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 The Peace Process Fallacy

TEL AVIV JOURNAL FEBRUARY 24, 2011

The Peace Process Fallacy

BY MARTIN PERETZ

For years, those obsessed with forcing Israel to make all kinds of concessions to the Palestinians—on territory, on settlements, on refugees, on Jerusalem, on security, on water, on air space, on everything, in fact—argued that the occupation was the powder keg on which the kings and colonels of the Arab world sat waiting for it to explode. This was and is a curiously Judeo-centric perspective on the world. Now, it seems that the insecurity of Al Aqsa and the plethora of other complaints about the Zionists had exactly zero to do with what occurred in Cairo, Tunis, Sanaa, Benghazi, Amman, Bahrain, Rabat, and God only knows in which other metropolis the anger of powerless people will strike next. If, indeed, the crowds had chanted curses at Netanyahu, one would have thought them nuts since, at last look, neither Colonel Qaddafi nor Ali Abdullah Saleh were in Israel’s corner. The most you could say about Mubarak—and the only good thing—was that his diplomacy kept the Sinai as part of Egypt and prevented the army from losing once again its troops, and its tanks and its advanced fighter aircraft, from being vanished and vanquished by the Israel Defense Forces. If I were an Egyptian general this would be the nightmare with which I could not sleep.

Israel was supposed to be the combustible element on which the entire region teetered. It now turns out that Israel actually had not the slightest allusive presence among the protestants of Tahrir Square. Nor in the successor outposts of the other rebellions. Some of us intuited this all along. Whatever popular conflict there was with the regimes—the kind of conflict that could and would actually undermine and overthrow them—it was not over Israel, because almost all of the regimes had no contact with Israel and hewed closely to the generalized Arab line against it, that even Mubarak and his regime also embraced. There was plenty of raw anti-Semitic claptrap coming from Egyptian official media, much of it comparable to Der Sturmer.

So what of the agenda of those earnest folk who said that the Zionists were endangering stability in the region? Did they really want the regimes to remain stable? Maybe some, like the reactionary Zbigniew Brzezinski, whose entire viewpoint about the Jewish state reeks of traditional Polish Catholic anti-Semitism but is somehow neutralized by his “realism.” My guess is, though, that the folk who signed (which Zbig did not) the oddly timed and strangely worded emergency appeal asking the president to vote in the Security Council to condemn Israeli building in the territories (and even in Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem) were exercising their reflexes, not making a logical appeal. (I’ve written about this before.) And, with Walt and Mearsheimer, Chas Freeman, John Esposito, James Zogby, and Juan Cole, plus two handfuls of clients of the Arab countries to which they were diplomatically posted (with a very few Jews added in, like Rabbi Leonard Beerman—whoever he is—and Jerome Segal of the Jewish Peace Lobby—whatever that is—and Peter Beinart now completing his journey from hawk—he initiated and wrote the TNR editorial endorsing Joseph Lieberman for president in 2004—to syrupy dove) signed on, we know their reflexes express contempt for Israel and its people who would truly make enormous sacrifices for a settlement if they could be persuaded that their immediate neighbors and those rim neighbors, as well, would only leave them alone.   In any case, the United States vetoed the Security Council resolution about the very settlements issue that President Obama had puffed up in the first place. Indeed, it was primarily his issue since both the Palestinians and Israelis actually knew exactly (with perhaps two or three exceptions) which settlements would remain Israeli territory and which would not. That is not the difference which sunders Israel and the Palestinian Authority apart. In fact, the settlements are a relatively easy matter.

Still, let’s imagine that at long last Israel and Palestine had securely split the land between the river and the sea. And were living in cross-border comity—OK, relative comity—with Israeli investments in Palestine, Palestinian trade with Israel, tourism, cultural exchange, etc. (They already share many significant police functions and cooperate on environmental and economic policies.) What difference would that have meant for the stability of Egypt, of Tunisia, of Libya, of Bahrain? Would the stability of these countries have been good for their people, for the region, for the world? Of course, we don’t know what will ultimately by the finale in the states now in turmoil. But we know what we would like to see: these polities moving in the direction of democracy, tolerance, and comity.

I am convinced that, aside from the internal ramifications of the dispute between Zion and the Arabs of Palestine, nothing that has occurred in the Maghreb or the Levant or Mesopotamia has ever been affected by Jenin or Hebron or Al Quds with its Noble Sanctuary and its tens of thousands of Friday worshippers. It is, moreover, a brazen confection to argue otherwise. There is no evidence of it and there is no logic to it. As it happens, it is those peddling this fantasy who share culpability in the diplomatic disaster which is now the consequence and circumstance of the longtime American suck-up policy in the Middle East. Those, like myself, identified as props of the “Israel lobby,” at least took the side of a humanistic democracy fighting for its life. All those former ambassadors to Riyadh and Tunis, Cairo and Sanaa and other Arab capitals, all those deputy secretaries and assistant secretaries of state for the region were so intensely committed to Palestine because they were pimping for regimes that had the survivors’ instinct to fix scrutiny on another altogether alien matter, the matter of the Jews and their poor Palestinian victims.

Not a one of these states is other than an absolutist dominion. Not a one. This is true even of Morocco—excitedly experienced by fashionable visitors (W. Somerset Maugham, Jane and Paul Bowles, Jack Kerouac, for example) and a tourist favorite generally—which in essence is little different from Egypt, save that it is a monarchy like Bahrain. I’ve been reading about up-to-date events in Rabat. Only 5,000 people were in the streets of the capital in a demonstration that ostensibly began as a protest against high utility prices. But the protest moved to other locales and metamorphosed into one against the king. In the last days it has taken on the more general character of a revolt for reform. Maybe it will be contained, and we will once again visit Marrakesh with an untroubled, even empty conscience.

But the rest of the Arab world will give us no solace. And, I am afraid, its leaders—some softer, some more brutal—will grant no solace to their own people. These leaders may again take up the Palestinian cause as a lightening rod to inflame their subjects with the irrelevancies of the Holy Land. It is a trick they’ve used for more than half a century.

 

This morning I received an e-mail from the great scholarly journalist Edward Jay Epstein. It was about the something-or-other dictator of the Libyan state. Read for yourself:  

My confusion about the leadership of the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya: No one has his name right. 

Does anyone know who is the head of the so-called Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya—or even if the first letter of his surname name is A, E, G, K, or Q?

According to the New York Times, he is “Muammar el-Qaddafi,” to the Wall Street Journal he is “Moammar Gadhafi,” to the L.A. Time he is “Moammar Kadafi,” to the Washington Post, he is “Moammar Gaddafi,” to Reuters, he is “Muammar Gaddafi,” to Bloomberg, he is “Muammar Qaddafi,” the AFP, he is “Moamer Kadhafi,”, to the English edition of the Xinhua News Agency . he is “Muammar Khaddafi,” to the US State Department, he is “Mu’ammar Abu Minyar al-Qadhafi,” to the CIA, he is “Mu’ammar al-Qadhafi,” and to his official site he is “Muammar Al Gathafi”.

Can this be a single person, or some kind of transliteration junta? And what is his—or their—job in the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (which means “masses” in Arabic)? CNN calls him “President,” the Boston Globe calls him “strongman,” the Sun (London) call him “dictator,” the Daily Mirror calls him “Mad Dog,” while the CIA factbook, somewhat understatedly, says that he “holds no official title, but is de facto chief of state.” Can Any (other than his voluptuous Ukranian nurse) clarify this issue?

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

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

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 46 comments

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

46 comments

Very good article. Your writing has gotten better since you dropped your website.

- arnon

February 24, 2011 at 12:43am

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

Martin Peretz speaks for me, perfectly as if I was writing. Thank you.

- Poupic

February 24, 2011 at 9:33am

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

Well, there IS one thing you're leaving out, Martin. And that thing is the use of Israel by these leaders as the bugaboo. In Egypt, just accusing that American reporter of being Jewish or Israeli (neither of which was true) was enough to get the mob to attack her. Sure, there's no TRUE Isreali spies trying to influence the domestic politics of Egypt, Libya, Tunisia. But if those leaders SAY they are, and use anti-Zionism to prop up their governments, and that WORKS, it's incorrect to say "Israel is irrelevant". I agree, you've made an excellent point that REMOVING Israel would solve nothing. But it's important not to ignore how Israel IS being used.

- AllanL5

February 24, 2011 at 11:38am

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

AllanL5 "... you've made an excellent point that REMOVING Israel would solve nothing. But it's important not to ignore how Israel IS being used." But how is that different, mutatis mutandis, from the way Jews have always been used by antisemites?

- arnon

February 24, 2011 at 11:55am

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

I'm disappointed! Here I was, thinking that "one of the dumbest myths of American foreign policy" is that the United States could get ostensibly friendly Middle East regimes to do what it wants just by snapping its fingers and making some profoundly moral public statements. And then I saw who wrote this piece.

- wildboy

February 24, 2011 at 12:03pm

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

"And then I saw who wrote this piece." wildboy And then Peretz saw who posted that and didn't delete your comment. That makes him a better man than you are, any day.

- Packard

February 24, 2011 at 12:12pm

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

More bizarre news from the Mid East "Turkish Opposition: Erdogan Received Gaddafi Human Rights Prize, Won't Criticize Libyan Massacres" http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/5031.htm

- arnon

February 24, 2011 at 12:14pm

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

Bloomberg cable News banner "Qaddafi blames "Evil Eye"". Other headlines say "Qaddafi blames Al-Qaeda" AP reports:"...Today the leader told Libya state TV that the protesters were “loyal to bin Laden. … This is al-Qaida that the whole world is fighting,” said the Libyan leader. He added that al-Qaeda has “exploited” teenagers by putting “hallucinogenic pills in their coffee with milk, like Nescafe.”" [makes sense Qaddafi would also be blaming Nestle - I vaguely recall him declaring war on Switzerland last year for some reason. He almost has my sympathy vote for not blaming the Zionists, today :) ] Was Peretz inspired by this widely read (#1 at RCW today) Jpost analysis? "It’s Iran, not Israel, stupid!" By DAVID M. WEINBERG 02/22/2011 23:48 "Israel cannot allow Western leaders or pundits to propagate new myths that make Israel fall guy for Western fears of crumbling Mideast. "With all the attention being accorded to Arab uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Bahrain, the real Mideast menace – Iran – seems all but forgotten. Adding injury to imprudence, a mythology is developing which replaces the Iranian threat with Israel as the true threat to regional stability! Two insidious arguments make up this emerging mythology: that Israeli unwillingness to speed toward peace with the Palestinians threatens to further destabilize the Mideast, and that Israel is on the wrong side of history because it seeks to chill Western enthusiasm for glorious Tahrir Square-style Muslim revolutions. ..." http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=209437&R=R7 and, on the "Obama Doctrine" [I now, again, retreat to reading Truman's memoirs ] http://www.hudson-ny.org/1908/egypt-middle-east-obama-doctrine "...During the first year of the Obama Presidency, some authors spoke critically of an "Obama doctrine," based on docile courtesy vis-à-vis dictatorships hostile to the Western world; anti-Israeli attitudes; hints of anti-colonialism and pro-third-worldism, and a perhaps unconscious desire to weaken the United States. Charles Krauthammer in "Decline is a choice"(The Weekly Standard, October 19 2009) said the Obama doctrine was an "exercise in contraction," the demolition of the moral foundation of American dominance." Ralph Peters, in "The Obama doctrine, Hugging Foes, Hurting Friends» (nypost.com, April 29 2009) wrote that Obama's foreign policy was « a combination of dizzying naivete, dislike of our allies, disdain for our military, distrust of our intelligence services. ..."

- K2K

February 24, 2011 at 1:17pm

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

Are doves usually syrupy?

- ironyroad

February 24, 2011 at 2:18pm

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

with a dose of salt. Kaddahfy is rumored to have been shot. All unconfirmed but the oil traders have taken note. Which is the reason for salts.... nobody would ever start such a rumor for the sake of advantaging a position. Would they????Perish the thought. On the other hand it's only a matter of time that the colonel will indeed be martyred. Probably sooner rather than later.

- jacko

February 24, 2011 at 3:08pm

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

Similar, but less emotional, thoughts by this Israeli journalist and blogger: http://www.zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2011/02/24/the-message-of-the-arab-revolts-for-progressives/ "The dirty little secret of the Middle East is that most of the regimes of this region are repressive despotisms that would make Fascist Italy look like an enlightened democracy. Government-controlled media and Western ignorance shield Arab and Muslim despots from the truth. They have mounted a propaganda war against Israel, based on spurious rhetoric and charges of human rights violations and channeled their message though naive idealists in UC Berkeley, London’s SOAS and other respected institutions. Aided by oil-hungry Western powers, they have extended the farce to the United Nations. Libya, a member of of the Human Rights Council, bombed its own citizens. Saudi Arabia, another member of the UNHRC, does not allow the most elementary rights to women or citizenship rights for its guest workers. Non-Saudis are not second class citizens. They are not any sort of citizens. They have no rights at all. How’s that for Arab “apartheid?” The same pattern is repeated in many Arabian Peninsula countries. Iran hangs about two opposition leaders each day. Its leaders crow about imaginary Islamic revolutions in other countries, but are merciless in putting down domestic opposition in their own country. Bahai and other minority members cannot preach or practice their faith. Syria is ruled as a caliphate of the Assad dynasty, Assad II succeeded Assad I. This government is very stable; we can be sure of election results. 100% of the voters will vote for Basher Assad, because nobody else is on the ballot. Opposition may be hazardous to your health. Syria’s Kurds have no rights, but nobody cares. The most “downtrodden” Arab in “apartheid” Israel has more civil liberties that any of the victims of “Arab democracy” in Egypt, Libya or Syria. He or she can publish their opinions, worship as they please and run for office in free elections. Israeli Arabs are guaranteed a fair trial and freedom from arbitrary arrest. These elementary freedoms are absent in the Arab and Islamic despotisms championed by American and European progressives, and that is why people are demonstrating. These rights are denied to Arabs living in the Palestinian territories, but they are denied by the Palestinian governments, not by Israel. The Egyptian government was mild and orderly compared to most of these regimes, yet Egyptians loathed Hosni Mubarak with good reason. Corruption, incompetence, sham elections and persecution of the Coptic Christian minority characterized this “good” Arab country. The “progressives” found an excuse that will distract everyone from the ugly reality: Egyptian tyranny can be blamed on the American imperialist colonialists or the Zionist imperialist colonialists. Take your choice. Of course, the despotism of Muammar Gaddaffi and the Iranian regime or the Assad dynasty cannot really be blamed on Israel or the United States. Progressives would do well to save their compassion for the hapless victims of Arab and Muslim regimes, rather than the Hezbollah and Hamas. Those who are so eager to replace Israel with a “secular democratic state” should remember: There is really only one such state in the entire Middle East, Israel."

- noga1

February 24, 2011 at 4:22pm

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

Let’s not forget that Khadafi came to power in the days of third world politics and was encouraged by their supporters along with Castro, Mugabe and Daniel Ortega who sent messages of sympathy to Khadafy.

- arnon

February 24, 2011 at 4:54pm

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

"The dirty little secret of the Middle East is that most of the regimes of this region are repressive despotisms that would make Fascist Italy look like an enlightened democracy." Really? This has been a secret? From whom? And just how exactly is this state of affairs laid at the feet of progressives? Repressive regimes that have relations with the west are supported by the west, notably by the American government, to assure stable supplies of oil. The others are beyond the reach of the west. Either way, it anything it is corporate interests that are being defended, not some imaginary left-wing agenda.

- roidubouloi

February 24, 2011 at 6:13pm

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

I might add that a principal geopolitical reason for US support for the Egyptian regime has been the treaty with Israel and the stability that has brought to the Middle East. Does that mean that Israel is to blame for authoritarian government in Egypt? Certainly moreso than "progressives." Peretz has a general habit of blaming anything he doesn't like on people whose politics he doesn't like, regardless of whether that makes the slightest bit of sense. This is but one more example. While less demented than his usual output, it is still pretty much gibberish.

- roidubouloi

February 24, 2011 at 6:51pm

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

Roid has a general habit of blaming anything he doesn't like on people whose politics he doesn't like, regardless of whether that makes the slightest bit of sense. This is but one more example. While less demented than his usual output, it is still pretty much gibberish. Sorry man. We kind of played footsies on another thread. I guess that's over. Anyway. Just couldn't help it. You know. Things are what they are, neh?

- jacko

February 24, 2011 at 7:13pm

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

But jacko, you haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about and never have. All you can do is parrot and imagine that you are making a point. I take issue with the politics I don't like. I don't blame it on Peretz or even on you, although doubtless you are the cause of much grief in the world.

- roidubouloi

February 24, 2011 at 7:15pm

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

Most European countries supported the Nasser and then the Mubarak regime since the time the colonels took over in the early 50’s. Till the mid 70’s the regime was pro Soviet and progressive world supported it. When Sadat decided to become pro-Western and anti-communist the same regime was in bad odor with the progressives. Western Europe and the US supported the regime though. The peace treaty with Israel helped these countries justify its connection with it. However, even without a treaty the US and Europe would still supported the regime just as they supported the Saudi regime or the Shah. Israel wasn’t the determining factor in creating the US Egyptian alliance. The Progressive world though became the enemy of the Colonels as soon as they abandoned the Soviet Union. This had happened before. (When the Soviets made a pact with the Nazis in 1939 the progressives stopped supporting the alliance against Hitler but turned on him as soon as he attacked the Soviet Union.) Progressive politics is often flexible. They define what a “progressive” regime is. Someone pointed out that Khadafi belongs to the heros of the third world and so did the Colonels at one time.

- Newly84

February 24, 2011 at 7:24pm

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

roidubouloi “But jacko, you haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about and never have. All you can do is parrot and imagine that you are making a point.” RD should call himself the “knower” since according to him only he and people of his ilk know what they are talking about even when they don’t. And when someone like jacko contest his wisdom he starts attacking and insulting them.

- Newly84

February 24, 2011 at 7:30pm

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

I agree that Israel is not the only reason for US support of Egypt only a not insignificant reason. This does not, however, make Israel responsible for the regime in Egypt any more than it makes progressives responsible. Newly seems to be describing rather orthodox communists and equating them with "progressives." If so, there are a handful of such left in the world mostly inhabiting college campuses. And even newly does not assert progressive support for the Egyptian regime since it dumped the Soviet Union. By this logic, Peretzian logic, we really need to blame Egyptian repression on the right, not the left, with a soupçon of contribution in favor of Israeli interests Everyone agrees with this, correct? Or does Peretz's logic only apply when impugning Peretz's political enemies? The right is very flexible on the subject of human rights, rhetorically supporting them when there is the potential to undermine an unfriendly regime and ignoring them to support a friendly regime. They are kissing Saddam Hussein one day and excoriating him the next depending on whether he is in the friendly or unfriendly corner, but all the while he was a vicious tyrant. This whole line of analysis is basically dumb.

- roidubouloi

February 24, 2011 at 7:36pm

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

Newly, I am just handing jacko his own back. Did jacko "contest my wisdom?" No, he didn't contest anything. He made no argument to dispute my point. He offered no example to substantiate his claim. He merely lobbed a low-grade insult, and then copped to doing it. If jacko had offered some example, as this very post is an example of what Peretz does consistently, he would have at least made a legitimate point. He didn't. Just an attack and an insult because he doesn't like my criticism of Peretz. You guys simply cannot get it through your heads that you consider yourself privileged to do this sort of thing but have glass chins when it comes back at you.

- roidubouloi

February 24, 2011 at 7:40pm

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

"You guys simply cannot get it through your heads that you consider yourself privileged to do this sort of thing but have glass chins when it comes back at you." Who is "you guys?" I consider myself to be privileged? How so?

- Newly84

February 24, 2011 at 7:52pm

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

roidubouloi “Newly seems to be describing rather orthodox communists and equating them with "progressives." If so, there are a handful of such left in the world mostly inhabiting college campuses. And even newly does not assert progressive support for the Egyptian regime since it dumped the Soviet Union.” This is how the Soviet Socialist Republics described themselves and this is how Socialists today describe themselves.

- Newly84

February 24, 2011 at 7:54pm

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

"The right is very flexible on the subject of human rights,..." Who here is "the right?" Is there only one "Right" or left position? Many so called right wingers support the overthrow of Mubarak. Get yourself a different lline, RD.

- Newly84

February 24, 2011 at 7:57pm

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

so, did anyone else hear the 58-yr old Libyan businessman named Mohamed speaking via cellphone from a city near Tripoli on NPR's "All Things Considered" today? Almost begging for the Americans to intervene. I guess the USA has so little history with Libya since 1969, or that Qaddaffi hates the US, so the opposition-Libyans must think we are the good guys? It was weird, but the sound of gunfire was also very loud. from the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli...

- K2K

February 24, 2011 at 8:35pm

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

I understand that CBS has cancelled Two and a Half Men.

- rayward

February 24, 2011 at 9:45pm

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

"...Does that mean that Israel is to blame for authoritarian government in Egypt? Certainly moreso than "progressives." More so? Why would Israel be at all to blame for authoritarian government in Egypt?" This is an ironic counter-factual to make a point, malahat, that "progressives" are no more to blame than is Israel for authoritarian government in Egypt. Israel at least had an interest in the stability of the Egyptian regime. What could possibly have been the progressive interest in supporting that regime and how has that supposed support been manifested? Indeed, newly points out that even far leftist support for the Egyptian regime evaporated when the Soviets were booted out. In which case, why are we reading this from some self-declared Zionist blogger: "These elementary freedoms are absent in the Arab and Islamic despotisms championed by American and European progressives, and that is why people are demonstrating." I infer that in the mind of this blogger criticizing Israel is indistinguishable from supporting Arab despots and tyrants. It is thus appropriate to point out that, if anything, it is Israel that had an interest in supporting those Arab despots who were no longer hostile to it. See? ____________________________ Asks newly, "Who is "you guys?" I consider myself to be privileged? How so?" Let's clear something up, newly. When one attacks or insults another poster, one directs comments at them. Did I say anything whatsoever about any other poster before jacko decided to take his little shot? No, I did not. Did I say anything directed at anyone other than jacko, and only after he took his shot? No, I did not. Let us stipulate that I insulted Martin Peretz. So what? Is that an insult to or attack upon another poster? I wouldn't think so. If you insult Obama, is that an attack on me? No, it isn't. You think yourself privileged because when the attack on a poster comes from a point of view that you approve, you have no objection. You only object to the riposte. It was no different when on the threads the other day you attacked me for responding to arnon who twice, on separate posts, decided to address me as an "idiot" without any provocation whatsoever. I had said nothing to him or about him. You see the point? You effectively claim the privilege for those with whom you agree to attack any poster they like. Then you object only to the response. That is "you guys." All you guys who engage in this behavior. For my part, I am willing to play either way. I do not attack people who have not taken a poke at me first. And I do not whine and complain if they do. I think it is in poor taste, but it is not really of any consequence. However, I am not for a moment going to be a target for this without returning fire. Then "you guys," meaning you, start complaining. What is up with that? Do you not notice the hypocrisy? Do you not care? Or is the complaining merely another tactic to be deployed against those whose opinions you don't like? Just askin'. _______________________ This is how the Soviet Socialist Republics described themselves and this is how Socialists today describe themselves. "roidubouloi “Newly seems to be describing rather orthodox communists and equating them with "progressives." If so, there are a handful of such left in the world mostly inhabiting college campuses. And even newly does not assert progressive support for the Egyptian regime since it dumped the Soviet Union.” This is how the Soviet Socialist Republics described themselves and this is how Socialists today describe themselves." There are a great many people on the left who describe themselves as progressives who are neither socialists nor communists. If your intention is to refer to socialists and communists, then you ought to do so as there are rather wide differences between those on the far or extreme left and everybody else. However, everyone knows that there are not many socialists and very few communists around and that they don't carry much weight anywhere in the world. Hence, you won't be referring to much of anyone, as I pointed out above. ___________________________ "The right is very flexible on the subject of human rights,..." Who here is "the right?" Is there only one "Right" or left position? Many so called right wingers support the overthrow of Mubarak. Get yourself a different line, RD." Yeah, when did many so called right wingers support the overthrow of Mubarak? Yesterday. You trying to tell me that the right or any significant part of has been vocally supporting the downfall of Mubarak at any point before it became a fait accompli? The right, and yes there is a right with certain shared views, opposes despots who are hostile to the US and supports despots who are friendly to the US. Trying to present this as support for democracy and human rights is just propaganda. If you object to referring in a general way to a right-wing view, why doesn't this statement bother you? "Progressive politics is often flexible. They define what a “progressive” regime is." Because you were they one who wrote it, I suppose. If you want to take a principled position about something, newly, such as the use of generalizations about left and right, you have to be willing to sustain the position for at least a few minutes or it is difficult to take it seriously as a matter of principle.

- roidubouloi

February 24, 2011 at 9:46pm

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

"Because you were they one who wrote it, I suppose. If you want to take a principled position about something, newly, such as the use of generalizations about left and right, you have to be willing to sustain the position for at least a few minutes or it is difficult to take it seriously as a matter of principle." Very little you write has any relation to what I said. I didn’t generalize about posters. It's easy to be principled when what you write makes no sense. There is one point to all your posts, "I am smart, I know more than you," and this is all there is to your posts. When you write about factual matters you get it wrong.

- Newly84

February 24, 2011 at 10:28pm

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

"Yeah, when did many so called right wingers support the overthrow of Mubarak?" What do you think the neocons were talking about when they proposed bringing "democracy to the Mid-East? I thought that that was nonsense, and I still do. I wish I was wrong. Nothing would please me more than seeing real democracy flourish in Egypt, Iran, Libya or Syria.

- Newly84

February 24, 2011 at 10:29pm

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

"What do you think the neocons were talking about when they proposed bringing "democracy to the Mid-East?" Most certainly not the overthrow of any regime friendly to the United States. What they were talking about is regime change for unfriendly regimes to make them friendly regimes. They are quite open about using American power to prevent democratically elected unfriendly regimes. When you want to take issue with my factual claims, why go right ahead. So far, I don't think that you have in any discernible way beyond declaring that I am wrong (and by inference that you are right). __________________________ "Very little you write has any relation to what I said. I didn’t generalize about posters." Huh? The point was that you generalize about "progressives," while also misusing the term as a synonym for socialists and communists, but object to generalizations about the right. That is the "principle" about which you are quite inconsistent, depending of course on the ideological angle. As for the rest of what you wrote up there, I cannot even make sense out of it. It certainly is not responsive to the point that you do not object to personal attacks by posters who share your point of view but then do object to the response. That is, by any account, an unprincipled point of view on the subject of personal attacks by posters.

- roidubouloi

February 24, 2011 at 10:50pm

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

"What do you think the neocons were talking about when they proposed bringing "democracy to the Mid-East?" "Most certainly not the overthrow of any regime friendly to the United States. What they were talking about is regime change for unfriendly regimes to make them friendly regimes. They are quite open about using American power to prevent democratically elected unfriendly regimes." They talked about bringing democracy to the whole area. This is why when the Egyptian demontrations broke out they debated its meaning on many of their websites. Some like the Washington post columnist Charles Krauthammer were against them but many of them weren't. Like many doctrinaire lefitsts you have a hard time with actual facts. You have a way of genralizing about everything you write. You'd rather believe in "logic" of a positions than the actual position a person holds. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/02/the-neocons-split-with-israel-over-egypt/70636 "But the neoconservatives, who have made democracy promotion in the Middle East an overarching goal, are scratching their heads at what they see as Israeli shortsightedness. I asked Elliott Abrams, formerly of the Bush Administration National Security Council, and now at the Council on Foreign Relations, what he makes of the Israeli longing for Mubarak. He was scathing in his response" You will twist and turn until you prove to yourself that the "neocons" are lying or are not true to their principles.

- Newly84

February 24, 2011 at 11:14pm

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

I will get to work on it. I take it however that although there is no such thing as a left or right position on things, that we can speak in general about a neocon position without abusing the principle you advocate that there is no way to identify a left or right on anything.

- roidubouloi

February 24, 2011 at 11:35pm

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

Here we go. So much for the "uniform" neo-con point of view, excerpted from "Neocons' Tepid Reaction To Egyptian Democratic Revolution" By Stephen J. Sniegoski 2-6-11 http://www.rense.com/general92/rg.htm "John Bolton, a long-time member of the neoconservative nexus, who currently is making noises about running for the Republican presidential nomination, did not even pay lip service to democracy in his negative portrayal of the political upheaval in Egypt. It should be said that this complete slighting of democracy makes Bolton something of an outlier among the neocons. Instead, he focuses solely on the Muslim Brotherhood bogeyman. He went so far as to say that he did not "think we have evidence yet that these demonstrations are necessarily about democracy. You know the old saying, 'one person, one vote, one time.' The Muslim Brotherhood doesn't care about democracy, if they get into power you're not going to have free and fair elections either." To Bolton, the issue was one revolving fundamentally around American geostrategic interests. "Let's be clear what the stakes are for the United States," Bolton asserts. "We have an authoritarian regime in power that has been our ally." He believes, and seems to hope, that the Egyptian army, which he describes as the real power in the country, could take actions to suppress this revolutionary development. The author more or less concludes with this: From the neocons' less-than-enthusiastic reaction to the ongoing democratic revolutionary wave in the Middle East, it is apparent that they are far from being democratic ideologues, as has often been claimed. And this has been apparent for some time. In The Transparent Cabal, I cite many instances where the neocons take positions that are contrary to supporting democracy--their opposition to democratic rights for Palestinians being the most egregious, but far from the only example. In fact, I point out that the "Neoconservatives have not always even claimed to be exponents of democracy as a policy goal; in fact, it was the rejection of pushing democracy as a foreign policy goal that loomed large in their early years. During the Cold War, the neoconservatives emphasized that it was essential to support dictatorships, if they were pro-United States, as part of the overall war on Soviet Communism. They were especially critical of President Jimmy Carter's emphasis on human rights in foreign policy, which they held had served to undermine anti-Communist pro-American dictatorships, such as the Shah's Iran and Somoza's Nicaragua, and facilitated their transformation into anti-American dictatorships that might align with the Soviet Union." [The Transparent Cabal, pp. 227-228] In short, instead of being ideologues of democracy, the neocons largely use "democracy" as a rhetorical weapon to advance their own particular agenda, which currently involves advancing the interests of the state of Israel, which they claim to be identical to the interests of the United States. * * * As I bring out in The Transparent Cabal, the fundamental goal of the neocons, as with the Israeli Right, is the destabilization and fragmentation of the Israel's enemies, for which the rhetoric of democracy provides an ideal façade. Since Mubarak's Egypt has maintained relatively friendly relations with Israel, it has not been targeted for destabilization and fragmentation. Instead the neocons have targeted Saddam's Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Iran, which are enemies of the U.S. (in part, at least, due to the efforts of the Israel lobby), as well as of Israel. And, as described in The Transparent Cabal, the neocons have developed less-publicized plans to destabilize Saudi Arabia, a crucial friend of the U.S. but in various ways hostile to Israel. ____________________ Consider it an alternative point of view to your own, which you express with utter certainty. Does that mean that you are doctrinaire and have a hard time with actual facts? Let us agree, however, that the neocons are more docrtinally consistent than the right in general, but that is only what one would expect from a relatively small subset. I think it is rather farfetched, however, that neocons have been consistent advocates of democracy without regard to perceived American interests. Don't you?

- roidubouloi

February 25, 2011 at 12:10am

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

roi quoting rense, eh? Why am I not surprised?

- noga1

February 25, 2011 at 6:57am

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

You all do run perfectly true to form, don't you? Of course, it goes without saying that anyone who is sharply critical of the neo-cons is an anti-Semite. What else? And clearly, the guy has met a few. But neither he nor the sites that link his article are the point. Does he report Bolton's words accurately? Not relevant apparently since no one wants to bother to show otherwise. Is he correct that the very same neo-cons who now proclaim themselves democratic absolutists were opposed to the human rights agenda advanced by Carter? Not relevant apparently since no one wants to bother to show otherwise. Oh, and is there even any specific evidence that this particular author is himself an anti-Semite, beyond who approves of him? None is offered. The über-Zionist view of who is and who is not an anti-Semite as a sufficient explanation for all reality, political and otherwise, eh? Why am I not surprised? Well, because just a thread ago, I was explaining that this is exactly your response to all matters relating to Israel. And, bingo, here you!

- roidubouloi

February 25, 2011 at 7:34am

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

The relevant comments of John Bolton can be found in a recent interview on Fox News, of all places. Now, I agree with you all that all that should really matter is that Fox News has nothing whatever to do with news and is merely an outlet for tendentious, fascist propaganda of all kinds and hence anything said there is self-evidently a lie. And I don't want to say therefore that Bolton wasn't lying about any and ever factual matter he touched upon. After all, Ailes was just accused of bidding Regan to lie to federal investigators to protect the political fortunes of Giuliani which is just what you would expect a news organization to do. Plus Fox has known associations with the lying liars and maniacs who lied us into Iraq. But, in this case, I think we can accept that what Bolton said on Fox News is what Bolton actually said. Fox did not substitute a computer animation. Lo and behold!, Sniegoski's characterization appears to be quite accurate, certainly not unfair. Thus, as I said, so much for the unanimity of the neocons on democracy movements. But, never let facts interfere with finding the anti-Semite in the woodpile I always say. Now, do we really have to document that the neocons who are now self-declared democracy absolutists were opposed to Carter's human rights agenda on realist ground? Y'all have a nice today. Come back and give us the tally of crypto-anti-Semites you discover today.

- roidubouloi

February 25, 2011 at 8:34am

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

Oh Roid, you know I love ya man. I think you are a penny prodigy and a pound fool. Your capacities for magnifying minutiae is impressive. It seems an almost blissful enterprise for you. Yeah, it does bug me a bit, (though consistency has its own virtues) that you always appear to want to leverage your distaste for Martin Peretz to a larger political truth of some sort. I view your efforts as happily engaging in an unfair smear for the sake of whatever it is you are trying to accomplish. The larger aspects of Martin Peretz overview look honorable, by my lights. He's been a consistent advocate for human rights and basic decencies. The only conditions he demands is that these be framed in reciprocal terms. You twist the terms of his reciprocity into an ugly pastiche by obliquely referencing 'unconditional' as the final arbiter of judgement and characterization. (This argument has its place but should be approached honestly and in its own realm.) Then you insinuate your own conditionals as the truth of all things. Yeah. I took a whack at you. I was bored. Thought to have a little fun at your expense. Seems to me you fulfilled your end of the deal. I suppose that it would be a pity to demolish that fancy NEOCON prison that has been carefully constructed. I'm fairly certain that you would happily offer me quarter behind those bars. And here I always thought that I was just a regular guy who believes in the basic tenets of freedom as prescribed of the 'Do Unto' thing. Whatever. Have a great day, Roid. You are a doodle dandy.

- jacko

February 25, 2011 at 8:55am

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

Yes, jacko. You are a prince among men, a true believer in all things good and right, speak only God's Truth, and your prose is a miracle of clarity. Yet, somehow, in this case, you seem to have made a small error. Probably because you have your hands full delivering absolute Truth to so many unbelievers. I did not, as you say, leverage my criticism of Peretz into "a larger political truth." I criticized Peretz for his consistent habit of attributing everything he doesn't like politically to everyone he doesn't like politically, pointed out some of the absurdities of his point of view, and left it at that. If I drew any conclusion on that basis about "larger political truth," I have no idea what it was. Do you? Sorry to distract you from your mission of bringing God's True Word to the benighted. I realize that a Prophet such as yourself has much more important things to do than pay attention to the meanderings of the poor unenlightened. Oh, lest I forget, happy to hold up my end of the deal. Any time. _______________ Note to newly: You see? Jacko has the decency to acknowledge what he was doing. How did it slip by you?

- roidubouloi

February 25, 2011 at 9:37am

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

And jacko, I am sure you are aware, or can just ask God for immediate confirmation, that Peretz's "consistent advocacy for human rights and basic decencies" has somehow skipped over the Fourth Geneva Convention. What's up with that, dude? The Fourth Geneva Convention is a human rights treaty that almost every single nation on earth has subscribed to, including both Israel and the United States. Check with the Almighty.

- roidubouloi

February 25, 2011 at 9:50am

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

Oh come on, roid. Newly is pretty square on. You pounce upon perceived personal offense like a cat possessed. That you have been so tweaked then becomes the absolute focus of interaction and the terms of argumentation then become exclusively a matter of put down satisfactions. Pretty good shot you took at me just now.... in all of my benighted Holiness.

- jacko

February 25, 2011 at 9:54am

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

I agree with Mr. Peretz - it's remarkable that the "Arab street" is aflame as many predicted since 1967, however the cause of rage is not the "Zionists". Young people, tired of lack of opportunity, of real education, women tired of being second class citizens, an entire people sick of authoritarian rulers for life. The speed of these revolts reminds me of 1989. I hope it turns out as well.

- dubyadoubte

February 25, 2011 at 9:56am

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

jacko, you're not tracking the ball. I wasn't taking newly to task for saying anything offensive. He didn't. What he did do is complain, on your behalf, that I was attacking you. I am merely pointing out to him, again, that he complains of my response while seemingly having no concern at all about what provoked it.

- roidubouloi

February 25, 2011 at 11:13am

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

You're right. AGAIN. I'm not engaged and it's not fair or beneficial for me to pretend as if I am. Roid. I want to pay you a compliment without condition. I think you are a smart guy. You often have interesting things to say. You and I butt heads on penumbratic dimensions with all benighted bliss. Have yourself one hell of a great day. Jacko

- jacko

February 25, 2011 at 11:34am

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

malahat"Took me a while, but I think I now get rayward's reference to the cancellation of Two and a Half Men..." you mean Charlie Sheen is America's Qaddafi? :) I saw a clip last night of Martin Sheen pleading for people to view his son's Charlie's addictions as a disease like cancer. And then Qaddafi said something about the protestors being a cancer (and cockroaches and rats). meanwhile, the US State dept's ferry finally left Tripoli today.

- K2K

February 25, 2011 at 12:15pm

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

jacko, Absolutely honestly, I was just on my way back to this site with the specific purpose of saying how much I appreciate your good nature. Even when you take a shot (out of boredom or whatever), I don't experience any animus there. More like being teased by a teammate. And you don't melt down or suddenly get all bent out of shape about taking what comes back at you. That is playing fair and also worthy of appreciation. So you have yourself one helluva a great day too. R

- roidubouloi

February 25, 2011 at 12:20pm

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

malahat - to be continued on the Wieseltier thread. :)

- K2K

February 25, 2011 at 8:56pm

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

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/24/the-death-of-linkage/?page=2 "The last few weeks and months have finally proven the fallacy of one of the most mistaken theories about development and peace in the Middle East. For a number of years, foreign officials, experts and commentators have claimed that if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was solved, then there would be peace in the Middle East. This was coined “linkage.” Former President Jimmy Carter was once asked, “Is the linkage policy right?” He replied, “I don’t think it’s about a linkage policy, but a linkage fact. … Without doubt, the path to peace in the Middle East goes through Jerusalem.” Another enthusiast of linkage is former U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, who said, “The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the single most combustible and galvanizing issue in the Arab world.” The WikiLeaks revelations proved that among Arab decision makers and policy-shapers, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was fairly low on the list of urgent priorities in the region. These private conversations reveal that Arab leaders are preoccupied with the looming threat of Iran and only make perfunctory statements on the “Palestinian question,” as one senior American diplomat who has spent his career in the Middle East told the New York Times recently."

- noga1

February 26, 2011 at 10:26am

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close