SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Country Strong

WORLD FEBRUARY 21, 2011

Country Strong

BY EFRAIM HALEVY

The powers that be in Israel clamped a deafening silence on themselves when the Egyptian people rose up against Hosni Mubarak. There was precious little that Israel could do to sway events in one direction or the other, since this revolution did not have its origins in issues related to the foreign, strategic, or defense policies of Cairo. And so Jerusalem, for the most part, remained quiet.

The silence of Israeli officialdom left the stage to a long line of doomsday observers and experts who competed with each other in spelling out a frightening list of new threats that will now confront the Jewish State. The rise to power, or at least to influence, of the Muslim Brotherhood and the potential collapse of other states that make up the region’s “moderate axis” were just a few of the anxieties that Israel was said to be facing. Foreign observers and media personalities made constant use of the word “fear” to describe the mood in Jerusalem. Jerusalem’s silence, in turn, created an ominous backdrop that nurtured and multiplied these prophesies.

In truth, however, the world immediately surrounding Israel reacted to the Egyptian upheaval entirely differently. It is almost as if our neighborhood had greater respect for us than we did for ourselves. Less than a week after the demonstrations began, Syrian President Bashar Assad gave an interview to The Wall Street Journal in which he set forth his understanding of the consequences for his country. He acknowledged that internal changes in Syria must come but he did not intend to act precipitously. He said his anti-Americanism and his confrontation with Israel had left him in better shape with the grassroots of his nation. He explained that he would continue his ties with Iran because “you cannot overlook Iran whether you like it or not.”

But he also said something else that struck a rather different tone: Asked if the peace process with Israel was now dead, he replied, “No, it is not dead because you do not have any other option; if you talk about a ‘dead’ peace process, this means everybody should prepare for the next war.” Parallel to this pronouncement, a long line of Egyptian figures proclaimed their belief that the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, even if not to their original liking, is here to stay. This has now been confirmed by the Egyptian High Command that has recently taken over in Cairo.

Neither the Syrian president nor the Egyptians have made these clear statements out of love for Israel; they have spoken out because the avoidance of any new war and the preservation of existing international treaties with Israel are vital strategic interests of both Syria and Egypt. Israel, post-Mubarak, has been confirmed by its two key neighbors from south and north as a vital bloc in the region.

There is an additional factor that refutes the dire prophesies which have filled Israeli and international media. The two largest armies in the region—that of Israel and that of Egypt—are both equipped by the United States. This means Washington is in a pivotal position to prevent a bloody confrontation from happening. The clear desire to avoid war is thus an aim of all three parties. This can and should become a primary building block for the creation of a fruitful relationship with any new Egyptian leadership.

Israel, in short, is not in the precarious situation that so many pundits have described. What this suggests in practical terms is that Israel can approach the scene unfolding around it with a large measure of justified self-confidence, knowing that it continues to operate from a position of strength. Some are saying that the Israeli-Palestinian track must go on hold because of the events in Egypt. The opposite is true. While the ultimate solution is at present out of reach—indeed, now would be a good time to admit that it has never been within reach due to insurmountable blocks on both sides—it is also quite conceivable that a Palestinian state can be born in the year 2011, even before all the I’s are dotted and all the T’s crossed.

Israel can similarly operate from a position of strength in facing up to the challenge from Iran. The Iranian people and even its oppressive regime cannot survive the North Korean-type isolation that would certainly be imposed should they ever cross the plank of nuclearization. As Israel and others continue to pursue a clandestine war with Iran—a war both sides prefer to cover with a cloak of secrecy—Tehran will gradually realize that the price exacted for its intransigence will be more than it can really pay. Meanwhile, as the regime increasingly strives to cut off its population from sources of reliable information, Israel is well-positioned to provide open-source, credible information to millions in Iran. This is a long haul, requiring patience, devotion, and endurance—and it has a true chance of paying off. Israel is already doing much in this field. It can and should do more.

In the end, despite the warnings of pundits, this is not a time for Israel to act out of fear. By understanding its relatively strong position, Israel can go a long way toward simultaneously safeguarding its own interests in the new Middle East and serving as a responsible and powerful local anchor of sanity in this unstable neighborhood.

Efraim Halevy is head of the Center for Strategic and Policy Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He served as chief of the Mossad from 1998 to 2002, and is the author of Man in the Shadows: Inside the Middle East Crisis with a Man who Led the Mossad.

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

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 102 comments

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

102 comments

Excellent article. This is key: "Meanwhile, as the regime increasingly strives to cut off its population from sources of reliable information, Israel is well-positioned to provide open-source, credible information to millions in Iran. This is a long haul, requiring patience, devotion, and endurance—and it has a true chance of paying off. Israel is already doing much in this field. It can and should do more." I hope Netanyahu is reading this too.

- arnon

February 21, 2011 at 12:17am

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

For all the hand-wringing by the Israeli right-wing and American conservatives, what has been most amazing is the complete lack of anti-Israel and anti-American signs, posters, and rhetoric across multiple countries. Nor have there been any hangings of effigy of Obama or even Netanyahu. Perhaps the people of the Middle East have realized that all the anti-Zionist and anti-US agit-prop that they have listened to for decades was merely a tool of the dictators and their friends to distract attention from themselves as oppressors.

- bufatutu

February 21, 2011 at 7:08am

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

With one (very large) caveat, Israel, like America, can be a beacon for democracy, now that democracy is the common aspiration for all in the region. The caveat, of course, is the Palestinians; but if democracy is the common aspiration, then doesn't it follow that the two-state solution is now the only acceptable solution for each side.

- rayward

February 21, 2011 at 7:50am

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

The Israelis will hopefully find opportunities in this crisis. They have roots in the region. Daily, they broadcast to a large, friendly audience in Iran. The Americans, under Obama, on the other hand, are incredibly flat-footed. They failed to support secular democrats in the Muslim world. In the past, America knew how to combat Communism in Europe.

- amidut

February 21, 2011 at 8:14am

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

Full disclosure: I have not, as yet, read Halevy's piece (although I can guess what he wrote given his statements in the Israeli media in the past couple of weeks), but I just had to react to the comments. Ummm... hate to bust yer bubble Buf but what was facinating about the demonstrations in Egypt is that both sides accused the other side of being supported by Israel and both made use of the usual antisemitic tropes. One of the more creative and amusing posters I saw (shown on Israel TV) was a picture of Mubarrak doctored up to look like a Hareidi, complete with the long curled peyot (sidelocks) and flat-topped short crown black hat, Satmar Hasidic style. And both some of the more secular as well as some of Muslim Brotherhood leaders of the revolt have spoke about "renegotiating" the Egyptian-Israel peace treaty. This stuff may not have been broadcast in the USA but we saw it plainly here in Israel. And now with the recent arrival on the scene of Yusuf al-Qaradawi, arguably the Egyptian Khomeini, only an ostrich could be so sanguine (for more on al-Qaradawi, I strongly suggest reading Barry Rubin's piece here and / or Lee Smith's piece here. I might add that it's an open secret in Israel (although not spoken about much in public) that for many years now, when the Egyptian army carries out war games, the scenario they are using is a war against a small country to the northeast, with a compact but strong military. Now who might that be? I'll give you a hint. It ain't Lebanon or Jordan or Syria. BTW, this is not a right vs. left issue. There have been plenty on the right that have been cheering on the events in Egypt (go check out the posts on Commentary blog Contentions -- don't worry, you won't get struck by lightening and nor will your left arm lose its cunning). And there have been plenty on the left (for example Jeff Goldberg and Richard Cohen) that have adopted a wait and see attitude or have expressed reservations or even concern about the future role of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Lastly, I strongly suggest you take a peek at the nice selection of quotes gathered by Cliff May (here) from all the gushing statements about how the tolerant Khomeini was going to bring constitutional democracy to Iran. The best, from Time Magazine at the time: . . . a sense of controlled optimism in Iran. . . . Iranians will surely insist that the revolution live up to its democratic aims. . . . Those who know [Khomeini] expect that eventually he will settle in the Shi’ite holy city of Qum and resume a life of teaching and prayer. It seems improbable that he would try to become a kind of Archbishop Makarios of Iran, directly holding the reins of power. Khomeini believes that Iran should become a parliamentary democracy, with several political parties. And of course the ostensibly omniscient NY Times spoke of the Khomeini's advisers as being moderate progressives. So in short, the jury is still out.... and will be for a long time. Hershel Ginsburg Jerusalem / Efrata

- ginzy

February 21, 2011 at 8:16am

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

@Ginzy Thank you for your thoughtful post, I enjoyed reading it. A few comments regarding your points: You're right, of course, that both sides in the Egyptian revolution referenced Israel in their political discourse, particularly the opposition's frequent critique of Mubarak being too friendly with Israel. There has also been some discussion from the winners about renegotiating the peace-treaty and the Egyptian army certainly does train for a fight with Israel. All of this, however, is to be expected and frankly isn't worth worrying over. Mubarak was closely associated with Israel and it's no secret that Israel isn't popular among the Arab working class who largely made up the revolution; it's no surprise then that political caricatures of Mubarak as a Hareidi--or in bed with Netanyahu, etc.--showed up. This isn't any more dangerous than French depictions of the UK as America's lapdog. It's been often reported, but perhaps worth commenting on again, that the Egyptian revolution was overwhelmingly unconcerned with other states. It simply wanted Mubarak's regime out. In that light, I think you'll agree that caricatures like those you describe attack Mubarak, not Israel. The treaty no doubt will be renegotiated, and will almost certainly be left much as it was. The reason I believe this is that it remains in Egypt's best interest, particularly during a period of political instability and maneuvering. And it is especially in the interest of Egypt's army, which continues to control a vast amount of the country's economy as well as its strategic policy. Finally, when the army trains, it of course trains to fight Israel, the only country it has ever fought--five times--since independence. (OK, Egypt also fought Libya for four days in 1977, but Qaddafi was egged on by the Soviets who were pissed off at Sadat for shifting to the U.S. The 'war' was meaningless then and more so now.) Egypt's army must, of course, train to keep fit; who else would they train for? My point here Ginzy is twofold: first, that the actions and declarations you point to are both normal and justifiable considering the circumstances; and second that those actions do not represent a threat to Israel. This may change if, for example, the more militant wing of the Brothers takes power; or if the new Egyptian government consciously moves away from the West and toward, say, Iran, Russia, or China. I don't see that happening and I doubt you do either. Given that, I think Israel has a lot more to gain from this than to lose so long as it takes things slow and doesn't appear to threaten Egyptian interests.

- bacchant

February 21, 2011 at 12:28pm

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

“… it's no secret that Israel isn't popular among the Arab working class who largely made up the revolution.” What revolution? There was no revolution in Egypt, yet. What we had were demonstrations against Mubarak who was supported by the military. The military is still in power and will be for the foreseeable future. Also many of the demonstrators were either unemployed or came from the professional middle classes like the Google executive, Wael Ghonim, who was arrested and later released. There were also workers in the crowd as some unions joined the demonstrators, but they didn’t lead the protests. If Israel is “unpopular” among the workers in Egypt, that’s because they swallowed the anti-Israel propaganda emanating from the Mubarak regime: another sign that we are not dealing with a genuine revolution, but with a change of leadership at the top. Remember too that the demonstrations were also supported by the likes of the radical cleric Al-Qardawi who is hardly a friend of the working classes.

- arnon

February 21, 2011 at 12:45pm

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

@Arnon I disagree that Egypt is not witnessing a revolution, through I concede to you that it isn't yet over and may still fail. There was a massive popular uprising which overthrew the state's longtime leader; Egypt is now in the hands of the army, which may well return the keys of state to Mubarak's friends or relatives. Thus far, the army has been encouragingly sympathetic to the opposition, but it's too early to say for certain what direction things will take. I don't, however, believe that the keys will be given to the Muslim Brotherhood. About the demonstrators' composition, it was remarkably mixed. However, my impression from friends who were there was that much of the crowd was made up of shop keepers, lower government functionaries, and so on, rather than lawyers and software developers. Since the impression is hearsay I'm open to be proven wrong. It wouldn't change the spirit of my argument that popular Arab opinion is suspicious of Israel, and that attacks on Mubarak that emphasized his friendship with Israel were to be expected. The demonstrations were not, however, directly anti-Israel or anti-semitic, nor do I think they predict a break or fundamental shift in policy between Israel and Egypt. Agreed that Al-Qardawi and his ilk are not the friends of the Egyptian working class (or any group except radical ulema and followers). They were not a significant part of the demonstrations, however. Of course, they supported the opposition when it appeared--what else were they to do--but they surely wish it had risen differently and for different motives.

- bacchant

February 21, 2011 at 1:18pm

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

Bacchant “I disagree that Egypt is not witnessing a revolution, through I concede to you that it isn't yet over and may still fail.” It may yet turn out to be a revolution, but up to now all we have is a change of government officials. “.. my impression from friends who were there was that much of the crowd was made up of shop keepers, lower government functionaries, and so on, rather than lawyers and software developers.” I guess your friends missed the software developers. Still the crowd wasn’t composed of mostly working class people, though they too were there along with government functionaries.

- arnon

February 21, 2011 at 1:36pm

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

Martin Kramer does not trust too much in Halevy's counter-intuitive insights. I must say the latter's optimism sounds to me like whistling in the dark. http://www.facebook.com/martinkramer.page/posts/186440201394900

- noga1

February 21, 2011 at 1:48pm

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

"They have eyes and they can't see" In fact rumblings about rewriting the agreements with Israel, Qaradawi speech to the protesters against Israel, Crusaders, Israel and America... The Islamic Brotherhood is about to eat the chestnuts taken out of the fire by the young dreamers. The Media describing the Brotherhood as moderate is comical at best but in reality very tragic. The "cold peace" will sooner than later get freezing status in the best of worlds.

- Poupic

February 21, 2011 at 2:23pm

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

Thanks to TNR for publishing this sensible alternative to the deranged ramblings of Martin Peretz. The other argument Egypt's new leaders will have to consider is this: if they want to help the Palestinians achieve their own state, then conflist with Israel is the surest way to defeat or postpone that outcome. In contrast, if Egypt re-affirms its treaty with Israel, then Egypt will have some influence with Israel - influence it can use to aid the cause of a Palestinian state.

- bjones

February 21, 2011 at 2:26pm

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

"Martin Kramer does not trust too much in Halevy's counter-intuitive insights. I must say the latter's optimism sounds to me like whistling in the dark." Halevi might be wrong, but as the former chief of the Mossad from 1998 to 2002, I doubt he is given to "whistling in the dark." What reason would he have for being too "optimistic, Noga?"

- arnon

February 21, 2011 at 2:59pm

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

"Thanks to TNR for publishing this sensible alternative to the deranged ramblings of Martin Peretz." Jones, TNR publishes people with different opinions on a subject. Doesn't make one opinion right and the other, "deranged."

- arnon

February 21, 2011 at 3:02pm

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

Baccant, don't forget that Egypt's army intervened in the civil war in Yemen from 1962-1967. That was a notable fiasco from Egypt's perspective, right down to the use of poison gas against civilians and a humiliating withdrawal shortly before the Six Day War. Egypt also sent troops to participate in Desert Storm, although I don't recall if they actually did any fighting or only guarded Iraqi prisoners. And Egypt has sent non-combat personnel to Afghanistan, not to mention peacekeeping troops to various places over the years. An acquaintance of mine who is a Jewish military chaplain (and Orthodox rabbi) was deployed in Afghanistan in 2004 or so and recalls discussions about Judaism and Islam with an Egyptian captain, who was apparently quite interested. My acquaintance suspected the guy may have been of at least partially Jewish descent, though he never admitted it. Strange small world.

- wildboy

February 21, 2011 at 3:12pm

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

Surely the notion of "wait and see" is the only sensible counsel on these unfolding matters rather than predictions one way or the other, thought there is much to be wary of. And surely prudent "wait and see" must be the basis for Israeli policy rather than the speculative optimism argued for here and that seems rather wispy. Plus I'm with the argument that says there hasn't been a revolution in Eypt and that the real power there remains in power, at least for the time being. On this point too we must wait and see. The situation is and will be replete with indicators and counter indicators until some critical mass makes itself relatively felt and known.

- basman

February 21, 2011 at 3:18pm

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

Ginzy, points well taken as always. However, it seems to me that one key difference between Iran in 1978-79 and Egypt today (that everyone seems to ignore) is that the Iranian army essentially disintegrated as a coherent force during that time period and ceased to have any cohesive influence upon the political transition. The senior officer corps was loyal to the Shah and largely scattered after his overthrow, junior officers were split and the enlisted men largely absented themselves from service in light of the chaos engulfing the country. At the same time, Khomeini and his friends were busy setting the groundwork for the creation of a new armed forces loyal to the revolution, which eventually because the Revolutionary Guard that so bedevils Iranian society and Israeli and American foreign policy today. The disintegration of the armed forces of the old regime and its replacement or supplementation by a "revolutionary" army was also a hallmark of the French and Russian revolutions and the bloody chaos that resulted was at least in part due to such disintegration. The fact that Egypt's army has not disintegrated and the chain of command is intact (so far as we know) should be cause for some measure of comfort, even as the participation of the Muslim Brotherhood in elections and the return of Yousef al-Qaradawi are cause for justifiable concern in the West.

- wildboy

February 21, 2011 at 3:22pm

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

Bacchant said, "… it's no secret that Israel isn't popular among the Arab working class who largely made up the revolution.” I think that Bacchant gratuitously injects class into this discussion. Israel is disliked at all levels of Egyptian society, because the Egyptians are anti-semitic in the old-fashioned sense of the word. The actual moral quality of Israel's behavior has little to do with it. As for Mubarak being seen as a friend of Israel, there was after all, a peace treaty and Mubarak was duty bound to respect it, if only for the American aid. Also, I don't think that the working class is the driving force of this "revolution". Revolutions are usually lead by the bourgeoisie. Lenin was a lawyer. Stalin was a seminarian. Today, assuming your observation is correct, it's the shop keepers and lower government functionaries, the lower bourgeoisie. Soon, I fear, the "revolution" may be hijacked by the clerical fascist crowd.

- amidut

February 21, 2011 at 3:24pm

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

"...one key difference between Iran in 1978-79 and Egypt today (that everyone seems to ignore) is that the Iranian army essentially disintegrated as a coherent force during that time period and ceased to have any cohesive influence upon the political transition." Good point, but as Basman said above "Surely the notion of "wait and see" is the only sensible counsel on these unfolding matters rather than predictions one way or the other..."

- arnon

February 21, 2011 at 3:29pm

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

"wait and see" is definitely the case with Egypt, especially as neighbor Libya now seems to be having a REAL revolution. According to my atlas, Libya's desert oil fields are southeast of Benghazi, close enough to the Egyptian border...

- K2K

February 21, 2011 at 3:57pm

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

Latest on Libya: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/world/africa/22nations.html?_r=1&hp

- arnon

February 21, 2011 at 3:58pm

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

Leslie Gelb and others on the demonstrations: http://onpoint.wbur.org/media-player?url=http://onpoint.wbur.org/2011/02/21/us-middle-east-response/&title=US+Policy+In+The+Arab+World&pubdate=2011-02-21&segment=1

- arnon

February 21, 2011 at 4:27pm

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

Cool research!

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2011 at 4:46pm

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

Looking forward to see how the UNSC and UNHRC and the African Union react to Libya's UN deputy permanent representative Dabbashi's various 'suggestions' in the NYT report cited by arnon. Paul Wolfowitz just weighed in at the WSJ. no comment from me on his suggestions, but I imagine the Egyptian army is freaking out as they must know more about the border-straddling Awlad Ali tribe offering to help transport medical supplies from Egypt to Libya.

- K2K

February 21, 2011 at 7:58pm

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

Pakistan is a democracy, right? "Pakistan’s Nuclear Folly" "With the Middle East roiling, the alarming news about Pakistan’s nuclear weapons buildup has gotten far too little attention. The Times recently reported that American intelligence agencies believe Pakistan has between 95 and more than 110 deployed nuclear weapons, up from the mid-to-high 70s just two years ago. Pakistan can’t feed its people, educate its children, or defeat insurgents without billions of dollars in foreign aid. Yet, with China’s help, it is now building a fourth nuclear reactor to produce more weapons fuel. Even without that reactor, experts say, it has already manufactured enough fuel for 40 to 100 additional weapons. That means Pakistan — which claims to want a minimal credible deterrent — could soon possess the world’s fifth-largest arsenal, behind the United States, Russia, France and China but ahead of Britain and India. Washington and Moscow, with thousands of nuclear weapons each, still have the most weapons by far, but at least they are making serious reductions...." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/opinion/21mon1.html?hp=&pagewanted=print Looks like democratic rule in the Muslim world isn't impeding war like and threatening behavior.

- arnon

February 21, 2011 at 8:44pm

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

Isn't this great? Now we can all read the NY Times here at TNR. Quite the contribution to the discussion. Do they get to read TNR over at nytimes.com?

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2011 at 9:27pm

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

"Isn't this great? Now we can all read the NY Times here at TNR. Quite the contribution to the discussion. Do they get to read TNR over at nytimes.com?" What the hell is your problem, roidubouloi, trying to ruin another discussion?

- nr106646

February 21, 2011 at 9:42pm

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

Counselor Basman has good advice. I might include as a self designated adjunct, be ready to snatch opportunity when it presents itself,.... not out of fear but of devotion to coup with a deep bow to reality. Jeez we are on the very lines of distinction and determination, neh?

- jacko

February 21, 2011 at 9:42pm

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

Oh, do you think that cutting and pasting long passages from the NY Times is discussion, nr106646? Why, that had not occurred to me. You do know how to find the Times online, don't you? Keep up the good work. Your comments are always pithy and on the mark.

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2011 at 10:39pm

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

I didn’t copy and paste anything, but unlike you I know how to avoid comments that don’t interest me, roidubouloi. You are just trying to start a fight here and ruin this discussion just as you did in every thread you post. The need to fight is how show yourself that you are alive. It’s the only way you know how to deal with the ego deficit that is roidubouloi.

- nr106646

February 21, 2011 at 10:47pm

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

Fight? With you 106646? Why ever would one bother? Let us take note, however, that so far your record of posting nothing but insults is unblemished. You have yet to offer anywhere a comment, good, bad, or indifferent, that consists of anything other than personal insult. How then is that you think it is I who is spoiling for a fight? It would appear that you do absolutely nothing but try to provoke them, here and everywhere. If you are sincerely concerned not to see a discussion ruined by such behavior, what excuse do you have for yourself? Do you attribute your own behavior to ego deficit, affective disorder, or something else?

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2011 at 11:11pm

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

"Looking forward to see how the UNSC and UNHRC and the African Union react to Libya's UN deputy permanent representative Dabbashi's various 'suggestions' in the NYT report cited by arnon. Paul Wolfowitz just weighed in at the WSJ. no comment from me on his suggestions, but I imagine the Egyptian army is freaking out as they must know more about the border-straddling Awlad Ali tribe offering to help transport medical supplies from Egypt to Libya." Take a look at this, K2K: "UNHRC Used By Dictators To Undermine Human Rights" By Hadar Sela http://propagandistmag.com/2011/02/21/unhrc-used-dictators-undermine-human-rights

- arnon

February 21, 2011 at 11:14pm

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

Keep bleating, roidubouloi. You will not derail this discussion. It's not about You it has nothing to do with YOU and no one gives a shit about YOUR insults.

- nr106646

February 21, 2011 at 11:17pm

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

Your record of "all insults, all the time" remains unbroken, 106646. Bravo! And, contra your protestations of disinterest, you seem to be fascinated by nothing so much as every word I utter. Odd. Run along and discuss, as you claim you are so desirous of doing. I cannot wait to read what you have to say. Goodnight.

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2011 at 11:26pm

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

rumor has it that the Saudis are paying for Pakistan's nuclear capabilities so the Sunnis can deter the Shi'a when/if Iran goes nuclear. Which makes some sense, if true. OTOH, after Qaradawi lumped the Zionists with the Crusaders and the idolators in his Friday speech in Tahrir Square, one can also infer that the Pakistanis need enough nukes to deter the Shi'a (mere heretics to the Sunni) and also destroy the idolators of Hindu India, whose 140 million Muslims are mostly other heretics (Sufi, Ahmadi, saint worshipping Shi'a). I guess the Chinese get a special exemption despite being pork-loving idolators who suppress their own colonized muslims. A moment to note the devastating earthquake that has devastated Christchurch, New Zealand, and "...Christchurch's historic cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament on Barbadoes Street had half collapsed, with the remaining part of the building filled with cracks. The spire on the Christchurch Cathedral has also collapsed. ..." http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10708013 Besides the unknown number of dead due to collapsed buildings, crushed buses, etcetera, just seemed necessary to note this, probably because I was thinking about the rest of the world today while the Arab Muslims seem intent on proving the domino effect is possible.

- K2K

February 21, 2011 at 11:31pm

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

arnon: thanks, fine post by Hadar Sela. I am aware of the hypocrisy of the UNHRC - just wondering how they will deal with member Libya. Will the U.S. will give up trying to bring change to the UNHRC (the alleged reason we joined)? It just seems that the UN is deligitimizing itself by allowing the 'non-aligned' cohort of nations to abuse the UN Charter. I am slowly reading Harry S Truman's memoirs (clears my mind before sleep)- currently about to 'lose China'. Truman predicted it would take decades for the UN to be truly effective, but it is hard to read his words and not be sad at what those decades have actually wrought. Well, the Arab League and the African Union certainly have the world's attention. May the 'stans of Central Asia decide the repression you know is better, for this week, than the chaos you do not...

- K2K

February 21, 2011 at 11:57pm

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

roidubouloi confuses attacks on posters with deep thinking. He spends half the time being a bully and the other half pretending that he is being bullied. Can't wait to see which personality will be dominant tomorrow.

- nr106646

February 22, 2011 at 12:02am

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

Here is someone who totally disagrees with Halevy's position: http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2011/02/new-arab-world.html "How can you tell that there is a new Arab world and that it won't be pleasant for US and Israel? Notice that the Palestinian questions has suddenly become more important for Arab tyrants and their lackeys. Sa`d Hariri--Hariri for potato's sake--issued a scathing statement criticizing US veto. More significantly, Abu Mazen (head of PA police (non)state received a 50 minute phone call from Obama and yet he did not succumb to pressure from the US to withdraw the resolution before the UNSC. And the defunct Egyptian foreign ministry found time to criticize the US for its veto. It is a new world in which Israel will be more unwelcome than ever--the Zionist entity will get the real political feel of Arab popular rejection for the first time since it was founded atop Palestine." I tend to accept that this so-called American professor is more in tune with the emotional fountains of the populist movements in the Middle East than anyone who is not an Arab and Muslim. By the way, what we have seen thus far unfolding in not a revolution (except maybe, just maybe, in Tunisia or Lybia) but rather an uprising of the fabled Arab street. The difference lies in the absence of coherence and leadership that can be noticed in these demonstrations. An outpouring of anger that cannot quite identify its own root causes.

- noga1

February 22, 2011 at 7:38am

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

The handwriting would seem to be clearly on the wall (see below). But one wonders, what, if anything, this has to do with the Arab revolutions, revolts, uprisings, or whatever they may be called? Why is this not an appropriate response to American interests, consistent with longstanding American policy, rather than to events of the past few days? One can none-the-less expect that rightists in Israel will continue to find excuses for failing to see the inevitable failure of Israel's settlement policy, attributing Israel's problems to everyone and everything but Israel itself, including to political changes in the Arab world The piece excerpted below was entitled "Betraying Israel," lest anyone be uncertain about which side of the divide it is on, but it captures the salient facts and rhetoric more than well enough. _______________________ "Posted by Joseph Klein on Feb 22nd, 2011 and filed under Daily Mailer, FrontPage. On February 18, 2011, the Obama administration vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution sought by the Palestinian Authority and introduced by Lebanon, declaring Israeli settlements to be “illegal.” In fact, the U.S. was the only Security Council member to vote against the measure. Countries supporting the resolution in a 14-1 vote, rather than at least abstaining, included the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. However, the Obama administration wasted no time in trying to have it both ways. It piled on Israel with denunciations of its settlement policies in as strident a manner as the Palestinians and the terrorist-ruled state of Lebanon. In her formal statement to the Security Council explaining the United States’ decision to veto this particular Security Council resolution, Ambassador Susan Rice told the council that it “risks hardening the positions of both sides. It could encourage the parties to stay out of negotiations and, if and when they did resume, to return to the Security Council whenever they reach an impasse.” But Rice also told the council not to interpret America’s opposition to the resolution as support for Israel’s settlement activities. America rejects “in the strongest terms the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity,” she said. “Continued settlement activity violates Israel’s international commitments, devastates trust between the parties, and threatens the prospects for peace…[W]e agree with our fellow Council members – and indeed, with the wider world – about the folly and illegitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity.”

- roidubouloi

February 22, 2011 at 8:52am

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

http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2011/02/obamas-devastatingly-mixed-sig.php "It is important at the outset to point out that Rice's claims are either wrong or debatable. Israel has not committed itself to barring Jews from exercising property rights in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. Permitting Jewish construction in these areas does not violate Israel's international commitments. Moreover, there is no firm international legal basis for declaring Jewish neighborhoods and villages in these areas illegal. It is far from clear that Jewish neighborhoods, cities and villages in these areas harm prospects for peace or undermine trust between Israelis and Arabs. Jews built far more homes back when Israel was signing agreements with the Palestinians. Finally, it is far easier to form a coherent argument explaining how these communities strengthen Israel's security than an argument that they endanger it. BUT BEYOND the basic falseness of Rice's statement, her condemnation of her own vote to veto the resolution, and Clinton's similar statements, serve to send a series of messages to the states in the region that are devastating to America's regional posture. Friday's Security Council vote marked a new peak in the Fatah-controlled, US-sponsored Palestinian Authority's political war against Israel. The war's aim is to delegitimize the Jewish state in order to foment its collapse on the model of apartheid South Africa." _______ It is my impression that the US UN lack of coherence is not at all as incoherent as it is claimed. It is perfectly coherent with Obama's systematic dislodging of Israel as US's strongest kin-democracy and ally in the region to be replaced with the likes of Syria and Hizzbala. With the outcome of Egypt's so-called democratic revolution in great doubt, and Israel's justifiable anxieties, Obama saw a golden opportunity to teach the Jewish state a lesson. If he couldn't support this resolution as he wanted to, due to pressures from Congress, he would go for the passive-aggressive alternative. Which he did. "Passive–aggressive behavior, a personality trait, is passive, sometimes obstructionist resistance to following through with expectations in interpersonal or occupational situations. It is a personality trait marked by a pervasive pattern of negative attitudes and passive, usually disavowed resistance in interpersonal or occupational situations." (wiki) ______________ BTW, anyone who has great hopes that Egypt will evolve in accordance with our democratic expectation ought to think again. Here is a tweet from Wael Ghonim: http://twitter.com/Ghonim/status/38676935563280384 This salutation does not quite harmonize with this event: "Google executive Wael Ghonim, who emerged as a leading voice in Egypt's uprising, was barred from the stage in Tahrir Square on Friday by security guards, an AFP photographer said. Ghonim tried to take the stage in Tahrir, the epicentre of anti-regime protests that toppled President Hosni Mubarak, but men who appeared to be guarding influential Muslim cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi barred him from doing so. Ghonim, who was angered by the episode, then left the square with his face hidden by an Egyptian flag." So one wonders where exactly is Ghonim's heart in all this? Is he a genuine voice for democracy or just another populist, run of the mill, Arab Street, radical?

- noga1

February 22, 2011 at 9:34am

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

I'm curious as to how the U.S. being the only country to veto the UNSC resolution against Israel is interpreted as "Obama's systematic dislodging of Israel as US's strongest kin-democracy and ally in the region to be replaced with the likes of Syria and Hizzbala." Wouldn't such an interpretation be . . . what's the word I'm looking for? Oh yes! Wrong.

- ironyroad

February 22, 2011 at 10:19am

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

Well, now that we have had the benefit of the unsupported opinion of legal scholar Caroline Glick, Assistant Foreign Policy Advisor to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in 1997-1998, let us hear from Judge Buergenthal, the Israeli judge on the International Court of Justice, in his dissenting opinion to the ruling of the ICJ that Israel's West Bank security fence is illegal under international law: "2. 1 share the Court's conclusion that international humanitarian law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, and international human rights law are applicable to the Occupied Palestinian Territory and must there be faithfully complied with by Israel. I accept that the wall is causing deplorable suffering to many Palestinians living in that territory. In this connection, 1 agree that the means used to defend against terrorism must conform to al1 applicable rules of international law and that a State which is the victim of terrorism may not defend itself against this scourge by resorting to measures international law prohibits. 9. Paragraph 6 of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention also does not admit for exceptions on grounds of military or security exigencies. It provides that "the Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies". I agree that this provision applies to the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and that their existence violates Article 49, paragraph 6. It follows that the segments of the wall being built by Israel to protect the settlements are ipso facto in violation of international humanitarian law. Moreover, given the demonstrable great hardship to which the affected Palestinian population is being subjected in and around the enclaves created by those segments of the wall, 1 seriously doubt that the wall would here satisfy the proportionality requirement to qualify as a legitimate measure of self-defence." Indeed, contra counselor Glick, there exists virtually no responsible legal opinion that the settlements are not illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention, and that is the view of all international legal bodies that have addressed the question. As far as Israel's commitments, there is of course its signature on the Fourth Geneva Convention itself. And then there is this from the Road Map: "Settlements - GOI immediately dismantles settlement outposts erected since March 2001. - Consistent with the Mitchell Report, GOI freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements)." Being polite, one might say that Ms. Glick, while accusing Susan Rice, United States Ambassador to the United Nations, of "basic falseness," is not herself acquainted with seemingly any fact relevant to the claims she makes, quoted with approval by noga. On the other hand, one must be grateful to Ms. Glick for defending American interests and calling to our attention that our Presdient, Secretary of State, and UN Ambassador are "devastating to America's regional posture." Of course, one might want to know how it would be beneficial to America's regional posture to be whole-heartedly supporting Israel's illegal settlement policy, but that is just a detail I am sure. Fully as predicted, we find in Ms. Glick's statement this: "Friday's Security Council vote marked a new peak in the Fatah-controlled, US-sponsored Palestinian Authority's political war against Israel. The war's aim is to delegitimize the Jewish state in order to foment its collapse on the model of apartheid South Africa." It seems to have escaped Ms. Glick completely that the only thing that stands between Israel and unbearable international pressure is the United States itself, and that, while rhetorically joining in the condemnation of Israel's illegal policy, the United States continued to shield Israel from that pressure. The US does not need to make "political war" on Israel. All it needs to do is to open that door a crack and stop using its veto to defend Israel. It is perfectly obvious that eventually, if Israel persists in its universally condemned colonization of the West Bank, the US will. Bizarrely, the fact that the US has not yet done so is attributed by noga to "passive-aggressive" behavior on the part of the American president. I suppose that noga would prefer that, despite its own clear interest, clearly expressed over many years, that Israel desist from it settlement policy, the United States not continue to bend toward Israel and subordinate its own immediate interests to the intransigence of the Netanyahu government. This would then no longer be passive-aggressive. Rather than see American interests for what they are and the slow march toward American assertion of its own interests in the Middle East rather than those of Israel (best efforts of AIPAC notwithstanding), what we see here is the psychologizing of state interests and, as I predicted, rightist Israels blaming everyone and everything other than Israel's own illegal colonization and apartheid policies for the isolation of Israel and its ultimate condemnation for apartheid "on the model of South Africa." In the hyper-solipsistic rightist imagination, the problem is not the commission of the illegal deeds, but that the world will come to condemn them.

- roidubouloi

February 22, 2011 at 10:23am

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

Oh come now ironyroad, surely you realize the problematic nature of vetoing a resolution and immediately following up with a long apologetics about why it was wrong to do so? BTW, I left a comment for you in the anger thread.

- noga1

February 22, 2011 at 10:31am

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

I should add that, as evidenced most recently by the 14-1 Security Council vote, Israel's rightist governments, most notably in the person of Benjamin Netanyahu, in pursuit of their feckless settlement policy, have caused Israel to become almost completely isolated and friendless in the world. The only thing that stands between Israel and disaster in one form or another is the United States. Despite that critical dependence, Netanyahu does his best to tax the relationship with the United States and rightist Israelis make great sport of insulting the American president and condemning the American government in various ways. None-the-less, esteemed policy analyst Caroline Glick says this: "Finally, it is far easier to form a coherent argument explaining how these communities strengthen Israel's security than an argument that they endanger it." Is there a diplomatic term of art for such extreme self-delusion, or must we ask, colloquially, "What is she smoking?" "a coherent argument?" How about an incoherent argument, just for starters?

- roidubouloi

February 22, 2011 at 10:39am

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

The "problematic nature" is that the US policy interest in having Israel desist from any further settlement is clear, but that the US is constrained by Israel's very dependence upon it from acting freely in its own interest. The words make the nature of the interest clear even if the circumstances, as yet, require the US to act against its own interest. Moreover, contra noga's amusing psychologizing, this is precisely the manner in which states indicate the direction of their policy while trying to avoid immediate disruption of previous expectations, whether justified or not. Israel is being told unambiguously where the United States is going, and it is perfectly obvious that this is not merely some whim of President Obama but the slow untying of the cords by which Israeli Lilliputians have bound the American Gulliver on this matter. Regardless of how many election cycles it take and how fitful the progress, this is inevitable. Gulliver will stand up at some point and assert its own interests. Is anyone of consequence in Israel listening? I doubt it. Rather, Israelis prefer to reassure themselves with fatuous Glick-isms.

- roidubouloi

February 22, 2011 at 10:46am

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

I think Rice spoke as a representative of the Administration and was trying to advance the Administration's attempt, in the excercise of its veto, to balance the demands of domestic politics, international politics and principle. She was trying to condemn Israeli settlement expansion and general settlement policy, criticized by no less than Allan Dershowitz and Marty Peretz, while at the same time vetoing the Palestinians'/U.N's attempt to make an isolated, international centrality of that policy, particularly amidst all that can be rightly charged against the Palestinans as obstructors to a two state solution. She was resisting the Palestinians' symbolic campaign in the public relations dimension of the promotion of their own agenda. She was trying to direct the issues back to the parties themselves. That's the act of an ally with a balanced perspective. What's wrong with that? If one doesn't think the U.S. doesn't stand with Israel, then set out please the ways the U.S. under Obama has cut back against the foreign aid and military cooperation America historically has provided her.

- basman

February 22, 2011 at 10:48am

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

I concur with basman's somewhat different take and would add this gloss: Part of the explicit message to Netanyahu, through the combination of veto and rhetoric, is that the United States is affording Israel additional time and opportunity to negotiate its way out of the West Bank, but that, ultimately, it will be leaving the West Bank, as the US will not forever bar the door.

- roidubouloi

February 22, 2011 at 10:56am

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

"She was resisting the Palestinians' symbolic campaign in the public relations dimension of the promotion of their own agenda. She was trying to direct the issues back to the parties themselves. That's the act of an ally with a balanced perspective." That's my view too, Basman.

- arnon

February 22, 2011 at 11:06am

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

Noga, so you really think "the angry Arab” has it right when he says "t is a new world in which Israel will be more unwelcome than ever--the Zionist entity will get the real political feel of Arab popular rejection for the first time since it was founded atop Palestine.?" He makes it sound as if until now Israel had been accepted by the Arab world that's just bogus thinking. There is no "new world" when it comes to Arab Israel relations. The angry Arabs fought five major wars against Israel since 1947. So what is new in this "brave new world?" I would add to Halevy's conjectures (which I find plausible) that in this so called new world if Arabs go back to the type of belligerence we saw in those years the conflict will again become an Arab Israeli one (which it always was) and not be seen as an Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This will benefit Israel in the wars of public relations in the West since it will be harder to sell the view that Israel, a country of some six million is the superpower and the 300 plus million Arabs the victims.

- arnon

February 22, 2011 at 11:20am

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

btw, Noga who does the “angry Arab” represent? Who is he speaking for?

- arnon

February 22, 2011 at 11:32am

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

George Friedman, Stratfor today: "Revolution and the Muslim World" http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2011/02/22/revolution_and_the_muslim_world_99407.html Has anyone found any reasonable analysis as to why Germany, France, and the UK voted no to the 'settlement' resolution? I tend to agree with basman on Susan Rice, but her body language was as tough to watch as it was to hear the anger in her voice. Instead of trying to get Abbas to withdraw the resolution, the U.S. should have been rounding up a few abstentions.

- K2K

February 22, 2011 at 11:55am

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

Benny Morris also has a pessimistic view of events: "Losing the Middle East" Benny Morris | February 22, 2011 http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/losing-middle-east-4921?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter He says among other things, "Similarly, a greater frostiness will enter into attitudes across the Middle East towards Israel (a frostiness, to be sure, that will aid the Israeli right in rebuffing efforts to conciliate the Palestinians and will encourage the Palestinians in their obduracy and inflexibility on such issues as refugee return, settlements, etc.)." and later on: "The Egyptian masses, like those in other Arab countries, are in some measure anti-Israeli because of decades of deliberate unrestrained anti-Israeli (and, often, anti-Semitic) media incitement. There is substantial support for the Hamas, which is the Palestine branch of Egypt's fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood movement. In Egypt, while peace was the official policy, government spokesmen often publicly castigated Israel (sometimes justifiably) and took great offense when Israelis said anything critical about Egypt. There was never any symmetry....." When commentators remark that the Arab masses are anti-Israel they never mention that in part this is because of decades of anti-Jewish incitement by the governments they hate. The masses are trying to liberate themselves from autocratic regimes, but unless they also liberate themselves from those regimes antisemitic ideology they will only exchange one tyrannical regime for another.

- arnon

February 22, 2011 at 11:59am

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

"Instead of trying to get Abbas to withdraw the resolution, the U.S. should have been rounding up a few abstentions." But the US agrees with the substance of the resolution, although finding it inopportune. France, Germany, and the UK also agree. The entire world considers Israeli settlements to be illegal so it should not be a mystery that, in slow steps, it is moving toward condemnation. What is mysterious is that bewilderment at this and the constant effort to find some deeper cause other than the one that is quite obvious on the face of things. There is no country in the world that has an affirmative interest in supporting Israeli colonization of the West Bank. As Susan Rice said very clearly, the settlements frustrate peace. This is the universal view. Only Israelis and some of Israel's immediate personal friends claim otherwise. "encourage the Palestinians in their obduracy and inflexibility on such issues as refugee return, settlements, etc." And what is to be done about Israeli obduracy and inflexibility on such issues as refugee return, settlements, etc.? Remarkable how the failure of Palestinians to agree to Israeli demands is obduracy by the failure of Israel to agree to Palestinian demands, including the cessation of illegal acts, is not.

- roidubouloi

February 22, 2011 at 12:14pm

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

"btw, Noga who does the “angry Arab” represent? Who is he speaking for?" I don't think he "represents' anyone but himself, but as I indicated in my comment earlier: I tend to accept that this so-called American professor is more in tune with the emotional fountains of the populist movements in the Middle East than anyone who is not an Arab and Muslim. The core of Israel's anxiety about Egypt in particular is in the uncertainty of the direction of this "democratic" reform. So far, since the 'liberation" from Mubarak's regime I have no seen one act, one event, one speech, one tweet, that would serve as an indication that peace and liberality are this movement's suit. There seems to be a competition as to who will suck up more to the Muslim Brotherhood. In that respect, AA is a valuable window into that mood and inclination.

- noga1

February 22, 2011 at 1:16pm

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

maybe BP will hire the Egyptian Army to provide security for Libya's oil fields, which is a far more attractive option than fighting Israel in the Sinai. Now that the Rafah blockade to Gaza has been lifted, can Hamas and the Sinai bedouin wreak havoc at will? All Obama has proven is that the U.S. is an unreliable ally, at best clumsy at diplomacy, and the Saudis have taken note. What will China do?

- K2K

February 22, 2011 at 1:37pm

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

The US is not Israel's ally and Israel is not a US ally. The US is Israel's patron and Israel is a US client. All the stuff about allies is just happy talk for domestic political consumption in both countries. Leaving that aside, unreliable? When did the US yoke itself in perpetuity to Israel's colonial adventurism is the West Bank? When did the US, in its relationship to Israel, agree perpetually to allow Israel to define what is and is not in the US interest? Conversely, for what, exactly, can the US rely on Israel? To accede to US requests? Plainly that doesn't happen. To send its armed forces to fight US wars? I am unable to think of what Israel can even do for the US, besides refrain from being a pain in the ass and sharing some modicum of intelligence. Not clear how reliably Israel does either. Israel has yet to cooperate with the US in returning or disclosing the information stolen by Jonathan Pollard.

- roidubouloi

February 22, 2011 at 2:19pm

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

Noga, On what basis do you “accept (the angry Arab) “is more in tune with the emotional fountains of the populist movements in the Middle East than anyone who is not an Arab and Muslim.”

- arnon

February 22, 2011 at 4:14pm

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

Based on my experience of engaging with Arab bloggers from Dubai, Abu-Dhabi, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Egypt. And from reading English-written Arab newspapers and watching al-jazeera where available.

- noga1

February 22, 2011 at 4:29pm

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

“Based on my experience of engaging with Arab bloggers from Dubai, Abu-Dhabi, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Egypt. And from reading English-written Arab newspapers and watching al-jazeera where available.” Well, Noga, if I spent my days with Arab bloggers, newspapers and watched al Jezeera I too would have come to same conclusion. Political bloggers tend to be people with deep political convictions. I don’t know how representative e they are. I am sure there is a lot of antisemitism in the Arab world but that’s because most people have been forced fed a Nazi like diet for generations about Jews by the tyrannical regimes they lived under. I am not inclined to accept these views as the last word about the matter. As Efraim Halevy directly and Benny Morris indirectly suggested Israeli organizations need to counter that antisemitic propaganda line. They can begin by pointing out how reactionary antisemitism is and how it tends to favor dictatorships and is anti-democratic.

- arnon

February 22, 2011 at 5:26pm

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

Antisemitism in the Arab and Muslim world antedates their reactionary regimes and Israel's existence. I don't think these societies can be de-programmed by anything Israel can do or say to them. http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-kuntzel-s05.htm How do you know the bloggers I engaged with are "political"? These bloggers pride themselves on their cosmopolitanism and Western tastes in music, film, literarture, etc. They are all highly educated and write excellent English. Some of them seem like pretty decent persons, until it comes to Israel and Jews. What other way but direct dialogue would you consider as sufficient to arrive at a certain judgment? Reading Halevy and Benny Morris have their uses but I always like to check out things for myself, as far as it is possible to do.

- noga1

February 22, 2011 at 5:40pm

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

Amy Isseroff is a journalist whose analyses and understanding I respect. Here is his take on: http://www.zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2011/02/21/lessons-of-the-u-s-veto-of-the-anti-israel-resolution/ "U.S. veto of U.N. Resolution on settlements – not so simple." Even though I don't see how his characterization of Israeli leaders' view of the veto as meriting "celebrations" is born out by the article he links to. What I read is no more than a certain relief. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-deeply-appreciates-u-s-veto-on-un-resolution-condemning-settlements-1.344390

- noga1

February 22, 2011 at 5:52pm

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

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-deeply-appreciates-u-s-veto-on-un-resolution-condemning-settlements-1.344390

- noga1

February 22, 2011 at 5:52pm

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

From Barry Rubin: http://www.solomonia.com/wp/2011/02/egypt-the-most-moderate-democracy-advocate-speaks-and-says-a-lot/#more-1423 "So we have six years before the Islamists might come to power? Perhaps we need to start making plans for this timetable. And that would roughly coincide with Iran getting nuclear weapons. I don’t feel too calm with that assessment. As I said, Sandmonkey is a good guy. He is among the most moderate one-hundreth of one percent of the Egypt people. (I didn’t pick that statistic at random.) That’s another factor that doesn’t make me feel so reassured."

- noga1

February 22, 2011 at 6:03pm

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

“Sure, and they should. But antisemitism in the Muslim world is also a faith-based hatred. As such, it's difficult to counter with rational argument. To confront and reject faith-based antisemitism, I think Islam needs its own Enlightenment.” Malahat, we don’t know how much Muslim antisemitism is do to Koranic influences, and how much of it is due to other cultural influences like Christian antisemitism and Nazi propaganda. We do know that Arab countries will not achieve real a real democratic culture if they don’t let go of that hatred. This is what we need to point out. The rest is up to them. There are people in those countries committed to democracy and these are the folk we need to talk to.

- arnon

February 22, 2011 at 6:32pm

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

Thanks Malahat for the paper. I am familiar with the Muslim Brotherhood history and doctrine.

- arnon

February 22, 2011 at 6:34pm

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

Israel is not going to talk the Moslem world out of anti-Semitism. Israel's responsibility is to maintain a proper, legal, ethical relationship with the Moslem world, something it is not now doing, and do what is necessary to defend itself. The rest is largely out of its hands. Anti-Semitism and all such hatreds typically change as a result of personal relationships. When human beings get to know particular members of the hated group, and discover that they are pretty much the same and that they like them, it becomes harder and harder to maintain the hatred. Not much else has ever had an effect. Political and doctrinal changes typically follow cultural changes. The attitudes of Americans toward gays serving openly in the military is but the latest example. ___________________ The most interesting portions of Isseroff's piece, in my opinion, are the following because they show a disturbing lack of awareness of the situation: "Israelis and Israel partisans may have learned that American policy has not changed essentially in the last decades, despite changes in emphasis and rhetoric. When the chips are down, the Americans will go to bat for Israel. We should, on the hand be appalled by the fact that all the other Security Council members as well as over 120 countries, and for that matter, even the United States, consider that Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem are “illegal settlements.” U.S. officials were at pains to stress that they consider East Jerusalem “settlements” to be “illegal.” We have not made a case for Israeli sovereignty in East Jerusalem or anywhere in the West Bank. Ambassador Rice emphasized that the U.S. veto should not be: “seen as an endorsement of Israel’s settlement policies, which the Obama administration has repeatedly denounced.” Rice also said: “While we agree with our fellow council members and indeed with the wider world about the folly and illegitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity, we think it unwise for this council to attempt to resolve the core issues that divide Israelis and Palestinians,” Susan Rice seems to be saying the U.S. vetoed the resolution because the U.S. wants to control the negotiations, rather than surrendering control of the process to the U.N. The U.S. wants to get the credit for forcing an Israeli withdrawal. The veto is not a sign of support for the Israeli cause necessarily. and is hardly a cause for celebration in Israel." _____________________ It seems simply not to have penetrated most anywhere in Israeli society that the settlements are illegal and immoral. Apart from Jerusalem, they are colonies with a privileged population living under its own law and in control of all levers of power, subordinating to its own needs the claims of native inhabitants to land, water, right of passage. The settlements are forbidden under the Fourth Geneva Convention as unequivocally recognized by even the Israeli judge in the International Court of Justice. Despite this, even an intelligent analyst like Isseroff seems to think that this is all just a big public relations problem rather than a fundamental problem of illegality and illegitimacy as to which the world, the 120 countries, the Security Council, the United States are not going to be persuaded. He is appalled that the entire world seems not to understand Israel's truth. He should be appalled that Israel has placed itself in a position where the overwhelming moral and legal consensus of the world is that Israel is unambiguously in the wrong and hence left itself almost totally isolated and friendless. No amount of pr is going to change that. Only stopping doing the wrong thing can change it. What this demonstrates is the power of propaganda and groupthink. Israelis are just as brainwashed by their own relentless, solipsistic propaganda as the Arabs are by theirs to the point where they can still delude themselves that, somehow, the entire rest of the world is, with the right words, going to be persuaded to the Israeli point of view. That is not going to happen and, sooner or later, there will be consequences, as there were for South Africa, in becoming an international pariah and outlaw. And all over land that Israel does not need and cannot have. As to Jerusalem, Isseroff seems not to understand that there is no reason for the world to see the matter differently. The UN has repeatedly said that unilateral border changes are illegal. While settlement in Jerusalem is subject to different law, both international and domestic, because Jerusalem has been formally incorporated, Israel itself has obliterated any distinction between the West Bank and Jerusalem by settling where it has annexed and where it has not annexed with equal zeal. In light of that history, that Israel itself has made no distinction on the ground as to its claimed right of settlement, it is rather too late in the game to expect the rest of the world to respect the distinction that Israel now wishes to draw between Jerusalem and the West Bank. I don't know if Israel could have successfully annexed East Jerusalem if it had not overreached by settling in the West Bank where it had no plausible claim of right, but I am certain that this overreaching has destroyed the possibility. This is a cause for grief. Isseroff also draws the bizarre conclusion that the veto is so that the US can "control" the negotiations although there is little evidence that it has every been able to do so. While diplomats often dissemble, the first thing to do is listen to what they say and see if it makes sense as delivered rather than seek for hidden meanings. The US has said that it strongly prefers that the parties reach an agreement between them, that the UN not impose a solution. It has not said that there will never come a time when an imposed settlement is necessary. But it explicitly recognizes that an agreed settlement will have more legitimacy in the eyes of the affected people, and hence will be more durable and less prone to failure, than an imposed settlement. For that reason, it is not prepared, yet, to allow the UN to start imposing. This makes perfect sense on its face and is sound reasoning. While there are doubtless other considerations, including the desire of the US not to be perceived, by Israelis or Arabs or the rest of the world, as simply abandoning Israel, the stated justification is, in this case, perfectly likely to be the primary, real justification. The reason why such as Isseroff search for some other motivation is that, persuaded of narishkeit, foolishness, by years of repeating to each other their own propaganda, they do not want to accept that there is a clock running, that Israel cannot rationally expect to sit indefinitely in the West Bank until such time as the Palestinians accept the terms that Israel wishes to impose. They have not done so yet, they will likely not do so in the future. Israel has to strike a deal that the other party will accept or, at some point, the matter will be taken out of its hands. It cannot hold the West Bank hostage indefinitely. This is what Israel refuses to believe and the reason why Netanyahu thinks he can stonewall indefinitely. But he and the people of Israel have just been told, unequivocally, that this is not the case. Having declared itself unambiguously opposed to Israeli settlements, the US cannot forever shield Israel from the UN on this matter. Does Netanyahu get the message? Certainly he is natively disinclined to do so. But, on top of that, reading accounts such as Isseroff's gives great cause for pessimism. There seems to be no one of consequence in Israel (other than Sharon who is gone) who understands that the settlements are a wasting asset and the clock is ticking, no one to tell Netanyahu that he is standing pat on a losing hand.

- roidubouloi

February 22, 2011 at 10:36pm

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

The print version of the "Protocols" is still a best-seller in Muslim countries (English speakers can download it from the internet.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_imprints_of_The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/hoax.html Television stations in Egypt still broadcast, during Ramadan, "the 30-part series, "Horseman Without a Horse," produced by Arab Radio and Television of Saudi Arabia. The series reportedly portrays the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" as historical fact and a guiding principle of Israeli policy." (quote from ADL) Hezbollah also broadcasts a version in Lebanon. Turkey's new "Valley of the Wolves" (Mavi Marmara version) is in the theatres.

- K2K

February 23, 2011 at 1:11am

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

". Anti-Semitism and all such hatreds typically change as a result of personal relationships. When human beings get to know particular members of the hated group, and discover that they are pretty much the same and that they like them, it becomes harder and harder to maintain the hatred." Sure thing. We saw how well that worked in post-enlightenment Europe.

- noga1

February 23, 2011 at 7:05am

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

Anti-Semitism waxes. At times it also wanes. For those who actually want to see it decline and become less a force in the world (while leaving for the Messiah the day of its disappearance), it is worth considering under what conditions it can undergo a decline. I cannot see any historical period in which it has declined without the inclusion of Jews in society, at different levels, and the growth of positive experiences between Jews and everyone else that reduce the opportunity for anti-Semitism to flourish. It is, after all, a social phenomenon that depends on social reinforcement. Like a virus in a substantially immunized population, it is more difficult for it to spread and grow if many individuals are not susceptible. Unfortunately, there are Jews for whom anti-Semitism is a raison d'etre. Their own identity, Jewish and otherwise, is so bound up with being hated that they need anti-Semitism as much as anti-Semitism needs them. They look for it everywhere and all experience comes to be defined by it. They use it, for example, not only to supply the narrative for all events involving Jews and/or Israel but as justification for whatever it is that Israel does or does not do. It becomes impossible for them to say to themselves that, while anti-Semitism exists, it is neither the sum of experience nor the most important fact of Jewish life. Hence, they need it. Israel itself is endangered by this. Although noga has previously denied the existence or the importance of the phenomenon, I have heard plenty of Israelis respond to events with words to the effect that, "They are going to hate us no matter what we do, so we might as well do what we want." I don't have an opinion poll to attest to just how widespread this is, but I have heard it enough to know that it is not an idiosyncratic point of view. For those who do not need anti-Semitism for self-definition, believe that it is not inevitable, and would like to see it diminish, it is worth considering the relationship that the struggle with the Palestinians bears to it. It is not the case that Israel or the occupation are the cause of anti-Semitism in the Moslem world, or anywhere else. But it is impossible to imagine that the Palestinians will not continue to hate Israelis as long as they are occupied and colonized by them. There is no historical precedent that I can think of in which the occupied and colonized did not hate their occupiers and colonizers. They do not fail or cease to hate because historical or legal justification can be found for the political state of affairs. That simply is not how human beings thing. They do not consult a law book to find out whether they are angry. It is also inevitable that the balance of the Moslem world will sympathize with co-religionists and ethnic brethren in Palestine and thus, at a remove, will partake of their anger. This is no different than the sympathy that diaspora Jewry has for Israel. Is it uniform, total unselfish, devoid of cynicism and hypocrisy? No. Is family life, where relationships are much more intimate, devoid of these things? No, not in the human world. Thus, while it is common amongst supporters of Israel to disparage this shared sympathy amongst Arabs and Moslems because it is manipulated and at times cynical, the reality is that it exists, that it will always exist, and that it has force and profound significance. Israel can defeat and subjugate the Arabs in its immediate vicinity. It cannot never defeat and subjugate the Moslem world in its entirety. Thus, Palestine can never be isolated from external support, emotional, political, diplomatic, financial, material, and military. The UN resolution is but more evidence of this, as if any thoughtful person needed more. If Israel values its life more than its justifications, if it wants anti-Semitism to decline as a force in the world rather than to stimulate it as further justification for Messianism, then it is in Israel's interest, far beyond that of the Palestinians, to put an end to occupation and colonization. Israel can never present an existential threat to the Arab world, the Moslem world. No matter what Israel does or does not do, there will be generation upon generation of Arabs and it does not matter all that much in the scheme of history whether a few generations, a small fraction of the Arab population, passes its existence subjugated to Israel. There will always be enough. On the other hand, Israel is at risk for its existence, and the longer a situation of conflict, inevitable anger, and hatred are perpetuated, the greater the risk that someday events will conspire against Israel. One cannot stand with a finger in the dike forever, even with nuclear weapons as a back-up plan. Occupation and colonization do not cause Moslem anti-Semitism, but they perpetuate the conditions that do not allow it to diminish. This is a tragedy for Israel and one that it should want to bring to an end as soon as possible. Would peace guarantee that Moslem anti-Semitism will diminish? Of course not. There are many factors involved and most are far beyond Israel's control. But one should want to remove obstacles. The Fourth Geneva Convention not only prohibits the settlements, but lays out what amounts to a general code of conduct for an occupying power. The gist of it is that the occupied population is to be left alone to conduct its national, economic, and religious life to the greatest extent possible consistent with the bona fide security needs of the occupying power. Israel has the right to maintain the occupation as long as it is threatened and there is no political settlement with the Palestinians. It has the right to do what is necessary to maintain security in the occupied territory and to prevent threats and violence that emanate from it. It does not have the right to settle or impose greater hardship or suffering upon them than is necessary for security. It not only should want as little a presence in the lives of Palestinians as it can manage, that is its international legal obligation. Beyond that, Israel should, in its own long-term interest, be doing what it can to extricate itself from this situation consistent with security. To continue to perpetuate the gruesome occupation and colonization, not to protect its safety but out of the desire either to gain more territory or to avoid admitting that it has made an enormous, costly strategic error, is folly. The end of the occupation will not only enhance Israel's security but allow the hatred to diminish and conditions perhaps to develop in which the force of anti-Semitism weakens. Those are objects that are devoutly to be desired by all Jews who do not find their justification in anti-Semitism. They don't have to love us to make peace, but, with peace, the hatred may over time decline or cease to be a central force in the lives of Moslems. There are no certainties, but there are greater and lesser likelihoods. We should choose the course that makes our own survival and flourishing more rather than less likely.

- roidubouloi

February 23, 2011 at 9:49am

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

“Anti-Semitism waxes. At times it also wanes” Yes, sometimes it kills millions and sometimes only hundreds. ". Anti-Semitism and all such hatreds typically change as a result of personal relationships. When human beings get to know particular members of the hated group, and discover that they are pretty much the same and that they like them, it becomes harder and harder to maintain the hatred." Personal relationships in Germany or Russia didn’t help those targeted by the Party of hatred with many people who were neighbors of those they killed. It also didn’t help the Tutsis in Rwanda murdered by their Hutu neighbors.

- Newly84

February 23, 2011 at 11:50am

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

The question is not at all whether personal relationships between Jews and others in society and the world afford immunity from anti-Semitism or its resurgence. Plainly they do not. The question, rather, is whether anti-Semitism ever wanes in the absence of the growth of such relationships. I believe the evidence on that is almost entirely one way. Hence, without illusion or expectation that we will enter utopia, we should want to encourage such relationships and the conditions that permit and encourage them. Contrariwise, there is no evidence that I know of that we have ever succeeded in talking much of anyone out of anti-Semitism by convincing argument or on purely moral grounds. There is some evidence that societies or elements within a society have talked themselves out of anti-Semitism, at least formal anti-Semitism, in this manner, but not that we have been successful in doing so. You go with what seems to work best and what holds out some promise of progress.

- roidubouloi

February 23, 2011 at 11:59am

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

To put it more simply, there is abundant evidence in the historical record that the isolation of Jews is conducive to anti-Semitism and that their breaking out of such isolation contributes to the reduction of anti-Semitism. Indeed, deliberate isolation of Jews is a consistent feature of anti-Semitism. Prudent self-regard, an essential value of Zionism as well as overall mental health, therefore demands of us that we do what we reasonably can not to be, or to allow ourselves to become, isolated. In a better world, perhaps it would not matter. That is not the world we are living in. To the extent that Israel, without legal, moral, or security justification, isolates itself from the world community, it not only exacerbates its security problems but helps create conditions that are more conducive to anti-Semitism. That is not a question of blame, a moral category, it is a question of pragmatism and prudence. And one CAN be blamed for that for which one is blameworthy. I suppose one can insist in the abstract that 120 nations, the UN, the Security Council, the United States, all competent legal authorities are wrong and that Israel alone is right. But until God speaks, the overwhelming opinion of the entire world is a more reliable guide. It seems that at least some Israelis (certainly Netanyahu in his rhetoric) are bewitched by the idea of perfect self-defense, that Israel is a power in its own right capable of defending itself without assistance. This is a myth. While (leaving Suez aside), only Israel has fought for itself, the theater in which it has fought has been tiny (commensurate in a sense with its own size and population). But the power that might be brought to bear if other powers, most notably the United States, did not stand in the way, is potentially overwhelming. And the necessary resources for its defense cannot be found in Israel alone. Israel cannot defend itself in isolation, or not for very long. It is well and good to be motivated to defend oneself and to depend as little as possible on others. It is imprudent to lose track of the extent to which one is capable of doing so and to fail to maintain relationships of support. Very few nations are capable of existing in complete isolation, China perhaps, perhaps the US. Even the US prudently chooses not to do anything of the kind and expends considerable resources of every kind to secure itself within a web of relationships. The spasm of Bush "go it alone" has proven to be a big mistake.

- roidubouloi

February 23, 2011 at 12:44pm

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

Although it is an increasingly common aspect of modern culture to claim, almost to revel, in righteous victimhood, there is really no glory in it. Better not to have such problems to the extent they can be avoided. "No man is an Iland, intire of it selfe; every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine." Jane Austen.

- roidubouloi

February 23, 2011 at 12:52pm

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

Yes, of course. But one gains so much authority in these precincts by quoting Jane Austen, I thought I would give it a shot. Some of us are very literal.

- roidubouloi

February 23, 2011 at 1:09pm

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

“To put it more simply, there is abundant evidence in the historical record that the isolation of Jews is conducive to anti-Semitism and that their breaking out of such isolation contributes to the reduction of anti-Semitism.” What evidence is there that “isolation of Jews is conducive to anti-Semitism?” It’s the other way around. Jews were forcibly isolated by Christian anti-Semitism and later by Muslim antisemitism. Whenever there was no forced isolation Jews always lived among non -Jews. Even in the Middle Ages in Europe Jews were not isolated unless forced to live separately as in Spain. Ghettos were set up especially to isolate Jews in the Renaissance and the enlightenment periods. The rise of modern antisemitism began at a time when Jews were integrated in European culture. This proposition is wrong and not supported by history.

- Newly84

February 23, 2011 at 1:37pm

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

Isolation is not merely physical isolation. It can be social, economic, professional, affect any sphere of life. I make no claim as to the particular causes of Jewish isolation over the past two thousand years. They are varied and for the most part are the result of anti-Semitism as well as a cause of it. As to the relationship between the reduction of Jewish isolation and the easing of anti-Semitism, see the history or the Enlightenment. As the isolation was both cause and effect, so too the reduction of isolation. The same has been true of the experience of African-Americans and of gays in this country. It would be ironic in the extreme if the Zionist aspiration were to turn into an aspiration of isolation and alienation from the rest of the world and the insistence on ignoring utterly world opinion as nothing but an inconvenience. A very sad ending that would be, and one fraught with physical danger.

- roidubouloi

February 23, 2011 at 2:21pm

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

So too the experience of most everyone who lives in a cosmopolitan place as compared to one in which there is little mixing of varied people. One need not search hard to discern that there is less prejudice of all types in cosmopolitan places. That is not the same as the absence of prejudice. Likewise, to say that breaking down isolation conduces to a reduction in anti-Semitism is not the same as saying that it is by itself to eliminate anti-Semitism. It has multiple causes, many of which are quite beyond the control of Jews. That does not imply the converse, that everything is beyond our control. Maybe this is still to high-brow. Try this: If you say fuck-you to everyone in the entire world, what do you think you are going to get? Help? Love? Respect? Cooperation? Do you believe that nothing Israel does has any impact on anything or anyone other than its ability to intimidate enemies?

- roidubouloi

February 23, 2011 at 2:29pm

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

"To put it more simply, there is abundant evidence in the historical record that the isolation of Jews is conducive to anti-Semitism and that their breaking out of such isolation contributes to the reduction of anti-Semitism." From Himmler's speech: "I am talking about the "Jewish evacuation": the extermination of the Jewish people. It is one of those things that is easily said. "The Jewish people is being exterminated," every Party member will tell you, "perfectly clear, it's part of our plans, we're eliminating the Jews, exterminating them, ha!, a small matter." And then along they all come, all the 80 million upright Germans, and each one has his decent Jew. They say: all the others are swine, but here is a first-class Jew. " OCTOBER 4, 1943, POZNAN, POLAND

- noga1

February 23, 2011 at 2:41pm

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

And so? Do you wish to maintain that the circumstances and prospects of Jews in the world today are no different or better than 100 years ago, 500 years ago? And, if they are better, then to what shall we attribute that? If to international law and public morality, perhaps we should have a care for those and not manifest indifference. If to social relations, maybe we should have a care for those. If to the convenience and interests of great powers, maybe we should have a care for those. If to none of the above, then what? Israeli "might" as Netanyahu would like to think, as if Israel has existed for the past 400 years? Is Israel itself entirely the work of Jews with no help of any kind from others in the world? You do recall that it was the creation of the Great Powers through their vehicles, the League of Nations and the UN, no? Do you think the Jews would have created Israel over their opposition or without their assistance?

- roidubouloi

February 23, 2011 at 2:53pm

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

So too the reduction of isolation is both cause and effect of the reduction of anti-Semitism.

- roidubouloi

February 23, 2011 at 2:55pm

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

“Isolation is not merely physical isolation. It can be social, economic, professional, affect any sphere of life. I make no claim as to the particular causes of Jewish isolation over the past two thousand years. They are varied and for the most part are the result of anti-Semitism as well as a cause of it. As to the relationship between the reduction of Jewish isolation and the easing of anti-Semitism, see the history or the Enlightenment.” The above doesn’t prove that Jewish isolation was the cause of antisemitism. The history of enlightenment tells me nothing about Jewish isolation. Most Jews lived in Ghettos and were physically isolated from their neighbors. A few Jews like Mendelsohn long after the start of the enlightenment joined it but was still treated as “the Jew.”

- Newly84

February 23, 2011 at 3:16pm

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

"So too the reduction of isolation is both cause and effect of the reduction of anti-Semitism." HOw did that work in Soviet Russia?

- Newly84

February 23, 2011 at 3:17pm

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

I did not claim that isolation is THE cause of anti-Semitism or even A cause of anti-Semitism. I specifically rejected that. My claim is that isolation conduces to the maintenance of anti-Semitism and the break-down of isolation conduces to the breaking-down of anti-Semitism. In both directions, the relationship is far from absolute. Nor is it immune to reversals. Do you think that Soviet Jews were worse off than they were under the Czars? How do we even understand social phenomena under the yoke of a totalitarian regime that has no compunction of about anything, including the starvation of millions of its own citizens? What do you want to infer about liberal society on the basis of the Soviet Union? Anything?

- roidubouloi

February 23, 2011 at 3:23pm

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

“What do you want to infer about liberal society on the basis of the Soviet Union? Anything?” Liberal societies tend to reduce prejudice of all kinds. If you were only talking about liberal society then why bring up the enlightenment which occurred in the age of absolutism? Weren’t you making universal claims when you posited that isolation of Jews caused antisemitism? You were also making a universal claim about Jews which blamed them for antisemitism. {02/23/2011 - 9:49am EDT | roidubouloi “Anti-Semitism waxes. At times it also wanes. For those who actually want to see it decline and become less a force in the world (while leaving for the Messiah the day of its disappearance), it is worth considering under what conditions it can undergo a decline. I cannot see any historical period in which it has declined without the inclusion of Jews in society, at different levels, and the growth of positive experiences between Jews and everyone else that reduce the opportunity for anti-Semitism to flourish. It is, after all, a social phenomenon that depends on social reinforcement. Like a virus in a substantially immunized population, it is more difficult for it to spread and grow if many individuals are not susceptible. Unfortunately, there are Jews for whom anti-Semitism is a raison d'etre. Their own identity, Jewish and otherwise, is so bound up with being hated that they need anti-Semitism as much as anti-Semitism needs them. They look for it everywhere and all experience comes to be defined by it. They use it, for example, not only to supply the narrative for all events involving Jews and/or Israel but as justification for whatever it is that Israel does or does not do. It becomes impossible for them to say to themselves that, while anti-Semitism exists, it is neither the sum of experience nor the most important fact of Jewish life. Hence, they need it.”}

- Newly84

February 23, 2011 at 3:37pm

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

I have not blamed the Jews for anti-Semitism. Blame is a moral category that implies fault. For Jews, the major result of the Enlightenment was the breaking-down of their isolation, part and parcel of the coming into being of liberal society. It is a commonplace experience that isolation tends to conduce to prejudice of various kinds and cosmopolitanism tends to conduce the other way. There is not in truth a great deal that Jews can do about anti-Semitism. Whether they do what they can or not does not imply that they are blameworthy for not doing what they can. But to the extent that actions and inactions have consequences in the world, even blameworthy consequences, then to fail to do what can be done and is in there interest is to miss opportunity. I do not see any reason at all to believe that Jews can talk anti-Semites out of anti-Semitism or indeed that anyone can. It tends to respond to social conditions of various kinds as welling as being cynically exploited by power of various types. One of the things that we ought to struggle against is being isolated as it is both a contributor to the conditions, and a result of, anti-Semitism. But in order not to be isolated, one must have regard for other people. Yes, there are Jews who would prefer to complain of anti-Semitism because they use it as justification and as a definitional narrative.

- roidubouloi

February 23, 2011 at 4:09pm

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

“One of the things that we ought to struggle against is being isolated as it is both a contributor to the conditions, and a result of, anti-Semitism. But in order not to be isolated, one must have regard for other people.” No Jew I know is for “isolation.” But how can have regard for people who hate you. This is a chicken and egg situation. “Yes, there are Jews who would prefer to complain of anti-Semitism because they use it as justification and as a definitional narrative.” Who are these people, and how does one distinguish them from those who complain about real antisemitism? Is the Jew attacked in Paris or Holland justifying his “definitional narrative (whatever that means)?

- Newly84

February 23, 2011 at 4:35pm

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

The Jews cannot cure antisemitism. Antisemitism is a disease that afflicts non-Jews and they are the only ones who can rid themselves of this virus. There should be very little doubt in anybody's mind that if Israel were populated by Christians or Hindus or Japanese or whoever, there would have been some more rational proportionality between the gravity of its so called sins and the amount of public scrutiny and condemnation given to it by the world. Palestinians are treated in Israeli hospitals on a daily basis. Some are even treated with the assistance of donations from the Israeli public. Yet here is roi, blaming Israelis for not doing enough to gain more love for itself from those who would hate them. Israel has been deliberately kept out of the Red Cross so that it would not be able to help other nations when catastrophes strike, and here is roi accusing Israelis of continuing to isolate themselves and tell the world: Fuck you. Who is responsible for this isolation? Can Israelis do anything to break it down? http://missingpeace.eu/en/articles/132-articles/19-the-good-old-days-before-we-had-peace "The experiences of this entrepreneur are consistent with issues raised in the documentary film Precious Life which I saw in Jerusalem last week. It deals with the tribulations of a Gaza family: a desperately ill baby and his parents. The parents had previously lost two children to the same disease, before turning for help in Israel. But the Palestinian Authority refused to pay for the treatment. Their story made headlines when it was exposed on Israeli Channel 10’s evening news. Ten minutes after the broadcast, an anonymous donor, an Israeli Jew who had lost a child in one of Israel’s recent wars, contacted them and undertook to pay for the entire medical treatment. An especially compelling aspect of the movie is the Gazan mother’s struggle with her ambivalent views about Israelis. The ‘child killers’ – as depicted on Hamas-controlled television – are transformed in her experience into caring humans, struggling to save the life of her baby. The dramatic peak, however, came when the mother declared she wanted her baby son – once cured – to become a shahid, a martyr, in the Jihad struggle for Jerusalem. "

- noga1

February 23, 2011 at 6:39pm

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

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/02/sheikh-qaradawi-seeks-total-war/71626/ "Receiving enemies in our own countries and visiting them in the occupied lands would remove such a psychological barrier that keeps us away from them, and would bridge the gap that keeps the desire for Jihad against them kindled in the hearts of the Ummah."

- noga1

February 23, 2011 at 6:50pm

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

Click here to watch how the UN Human Rights Council treated Libya until a few months ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgNH6AHh6RE

- noga1

February 23, 2011 at 7:13pm

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

Sorry. The above belongs on another thread.

- noga1

February 23, 2011 at 7:14pm

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

"Palestinians are treated in Israeli hospitals on a daily basis. Some are even treated with the assistance of donations from the Israeli public. Yet here is roi, blaming Israelis for not doing enough to gain more love for itself from those who would hate them. Israel has been deliberately kept out of the Red Cross so that it would not be able to help other nations when catastrophes strike, and here is roi accusing Israelis of continuing to isolate themselves and tell the world: Fuck you." Regardless of how many Palestinians are treated in Israeli hospitals, when every nation on earth other than Israel considers that the colonization of the Palestinians by Israel is a violation of Palestinian human rights and Israel insists on doing it anyway, that's "fuck you" to the world. That's how the world understands it and we should not expect otherwise. It is a declaration of the belief that Israel stands in isolation above or outside of international society. As a member of a society one does not get to pick and choose which rules one will obey. A sensible person might then think that there may be unpleasant repercussions for being an outlaw and an overtly defiant one at that. Israel claims membership in world society, but also in western society. The west preaches human rights. If the west condones Israel's behavior, it is perfectly reasonable for other nations subjected to our criticism to conclude and claim that human rights are only held to be of importance when it is non-western nations being held to account. Hence, they are but a political tool of western governments for undermining others. Perfectly sensible conclusion. Whether the Security Council acts or not (because the US bars the door with its veto), it is therefore likely that the pressure for boycotts and other actions to exclude Israel from western society will only grow. And being an outlaw can reliably be expected to lead to increased hostility toward Israel and toward Jews. Glick, as linked by noga, claims that there is a "political war" against Israel to undermine it "on the model of South Africa." If so, then Israel is waging this war against itself. Lest the accusation be levied, as it inevitably will be, that this is a standard only being applied to Israel, let it be said that there are many Americans who were appalled when the Bush administration chose to thumb its nose at the international order as represented by the United Nations Security Council and go to war against Iraq with no claim of self-defense or humanitarian intervention and no authorization from the Security Council, the only grounds permitted under the UN Charter. We also do not want to see the United States claiming some special exemption, albeit on different grounds, from the strictures of membership in the international community. _________________________ As far as the Jewish mentality that looks to anti-Semitism as THE defining aspect of the world and of identity, it embraces, I think, two habits of mind. One is to recast every controversy or criticism regarding Jewish interests in terms of anti-Semitism and then considering that the "discovery" or inference that actors are motivated by anti-Semitism is an adequate response to the world. But criticism is either justified or not. It does not become unjustified if the critic is an anti-Semite. Nor is it only necessary to respond (assuming one is concerned at all about public regard) if the critic has sufficiently established her bona fides as a friend of the Jews or lover of Israel. It may well be that subjectively all the critics are anti-Semites. So what? If one wants to participate in the world, to be part of the general community, whether it be within a nation or of the world, it is necessary to be able to give a good account of oneself in accordance with the rules that apply within that society. Three examples come immediately to mind. One is the Mearshimer and Walt attack on "the Israel lobby." They may be anti-Semites. I don't know. I will assume that they are for all it matters. But it is far from sufficient to address their charges by insisting that they are. Whether they are anti-Semites or not, the charges are properly within the realm of public discussion -- whether a foreign power exerts undue influence within the US government -- and they should be met on their own terms. If we are not able to do so, then someone else might well be justified in accepting their claims. The second incident that comes to mind is the recent controversy -- again -- about the release of Jonathan Pollard in which it is asserted that Pollard is the victim of anti-Semitism who would never be treated this way but for the fact that he is Jewish. But the unknown and unknowable subjective motivation of various actors within the US government is beside the point. The proper question is whether Pollard's sentence and treatment are in some manner an outlier within the American judicial system such that he is deserving of clemency. The third that comes to mind is the accusation leveled against Jews in this country of dual loyalty, the response to which, more often than not, is that anyone who makes such a charge is an anti-Semite. Maybe, maybe not. But the question is a legitimate one because many American Jews, most in fact, do have a dual loyalty as regards the US and Israel. This is not a fantasy invented by anti-Semites. Our fellow citizens have the right to ask us what this means for them, and we have the obligation to respond substantively rather than simply levy the charge of anti-Semitism or treat the question as if it is rude to ask. Political, legal, social and other systems have a logic of their own. The may be flawed. They are flawed. But it is not possible to claim membership in the society by refusing to accept them on their own terms and insisting that the identification or inference of anti-Semitic motivation must sweep aside consideration of problems or questions in the context of the system to which they belong. The other habit of mind is to find in the existence of anti-Semitism sufficient justification for action or inaction. Yes, there is anti-Semitism and hatred in the Moslem world. That does not by itself subject Moslems, in particular or in general, to some general disability. They do not lose their own human rights because some or even most are anti-Semites. Conversely, the Jews have not received an exemption from the demands of morality because of what was done to them. If the behavior of Jews towards Moslems is questioned, the answer must be given in terms of the system that applies. If it is the system of international law, then the response must be on that basis or we put ourselves in a precarious position to claim the benefits of that law and membership in international society. It does not suffice to point out that Arabs or Moslems are anti-Semitic or that some of them are committing illegal deeds or acts of violence. One cannot justify ones own behavior this way unless it can be shown to be a proper exercise of the right of self-defense. With these two habits of mind, every question concerning Jewish interests is immediately reduced to the question whether some actor can be found to be anti-Semitic, and that is to be the end of discussion. Inevitably, this leads to the accusation of anti-Semitism as a political tool. If the discovery of anti-Semitism is a sufficient response to anything and everything, how could one not seek to find the anti-Semitism in every picture? Would anyone care to count the number of times some poster, here in this hotbed of anti-Semitic feeling, The New Republic, has been accused of anti-Semitism for being critical of Israel?

- roidubouloi

February 23, 2011 at 11:29pm

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

The passage that noga quotes from Qaradawi was immediately preceded by this from Jeffrey Goldberg: "Qaradawi personalizes the conflict, warning Muslims not be friends with Jews, because such friendship might diminish the desire on the part of Muslims to wage jihad against Israel. Qaradawi writes:" Even our declared enemy can observe that fraternization with enemies decreases the zeal for battle with them.

- roidubouloi

February 23, 2011 at 11:41pm

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

Can we now expect malahat to allege that this is all cribbed by me from a speech by ahmadinejad, thereby proving my point that the accusation of anti-Semitism, whether framed implicitly or explicitly, is deemed a sufficient response to any question regarding Jewish behavior? I expect that we can.

- roidubouloi

February 23, 2011 at 11:53pm

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

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law! Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that! Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake! From "A Man for All Seasons," by Robert Bolt (not Jane Austen)

- roidubouloi

February 24, 2011 at 12:32am

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

roi quotes Thomas More, who is known as a saint. Yet... "A number of modern historians and writers, such as Richard Marius, have evaluated More in his political capacity and have criticized him for Anti-Protestantism and, "intolerance." The historian Jasper Ridley, author of several biographies including one on Henry VIII and another on Mary Tudor, goes much further in his dual biography of More and Cardinal Wolsey, The Statesman and the Fanatic, describing More as "a particularly nasty sadomasochistic pervert," a line of thinking followed by the late Joanna Denny in her 2004 biography of Anne Boleyn. ... Literary critic James Wood calls him "cruel in punishment, evasive in argument, lusty for power, and repressive in politics".[50] Aaron Zelman's non-fiction book "The State Versus the People" includes a comparison of "Utopia" with Plato's "Republic". Zelman is undecided as to whether Thomas More was being ironic in his book or was genuinely advocating a police state. Zelman comments, "More is the only Christian saint to be honoured with a statue at the Kremlin." By this Zelman implies that Utopia influenced Lenin's Bolsheviks, despite their brutal repression of organized religion."

- noga1

February 24, 2011 at 6:48am

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

Actually, I don't quote Thomas More at all. I quote dialogue from a play, "A Man for All Seasons," by Robert Bolt. Does noga suppose that if we quote dialogue from the play by Shakespeare that we are quoting Julius Caesar himself, or that the Julius Caesar in Shakespeare's play is historically accurate? Does anyone imagine that it is particularly important whether the Julius Caesar of the play is historically accurate? "A Man for All Seasons" is in part a meditation on the role of law in society and the demands of conscience. The character of Thomas More in the play is the creation of Robert Bolt employing as his vehicle historical events relating to More's dispute with Henry VIII. It is a work of fiction that does not claim to be anything else. It makes little sense to criticize the dialogue of the play on the grounds that the real Thomas More was not at all like the fictional character. In an odd way, this echoes my point above that things must be argued in their own terms if we are participants in society. It is not enough to say, "Well, so and so is an anti-Semite. Hence we are finished here. The rules don't apply to us." It likewise makes no sense to say, "Well, the real Thomas More was a sadist. Hence, the work of literature that bears his name and all the words in it are meaningless."

- roidubouloi

February 24, 2011 at 7:34am

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

The fact is that the play and movie about Thomas More have done more than any historical research and record to entrench his image in the public perception as a martyr for decency and tolerance. The realization that the man was a persecutor of Protestants and Jews when he was in position of power to torture and execute comes as a shock to most people who have internalized Bolt's rendition. So whether Thomas more the real man or Thomas More the fictional figment said those words, it matters very little as far as public opinion is concerned. They believe that both are one and the same and do not like it when their illusions get to be exploded by facts. Perhaps my beef is with enforcers of fiction over the facts of reality. Like roi's fiction, for example, that antisemitism can be weakened if only some Jews were more friendly towards non-Jews. A fiction, btw, that he himself cannot sustain without resorting, by way of proof, to the incitement to genocide from the likes of Qaradawie. Who in turn echoes Himmler's Posen speech about the need to suppress any gratitude and friendship towards Jews because the greater good demands their disappearance. BTW, the dialogue quoted by roi is just a reworking of Plato's Crito by Bolt, with Thomas More in the role of Socrates.

- noga1

February 24, 2011 at 8:25am

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

Such confusion. If indeed the words are those of Plato attributed by him to Socrates rather than the words of Bolt attributed by him to More, so much the better, as the identity of the fictional speaker (who IS fictional you know?) is hardly relevant to the meaning of the words except insofar as we need to understand the fictional context in order to understand the words. In this case, not really. The words themselves are an elegant and succinct explication of the importance to society of the institution of law, as distinct from any particular law, and why the institution itself is worth defending even if its results are at times perverse. Speaking of fiction, we see here too the repetition of a consistent pattern of noga. Rather than being able to sustain an argument against what someone here actually said, she typically must first invent words to put in someone else's mouth, words that are preferably as close to self-refuting or ridiculous as possible, in order to take issue with them. I have never said that anti-Semitism can be weakened "if only" anything. Nor have I said that it is the "friendliness" of Jews toward non-Jews that is of value. To the contrary, I have said that there is relatively little that Jews can do about anti-Semitism, that one of the few things about which they have some control is their own isolation from the general society, and that having contact, the more the better, with other people(s) conduces to the decline of anti-Semitism. That could be commercial contact, professional contact, social contact, a very wide variety of things none of which is simply an attitude of "friendliness," although one can imagine, or at least those of us who actually desire that anti-Semitism diminish can imagine, that an attitude of hostility in the course of relations with other people isn't going to help. We also see displayed here again the consistent pattern of belief that all that matters is the moral character of a speaker, not what the speaker has to say. Yes, even Himmler could make an accurate observation about the world that does not fail to be accurate because of his own moral depravity. A sensible person does not ignore reality and correct observations about it because the person who makes the observation is morally abhorrent, as the failure to respond to the actual world, rather than to one's own moral reimagination of it, can reliably be respected to lead to trouble for oneself. This same confusion is on display when, several times, posters re-interpret my comments to be "blaming" the Jews for anti-Semitism. This is the replacement of an either correct or incorrect observation of the world -- that full relations between Jews and the members of the rest of society conduces to the reduction of anti-Semitism -- with a moral categorization, that anti-Semitism is the fault of the Jews or that we are blameworthy for it. There is no reason for this other than an obsession with blameworthiness, that the other be blameworthy and no blame be attached to oneself, as if blame were the only category in the world that matters. If they are to blame, then we are pure. If they are to blame, then we are pure no matter what we do. If they are more to blame than we are, then we are still pure. If they are to blame, then we are safe. Far from it. Colonization of another people is blameworthy. It does not cease to be blameworthy because those people are anti-Semitic. Qadarawi's observation that fraternization reduces enmity is, in my opinion, quite true. It does not cease to be true because Qadarawi is an anti-Semite. Plato and Bolt's explication of the value of the institution of law does not cease to be estimable because the real Thomas More was a persecutor of Protestants and, of course, Jews. Public opinion about Thomas More has absolutely nothing to do with anything being discussed here any more than would the color of his eyes. These are examples of illogical, indeed magical, thinking in which the moral weight that is place on a person magically transmutes their words and deeds to good and efficacious effect, or vice versa.

- roidubouloi

February 24, 2011 at 11:51am

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

"Jewish behavior" is a poor choice of words on my part as it can be read to mean some sort of stereotypical behavior attributed to Jews. I should have said "actions of or by Jews." I understand exactly how my inapt and inept phrasing could give offense. Lack of regard for other people does not result so much in being isolated by anti-Semites as in being isolated from the people for whom one does not show regard. And a state of isolation is, I believe, conducive to the flourishing of anti-Semitism. It is not the only reason or even the primary reason any more than one could say that vitamins are the cause of growth. They are a factor that makes growth more, or less, robust. Not the ultimate reason or cause. Isseroff, for example, considers it appalling that 120 nations, the UNSC, the US, all see Israel's settlements, including demographic changes in Jerusalem, as illegitimate. It may be that as things are written in heaven, Israel is somehow right and the entire rest of the world is wrong in this. But it does not much matter. Israel's disregard of the evident opinion of the entire world expresses disdain for the world social order. Admittedly, that order is loose, not yet and perhaps never to be the equivalent of a national government or a national society. But it is a form of order, expressed in customary law and international treaty, in expectations about behavior. If there were no such order, Israel would already have disappeared as there would have been little reason for any power to give it aid or restrain the forces arrayed against it. Israel is indeed a direct creation of the international order. The point that I attempted to make with the beautiful, in my opinion, quote from A Man for All Seasons is that this order is worth defending even if it sometimes produces perverse results, such as that Israel receives more criticism than countries engaged in atrocious ethnic violence. If the order is undermined, it is the weak, not the strong, who will suffer most. To the extent that the US has a strategic interest in Israel, it is, also in my opinion, chiefly in defending the international order, not in Israel's geography or any strategic asset or value it can offer to the US. This makes it doubly unfortunate for Israel to place itself on the wrong side of what the international system requires. As a relatively weak state beset by large enemies with large populations, Israel needs the effective order more than most and needs the US commitment to that order more than any. It also seems clear that placing itself outside this order has resulted in significant estrangement from other peoples who have been supportive and sympathetic in the past and no longer are, chiefly those of western Europe. Again, one can attribute this all to anti-Semitism, but that ignores the reality that many Europeans have principled objections to Israel's conduct and that Israel's indifference to them produces estrangement, the estrangement and the conduct together make it easier for genuine anti-Semites to demonize Israel, and this only deepens and reinforces the isolation. It is a reinforcing downward cycle. I don't claim that this is THE cause of the resurgence of anti-Semitism, but it contributes. Thus, not only does the settlement policy directly complicate the demands of Israel's security, as for example but preventing it from reducing its West Bank presence to a minimum, it strains the ties and global legal environment on which Israel depends, and contributes toward the creation of an environment in which hostility toward Jews, anti-Semitism, can flourish. That is a triple loser. None of that means that Israel or the Jews generally are blameworthy for anti-Semitism. But "prudent self-regard" demands that Israel take seriously the unanimous opinion of the world even if it is itself morally convinced of the justice of its settlement policies. Its that Jane Austen thing about "no man is an island."

- roidubouloi

February 24, 2011 at 3:57pm

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

I was rather taken by "A Man for All Seasons" when I saw it at the age of 13. I remember the scene of the Thames riverboat 'taxi drivers' (or whatever they called them) extinguishing their burning torches, the equivalent of today's 'FOR HIRE' light on a cab's roof, because More was no longer a good person to be seen with.

- ironyroad

February 24, 2011 at 9:41pm

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

"A Man for All Seasons" was part of what inspired me to become a lawyer. It doesn't matter to me now that the Thomas More in the play is essentially a fiction, and it wouldn't have mattered then as I had at that time no interest in the historical events. I was taken by the arguments for the principle of law and the deft way in which More defended himself.

- roidubouloi

February 24, 2011 at 10:04pm

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

Nice! The Egyptian army is in control today. So what happens tomorrow? Will Egyptians always accept a general as the Supreme Ruler? Will they have to go to Tahrir again or will they vote in open elections one day? The day they vote freely is the day The Islamic Brotherhood will be riding the horse and telling the masses what to do or not. Same for the PA, the day that cleptomaniac Fatah is forced to allow elections, Hamas will be on the horse telling everybody what to do and this includes suicide bombing, Kassam missile as they are steadily raining on Israel today from Gaza. Wearing rose glasses even when retired from the Mossad isn't a way to see reality. Next door to Israel Islamist openly are demanding change in Jordan. If they succeed will it be better for Israel? The Arab world is changing fast and not for the better for Israel.

- Poupic

February 25, 2011 at 8:22pm

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close