What, you mean that Israel would compromise peace negotiations and its relationship with the United States, its essential patron, just to build 'a few apartments in Jerusalem?'" Having stepped far over the lines of what is or is not permitted to an occupying power, Israel straps itself to this bomb and then blackmails both the United States and diaspora Jewry into collaborating with it. "If you don not back us, the Arabs will destroy us." Because the security threat is real, if not any justification for the colonization, both Americans and Jews face a quandary. How to disassociate ourselves from and oppose the subjugation of the Palestinians by and for settlement without compromising Israel's security? For those who decline to be blackmailed, such as Thomas Friedman, then we have the inevitable accusations, that he is an anti-semite, a self-hating Jew, a court Jew, whatever might discredit him or others who are critical. Lost in all of the double-think and double-speak is any sense of moral agency and responsibility, that Israel, the dominant military power in the region, the occupying power of Palestine, just might bear the primary responsibility for the conduct of life in the area within its military grip. No, the problem is not that Israel colonizes its neighbors, the problem is that anyone could thing to brand this as outrageous, immoral behavior. What is so bizarre about makover's characterization of diaspora Jews, particularly in America, as insecure and hence criticizing Israel to ingratiate themselves with there is no one with whom to ingratiate oneself in this manner, even if one sought to do so? With whom? Some college professors? Doesn't matter. Israeli society will happily accuse anyone of anything rather than look in the mirror. That is at least one definition of moral corruption.

- roidubouloi

February 5, 2011 at 5:26pm

This is my unathorized translation of the Hebrew original by Dror Ben Yemini. I think it describes the situation perfectly. Democratization or Islamization? Do not listen to experts. They are more wrong than monkeys * By Dror Ben Yemini from Maariv The late Edward Said published a book in 1981 called "Defense of Islam" (" Covering Islam "), where he says, in part, that unlike the Western portrayal of Islam, in Islam there is equality between men and women, high morals, freedom, equality and other such stories. Nothing is what we thought. The Orientalist Western media, Said argued, creates negative images. The book is a landmark of the "Political Correctness ", that became "Islamic Correctness." It gets worse. In a preface to a new edition of his book Said wrote, sarcastically of course, about the damage done to the view of the Muslims by the Western media, "imagining" speculation about a conspiracy to blow up buildings, sabotage by passenger planes, etc . " Three years after that book was published, there were bomb attacks . Aircrafts, buildings. A prophecy that collapsed. It does not eliminate all of Said's writings. It's just a proof that there are type of experts, (and they are many), who do not allow the facts to confuse them. Said's nemesis, Bernard Lewis, predicted with great precision the confrontation with Islam. Said's prophecy of the fools is not unusual. Experts, told us Professor Philip Tetlock in his book on "Political Analysis of the Experts" , are stuck in their positions. Reality hardly affects them. They interpret it according to their opinions known in advance. They failed in predicting major events - the fall of the Soviet Union and dissolution of the Soviet bloc, the fall of apartheid, the intensification of terrorism, and more. Between the three groups - experts, journalists and monkeys - the monkeys are predicting better than journalists, journalists predict better than experts. Tetlock's book, published five years ago, is standing up once again to the test of reality. We are in the midst of historical events. Earthquake in the Middle East. Range of experts appearing in the media, international and Israeli, determine the expected in advance. Conservatives and / or right-wing say there is no chance for democracy in the Arab world. Leftists declare enthusiastically up front that liberal spring time have arrived. Both sides display their view as confirmed information. Those, on the nature of Islam, and those, on the changes taking place, even among the Muslim Brotherhood. Crowds on the streets raise hopes. There's a strange coalition. Veiled women, bearded men, young and of course The Facebook Generation. They are crying out for freedom and democracy. Right are the conservatives who claim that the Arab world has not experienced any real democracy. And right are those who claim that in most parts of the Arab world, and certainly in Egypt, the "Arab Street" is becoming increasingly Islamist and religious. But maybe there are hidden things, more sublime. Maybe young people who go out into the streets will lead to the spirit of liberty, to more equality, less corruption and more human rights. Who knows, maybe we in the midst of historic change. Perhaps the majority who wants the Sharia law will be able to combine it with democracy. Inshallah! Surveys, in contrast to the calls for democracy in the streets, show worrying trends . 82% of Egyptians support death by stoning, according to Islamic law as punishment for adultery; 77% support cutting off hands as punishment for theft; 84% support the death penalty for a Muslim who converts to another religion. Uncle Sam's empathy and Barack Obama, slightly improved the view of the U.S. in 2009, but in 2010 it returned to hostility peak of 82%. Could it be the crowds in the streets are just a facade? Is it possible that one day when the day of decision will come, the majority will support the party that supports stoning, amputation of hands and the death penalty? I do not have the slightest idea. The fact is that Said the "progressive" was wrong, and Lewis the "conservative" was right, requires caution. It is not clear even now that the Saids are wrong and the Luises are right. It just means that we are all prisoners of conceptions in which we feel comfortable. Even yours truly. We all need a little more caution, and preferably also modesty. Especially if we are experts or journalists. Only monkeys have an exemption. They, only they, know a little more what will come tomorrow of today's tremors

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

February 5, 2011 at 6:40pm

Sorry, it's Ben-Dror Yemini.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

February 5, 2011 at 6:49pm

Roi, if your still around, here's an interesting link to a Ha'aretz article from Basman. About the Olmert offer. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/haaretz-exclusive-olmert-s-plan-for-peace-with-the-palestinians-1.1970

- MOLLYSIMON

February 5, 2011 at 8:08pm

Noga1, I agree with you that the American administration should have done more over the past 30 years (if there was a way) to curb anti-seminitism in Egypt. In 2009 when I was discreetly making video montage of a poor area in Luxor, Egypt (see link at bottom), I remember thinking that the locals would might give me a very hard time if they discovered that I was filming them and if they decided that I was Jewish. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaubV48RTFA&feature=youtube_gdata_player

- Ambrose

February 5, 2011 at 8:47pm

Hey makover: I love Ben Dror Yemini and was actually googling in search of his position today. Can you provide a link to the article? In the past I translated a few of his articles. About Yemini: http://www.mideasttruth.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=26 (his name in Hebrew translates into: Ben Dror - Son of Liberty, Yemini - My right arm, derived, I presume from the biblical verse about the vow not to forget Jerusalem) _______ I would sum up the gist of his article by the quote from Rabbi Yohanan ben Nappaha "From the time the Temple was destroyed, prophecy was given only to idiots and to young children".

- noga1

February 5, 2011 at 8:50pm

"I get the sense that he [Ajami] has become the Court Arab " icarusr: I missed your comment. Ajami has been called "Uncle Abu" (modeled on the contemptuous "Uncle Tom") so to call him a "court Arab" is not as demeaning as you might think. What always strikes me about him is the dignity and love with which he carries his Arab and Muslim tradition which has none of the whining of Edward Said and his ilk. He doesn't need anyone to coddle him and tell him that his is a rich and deep culture. Nor does he carry any false historical memories about how good Jews had it under Islamic rule. He is as comfortable in his skin as I find Mr. Obama to be in his. In “The Dream Palaces of the Arabs” Fouad Ajami writes: “"I do say ... that exile, not undertaken with any definite object, but forced upon men by the triumph of the opposing party, checks development and draws men away from the activities of life into the domain of fantasy," the Russian writer Alexander Herzen observed in his great nineteenth-century work on the topic, My Past and Thoughts. "Leaving their native land with concealed anger, with the continual thought of going back to it once more on the morrow, men do not move forwards but are continually thrown back upon the past.... All émigrés, cut off from the living environment to which they have belonged, shut their eyes to avoid seeing bitter truths, and grow more and more acclimatized to a closed, fanatic circle consisting of inert memories and hopes that can never be realized." I think Ajami has been resisting the pull of the émigré mentality and that's what earned him the contempt of other Arab émigrés. He is a much more effective model than Said ever was in explaining West to East and East to West. He is also a student of Bernard Lewis, who loves the Orient in equal parts to his criticism of it.

- noga1

February 5, 2011 at 9:11pm

[an extreme case of Lost in Translation:] 02/05/2011 - 1:08pm EDT | icarusr "...K2K is all the more stupid for his "a few thousand demonstrators" comment..." [which I assume is how icarus interprets my actual words "small slice of Egypt's population" which is what even two or three MILLION protestors would be in a population of EIGHTY million or Cairo's population of EIGHTEEN million:] 02/05/2011 - 1:18am EDT | K2K "whilst the literary editor of TNR dives into the meaning of the protests of a small slice of Egypt's population, amplified out of proportion by the news media, and not enough, so far, attention to the "it's the economy, stupid", ..." [ based on the CNN special on Egypt tonight, it would appear even CNN is noticing it is a "small slice" and actually paying attention now to the economic ramifications of the stubborn - and leaderless - protest in Tahrir Square. I truly understand how difficult it must be for otherwise educated people who solely focus on the politics of any given situation to think those of us who pay attention to the economic aspects as "all the more stupid", but using quotations for invented quotes is so sloppy. How the media frames an event, a revolution, evidence of Saddam Hussein's WMD, etcetera, makes a difference in the narrative. Of course there is "widespread discontent", but it is selfish, infantile behaviour to protest your country into economic chaos. Will the protest occupation in Tahrir Square finally end when the poor descend in mobs of millions because there is no more daily subsidized bread? I await the day when eight million longterm unemployed Americans over 50 finally stop watching tv and take over the Washington Mall. Ok, I admit I have been waiting since 2004...but somehow it seems so hopeless since the American government under both parties is so out-of-touch with the "widespread discontent" of tens of millions.

- K2K

February 5, 2011 at 11:35pm

Thanks, molly. I think a couple of weeks ago basman linked an article to similar effect. It seems no longer to be recalled that, during the period of major settlement, when the Arabs insisted that Israel was trying unilaterally to establish a border with "facts on the ground," Israel claimed that it was doing nothing of the kind and that the settlements in no way prejudiced the outcome of negotiations of a final settlement. It is clear now that the Arabs were right all along as Israel now insists that its illegal settlements must be legitimized and ceded to Israel in a final settlement. This is what is characterized above as "offering everything." Not hardly. The Arabs have made clear that the will accept the Green Line as a border and have already recognized Israel. Israel will not now make the peace it always insisted it would if the Arabs would come to the table. Some years ago I also assumed that something like the plan rejected by Arafat at Camp David in 2000 would be the ultimate basis for peace. My brother-in-law, who is the manager of a kibbutz east of the Green Line, told me that "it was all going to go back." I was quite surprised and inclined to disbelief. But he was right. There are people in Israel who do understand that peace will not come on the basis of keeping the settlements. I think Israel would be wise to negotiate to retain the major settlement bloc as a Jewish minority population in Palestine in exchange for accepting some Arab returnees to Israel. But that is just my opinion. What seems clear is that peace will require recognizing the 1967 armistice line, or something very, very close to it, as the border, with some form of condominium in Jerusalem. The Arabs are not going to legitimize the settlements.

- roidubouloi

February 5, 2011 at 11:48pm

That should have said the "1949 armistice line" or the Green Line, not the 1967 armistice line.

- roidubouloi

February 6, 2011 at 12:18am

The loony corrupt and idiotic left, the same one that "can't wait until EU will declare Jerusalem as capitol (sic) of Palestine" is heartbroken that Olmert did not offer Abu Mazen and Company "everything". And they are of course correct. Olmert refused to offer Tel Aviv, Ramat Aviv, Haifa, Ashdod, Givataim and Ramat Gan. He also refused to offer the Galil, although he agreed to cut through the Negev to allow travel between Aza and West Bank. However, why even dwell on it. All those offers, negotiations and talks are after all completely irrelevant. As the leaked Palestinian documents show no matter what the Palestinian leadership will agree to, they will always be denounced as traitors and extremists. No, not by the Israelis, by the Palestinians, by the Arabs and by their useful idiots in the West. And what those Palestinian politicians do when confronted by accusations of sellout, treason? Yes, you got it, they deny everything! They claim that Al Jezeera is a tool of...(insert your own, Mossad, Hamas, US). I am quoting: "What is intended is a mix-up. I have seen them yesterday (the documents) present things as Palestinian, but they were Israeli ... This is therefore intentional," Abbas told reporters in Cairo after a meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak" It is therefore clear that the Palestinian leaders, after decades of negotiations failed to even inform their "constituents" what painful concessions will be required of the Palestinians. The talks are a sham, they are tragedy for both Palestinians and Israelis, tragically, moderate and secular Palestinians are being pushed aside by the strident rhetoric of the Arab fanatics with help from Al Jezeera and leftist media in the West. The Al- Jazeera documents do little to help save the prospects of a Palestinian state, and, in fact, empower the extremists. In the words of analyst Barry Rubin,:"Note that the coverage fails to compare these materials to known major Israeli concessions that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced long ago in public and the PA never contradicted. In other words, since Olmert is on the record as having offered the PA big concessions ... how can the media say now that Israel offered nothing[?]" So now, in view of the Egyptian riots (for democracy or for food) Israel is again told to negotiate, negotiate. And the question is, with whom and for what? Regarding the linking to Haaretz. Haaretz has long ago become the leading anti-zionist voice in the world media. It employs such paragons of virtue as Amira Hass, and Gideon Levy. Gideon Levy is the main proponent of anti-Israeli blood libel. To really understand his lies read the following: Baron of the falsehood industry. https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1gPg475n2hm0aLc0sjVk26OkXWuilfSb7bX2zeNU9C2w&pli=1 noga: http://www.nrg.co.il/app/index.php?do=blog&encr_id=f2b4c1b55be76d1e6d7b777256ea0370&id=2123

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

February 6, 2011 at 9:56am

makover: Thanks. Here is proof that Palestinians crave for peace. "Palestinian Child's Message To Israeli Settlers " http://nizos.blogspot.com/2011/02/palestinian-childs-message-to-israeli.html "It's a sign of our evolution as a people to see this adorable Palestinian Elmo scream that he wants to drink the blood of the settlers, not the blood of Jews or even Israelis. This is a distinction not to be taken lightly. If anything, this video proves to me that the 1967 green line has entered the Palestinian psyche as the only possible border between the two nations. This is reinforced by the kid's message that the Arabs have forsaken Haifa. If this is not a call for a peaceful 2-state solution, I don't know what is." Nizo is a very complex blogger who ironizes his own ironical comments. So you must not take it that he endorses the drinking of blood of anybody at all. He is just noticing something which may or may not mean a budge in the way Palestinians view things.

- noga1

February 6, 2011 at 11:06am

More Israeli hysteria on display here. The moment any of the standard lies is exposed, hysteria results. If one points out that offering the West Bank without the settlements is hardly the same as offering "everything," first we get the claim that it is not true that Olmert offered "nothing." Who said he offered nothing? He offered to return the West Bank less the pieces that Israel most want to keep, which does not happen to include dispersed settlements that could not as a practical matter be incorporated into Israel. In other words, Israel offered to keep everything it wants and the Palestinians said no. Not nothing, but far from everything. But for Israelis today, the simplest of truths is absolutely unbearable. Having established that Olmert did not offer "nothing," we then get the hysterical hyperbole that the only thing that he didn't offer was "Tel Aviv, Ramat Aviv, Haifa, Ashdod, Givataim and Ramat Gan . . . ." From one extreme to the other, anything to obscure the truth. Are the Palestinians negotiating for Tel Aviv? Have the proposed in negotiations that they should receive as part of their state any of the land west of the Green Line? Not that I have ever heard. The land grab goes in only one direction, Israel trying to obtain ever larger pieces of the Arab partition of Palestine, not the other way around. For Israelis today, the simplest truths are unbearable because their colonization is a gross violation of international law and a moral monstrosity. The circle cannot be squared. Hence, all that is left to them is this sort of hysterical attempt at obfuscation and/or the constant effort to conflate the settlements with bona fide security requirements. Most amusing is this: "As the leaked Palestinian documents show no matter what the Palestinian leadership will agree to, they will always be denounced as traitors and extremists. No, not by the Israelis, by the Palestinians, by the Arabs and by their useful idiots in the West." Why is this amusing? Because the very author of this statement, in the very same post, accuses Haaretz of being anti-Zionist and, above, has accused any Jewish critic of Israeli policy of being a "collaborator," "court Jew," whatever. Israeli political rhetoric is by now so thoroughly corrupted by the occupation, that it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish the rhetoric of Arab refusal from the rhetoric of Israeli refusal. It is pathetic to see what pandering to the settler and messianic nuts has made of Israel. Withal, the Israeli position is untenable and hence will not endure. The question is whether Israel can navigate its way out of the colossal mess that it has made for itself or whether it will simply wait to be forced out. The evidence is that Netanyahu and the Likud would rather sit on their hands, procrastinate as long as possible, and be forced out. That is, they would rather fuck the State of Israel than admit that their messianic fantasies were just that. Sadly, they appear to have plenty of support for this position. See above.

- roidubouloi

February 6, 2011 at 11:26am

As usual, the response by the top useful idiot does not dissappoints. noga: Yes, it does make me feel better to know that this child is the future of Palestine.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

February 6, 2011 at 12:06pm

Israeli apologists for Israel's gross violations of international law and morality do better indeed when they stick to epithets and a couple of short sentences. Anything more and they are quickly entangled in their own fatuous lies with no exit left but their standard stream of accusations and smears in the very style of the Arab extremists they purport to deplore. Oh yes, Ha-aretz is anti-Zionist, Tom Friedman is a court Jew, diaspora Jewry is beset with insecurity and thus moved to collaborate with enemies. Such a stream of filth with which to defend the State of Israel! It wouldn't be so bad if the only ones sullied were the purveyors of this garbage, but they demean the State of Israel and the Jewish people as well. This makes them quite useful to the enemies of Israel, despite their professed love of same. Are they merely "idiots" or does even that improperly ascribe some benign if misguided intent that is not in evidence?

- roidubouloi

February 6, 2011 at 12:45pm

As usual, the response by the top useful idiot does not dissappoints.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

February 6, 2011 at 1:37pm

That's good, makover. The fewer words from you, the less likely you are to tie yourself in knots. Given your all too obvious limitations, grunting is your best bet. Shalom, y'all.

- roidubouloi

February 6, 2011 at 1:55pm

Hey, a TNR thread that's just about to go to three pages. And on the Middle East too! My cup o'erfloweth.

- ironyroad

February 6, 2011 at 2:32pm

As usual, the response by the top useful idiot does not dissappoints.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

February 6, 2011 at 2:40pm

That's good, makover. The fewer words from you, the less likely you are to tie yourself in knots. Given your all too obvious limitations, grunting is your best bet. Shalom, y'all.

- roidubouloi

February 6, 2011 at 3:54pm

As usual, the response by the top useful idiot does not dissappoints.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

February 6, 2011 at 4:20pm

makover: Yom aviv bik'far katan tziporim sharot bagan, nemalah overet ach hamanginah nish'eret. Bachatzer nolad tinok umiyad hit'chil litz'ok "lo kor'im li 'fraim - sh'mi Goliat ve'lo acheret!" Kol hatana"ch pachad mimeno k'mo mipil, giborim barchu habaitah, lochamim ziyfu t'agil. Hem kar'u lo "hashed me'Ashkelon."

- noga1

February 6, 2011 at 4:51pm

Oooooooooooh! Secret code. How exciting. Let me see if I can find my decoder ring. _______________ That's good, makover. The fewer words from you, the less likely you are to tie yourself in knots. Given your all too obvious limitations, grunting is your best bet. Shalom, y'all.

- roidubouloi

February 6, 2011 at 5:10pm

Noga, I've spent the last hour trying to find an anagram of 'ironyroad' in your message to makeover. I'm exhausted, despondent, and my eyes hurt. Please just tell me where it is.

- ironyroad

February 6, 2011 at 6:06pm

...I've spent the last hour trying to find an anagram of 'ironyroad' in your message to makeover... Beats sorting through your string collection I s'pose.

- basman

February 6, 2011 at 6:48pm

That reminds me -- I've been neglecting my strings for too long.

- ironyroad

February 6, 2011 at 7:04pm

"Please just tell me where it is." And reveal the secret code? What do you take me for?

- noga1

February 6, 2011 at 7:21pm

Ironyroad better than string and anagrams agree or not: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/feb/24/mad-men-account/?pagination=false

- basman

February 6, 2011 at 8:25pm

Superbow, twitter, blog, facebook, here, there and everywhere. Women trying to beat dwon my door--they're the ones locked in my room. It's too much I tell you too much

- basman

February 6, 2011 at 9:26pm

p.s. add email to above list.

- basman

February 6, 2011 at 9:27pm

noga :-)

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

February 7, 2011 at 7:42am