The New Republic

Well, Martin, a very-fine, detailed description .. as usual. Maybe Hill C and/or Obama can be-FORGIVEN for a certain favoritism, right now. Sure, Israeli Parliament can be a nest, and far-right Jewish people can urge-for certain ways and means, even in an era when exacerbating Palestinians can have any excuse, in the name of defense .. and the latter IS, very-justified in any time. .. Maybe, also, the focus of the Dem team .. RIGHT NOW .. is on domestic matters. ... OK, not trying to make excuses for a certain "touch" in a certain direction, by Ms. Hill. and/or Barack O, but maybe we can put the situation in a context. Thanks.

- JohnBorder

March 19, 2010 at 12:22am

Peretz's first take on the Ramat Shlomo announcement was that it was the Arabs' fault. If even he is no longer defending the proposition that it was other than an intentional act on the part of someone in the government of Israel with the purpose of discrediting the indirect talks before they had begun, you can be pretty sure that it was intentional. One of the rhetorical devices liberally employed by Peretz and the others who now rush to Israel's defense for this blunder is to assume that the reaction of the American government is purely a matter of the president's personal pique, having nothing whatever to do with the way his administration perceives American interests. This is both a slur and an effort to draw attention away from the actual problem in urgent need of solution, the untenable character of semi-permanent Israeli dominion over millions of Palestinian Arabs who do not enjoy equal political and civil rights and how that state of affairs can be brought to a close without creating an equally untenable threat to Israeli security. This is the problem that Israel, led by its messianic Greater Israel right-wing, created for itself with its settlement policy, with adverse repercussions for the United States that the US is increasingly unwilling to bear. Instead of facing up to the underlying strategic problem, Peretz and company want to continue to pretend that there is no disagreement of consequence, merely some personal animosity by the current president, so that Israel can get back to digging its hole even deeper, committing more resources, more people, to a doomed policy. It is a shame, of course, that the US for so long acted as an enabler of Israel's settlement policy. As it stirs and moves toward a policy hostile to that settlement, it is no doubt a shock to those who have become lulled to reality by years of affirmative enabling. But it was inevitable that the present situation would not endure forever, with or without a peace treaty. Israel wants now to trade its folly for peace, but with or without peace, it will not be able to hold onto its folly. That is the tragedy created by right-wing messianism, running out the clock and leaving Israel too little room for maneuver. Sharon, the architect of settlement, eventually came to understand the mistake he had made and tried to undo it. Perhaps if he had remained healthy, Israel would be well on its way toward a sustainable posture. But this too proves only that policy not well-grounded in fundamental interests, dependent on the chances of who holds office and personal relations, is dangerous and unstable.

- roidubouloi

March 19, 2010 at 12:39am

Aren't you ignoring some intervening problems since Sharon withdrew Israel from Gaza? Also, the Israelis unilaterally withdrew from Southern Lebanon. What happened? I think, roidubouloi, as in your previous comments, you are not paying enough attention to the Palestinian (and Arab and Iranian) side of the equation. Israelis are confronted with severe threats. In fact they are routine. A little extra territorial padding could spell the difference between rockets hitting Sderot and rockets hitting Tel Aviv. You're assuming also that if Israel did the near impossible and got everybody to agree to Palestinian terms, this would result in peace. Even Hamas can't control some of the people in Gaza who are more extreme even than Hamas. There's no guarantee similar groups won't infiltrate and overpower Fatah on the West Bank. You've also neglected topographical realities - the high ground is to the east, overlooking the most vulnerable and heavily populated part of Israel and also the narrowest. It's easy to blame The Settlers or The Right, and lord knows some of the settlers are outrageous jerks and some of the people on the right are just wrong - but the security issues are real. So are economic realities - resources, water, the nature of the land itself. On a psychic level, Jewish connections to Judea, Samaria and "east" Jerusalem are ancient, continuous throughout history until the Jordanian "cleansing" and annexation of this land, for over 3,000 years. So it's easy to talk about "withdrawing" but the human and psychic cost would be huge and without a sense of real security it might be suicidal. Nevertheless I think most Israelis would go along with a peace plan if they really believed the peace was more than an illusion but there is little to give that kind of reassurance and all offers to date have been rebuffed in any case. Also, the issue of whether Jewish people would even be allowed to live in the PA hasn't even been raised let alone answered and the moderate Arab position is that Palestinian Arab "refugees" in the millions should be "returned" to Israel. Why aren't people honest about these issues and their implications? Also, you're ignoring the fact that right wingers in Israel have made some of the big diplomatic breakthroughs. Begin signed a peace treaty with Sadat and Sharon withdrew from Gaza, in a move that traumatized Israel as people were dragged from their homes. It wasn't long after that the terror began anew. And the people involved, who lost everything, haven't really recovered judging from what I've read. People need to think really hard about this, about the nature of what we're trying to create here - but also of the human cost of trying to return to 1949. And, there is more than one set of victims here. It's easy to see the Palestinians as victims but the Israelis have been victimized too, not least by great power proxy wars. So, it might be better to start thinking more creatively about what can be done here with the least possible dislocation of people, and focus more on building trust and relationships than casting blame. It might be better to start thinking of confederations, land donations from neighboring Arab states as well as from Israel, and other such resource-sharing possibilities. It might also be wiser, in view of the hundreds of years of Irish troubles for example, not to assume a quick and easy fix. And - any real peace will have to include substantial contributions from surrounding Arab states, one way or another. I don't see much movement in that direction do you? There are millions of people involved here who are considered "refugees". What if they don't want to move either? But the trend hasn't been to offer them citizenship - in fact King Abdullah of Jordan has been stripping Palestinians of their Jordanian citizenship then accuses Israel of trying to force Arabs out of Jerusalem when in fact several Arab states have expelled Palestinian Arabs en masse. The Lebanese keep Palestinians in what are essentially heavily armed ghettos, with few rights. I've actually read arguments from "progressives" and others who claim that it's preferable to keep Palestinians stateless and living in ghettos rather than offer them citizenship and better lives, so as not to compromise their "identity." Frankly I think that is carrying identity politics a little too far. You've got to look at the whole picture here, at Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia in particular but also at the UN and its unique way of dealing with Palestinians, which to my mind has perpetuated a problem at least as serious as the settlements, and that is hereditary refugee status which is unique in the world. Beyond that there is incitement, which is intense. from many different groups inside and outside the region. This is a complex set of problems and it simply cannot be blamed on only one party or the policies of only one state. But anyway as I say the blame game is just pointless now. We've got to try and think more creatively and try to find ways to open pathways between people and these "proximity talks" and postures of insult and outrage over minor issues are really not the best way to create reconciliation or even permit real negotiations.

- Sophia

March 19, 2010 at 5:48am

Not that I'm particularly doubtful on the NYTimes, but Marty we can't "argue with you" on that or anything else as you don't engage your commenters. Love to hear Mrs. Abrams' side, but I imagine she wears your contempt as a badge of honor. When Obama truly makes an unfair demand of Israel you'll have a point, but we're talking about a temporary freeze of building in the settlements (and Obama surely would have allowed "virtical building" so spare us the argument that a freeze means ordering birth control on the settlers). When a friend who owes you their life and is accepting billions of dollars in aid shows what even you admit is substantial disrespect towards you, yeah, it's a big deal! Kadima's view of building in the occupied territories is meaningless compared to American's sense of self-respect here. Whether you think this scene is contrived either by Obama, backbiting Israeli politicians or both, it's the scene that is now playing.

- Lymon1

March 19, 2010 at 5:55am

What American self-respect, Lymon? Kow-towing to Muslim power? We're spending much more money and blood to save disfunctional Arab states, like Iraq. Israel never asked for US troops.

- amidut

March 19, 2010 at 8:19am

"Why is Obama so upset with Israel?" When you are long and intimate friends with the Khalidis, you learn to see the I/P conflict from their point of view. And Rashid forever will be remembered by me as he appeared on Canadian TV during the murderous days of the Intifada when almost everyday children were being shredded on buses and pizzerias and breezily waved away the demand that the Palestinian Authority arrest and imprison the terrorists. The PLO should not be policing their own people in order to safeguard the lives of Israelis. In other words, terrorists must not be stopped. The person who can coolly watch buses exploding every day and justify these activities and then urge his own people against preventing them, is the man your president chose as his friend, and listened to, during all those nice dinner parties at Mona's table. When your knowledge of the Middle East is informed by such a person, no one should ask: "Why Is Obama So Upset With Israel?" The question is: How can he not be upset with Israel? If you want to know the answer, look up anything written or avowed by Khalidi or his acolytes and you'll get your answer.

- noga1

March 19, 2010 at 8:24am

"When Obama truly makes an unfair demand of Israel you'll have a point," I can't see what can be more unfair than stopping Jews from planning to build in a Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem while averting your eyes from a dedication of a new plaza to a terrorist who murdered 38 Israelis. Even the dictum of two weighs, two measures fails to capture the level of hypocrisy in this coincidence. Obama should really stop pretending that he is a friend to Israel. "There are fair-weather friends and foul-weather friends, but the strangest friends of all are those who display their commitment to you only when they publicly criticize you."

- noga1

March 19, 2010 at 8:34am

No, Sophia, I do not assume that progress on any of these matters will lead to peace. Actually, I think that unlikely. What I believe is that the current position in which Israel finds itself, overseer to millions of Palestinians to whom it cannot give civil and political rights within a single polity, is a time bomb. It is leading Israel into a position of steadily increasing isolation in the world that has nothing but bad outcomes for Israel. On the one end, it may ultimately result in sanctions or the severe curtailment of Israel's trade. It also leaves opportunity for violence by Arabs, including Iranian proxies, that are very difficult for Israel to respond to without provoking severe counter-reaction. As I see it, this situation leads straight downhill for Israel and I see no obvious stopping point although events may take a long time to unfold. The final outcome if things are left as they are will be the complete withdrawal from Israel from every inch of territory west of the Green Line, and from the Golan Heights, without even a peace settlement and continuing demands for the admission of large numbers of displaced Palestinians and their descendants and onerous demands for compensation. Maybe worse in terms of territorial demands. I don't know. I regret very much that Israel finds itself in this position. I argued about this with my father about 40 years ago when I was still a teenager and settlement was just beginning. He said that if the situation stood still, the Arabs would never have an incentive to negotiate. I said it would lead to an apartheid disaster because Israel could never absorb the territory and its population but also couldn't expect to have extra-territorial settlements or bantustans, already a dirty word. It was a pretty heated argument that went on for a while. I don't think it took any great prescience to see that Israel was headed down a dead end because it was impossible to think up a scenario where it somehow worked out. That is still true. Is Israel better off no longer occupying a piece of Lebanon? I think the answer is unequivocally yes. That has of course not eliminated the threat from the north, and it required a short, vicious war to bring quiet to that border, but had Israel not withdrawn, matters would be worse. With rockets, there would still be the threat from the north, Iran would still have its proxies there, there would be active guerrilla warfare in the occupied zone, and Israel would be under enormous international pressure. That Israel couldn't trade its position in Lebanon for much of anything is only evidence of the weakness of its position there. There seems to be this general, intensely naïve belief that a bitter war is supposed to get settled on the basis of some kind of game that involves fair play -- this one for you, this one for me, let's shake and be friends, all is forgiven -- without regard to the balance of power. War is politics by other means; and politics is war by other means. Just because the fighting stops, or is suspended, does not mean that the parties suddenly lose interest in the strength of their positions and start playing nice. If they were recently willing to kill each other and die doing it, that suggests that the respective perception of the interests is pretty extreme, doesn't it? I am sitting here trying to think of an example of a war that ended "nicely," and I can't. Either one party had a position of overwhelming power and the other had to take what it could get or the conflict dragged on for years or it was settled with the aid of outside forces and perhaps over time resulted in the conflict coming to rest or, just as likely, it remained a source of friction for years with perhaps other outbreaks of violence. So, I don't believe in the tidy ending you describe -- everyone trades and then puts down their arms and lives happily ever after. The question then becomes how to sustain one's position with the least vulnerability for as long as it takes for a true peace to occur -- which can be an extremely long time. A strategy of maintaining occupation and settlement that the whole world regards as being in violation of international law is not it. Getting out of that situation is urgent. As for Gaza, I found it unfathomable that Sharon withdrew the IDF at the same time as the settlements. How could anyone possibly have expected that, in the absence of any established civil society there, the most violent, revanchist elements would not take power within a relatively short time? Even had there been a majority there in favor of taking the opportunity for the establishment of a peaceful, self-governing polity, they were doomed. It is not possible to create an immediate power vacuum under such anarchic conditions as existed and have any outcome other than what occurred. Indeed, I found it so bizarre, and still do, that I have speculated openly that Sharon must have been trying to make the point that the Palestinians could never govern themselves or abandon violence thinking that the world would somehow accept this as proof of the necessity of continued Israeli occupation -- sort of the argument you are making above. Obviously, however, even the disaster in Gaza does not persuade much of anyone that Israel should remain as an occupying power in the West Bank. So, what was Sharon thinking? Beats me. I have read at least one article that said that the complete withdrawal of the IDF was demanded by Condoleeza Rice. Possible. But if so, I wonder where Sharon's head was the day he acceded to the demand. The point, overall, is not that I disagree with you about the justice of Israel's position. Rather, it is that we do not live in a world in which justice prevails, in which legally persuasive historical arguments -- "But this synagogue has stood on this spot since the end of the Age of Dinosaurs and was built by Noah." -- prevail. Rather, we live in a world in which power, barely constrained by international law and convention, prevails. It is only a very short time ago in the history of the world that there was even the notion that states had an obligation not to make war any time they wanted to for whatever reason they thought sufficient. Until the 20th century, the "law of war" was understood only to apply to the means and conduct of the parties to a war, not to whether they could fight one. My plea, for the sake of Israel, is that it get itself out of this strategically unsustainable position and into a sustainable position, so that it can in fact sustain its position as long as necessary, with or without peace. I have no illusions that any action that it takes will suddenly lead to Arabs strewing flowers before the feet of Israelis. One can hope that if the situation can be rendered quiet and Palestinians are making material progress and are self-governing that the ardor for violence will eventually fade. Or it may not. Either way, Israel has to be in a position to sustain itself, politically as well as materially.

- roidubouloi

March 19, 2010 at 8:36am

All of the huffing and puffing about the viciousness of terrorism is tedious and inconsequential. Terrorists are enemies and must be fought successfully. Warfare, of the terrorist or non-terrorist kind, produces civilian casualties. I am sure that if the Palestinians had an effective army and air force as capable as that of Israel, they would be happy to use them instead of strapping themselves with bombs or lobbing homemade rockets. Would the casualties caused by conventional arms employed by a uniformed army punctiliously observing the Geneva Conventions therefore be acceptable? It seems in the modern era to have become the singular delusion of the right-wing that "right makes might," that if we have justice on our side, that if our enemies are vicious and evil, that the means to accomplish our ends magically appear. Or, even worse, that whatever we choose to do in the name of our just cause will magically succeed, whether it is adapted to the task or not. This is Bush-think: It doesn't matter if we fight a strategically pointless war in the wrong place against the wrong enemy. If we declare that we are there to fight terrorism, we will prevail. And if we prevail, then terrorism will be defeated even if terrorists weren't there in the first place. The endless rehearsal of the justice of Israel's cause, the fault for the current situation, the viciousness of its enemies, etc., etc., etc. -- the Talmudism of the conflict -- has come so to dominate the thinking of the right that it is seemingly impossible for them to ask, let alone answer, the simple question: What is the best way for us to get out of this mess? It has seemingly become acceptable to sit in the mess, sinking under its weight, as long as a good argument can be made that it is someone else's fault -- the Arabs, the Europeans, the anti-Semites, the Americans, Obama, Axelrod, Emmanuel. The list is long and ever-growing. If the Talmudism were at least good PR, then it would have some point. But, under the weight of the occupation, it has ceased to be useful even as that. In the face of the fact of Israeli domination of millions of Palestinians, the world, with the exception of the Jews for whom this remains of surpassing importance, as pretty much lost interest in the arguments and the historical blame. I am bored and frustrated with it as it is pointless. No one is persuaded in any case. Those who were persuaded of the justice of Israel's position remain so. Those who are not remain so. The Talmudic argument merely draws time, attention, and energy away from the urgent task of devising strategy and tactics to get out of the mess into a sustainable strategic position. I cannot imagine that anyone could continue to draw comfort from the argument over justice, but apparently they do because they do nothing else and can talk about nothing else.

- roidubouloi

March 19, 2010 at 9:00am

It's not my enemies that I fear, but my friends. The Jewish people have better claim for this land than the Palestinians, indeed the only rightful claim for both Jews and Christians. It's their land, it's the promised land. Which is fortunate for the Israelis, whose government seems to take great delight in provoking their friends as much if not more than their enemies. But as MP seems to understand, the Israeli government's claim to this land is not necessarily viewed as synonymous with the Jews' rightful claim to this land.

- raylward

March 19, 2010 at 9:37am

No country should so publicly disrespect any democratically elected government of an ally over a purely domestic housing issue in a Jerusalem neighborhood. It is incomprehensible that the United States made this a "deal-breaker", so I totally agree that Obama has no interest in the survival of a Jewish state located in Israel. It seems that fact-based reality, e.g., history, has no place in Obama's policy when it comes to Israel. And so very sad that so many otherwise 'educated' people stubbornly refuse to even consider history and present reality when it comes to Israel. Still, nice that Marty Peretz persists in trying to remind everyone of reality and history. and thanks noga1 for supporting comments.

- K2K

March 19, 2010 at 10:42am

Domestic issue? You mean like domestic apartheid? Or domestic human rights abuses? The sort of domestic issues about which the US Department of State annually issues a report about other nations? Since Israel has no settled international boundaries, it is more difficult in its case to know what is a domestic issue and what is an international issue. It advances nothing to pretend that the status of Jerusalem is not an international issue when the entire world thinks so.

- roidubouloi

March 19, 2010 at 11:02am

Of course the US should pressure Palestinians to make concessions -- but that is in a world where the Palestinians are strong enough to have something to concede. In the current world, they really don't. The worst thing that can happen in pressuring the Israelis to make concessions is that a coalition government falls, they call for new elections and another government takes over. The worst thing that can happen in pressuring the Palestinians to make concessions is that civil war erupts in the West Bank and Hamas takes over Palestinian institutions, like they did in Gaza. This might explain why White House pressures in the region (by Dems or Republicans) fall disproportionately on the Israelis.

- wildboy

March 19, 2010 at 11:33am

Exactly what are the Palestinians supposed to concede, other than 78% of historic Palestine and accept that the ethnic cleansing of 1948 will not be reversed, and that it was legitimate for European Jews to build their own nation-state without the consent of the people living on the land they built it on? How much more can they give? Your take on Muslim connections to Jerusalem is too mocking and ahistorical. In the earliest years of Muhammad's prophethood, praying was done in the direction of Jerusalem, it was the original lodestone of Islam. Islam's first famous mosque is the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa. And it would be a rare Muslim who knows the name of the victorious leader who defeated the Mongols or won the battle of Manzikert (both extremely important historical events), but every Muslim knows Salah-uh-Din (Saladin). Jerusalem was never a political or urban or cultural center of Muslim life, but neither was Mecca or Medina within a decade of the Prophet's death. Your dismissal of "PAlestine" is also illogical. Palestinian is the name one would give for an inhabitant of Palestine, whether they have a national consciousness or not, just as we use the word Californian or Texan. The UN recognized the rights of those people to an independent state in 1947, so to deny its legitimacy is to deny the legal basis of Israel. Israeli settlements are constantly being built and we are always told this one settlement makes no difference and it will all get sorted out in final status. Under that cover, the settlers have grown from 200k in 1993 to over 500k now. It has to be stopped. Left to their own devices, these numbers will continue to grow, and have essentially made a two state solution impossible. Obama is Israel's greatest friend because he is actually willing to force them to do what's in their own best interest. Israel is like the patient who has flunked his stress test and is told needs to lose weight and quit smoking or is going to die soon. They accept that on one level but just can't actually do it. 10% of Israel's Jews are settlers, counting their friends and relatives, they have checkmated any possible real withdrawal from the West Bank. Meanwhile, the Israeli occupation is seen as apartheid by everyone outside of the US, and the majority of the population below 30 years age west of the Jordan is now Palestinian. In 40 years there will be almost 20 million people living in that land, 60% will be Palestinian. How will the Zionists be able to continue to dominate the region politically in perpetuity is beyond me. Obama is doing what is needed to save Israel from itself, and if that means intense pressure then so be it. The kid glove treatment does nothing and only results in more useless talks and growing settlements.

- nayyer_ali

March 19, 2010 at 12:19pm

Nayer, I don't agree with all your points but you make them elegantly, persuasively and in a civil tone. Assuming that you are a Muslim, you may also be among the first posters on TNR to present such a perspective (all apologies to Icarus -- feel free to correct me about other Muslim or lapsed Muslim posters). More views like yours are very much appreciated on this site.

- wildboy

March 19, 2010 at 1:05pm

I concur with both of wildboy's posts.

- roidubouloi

March 19, 2010 at 1:31pm

Nayyer-Ali, why is Jerusalem never mentioned in the Koran? Speaking of apartheid, why are no Jews permitted to live in Palestinian territories? Or can't openly live in most Arab countries today? What about the segregation and subjugation of Jews (also, Christians, Zoroastrians, and Bahais) under Islam? Why were more than a million Jews driven out of Muslim lands since the end of European rule? Why do most of them live in Israel? What is this 78% of historic Palestine? I suppose the Negev is a great treasure. The appellation "Palestine" was invented by the Romans to replace Judea after they crushed the Bar Kochba rebellion in 135 CE. You're upset because the Israelis reject the "dhimmi" status of Jews under Islam.

- amidut

March 19, 2010 at 1:40pm

This thread and Peretz' article shows the weakness of trying to use religious myth to justify land grabs. The Jews and possibly Christians have a right to this land because of a three thousand year old covenant that may or may not have happened. The Muslims have claim to this land because of a visit by Muhammed that may or may not have happened. Torah vs. Koran. And you have proven what exactly? The only way to deal with the issue is to look at the facts on the ground and go from there. By invoking some mystical claim to a particular piece of dirt all you get is intransigence and no real solution. Somehow I suspect the people who deploy these ridiculous "my god wants my people to be here" arguments really aren't looking for a solution to the problem.

- charles1649

March 19, 2010 at 1:55pm

Roid, right back at ya. Especially the one about the Talmudism of who did what to whom in the Holy Land over the past 60-odd years.

- wildboy

March 19, 2010 at 2:05pm

With respect to the comments about 'Talmudism" I certainly respect the point of view that it's time to make practical solutions to the problem but this takes more than one party. Claiming that the Palestinians are "too weak" to make meaningful gestures is absurd. A strong statement from a Palestinian leader (or any Arab leader) against violence, in favor of peace talks with no preconditions (face to face talks) and a denouncement of the genocidal hate of Israel along with recognition of Jewish equality rather than Jewish and Christian dhimmitude would be a huge step forward. Unfortunately that would have to come either from a secular person or party or it would take real reform of Islam. So people can scoff at the Talmudic aspects of the argument but religion does in fact play a major role here. And, history is important so "who did what to whom" is not insignificant considering how people continually revise it and we now get "narratives" that may or may not reflect reality. What has happened in the Middle East just since the late 19th century is in fact very important and this includes the fate of Middle Eastern Jews since the 1940's. That has a significant bearing on the discussion but it's rarely considered. And, thank you roidubouloi for clarifying your comments. I disagree though about terrorism. The problem is this: as you say it's a war and wars must be fought. But the very nature of terrorism and its partner, agitprop, is that it is part of a pattern of warfare that actually, in Israel's case at least, makes successful fighting thereof almost impossible because of the human rights aspects. Self defense becomes "nazism." And, the use of agitprop against Israel frequently emerges as outright antisemitism. NATO has run into problems too, obviously, trying to fight the war without harming civilians. I think the Russians take a more direct approach but this can lead to real brutality although it does shorten conflicts. But in neither of those two cases is the shadow of bigotry against a minority (Jews) an issue so the darkest side of the problems confronting Israel's war doesn't afflict NATO or other great powers - or Muslim nations for that matter - Africa's wars are pretty much ignored which is a dreadful shame. But the Arab/Israeli conflict is front page news 24/7 and there is a built-in problem with Israel's very nature, which is, it's majority Jewish. Israel is in a unique and uniquely tough situation and this affects Diaspora Jews also, and because it's so easy to stir up antisemitism, especially with the 'net and its ability to spread lies as well as information, the war against Israel has a psychological aspect that is very dangerous.

- Sophia

March 19, 2010 at 2:36pm

I think, sophia, that that is falling back into moralism. All of these arguments about how the Palestinians are morally wrong, because they will not make appropriate gestures, because they remain in many cases committed to the idea of destroying Israel, because they did this, that, or the other thing -- the things that I lump together as the "Talmudism of the war" -- can be viewed as a Talmudic scholar would, entering into the argument and deciding that what must be done is revealed in the Talmud, or it can be approached as a scholar of Talmudism, understanding as an observer the rules of Talmud culture. We cannot afford the Talmudism of the war because it has nothing to do with military, economic, and diplomatic power. It may (or may not) answer questions about justice, but it does not answer how the conflict can be brought to a successful conclusion. Indeed, the answer derived from the Talmudism of the war is always the same -- justice demands that we hold the Palestinians in a state of subjugation, settling at great cost to ourselves land that we know will eventually be theirs, until they respond to our claims of justice. That might work if, along with the Talmud, Israel actually had the power to see this agenda through to its end, as, say, the Americans did when they were claiming the continent from its aboriginal inhabitants. Americans did not win those wars because their theological interpretation was correct -- "The Indians are savages and we have no choice but to kill them or herd them onto reservations where we can civilize them." The Americans won because they had both the numbers and the technology. In the case of Israel, it might have the power if there were only Israel and Palestine, isolated from other powers and resources. But that is not the case. The Palestinians are part of a much larger Arab nation with significant economic and diplomatic power. They are part of a Moslem world that is willing to supply weapons and forces to threaten upon Israel's border. They have many allies and sympathizers in the world -- whatever you may think of the character of those sympathizers. Hence, Israel does not have the power to end the conflict by force. It is itself too vulnerable to those outside forces. If the project of settlement and subjugation at least worked in Israel's favor, so that it grew stronger with time, then, as tactics, they might work, whatever the "Talmudic" motivation. But that is really not the case. Israel does not consolidate its hold on the West Bank, particularly the parts not contiguous to the Green Line, by settling, it only gets itself in deeper and brings closer the day when the world simply forces it out, if for no other reason than to prevent a nuclear conflagration. The same with the perpetual subjugation of the Palestinians. This does not secure Israel's position, it merely brings closer the day when the world will force Israel itself to submit, for the same reasons. I say, if you have a losing hand, get yourself another hand. I do not underestimate the difficulty, of fighting terrorism, of dealing with the Palestinians, of any of it. I do not by any means believe that there necessarily exists any path for Israel by which success is assured. But the present situation is a loser, a strategically unsustainable position that is only leading to Israel's diplomatic isolation. And when the isolation becomes severe enough, then the conditions will be such that the world will be moved to act against what it will by then regard as an outcast. Therefore, Israel's own need is to discard the Talmudism -- because the Talmud is not a manual of military, economic, and diplomatic warfare -- and start acting in its own interest, given the correlation of forces, to push events in a direction more favorable to it. If the settlements are in fact a strategic liability, as I believe they are, then this means figuring out how to get rid of them, not how to build them up merely because the Palestinians, by their refusals, "deserve it." I am not interested in what they deserve. I am interested in a brilliant and secure future for the State of Israel. A part of the calculus must certainly be how to reverse the tide of isolation. A cessation of building, noisily declared as a contribution to the process of peace, would certainly be a step in that direction. The biggest cost would be that not all the children born in the West Bank can live with mama and papa forever. So what? People move all the time. Kids grow up and find other places to live. This is not a tragedy. At the same time, steps that improve the material lives of the Palestinians, including those in Gaza, without of course jeopardizing Israel's security, increase the likelihood that a willing partner may emerge. People who have stuff and do not live in desperation are simply not as eager to go and get killed at the cost of their comfortable lives. And the perception by the world that the Palestinians are not materially uncomfortable would go a long way to relieving the pressure from the world. The Palestinians have amply demonstrated that they can absorb punishment in order to compromise Israel's stature in the world. That is working for them and slowly isolating Israel. It should be obvious that the smart course is therefore to avoid administering punishment and to limit Israel's control over Palestinians and their lives the minimum truly necessary for security. Whether they "deserve" it is completely irrelevant.

- roidubouloi

March 19, 2010 at 4:04pm

Amidut, there are some references to Jerusalem in the Quran, but you are right in the general point that Jerusalem is more central to Judaism than Islam. That is basically irrelevant to the question of whether Israel has the right to confiscate Palestinian land and build settlements on them. As to the oppression of Jews, certainly no one could argue that Jews in Islamic regions historically lived better than Jews do in Europe or the US today, but from the 7th cent to about 1800, you were certainly far better off as a Jew in Muslim world than in Europe. Taking into account subsequent history, one could really extend that to 1945 couldn't we? So if anyone owes the Jews something, why should it be the Palestinians of all people? Implicit in your remarks is the idea that the sum total of Jewish suffering in the Muslim world from 610 AD to now constitutes a "credit" that Israel can now charge against as it beats up on the Palestinians. I don't buy that. As to Saudi Arabia, that is not the topic of current discussion, but my views are that they are doing lots of things wrong and need massive changes. However they do not hold 3.5 million people in a stateless existence who can be jailed or killed without any recourse. With regards to Jews who lost property in the 1950's, they are entitled to return and reclaim that property, as are the Palestinians. When ISrael identifies a terrorist in GAza, it fires artillery and sends in airstrikes, and any collateral damage is just tough luck for the Palestinians. If there was a terrorist in Tel Aviv, would Israel do that? If a terrorist was in Los Angeles would the US government conduct an airstrike? The complete disregard for the lives and humanity of the Palestinians is so obvious to the rest of the planet. It is only in the US that we pretend that Israel is some sort of moral paragon.

- nayyer_ali

March 19, 2010 at 6:29pm

roidubouloi, your comments make sense and I appreciate your insights. However, I think you've misinterpreted my view of the Palestinians. I don't believe they lack a moral cause. But terrorism and violence, that is a big problem imo. In fact that factor alone is a major contributor to the lack of reconciliation and it keeps people in state of fear and unable to see each other as human. I also think distortion of history is a serious issue. I do think using Palestinians as pawns is immoral, and this includes obviously the maintenance of refugee camps even in Gaza and the West Bank - that's just absurd actually - and I think the Israelis tried to improve or replace these with real housing - they were told not to do that by the UN no less. So the UN itself is playing a role here and it isn't a helpful one any longer imo. It's a self-perpetuating agency by now (UNWRA). I think it's immoral to keep Palestinians in ghettos in Lebanon and limit their rights and freedom. Indeed the children of Palestinian men and Lebanese women aren't Lebanese, though if the father is Lebanese the children can be Lebanese. So yes, your statement that the Palestinians are part of a large Arab nation is true and that is a double-edged sword especially considering their segregation, lack of acceptance as citizens and the festering sore of the refugee camps, generations after the initial war. Most of all I think it is immoral of outside agitators, and there are quite a few in the West - lots in Britain in particular including high level politicians - but plenty here too - to do whatever is necessary to keep the conflict raging until the Israelis are vanquished at G*d knows what cost. So, when you say the Israelis have a bad hand and should get a better one I agree. But I'm afraid it won't be enough. And, I do think it's important for any outside power attempting to "fix" this to realize some of the psychic and emotional issues involved and how traumatized people are. That's one reason I don't like the proximity talks so much. It's vital for people to meet and see and interact with each other. That of course is a huge problem with the security barriers. Keeping people safe from terror also prevents the normal majority from being together. About the outside agitation I wish I had a clue how to fix THAT. Does anybody? Since the Great Housing Flap it's been outrageous - the press is full of nasty invective and comment threads are as bad as what we used to see in the dungeons of the internet - ie the stuff is so bad it was actually hidden and subject to deletion by mods and admins at least on left-leaning blogs.

- Sophia

March 19, 2010 at 7:00pm

Amidut, I don't think I answered one of your questions fully. Just to be clear, all nations, Muslim or otherwise, should provide full freedom of religion and equality before the law to all of their citizens. I apply this view to everyone equally. The problem with Saudi or other examples you cite is that they fail to provide equality all of their citizens. Israel denies the Palestinians something even more fundamental, citizenship in the land of their birth. If Israel cannot accept to live in equality with Palestinians then it must let them go on just terms, and not insist on getting rid of the but holding on to the choicest bits of land. It's like Sharon's bizarre formulation where he clarified that Palestinians were an occupied people, but the land was not "occupied".

- nayyer_ali

March 19, 2010 at 7:18pm

In general, I don't disagree about your moral analysis, sophia. But if security for Israel is going to require an Arab reformation and various outside actors to cease their objectionable behavior, it is going to be a very long wait. As I said, I do not assume that there necessarily exists a path for Israel that will lead to success. But I do not think that holding onto the Palestinians and awaiting the proper alignment of the stars is either moral or prudent. As the occupying power, Israel has an affirmative obligation to the Palestinians, as well as an obligation to its own cause and to people in the world whose security is affected, to move forward the freeing of the Palestinians as fast as it feasibly can, whether with their full cooperation or not. Israel cannot use the bad deeds of others to justify inaction, except to the extent that security does not allow otherwise.

- roidubouloi

March 19, 2010 at 8:18pm

In a broad sense, I agree with nayyer_ali. However, I do not agree that the 1948 armistice lines constitute borders that Israel is obliged to accept in the context of peace. It is perfectly clear from the history that they were simple the shortened lines of where the armies stood on a given day in 1948. It is explicit in the UN record that they were not intended as permanent borders. Indeed, the Arab powers made a point of reserving just that question. It cuts both ways. With the constitution of a Palestinian state, the boundaries will be the subject of dispute, hopefully to be resolved or at least moved forward toward resolution. They are hardly the only disputed boundaries in the world. The main point for me is that the question of boundaries is distinct from the political and civil liberties of the people. If Israel will accord all citizens in territories it incorporates full civil and political rights, as it has done in Jerusalem, I do not think it is illegitimate for it to incorporate that territory as long as there is ample opportunity for a contiguous Palestinian state. Whether it is prudent to do so and the extent to which Israel ought to, or may choose to, defer to the sentiments of Palestinians in the interest of peace are different questions. As to the particular question of Jerusalem, there is no possibility of honoring Moslem religious claims without first recognizing that Jewish claims are both prior in time (more time elapsed form the founding of Jewish Jerusalem to the coming of Mohammed that has elapsed since the coming of Mohammed) and of greater stature. Jerusalem is the creation of the Jews. But for the fact that it was the capital of the Jews and the center of their religious life, it would never have been important to Christians or Moslems. Had the Jews made their capital in Hebron, that would have been Jerusalem. Had the Jews made their capital in Ein Gedi, that would have been Jerusalem. So, the Jewish claim to Jerusalem is not only prior in time but the very foundation of Christian and Moslem claims. Moreover, Jerusalem has never been a center of Moslem culture and religion. It is a sacred site, not the home of Moslem institutions and development. If the Moslem world cannot recognize this essential nature of Jerusalem, perforce there is no reason for the Jews even to take notice of Moslem claims.

- roidubouloi

March 19, 2010 at 8:28pm

While I sympathize with a pro-Palestinian posting, outnumbered, on TNR, Nayer is wrong -- the Palestinians haven't conceded any of that. Indeed, Yasir Arafat once said in a speech that even if the Palestinians made a deal, it would be like a deal Mohammed struck when militarily weak and later undid when strong (Note: many Muslims, including CAIR, protested that this was a derragatory misreading of the Koran and that Mohammed cheated noone and this may be true, but it was Arafat who made the argument -- the point isn't about Mohammed but Arafats intentions). Since when have Muslims, where they have the majority, ever been tolerant of -any- non-Muslim autonomy, let alone independence, beyond the Jim Crow like regimes they've allowed Jews and Christians (not B'haihs or Hindus) and boasted about it because, you know, it's better than the Spanish Inquisition or Nazi Holocaust? Indeed, I support President Obama taking a hard line on a temporary settlement freeze. But then it's up to the Arabs to do something significant like formally accepting the legitimacy of a Jewish state in Israel. THat wouldn't mean final settlement, an agreement to any kind of borders, etc., just that the Arabs participation in the peace process isn't an utter sham. THAT is the least each side can do.

- Lymon1

March 19, 2010 at 8:56pm

"Why is Obama so upset with Israel?" Because he does not believe Jews have a fundamental right to be there. The President sees the establishment of the modern State of Israel primarily as an apologia for the Holocaust; he does not acknowledge the ancestry of the Jewish people in the region. At least Ahmadinejad, for all his faults, has the ideological integrity to deny the history of the Jewish people. If Hillary Clinton truly believed Jerusalem to be the eternal capital of Israel, as she proclaimed during her candidacy for the U.S. Senate, then she would not object to Israel building homes on its own land. The Clintons and Obama believe only in saying whatever they must to get elected. American Jews who voted for either of these clowns have only themselves to blame.

- drheingold

March 20, 2010 at 8:58pm

Perhaps so, gold, if American Jews vote based on what is in Israel's best interests. I would hope, they vote based upon what is in the U.S.' bet interests. After all, Israel is a political state. As for who really has the divine rights to the land, all that is is form over substance. It doesn't really matter WHERE the state is. We'd all be better off if Israel had been established in North America.

- OscarPeck

March 20, 2010 at 10:30pm

As an American Jew, I take all the credit for electing Obama, and I am glad that he did. Fortunately, I don't have to take any credit for the blundering Netanyahu. I think Obama did exactly the right thing, maybe not quite as tough as I would have been, but certainly in the right zone. The issue was not the building itself. The US had already publicly agreed to Israel's position, and Israel could have gone about its business quietly with creating a problem. The difficulty was caused by the timing of the announcement which was making an obvious farce out of Israel's agreement to indirect talks and an embarrassment to the second highest US official who was visiting to advance those talks. Netanyahu should have been smacked around good. If it were me, I would have called him up and told him that his little stunt had just cost Israel $1 billion, and would he like to try for two. I do vote for what I think is in the best interest of the United States and expect Israel to do the job of keeping its interests aligned with ours so that there is not a conflict. It is grossly unrealistic to think that a super-power with 300 million people, the third largest national territory in the world, the world's largest economy, and a global military is going to bend over backwards to align its interests with those of Israel. Anyone who thinks that the world works that way is a complete ass -- which might just include Netanyahu some of the posters here.

- roidubouloi

March 20, 2010 at 11:51pm

OscarPeck: re your last brief post in response to drheingold. This doesn’t help much: “We'd all be better off if Israel had been established in North America”. After all, a guy could be an atheist and think that where Israeli boundaries go is a matter of substance not just form and that it does matter where the state is. I do. The need is to balance rights and roots. I am not an American but I can imagine situations where American perceptions of its best interests in particular circumstances, especially on a realist foreign policy conception, where other states’ are so may metaphoric billiard balls to be knocked around as advances American notions of its own strategic imperatives, could significantly, or even existentially, imperil Israeli security.. An American Jew might well and rightfully be conflicted as to that. Plus what’s in a state’s interest in so many cases is fluid and gray and up for a lot of argument.

- basman

March 21, 2010 at 10:37pm

Thank you!

- Poupic

March 22, 2010 at 6:36am