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 Why Has the U.S. Been So Soft on Bashar Assad?

TEL AVIV JOURNAL MARCH 29, 2011

Why Has the U.S. Been So Soft on Bashar Assad?

BY MARTIN PERETZ

I don’t know where to begin. So let me start with Bashar Al Assad—whose father, Hafez, Jimmy Carter wrote he had higher regard for than any other leader in the Middle East. Barack Obama never said anything quite that hagiographic about the son. But Hillary Clinton, his pliant chief diplomat, told “Face the Nation” on Sunday that the Syrian president was considered by members of Congress from both parties to be a “reformer.” How many senators and representatives will own up to Hillary’s characterization? It is hokum. The hokum started long ago. One can locate it in time: June 14, 2000, in a New York Times article by Susan Sachs headlined, “The Shy Young Doctor at Syria’s Helm.” Doctor this and doctor that. And, of course, “Dr. Bashar.” There is nothing like a first name to humanize a tyrant. “Fidel,” for example. And more: general practitioner, ophthalmologist, director of the Syrian Society for Information Technology.

Most Syrians have expressed public confidence in Dr. Assad, even while conceding that he is young and inexperienced. They know him as the director of the Syrian Scientific Society for Information Technology, which offers computer courses, though only a small percentage of Syrians can afford luxury items like computers.

Thanks to an orchestrated campaign in the state news media to credit him with fighting corruption and promoting a more open economy, Dr. Assad also is seen as a beacon of hope for a new, more relaxed Syria.

He recently told The Washington Post that he personally favored lifting all of hidebound Syria's restrictions on what people read, watch on television or discover on the Internet.

"As a point of principle, I would like everybody to be able to see everything," he was quoted as saying. "The more you see, the more you improve." But others, Dr. Assad added, have their reservations.

It went on more or less like this for maybe seven or eight years when the reality purveyors suddenly caught on that the dictator’s boy was a dictator himself. Until, that is, this last weekend with the aforementioned discovery of the secretary of state that he was a “reformer.”

The president must have felt similarly because he constantly pressed on Israel the view that Assad was a reasonable and trustworthy man. Or was it that he believed the United States and the Jewish state were so tainted by their histories of haughty dealings with Arabs that Israel certainly needed to take the first perilous steps to conciliate its northern neighbor? I am inclined to the second explanation. In a way, though, he’d boxed himself into a corner. Having forced both Israel and the Palestinian Authority into the cul de sac of settlements as the pivotal issue among the parties (a matter already implicitly but not definitively resolved between the two antagonists), the president needed another key to unlock and unblock the conflict. No scenario looked especially hopeful, not at least to true realists. But the White House thought it had insufficient cachet with the Damascus dictator. So, rather than pressing Syria to stop its arms deliveries to Hezbollah, it began to press Israel on the Golan.

Why Obama thought the Golan Heights could be the big opener in the peace process is anybody’s guess. The fact is that the Palestinians do not care a fig for the Golan, and an Israeli concession on it would not be seen as—and would not be—a concession to anyone but the Ba’athists. Who, of course, cannot be trusted on anything. Which is one reason why Jerusalem was not inclined to experiment on a big swath of high ground that had been the source of death and destruction for first two decades of statehood. I believe that it would actually be more difficult for international interlocutors to persuade the Israelis to give up the Heights than to relinquish parts of east Jerusalem, one reason being that this territory is and was virtually without Syrians, except Syrian soldiers, in 1967: a few Druze, yes; two tens of thousands of Israelis now, yes. Here the principle must be, like the principle from all just wars, that to the aggressed-upon victor belongs the spoils. 

In any case, Assad’s always shaky rule over Syria is now exposed as just that. And just that because it is not based on anyone’s consent but on coercion and domestic terror. The governing 12 percent minority of the Alawite sect is Syria’s equivalent to Saddam Hussein’s clan of Tikriti Sunnis, both having ruled cruelly and bloodily. Indeed, the Assads have nursed a particular grudge against the Palestinians, almost all of them. They had little truck with Arafat and sided in the intra-Palestinian wars with the secular “socialist” schismatics who’d headquartered themselves in Syria’s capital. This did not preclude the first family from enabling the internal sectarian bloodletting that is the program of both (Sunni) Hamas in Gaza and (Shia) Hezbollah in Lebanon, which incidentally Damascus still deems its own. I have not mentioned the ambitions of these terrorist groups against Israel.

In a tangled Sunday dispatch from Washington, Mark Landler reports that the “deepening chaos in Syria ... could dash any remaining hopes for a Middle East peace agreement, several analysts said.” In truth, however, there was almost no hope for such an agreement even before the challenge in the streets. Anyway, which seasoned analysts? The one he quotes is Martin Indyk, who almost always believes that tout va bien, but especially when things are going horridly.

Well, we don’t really know how badly or, for that matter, how well things are going. Still, there is something exhilarating in the Libyan rising against one of the two or three leading political crackpots of the age. And the support of that rising by Western democracies through NATO. That Obama was less than resolute in this enterprise is something we have come to expect. Of course, liberal Democrats have tried to make a virtue of the failing. The National Security Network issued an exemplary statement: “The effective handoff to NATO command and growing Arab state participation show that the United States can lead by letting others out in front.” This is double talk ... or maybe agitprop. The Arab League actually beat a hasty retreat from its much publicized endorsement of a no-fly zone over Libya. As for “growing Arab state participation,” all that this means is Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Hey, let me admit, that’s still more than anyone had reason to expect. A cool accounting of what’s been accomplished through “Odyssey Dawn” can be read in yesterday’s PolicyWatch by Jeffrey White, published by the Washington Institute.

As for Egypt, I cling to the hope that its people will realize social and economic progress with some political and legal justice. But if the new government is overwhelmed by the Muslim Brotherhood, neither of these (in any case) dicey hopes will be realized. The Brotherhood is actually a movement of the restoration of ideals and policies, some more than a millennium old, others going back only centuries, which either way inhibited education, industry, gender equality, elementary fairness. The Shia revolution in Iran is the very model for its Sunni enemy on the Nile. If Cairo reneges on its treaty with Israel, Egypt will find itself in another drama out of which it will not emerge either victorious or prosperous. An article by Barry Rubin in Monday’s Jerusalem Post argues that “another Israel-Hamas war is inevitable” precisely because the theology of Egypt itself will be transformed under Islamist rule.

Just yesterday I received an e-mail from a dear (and brilliant) Moroccan friend in Marrakech musing on the present or rather future state of Arab affairs. He writes: “If they don’t care about Israel as their disciplined and civilized neighbor they will, as usual, accomplish nothing.” Of course, independent Arab intellectuals are a rare species in the world they inhabit. So this is not a widely held point of view. And it is sparsely held especially in Syria where the Muslim Brotherhood has deep and broad rooting. Take your choice: Assad is allied with Hezbollah and Iran, militant Shi’ism on the march. Assad’s embittered enemies are soldiers of the Sunni sword. Obama tried his luck with Assad as, forgive the recollection, he also did with Dr. Ahmadinejad. The president then followed the Saudi monarch, King Abdullah, in his royal bankrolling effort to lure the eye doctor away from Nasrallah. Even the dynast’s billions couldn’t do the trick. Barack Obama will not reflect on how in just a bit over two years he got himself and America into this fix.

 

POST-SCRIPT:  Yes, it is remarkable how President Assad has eluded the opposition of the big powers to his actually frantic efforts to secure an atomic arsenal.  The only European power that has any historic interest in Syria is France. When the Brits established their 20th century empire in Iraq, France did it in Syria (and Lebanon). In any case, Sarkozy plays his hands very carefully and chintzily. Libya is all it can handle now and, of course, Libya is also closer to home ... but not as close as it is to Italy. (You may remember that the island of Lampedusa, now in the news so much as the destination point for bedraggled Libyan refugees, was the home of Giuseppe de Lampedusa, the author of the novel The Leopard and the setting for Visconti's film of the same name, starring Alain Delon, Claudia Cardinale and Burt Lancaster.  Ah, those were the days!) No such romance associated with Syria, a dure and bitter place always.

In this morning's Jerusalem Post, Caroline Glick lays out the humanitarian grievance against Assad's Syria.  And the Israeli grievance, as well.  And how Jerusalem might deal with it.

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

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 94 comments

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

94 comments

What "fix"? Syria has been a Soviet ally, an Iranian ally, and a fascist police state most of the time since it emerged from the Ottoman Empire. I don't see any evidence that Assad is getting any particularly special treatment. What, exactly, would the esteemed Marty suggest we should be doing? Respectfully, bombing Damascus is not on the menu.

- Robert Powell

March 29, 2011 at 10:29am

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

What "fix"? Syria has been a Soviet ally, an Iranian ally, and a fascist police state most of the time since it emerged from the Ottoman Empire. I don't see any evidence that Assad is getting any particularly special treatment. What, exactly, would the esteemed Marty suggest we should be doing? Respectfully, bombing Damascus is not on the menu.

- Robert Powell

March 29, 2011 at 10:29am

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

If the above picture is any indication, this guy is going to sully the good name of Larry Bird.

- Fishpeddler

March 29, 2011 at 10:47am

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

"I don’t know where to begin." I know the feeling. But perhaps describing the Secretary of State, who is (1) appointed by the president and (2) not supposed to organize an alternative U.S. foreign policy in opposition to his, as the "pliant chief diplomat" is not a useful place to start.

- ironyroad

March 29, 2011 at 10:58am

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

Could it be that Obama wanted to press Israel on the Golan because ... Israel has been willing to negotiate giving up the Golan to Syria in exchange for a peace treaty under Barak in 1999-2000 and again under Olmert several years ago? Could it be that the Clinton Administration veterans who worked with Barak's government on the earlier attempt and the State Department professionals who were present for Olmert's dealings suggested to Obama that this was something that Israel and Syria could be induced to accmoplish with sustained US support? After all, the Golan was and is sparsely settled and has no major holy sites, so the most intractable issues of the Arab-Jewish conflict in the Palestinian Territories and East Jerusalem are not present there. Plus, whatever its many faults, Syria is a coherent, centralized state that could enforce a peace treaty with Israel, just like Egypt in 1979. Or at least Syria was until the protests of a week ago. But I kid myself -- we all know it wasn't any of those rational, obvious things that would drive an American Administration to act a certain way toward Israel and its neighbors. It was some kind of hauty anti-Semitism, a gut feeling bred of too many Hyde Park cocktail parties that the horrible Jews are the problem in the Middle East and need to be punished. Because that's how states act in the broader world -- on the basis of gut feelings (or, for those who are really pro-Israel, a feeling in the "kishkes" about their love for Israel).

- wildboy

March 29, 2011 at 11:15am

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

It would be foolish for Israel to negotiate away the Golan with a regime that is unstable and has no legitimacy. If a more hostile to Israel regime gains control then it would be strategically more important for Israel to retain the Golan Heights. Better wait and see the outcome of the current unrest in Syria. The Druze people living there favor returning to Syria, in part for fear of retribution from the Syrian government, but if the current government falls they might change their mind and opt for the Heights remaining attached to Israel.

- Newly84

March 29, 2011 at 12:32pm

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

"After all, the Golan was and is sparsely settled and has no major holy sites, so the most intractable issues of the Arab-Jewish conflict in the Palestinian Territories and East Jerusalem are not present there. " How little you understand Israelis. In a contest between returning the Golan or conceding the holy places in Judea and Samaria, most Israelis will prefer to keep the Golan. A great many soldiers fell, in both wars, to get a hold of it. And no one likes to think of Syrian guns looming over the Israel's northern parts, again. Besides, it is dotted with lovely settlements, kibbutzim and Moshavim, that produce some of the finest wines in the world. Besides, the Golan Heights contains the Hermon, where Israelis can actually go skiing in winter. Lots of reasons why Most Israelis will not agree to give it back. They really have a genuine affection for the place, and the sense of security it inspires. When Barak was negotiating with Syria, he made an official vow not to sign any agreement before bringing it to a general referendum. I can't imagine any Israeli PM having the guts to sign any agreement with the Syrians (for whom a special kind of suspicion is reserved in Israel's hearts, due to their well-recorded cruelty to Israeli POW's) without consulting, DIRECTLY, with the Israeli people.

- noga1

March 29, 2011 at 12:58pm

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

And, incidentally, there is also quite a large chunk of Jewish history in the Golan Heights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamla

- noga1

March 29, 2011 at 1:00pm

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

Every president gets pummelled on foreign policy. Certainly there have been some genuine blunders throughout our history, but there is simply no president so popular and no position so obvious that it does not lend itself with ease to any freshman with a term paper due. Criticising a president's foreign policy is shooting fish in a barrel. But if foreign policy in general is the proverbial barrel, criticising foreign policy decisions with regards to Israel is more like putting a shotgun into a goldfish bowl and pulling the trigger. Anybody access to wikipedia and at least a few of their lobes firing can string together a dozen sentences about how with regards to Israeli policy the president is abysmally naive, those he attempts to court hopelessly corrupt/evil, and how his policy is itself ignorant of the actual history of those involved. No need suggesting what would actually work; to poke holes in others' ideas is enough. To wit: Why doesn't Marty enlighten us all with a solution for what WOULD work? Surely with his expertise he can come up with something no one has tried before.

- Tristan

March 29, 2011 at 1:55pm

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

Marty is fearful for Israel's future. He is not used to an American president who almost, or not even almost, openly disdains Israel and so assiduously courts its enemies. In a way, I think this is a good lesson for Israel. An unfamiliar experience where the resident at the WH hasn't got the least bit of affection for the Israeli project and who so clearly feels much more respect, if not downright awe, for Arab rulers, should act like a dousing with a bucket of freezing water on a winter day:wet and cold and extremely unpleasant, but it does concentrate the mind. Israel's leaders should not feel too comfortable, ever. They have to look after not just the interests of the Israeli people but to ensure the very survival of the six million Jews who live there. Icy water is exactly what the doctor prescribed. So, bless Obama for his indifference to Israeli pain, to Jewish historical realities, to Israel's reason for existence.

- noga1

March 29, 2011 at 2:09pm

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

Noga, your responses perfectly encapsulate everything that is wrong with the Israeli response to Obama's Middle East policies. There is no logic or reason -- there are only feelings and fears about Israel's future. Unhappiness about his "open" disdain for Israel and "awe" of Arab rules (Examples, please? Or do you think Benjamin Netenyahu is the same thing as "Israel"?) It is all such an incredible stew of BS that it is head-spinning. Obama is treating Israel like a grown-up country with grown-up national interests that can participate in negotiations with its neighbors on principles that its previous governments have embraced and been willing to pursue. You're right that Israel needs more hand-holding and ego-stroking than, say, France, Germany or Saudi Arabia, and I agree that Obama should have engaged in more of this kind of hand-holding than he has done. But that is Israel's fault, not America's, for wanting to have the benefits of an internationally recognized and widely admired regional superpower without any of the downsides about abiding by international law and international norms (like not acquiring land by conquest -- even land in which your people have a legitimate, historical claim). I know Israel and Israelis pretty well, having been there six times in my life (once for a three-month stretch after college) and having many friends and relatives who are Israeli. I understand the persecution complex, especially in light of the shocking Second Intifadah and continued Arab hostility despite the Lebanon and Gaza pullbacks (both of which, in my opinion, were botched by the Barak and Sharon governments). I actually very much enjoy Golan Heights wine and personally don't think Syria is much of a country, and certainly not a good neighbor to Israel. None of this excuses the Israeli pathology of refusing to engage as rational adults with the United States and its leadership and the pathologies of its current leadership in attempting to pull the country back from international commitments made by predecessor governments. And Marty's view -- that Obama desires to have Israel pursue a deal with Syria over the Golan the same way it was once willing to do when Clinton and Bush were in the WH because he's anti-Israel or anti-Jew, and not because it's a mainstream view of American foreign policy -- is a perfect example of that pathology. [BTW, I'm well aware of the Golan's strategic importance and its connection to Israel's history -- I don't need to look up Gamla in Wikipedia to know that. I also know that the Sinai was also pretty important to Israeli security but it was given back to Egypt in a peace treaty in 1979, demilitarized and patrolled by international troops and has even been popular with Israeli tourists since then (albeit with occasional terrorist attacks and general hostility). Barak and Olmert were willing to do a deal for the Golan on the same terms as the Sinai, though they never ended up coming to terms with the Syrians. And dealing with Syria was still easier than dealing with the disorganized and venal Palestinian leadership. Oh, and if you think that the Golan has been more historically important to Jews than Judea and Samaria, you've been reading some pretty alternative history.

- wildboy

March 29, 2011 at 2:34pm

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

"Oh, and if you think that the Golan has been more historically important to Jews than Judea and Samaria, you've been reading some pretty alternative history." You almost got my attention, until I read this statement. Where did I say what you claim I said that would account for this response? If this is an example of the kind of sloppy and self-indulgent way you get your information about Israel, you are not really worth the time to engage with. Never mind.

- noga1

March 29, 2011 at 2:44pm

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

"(Examples, please?" http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/bowing%20to%20Saudi%20King.jpg

- noga1

March 29, 2011 at 2:46pm

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

BTW, I still think you don't understand Israelis at all, despite your six visits, 3 months stay as a college student, and your many relatives and friends.

- noga1

March 29, 2011 at 2:48pm

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

In this case, I think I agree with Noga. The Golan is legitimately strategic - vital to Israel's long term survival imo unless the neighbors are not only peaceful but legitimately friendly - and even so - plus - all this hemming and hawing about the Sinai - occasional terrorist attacks and "general unfriendliness" notwithstanding - please. The agreement with Egypt is good only as long as the people of Egypt support it, assuming a genuine democracy emerges there. G*d forbid the peace agreement should fall by the wayside - G*d forbid. As far as why Obama hasn't spoken out more on Assad - he can't - without risking another Libya situation. It was relatively cheap and easy to say "Mubarak must go!" - and Mubarak went - Hillary Clinton then claiming this was a greater accomplishment than the Pyramids. Which is a ridiculous comment to have made - but nevermind; hopefully - HOPEFULLY - this will end well for the Egyptian people and for the region and for the US and we won't see another huge war and we will see some genuine economic and political progress. In Libya it was easy to declare, "Gaddafi must go!" and even so, despite our allies, NATO, etc we're now involved in another Kinetic Military Exercise which is starting to cost a lot of money and which has no clear goal and no end in sight. Despite that, we had an opportunity to save lives and also advance a pro-democracy, pro-human rights political strategy that didn't involve enormous risks. And, the possibility of Libyan troubles cascading into Tunisia and Egypt and also Egypt was great; thus it made sense to intervene there imo. Syria - that's another ball of wax altogether. From historical and human rights aspects - we should speak out. But then what? This goes for other dissidents - since we've interceded in Libya - why shouldn't we help them?

- Sophia

March 29, 2011 at 3:25pm

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

So Obama's little bow to the Saudi king means he's in awe of him. George W. Bush held hands with King Abdullah -- does that mean that he was romantically attracted to him? Actually, I wouldn't put that kind of lunacy past people like Noga and Marty. Go back and read what I wrote about Obama's Syria policy and why I wrote it. My point was that he was pushing Israel to do a deal for the Golan with Syria because that has been a long-standing US foreign policy goal, especially during those periods when it looked like the Palestinian track was not fruitful. It wasn't because he was animated by some kind of special anti-Israel animus, the way you and Marty seem to think. You are a great example of a paranoid, conspiracist mind-set, which seems incapable of accepting a logical and rational reason for behavior but instead searches for some kind of darker reason that conforms to your own sense of self-important persecution. As for whether it's a good idea to do a deal for the Golan now -- I don't think it is, and it may not be for a long time. Certainly a Syria run by the Muslim Brotherhood or some such group would be much worse for Israel than one run by the Assad family. But a demilitarized Golan in exchange for a peace treaty with Syria would have been a good deal for Israel if it could have been accomplished on reasonable terms. Just like the demilitarized Sinai in exchange for a peace treaty with Sadat's dictatorship was a good deal for Israel and has so remained under Mubarak. One of the chief accomplishments of the post-World War II world is that peace treaties are no longer so easily abrogated, even where a dictatorship originally signed the treaty. By the way, did anyone notice the United States pushing Israel to make a peace deal with Syria in the midst of all the recent chaos in the Middle East? No, I didn't either. Marty's concerns are just more tilting at non-existent straw men.

- wildboy

March 29, 2011 at 3:58pm

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

"So Obama's little bow to the Saudi king means he's in awe of him." How do you explain it? Is there a similar gesture registered in American history of presidents bowing to kings? You are OK with it? No problem whatsoever? Why hasn't any journalist had the guts to ask him directly what he meant by this gesture?

- noga1

March 29, 2011 at 4:33pm

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

Here is a little gift for Marty: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4048359,00.html "On Wednesday the Iranian embassy in Prague organized an event at a well-known hotel in the Czech capital. Prior to the event, a senior embassy official was shocked to see an Israeli flag flying high at the head of a line of flags situated near the entrance to the hotel. The diplomat spoke to the hotel manager and demanded that the Israeli flag be taken down, but the manager, and Arab-Israeli from Nazareth, rejected the request. "The (Israeli) flag will remain at the front of the hotel always," the manager told the Iranian official. "If you don’t like it, you are welcome to hold the event at another hotel." The angry Iranian diplomat had no choice but to accept the hotel's position, and the event was held as scheduled." __________ And here is a hopeful sign that Syrians are minded towards peace, with a little help from a Norwegian artist: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3971309,00.html

- noga1

March 29, 2011 at 4:50pm

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

"How do you explain it?" We've been through this, Noga. Obama is pretty tall and the king -- who's getting on a bit -- remained sitting down. Even if, however, he had been advised badly on protocol and did produce a bow of some brief variety, it neither proves awe, nor indeed does it say anything about a purported "disdain for Israel." Abdullah probably thought it was some African conceding the racial superiority of an Arab.

- ironyroad

March 29, 2011 at 5:30pm

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

Wildboy: But Israel wants to "have the benefits of an internationally recognized and widely admired regional superpower without any of the downsides about abiding by international law and international norms (like not acquiring land by conquest -- even land in which your people have a legitimate, historical claim)." Wildboy may be interested in knowing that Syria has no compunction about the validity of acquiring land by conquest. According to the 1923 boundary between the British Mandate for Palestine and the French Mandate for Syria, all of the Sea of Galilee, including a 10 m wide strip of beach along its northeast shore is part of Palestine. In addition, the boundary from the Sea of Galilee north to L Hulda was 50-400 m east of the upper Jordan and included a piece of land along the Yarmouk River. Syria captured various parts of the Palestine mandate during the 1948-49 war, including the strip along the beach of the Sea of Galilee, the east bank of the upper Jordan, and the areas along the Yarmouk. During Armistice talks of 1949, Syria refused to remove its forces from Palestine territory, arguing that the armistice line should be based not on the 1923 international border but on the military status quo. And Syria now contends that the 1949 military status quo should be the international boundary.

- JPKatz

March 29, 2011 at 5:43pm

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

"We've been through this, Noga. Obama is pretty tall and the king -- who's getting on a bit -- remained sitting down." http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/bowing%20to%20Saudi%20King.jpg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WlqW6UCeaY

- noga1

March 29, 2011 at 6:01pm

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

A few quick (I hope) comments & some links to stuff worth reading (IMHO). Blaming Clinton for Obama's foreign policy is a cheap shot. I am not fond of Hillary Clinton or the policy she is implementing but that is her job, especially in a presidential system like the USA's. Egypt: Remember how the secularists were supposedly leading the Egyptian revolution & that the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood was supposed to be minimal? Remember how folks like Martin Indyk, Fareed Zakaria & other such pollyannas put down Israel's concerns about the future of the Egyptian-Israel peace treaty asserting that the MB is only 20% of the Egyptian population & that the Islamists won't take over? Well guess what? They appear to have been wrong. In the recent plebiscite on amendments to the Egyptian constitution, the secularists wanted them defeated (for a whole variety of reasons) but the Islamists wanted them passed and lobbied through all the mosques etc. to get out the vote in favor of the amendments, and guess what? They passed!! And in case the MB isn't your cup of tea then there is also a growing Salafi movement appearing in Egypt. Salafis make Wahabbis seem moderate. Oh and the future of Egyptian natural gas deliveries to Israel (~40% of Israel's gas consumption, mostly for electricity generation) is in doubt. There was another attempted attack on the Egyptian pipeline pumping station (the previous one succeeded in shutting down gas deliveries to Israel for about a month) and a common slogan in Egypt is to "renegotiate" all commercial relations with Israel, especially the natural gas agreement. For more on what is going on NOW in Egypt see Bret Stephens WSJ column href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471904576228473270290208.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion">here. It may take the MB a few years & it may require them to ally with the Salafis & maybe al Qaeda, but I strongly suspect that they will eventually take power in Egypt. Israel & the Palestinians Few Israelis, outside of the incurably delusional peace processors, see any reasonable deal possible in the foreseeable future. Does Bibi represent Israel? Does Obama represent the USA? Wildboy, I am impressed with your visits here, but I have been living here for over 15 years, put 3 kids + a son-in-law through the army (and one in national service), am fluent in Hebrew & follow the news here obsessively. I think I just may understand Israelis a bit better than you. A plurality, if not a slim majority would make a deal with the Pals if they felt that it would be the end of the story & that it would be a deal that reasonably met Israel's interests. But few think such a deal is possible. One of the few MSM journalists who DOES understand the situation here reasonably well is Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post. He is not suspected, Gd forbid, of Likudnik leanings (p'tooi, p'tooi, p'tooi) and I believe even supported Obama in 2008. He astutely notes in his current column (href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-obamas-push-for-mideast-peace-whose-side-is-he-on/2011/03/24/AFdkaikB_story.html">here) that Bibi & Co. should be able to manage the problems with the Pals & the Arab "spring", but that the hard part will be managing Obama. Diehl notes that Abu Mazen has no interest in striking a deal with Israel (and neither did Arafat for that matter; these basic facts are lost on the terminal Oslo Accordians) but that Obama refuses to recognize that Israel has made repeated significant territorial offers to the Pals who turn them down (where Diehl errs is in his thinking that Bibi wouldn't make a deal if it was reasonable from an Israeli perspective, but even Diehl acknowledges that what Israel would or would not do is moot in view of Palestinian intransigence). Obama the ostensible pragmatist is more the rigid ideologue, at least when it comes to Israel. He just won't let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of coming down on Israel in general and Bibi in particular. Jonathan Tobin at Commentary's group-blog Contentions (href="http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/03/28/obama-versus-bibi-the-next-showdown/">here) takes Diehl's column further, all the way to the conundrum Obama's Israel policy will present to Jewish Democrats. And Jackson Diehl at the WashPost Post Partisan blog (href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/obamas-dubious-claim-of-leadership-in-libya/2011/03/04/AFbPLruB_blog.html">here) has a nice dissection of Obama's Libya speech where he shows that the big O engaged in wholesale revisionism of the events leading to the decision to fight Khadaffi, on top of Obama's usual pathological narcissism. This piece is not for the terminally Obamanoids. It's bedtime (I have to get up in 5.5 hours) and I haven't even touched upon Syria & the Golan. Maybe tomorrow. Hershel Ginsburg Efrata / Jerusalem

- ginzy

March 29, 2011 at 6:08pm

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

I apologize but it seems that I may have screwed up the html for the URL links. They should work if copy & paste them into your browsers. In all events, they are worth reading. hg

- ginzy

March 29, 2011 at 6:11pm

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

Wow, Noga, that's weird. Until I looked at it more closely I would have sworn on a stack of sacred books that King A. was seated. But I've never seen the sideways-on film clip before, and there it's clear we have a brief gesture of respect -- Obama is bending at 0.02 and is practically upright again at 0.04. This is rather more distant than Bush's kiss on both cheeks, and I think both of us can imagine the howls of execration if Obama had done that. It still says zero about 'awe' or 'disdain for Israel,' though.

- ironyroad

March 29, 2011 at 7:38pm

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

ginzy, I'm not clear at the end of your post whether you are for or against the Libyan action or simply neutral on it as its consequences are not yet clear. I mean, I'm not saying a simple position is the only one allowed, but 'against' appears to be the implication -- maybe I'm misreading you, however.

- ironyroad

March 29, 2011 at 7:45pm

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

Mr. Peretz, I respect you, and I am a habitual reader of your thoughtful pieces. One of the pleasures of your essays is their bluntness. The thoughtfulness of your ideas often contrasts with a lack of polish in a sentence here or there. In this respect, this piece is different. In your analysis of the dictator in Syria, it almost looks like you allowed yourself to be edited. I wonder if it is because you are exposing the vices of an autocrat that you choose not to use the prerogative of an editorial autocrat (forgive the connotation) to refuse to be edited.

- Ambrose

March 29, 2011 at 8:03pm

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

"Obama is bending at 0.02 and is practically upright again at 0.04. " Yes. Too bad there is no morning-after pill for such instincts.

- noga1

March 29, 2011 at 8:52pm

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

"A plurality, if not a slim majority would make a deal with the Pals if they felt that it would be the end of the story & that it would be a deal that reasonably met Israel's interests." This is a rather pleasant euphemism for retaining land illegally colonized. ____________________ "have the benefits of an internationally recognized and widely admired regional superpower without any of the downsides about abiding by international law and international norms (like not acquiring land by conquest -- even land in which your people have a legitimate, historical claim)." I would disagree with this, wildboy. I think what Israel wants is to be an accepted member of the western community without abiding by the norms of that community. I also think that Israel wants to be accepted as a regional superpower when it isn't because its power is dependent on that of the United States. That is, it wants to borrow the power of the United States for its own ends, and wants the prerogatives of power it does not really have, without having to acknowledge its dependence, the illusion of power that is not really Israel's. The recent vote in the UNSC, 14 to 1, to condemn the settlement adventure, vetoed by the US, suggests that this will not endure indefinitely. The rightist Israeli government declines to plan for the future. No doubt, Ha Shem will provide.

- roidubouloi

March 29, 2011 at 10:39pm

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

"[Marty] is not used to an American president who almost, or not even almost, openly disdains Israel and so assiduously courts its enemies." Doesn't Jimmy Carter (in Marty's book and yours, too) fit that bill, noga? Then Obama must be, at least, the second antisemitic president in modern America (perhaps Nixon, too). So, Marty has seen it before. Sorry to be getting ahead of you and Marty. Unlike Jimmy Carter, you both haven't called Obama antisemitic, yet.

- scrubby

March 29, 2011 at 11:07pm

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

Nice to read you again, ginzy. Hope all is well with you.

- scrubby

March 29, 2011 at 11:10pm

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

Morning-after pill or not, I'd still ask about the awe and the disdain.

- ironyroad

March 29, 2011 at 11:31pm

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

"Sorry to be getting ahead of you and Marty. Unlike Jimmy Carter, you both haven't called Obama antisemitic, yet." No. I don't consider OBAMA to be antisemitic. Not at all. He just really disdains Israel. And courts her enemies.

- noga1

March 29, 2011 at 11:41pm

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

"Abdullah probably thought it was some African conceding the racial superiority of an Arab." Now, that was funny! LOL.

- wkwami

March 30, 2011 at 1:24am

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

Obama does not disdain Israel, noga. Perhaps he has that feeling for Bibi, of whom could be said that Bill Clinton, too, felt the same way about. Like most recent American presidents, Obama is a strong supporter of Israel. I think his White House bungled the relationship with Israel from the get-go. As to the charge of him courting Israel's enemies, you might as well level the same charge against any White House occupant since Richard Nixon. They all courted most Arab nations. Strategically, that's what American presidents do. The Bush family goes even further; they have a very deep personal relationship with the Saudi royals. I just think your dislike for Obama and his Israeli policy colors your judgment.

- scrubby

March 30, 2011 at 4:17am

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

Some commentators suggest that Israel wants to be an "accepted member of the western community without abiding by the norms of that community" in particular, those concerning "abiding by international law and international norms (like not acquiring land by conquest)". Prescinding from the question of whether this is true of Israel, which western countries abide by international law when it is in conflict with their national interests. Certainly not the US or Canada. Which western countries have not acquired land by conquest? Certainly not the US or Canada. I'm not an expert on the history of modern Europe, but I can think of lots of European countries that in recent memory have acquired land on the basis of conquest.

- JPKatz

March 30, 2011 at 5:54am

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

"As to the charge of him courting Israel's enemies, you might as well level the same charge against any White House occupant since Richard Nixon." I can't recall any previous president bowing to a Saudi king in a gesture of awe and deference or going to Cairo and making a fawning speech to the Muslim world in which historical revisionism of Israel's history to fit Arab narratives has been inserted. "I just think your dislike for Obama and his Israeli policy colors your judgment." What a strange thing to say. I dislike and distrust Obama for his anti Israel bias and for courting Israel's enemies. I also question his judgment in allowing the sentiments he acquired during his friendship with the likes of Rev. Wright and Rashid Khalidi to colour his treatment of Israel, a sister democracy and an ally of the USA. Why else would I dislike him, if it weren't for that?

- noga1

March 30, 2011 at 7:15am

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

Despite the political rhetoric, Israel is not an ally of the US. It is a client of the US. The misconception of the relationship inevitably makes it difficult to understand US actions and rhetoric and Israeli frustration in being treated, in the end, as a client rather than as an ally.

- roidubouloi

March 30, 2011 at 7:36am

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

Thanks ginzy. Re: Egypt? Despite the constitutional amendment vote victory for the MB, the current military government has apparently decided to postpone elections until later in the year, and 'decree' that no political party can have an overt religious basis. If anyone wants to read about the prospects for Tunisia, I highly recommend Steve Coll's "The Casbah Coalition" in April 4, 2011 New Yorker. As Peretz already cited Caroline Glick on Syria in today's JPost, I add my choice for best reads on Syria below, adding that Syria is almost financially prostrate, with growing trade deficits and no way to access 'foreign aid'. Based on Assad's speech this morning, I guess "reformer" should no longer be used by American officials, although Bashir did not name names in the "American-Israeli conspiracy", nor did he claim Mossad-trained camels were involved :) "Food and Syria's failure" By Spengler [aka David Goldman] http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MC29Ak02.html ""In the south it all started after a group of school students started to write some sort of proclamations and complaints, protesting against growing food prices," Middle East analyst Vladimir Ahmedov told The Voice of Russia March 24. Arab-language Syrian press reports and blog posts indicate that the administration of President Basher al-Assad tried to prevent a rise in food prices, but provoked instead a wave of hoarding that has pushed the price of staples like oil and rice "above the purchasing power of consumers", as the online daily al-Tashreen reported from Damascus March 27. ..." another very good read about Syria: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/03/28/the_syrian_timebomb?page=full and, for the African support, or not, for Qaddhafi, country by country, not including today's announcement by Uganda that Qaddhafi is welcome to move there: http://www.hudson-ny.org/2000/gaddafi-mercenaries-in-libya

- K2K

March 30, 2011 at 10:58am

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

JPKatz wrote: "I'm not an expert on the history of modern Europe, but I can think of lots of European countries that in recent memory have acquired land on the basis of conquest." Can you name those European countries that in recent memory have acquired land on the basis of conquest?

- wkwami

March 30, 2011 at 12:33pm

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

No awe or deference here, I guess: http://img406.imageshack.us/i/bushbow.jpg/sr=1

- ironyroad

March 30, 2011 at 1:29pm

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

"Why else would I dislike him, if it weren't for that?" I believe it is for the reasons you gave, noga. My only quibble is this: "I also question his judgment in allowing the sentiments he acquired during his friendship with the likes of Rev. Wright and Rashid Khalidi to colour his treatment of Israel, a sister democracy and an ally of the USA." How would you know what informed his views on Israel and the Middle East? Are those the only two people he associated with? And how would you know how much those two men influenced him, if they did at all? They are a vast number of people, including some Israelis, that agree fully with the approach the president took with regard to Israel/Palestine. I doubt 99.9% of them had any friendship with Wright or Khalidi, so what do you suppose influenced their views? Anyway, we are in agreement that your dislike for the president (and you stated your reasons why) colors your judgment of the guy.

- scrubby

March 30, 2011 at 2:36pm

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

ironyroad: Whatever Bush felt or pretended to feel for the Saudi, it never interfered with his genuine and warm support for Israel. In a way, these two are chiastic. Obama pays lip service to Israel's security while his true commitment is to the Arabs. (Just look how fast he acted upon the Arab League's request to intervene in Libya!). Bush acted as the Saudi's lover while he was unequivocally committed to Israel's security in the right way. I daresay for you it is all the same. Your insistence in minimizing the importance of Obama's bow to the Saudi amuses me. I don't believe you understood what I meant in my morning after pill. You were trying to suggest that just because it was rapidly done, that bow was not indicative of any awe. I was trying to tell you that your argument is like that of being "a little pregnant". The puzzle remains why he did it and no one as yet has provided a plausible explanation. It would have been less puzzling if he just kissed him on both cheeks. But this bow, it signifies a different level of respect. I want to know why. I'd also be interested in an explanation for this brotherly handshake: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_gHXgmEt_uV8/TT3Ie26qXTI/AAAAAAAABSw/HC5Eh-3txkg/s400/obama-chavez.jpg

- noga1

March 30, 2011 at 3:58pm

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

Anyway, ironyroad, I promised to keep out of your way but I can't do that if you insist on throwing at me these sarcastic one-liners.

- noga1

March 30, 2011 at 4:16pm

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

You don't have to keep out of my way (unless you want to, of course). But you're missing my point about the Bush picture, which is simply that any of these images can be read in a skewed way to make some political point. I don't believe that Bush had in essence any different relationship with Saudi Arabia -- as president (business connections are another thing) -- than Clinton or Obama. I certainly don't believe that Obama has disdain or anything like it for Israel, but I'm pretty sure that Netanyahu might have a problem realizing that attitude can both help or hinder things. Regarding the Arab League -- yes, they sent a message to the UN, finally taking some responsibility for what happens in their region, and that was one, but only one, of the elements that enabled the U.S. to put together the configuration for UNSC 1973. To call it "fast acting upon a request" is quite accurate, but only if one also notes that the request was both historically unique and politically useful (not indispensable, but certainly useful).

- ironyroad

March 30, 2011 at 4:56pm

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

noga, perhaps love really is blind :) more on Syria, from: "Water crisis floats Syrian unrest" By Victor Kotsev "...Turkey is eyeing nervously Syria's Kurdish population. Just like in Iraq, it has little interest to see an autonomous Kurdish entity emerge on its borders in a hypothetical scenario that includes the breakup of Syria. One analyst speculated that the recent lull of anti-Israeli rhetoric coming out of Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan was partially the consequence of shared concerns over Syria. ..." http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MC30Ak03.html actually, that URL was the end of my comment.

- K2K

March 30, 2011 at 7:26pm

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

"I certainly don't believe that Obama has disdain or anything like it for Israel," Next time he expresses disdain I will point it out to you. You of course will disagree and blame Netanyahu. Your comment still does not explain Obama's bow or the hearty handshake with Chavez. You can mock and belittle me for noticing and remembering it. I suspect you attribute it to some bad faith sentiment. But you should at least accept that these are singular behaviours for an American president. I would like to understand what he can be thinking of.

- noga1

March 30, 2011 at 7:29pm

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

"noga, perhaps love really is blind :)" How do you mean? You don't find the Saudi a handsome sheik? http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_k6Blra-PMrc/S7eLW-V5EoI/AAAAAAAAB5I/Vs13C1qJPl4/s1600/The+Sheik.jpg

- noga1

March 30, 2011 at 7:36pm

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

Wow. Israel is a client state of the US. And they sure have faithfully executed the wishes of every chief executive of our august land since Harry Truman in 1948, the year of Israel's birth. Which, by the way, makes r. a conspiracist. The orders from Washington: attack our ship, the Liberty, client state. Good to see you out here, ginzy.

- liberalref

March 31, 2011 at 2:05am

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

Oviously, you don't understand what a client state is, lib. But, as usual, you don't let your ignorance get in the way of your opinions.

- roidubouloi

March 31, 2011 at 3:40am

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

@wkwami. I had in mind Wildboy's wild contention that it is improper to acquire land by conquest, "even land in which your people have a legitimate, historical claim" and that Israel has done this. All sorts of borders were adjusted as a result of conquest after World War II: e.g., Poland acquired the bulk of Silesia; France reacquired Alsace-Lorraine. And if one looks to Asia and Africa, one finds many more examples. Otoh, Israel does not claim de jure sovereignty over the West Bank (or Gaza); its position is that these territories are disputed. It claims that it is exercising de facto sovereignty over the territory until the final disposition of the territories is decided by a negotiated settlement. Let me mention as well that contrary to what some commentators assume, international law does permit permanent annexation of territory under specified conditions. One of these conditions used to be military conquest. There is general agreement that annexation is no longer sufficient justification for annexation; indeed such annexation would seem to violate article 2 of the UN Charter. (I note accordingly that Jordan's annexation of the West Bank after 1949 was illegal.) But it is arguable that conquest would justify annexation were the military action consistent with article 2 (e.g., where it was justified as self-defense). In any event, cession, occupation, accretion and prescription still provide good grounds for annexation. Thus, e.g., one can argue that the absence of any other sovereign permits Israel to annex as a result of occupation, without need to resort to a claim of conquest.

- JPKatz

March 31, 2011 at 6:43am

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

"noga, perhaps love really is blind :)" I was thinking of those supporters who see Obama through eternally rose-colored glasses. disclaimer: attack me for bad choice of cliche, NO racism intended or implied. offer not applicable in Alabama :) oh dear, JPKatz just invited another hostile diversion into the minefields of international law. Disclosure: I am increasingly longing for the old days of total war, unconditional surrender, and the redrawing of so many of the really horrible legacies of colonial border-drawing, which, just to return to the subject of Syria, would include rethinking Syria's borders while burning Sykes-Picot in effigy :) Free Kurdistan! Welcome to Druseland! send in the CIA!

- K2K

March 31, 2011 at 9:03am

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

"that it is improper to acquire land by conquest," So there is no penalty to pay for an aggressive war launched upon a neigbouring country? Jordan attacks Israel. Israel responds by pushing back and acquiring land in the process. Israel returns acquired land. Back to zero point. What's to prevent Jordan from attacking again, if it is improper to expect that the lands she loses at war will be full returned when the war is over? Doesn't this principle, if true, provide a sort of indemnity to any aggressor out there who fancies making war on another country? What have they got to lose, anyway? If they win the war, good. If they lose the war, they lose nothing.

- noga1

March 31, 2011 at 12:45pm

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

Not enough time at present, but katz's description is not accurate as to the state of international law, the land was not Jordan's to lose, and the resolutions of the Security Council are controlling even if Katz's description in the absence of UNSC action were accurate. The UN created Israel. It is not going to work to question the legitimacy of UN authority now. It succeeds only in isolating Israel with no realistic prospect of successful annexation. Indeed, if anything, successful annexation is even less likely today because the hand has been way over-played by Israeli rightist. But its okay. The took guidance directly from the One.

- roidubouloi

March 31, 2011 at 1:45pm

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

Noga, I promise I won't automatically disagree with you if you show me evidence of Obama expressing disdain for Israel. I will, however, feel free to point that that there is quite a big difference between disdain for a country, disdain for that country's government's policies or positions, and disdain for a country's leadership. Any one/combination of the foregoing is possible. Regarding "explaining" the brief 2-second-long interpersonal courtesies between the president and other world leaders -- what can I say? In my honest opinion there is nothing to "explain" in the normal sense of the word. It's my impression that in the case of the Saudi king Obama wanted either instinctively or on protocol advice (or both) to indicate respect for an older man in a culture where age and hierarchy mean a lot. Chavez? I personally think that Obama regards Chavez as an unctious, irritating mountebank laboring under the impression that he's an important figure striding the world stage; but Obama is the kind of guy who lets other people have their fifteen seconds of self-regard while he's thinking about the last briefing on Afghanistan, or whatever. The dog barks, the caravan moves on, in other words.

- ironyroad

March 31, 2011 at 2:38pm

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

"? I personally think that Obama regards Chavez as an unctious, irritating mountebank laboring under the impression that he's an important figure striding the world stage; " You mean YOU regard Chavez in this manner, of course. That hearty handshake with the grip on the forearm doesn't quite represent the sentiment you attribute to Obama. But I realize that dissent is futile. Recently I came across some of Joan Didion's comments about Obama's impact on the minds of those who voted for him and I couldn't help but think of ironyroad, whose ironical bent of mind seems to fly out of the window when it is Obama being looked at with a squinting eye: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2008/dec/18/obama-in-the-irony-free-zone/ "What troubled had nothing to do with the candidate himself. It had to do instead with the reaction he evoked. Close to the heart of the problem was the way in which only the very young were decreed capable of truly appreciating the candidate. Again and again, perfectly sentient adults cited the clinching arguments made on the candidate’s behalf by their children. Again and again we were told that this was a generational thing, we couldn’t understand. In a flash, we were back in high school, and we couldn’t sit with the popular kids, we didn’t get it. The Style section of The New York Times, on the Sunday after the election, mentioned the Obama T-shirt that “makes irony look old.” Univ. of California / Everyone's a Winner Irony was now out. Naiveté, translated into “hope,” was now in. Innocence, even when it looked like ignorance, was now prized. "

- noga1

March 31, 2011 at 3:07pm

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

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2008/dec/18/obama-in-the-irony-free-zone/ "What troubled had nothing to do with the candidate himself. It had to do instead with the reaction he evoked. Close to the heart of the problem was the way in which only the very young were decreed capable of truly appreciating the candidate. Again and again, perfectly sentient adults cited the clinching arguments made on the candidate’s behalf by their children. Again and again we were told that this was a generational thing, we couldn’t understand. In a flash, we were back in high school, and we couldn’t sit with the popular kids, we didn’t get it. The Style section of The New York Times, on the Sunday after the election, mentioned the Obama T-shirt that “makes irony look old.” Univ. of California / Everyone's a Winner Irony was now out. Naiveté, translated into “hope,” was now in. Innocence, even when it looked like ignorance, was now prized. "

- noga1

March 31, 2011 at 3:08pm

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

I think what Didion said had a lot of truth. But I was never one of the dewy-eyed innocence-reborn folks. I always thought that Obama was a kind of soft-shoe pragmatist who didn't like drama, and if you read Didion's piece you'll have seen that she twice exonerates Obama himself from the indictment. Indeed, I don't know if I've ever said this, but Obama's sense of irony is quite choice at times. It's true that that's how I see Chavez, but aren't we all speculating here? But as someone said at the time of the OAS conference in 2009, Obama is more popular in Venezuela than Chavez is, and I'll bet both of them know it.

- ironyroad

March 31, 2011 at 3:43pm

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

"but aren't we all speculating here? " YOU are speculating. I only respond to what I see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmXQu_FggTk&feature=related It goes without saying that Obama is free to choose his friends and kindred spirits. What bothers me is the attempt to say that what comes through from these recorded incidents is not what we see but some deeper layers of irony and introspection that we proles are incapable of understanding. Adieu. I'm off to a class on Orwell and the final curtain on Winston Smith's coherent thinking.

- noga1

March 31, 2011 at 4:35pm

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

What can I say, I think he's an ironic and introspective guy. His book gave me that impression, at least. Good luck with the class.

- ironyroad

March 31, 2011 at 4:41pm

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

"What can I say, I think he's an ironic and introspective guy." They used to say in ancient Greece that when the gods wish to punish someone, they begin by granting him what he most desired. I suspect that you consider irony and introspection, two very intellectual qualities, as a blessing in the leader of your country. I give him the benefit of a doubt on that. His comradely exchange with Chavez does not seem either ironic or introspective, but rather spontaneous. It explains more about his policies than the theories I have been reading about trying to explain him. In one of Ben Dror Yemini's articles he writes that when Obama came down like a tonne of bricks on the intention to build apartments in Jerusalem, the Israelis did not like it one little bit but they had respect enough for the president to believe this tough talking was an expression grounded in some well thought out strategy, that he had a plan of some sort and that was the first manouvre in that plan. A few months later they realized that there was no such strategy, no such plan, but something that could be defined as a cross between shooting-from-the-hip and a whim. I believe you are still at the stage where you genuinely think Obama's foreign policies decisions and pronouncements are rooted in some profound understanding of how the world works and his attempts at managing it successfully.

- noga1

April 1, 2011 at 11:06am

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

I sure am. It's a heck of a lot better than what went before. Incidentally, while I think Obama has exactly Chavez's measure, he's also a courteous guy who wanted to strike a different tone with the various Latin American leaders at the 2009 OAS, which was about three months after he took office. That particular handshake was only one of Chavez's attempts to upstage the president (the book incident being the obvious one). I'd say most of the other hemispheric leaders were gritting their teeth.

- ironyroad

April 1, 2011 at 12:05pm

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

"he's also a courteous guy" Not to belabour the point but that handshake seems to go far beyond a merely courteous and gracious greeting. "It's a heck of a lot better than what went before. " The prime example of which is the great strides towards peace between Israel and the Palestinians. But I suspect you consider Obama's success from a very different angle, in which peace is less of an issue.

- noga1

April 1, 2011 at 12:21pm

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

I'm pretty sure that Obama greeted the other leaders in a friendly way too, but they weren't really TV-worthy interactions. There seems to be one of those mutual blind spots here, Noga -- in contrast to you, I really can't think of a single reason why Obama would have any deeper motive for being friendly to Chavez than the mixture of his (O's) general demeanor and the reality of Chavez's hail-fellow-well-met importuning style (I mean, it happened again the next day -- should Obama have tossed the book into the trash on camera, or what?). I don't know what you mean about peace -- as you probably have gathered over the years, I'm in favor of it, but not as an absolute. As in Libya, there are other considerations.

- ironyroad

April 1, 2011 at 1:56pm

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

"There seems to be one of those mutual blind spots here" Yes, this seems one of those moments.

- noga1

April 1, 2011 at 2:42pm

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

Right, but the 'peace' remark . . . ?

- ironyroad

April 1, 2011 at 5:28pm

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

I can think of nothing to say by way of response. Sorry.

- noga1

April 1, 2011 at 5:40pm

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

No problem. But I wasn't asking for a response so much as a clarification. I'm just curious what you meant originally by "you consider Obama's success from a very different angle, in which peace is less of an issue." I don't know what "success" or even what "angle" you're referring to, and "less of an issue" is enigmatic, to say the least. I assume you mean "success" somewhat sarcastically, but that doesn't help all that much.

- ironyroad

April 1, 2011 at 6:23pm

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

Obama, in my estimation, is less interested in peace between Israel and Palestinians (please note that I say "less", not that he is NOT interested at all) than he is in getting Palestinians to have their own state. If this happens under his watch, in any which way, he will consider it a success. He cares about the Arabs. He cares a lot less about Israeli Jews. Having been the (passive, if you wish) recipient of Wright's spiritual ministrations in that regard and Rashid Khalidi's instructions, he cannot but feel this way. No matter how much he tries to see Israel's side, he is still more naturally aligned with the Palestinian narrative. His Cairo speech, in which he excluded Jewish history in Israel as the motivation for its statehood, attests to his visceral position. Any "solution" that he will sponsor will be to Israel's detriment, though he will probably regard it as a success, as will you. There is a tidal wave of hatred towards Israel which does not make sense, both in the Arab world, in Europe, and in American campuses. I'm sorry, but the settlements or the behaviour of some settlers, do not explain it. Nor does it make sense that the construction of 500 apartments in a Jewish neigbourhood in Jerusalem should have brought about so much wrath from the W-H, which included the humiliation of Israel's elected leader. To me it suggests that Obama is more attuned to the sentiments of the Arab street than he is to Israel's concerns. I know you think this is one of his greater strengths. I think the opposite. It's the convenient position to take, the path of least resistance. I'm sure this explanation will not satisfy you by it's all I can offer for now. My mind is occupied with much greater personal issues and I don't really want to start a war about something over which outcomes I have absolutely no control. The situation is what it is and no amount of persuasion is going to work in any direction, I'm afraid.

- noga1

April 2, 2011 at 11:43am

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

OK, I was just wondering. I don't necessarily feel that I agree with your take on it, but your position is coherent and graspable. I definitely think humiliating Israel's elected leader is wrong, but so is humiliating the U.S. vice-president on a visit to Israel. And Obama also went out of his way in Cairo to sharply confront Arabic Holocaust denial. I too sometimes have personal issues to deal with. I understand that -- I'm not a machine either, you know.

- ironyroad

April 2, 2011 at 5:19pm

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

"I definitely think humiliating Israel's elected leader is wrong, but so is humiliating the U.S. vice-president on a visit to Israel. " This is an illustration of how far you are willing to concede to Obama's whipped up wrath about that incident. There was no humiliation in a municipal zoning committee announcing its decision to allow 500 flats in a Jewish neigbourhood in Jerusalem. It just doesn't make sense, unless one is lying in ambush looking for an excuse to be humiliated. ". And Obama also went out of his way in Cairo to sharply confront Arabic Holocaust denial." That was easy to do. It would have been a great deal more challenging to confront sharply the incessant deadly incitement that pours out of Arab media against Israel. As I said, Obama opts for the path of least resistance when it comes to dealing with Arab narratives. You might want to wonder why he finds it so hard to tell the Arabs they do not gain much respect from indulging in such gruesome tales about Israel. What is he afraid of?

- noga1

April 2, 2011 at 10:53pm

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

Netanyahu didn't humiliate Biden. It was hardly in his power to do so. But he did manage to express quite clearly his disdain for the United States, its interests, and the debt that Israel owes. Clear as can be. The fairy tale about a municipal zoning committee is completely risible.

- roidubouloi

April 2, 2011 at 11:02pm

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

Ironyroad: Don't be misled by roi's quibble. He is in total agreement with the general tenor of your comment about the humiliation bit. He is only refining it, to make the sting that much more poisonous. roi sucking up to ironyroad always reminds me of this scene in Seinfeld (not that there a chance roi will manage to figure out why): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsvvriKI3qE&feature=related

- noga1

April 2, 2011 at 11:26pm

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

As ever, the esteemed analyst of international affairs demonstrates the critical importance of television, romantic literature of the 17th and 18th centuries, and the darkness in her soul for understanding such matters. Leaving aside the childishness, here's something that is really going to sting: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/world/middleeast/03mideast.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp It seems that what I predicted in these pages some months ago as the inevitable outcome of Netanyahu's foot dragging is happening even faster than I imagined possible. Needless to say, noga was incredulous, or seemed to imagine the Palestinians couldn't figure this out without my advice. I suppose she couldn't find some literary analogy or TV show to make the perfectly obvious obvious to her. When the history is written, the incredible stupidity of the Likud and its betrayal of Israel will loom very, very large. Needless to say, there is not a chance that noga will manage to figure out why, even in hindsight. Noga in particular and the Israeli right in general continue to ignore the realities staring them in the face. But they imagine that if they are acid enough, if the manage to levy enough accusations of perfidy and anti-Semitism against enough different people, public and private, that the nightmare the right has created for Israel will go away. It isn't going away. It is coming true. When the history is written, it will also show that pissing on the shoes of both the president and vice-president of the United States despite Israel's growing isolation and the increasing pressure upon it -- all for the sake of a few apartments in Jerusalem as Martin Peretz is so fond of saying -- was a very, very bad idea. Netanyahu should have been composing all differences with the United States in the hope of thereby weathering the coming diplomatic storm. But Netanyahu is too much the clod and the religious nuts he represents think God will provide for them.

- roidubouloi

April 2, 2011 at 11:46pm

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

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.9041/pub_detail.asp Who knows? Perhaps Obama has a strategic vision after all and the entire fiasco of Libya was just a path to paving the way for the real objective: The bombing of Israel! If you wish, it doesn't have to remain a dream ...

- noga1

April 2, 2011 at 11:55pm

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

Yes, of course. Consoling yourself with idiocies from a Washington Times columnist should help a lot.

- roidubouloi

April 3, 2011 at 12:04am

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

I would say that the odds of the United States bombing Israel and of the Likud admitting the tragedy it has created with its errors and seeking to right them -- as Sharon hoped to do -- are about equally miniscule.

- roidubouloi

April 3, 2011 at 12:06am

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

"That was easy to do. It would have been a great deal more challenging to confront sharply the incessant deadly incitement that pours out of Arab media against Israel." If it was so easy, why is Obama is the first U.S. president to openly confront the Holocaust denial pathology in a speech in an Arab capital? And why is your first response to ignore that fact? That's a little peculiar. Also, why do you presume to lecture me about other posters quibbles, with which I have nothing to do? I'd prefer if you'd stop that.

- ironyroad

April 3, 2011 at 2:34am

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

Colin Powell, I suspect at the behest of President Bush, addressed the issue of the incitement in Arab media at least twice that I recall. The Holocaust Denial is just one component in that incitement. The root cause of Arab rejectionism can be found in that institutionalized incitement. If Obama were even fractionally as attuned to Israelis' anxieties as he is to Muslims' tender sentiments about the idea of someone burning the Koran, I daresay he would have managed to gain some of Israel's trust in his moral judgment. For some reason he seems incapable of doing that.

- noga1

April 3, 2011 at 10:09am

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

Is there really any way to gain the institutional trust of Israel other than simply agreeing to whatever it demands? And what about American trust? How many times has Israel broken its undertakings to the US regarding settlements with narishkeit about "natural growth?" Israel deals with the American government as if it is playing cat and mouse with the mandatory British or bargaining in the shuk. If there is any reason why the US should trust Israel, still withholding its cooperation on the thefts by Pollard, I cannot think of what that reason would be.

- roidubouloi

April 3, 2011 at 1:37pm

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

Shame on TNR for letting this racist continue to write for a high quality magazine like this one.

- MSA70

April 3, 2011 at 4:42pm

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

http://www.zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2011/04/03/muslim-and-arab-anti-semitism/#more-1148 "One of the best-kept secrets of the Western world is that Muslim societies and cultures are generally permeated with hatred of Jews (called anti-Semitism in Europe). The following seems typical: "After a year spent in Syria, from July 2006 to August 2007, journalist David McAvoy reported in “Letter from …Damascus” that when he first arrived many people told him that they were against Zionists not Jews. Yet, “the extent and ferocity of the antisemitism hits you like a slap in the face.” He noticed that all the classics, from Mein Kampf to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, could be found in any Damascus bookshop, and that it was common knowledge that the Jews were behind the 9/11 attacks and controlled the mass media, international banking, the UN, and Washington. Moreover, the Holocaust had never happened, or if it did, the Jews had orchestrated it in order to exploit public sympathy for their “entity” in Palestine." Anti-Semitism in Arab and Muslim countries has been minimized, ignored or ascribed, as noted above, to the Palestinian conflict, but it existed before the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and is a cause of the conflict, not an effect, as Arabs attest. The Saudi “Peace-Initiative” talks of “normalization,” but it is hard to imagine any sort of “normalization” as long as long as Arabs typically hold the views expressed in 1937 by King Ibn Saud. Arab world anti-Semitism is therefore a serious obstacle to peace."

- noga1

April 3, 2011 at 10:41pm

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

Mmm hmmm. What could possibly be a better reason for Israel's disastrous diplomacy and slow self-destruction than Moslem anti-Semitism? As the self-inflicted disaster unfolds, there will be something and someone else to blame. The disaster will therefore be of no importance.

- roidubouloi

April 3, 2011 at 11:28pm

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

the intolerance of Islam is not restricted to Zionists or Jews. From America's other allies, um, clients, Jordan and Yemen: http://www.hudson-ny.org/2012/jordan-facing-civil-war "...Speaking on condition of anonymity, a Palestinian-Jordanian former official, who served with both King Abdullah and his father, the late King Hussein, said that the King has lost control of the Bedouin tribes, who have both anti-Palestinian and anti-Israeli views. "The only way out for the king," he said," is to direct the tribes' guns to the Palestinians, and, if necessary, the Israelis -- instead of himself." The ex-official's views might well be correct: as peace talks resume between the Palestinians and Israel, King Abdullah, from the UN's podium, threatened Israel with war "unless settlement activities stop." King Abdullah knows, of course, that he could never fight Israel and win; nonetheless, he seems desperate to shift the attention of his tribes against anyone other than him, even if that means Israel. ..." http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/04/11/110411fa_fact_filkins?currentPage=all "Letter from Yemen: After the Uprising: Can protesters find a path between dictatorship and anarchy?" by Dexter Filkins "...Saleh is a short, stout man, with a thick-necked demeanor and a sandpapery voice. In a speech weeks earlier [February, 2010], he had practically spat at the people assembled before him, vowing to fight the protesters “with every last drop of blood.” During a subsequent speech, he laid blame for the protests on the United States and Israel. “There is a control room in Tel Aviv for destabilizing the Arab world,” Saleh said. “It is managed by the White House.” It was the sort of remark that used to serve him well. ..." Time for Israel to to relocate to Canada????

- K2K

April 4, 2011 at 1:24pm

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

Israeli diplomacy or Muslim Arab ideology? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703712504576234601480205330.html "My own feeling is that the greatest defect of Islam and the main reason they fell behind the West is the treatment of women," he says. He makes the powerful point that repressive homes pave the way for repressive governments. "Think of a child that grows up in a Muslim household where the mother has no rights, where she is downtrodden and subservient. That's preparation for a life of despotism and subservience. It prepares the way for an authoritarian society," he says. Egypt is a more complicated case, Mr. Lewis says. Already the young, liberal protesters who led the revolution in Tahrir Square are being pushed aside by the military-Muslim Brotherhood complex. Hasty elections, which could come as soon as September, might sweep the Muslim Brotherhood into power. That would be "a very dangerous situation," he warns. "We should have no illusions about the Muslim Brotherhood, who they are and what they want." And yet Western commentators seem determined to harbor such illusions. Take their treatment of Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi. The highly popular, charismatic cleric has said that Hitler "managed to put [the Jews] in their place" and that the Holocaust "was divine punishment for them." Yet following a sermon Sheikh Qaradawi delivered to more than a million in Cairo following Mubarak's ouster, New York Times reporter David D. Kirkpatrick wrote that the cleric "struck themes of democracy and pluralism, long hallmarks of his writing and preaching." Mr. Kirkpatrick added: "Scholars who have studied his work say Sheik Qaradawi has long argued that Islamic law supports the idea of a pluralistic, multiparty, civil democracy."" The liberal left supports Arab genocide advocates.

- nr106646

April 4, 2011 at 5:18pm

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

No shortage of Egyptian democracy absolutists on the right. The right appears much more intent on this issue than the left and keeps accusing the left of betraying liberalism as a result. But then, nuance of any kind is not exactly a right-wing strength.

- roidubouloi

April 4, 2011 at 6:01pm

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

"No shortage of Egyptian democracy absolutists on the right. The right appears much more intent on this issue than the left and keeps accusing the left of betraying liberalism as a result. But then, nuance of any kind is not exactly a right-wing strength." No data, no links, nothing to support this absolute nonsense. Where are the leftists who denounced Sheikh Qaradawi? Did anyone even in the NY Times write about it? It would be too much to ask them to write against it in their editorial pages?

- nr106646

April 4, 2011 at 6:26pm

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

Don't you read TNR? See, e.g., almost anything written by the TNR editors on the subject.

- roidubouloi

April 4, 2011 at 6:36pm

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

Time for the Zionist loyalty oath again. Everyone, stand up and denounce an anti-Semite!

- roidubouloi

April 4, 2011 at 6:37pm

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

The same old defensive nonsense from this poster. He feels more comfortable with Sheikh Qaradawi than he does with TNR.

- nr106646

April 4, 2011 at 6:48pm

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

"The liberal left" Either one is liberal or left. And when you consider roi it is hard to find the correct term for his political positions. He exhibits far-right rigidity of thought and principle yet in the context of a Leftist politics. He is the equivalent of the Quran-burning pastor of the so-called Left. Liberal for sure he is not. Nor is he progressive, unless one is willing to call this guy a progressive, too: http://angryarab.blogspot.com/

- noga1

April 4, 2011 at 6:52pm

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

"He exhibits far-right rigidity of thought and principle yet in the context of a Leftist politics." That's not uncommon among Leftists. They tend to substitute the "law" as they interpret it for the party. The result is the same. They also substitute anti Zionism for ant-Semitism. It comes to the same thing.

- nr106646

April 4, 2011 at 7:00pm

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

Can anyone imagine roidubouloi being honest enough to say that he made a mistake the way Goldstone did?

- nr106646

April 4, 2011 at 7:01pm

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

What a perfect pack of idiots. Each stupider than the other. They have no politics at all, left, right or sideways, only platitudes and boundless self-righteousness all of which means absolutely nothing in the world or to the world. It is a tragedy for Israel to have such friends.

- roidubouloi

April 4, 2011 at 11:26pm

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

"What a perfect pack of idiots." He must be looking in the mirror. NOTICE HOW THIS HOUND STARTED USUNG INSULTS.

- nr106646

April 5, 2011 at 12:06am

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close