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 Yes, We Can’t

POLITICS MAY 20, 2011

Yes, We Can’t

BY YOSSI KLEIN HALEVI

Jerusalem—It was a nation of ambivalent Israelis that listened to President Obama’s latest Middle East plan—an interim agreement based on ending the occupation of the Palestinians while somehow ensuring the security of the Israelis. Israeli ambivalence is peculiar: It has nothing to do with uncertainty or confusion. Instead, to be an ambivalent Israeli is to be torn between two conflicting certainties. As an ambivalent Israeli, I know that a Palestinian state is an existential necessity for me—saving Israel from the untenable choice between being a Jewish and a democratic state, from the moral erosion of occupation, from the growing movement to again turn the Jews, via the Jewish state, into the symbol of evil.

But I also know that a Palestinian state is an existential threat to me—forcing Israel back into eight-mile-wide borders between Palestine and the Mediterranean Sea, with the center of the country vulnerable to rocket attacks from the West Bank hills that overlook it. And, if Tel Aviv were to become the next Sderot—the Israeli town on the Gaza border that has endured thousands of missile attacks following the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005—the international community might well try to prevent us from defending ourselves against terrorists embedded in a civilian population, with all the consequences of asymmetrical warfare. Moreover, a generation of Palestinians has been raised to see Israelis as Nazis, thieves, inventors of a history not rooted in this land. Alone among national movements, only the Palestinian cause conditions its dream of statehood on the disappearance of another state. (And that is the dream that not only Hamas but Fatah, too, actively incites in internal Palestinian discourse.) Alone among occupiers, only Israel fears that territorial withdrawal won’t merely diminish but destroy it.

And so, there were two sides of me listening to the president. The dovish side embraced his vision of an interim agreement that would leave the issues of Jerusalem and refugee return to a later stage and instead focus on ending the occupation and providing security guarantees. But the hawkish side of me wondered whether this president has learned anything about the Middle East.

I listened in disbelief as he stated that, while there are those who believe that the regional instability of recent months makes a solution impossible for now, he believes the opposite is true. On what basis, Mr. President? From where I’m sitting in Jerusalem—watching Turkey turn Islamist and pro-Iranian, Lebanon being devoured by Hezbollah, Hamas legitimized by Fatah, the Muslim Brotherhood rising in Egypt, and Iran’s nuclear program proceeding apace—I would say that this is just about the worst time to try to entice an ambivalent Israeli into empowering his dovish side. At a time when Egyptian-Israeli relations—our only successful land for peace agreement—could be unraveling, Israelis are hardly likely to risk another withdrawal, this time from our most sensitive border, and without even the pretense of a peace agreement. 

So: Yes to the vision. But no, we can’t implement it anytime soon. In other words: Yes, we can’t.

In fact, by the standards that Obama himself set in his speech—insistence on Hamas’s recognition of Israel, rejection of Palestinian unilateralist moves toward statehood at the U.N.—we can’t even get to the negotiating table, let alone negotiate a solution. But, even if we somehow got to the table—say, the Fatah-Hamas deal collapses and the Palestinian Authority withdraws its UN initiative—Obama’s own conditions could make an interim agreement impossible. Those conditions include Palestinian recognition of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people—which the Palestinian Authority says it will never do. And it includes serious security arrangements for Israel—in Obama’s words, allowing Israel to defend itself “by itself.” Given that, under an interim agreement, Israel would be withdrawing to fragile borders while the conflict remains unresolved, those security arrangements would need to be severe. They would include an Israeli military presence along the Jordan River—which the Palestinians have likewise vetoed—and on West Bank hilltops overlooking greater Tel Aviv.

 

What, then, should Prime Minister Netanyahu say in response to the speech?

He should say yes to the vision, which includes key elements of his own position. Obama’s call for Palestinian recognition of a Jewish state is a victory for Netanyahu, who was mocked by the international community and by the Israeli left for insisting on precisely that precondition. Obama’s powerful endorsement of the need to preserve Israel’s ability—not just abstract right—to defend itself is an opening for Netanyahu to press his case for an Israeli military presence along the Jordan River, Israel’s line of first defense in the event of unforeseen regional threats.

In a statement following Obama’s speech, Netanyahu expressed disappointment in the President’s failure to reiterate long-standing American policy against a Palestinian right of return to the Jewish state. Yet that should not be a reason for rejecting Obama’s speech. By deferring both the fate of Jerusalem and right of return to a final negotiating phase, Obama has chosen to chastise neither Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas for his insistence on right of return nor Netanyahu for his insistence on a united Jerusalem under Israeli rule.

A final agreement would stipulate Jerusalem as the capital of two states. And it would stipulate Palestinian right of return being fulfilled exclusively within the borders of a Palestinian state—without complicated formulas and slippery numbers games and other tricks currently being promoted by the Palestinian leadership and their supporters.

If I were Netanyahu, I wouldn’t lose any sleep over the right of return or, for that matter, the status of united Jerusalem. In fact, in the unlikely event that Obama’s vision of an interim agreement is ever implemented, the result might well be the permanent deferment of a permanent solution, leaving the Palestinians to dream about Haifa and Jaffa, and Israel to continue maintaining a united Jerusalem.

Yossi Klein Halevi is a contributing editor to The New Republic and a fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem.

Follow @tnr on Twitter.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 178 comments

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

178 comments

Obama wants the Israelis to make a deal with the "Palestinians". The problem is that the Palestinian ideology is pretty much that of Adolf Hitler. Their aim and purpose is genocide. You don't believe it? Read what their leaders have to say when they are speaking to Arab audiences. American Jews need to understand that a vote for Obama in 2012 is a vote for the destruction of half the Jewish people. Maybe it would happen, maybe it wouldn't. Do you want to take a chance?

- bulbman1066

May 20, 2011 at 1:02am

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

This is a sad thing to read in tnr. Leave the Palestinians to dream! No urgency, no moral urgency here! Of course there are things the Israelis can't do, but tnr shouldn't be in the business of consoling Bibi and the various members of his coalition.

- NR851651

May 20, 2011 at 3:17am

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

I've just listened to Zbigniew Brzezinski on his daughter's morning program in which he said that the majority of Israelis are for compromise with the Palestinians but are afraid to speak up against Netanyahu. He also said that that the majority of Palestinians are for a compromise. Obama should mobilize a united front of American resistance to Netanyahu, boosted by the international community, in order to force Netanyahu to comply with the will of the Israeli people. He also mentioned how unfair was the partitioning of Palestine in 1947 to the Palestinians. I'm sure he is aware of exactly what the history is and how Israelis are the least afraid people in the world to criticize their leaders but it doesn't deter him from propagating these explicit lies. He cannot even claim in his defence that he is ignorant of the truth. What does that make him? . I'vr a feeling that Zbig is a favourite if unacknowledged adviser to Obama.

- noga1

May 20, 2011 at 8:20am

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

Halevi's list of dangerous conditions that warrant telling Obama "no" are as convincing as a person with 90 percent vulnerability to contract malaria refusal to use DDT because it causes other complications. Netanyahu and his ilk are frogs in slowly boiling water - living in an alternative reality that says they have time and infinite resources (moral and physical) on their side. They don't. The response reminds me of the ludicrous protestations from Arab students on yesterday's BBC's post speech coverage - specifically a few who thought Obama's offer of 1 billion dollars in aid to Egypt was insulting - that the American people "owed much more" the Arabs for past years of supporting Mubarek. In a time when our services are getting cut, such demands aren't just wishful thinking. They're insulting. And make me sympathetic to the Ron Paul club of thinking on foreign aid. Such demands aren't just selfish, they're delusional. As is Netanyahu's insistence (and some of Halevi's thinking) that conditions must be totally perfect for any movement to happen. Keep saying no. You'll soon find too many of your friends saying no thanks.

- sollyman2

May 20, 2011 at 9:19am

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

If there ever was an example ZB's idiocy, you found it Noga. With something like 12 parties in the Knesset and maybe double that that ran in the elections, when you have papers like Haaretz & Yediot & Maariv regularly blasting Bibi, it is absolutely irrational to state that Israeli's are afraid to speak up against Bibi. On the assumption that ZB is not a blithering idiot (and I freely admit that I could be wrong on that one) one can only conclude that he is looking for a fig leaf of an excuse to force Israel into a corner, if need be with military force. Shabbat Shalom Hershel Ginsburg Efrata / Jerusalem

- ginzy

May 20, 2011 at 9:20am

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

I bet PM Netanyahu is losing some sleep over the RoR as he ponders 'what if Lebanon and Syria expel all their stateless palestinians', which had a test run last Sunday. Obama should have listened to Dennis Ross and NOT included the "1967 lines" noga: I do not know who listens to Zbig anymore - even PBS NewsHour replaced him as a I-P pundit. well stated: 05/20/2011 - 1:02am EDT | bulbman1066 "...American Jews need to understand that a vote for Obama in 2012 is a vote for the destruction of half the Jewish people. Maybe it would happen, maybe it wouldn't. Do you want to take a chance? ..." After this speech, I would now even vote for Rick Santorum (or self-immolate in protest) to end Obama's presidency. Maybe Mexico will petition the UN for an end to the illegal occupation of California by the U.S. to distract Obama into early retirement.

- K2K

May 20, 2011 at 9:28am

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

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/05/20/can-we-listen-to-that-obama-tape-now/?utm_campaign=twitter&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitter "The White House billed President Obama’s speech yesterday as the American response to the Arab spring, and a statement of a new policy for the new Middle East. The Arab revolutions which began in Tunisia and have extended to the region’s other dictatorships—Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Yemen—ended the popular belief among so many Washington officials and diplomats that the region’s instability revolved around the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. And yet, with one statement, President Obama has managed to shift conversation across the region and, indeed, across the world from liberty in Libya and the slaughter in Syria back to the past quagmire of the Palestinian-Israeli deadlock Just as with Obama’s 2009 declarations in which the president acted more negotiating and has a zoning commissioner in Jerusalem than a peacemaker, Obama’s speech has also set back the cause of peace. With the White House casting its lot with maximalist Arab state demands over what remains essentially disputed rather than simply occupied territories, Obama has empowered the Palestinians and the more radical Arab bloc to stop negotiating and to harden their demands on other issues, such as the right of return. Certainly, if Obama was truly interested in a negotiated, lasting peace settlement, he has committed an own goal. It’s times like these when I remember the Los Angeles Times has a tape of candidate Obama at a party feting former PLO media spokesman and University of Chicago buddy Rashid Khalidi. The Los Angeles Times refused to release their tape. I certainly wonder whether it foreshadowed the positions Obama took yesterday." __________ That tape is another one of those unexplained mysteries about Obama (the others being his bow to the Saudi King, his glad handing with Chavez, his comment about the Special Olympics, his twenty years of Sunday attendance at Rev. Wright's church, the fact that aside from his two books no one has ever read or cited any article he wrote as the editor of the Harvard Law Review, or his PhD dissertation. At least I have not seen any of these, even though I looked on google. Perhaps others can provide a link to any of these?). BTW, Fouad Ajami, yesterday, on CNN's AC360, made a similar argument that Obama's inclusion of the I/P conflict at the end of a speech about the Arab Spring was less than a brilliant move. But this was pristine Obama - he loves to weave narratives even as the events are unfolding, filling them with the meanings that he wants them to have. An example is his Passover message where he acrobatically connected the "liberation" movement in the Arab streets with the story of Exodus. again, not a brilliant type of thinking, rather populistic and reductive, to say nothing about not being even remotely accurate or even relevant.

- noga1

May 20, 2011 at 9:46am

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

"With something like 12 parties in the Knesset and maybe double that that ran in the elections, when you have papers like Haaretz & Yediot & Maariv regularly blasting Bibi, it is absolutely irrational to state that Israeli's are afraid to speak up against Bibi." He reminded me of Rick Sanchez, the hapless former anchor at CNN. who, on February 10, 2009, mentioned the elections in Israel and brought an "expert" named Jim Clancy to explain the candidates to American watchers. Among other things, they stipulated that there is no “Left” in Israel and that Bibi Netanyahu never negotiated with Palestinians. Here are the quotes: "CLANCY: [Netanyahu] Hawkish, in the right wing, concerned about Iran, and has a record, a proven record of not negotiating with the Palestinians." "SANCHEZ: Ehud Barak, Labor Party. And nobody in Israel is to the left, but if you were going to have somebody who is a little more center-left, that would be him." The fresh results from those elections showed that: 15 seats went to the Far Left parties 13 seats to the Labour Party - Left to Left Center party, 28 to Kadima, which is a center -to-Left party As for Netanyahu not negotiating with Palestinians: “The Wye River Memorandum was an agreement negotiated between Israel and the Palestine Authority to implement the earlier Interim Agreement of 28 September, 1995. Brokered by the United States at the Aspen Institute's Wye River Plantation near Wye River, Maryland,[1] it was signed on October 23, 1998.[2] [-] The agreement was finally signed by Netanyahu and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat at the White House, with President Clinton playing a key role as the official witness. On November 17, 1998, Israel's 120 member parliament, the Knesset, approved the Wye River Memorandum by a vote of 75-19. With the outbreak of the Al-Aqsa Intifada in September 2000, and the counter-attacks by the Israel Defense Forces, the Wye River's understandings and goals remain un-implemented." __________ Except of course that Zbig is no Sanchez. One cannot attribute the hapless ignorance that characterized Sanchez's pronouncements to Brzezinski. With Brzezinski. the reverse of the well known saying applies: "Never ascribe to incompetence that which can be explained by malice."

- noga1

May 20, 2011 at 9:59am

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

yes, by ending his speech with I-P conflict, that is all that people remember - especially since the previous 75% was not really specific about much except what sounded like Bush43's Wilsonian democracy idealism (see Walter Russell Mead today on that). A stronger ending would have focussed far more on repeating the end of binLadenist violence, with much more about the ongoing Islamist/Salafist attacks on Christian minorities. self-determination for the Kurds and the Berbers. instead, he spoke as if all he wants is to stop having to think about the Jews...

- K2K

May 20, 2011 at 10:04am

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

Good G-d, can we have a sober discussion about this on TNR? Come on, K2K "After this speech, I would now even vote for Rick Santorum (or self-immolate in protest) to end Obama's presidency. " Yeah, good luck with that. Sure, that would be good for Israel, and JUST GREAT for the United States.

- RJSampson1

May 20, 2011 at 10:09am

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

All though I seriously doubt that Netanyahu is capable of making any decision on any topic, he has by his action of stressing his opposition to a pull back to pre-1967 borders with adjustments based on land-swaps (which in principal every Israeli PM since Barak has accepted), has focused all the world's attention on Israel's refusal to withdraw from the territories, while letting the Palestinians off the hook regarding its acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state. Netanyahu by refusing to take the initiative has let the Palestinian and the rest of the world set the agenda for Israel.

- jneuberg

May 20, 2011 at 10:21am

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

One problem is that everything is focused on palace diplomacy. This means that the only Palestinians we can talk to are Fatah and Hamas. However, there are plenty of Palestinians who care more about what actually benefits them than about undermining Israel. The problem is that whereas Israelis advocating greater accommodation of the Palestinians or "collaborating" with them to such ends face ridicule in the right-wing Israeli press, their counterparts on the Palestinian face both official and unofficial reprisals whether by lynching or firing squad. Ginzy: Any chance of your rabbi (based on your byline from Efrat) going more public about the alternatives to palace diplomacy he himself has led?

- sighthnd

May 20, 2011 at 10:31am

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

jneuberg: he has by his action of stressing his opposition to a pull back to pre-1967 borders...has focused all the world's attention on Israel's refusal to withdraw from the territories If I may clarify things, Netanyahu stresses his opposition to pre-1967 borders without saying anything concrete that he's for in terms of a Palestinian state. It is the lack of any alternative vision that feeds the perception that his real intent is indefinite extension of the status quo.

- sighthnd

May 20, 2011 at 10:40am

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

"I'vr a feeling that Zbig is a favourite if unacknowledged adviser to Obama." What proof do you have that the Jew hater Zbig is an "advisor" to Obama? People here are working themselves into a lather. A lot of the criticism of Obama is politically motivated and not based on what the President actually said. Halevi (and I assume Ginzy) is right to feel some anxiety, but even he knows that there will be no major changes in the near future.

- arnon

May 20, 2011 at 10:46am

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

Noga commentary magazine would find something to attack Obama for even if he were able to deliver a peace that leaves Israel in the same position it is now. Commentary is part of the Republican establishment and they care more about getting Republicans elected than about Israel.

- arnon

May 20, 2011 at 10:49am

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

Here is an interesting article about attitudes towards Israel by Western “moralists.” http://www.jewishideasdaily.com/content/module/2011/5/20/main-feature/1/israel-and-western-guilt "Israel and Western Guilt" By Aryeh Tepper ""Confront Your Privilege." So reads a "subtly coercive" sign on display at tony American liberal-arts colleges. Why coercive? Because, as Wilfred McClay explains in an illuminating recent essay in First Things, what such signs are really telling the students is, "Feel Guilty." Feel guilty about the money that sent you here, and the advantage conferred by the degree that you will receive. Oh, and in the meantime, "pay us $50,000+ a year so that we can certify the very privilege for which you are apologizing." This absurd and self-gratulatory parading of shame is hardly limited to the halls of higher education. As McClay observes, modern men and women are regularly called upon to feel guilty about some tragedy or crime—"colonialism, slavery, structural poverty, water pollution, deforestation"—that often occurred prior to their lifetimes and beyond the reach of their daily lives."

- arnon

May 20, 2011 at 10:53am

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

Like K2K, I'm not voting for Obama next time. Jews have no reason to trust him. It's a shame that Obama is so willing to alienate a loyal part of the Democratic Party electorate. Obama is not much of a liberal any way. He wimped out on national health insurance and Wall St regulation.

- amidut

May 20, 2011 at 11:04am

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

what a surprise that my political comment gets attacked instead of my point about what was missing from Obama's speech - about Christian minorities and self-determination for Kurds and Berbers. actually amidut, I did not vote for Obama in 2008 because the economy was my #1 issue and he was clueless. still is. still not one cabinet secretary with any real private sector experience - I do not count Wall Street as relevant because 32 years of Wall Street monetizing assets and forcing the paradigm of quarterly earnings gains has gutted manufacturing and now housing. Plus, I have never been a liberal like the people here at TNR - I actually lose sleep over the federal deficit and the idiocy of both extremes that is forcing all the centrists to retire, or lose. However, this speech makes me really believe Obama wants the Jews of Israel to disappear. I am no fan of the GOP, and, until yesterday, would have chosen self-immolation over voting for Santorum. Obama made the self-immolation of a Tunisian fruit vendor the center of his decision to now side with people instead of dictators. Obama even screwed up the killing of Osama by revealing the existence of SEAL Team 6, and even indicating where they may be based in the U.S. David Mamet's "The Unit" was a fascinating tv drama about just such a secret Special OPs unit (Army), and ANY breach acknowledging their existence was not allowed. not even a child's comment to a stranger or a wife's phone conversation with a relative. I spent the eight years of Bush43 watching re-runs of "The West Wing". Now I rely on "NCIS" and "JAG". I forced myself to watch Obama yesterday even though there was a "JAG" marathon on Sleuth channel.

- K2K

May 20, 2011 at 12:18pm

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

"Obama made the self-immolation of a Tunisian fruit vendor the center of his decision to now side with people instead of dictators." Does the name Jan Palach mean anything to you, K2K? He was the student who burned himself to death on Wencelas Square in Prague in 1968 to protest the Soviet invasion and occupation of Czechoslovakia. Palach and his death became a long-term symbol of Czech refusal to accept the communist system that had killed off their attempt at democratic transformation. Students, fruit vendors, and dictators. Sometimes power isn't in the obvious places.

- ironyroad

May 20, 2011 at 1:32pm

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

"Commentary is part of the Republican establishment and they care more about getting Republicans elected than about Israel." And that means that their articles are beyond the pale, does it? "Commentary" was considered by Edward Said to be his # 1 nemesis (for being neo-con, pro-Israel), after Bernard Lewis. That's a good enough endorsement for me. ___________ And more arnon: "What proof do you have that the Jew hater Zbig is an "advisor" to Obama?" What I said was: ""I'vr a feeling that Zbig is a favourite if unacknowledged adviser to Obama." __________ I also have a feeling arnon is a new name for an old poster here. What proof do I have? None except that the tone, emphasis, mode of writing, choices and types of rebukes and rebukees, are similar.

- noga1

May 20, 2011 at 1:38pm

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

Klein Halevi should reread the speech. The President said that the Palestinians need to recognize the State of Israel; he did not insist that they recognize it as a Jewish state. He himself referred to it as a Jewish state. Halevi presumably will think this omission problematic; I think it realistic and acceptable.

- TARFON

May 20, 2011 at 1:38pm

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

I don't think I understand what you want to say, ironyroad. Are you suggesting that self-immolation is a righteous kind of protest that ought to shift power from the rulers to the oppressed? Israelis have a very leery relationship to self-immolation. We are not so easily given to romanticize such extreme gestures nor are we inclined to treat them with such sacred admiration. There is a tradition of martyrdom in Judaism that I suspect still appeals to certain radical Leftist Jews (who can't wait for Israel to commit mass suicide in order to show the world what a pure, righteous creatures we Jews are) but mainstream Judaism, to say nothing of Israelis, have long and insistently rejected this idea as the only legitimate self-affirmation of Jewishness. Or of any cause worth fighting for.

- noga1

May 20, 2011 at 1:48pm

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

"The President said that the Palestinians need to recognize the State of Israel; he did not insist that they recognize it as a Jewish state." He should insist that any settlement between Israel and Palestinians should include an acceptance of the premise of UN Resolution which calls for two states for two peoples. Obama is not an arbiter for Palestinians. The fact he recognizes Israel as Jewish doesn't mean (excuse me) a fart for Palestinians.

- noga1

May 20, 2011 at 1:51pm

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

However, this speech makes me really believe Obama wants the Jews of Israel to disappear. The explanation for that statement is paranoia, believing that anyone who is not with you is against you. He might be naive about the threats that Israel faces or the nature of the opposition to Israel, but that is not malice about Israel's existence. On the more important issue, the Delegitimization Network, I'm not sure that any Republican would be any better. Actually, I'm not sure that they would recognize them as a strategic/existential threat to Israel, even if they were concerned about Israel's welfare.

- sighthnd

May 20, 2011 at 2:05pm

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

Excellent analysis, Mr. Halevi. I believe much of what Obama said was trying to appease the new Hamas-PA leadership. That he WANTS to appease the Hamas-PA leadership is both naive and troubling, but I have no doubt he supports Israel. He just has a hard time SOUNDING like he supports Israel.

- AllanL5

May 20, 2011 at 2:17pm

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

And yes, in this time of tumult and "Arab Spring" and uniting of Hamas and the PA, talking about the 1967 borders is the LAST thing he should be doing. Maintaining a troubled detent is the best solution available right now, until things settle down.

- AllanL5

May 20, 2011 at 2:19pm

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

"Obama even screwed up the killing of Osama by revealing the existence of SEAL Team 6, and even indicating where they may be based in the U.S. David Mamet's "The Unit" was a fascinating tv drama about just such a secret Special OPs unit (Army), and ANY breach acknowledging their existence was not allowed. not even a child's comment to a stranger or a wife's phone conversation with a relative. I spent the eight years of Bush43 watching re-runs of "The West Wing". Now I rely on "NCIS" and "JAG". I forced myself to watch Obama yesterday even though there was a "JAG" marathon on Sleuth channel." Wow, this explains so much. Guess what, dipshit, this isn't TV, it's the real world, Obama has to work in it, and we have to live in it. Apparently, in your TV fantasy land, Barack Hussein Obama is a ruthless anti-semite whose sole intent in office is the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people. Just don't be alarmed if those of us in the real world consider you insane.

- bunthorne

May 20, 2011 at 2:23pm

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

And then there's this gem from noga: "That tape is another one of those unexplained mysteries about Obama (the others being his bow to the Saudi King, his glad handing with Chavez, his comment about the Special Olympics, his twenty years of Sunday attendance at Rev. Wright's church, the fact that aside from his two books no one has ever read or cited any article he wrote as the editor of the Harvard Law Review, or his PhD dissertation. At least I have not seen any of these, even though I looked on google. Perhaps others can provide a link to any of these?)" Hmm, I'd say there's not much point in any further argument here. Your true agenda is pretty clear.

- bunthorne

May 20, 2011 at 2:40pm

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

"Hmm, I'd say there's not much point in any further argument here." I don't recall ever arguing with you, so that "further" is a bit presumptuous, don't you think, bunts?

- noga1

May 20, 2011 at 2:47pm

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

Who's arguing? America elected a vicious anti-semite as its leader, a man who appeared from nowhere to sell our country out to the A-rabs as part of a nefarious scheme of world domination by Islam. The only question that bears any argument is whether we did it willingly, being all of us vicious anti-semites ourselves, or whether we were duped into believing he was someone else by his sweet tongue and dreamy eyes. I'm guessing the latter, but who can really say?

- bunthorne

May 20, 2011 at 2:59pm

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

Revealed the existence of Seal Team 6? Ever watch the History Channel, or read a Tom Clancy novel? That ship sailed years ago. Life isn't "The Unit," a show that was pretty much only good for hearing Jim Nantz and other CBS NFL/NCAA Hoops broadcasters tell us to watch "The Unit" or "a whole new Unit" sometime in the coming week--a rather nice minor entendre.

- Crock1701

May 20, 2011 at 3:04pm

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

Of course it is impossible to criticize Obama without being subjected to this sort of rants.

- noga1

May 20, 2011 at 3:52pm

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

I give up explaining things to Bunts and his ilk. They refuse to see the harsh Middle East reality in front of them. It's too much for them. Islam is about conquest and subjugating the non-believers. Obama imagines a tolerant Islam. Obama is truly weird. 20 years with a "race" preacher, palship with Rashid Khalidi, gratuitous insulting patronizing addresses to the Jews of America and Israel, etc. We're not impressed with O's deracinated Jewish friends. We're not impressed with O's latest verbal tap dance.

- amidut

May 20, 2011 at 4:34pm

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

"We're not impressed' is an apt euphemism as a response to Obama's confused, and confusing, messages. I almost feel sorry for him. Trying to please all, succeeding in pleasing none. And he has such good intentions.

- noga1

May 20, 2011 at 4:39pm

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

Amidut, is Jeff Goldberg a deracinated Jew? http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/05/dear-mr-netanyahu-please-dont-speak-to-my-president-that-way/239199/

- arnon

May 20, 2011 at 4:56pm

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

Here is the full text of Netanyahu's response to Obama's speech: http://www.facebook.com/notes/the-prime-minister-of-israel/pmo-announcement-following-president-obamas-speech/147051132033152 "Israel appreciates President Obama’s commitment to peace. Israel believes that for peace to endure between Israelis and Palestinians, the viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of the viability of the one and only Jewish state. That is why Prime Minister Netanyahu expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004, which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress. Among other things, those commitments relate to Israel not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines which are both indefensible and which would leave major Israeli population centers in Judea and Samaria beyond those lines. Those commitments also ensure Israel’s well-being as a Jewish state by making clear that Palestinian refugees will settle in a future Palestinian state rather than in Israel. Without a solution to the Palestinian refugee problem outside the borders of Israel, no territorial concession will bring peace. Equally, the Palestinians, and not just the United States, must recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people, and any peace agreement with them must end all claims against Israel. Prime Minister Netanyahu will make clear that the defense of Israel requires an Israeli military presence along the Jordan River. Prime Minister Netanyahu will also express his disappointment over the Palestinian Authority’s decision to embrace Hamas, a terror organization committed to Israel’s destruction, as well as over Mahmoud Abbas’s recently expressed views which grossly distort history and make clear that Abbas seeks a Palestinian state in order to continue the conflict with Israel rather than end it. " That "expects to hear" sounds too aggressive, i agree. I wonder what the Hebrew original said.

- noga1

May 20, 2011 at 5:46pm

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

Oh do tell, noga. Who is arnon really? Surely not Jackson who left town with Peretz. Then who?

- roidubouloi

May 20, 2011 at 5:48pm

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

Yes, Netanyahu thinks he can discipline the president of the United States as if he were an errant child. Whet a fool this Netanyahu is. Beneath contempt.

- roidubouloi

May 20, 2011 at 5:51pm

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

You think he's trying to please all, noga? You're not listening. But Bibi heard right. Obama tore up Bush's letter in front of Bibi's nose. Elections have consequences. We will see what September brings and how hard Obama presses to prevent Europe from voting to recognize a Palestinian state.

- roidubouloi

May 20, 2011 at 5:56pm

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

Puzzling is why Netanyahu comes to Washington in the first place. It's not as if we don't know what One-Note Johnny's position is. Is it to give Washington orders on what US policy should be? And if Obama isn't in fact going to DO anything, what's the point of yet more rhetoric? Also unclear is the author's anguish over the status quo. The occupation has done nothing to prevent Israel's ascendance to unrivaled regional military, technological, and economic superiority. What's been the downside? Yes, we hear wails about Israel's supposed diplomatic isolation and concerns over the purported toxic effects that the occupation is having on the country's moral fiber. But when it comes to the fork in the road, public standing and moral concerns give way to the joys of land expropriation every time. Clearly, it's a trade-off that Israel is happy to make.

- gkjames

May 20, 2011 at 6:13pm

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

"Of course it is impossible to criticize Obama without being subjected to this sort of rants." In all seriousness, there are plenty, plenty of ways in which to criticize Obama for a lot of his approach, both in foreign and domestic policy. I would be happy to be first in line to criticize his handling of the tax extensions, govt. shutdown, debt ceiling, etc. etc. ad nauseum, if other posters like roi don't beat me to it. But, to claim that Obama is some kind of Manchurian candidate or that he wants to attack Judaism, and that his history as a law student or an author is fabricated is not simple criticism. It is an unsavoury conspiracy theory, and whether you like it or not, reeks of racism.

- bunthorne

May 20, 2011 at 6:25pm

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

"Oh do tell, noga. Who is arnon really?" I don't know. I can only speculate and I prefer to do that in the privacy of my own mind. Would you swear to it in a court of law? If you refuse to do that, then you shouldn't make these loud accusations.

- noga1

May 20, 2011 at 6:40pm

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

Bunt (note his British spellings) should be more careful with his accusations of racism. I'm an American who voted for Obama and feel "had". I willfully overlooked Rev. Wright, Rashid Khalidi, and William Ayre. But, as President, Obama has continued to arouse my concern. GKJames is frightened by a proud articulate Jewish prime minister who will not be Sudetenlanded. Of course, he's renting his clothes over Israeli success. Roid is just a sad excuse for Jewish manhood.

- amidut

May 20, 2011 at 6:43pm

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

"Obama tore up Bush's letter in front of Bibi's nose." We had this discussion a long time ago, in connection with an Abrams' article. At the time, if my memory serves me right, you claimed that Abrams was lying and that there was no such letter from Bush to the Israeli PM (I can't remember; maybe it was addressed to Sharon).

- noga1

May 20, 2011 at 6:43pm

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

what the hell speech did most of you people hear? Here is a genuine Conservative Jewish author and former Bush speechwriters take: Obama’s messages to Abbas: 1) You should be talking to Israel, not UN 2) Your inclusion of Hamas in your government is unacceptable – and a problem for you not us to resolve 3) Any deal with Israel must be final. No using “declaration of statehood” as a basis for further demands against Israel. 4) Your state will be non-militarized. 5) The border question will be resolved broadly in your favor: i.e. you get territory equal to pre-67 West Bank and Gaza. But the security question will be resolved in Israel’s favor: we believe that they need to be protected from you, not you protected from them. Bottom line: that was not the speech of a man who sounds like he intends to work very hard on Israel-Palestinian peace talks over the next 18 months. And from another article by him: Obama’s Hazy Mideast Policy Reboot May 19th, 2011 at 12:15 pm [RSS Feed for David Frum] David Frum Eli Lake reminds us that this is the same president who as a candidate said he would sit down to talk with dictators. Now he is telling them they must go. But how? Even with regard to Libya, where the US is fighting a war, the speech was strangely vague about what the US itself will do. The real message here concerns what Middle Easterners cannot expect from the US, and especially what the Palestinians cannot expect. The current Palestinian plan to get a UN General Assembly vote in favor of independence in September and then to use that as a basis for a propaganda-legal campaign against Israel will not meet with US support. The inclusion of Hamas in the Palestinian unity government creates problems for the Palestinians that it is up to the Palestinians to resolve. And Obama accepted the Netanyahu view that the true problem between Israelis and Palestinians is not the exact drawing of any future border, but the securing of Israel within whatever border may be drawn. There is scarcely a line in the speech for me to disagree with, very unlike the president’s Cairo speech of 2009. But what matters are not the absence of disagreeables, but the vagueness of future US purpose. It’s welcome for example that the president praises religious freedom in the region, and calls out Islamists who would use democratic means to anti-democratic ends. But are these mere expressions of opinion? Or will they have policy meaning?

- blackton

May 20, 2011 at 7:29pm

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

amidut: amusing, but mistargeted. You assume my comment was a criticism. In fact, it was a simple question: with all sides (except those in the equation with the least to say) content with a status quo from which they benefit, why are we having the conversation at all? Israel and the US are governed by elected leaders who reflect the will of their respective populations. That will has been constant for decades. What's to talk about, when we all know that nothing will change? Israel is indeed a proud country, perfectly capable of taking care of itself and choosing policies that it believes are in its interest. The question some American taxpayers have is why their government continues to subsidize Israeli policies that are inimical to US interests. As for your reference to Sudetenland, note that it betrays an obtuseness all too common in discussions of the Middle East.

- gkjames

May 20, 2011 at 8:11pm

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

I too have a trouble understanding the angst being expressed here.

- arnon

May 20, 2011 at 8:23pm

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

"Ami Ayalon: Obama speech offers 'opportunity' for Israel" By LAHAV HARKOV "Former Shin Bet chief and Labor MK Ami Ayalon threw his support on Friday behind US President Barack Obama's Middle East speech, saying it complements the goals his organization, "Blue White Future," has set for Israel. Obama is attempting to "open a window of opportunity for direct talks that will lead to a solution," Ayalon said. "Obama is saying to the Palestinians: You won't get a state unilaterally; come and talk. To the Israelis he's saying the basis for talks has to be the 1967 borders." ---- "Ayalon and other leaders of "Blue White Future" seek to garner Israeli support for a two-state solution, which he says most Israelis and most Knesset members would back. "We want to rebuild Zionism around the idea of a Jewish and democratic state," he explained." http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=221486

- arnon

May 20, 2011 at 8:28pm

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

You are confusing two different matters, noga. One was the claim by Elliot Abrams of secret agreements between the US and Israel contrary to the explicit language of the Road Map regarding growth of settlements. The other was Bush's quite public expression to Sharon that final settlement would necessarily diverge from the Green Line. It is the latter that Obama just tore up. No responsible American official as ever accepted Abrams' story, and we all know that Abrams' dishonesty is an established fact.

- roidubouloi

May 20, 2011 at 10:21pm

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

Amidut, you have to try harder if you want to be insulting. That was so lame I spent a full 10 minutes trying to be annoyed and couldn't summon even mild irritation. Is that the best you can do?

- roidubouloi

May 20, 2011 at 10:43pm

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

….You are confusing two different matters.. One was the claim by Elliot Abrams of secret agreements between the US and Israel contrary to the explicit language of the Road Map regarding growth of settlements. The other was Bush's quite public expression to Sharon that final settlement would necessarily diverge from the Green Line. It is the latter that Obama just tore up. No responsible American official as ever accepted Abrams' story, and we all know that Abrams' dishonesty is an established fact… Roi, I think you are wrong on Obama "tearing up" Bush's acknowledgment that a final settlement would depart in some places from the Green Line. I'd argue that what Obama said about that is continuous with American policy since 2000. He said, I paraphrase, that a division of territory should be based on the 1967 lines (in actuality the 1949 lines) with mutually agreed “swaps.” Since Camp David, the idea has been for a Palestinian state of Gaza and the West Bank but with Israel to include blocs and compensate for them with its own land. Bush saw things this way. His letter to Sharon in effect said it was understood that Israel wouldn’t return to 1949 insofar as it included the blocs. Bush said too that the blocs and the lands for them had to be agreed to. So I don’t see anything being torn up. Some argue there is a big political difference in the way Obama explicitly called for 1967/1949 lines as a starting point, and talking about phased withdrawal, something the Israelis did not want him to do. Maybe. But typical with Obama, he laid down broad principles that then get tortured and parsed to death, as much as what he doesn’t say gets tortured and parsed to death. I’m with Blackton and Arnon, and seemingly David Frum, in thinking that Israeli supporters have no need to gnash their teeth based on this speech, which I found supportive of Israel. Penultimately, I don’t recall Abrams asserting the existence of the "secret agreements" you refer to, only the letter Bush gave to Sharon which, as noted, acknowledged some of the blocs would be Israel’s final settlement. I’d be happy to have my memory refreshed if the historical record on this point bears you out. Finally, as to this: …That tape is another one of those unexplained mysteries about Obama (the others being his bow to the Saudi King, his glad handing with Chavez, his comment about the Special Olympics, his twenty years of Sunday attendance at Rev. Wright's church, the fact that aside from his two books no one has ever read or cited any article he wrote as the editor of the Harvard Law Review, or his PhD dissertation. At least I have not seen any of these, even though I looked on google. Perhaps others can provide a link to any of these?)… This shit, it seems, is never to end. That consistency comprises one of the hobgoblins of a weird, little mind.

- basman

May 20, 2011 at 11:43pm

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

Israel is a country whose Arab citizens, who constitute 20% of the Israeli electorate, have more rights than they do in any Arab country. Israel is a prosperous modern democracy with many Nobel Prize winners, a country where a good bit of the software we use is written. A country where women are respected and homosexuals can do their thing. By contrast, the Arab world is a collection of nasty dictatorships where the only democracy, Iraq, is a gift of Uncle Sam and where the people who live there seem intent on wrecking the gift. (Compare the case of Iraq to postwar Germany and Japan.) In Arab and other Muslim countries women are treated at best like they were in the West back in the Dark Ages. Every year there are more books translated into Spanish for sale in Spain than have been translated into Arabic since the Middle Ages. Up to the year 2000 the number of papers by Arabs published in scientific journals was zero. Suppose the Palestinians get their way and drive the Israelis into the sea. What gain would there be for humanity? It would be like destroying Denmark and replacing it with Nicaragua. A Palestinian state, like the Palestinian Authority of today, would be a welfare slum dependent on American and European handouts. Why do so many leftists side with all that is backward, ignorant, cruel, stupid, and sexist, against the achievements of the last thousand years? Why are today's "progressives" so utterly reactionary when it comes to whom they choose to support?

- bulbman1066

May 21, 2011 at 12:44am

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

bulbman1066: "Suppose the Palestinians get their way and drive the Israelis into the sea." I believe most Palestinians still support a two-state solution. Plus the world community recognizes Israel and would not let them be "driven into the sea." Israel's biggest threats are not military; they are demography (Jews will be a minority if they hold onto the occupied territories), political (isolation), and terrorism. "Why do so many leftists side with all that is backward, ignorant, cruel, stupid, and sexist, against the achievements of the last thousand years?" So, any culture that's deemed not up to our standards can be denied their right to self-determination? That's democracy! (Just maybe there's a principle that democracy means that other people have the right to make decisions that we disagree with and don't have to like or associate with?)

- dsimon

May 21, 2011 at 2:25am

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

"I believe most Palestinians still support a two-state solution." Those Palestinians who do support the two state solution (and they are not the majority, as far as I know. Perhaps you can support this statement of yours?) do so on the understanding that there will be one Palestinian state, free of Jews, and a (temporary) Israel to which millions of Palestinian "refugees" will be "returned". No Palestinian (except for possibly Sari Nusseibeh and Abu-Toameh)) has been caught accepting the formula of two states for two peoples. " Plus the world community recognizes Israel and would not let them be "driven into the sea." We have seen how perturbed the "world community" was by the plight of Jews throughout the twentieth century. Anyway, no Israeli would, or should, rely on any Norwegian or Spaniard or Belgian or Swiss to be his guarantee against annihilation.

- noga1

May 21, 2011 at 7:27am

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

"It is the latter that Obama just tore up. " roi, if you are right, then you might want to explain how and why Israelis should trust any of Obama's reassurances and pledges for Israel's security? How different is this tearing up of formal understandings from the Egyptian threat to tear up the peace agreement with Israel? If you are right, I would have to conclude that Obama has no respect for anything undertaken by former administrations, and is charting a radical departure from previous policies and alliances. What exactly motivates this extreme disregard for his predecessor's guarantees? Who knows, perhaps if we could understand why he bowed to a Saudi king, or fondly shook hands with Chavez, or if we had a chance to read his PhD dissertation or get to watch that farewell to Rashid Khalidi tape kept so securely away from public knowledge, we might get a better understanding of what motivates this president's iconoclastic decisions. That is, if you are right that "Obama just tore up" whatever formal assurances were given by Bush to Sharon.

- noga1

May 21, 2011 at 7:46am

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

I think the likelihood of Obama's PhD dissertation continuing to be hidden from public view is quite considerable, as he doesn't have a PhD. He does probably have a JD (is that it?) as his Harvard Law degree. I didn't know that was a secret, however.

- ironyroad

May 21, 2011 at 8:24am

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

The question rather is why the US should trust Israel. It signed Oslo, it signed the Road Map. It signed the Fourth Geneva Convention. Israel's signature is worthless. And its purported friendship with the US? What is that worth to us? To this day, it will not cooperate on walking back Pollard. Bush's letter was his policy. It was not an agreement of the United States any more than Abrams' phantom side agreement. Israel violates unambiguous agreements and then conjures agreements in its favor where there are none.

- roidubouloi

May 21, 2011 at 8:46am

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

All right, roi. I think your position is pretty unambiguous. Thank you for clarifying it.

- noga1

May 21, 2011 at 8:59am

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

I thought he was a professor who taught law. A constitutional expert. Wouldn't he have to write some thesis to acquire any academic degree? Is there any publication or article he wrote during his tenure or during his time as the editor of Law Review? I'm really curious about it. And as I indicated, I looked for those publications but couldn't find any.

- noga1

May 21, 2011 at 9:12am

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

You get a JD by virtue of graduating from a law school. It's to be distinguished from doing a Phd in law. You can pass law school with or without doing academic papers. Regardless, and to be sure, Obama's missing dissertation will continue to infect the febrile psyches of the fevered paranoid amongst us.

- basman

May 21, 2011 at 9:32am

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

p.s. What difference does it make whether Obama wrote academic papers save to inform fantastical grounds on which to build gnostic and crazed cases against him?

- basman

May 21, 2011 at 9:35am

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

ZB has always been anti-Israel. The old jackass pays his kielbasa with Arab oil money. ZB's daughter's MSNBC program is called Morning Joe for the co-anchor Joe Scarboro a former republican congressman, that today is practically independent. MSNBC part of the NBC group are very anti-Israel biased and dishonest. Their frequent ""expert"" Israel expert is ZB, they never have guests honestly speaking about the middle east about Israel . ZB has no credibility and limited influence. Israel has the backing of Congress, the military and the business folks. Intel Microfosoft IBM you name it are 1000% pro Israel, add the Christian majority, and 75%+ of Americans. So if crackpots like ZB, Andrea MItchell Greenspan, Tom Friedman (NYT), Zacharia (CNN) and the rest of the anti-Israel gang spew anti-Israel venom, let them earn their high life . The American public gives very low marks to the news media and dishonest commentators. And guess what when Obama retires in 2012 he is to become a commentator with his own cable channel. Bill O'reilly eat your guts because HERE IS OoooooooooooBAMA SAMA!!!!!.

- JAIMECHUCH

May 21, 2011 at 9:40am

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

"So if crackpots like ZB, Andrea MItchell Greenspan, Tom Friedman (NYT), Zacharia (CNN) " Well, they are really crackpots. They are the ones informing mainstream public opinion today. In Canada Fareed Zakaria is considered among the few only tolerable American public intellectuals worth listening to.

- noga1

May 21, 2011 at 9:56am

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

A footnote to this: "05/21/2011 - 2:25am EDT | dsimon ... Plus the world community recognizes Israel and would not let them be "driven into the sea...." http://www.israelwhat.com/2011/05/21/aftenposten-rich-jews-threaten-obama/ "Obama is hugely popular in Norway. So popular in fact that we gave him the Nobel prize before he had the opportunity to deserve it. Now one of our largest newspapers is telling us Obama is being threatened by rich Jews. The article in Aftenposten is titled “Rich Jews threaten Obama” and is written by journalist Alf Ole Ask. The article deals with how segments of American Jewry, 78 percent of whom voted for Obama in 2008, find Obama to be too critical of Israel and therefore are considering pulling economic support. So there is the threat: Some “rich Jews” may be considering to stop giving Obama money." Do you see any possibility that this crowd would not let the Jews be "driven into the sea..?? From what I see, they are more likely to put stones in those Jews' pockets to make sure they sink properly, and fast. Those Norwegians are very compassionate human beings, you know.

- noga1

May 21, 2011 at 10:12am

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

But look on the bright side: "Obama is hugely popular in Norway".

- noga1

May 21, 2011 at 10:14am

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

"05/21/2011 - 9:56am EDT | noga1 "So if crackpots like ZB, Andrea MItchell Greenspan, Tom Friedman (NYT), Zacharia (CNN) " Well, they are really crackpots. " What I meant to write was: "Well, they are NOT really crackpots." If they were crackpots, they would be recognized as such quite easily. One doesn't have to be a crackpot to hate Israel while trying to pass it off as the only righteous way to be. It's a deliberate ethical choice they make. Crackpottery lets them off the hook.

- noga1

May 21, 2011 at 10:35am

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

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/21/world/middleeast/21prexy.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&ref=middleeast "An Israeli official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations, quoted Mr. Netanyahu as telling his aides: “I went in with certain concerns. I came out encouraged.”

- noga1

May 21, 2011 at 11:56am

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

Al-Samidoon, Palestine: http://watchingamerica.com/News/103900/do-not-trust-america/ "America has committed a crime against the rights of Arabs and Muslims, and there is no basis for trusting her. The American president has indulged his intentions to continue with these crimes with his support of Israel and his commitment to its security. He spoke about Arab terrorism and about Israeli security, completely forgetting that Israel is the one who started the wars in the region and continues in its aggression — not just against the people of Palestine, but against all the peoples of the area. For this reason we must be very careful and not let Obama’s nice words deceive us. It is important to let it be known that good relations with the Arabs and taking care of Israel do not come together. If the American president wants the trust of the Arabs, he first must abandon Israel." Key statement: " It is important to let it be known that good relations with the Arabs and taking care of Israel do not come together. "

- noga1

May 21, 2011 at 12:33pm

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

Robert Satloff explained on a C-Span broadcast (podcast now available)of a Washington Institute for Near East Policy panel discussion on Obama's entire ME/NA speech http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC07.php?CID=347 that Obama may have felt compelled to make I-P conflict the third pillar of Thursday's speech because PM Netanyahu was coming to Washington for 1) speech of Israeli PM at AIPAC annual meeting (Obama speaks to AIPAC at 10:30 am on Sunday, and Netanyahu at the closing banquet Monday 7-10 pm), and 2) Speaker of the House John Boehner had invited PM Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, May 24. Another reason for Obama devoting 1200 words to I-P conflict (Satloff's count) was to mollify the Europeans when he visits Ireland, England (state dinner and address to parliament), France (G-8) and America's "close ally Poland". C-Span1 also broadcast Jay Carney WH press conference after the Obama-Netanyahu pool spray. Jay Carney was really hammered on that "1967 lines", which unfortunately for Obama also means that most of his Arab Spring speech became not news. Carney uses the word "close ally" a lot. UK, Saudi Arabia, Poland. Yet, Obama always refers to Israel as a friend, never an ally. Rather ironic because the US Air Force and Navy would certainly prefer to fight alongside the Israelis more than any other nation on earth. I assume the US Army and Marines would rank Australia first. I just think Obama wishes the Jewish State of Israel would disappear (without malevolent intent) so he can focus on other issues. It is obvious Obama is tired of the United States having to defend Jewish Israel at all those multi-lateral institutions he so loves. And, you can bet that the US Congress is now going to pick a fight over stopping US dollars to the PA and UNRWA. a speech that pleased no one in the Arab world. yes, I have read all of Tom Clancy's novels. My solution to the palestinian conflict would borrow from Sri Lanka. Nothing works like total war and unconditional surrender.

- K2K

May 21, 2011 at 12:54pm

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

"Yet, Obama always refers to Israel as a friend, never an ally. " Well roi, who seems to understand Obama's antipathy for Israel more than anybody around here, has hammered on this point many times before. He convinced me that Israel is not an ally of the US. It is more like a poor relation, a pitiful liability. Here is the US wanting to make love to the Arab world but this damn Jewish relative, with his terrible, undeniable, unerasable, history, always an embarrassment, always in the way (and why does this relative have to be so successful, too? It would make more sense if he looked the part, too). It is clear that Arabs will not forgive America for Israel's (continued) existence. And that's a real tragedy for Obama who had his heart set on a marriage of hearts and minds between Araby and the US (his Cairo speech made it very clear). The more he woos, they coyer and more demanding and gruesome they get. (Reminds me of Oscar Wilde's play "Salome" with Israel as, ironically enough, John the Baptist.)

- noga1

May 21, 2011 at 1:23pm

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

"yes, I have read all of Tom Clancy's novels. My solution to the palestinian conflict would borrow from Sri Lanka. Nothing works like total war and unconditional surrender." This is fantasy at this point since it isn't only the Palestinian Arabs who make war on Israel but most of the Arab world. The Sri Lanka conflict was contained within an island and it was possible for one side to wipe out the other. Not so in Arab-Israeli conflict. Let's get real. What we have here is a stalemate. Some form of compromise will be necessary to achieve tranquility if not peace. Obama's proposals while not perfect nor original with him are a good way to proceed forward.

- arnon

May 21, 2011 at 1:27pm

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

"...to understand Obama's antipathy for Israel...." What is your proof that Obama is hostile to Israel and that his differences are not just the differences between Obama and Netanyahu? Did Obama criticize Ehud Olmert or even Ehud Barak or any other Israeli leader?

- arnon

May 21, 2011 at 1:30pm

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

Forget it Arnon. Your questions presume open mindedness and civil discourse proceeding on the basis of evidence and logic. You are, on these issues, confronting their very opposite replete with recondite bows to Saudis, missing theses and other missing feces, LA Times suppression and other worthies direct from the mind of say a Glenn Beck and his conspiratorial ilk.

- basman

May 21, 2011 at 1:44pm

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

well arnon, why don't we wait and see what happens when Lebanon and Syria expel ALL of their palestinian refugees. my prediction for the total war trigger. good thing I am not PM of Israel. PM Netanyahu to President Obama, May 20, 2011 "...We’ve been around for almost 4,000 years. We have experienced struggle and suffering like no other people. We’ve gone through expulsions and pogroms and massacres and the murder of millions. But I can say that even at the dearth of — even at the nadir of the valley of death, we never lost hope and we never lost our dream of re-establishing a sovereign state in our ancient homeland, the land of Israel. And now it falls on my shoulders as the prime minister of Israel at a time of extraordinary instability and uncertainty in the Middle East to work with you to fashion a peace that will ensure Israel’s security and will not jeopardize its survival. I take this responsibility with pride but with great humility, because, as I told you in our conversation, we don’t have a lot of margin for error and because, Mr. President, history will not give the Jewish people another chance." PM Netanyahu to President Obama, May 20, 2011 full link at: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/05/20/what-netanyahu-did-today/

- K2K

May 21, 2011 at 2:09pm

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

You may be right basman, and it certainly is possible to onstrue what Obama said as a restatement of prior policy, but I don't think that was the intention, and I think Netanyahu read this correctly. The previous Israeli view, which the US appeared to support if not endorse, is that the entire mandate west of the Jordan would be partitioned de novo, with no binding history, and to the winner belong the spoils. Most Israelis came to recognize that there would have to be a contiguous Palestinian West Bank, but they did not see any a priority reason why Palestine should not consist of that from which Israel chooses to withdraw. From this point of view, any land from which Israel withdraws is a "concession" or peace. Thus, Israel did not think it had to make a land bargain, despite the fact that the Palestinians have three times refused to make a deal on Israel's terms. I think Israel has badly misread history, thinking that the outcome of the Six Day War was the same as 1949, only better. For reasons I have explained, that's wrong. I won't repeat them here. But I think what Obama has now said is that there is a presumption as to who gets what, it is not to the victor the spoils, nor are the settlements dispositive. You, Israel, are going to have to make a land bargain. That means that, if there is land to the east you want, you are going to have to offer the Palestinians something they want more. If you cannot find. Mutual bargain for exchange, then you must live within the Green Line. I think that is. Profound change, and it ought to signal to Israel that the time to deal is now.

- roidubouloi

May 21, 2011 at 2:14pm

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

but first, show me the map that shows the oil shale formations south of Jerusalem with 250 billion barrels of oil, matching Saudi reserves. that, plus the proven offshore natural gas fields may really be the palestinian unity motivation suddenly brokered by Egypt.

- K2K

May 21, 2011 at 2:15pm

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

On the Abrams thing basman, two different matters. Bush wrote about borders. Abrams claimed that the US had privately agreed with Israel that the Road Map language about "natural growth" of settlements could be ignored.

- roidubouloi

May 21, 2011 at 2:18pm

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

Proof, arnon? You mean a smoking gun? What are you, a prosecutor? I'll remind you that this is a message board and this sharp tone is out of place. Obama's antipathy to Israel was clear when he decided to re-write its history in his Cairo speech, when he compared Jewish suffering to Palestinian suffering, when he pounced upon a Jerusalem zoning committee's decision to start a humiliation campaign against Israel with the aim of imposing settlement freeze on Jewish neigbourhoods in Jerusalem. Whatever he feels for Netanyahu is quite irrelevant. Clinton openly disliked Netanyahu and no one ever thought he was anything less than completely sympathetic to Israel. Even people who support Obama concede that he is indifferent to Israel's plight. I think that to be sympathetic to Palestinians and indifferent to Israelis amounts to antipathy for Israel. You may not agree but you perhaps you will reciprocate my good nature in responding to your rather brusque question by explaining to me why I am wrong in thinking the way I do. I am open to persuasion. Persuade me. By the way, are you, as roi suggested, the old poster Jackson? You sound like him.

- noga1

May 21, 2011 at 2:33pm

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

"I take this responsibility with pride but with great humility, because, as I told you in our conversation, we don’t have a lot of margin for error and because, Mr. President, history will not give the Jewish people another chance." I really cannot imagine Obama being moved by these words. This is really the heart of the matter but indifference inoculates against any sympathy. I will repeat it: Obama was taught about the I/P conflict by Rashid Khalidi. He would have to undergo a paradigm shift in order to understand Israel's condition.

- noga1

May 21, 2011 at 2:48pm

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

2K “well arnon, why don't we wait and see what happens when Lebanon and Syria expel ALL of their palestinian refugees. my prediction for the total war trigger. good thing I am not PM of Israel.” Could happen, but I don’t see how engaging in serious negotiations in the meantime would put Israel at risk. If anything it will give the moral high ground when and if war with Syria and Lebanon occurs. On the other hand, I Assad may be a lot of things, but stupid he is not. He must know that if Syria attacks Israel it will be the end of his regime. Sending people across the border to another country is considered an act of aggression. It happened in Western Sahara when Morocco sent in civilians to occupy that country and the act was seen as an act of aggression. http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2011/05/18/the-new-arab-tactic-against-israel-eugene-kontorovich/

- arnon

May 21, 2011 at 3:25pm

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

noga1 "Proof, arnon? You mean a smoking gun? What are you, a prosecutor? I'll remind you that this is a message board and this sharp tone is out of place." Asking for proof means using a "sharp tone?" You expect to be taken seriously?

- arnon

May 21, 2011 at 3:27pm

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

Yeap the "anti Israel" Obama will address AIPAC. http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0511/ProIsrael_push_for_magic_words_from_Obama.html

- arnon

May 21, 2011 at 3:53pm

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

Here is another interesting article: http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC10.php?CID=5

- arnon

May 21, 2011 at 3:55pm

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

The main obstacle to forward motion in my opinion remains Israeli efforts to conflate Israel's bona fide security needs with its illegal settlements. It demands in one way or another acceptance of it's settlements by invoking security. This is scam, and it is worn out, but Netanyahu keeps singing the same song. Instead of security and self defense claims legitimizing the settlements, the effect of the scam is that the illegal settlements are destroying the credibility of Israel's security claims. As for creibility, Netanyahu has none and deserves none.

- roidubouloi

May 21, 2011 at 3:56pm

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

Quoting someone whose opinion I respect enormously who knows a thing or two about a thing or two about Israeli realities): Netanyahu has achieved what he needed to achieve. He made it clear to the president that Israel will not go back to the 1967 borders, because they are indefensible and Israel is done experimenting when it comes to its existence. End of quote. No Israeli leader, whether Barak, Livni or whomever, would have answered any differently. Livni might have tried some cheindalach but that would be the extent of the difference. http://www.loadenjoy.com/-/sxhgTq3F4Dg.html AS the Israeli song says: כשאת אומרת "לא", למה את מתכוונת? למה את מתכוונת, כשאת אומרת "לא"? האם ה"לא" הוא "לא" - ובאמת אולי הוא רק "אולי, אך לא כעת", או שה"לא" הוא רק "עוד לא" אולי הוא "או", אולי הוא "בוא" כי את אומרת "לא" כל כך בחן שהוא נשמע לי עוד יותר מזמין מ"כן". When you say No what do you mean? Is it a real definite No or is it a "maybe, but not just yet"? Is it a No, or "come hither"? Because you say your "No" with such endearing charm that it seems more inviting than a simple "Yes".

- noga1

May 21, 2011 at 6:53pm

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

noga1: "Those Palestinians who do support the two state solution (and they are not the majority, as far as I know. Perhaps you can support this statement of yours?) do so on the understanding that there will be one Palestinian state, free of Jews, and a (temporary) Israel to which millions of Palestinian ''refugees' will be 'returned'." That was not true, at least as of of 2003. A poll at that time showed that found that "most refugees scattered across the Middle East would be prepared to accept compensation and a new life in a Palestinian state and did not expect to return to their former homes." http://articles.latimes.com/2003/jul/14/world/fg-mideast14 "The poll data showed that Israel’s Jewish majority was not at risk by accepting the Palestinian right of return, because only 10 percent of Palestinians desired to live in a Jewish state. Of those, only 10 percent wanted to have Israeli citizenship or Israeli passports. Ninety percent of those who wanted Israel as a permanent place of residence said that they would rather have Palestinian citizenship and a Palestinian passport. Thus, only 1 percent of Palestinian refugees would opt for both residence and citizenship in the state of Israel." http://www.wrmea.com/archives/sept03/0309019.html And as recently as 2007, poll data showed a strong plurality of 46% of Palestinians supporting a two-state solution, with 26% supporting a bi-national state, and a quarter supporting neither (whatever that means). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_solution To the extent that Palestinian support for a two-state solution may be eroding, one can ask whether Israel's actions have accelerated the process. Of course Palestinian extremists are to blame as well, but that's doesn't necessarily excuse the actions of other parties, even if they're understandable. If I were a Palestinian and saw that when we negotiate Israel expands its settlements, and when we don't negotiate Israel expands its settlements, I'd be skeptical about the value of negotiating too. Both sides are letting the wings of their parties drive (or halt) the process. We all know what a deal will look like: a border along the '67 lines with land swaps, a very limited "right of return" with monetary compensation for refugees, a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem. What Obama said about borders has been the starting point for negotiations and blindingly obvious for decades, and I'm surprised that it's considered at all controversial today. The only question is if, or when, the leaders on both sides will concede to reality.

- dsimon

May 21, 2011 at 6:54pm

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

noga1: here's the continuation of my prior post, which got eaten (TNR really needs to fix this...) "...most refugees scattered across the Middle East would be prepared to accept compensation and a new life in a Palestinian state and did not expect to return to their former homes." http://articles.latimes.com/2003/jul/14/world/fg-mideast14 "The poll data showed that Israel’s Jewish majority was not at risk by accepting the Palestinian right of return, because only 10 percent of Palestinians desired to live in a Jewish state. Of those, only 10 percent wanted to have Israeli citizenship or Israeli passports. Ninety percent of those who wanted Israel as a permanent place of residence said that they would rather have Palestinian citizenship and a Palestinian passport. Thus, only 1 percent of Palestinian refugees would opt for both residence and citizenship in the state of Israel." http://www.wrmea.com/archives/sept03/0309019.html And as recently as 2007, poll data showed a strong plurality of 46% of Palestinians supporting a two-state solution, with 26% supporting a bi-national state, and a quarter supporting neither (whatever that means). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_solution To the extent that Palestinian support for a two-state solution may be eroding, one can ask whether Israel's actions have accelerated the process. Of course Palestinian extremists are to blame as well, but that's doesn't necessarily excuse the actions of other parties, even if they're understandable. If I were a Palestinian and saw that when we negotiate Israel expands its settlements, and when we don't negotiate Israel expands its settlements, I'd be skeptical about the value of negotiating too. Both sides are letting the wings of their parties drive (or halt) the process. We all know what a deal will look like: a border along the '67 lines with land swaps, a very limited "right of return" with monetary compensation for refugees, a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem. What Obama said about borders has been the starting point for negotiations and blindingly obvious for decades, and I'm surprised that it's considered at all controversial today. The only question is if, or when, the leaders on both sides will concede to reality.

- dsimon

May 21, 2011 at 6:57pm

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

Ah yes. The "indefensible borders" of 1949. And just where would defensible borders lie if the goal is security rather than the incorporation of illegal settlements. The business of defensible borders is the scam, because there are no borders short of the Jordan River that make Israel any more defensible than it is behind the Green Line. The only land of strategic significance short of the entire West Bank is the Jordan itself to prevent arms smuggling. But that is not what is meant by the obscurantist term. What is meant are the settlement blocs. As for land swaps, Israel's idea is that it keeps the settlement blocs and the Palestianians get some patches of desert here and there. And the wonder that the Palestinians are not stupid enough to accept that deal.

- roidubouloi

May 21, 2011 at 7:09pm

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

roi: The point of my comment was that Netanyahu made it clear to the president that Israel will not go back to the 1967 borders, because they are indefensible and Israel is done experimenting when it comes to its existence. I know it's hard for you to understand Israel's POV. But then, what else is new? You are an American Jew. It is only to be expected. Has any American Jew ever been at existential risk in America? I don't think so. That, btw, does not make your view any clearer or truer than mine or my friend's. It's useless to quarrel over it. In due time events will prove who had the greater perspicacity. Whichever way it goes.

- noga1

May 21, 2011 at 7:21pm

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

"... because only 10 percent of Palestinians desired to live in a Jewish state. Of those, only 10 percent wanted to have Israeli citizenship " Let's suppose this is an good estimate. There are between 4.5 to 7.5 million refugee status claimants. 10% means something between 450,000 to 750,000. Hardly a number to allay Israeli anxieties.

- noga1

May 21, 2011 at 7:26pm

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

noga1: "Hardly a number to allay Israeli anxieties." Hardly the "millions" you claimed would go back either if given the unrestricted opportunity. Plus you ignore the part of the survey about those who would return and also want actual citizenship. Plus I never said that an unlimited right of return, which would be a worst-case scenario for Israel, would be a part of the deal. The argument is that a limited right of return with compensation for non-returning refugees could be a part of a deal that would be acceptable to a majority of Palestinians.

- dsimon

May 21, 2011 at 7:42pm

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

"Plus I never said that an unlimited right of return, which would be a worst-case scenario for Israel, would be a part of the deal. " I don't think you understand me. There can be no RoR, not even symbolic. What might have been possible to contemplate in 2000 is no longer available.

- noga1

May 21, 2011 at 7:49pm

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

On the question of arnon's identity (raised early in this thread): whilst in months past I have myself gone head-to-head with arnon and wondered whether he might be the erstwhile jacksondyer, the evidence of his, arnon's, entirely reasonable comments in this thread suggest otherwise.

- AaronW

May 21, 2011 at 8:01pm

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

I don't know. They both seem to be equally pompous and stringent. I will say this for arnon, he is a wee bit more restrained in his language. Maybe it's jackson redux.

- noga1

May 21, 2011 at 8:59pm

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

I thought I was a prosecutor in Noga's imagination. Noga, you have no proof that Obama is anti-Israel. There is ample proof that he is not. His comment that teaching hatred of Jews to Arab children was one of the problems that Israel has to deal with should tell you that he is not anti-Israel. To you Netanyahu and his party is Israel and anyone who criticizes him must be antisemitic. To me Israel is much more than the Likud, or Herut. If saying this makes me pompous, I am proud to be that.

- arnon

May 21, 2011 at 11:04pm

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

noga1: "There can be no RoR, not even symbolic." Why not? There is no inherent reason why that should be so. I thought you originally argued that Palestinians wanted an agreement that would allow "millions" to return. I showed a poll that indicated that many would not return even if given the unlimited opportunity. Now you claim that there can't be even a symbolic RoR (a thousand, a hundred, ten?) that might satisfy both sides. I see no inherent reason why that should be the case; it seems to me that just assert it. And what is the deal that can be made? As I wrote above, the outlines are pretty obvious and have been for some time. It's just a matter of the leaders realizing it instead of letting their more extreme elements determine the outcome. "I know it's hard for you to understand Israel's POV. But then, what else is new? You are an American Jew. It is only to be expected." (I know this comment was directed at roi, not me, but....) It's odd that it seems to be easier for Israelis to criticize the Israeli government than for Americans to do so.

- dsimon

May 21, 2011 at 11:13pm

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

"To you Netanyahu and his party is Israel and anyone who criticizes him must be antisemitic" I said Obama has antipathy towards Israel. Nowhere have I even mentioned antisemitism. Pompous people tend to take such leaps. If I recall, jackson too suffered from a severe case of anti-Netanyahu angst. Another similarity. Also, jackson used to see an antisemite in anybody and everybody. Projection, perhaps? I don't give a damn who you are. I'm just wondering why a grownup person who takes himself so seriously would stoop to such silly games.

- noga1

May 21, 2011 at 11:16pm

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

"I thought you originally argued that Palestinians wanted an agreement that would allow "millions" to return. " Really? Where did I argue that? What I said is that Palestinian RoR, if allowed to take place, would involve millions, etc etc. No one in his right mind would argue that there is ever going to be any negotiations involving the proposal to allow millions of Arabs to "return" to Israel proper. Why not symbolic? Because if it is symbolic, it is an opening for less symbolic "return". Rights, if acknowledged as such, do not remain static and symbolic. "It's odd that it seems to be easier for Israelis to criticize the Israeli government than for Americans to do so." Of course. Americans are also sensitive about Israelis criticizing Obama. Or haven't you noticed? What's odd about it?

- noga1

May 21, 2011 at 11:28pm

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

noga1 "Pompous people tend to take such leaps." Then you are as pompous as anyone here. "I said Obama has antipathy towards Israel." A pompous pronouncement. Stated without proof. Obama's concern for Israel is present in his worry about the Fatah-Hamas agreement. It is present in his concern about the teaching of anti-Israel (antisemitic) bile to Arab children. Can you show me two clear comments that shows his "antipathy towards Israel?"

- arnon

May 21, 2011 at 11:43pm

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

Obama never uses the phrase "defensible borders". I guess he does not know how to read topographical maps. Yes, Obama will be on C-Span1 at 10:30 am speaking to AIPAC. It is not unusual for the president of the US to speak at AIPAC - last year Hillary braved the subdued polite applause. Netanyahu gets the primetime banquet slot on Monday between 7 and 10 pm as Obama heads to Ireland, England, France, and "our close ally" Poland. Netanyahu also addresses joint session of Congress on Tuesday. arnon: "...engaging in serious negotiations..." lack thereof since Obama's inauguration has been due to the absence of the palestinians. His Thursday speech was meant to entice Abbas back to direct negotiations with Israel instead of Abbas' op-ed in the NYT that was very clear the palestinian strategy is to win a UN General Assembly vote on statehood and use all international means to delegitimize the Jewish State of Israel. I still think the sudden unity deal with Hamas is all about the 250 billion barrels of shale oil about thirty miles somewhere south of Jerusalem, made public after Mubarak was out. I find it incomprehensible that no one (here or in the pundit-world) can connect the dots. btw, a Bloomberg reporter on "Political Capital" said that it was Hillary who wanted the "1967 lines with mutual swaps" in the speech. Donilon and Ross were opposed. the palestinians already have a state. Jordan. another one of those Sykes-Picot colonial mistakes - putting the Hashemite Sherif of Mecca in Jordan to appease the House of Saud. Tens of millions of real refugees have re-settled since WW2. How do you think Brazil got ten million citizens of Lebanese descent? Only the palestinians get favored by the world with permanent refugee status including all descendants. a separate UN agency. Why is that? Because they think that eventually they will reclaim every square inch of their original homeland, Judenrein forever.

- K2K

May 22, 2011 at 12:00am

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

"Obama will be on C-Span1 at 10:30 am speaking to AIPAC" Thanks, K2K, I will be watching.

- arnon

May 22, 2011 at 12:09am

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

Noga, I have always been clear in my support for anything even plausibly necessary to Israel's self-defense. I also argued vigorously with some here about what was claimed to be "disproportionate" Israeli response. My view has been that the response should be what is necessary to force the aggressor to desist, and not more and that it is ludicrous to measure the response according to the harm of the aggression so long as the aggressor will not desist. I am prepared to take seriously the claims about not withdrawing to the 1949 lines on grounds of "indefensibility" if someone can suggest what other lines would plausibly be more defensible without absorbing the entire West Bank. No one ever takes me up on it, and I think the reason is that they cannot because there are no more defensible lines. It is a bit of rhetoric that surrounds a myth. Asked to suggest what the lines might be, proponents are struck dumb. What is clear is that this claim is used to justify incorporation of the settlements although I cannot see any argument that this make it easier to defend anything other than the incorporated settlements themselves. Whether the line even made sense in the time of Abba Eban is debatable. It makes no military sense now. K2K, what is the point of reprising the history of Jordan as a "Palestinian state." The solution to the West Bank is either one state, two states, or one apartheid state. The first and third are unthinkable. That makes the one in the middle the inevitable outcome. Resolution 242 contemplated border modifications for mutual security. It did not contemplate the incorporation of illegal settlements that did not then exist. The UNSC has tima and again made plain that it rejects the settlements as illegitimate encroachments. The two-state solution is not going to be Israel in 1949 plus so much of the land east of the Green Line as it wants, not for reasons of security, but because it gambled that its illegal settlements would become immovable and it was wrong.

- roidubouloi

May 22, 2011 at 2:02am

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

noga1: "'I thought you originally argued that Palestinians wanted an agreement that would allow "millions" to return.' "Really? Where did I argue that? What I said is that Palestinian RoR, if allowed to take place, would involve millions, etc etc." Here is what you wrote: "Those Palestinians who do support the two state solution...do so on the understanding that there will be one Palestinian state, free of Jews, and a (temporary) Israel to which millions of Palestinian 'refugees' will be 'returned." The phrase used was "will be 'returned'", not "involve millions who may or may not choose to return." That sounds pretty clear to me like a claim that Palestinians who support a two-state solution do so on the condition that they would be allowed to return to what is now Israel proper. Perhaps I misinterpreted your assertion. In any case, I brought up some evidence that many Palestinians would accept far less. "No one in his right mind would argue that there is ever going to be any negotiations involving the proposal to allow millions of Arabs to 'return' to Israel proper." But you seemed to say that Palestinians would never accept such a deal. What is your support for your statement? Sure, you can quote some people who say so, but with the variety of opinion on any topic one can get a quote for just about anything. "Why not symbolic? Because if it is symbolic, it is an opening for less symbolic 'return'. Rights, if acknowledged as such, do not remain static and symbolic." Again, there is nothing to support this statement except the assertion itself. At least as of 2003, the data said otherwise. Whether that door is closed due to the actions of both parties in the interim remains to be seen. "Americans are also sensitive about Israelis criticizing Obama. Or haven't you noticed? What's odd about it?" It's odd that many critical Americans are considered "anti-Israel" when those who make the same comments in Israel itself (and so have more direct power) are not described that way. (I'd like to know whether those Israelis who criticize the US are considered "anti-American," or merely anti-Obama.)

- dsimon

May 22, 2011 at 9:18am

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

I agree with roid. When opponents of using the '67 lines as a starting point for negotiations are asked what the alternatives should be, they are generally silent. I have asked in this thread what the outlines of a peace agreement should be if not for the ones that have been the basis for talks for the past few decades, and have been met with silence. If there are no real alternatives, and opponents reject the proposal on the table, then that means they support no deal at all. And that means an unending occupation of territories with an ever expanding Palestinian population--an apartheid state, as roid says. Perhaps some see that as a more feasible and "defensible" option than a two-state solution. I see the latter as far more sustainable, both politically and morally, than the former. I ran into a friend of mine in Israel when I was traveling in 1996 and asked him what he thought about the peace process (there was a modestly greater sense of optimism back then, though perhaps that's not a high bar by today's standards). He said he didn't like it, but couldn't think of anything better, so he was for it. I think that's the question for those considering these issues today: not whether any particular plan is risk-free or unproblematic, but whether they can come up with anything better.

- dsimon

May 22, 2011 at 9:36am

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

... On the Abrams thing basman, two different matters. Bush wrote about borders. Abrams claimed that the US had privately agreed with Israel that the Road Map language about "natural growth" of settlements could be ignored.... I understand, Roi, that there are two different things here. What I'm not recalling, and asking you about, is where Abrams claimed these private agreements. I have read Abrams here and there to speak clearly and strongly to the former point about Bush's position on borders, it's the latter claim for which I'm interested to see the evidence.

- basman

May 22, 2011 at 10:20am

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

"Netanyahu in the US" http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2011/05/netanyahu-in-the-us.html Norman Geras quoting Jeff Goldberg: "If one leaves aside the somewhat self-centred emphasis on his own emotional reactions in the matter, Jeffrey Goldberg has some wise words about how Netanyahu might have framed his remarks while in the US. This is the suggestion: 'The President today delivered a very fine speech. His condemnation of Hamas and Iran, his question about whether the Palestinians actually seek peace; his strong language against Syria; his recognition of Israel as a Jewish state; his re-assertion of the unshakeable bond between our two nations - all of this and more brought joy to my heart. There are a couple of points in the speech, having to do with borders and refugees, that I would like to clarify with the President when I see him, and I'm looking forward to a constructive dialogue on these few issues.' Geras' sardonic comment: Netanyahu as might have been - but wasn't."

- arnon

May 22, 2011 at 10:20am

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

Just heard Obama's speech at the AIPAC convention and he emphasized what some of us have been saying here. I heard no contempt for Israel. On the contrary I heard a man who is deeply concerned with its security and its future. He attacked the media that distorted what he said last week and I think I heard some criticism of the NY Times which had created the impression that US and Israel were on a collision course of some kind. I also didn't think that the speech was solely motivated by politics. I am waiting to see how the NY Times and other media outlet will reinterpret the speech. I would guess that they will emphasize "the powerful Jewish" lobby theme. I am also curious to see how the Commentary commentators will spin this since Obama contradicted most of their cynical (because politically motivated) criticism of Obama's speech last week.

- arnon

May 22, 2011 at 11:31am

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

Just watched Obama address AIPAC. Hope there is some discussion here about that.

- basman

May 22, 2011 at 11:32am

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

J Goldberg's take: ...President Obama gave a very good speech to AIPAC: Tough on Hamas, tough on Iran, but also somewhat tough on Israeli procrastination. He understands Israel's dilemma in the same way Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert, Ehud Barak, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin understood their country's dilemma. Israel needs to find a way to maintain its democratic nature and its Jewish majority. Only compromise on the West Bank -- yes, a return to 1967 borders, with some obvious adjustments (and the President was much more clear today than he was on Thursday on what the term "land-swap" means) will help Israel maintain itself as a Jewish democracy, and will protect it from becoming an international pariah. And by the way, Israel's biggest and most effective defender on the international stage in the coming months will be... Barack Obama. He made that crystal-clear. He opposes the unilateral bid for Palestinian independence in a very forthright way. Now it is up to Prime Minister Netanyahu to listen to Israel's friend in the White House... Sounds right to me.

- basman

May 22, 2011 at 11:44am

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

Arnon I agree with your observations: 05/22/2011 - 11:31am EDT |

- basman

May 22, 2011 at 11:45am

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

JLTV is broadcasting AIPAC live, and Steny Hoyer should be the Democratic President (I have always preferred Hoyer to Pelosi) based on his powerful speech - almost a continuous standing ovation. Obama actually said "Israeli allies" (with a slight choke), but still can NOT say "defensible borders". He clarified what he meant on Thursday by "1967 lines with mutual swaps".

- K2K

May 22, 2011 at 11:51am

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

you all really should have heard Steny Hoyer first, and then President Obama. Quite a contrast in credibility. JLTV is covering all of AIPAC live except for the breakout sessions: Sunday afternoon plenary 5-7pm Monday morning plenary 8:30-10:15 Monday banquet (Netanyahu) 7-10 pm Tuesday plenary 8:30-10:30 am

- K2K

May 22, 2011 at 11:55am

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

"Obama actually said "Israeli allies" (with a slight choke), but still can NOT say "defensible borders" His whole speech was about defensible borders. You are a good Republican, K2k. I heard Hoyer's speech. I liked the speech, but had he been President I doubt he would have given the same speech.

- arnon

May 22, 2011 at 12:24pm

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

The NY Times article on the speech was predictable. The writer spent most of her time justifying their own view and said that Obama's speech today was equally critical? This is a crock. She dismissed most of his the comments that contradicted her reporting as "fulsome" and said that saying that the 1967 borders will be the framework for negotiations was more important than his insistence on land swaps. She is a good loyal NY Times reporter with an agenda.

- arnon

May 22, 2011 at 12:33pm

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

Another rare rational commentary on Obama's views: "Obama's Historic Mideast Gamble" by Leslie H. Gelb http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-21/obamas-historic-mideast-gamble/?cid=hp:mainpromo3

- arnon

May 22, 2011 at 12:49pm

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

noga1: "'It's odd that it seems to be easier for Israelis to criticize the Israeli government than for Americans to do so.' "Of course. Americans are also sensitive about Israelis criticizing Obama. Or haven't you noticed? What's odd about it?" What's odd is that those who are under an "existential threat" seem more tolerant of opposing views than those who are not. I find that more than a bit strange. K2K: "Obama actually said 'Israeli allies' (with a slight choke), but still can NOT say 'defensible borders'" K2K, what borders would you consider to be "defensible" in an area that's so small to begin with? If there aren't any really defensible borders, then how can this be a critical issue?

- dsimon

May 22, 2011 at 2:07pm

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

I agree with Noga on the general point of RoR. I've changed my mind on this, not that anyone is going to be all that interested, but now it appears to me to be both dangerous and self-contradictory to conclude a treaty that essentially creates a new nation-state and simultanously calls into being a constitutional right for potential subjects of that state to live on the territory of the neighboring state -- whether or not they exercise that right.

- ironyroad

May 22, 2011 at 3:07pm

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

ironyroad, I thought that Obama said that the issue of "refugees" will not be part of the negotiation process at this point. I doubt very much any Israeli government not just this one will sign an accord that includes the "right of return" in any form.

- arnon

May 22, 2011 at 3:41pm

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

Questions have been raised as to why Obama did not outright explicitly reject a Palestinian right of return--just he has been principled about other points--but instead took the view that it, like Jersualem, is an issue to be negotiated down the road or at final status talks. My own amatueur's view is that all understand, including Abbas, that the ror as such is a non starter but is amenable to some tweaking/tinkering negotiating, just as Olmert and Abbas were trying to do as revealed by the Wikileaks documents. So there is *something* to negotiate on that issue, albeit at the margin, and outright rejecting of it now seems tactically and strategically self defeating and ham handed for anyone who seriously wants just to get negotiations going. I reject out of hand the argument that Israel dare not even broach a symbolic reckoning with that issue for fear of it overspilling. That's quite to confuse symbol with reality and to allow the perspective from the bottom of the slope that no one's slipped down to dominate.

- basman

May 22, 2011 at 3:55pm

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

Netanyahu reportedly pleased with O's speech: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4072373,00.html

- basman

May 22, 2011 at 4:00pm

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

Just to clarify -- I wasn't reacting to Obama's speech but just had a reflection on RoR in response to comments by others, especially on the question of whether a symbolic RoR would be effective -- I previously would have argued for a symbolic RoR but I'm now inclined to think that it could offer a foothold to rejectionist Palestinians who would look to translate the symbolic act into a real event. Even if there was no RoR in a final agreement including statehood, I assume that Israel would continue to have an immigration policy that could, in a normal world, permit Palestinians (and others) to come to Israel, but that would be on the basis of policy, not on the basis of some constitutionally validated "right." One would hope for a great deal of commercial and economic overlap between Israel and Palestine, in fact. So Israel can be strict on drawing the line at RoR, whether real or symbolic. On the other hand, however, I see no reason why Israel can't be generous on East Jerusalem.

- ironyroad

May 22, 2011 at 4:42pm

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

ironyroad “Just to clarify -- I wasn't reacting to Obama's speech but just had a reflection on RoR in response to comments by others, especially on the question of whether a symbolic RoR would be effective -- I previously would have argued for a symbolic RoR but I'm now inclined to think that it could offer a foothold to rejectionist Palestinians who would look to translate the symbolic act into a real event.” I understood and I agree with your current position. The issue of refugees has purposely been misunderstood by most “Human rights” groups. Genuine refugees have usually been absorbed by the countries they settled in within a generation or two. The Arab states used the Arab Palestinian problem to continue their war against the Jewish State by other means. That the UN participated in this form of warfare doesn’t speak well for that organizations impartiality on the Arab Israeli conflict. If the Palestinians get their way on the “refugees” then Israel will not be the only loser. It would threaten the peace of Europe and other countries will also use a “refugee problem” to provoke their neighbors. In Europe alone there are millions upon millions refuges and their descendants from WW2. Many of them will also demand a right to their homes in The Czech republic Poland and elsewhere. Then there is another issue: Libya and Syria and other countries ruled by tyrannies dispose of their internal opposition by creating refuges who then go to Europe and elsewhere. Tyrannical regimes then in as much as they create refuges can be said to be aggressors against other countries. Refugees change the demographics of a country and introduce values (such as antisemitism in the case of Arab refugees) that are inimical to democratic rule. Israel then isn’t the only country at risk from artificially manufactured refuge problems.

- arnon

May 22, 2011 at 5:34pm

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

ironyroad: "I previously would have argued for a symbolic RoR but I'm now inclined to think that it could offer a foothold to rejectionist Palestinians who would look to translate the symbolic act into a real event." Rejectionist Palestinians are going to be rejectionist regardless of whether there is an RoR or not. But some limited RoR might mollify part of the Palestinian population even if it doesn't end up applying to them. arnon: "In Europe alone there are millions upon millions refuges and their descendants from WW2. Many of them will also demand a right to their homes in The Czech republic Poland and elsewhere." I see no evidence that that would happen. People have been settled where they are for a long time now, and it takes a lot to move and start an entirely new life elsewhere, especially two generations removed. As I noted above, a 2003 survey showed that even most Palestinians would not move back to what is now Israel even if they were given the right to do so. Anyway, it's clear that an unfettered RoR won't be part of the deal. Both sides are going to get only part of what they want if they want to make a deal, and the broad outlines of that deal have been painfully obvious for a long time. The problem is allowing rejectionists and absolutists on both sides to block any progress.

- dsimon

May 22, 2011 at 8:39pm

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

Refugees in Europe: the political consequences are still there just under the surface: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944%E2%80%931950)#Political_issues "In January 1990 the Czechoslovakian President Vaclav Havel requested forgiveness on his country's behalf, notably using the term expulsion rather than transfer.[225][226] Public approval for Havel's stance was limited; in a 1996 opinion poll, 86% of Czechs stated they would not support a party that endorsed such an apology.[227] The expulsion topic also surfaced in 2002 during the Czech Republic's application for membership in the European Union, since the authorisation decrees issued by Edvard Beneš had not been formally renounced.[228] A Centre against Expulsions was to be set up in Berlin by the German government based on an initiative and with active participation of the German Federation of Expellees. The Centre's creation has been criticized in Poland.[229] It was strongly opposed by the Polish government and president Lech Kaczyński. Current Polish prime minister Donald Tusk restricted his comments to a recommendation that Germany pursue a neutral approach at the museum.[229] According to the Polish position, the centre seeks to paint a population of Germans as victims of World War II. Many in Poland argue that there is no moral equivalent to how Jews, Poles, Russians, Romani people and many others suffered at the hands of the German Nazis.[230] Now the only real project is named "Visual Sign" (Sichtbares Zeichen). In October 2009 the Czech President Vaclav Klaus stated that the Czech Republic would require exemption from the European Charter of Fundamental Rights in order to ensure that the descendents of expelled Germans were unable to press claims against the Republic.[231]" I am sure that the right wing in Europe is watching developments in the Middle East.

- arnon

May 22, 2011 at 8:52pm

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

Here is more: "Germany provokes anger over museum to refugees who fled Poland during WWII Germany has provoked anger in Poland over plans to build a museum dedicated to German refugees who fled or were expelled from Poland after the Second World War. "Chancellor Angela Merkel is being pressed by the German Federation of Expellees to decide on a controversial museum that will depict refugees' post-War experiences, despite a potential backlash from Warsaw." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/4841432/Germany-provokes-anger-over-museum-to-refugees-who-fled-Poland-during-WWII.html

- arnon

May 22, 2011 at 8:55pm

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

basman, The Elliot Abrams view on settlement growth was discussed here at length some time back. I cannot recall the whole thing, but here is Abrams take: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588743827950599.html I recall that some of the history as that the meeting with Weissglas where he took away the impression that the US was condoning settlement growth, despite the plain language of the Road Map, was actually a meeting organized by and attended by Abrams and some other foreign policy subaltern in the Bush administration. Weissglas then writes to Rice and never receives a reply. Somehow, this is taken by Abrams as US agreement. Among the problems with this is that the Road Map was an undertaking not only with the US but with the Quartet, including Russia, the EU, and the UN. It would not have been for the US to enter into a side agreement to the contrary. Abrams interpretation is that the US agreed although there is no record of any authority higher than Abrams himself so agreeing. It appears as or more likely that Abrams himself undertook, on his own, to create a record that would undermine the Road Map because he and his Israeli friends didn't like the policy his seniors, the responsible parties, had established. His claims that discussion of various alternatives is the same as agreement is particularly unconvincing. If there had been agreement, other then the agreement Abrams himself led Weissglas to believe existed, there would have been a record other than Weissglas's unanswered letter. Should we be surprised that Elliot Abrams undertook on his own to undermine US policy to make it more favorable to Israel? I think not.

- roidubouloi

May 22, 2011 at 9:39pm

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

"Both sides are going to get only part of what they want if they want to make a deal, and the broad outlines of that deal have been painfully obvious for a long time." Not to Israel. Israel still imagines that it is going to make a deal in which the Palestinians surrender their claims west of the Green Line AND Israel keeps its illegal settlements east of the Green Line. In exchange, Israel offers land that it doesn't much want and that the Palestinians don't want either. The key element of what Obama says is that the land swaps have to be "agreed upon." If one is bargaining for mutual exchange, that means that, to get the land it wants, Israel would have to offer the Palestinians land they want as much or more. That's how bargains are struck. Each side gets something it wants more. Thus far, Israel has insisted on incorporating settlements but has shown no inclination to offer the Palestinians value in exchange, such as a right of return or land that the Palestinians do want. Hence, no deal to date. Israel hews to this position because it has believed that it can simply hold the Palestinians and their state hostage until they fold. But that is not so. The ability of Israel to deny the Palestinians their state is waning. Likewise the ability of Israel to occupy the West Bank.

- roidubouloi

May 22, 2011 at 9:49pm

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

As to the timing of the negotiation, Oslo consigned the question of refugee rights to final settlement. Now Israel is demanding the the Palestinians concede this core claim in advance not only of final settlement but of the commencement of the negotiations for a final settlement. What sort of idiot gives up his biggest bargaining chip in advance of negotiations? Yet, this is what Israel now insists the Palestinians do. That is not good faith on Israel's part. It is nothing but Netanyahu's latest gambit to prevent negotiations. Why? Because he knows that at the end of the negotiations he will have one of three choices he does not want: abandonment of the settlements, land swaps for the settlements that the Palestinians will freely accept (including more of Jerusalem than Israel wants to yield), or giving the US the finger and expecting the US to continue still to pay a diplomatic price for Israel's settlement activity. For Netanyahu, there is no plausible outcome of negotiations that he will accept. He doesn't want peace, he wants land. Hence, he avoids negotiations and puts in their way whatever stumbling block he can.

- roidubouloi

May 22, 2011 at 9:58pm

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

roid: "Israel still imagines that it is going to make a deal in which the Palestinians surrender their claims west of the Green Line AND Israel keeps its illegal settlements east of the Green Line." I think it may be inaccurate to describe the "Israeli" position this way. It could very well be (and I think some say it is) the case that most Israelis would give up settlements that don't border the Green Line, but Israeli coalition politics gives inordinate power to small conservative blocs that prevent the present government from doing so--just as internal Palestinian politics may give inordinate sway to rejectionists. The land swap may not have to be settlement land for land of equal value. An agreement won't just get Palestinians land; they will get statehood as part of the deal. Each aspect of the deal doesn't have to be looked at in isolation, and swaps may serve a partially symbolic and face-saving function as well as a practical one.

- dsimon

May 23, 2011 at 12:49am

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

Yes, dsimon, I understand very well that Israel's strategy is to hold Palestinian statehood hostage so that it does not have to swap land that the Palestinians regard as being of equal value. I just think the evidence is now fairly abundant that this strategy is not going to work. That deal has already been rejected by the Palestinians three times. The reason appears rather obvious to me, yet Israel persuades itself that the thrice-rejected deal is still what is going to happen once the Palestinians "really want peace." I think the question rather is whether Israel really wants peace sufficiently to abandon its real estate fantasies. So far the evidence is no. Then the question becomes, whose position gains strength with the passage of time? I think the answer to that is clearly the Palestinians. Hence, the deal that Israel wants disappears behind the ship with time. The entire world regards the settlements as illegal in the first place (with the exception of the US that has been on both sides of that issue -- or rather held them illegal at one point and then declined to state a legal opinion on the grounds that they were "bad policy" and one need look no further). Whether it is in September or sometime in the next couple of years, as long as the Palestinian Authority can avoid an eruption of violence, another intifada, a Palestinians state will come into being and the UN will start weighing on Israel to end the occupation, even if security arrangements of various kinds remain in place. To me, it would make far more sense to accept the political realities and negotiate the best deal it can. But Israel instead pines for the deal it cannot have and so fritters away its remaining time.

- roidubouloi

May 23, 2011 at 7:28am

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

As I told a friend yesterday, the palestinians already have a state. It is called Jordan. The more I study this, the more I am convinced that the Jewish State of Israel's eastern border is the Jordan River. Plenty of Muslim countries who can offer palestinians citizenship instead of keeping them in refugee camps unto the fifth generation as Lebanon and Syria have done... C-Span2 sort of says their AIPAC coverage starts at 8:40 pm, with Harry Reid and John Boehner preceding Netanyahu. JLTV will have complete coverage 7-10. and, of course, C-Span1 will broadcast Netanyahu's address to the joint session of congress on Tuesday, which will be a nice change from the debt ceiling fiasco-debate. do any of you Netanyahu-bashers realize that Germany's Angela Merkel will not talk to Obama except under durress? The O is not good at his main job of "conducting foreign relations". arnon: I am still a registered Democrat in Eliot Engel's NY 17th CD. Exposure to Obama's leftwing Israel-bashing base in 2008, Ryan Lizza's July 2008 profile of Obama as Chicago pol in The New Yorker and Jeffrey Goldberg's Sept 2008 compare/contrast of Obama and McCain's world view in The Atlantic are what stopped my automatic Democratic Party line voting. Obama's moves relating to the I-P conflict are only ONE reason I will not vote for him again - but I am a steadfast supporter of Engel even though I am always a fiscal conservative, disapproving of Democratic spending policies as the treasonous GOP tax-cutting litmus test. My Senator Chuck Schumer was anointed "Senator FOR Wall Street" by the New York Times. Truly unfortunate that no one in what remains of the Democratic Party will challenge Obama for the nomination.

- K2K

May 23, 2011 at 11:12am

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

roid: "That deal has already been rejected by the Palestinians three times. The reason appears rather obvious to me" I'm not so sure that it's obvious. A deal was apparently very close at the end of the Clinton administration, but Arafat tragically walked away. Again, I think it's an example of both sides letting their more radical elements control the process, but I'm privy neither to the negotiations nor the inner thoughts of the negotiators. It would be nice for both sides to accept the "political realities." And I'm still waiting for those who reject the broad outlines we've been discussing to offer anything that's more realistic.

- dsimon

May 23, 2011 at 12:24pm

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

Roi when you’re right, you’re right. Thanks for taking the trouble to dig up Abrams’s op ed which refreshes my failed recollection of those issues and our rather “vigorous” exchanges, along with others, about them in their broader scope. I won’t re-engage the entirety of those issues but on the narrow point I asked you about, you’re right: Abrams’s assertions go past Bush’s recognition of the reality of a final deal departing in places from the 1949 lines and self evidently include the proposition that there existed an agreement in principle between those administrations as to Israeli “natural settlement growth.” I do remember now Weisglass making comments to the effect that the pull out from Gaza was meant, among other thing, to provide a diverting smoke screen for Israeli settlement consolidation in the West Bank.

- basman

May 23, 2011 at 12:54pm

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

Basmna, nice to know my memory is not totally shot to hell. ___________________ Supposedly the deal on allowing Israel to keep the settlements is always close, but never manages to close. I think the reason for that is that it is simply politically unpalatable for the Palestinians. And I understand exactly why that would be the case. You cannot make a deal by asking the other side to surrender its claims, take what you want, and offer some figleaf compensation that neither you nor the other side wants. That has been the Israeli position, born of the delusion that time is on Israel's side and that, with the US standing at its side, it can afford this sort of intransigence on the Palestinian's core issues. No one should imagine that the US has been evenhanded in these negotiations. It has been trying to get the Palestinians to accept the Israeli position while abandoning their own. Trapped on two sides and trying to see their way forward, they allow the negotiations to head down the Israeli path. And then they say no. And they will continue to say no. Because what Israel offers them stinks. It is in its essence punitive, like Versailles, more a prescription for more war than for peace. If Israel wants the Palestinians to give up their claims west of the Green Line, it is going to have to pay a stiff price for the Palestinians to accept. The stiff price is the abandonment of the illegal settlements. OR the two sides might actually compromise, with some settlements remaining in Palestine in exchange for some Palestinian returnees to Israel.

- roidubouloi

May 23, 2011 at 1:29pm

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

"But some limited RoR might mollify part of the Palestinian population even if it doesn't end up applying to them." Anyone with a some realistic command of the history of the conflict ought to realize that there is no "mollifying" the Palestinins. If you want to understand EXACTLY what the mindset is, I suggest you read the Angry Arab blog. HE represents most closely how Palestinians and Arabs are to be appeased. Here is one example: "On this sad day, one should pledge to the people of Palestine that: We shall not forget; we shall not forgive, ever. That we shall count your dead and injured, one by one. That we know that all Israeli crimes are registered in notebooks--as Mahmud Darwish had said. We pledge that we are committed to: No peace with Israel. No Negotiation with Israel. No recognition of Israel. That all the deeds and treaties by Arab tyrants represent their oil and their polygamous ruling families and the external backers they have. That they don't ever speak for the Arab people. We pledge full return AND compensation. And when Palestine is liberated, we should ensure a safe and peaceful and democratic and secular transfer of power. All flags of Zionist occupation will be discarded but can be used as bathroom mats--we should commit to recycling in liberated Palestine. " As I said, the time for "mollifying" the Palestinians expired after Camp David. No people, whose peace proposal was rejected by the launching of a murderous campaign, is ever going to forget or agree to give them another chance.

- noga1

May 23, 2011 at 7:19pm

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

noga1: "Anyone with a some realistic command of the history of the conflict ought to realize that there is no 'mollifying' the Palestinins." Anyone with any knowledge of even recent history ought to know that the negotiators at the end of the Clinton administration said they were extremely close to an agreement. Tragically, Arafat walked away--probably driven by fears of the extremists in his own population rather than by the will of most of his constituents. The actions by both sides haven't help the situation since then, but that doesn't mean that other actions might not reverse the trend. Of course, it will be hard to do so as long as each side holds itself blameless and blames only the other folks. "I suggest you read the Angry Arab blog. HE represents most closely how Palestinians and Arabs are to be appeased." I suggest you not rely on a sample size of one to reinforce your own views. I'm sure you could find, if you wanted to, statements by Palestinians saying the opposite of the Angry Arab. How would you know which represents a majority view? Go get a poll. Get some data. Or admit that maybe we just don't know. And I'll ask yet again: what's the better solution than the one that's been around since Clinton? What's the alternative? It's not enough to say "this proposal is flawed." The status quo cannot prevail without turning Israel into an apartheid state, permanently occupying the West Bank. Is that somehow better, more defensible, more conducive to Israel's long-term existence? Is it sustainable?

- dsimon

May 23, 2011 at 8:52pm

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

" I'm sure you could find, if you wanted to, statements by Palestinians saying the opposite of the Angry Arab." If you are sure, you ought to be able to produce such statements. Statements by Sari Nusseibeh or Abu Toameh, the only two Palestinians who are amenable to the two-state solution as Israelis understand it, (two states for two peoples) are excluded. "Or admit that maybe we just don't know." I'm perfectly willing to concede that you don't know. When you say "Anyone with any knowledge of even recent history ought to know that the negotiators at the end of the Clinton administration said they were extremely close to an agreement." And then you continue "Tragically, Arafat walked away--probably driven by fears of the extremists in his own population rather than by the will of most of his constituents." you in effect reinforce my contention: that it's not those imaginary "moderates" that represent the true mindset but rather the extreme voice of someone like AA. In fact, considering that he is not openly calling for extermination and expulsion he might even be presumed to be a moderate, in Palestinian terms.

- noga1

May 23, 2011 at 9:14pm

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

No doubt about it. If the Palestinians harbor hatred against Israelis, the thing to do is colonize them and keep on colonizing them. That is certainly going to lead to a reduction in hatred and to a peaceful solution. How could it not? When Abbas says he wants to go to the UN for recognition of a Palestinian state within the Green Line, that sure sounds like a two-state solution to me. It is claiming what the Palestinians have always been entitled to since the 1948 partition in less land than they were awarded by the partition. Abbas also says they will then pursue the claims of refugees through international organizations and legal institutions. Noga then links with approval to a Commentary article that explains that this is tantamount to war and the refusal of the Palestinians to accept a two-state solution. So, war is war, and eschewing war and adopting the route of peaceful appeal to international institutions is also war. On that basis, it is impossible for the Palestinians not to be making war unless the surrender their claims upon Israel. And THAT is exactly what Israel equates with peace. Not peace in fact, not the absence of violence, not two states, but the acquiescence of the Palestinians to the extinction of their claims. That, however, is not the proper province of war. It the Palestinians were able to satisfy one and all that they had neither the means not the intention of violence against Israel, would Israel be entitled to maintain its occupation simply to force the Palestinians to abandon their legal claims? Quite clearly not. But this is what Israel is doing. Israel want the Palestinians to surrender the claims of refugees west of the Green Line in exchange for Israel permitting them a state that is not Israel's to permit or withhold. The Palestinians have wised up and realized that they don't need Israel's recognition to have the state they were promised in 1948. The need the recognition of the same body that partitioned Palestine and legitimized both a Jewish state and an Arab state there. Israel can occupy Palestine; it does not have the power to deny statehood if the world will recognize it. If the Palestinians can prove their non-aggression, the world will then force Israel out of the West Bank, lock, stock and barrel. Not immediately, but over time. And the Palestinians will still have their legal claims to return to be pursued by legal means. To avoid this outcome, Israel does what it can to provoke continuing violence in order that the world will ignore the Palestinians and take seriously Israeli claims that there is no partner for peace. Nothing buys nothing. If Israel wants to extinguish Palestinian claims, it will have to offer an inducement. It offers none. Rather, it "offers" to keep its illegal settlements in exchange for patches of desert that Israel doesn't need and the Palestinians don't want. They would be fools to surrender their claims for nothing. What will Israel give to have not only a peaceful neighbor but the end of legal claims against it? It had best start thinking in those terms, but Netanyahu prefers to stonewall and procrastinate until events overtake him. This is not leading from behind or from the front. It is simply craven.

- roidubouloi

May 23, 2011 at 9:49pm

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

noga1: "I'm perfectly willing to concede that you don't know." And I'm willing to concede that you don't know either. You have produced no polls, no data, and without such data I don't know how you can be so confident in your evaluations. And having found statements that contradict the ones you choose to listen to, you exclude them (talk about "selection bias") you claim they are the "only" ones with opposing views, without any evidence to back it up. (Do you seriously think there are only two Palestinians out of the millions out there who would accept a two-state solution?). The plural of datum is not "anecdotes." "you in effect reinforce my contention: it's not those imaginary 'moderates' that represent the true mindset but rather the extreme voice of someone like AA." Not at all. After all, I could say the same thing about BN: that his true mindset represents the most extreme elements rather than a more moderate vision. But I don't think that's true of either: I think that the internal coalition politics on both sides give the extremists on both sides undue influence. Just because BN has to placate the far right to stay in power doesn't mean that the far right is the majority viewpoint. I'm still waiting for your alternative that leaves Israel in a better position for the long term.

- dsimon

May 24, 2011 at 12:12am

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

dsimon: I still think you are pretty clueless. At this point I'm not inclined to provide you with any polls, as I don't quite trust them, and therefore can never be a "proof" of anything. What I do is go to source: editorials, blogs, message boards, MEMRI translations, Watching America translations, Palestinian Media Watch, and I read what they are saying. I'm not going to take your word for it that it is all just bluster and bravado. YOU are not at any risk if your predictions turn out to be wrong. "I'm still waiting for your alternative that leaves Israel in a better position for the long term." As long as there is no clear renunciation of RoR (which is the equivalent of recognizing two states for two peoples), Israel ought to manage the conflict but not move an inch on any important issue. BTW, I notice that you have not really rebutted the statement I made just tried to distract by the usual ploy of you-twoism which is not even to the point. (Since Netanyahu's record shows that he could and did negotiate with Arafat and made some very unpopular concessions.)

- noga1

May 24, 2011 at 7:18am

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

PM Netanyahu addresses joint session of Congress at 11:00 am EDT on C-Span1. Last night, he said he would outline his idea of a plan. I would think one key element will be different textbooks and curricula in all palestinian classrooms. That was what the USA did as a priority in post-WW2 occupied Germany and Japan. The Reformation of Islam to accept freedom of religion and equality of non-Muslims will always be the real game-changer. and that does not appear to be happening anywhere in the Arab/Persian Dar-al-Islam.

- K2K

May 24, 2011 at 8:25am

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

"As long as there is no clear renunciation of RoR (which is the equivalent of recognizing two states for two peoples), Israel ought to manage the conflict but not move an inch on any important issue." This is the essence of the Israeli scam. Right here. The Oslo accords consign the matter of claims of refugees to the final status negotiations at which all key matters, borders, security, Jerusalem, settlements, and refugee claims are to be determined. There are five major issues. (It is noteworthy that Palestinian statehood is not among the issues mentioned as to be negotiated.) What Netanyahu and his supporters have done is to insist that the issue of refugee claims now be settled, in advance, by the unilateral renunciation by the Palestinians of their claims, claims that are not at all without foundation in human rights law. At that point, the Palestinians will have given up there major bargaining chip in exchange for nothing. A plausible compromise is that the Palestinians get most of what they want on borders and settlements -- their territory east of the Green Line intact -- while Israel gets most of what it wants on refugees and security, its territorial integrity and demography secured. And they compromise over Jerusalem. But Israel's current strategy is to demand the concession of a major point by the Palestinians, in contradistinction to Oslo, to make this compromise impossible. Everything left on the table will be in Israeli control. Hence, Israel makes negotiations impossible, as is its objective. The Palestinians have no partner for peace and have not for decades. Israel does not want peace, it wants more land out of the Arab partition. If it cannot have it legally, it will do what it can to preserve the status quo indefinitely and continue to hold and settle it illegally. Leaving aside the morality, it might be a fine tactic if time were on Israel's side. But it isn't. For years, Israel could rely on Palestinian ineptitude to avoid negotiations and not lose diplomatic support. No more. As the violence has died down, Israel has become almost completely isolated in the world, as the recent 14-1 vote in the Security Council shows. The Palestinians have figured out, better if not well, how to play the game. That is, I believe, a good thing. Only when Israel comes to understand that it cannot play the Arabs for fools forever will it come to the table for peace.

- roidubouloi

May 24, 2011 at 8:55am

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

One other thought occurs. Israel needs a settlement for a number of very important reasons all of which ought to be more important that a few apartments east of the Green Line. The most important of these is that it is unlikely that the status quo, an uncomfortable but not very violent or lethal conflict, can be maintained indefinitely without another round of hot war breaking out. This is likely to be increasingly costly to Israel due to the missiles stockpiled in Lebanon. They are no existential threat to Israel as they are not an effective offensive weapon. There is also no doubt that Israel can punish Lebanon with damage far in excess of what the missiles can inflict. But if Hezbollah is willing to endure punishment, and has, as is likely, the political strength to force the rest of Lebanon to endure it, then these missiles can cause a lot of damage and civilian casualties in Israel, possibly as far away as Tel Aviv. Modern high-tech economies do not do well when things start blowing up. Over time, the risk will only get worse. This goes to the fundamental point that, although the Palestinians can be defeated, the Arabs as a whole can never be defeated, not by Israel. The difference in size is simply too vast and the Arabs have sufficient wealth and importance due to their oil that they cannot be marginalized in the world. For these reasons, prolonging the state of no war, no peace is playing with fire. Second, it is without doubt more difficult to rally the world to resist Iranian nuclearization while this conflict goes on. Iran is well aware that, by supporting Hezbollah and Hamas and keeping the Palestinian-Israeli conflict at a simmer, it divides the Arab world and prevents it from coming together to back, and support with oil, decisive measures against it. If Israel obtained a peace that the Palestinians could embrace, the remaining nay-sayers in the Arab world would be marginalized and the Arabs would be free to turn their attention publicly and forcefully to the threat posed by Iran. Third, Israel cannot afford to be as isolated as it is now, and things will only get worse. It is very difficult for the world at large to summon the will to do anything. The leviathan turns painfully slowly. But once it has turned, it may not turn back easily or at all. Israel tempts fate by incurring the anger of the whole world with only the United States there to bar the door. The notion that any of these risks to its existence and security could possibly be worth the West Bank settlements astonishes me. Israel has allowed itself to be blinded by its desire for land that it cannot have.

- roidubouloi

May 24, 2011 at 12:17pm

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

"This is the essence of the Israeli scam. Right here. The Oslo accords consign the matter of claims of refugees to the final status negotiations at which all key matters," I deplore your vocabulary, roi. When Obama reneges on understandings made to Israel it is interests. When Israel, 20 years after Oslo,which has proved to be a disaster for Israelis (of whom over a 1,300 are no longer with us), is more robustly making a foundational demand, you call it a scam. Well, whatever. It's true that before Oslo and its bloody aftermath, Israelis tended to regard the Palestinian Charter as a temporary piece of insanity which good sense and interest would solve in time. They has this optimistic hope that things would just turn out as they should, that Palestinians are really only interested in their own statehood, bla bla bla. And here came reality and punched them in the face: Wye Accords, Lebanon, Camp DavidII, Clinton's "bridging proposals", Sharon and the Gaza evacuation, Olmert's proposals ... All attempts by Israelis to "mollify" Palestinians triggering more horrors and terrorism, more delegitimization of Israel, more demands made on Israel while poor Palestinians are gently let off the hook for their rejectionism, for their maximalist intractability. So now Israel has decided to draw a line in the sand and hooray to Netanyahu who made that very very clear to your president. The scam is a refusal to collaborate with Palestinians as they are bit by bit implementing their final solution, with the help of European hypocrites, a grotesquely leftist media, a corrupt academia, and such Israel lovers like you.

- noga1

May 24, 2011 at 1:04pm

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

http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/234/463.html "Though I was not invited to join the solemn occasion, I am hereby adding my signature to the “Declaration of Independence” of the Palestinian people. I have only one request from the engineers of this initiative: Please present to us the Palestinian intellectuals who support this declaration. I’m not asking for a thousand or a hundred such signatories. I’ll be happy with ten of them. Do they exist? Your declaration refers to “The UN resolution which called for partitioning the land of Palestine into two states: a Jewish-democratic nation state and an Arab democratic nation state”. This is a courageous and commendable position; one that part of the Left has already abandoned. If you recognize and accept this solution, more power to you. How come, then, that your declaration has been met with hostility? There now; could it be that the majority of Israelis are sick and tired of listening to people claiming they are to blame? We are fed up with the continuous distortions of the historical record. We are fed up with the fact that you systematically neglect the primary truth: the Arabs, not the Jews, rejected the partition resolution. They still do. It’s not that we need their recognition of our state as a Jewish state. It is our own busniness, how we define our state. But they reject even the formula of “two states for two peoples” because such a formula implies a de-facto recognition in the existence of a Jewish people. They refuse to admit such a reality. Who is the rejectionist? The problem is not your declaration. The problem is rooted in your attitude. Palestinians are looking at your spectacle and shake with mirth. Instead of explaining to the world that the Palestinians are the rejectionists, you explain to the world that it is all Israel’s fault. Yet, most Israelis recognize the right of Palestinians for self-determination. Most Palestinians -- certainly their leaders -- recoil from a similar recognition of the Jewish people. So who obstructs the path to peace in this situation? Please, enough with "It's the occupation!” card. This mantra no longer carries any traction. Once and twice and thrice Palestinians were offered a state and full independence but all they could do was repeat the same old refrain: No." The event responds to is this: ""Israeli left wing activists sign the 'Declaration of Independence from the Occupation' in favor of creating a Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines, during a demonstration in Tel Aviv, Israel, Thursday, April 21, 2011. Prominent Israeli left wing intellectuals and artists demonstrated Thursday in central Tel Aviv in favor of creating a Palestinian state based on the 1967 line marking the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem, and signed a 'Declaration of Independence from the Occupation', drawing a counter-demonstration of the opposing right wing camp. The 47 signatories of the declaration include 16 recipients of the Israel Prize, the country's highest civilian honor."

- noga1

May 24, 2011 at 1:08pm

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

noga1: "At this point I'm not inclined to provide you with any polls, as I don't quite trust them, and therefore can never be a 'proof' of anything....I'm not going to take your word for it that it is all just bluster and bravado." Well then I think it's a mistake to be so absolutely sure of one's opinions, as you appear to be. Perhaps the lack of "trust" is a reluctance to accept information that conflicts with one's world view. And I'm not asking you to take my word about bluster and bravado; I'm just asking you to back up your views with something more than the statements of those whom you choose to listen to. "As long as there is no clear renunciation of RoR (which is the equivalent of recognizing two states for two peoples), Israel ought to manage the conflict but not move an inch on any important issue." How is this a long term strategy? Do you think this is sustainable? (Never mind the fact that the rather obvious parameters of any deal will not involve an absolute right of return.) Does "managing the conflict" involve indefinite occupation of the territories? Is that feasible economically, militarily, politically, morally? I don't think you've described a viable alternative here. "I notice that you have not really rebutted the statement I made" I'm not sure what statement you're referring to. If it's the claim that Arafat's walking away at the end of the Clinton negotiations demonstrates his radicalism, one could equally well argue that his ability to get so close (as the negotiators thought was the case) demonstrates that that he wasn't as radical as some made him out to be--or that despite it, a pragmatic deal was still within reach if only other radical elements didn't have so much sway. If you have access to the inner thoughts of the participants, please let us know.

- dsimon

May 24, 2011 at 1:58pm

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

What do you mean by "sustainable"? Obama forcing the issue according to his "moral" understanding of the I/P conflict? Would that solution be "sustainable" in your view? "Sustainable" for whom? I lived in Petah-Tiqva during the Six Day war, a city 20 minutes away from Tel Aviv. During the first two or three nights, we could hear the guns from less than 5-7 miles away and see the lights flashing on the horizon. And we spent those nights in the bomb shelters. War was that close. I don't see any Israeli willing to return to those borders. It would take a real effort on the part of Palestinians to persuade Israelis to abandon the safe distance from actual battles. And a first step would be a genuine, clear and irrevocable renunciation of RoR. So that Israelis can begin to believe them that it is statehood they are after, which very few do, now. If you had the guts to read the Arab blogs, the Arab media, the available translations, you might be a little reluctant to believe any polls about Palestinians saying they agree to a two states for two peoples solution. Not that I think your poll ever made such a claim anyway, have they?

- noga1

May 24, 2011 at 2:57pm

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

Are 1967 border defensible? Definitely yes, according to this Norwgian editorial. And here is how they know it: http://www.israelwhat.com/2011/05/23/norwegian-arrogance-vg-finds-israels-1967-borders-perfectly-defendable/ "This plan has as one consequence an Israeli total withdrawal from a future Palestinian state; and any deviations from the 1967 borders must be concerning exchanges of land of which both parties are in agreement. However, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu reacted with wrath as he heard the President’s speech; this put its stamp upon the long planned meeting between the two in Washington the subsequent day. Netanyahu’s main argument is that the 1967 borders are indefensible. We do not believe this, the border could be defended in 1967- to the degree Israel occupied large tracts of land on the other side- and the Israelis relative strength is even greater today." What's one war more or less, eh? If Obama is wrong, why, Israel can fight another war and regain that land. Tout de suite.

- noga1

May 24, 2011 at 3:24pm

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

"Please, enough with "It's the occupation!” card. This mantra no longer carries any traction. Once and twice and thrice Palestinians were offered a state and full independence but all they could do was repeat the same old refrain: No." Yes, once, twice, thrice the Palestinians were offered a state with the illegal settlement blocs incorporated into Israel in exchange for some patches of desert that neither Israel nor the Palestinians want and surrender of their claims in Israel. Why would they accept a deal like that? Because Israel keeps insisting that this is "obviously" the settlement that will be? It is a deal for fools, or one that the Palestinian's are supposed to accept because Israel is holding them hostage. Of course the "defensible borders" claim is a scam. Try and explain how the borders become defensible because they include the "6% of the West Bank" just needed to incorporate the settlements. Go ahead, make my day. The very fact of this was once, twice, thrice offer gives the lie to the claim that the issue is at all Israel's security. Somehow Israel was once, twice, thrice able to consider its security needs satisfied so long as it got the settlements that have absolutely nothing to do with security. Defensible has nothing to do with military tactics or strategy and everything to do with whether the particular land in question is occupied by Jews or Arabs. That is actually farcical when you think about it. Yet we are all, again, supposed to accept this utter nonsense because of the crying and rending of garments about Israel's vulnerability. Based on its once, twice, thrice offer, it is apparent that Israel does not in fact consider itself vulnerable based on where the borders are, only on who lives there. The scam is that Israel pretends that its desire to incorporate the illegal settlements is somehow a matter of security and defensible borders when this is an obvious lie. Now, if you really want to define defensible borders, where would they be? Explain what borders east of the Green Line become "defensible" without incorporating lots of Palestinians as citizens of Israel.

- roidubouloi

May 24, 2011 at 9:39pm

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

"And a first step would be a genuine, clear and irrevocable renunciation of RoR." This goes right to the heart of Israeli perfidy. Despite the agreement at Oslo that this is a matter for the final settlement, along with the other key issues, Israel now demands that, in advance of negotiations, the Palestinians surrender their main bargaining chip, the one thing that Israel most wants from them, the abandonment of their claims west of the Green Line. Then, of course, the negotiations would be straight downhill for the Palestinians as they would already have given away their position. The Palestinians don't demand that Israel commit to abandon the settlements before negotiations of a final settlement begin. The do demand that Israel stop violating Oslo by changing the status quo to the detriment of the issues to be negotiated. Lest there be any doubt that this is so, we should recall again that in the years after Oslo Israel denied that settlement compromised a final agreement on the grounds that the settlements could always be removed. Now that the time has come to conclude a final settlement, Israel claims that it is impossible that the settlements be removed. Thus, the accusation that Israel was willfully violating Oslo all along is proven out of Israel's own mouth. Why given this absurd history of Israel exploiting fake claims, of security needs or of compliance with Oslo, in order to continue building its illegal settlements should anyone accept Israel's claim now that defensible borders are the reason why the 1967 lines are unacceptable? Objectively that is quite ridiculous.

- roidubouloi

May 24, 2011 at 9:53pm

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

We shall see whose "lines in the sand" endure. Netanyahu, the clod, has delusions. The only thing that stands between Israel and the rest of the world is the US veto in the Security Council. So, Israel laying down lines for the US is ridiculous. Whatever the US will accede to there will be done, and Israel has no power to defy the whole world. Let's see what happens come September, shall we? Let's see just how much effort Obama exerts to defeat UN, and particularly European, recognition of a Palestinian state.

- roidubouloi

May 24, 2011 at 10:02pm

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

"What do you mean by 'sustainable'?" Sustainable over, say, the next 30 or 40 years. Can Israel maintain the status quo with a rapidly expanding West Bank population? Can it do so without wrecking its economy, its military, its political relations? Is that any less risky than the general outlines of the deal that most people think has been the obvious resolution for decades? "War was that close." Yes, any agreement entails risk. So saying the general outlines which have been obvious to all entails risk doesn't advance the argument, nor does it put forward a more viable alternative. "you might be a little reluctant to believe any polls about Palestinians saying they agree to a two states for two peoples solution. Not that I think your poll ever made such a claim anyway, have they?" Polls have their flaws, and one must be wary, but they're not to be discounted just because the results may differ from what one would otherwise believe. And I did cite a recent poll showing a strong plurality of Palestinians in favor of a two state solution. In case you missed it, here is what I wrote earlier in this thread: "And as recently as 2007, poll data showed a strong plurality of 46% of Palestinians supporting a two-state solution, with 26% supporting a bi-national state, and a quarter supporting neither (whatever that means). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_solution"

- dsimon

May 24, 2011 at 11:00pm

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

dsimon: Your answers are non-answers, They are just argumentative stuff. When you say ", any agreement entails risk" about the difference between a hot frontier being 7 miles and 20 miles away from central residential blocks I think you exhibit your basic absence of understanding of Israel's realities. You also appear to be lazy. A poll from 2007? Are you kidding me? And what does your poll say about RoR, which I keep repeating is the heart of the matter?? Find me a poll that says that Palestinians are soberly considering that it is non-applicable. The fomula is two states for two people, Not one and a half states for Palestinians and half a state for Jews, as a religious minority (if at all), not a people.

- noga1

May 25, 2011 at 6:30am

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

Since Israel has thus far refused to offer anything (other than Israel's keeping the land it most wants in the West Bank) . . . Let's start over. Since Israel has thus far refused to offer anything that the Palestinians want in exchange for their conceding their core demand, their claimed right of return, we have no idea whether the Palestinians will concede this as part of a final settlement. What is, however, perfectly clear from the course of the negotiations thus far is that incorporating the largest blocs of illegal settlements into Israel has been more important to Israel than concluding a peace. We know for certain that Israel has not offered to withdraw entirely from the West Bank (even with border modifications that might plausibly be said to make them more defensible) in exchange for the Palestinians abandoning their claims west of the Green Line. This despite Israel's insistence while building the settlements that they did not change the status quo in violation of Osle because they could be abandoned in the context of a final peace agreement.

- roidubouloi

May 25, 2011 at 7:39am

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

Two states meaning, according to Israel, we keep our state plus the pieces of yours that we most want.

- roidubouloi

May 25, 2011 at 7:40am

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

The only workable deal, from this outsider's point of view, is complete removal of Israeli settlements from the WB, some kind of deal on East Jerusalem that protects general access across the city (something like East Berlin and West Berlin without the Wall, perhaps, when many people actually lived in one sector and worked in the other, but with the Wall if needed), and complete and open renunciation of Palestinian RoR for all Israeli territory from the moment the treaty is signed. Some fudge with land swaps might be done. But a kind of weird quasi-occupation with Israeli forces patrolling the new Palestine-Jordan border won't fly, so there's no point in even thinking about it. However, drone technology is advancing so rapidly that it should be possible to keep the area under permanent surveillance anyhow. The question is how quickly parties will arrive at the understanding that that's the only option that's going to work. Soon, or a couple of wars hence? The two great advantages of such a deal would be that Israel will be relieved of a deadly global reputation, whether deserved or not, as an occupying power that wants to stay, and Palestinians will be relieved of the grinding frustration of an ethnic-cleansing fantasy that can't be fulfilled.

- ironyroad

May 25, 2011 at 1:35pm

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

"complete removal of Israeli settlements from the WB," In another thread Sophia asks: "How much more ethnic cleansing do Jews have to undergo? From Jerusalem - again? Of all places?" And ironyroad's answer: Just one more and we'll be done.

- noga1

May 25, 2011 at 3:17pm

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

Noga, removal of settlements from another country's territory -- for, presumably, the creation of another country is the very core of the whole exercise -- as a result of a formal agreement or treaty is NOT ethnic cleansing and to suggest it is involves deliberately ignoring the rest of my comment and its general import. I don't understand the reference to Sophia's remark -- I mentioned specifically a model that would allow all-areas access to Jerusalem on the old East-West Berlin idea. If that could work, then nobody will be "cleansed." Indeed, one thing that popped into my memory puzzles me -- while I agree that a mandatory removal from, say, Jewish neighborhoods close to E. Jerusalem would come close to ethnic cleansing, what would be the appropriate term for the mandatory transfer to Palestine of small areas (villages and the like) in Israel with Arab-majority populations? I was very surprised a year or so ago when I found out that for such entities (the inhabitants are presumably Israeli Arabs), this solution would be considered, and I asked about it here. If I recall, the answers I got (yours might have been included) supported the idea. It seemed a bit odd to me that people with one nationality might suddenly have it changed without their say-so. In any case, I think a complete renunciation of RoR is feasible, but it won't be gift-wrapped at the outset of negotiations, as indeed it's within Israel's power to be, as a final gesture, generous on East Jerusalem but only if what's gone before legitimizes that move.

- ironyroad

May 25, 2011 at 3:52pm

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

"what would be the appropriate term for the mandatory transfer to Palestine of small areas (villages and the like) in Israel with Arab-majority populations?" Ehud Barak proposed this possibility to Arafat who categorically refused it. He wanted territories free of any people. As for the "nationality" question, you might want to ponder this issue in light of these declarations: http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/5308.htm ""As a Palestinian, like all Palestinians, I have no love for Israel – its government, its regime, or its state... [But] why do we supply ammunition to those who lie in wait for us? Is it impossible to take up a stance that is at once just and wise? Our way was and still is to survive, to strengthen our identity, to fight for all of our rights, and to influence the Jewish public toward peace, equality, democracy, and social justice for all peoples and residents..." The speaker is Secretary of Israeli Communist Hadash Party.

- noga1

May 25, 2011 at 4:36pm

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

BTW, history shows that when Arab Muslims control areas in which Jewish holy places are located, access becomes very dangerous for Jews, if not impossible. Here is one example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph%27s_Tomb#Since_2000 "As of 2009, monthly visits to the tomb in bullet-proof vehicles under heavy IDF protection are organised by the Yitzhar based organization Shechem Ehad.[65] In late April 2009, a group of Jewish worshipers found the headstone smashed and swastikas painted on the walls, as well as boot prints on the grave itself.[66] In August 2010, it was reported that the IDF and the Palestinian Authority reached an agreement on renovating the site. Israel's chief rabbis, Yona Metzger and Shlomo Amar, visited and prayed at the tomb along with 500 other worshippers, the first such visit by a high-ranking Israeli delegation in 10 years.[67][68][69] On April 24 2011, a Palestinian security officer opened fire on Israeli cars of worshipers after they finished praying at Joseph's tomb. One Israeli was killed and three others were wounded. Both the Israeli Defense Forces and Palestinian Authority have ordered investigations into the incident. According to an initial investigation, three cars full of Israelis entered the compound of Joseph's Tomb without coordination with Israeli or Palestinian forces and then tried to break through a local checkpoint.[70]" I once saw a BBC report on the place in which the reporter made fun of the idea that this was supposed to be the Joseph's tomb. I never saw any BBC report making fun of the idea that Jerusalem is sacred to Muslims because they believe Muhammad flew there in a dream one night. So much for the rationality of that "deadly global reputation" attached to Israel, which you speak of.

- noga1

May 25, 2011 at 4:43pm

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

Although not so black-and-white here: "A Palestinian policeman securing the site was wounded and subsequently died." Killed by Palestinians in 2000. I'm not sure what your example means. I don't think you mean that a particular religious site should be permitted to derail a larger solution. You may simply mean that populist surges of hatred will inevitably make all formal arrangements meaningless, and in that I defer to your experience. From my irritatingly pragmatic American view, however, I would hope that a Palestinian state, for whom healthy social and economic relations with Israel will be a lot more productive than studied avoidance, would do its best to secure normal access to Jewish religious sites on its territory, but if it can't or won't, only moral pressure (diplomacy) can be brought to bear. In the case of an independent Palestine desiring full membership in international cultural organizations, for example, failure to protect historic sites doesn't do one's reputation any good.

- ironyroad

May 25, 2011 at 5:41pm

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

"I'm not sure what your example means." I couldn't be any clearer, ironyroad: "history shows that when Arab Muslims control areas in which Jewish holy places are located, access becomes very dangerous for Jews, if not impossible." Your trust in international organizations to act morally is touching.

- noga1

May 25, 2011 at 6:28pm

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

I understand the words perfectly, but not the implications you may or may not be attaching to them. Do you mean that the question of what would be Jewish religious sites on (speculatively) Palestinian national territory would be a deal-breaker for any final Israel-Palestine treaty, even if agreement on substantially more important matters such as RoR were possible? To put it another way, I'm not disputing the historical factuality of what you say, but asking for clarification on how important that issue is against the wider question of a solution to the I/P conflict. I don't think I can be clearer.

- ironyroad

May 25, 2011 at 7:25pm

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

What I mean to say is that it is futile to pretend that arrangements made with the Palestinians can safeguard Jewish access to Jewish holy places. And the issue is very important to the very many Israelis who are religious. Cancellation of RoR is important and even essential, but it is not the only issue on which the Palestinians will have to compromise.

- noga1

May 25, 2011 at 9:04pm

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

Moslem Jerusalem will be hostage for Jewish access to Jewish holy sites. There could hardly be a better guarantee.

- roidubouloi

May 25, 2011 at 11:58pm

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

noga1: "Your answers are non-answers, They are just argumentative stuff." They are answers with what I can find are the best data available. By contrast, I think I get in response "argumentative stuff" backed up by anecdotes and restated as certainties. As for non-answers, I keep asking whether your alternative (which seems quite vague, "managing the conflict") is really a tenable option over the long term, and I don't seem to be getting a response. I'll ask again: "Can Israel maintain the status quo with a rapidly expanding West Bank population? Can it do so without wrecking its economy, its military, its political relations? Is that any less risky than the general outlines of the deal that most people think has been the obvious resolution for decades?" But I feel it's useless to argue; I suspect that no poll, no data, no evidence to the contrary would change your positions, so I won't ask again. "A poll from 2007? Are you kidding me?" It's better than no poll. And I think it's better than anecdotes. Again, anecdotes are not "data." "And what does your poll say about RoR, which I keep repeating is the heart of the matter?? Find me a poll that says that Palestinians are soberly considering that it is non-applicable." I did cite a poll about RoR. It was from 2003, and you responded to it. But you'll discard it immediately regardless of its validity. I'd love to have something more recent, but if you Google it you'll find that that extremists intimidated the person who conducted it and so it's no surprise there hasn't been a follow-up, another example of wingers having undue influence over the process. Those who yell and intimidate may represent the majority view, but it's a mistake to simply assume it; sometimes they're just the loudest. Again, it would be better to have evidence rather than speculation, and where there is little evidence, we should admit that we're dealing with speculation rather than certainty.

- dsimon

May 26, 2011 at 1:55am

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

I have all the evidence I need to make an educated speculation, dsimon. I prefer to taste the pudding to judge its quality, not rely on polls to tell me it stinks. There is the history, repeated patterns of behaviour,, records and now we have the internet to give us access to people's inner thoughts.

- noga1

May 26, 2011 at 7:41am

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

Thanks, Noga -- when you say that the issue is "very important to the very many Israelis who are religious" then that does make a lot of sense. It wasn't obvious from the earlier debate, however, and that makes me think that there are a lot of things not obvious to outsiders -- which I am, not being either Jewish or an expert on the border questions. Although I do pride myself on a reasonable amount of historical knowledge, I guess, some of which was gleaned here on the boards. I would however argue that -- being somewhat nitpicky here -- a complete renunciation of RoR is not a compromise for the Palestinians. It's a renunciation. It's the dangers of a fuzzy compromise for the future that made me change my mind on that whole question. But I don't pretend that it's just the same as trimming a bit here, trimming a bit there, and the question will inevitably arise as to what Israel will put on the table for such a complete renunciation, were it a possible gain.

- ironyroad

May 26, 2011 at 1:18pm

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

What Israel will put on the table is what it has put on the table: In "exchange" for the Palestinians abandoning their claims west of the Green Line, Israel graciously offers to keep what it most wants east of the Green Line while offering as compensation patches of desert that are of little value to anyone. The Palestinians would have to be fools to make such a deal, and so far they have refused to do so, once, twice, thrice, as noga puts it.

- roidubouloi

May 26, 2011 at 3:01pm

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

"It wasn't obvious from the earlier debate," It wasn't obvious because it has become sort of shameful for Jews to assert their religious sentiments. It's pretty extraordinary how often even people whose knowledge and understanding I admire and read with respect and attention feel the need to tell theor readers that they have not ever been in a synagogue or that they have never wanted to to reside in communities where there are many Jews, (just two examples that come to mind right away; I won't mention the names of the persons). There wouldn't be Zionism if it weren't for the fact that Jewish history began in Judea, and that Jews feel a strong attachment to that history and its geographical location. Spinoza it was who said very clearly that Judaism without its territoriality doesn't really make much sense. And for those who brag about how distant they are from all that, I can't but think a bit less of them. I do so hate any hint of rinocerism.

- noga1

May 26, 2011 at 3:53pm

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

rhinocerism

- noga1

May 26, 2011 at 5:37pm

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

noga1: "I have all the evidence I need to make an educated speculation, dsimon." Then I think you have set a low bar. "I prefer to taste the pudding to judge its quality, not rely on polls to tell me it stinks." Depends whether you're looking at the whole pudding, or only the portions that have spoiled. How do you know which is which, or whether you're only looking at selected portions? After all, the portions that don't stink aren't going to draw your attention. I think there could be all the reliable data in the world, and it wouldn't change your view because you'd find a way to discount it. Still waiting for an answer as to how your solution that Israel just continue to "manage the conflict" is viable over the long term.

- dsimon

May 26, 2011 at 8:37pm

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

"Still waiting for an answer " Don't wait. If I had a magic solution in which the Palestinians (Arabs) begin to act in accordance with normal, rational, human interests, I wouldn't be wasting my time speaking to someone like you in this forum.

- noga1

May 27, 2011 at 6:09am

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

"'Still waiting for an answer' "Don't wait." Then you don't really claim that your solution of "managing the conflict" (whatever that means) is any more viable than any other proposal. Thanks for the clarification. If you had said that earlier, I wouldn't have wasted my time either.

- dsimon

May 27, 2011 at 7:29pm

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

noga1: "If I had a magic solution in which the Palestinians (Arabs) begin to act in accordance with normal, rational, human interests..." Again, your evidence that the many if not most Palestinians will not necessarily act in those interests is not strong. There can be a difference between the people and the government because, as I've pointed out before, coalition politics can give undue weight to extremists. After all, Netanyahu has to placate the far right on a fairly regular basis, but does that mean most Israelis share those views? Yet you seem to implicate the views of the most extreme to all when it comes to the other side. And it's not as if Israel has done much to help the situation. If I were a Palestinian, and I see that when my side negotiates, Israel builds in what might by my land, and when my side doesn't negotiate, Israel still builds--wouldn't my suspicions be understandable? What if the situation were reversed and a Palestinian government was building in contested land being considered for a future Israeli state?

- dsimon

May 28, 2011 at 8:33am

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

You seem to have a natural understanding for Palestinian rejectionism, dsimon. It appears to be very easy for you to concoct excuses for the absence of any peace movement among them. Or maybe you know something I don't? Let me clear about it: I really don't think you have much to add to the discussion. Your arguments have been over chewed for a long time. They do not explain why Palestinians are still intent on the destruction of Israel rather than on the building of their own state. The Jews, let me remind you, managed to do that with a great deal less than is available for Palestinians and under a very hostile regime. Maybe because they actually wanted and needed their own state.

- noga1

May 28, 2011 at 4:37pm

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

noga1: "It appears to be very easy for you to concoct excuses for the absence of any peace movement among them." I think you are again lumping the extremists with all Palestinians. There is a peace movement, you just refuse to recognize it. It is incontrovertible that Israeli peace groups have been working with Palestinians for years. The strength of a Palestinian "peace movement" may be uncertain, but to say there is none is surely a huge overstatement. You say my arguments "do not explain why Palestinians are still intent on the destruction of Israel rather than on the building of their own state." But that statement is based on wrong assumptions. Arguments have no bearing on the facts, and the facts are that there has been little violence from the West Bank in recent years and a lot of work in state-building. If your criterion is that there has to be 100% quiet, as the Israeli government once required, then that gives a veto to the smallest group of rejectionists because there will always be those who resort to violence to stop any agreement at all. Adopting such a strict standard is to give the extremists exactly what they want. Progress must be made in spite of the extremists, not halted because of them. I provided recent data that a strong plurality of Palestinians support a two state solution, but you don't seem to think that matters, listening instead to the loudest voices of the rejectionists. Recent Palestinian protests have been nonviolent, and more are planned. If they continue on this path, Israel will continue to lose international support and it will become increasingly difficult for the US to continue unconditional support. You've admitted that you haven't offered anything better than the outlines of the deal that most people agree is the obvious basis for a potential agreement. So I don't know why you think just "managing the conflict," whatever that is, is a feasible option. Again, "I don't like it" is not an answer; one has to show that there are better options available. I don't think you have done so.

- dsimon

May 28, 2011 at 10:16pm

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

"There is a peace movement, you just refuse to recognize it. " Show me. i want to see articles in newspaper, posts on blogs, message board comments in which there is peace activism on the part of Palestinians. "you don't seem to think that matters, listening instead to the loudest voices of the rejectionists." What I brought you was a representative voice of the Palestinian mindset. For you to continue believing that it is not so is absolutely essential. How will your theories survive such an admission? AND, btw, if "the facts are that there has been little violence from the West Bank in recent years" then you should try to be honest about why that has happened: the Security Barrier, Israeli checkpoints and Israel's ability to pursue perpetrators within the Palestinian population. It is hardly a Palestinian self-agency that has contributed to this relative pacification of the population. And even so, we have these: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/victims.html#2011 I suggest you give up trying to persuade me. I'm not about the change my mind because you can cite a poll from wikipedia or you have faith in the Palestinian people.

- noga1

May 29, 2011 at 6:38am

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close