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 War, and Israel’s Quixotic Search For Normalcy

PLANK NOVEMBER 16, 2012

War, and Israel’s Quixotic Search For Normalcy

BY YOSSI KLEIN HALEVI

JERUSALEM—With elections three months away, Israelis were looking forward to a campaign driven by domestic issues. There was a craving for an ordinary national debate on issues like cost of living and wage gaps and the relationship between the ultra-Orthodox minority and the mainstream. The rise of the social protest movement, the transformation of the Labor Party’s focus from peace to social change, the growing disaffection among working class Israelis, many of them conservative Likud voters, with the government’s economic policies—it seemed like Israel would finally enjoy a political season like that of any normal country.

But the latest eruption in Gaza has returned Israel to its exceptional reality. Israel’s next national election, like the others in recent memory, will be defined by the big existential questions, by questions of war and peace and territory.

The current round of fighting will likely be resolved, sooner or later, with another fitful ceasefire. Israel hardly wants to be dragged into a protracted ground war in Gaza, with its inevitable horrors and international pressures. Other than restoring deterrence against the rocket launchers, though, Israel has no clear strategic goal. Toppling the Hamas regime is tempting but futile; it would likely be replaced by another variation of radical rule. And so Israel's mission will be to restore relative quiet along the border—until the next time.

But regardless of what happens in Gaza, the illusion of a domestically driven election is over. Perhaps it was naïve to expect that an Israeli election could downplay foreign policy. The Syrian border, which briefly erupted last week for the first time since the 1973 Yom Kippur War, is as unstable as it's been in recent memory. Hezbollah is waiting for the next round in Lebanon. The Egytian-Israeli border has become a terrorist front. And sanctions aren’t slowing Iran’s nuclear program. Not since May 1967, when Arab armies moved toward Israel’s borders, has Israel faced such danger. Some in the Israeli stategic community believe that the more apt analogy is with May 1948, when Israel declared its independence and was immediately invaded by seven Arab armies.

But if the latest fighting has confronted Israelis with the limits of wishful thinking, it has only encouraged the illusions of Israel’s critics. They impatiently acknowledge Israel's right to defend itself against missile attacks on its civilian population, but then insist that the conflict could have been avoided if the government of Benyamin Netanyahu had simply been willing to negotiate peace with Palestinians.

Most Israelis would surely agree that a peace agreement with the Palestinians is far preferable to yet another round of fighting. But few Israelis, whatever their politics, blame Netanyahu for the absence of peace. There is a consensus that peace with the Palestinian national movement—or rather that half of the Palesitnian national movement represented by Mahmoud Abbas, rather than the jihadist Hamas—isn’t possible at this time. Indeed, that is precisely why the left-liberal opposition Labor Party had intended to shift its focus from the non-existent peace process to social issues. (The polls suggested this was a promising pivot: Before the latest fighting, Labor was expected to grow from an embarrassing 8 seats to 20 or more in the 120 seat Knesset.) Whether Labor will be able to focus on domestic issues depends entirely on what now happens in Gaza.

Most Israelis understand, no less than their critics, that the ongoing occupation is a long-term existential threat to the Jewish state. But they also understand that a Palestinian state, created by a national movement that denies Israel’s legitimacy, could become an immediate existential threat, turning Tel Aviv into the next Sderot, the Israeli town bordering Gaza which has endured thousands of rocket attacks over the last decade, making normal life impossible.

The result is a stalemate—not in the political arena, but within the Israeli psyche. For most Israelis, the debate between left and right over the territories has been resolved. The left won the debate over occupation, the right won over peace. Every poll in recent years confirms that, if peace were possible, most Israelis would agree to far-reaching territorial concessions. But those same polls reveal that most Israelis believe that no amount of territorial concessions will win Israel real peace and legitimacy among its neighbors. And so, at least for now, most Israelis want to be doves but feel they are compelled compelled to act as hawks.

Netanyahu’s greatest failure as prime minister was in not extending his ten-month freeze on building in the settlements (just as Obama’s greatest failure in his relationship with Israel was in not embracing Netanyahu’s freeze and demanding that Abbas return to the negotiating table). At a time when Israel is trying to focus world attention on the Iranian bomb and the growing danger on its borders, settlement building is especially self-destructive.

But even if Israel ceases building in the West Bank, that won’t end the need to periodically attack rocket launchers in Gaza. And if, in the lulls between outbursts of violence on the borders, Israelis can manage to debate their domestic problems and attain a measure of normalcy, then that too will be a victory in the country's ongoing war of survival.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 108 comments

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

108 comments

It's the occupation, stupid. The Kurds of Turkey, Chechens in Russia, Tibetans in China, are all citizens with rights. Only Israel insists on keeping 5 million Palestinians in bondage in perpetuity. The canard that there is no partner for peace is a standard Likud talking point based on the fact that the Palestinians will not accept a Bantustan solution. When Israel offers a full withdrawal to the Green Line and a fully sovereign Palestine, the Palestinians will end the conflict, but they are not going to give up the right of return in advance of that. Just like the US, demographics will change the dynamic. 60% of all children under Israeli sovereignty are Palestinians, Jews are a minority, even among Israeli citizens only, 25% of the newborns are Palestinian. Israel as a state that exists to be the home of the Jews rather than serve the citizens of Israel as a whole is not tenable. Normalcy will come when these basic facts are recognized and accepted.

- nayyer_ali

November 16, 2012 at 1:44pm

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

Well, I'm starting to lean toward the one state solution. If Israelis don't decide to make a real border forthwith, and getting out of the West Bank, then integrating both territory AND PEOPLE into the state of Israel is the only rational (and fair) solution. The status quo cannot continue. It's flat wrong. And, it's dangerous, for all concerned.

- Sophia

November 16, 2012 at 2:23pm

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

Anyone who "leans"towards the one state solution ought to know exactly what they are leaning towards. Here is the view from someone who is not timid about expressing fully and unreservedly what they mean (and what the Arab street to which they appeal and from which they get their impetus means) by that justest of all solution, The one state solution. According to the wiki entry ” AbuKhalil …supports one secular state in historical Palestine” What kind of “one secular state” does the peace-loving, secularist-atheist, radical anarchist envisions? Here are a few examples: “… once Palestine is liberated, I don’t think that Hebrew poet living under a Palestinian flag (and using the renamed George Habash International Airport) should be harassed unless they harm the security of the anti-Zionist state.” ” But your delusions are good for us: you won’t know what will hit you in the future in response to all the war crimes that you have committed against our people. ” “And once the Palestinian refugees are returned to their homes all over Palestine, I will make sure that you get decent rents in the formerly Palestinian refugee camps because we may be a bit short of space for the occupiers then. ” And then there is this: ” (Nothing incenses me or provokes me like watching scenes of “tourist” promotion for the enemy state of Israel: I scream in my inside. The stones are not yours. The flowers are not yours. The beaches are not yours. The clouds are not yours. The blueness of the sky is not yours. All will return to their owners. Then, everything will be more beautiful and more splendid.)” or this: “I don’t like flags, and I don’t like nationalisms but for Palestine and the Palestinians, everything and anything. ”

- Noga

November 16, 2012 at 3:52pm

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

As long as there are Arabs, Israel will be attacked. If all the Arabs were removed from the Middle East, Arabs from Detroit would fly to the Middle East and attack Israel. And if Israel were removed from the Middle East, the Arabs there would attack each other. Rat's-ass tribalism is in their blood. I'm not sure Iran would ever attack Israel (although anything's possible), because Iranians are Persians, not Arabs. I'm discounting the religion thing (Islam), as if I ever could. At any rate, Arabs and Israel in contiguous territories in the Middle East: insoluble problem.

- magboy47.

November 16, 2012 at 4:06pm

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

What is quixotic is Israel's quest for a purported "normalcy" that means the continued colonization of the Palestinians in flagrant violation of international law -- the Fourth Geneva Convention and a host of UNSC resolutions all of which are binding on Israel as a signatory to the convention and the UN Charter. Peace or not, Israel has no legal right to settle occupied territory. Even the Israeli justice on the International Court of Justice made that unambiguously clear. Israel itself refuses both a one-state solution, because it cannot have on state without the Palestinian population, and a two-state solution, because it cannot have two states and the illegally colonized territory too. It is a delusion to believe that Israel can indefinitely continue its illegal colonization -- a constant provocation to war wherever and whenever in the world there has been colonization -- and achieve peace. Sooner or later, Israel will be forced out to of the West Bank; it will not achieve the so-called "land swaps" that would allow it to keep the fruits of its illegal settlement. Perhaps on that day, Israel will finally be willing to make peace. In the meantime, it prefers keeping the land it illegally settles and endless low-level war, plus the complaint, convincing only to Israel and its shrinking pool of friends here, that it has no partner for peace. The Netanyahu strategy, no matter how many Israelis support it, is a geo-political dead-end.

- roidubouloi

November 16, 2012 at 4:21pm

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

It is always ironic to read Israeli hand-wringing over the Arabs' verbal threats while Israel actually subjects the Arabs, in the here and now, to both illegal colonization and the oppressive security system that supports that illegal colonization. The threats are supposed to persuade us that the Arabs can never make peace. But what of the actual, in-the-present colonization of the Arabs? Those are concrete, oppressive deeds, not mere words. If the words are supposed to give us insight into the true intentions of the Arabs, do not Israel's deeds tell us that, despite its claims to want peace, Israel has no intention of making peace?

- roidubouloi

November 16, 2012 at 4:27pm

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

nayyer_ali is quite right.

- roidubouloi

November 16, 2012 at 4:29pm

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

"Jews are a minority, even among Israeli citizens only, 25% of the newborns are Palestinian." If 25% of newborn are Arab, that means that 75% of the newborns are Jewish. How, then, are Jews a minority? BTW, birthrate among Jewish Israelis is quite high (and not just among the religious folks where it is much higher) while the birthrate among Arab Israelis is on the decline (as is bound to happen when modernity, progress, and gender equality begin to affect any traditional society).

- Noga

November 16, 2012 at 4:37pm

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

...It's the occupation, stupid, etc... In relation to Gaza in particular, this (and the rest of it) makes no sense. Last I heard, Israel disoccupied Gaza many years ago and Hamas fanatics after that thuggishly seized control and thuggishly maintain control. Hamas effectively sovereign in Gaza could have a different kind of sovereign existence had it not immersed itself from the outset in irredentist rejectionism. It's an utter species of nonsense to think of Hamas as a partner for peace; and the gravamen of Klein's piece is right and accurate: "But there’s no clear mandate to be had for any party on questions of national security. Most Israelis understand, no less than their critics, that the ongoing occupation is a long-term existential threat to the Jewish state. But they also understand that a Palestinian state, created by a national movement that denies Israel’s legitimacy, could become an immediate existential threat, turning Tel Aviv into the next Sderot, the Israeli town bordering Gaza which has endured thousands of rocket attacks over the last decade, making normal life impossible."

- basman

November 16, 2012 at 5:53pm

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

@nayyer_ali +roid: Just curious -- Would you like to survey the Kurds, Chechens, and Tibetans as to whether they consider themselves "citizens with rights"? Would you like to compare the rights of the Israeli Arabs with the rights they'd have living in the Arab countries surrounding Israel? Would you like to check on the surveys asking them where they'd like to wind up in any territorial division between remaining in Israel or on the "palestinian" side of the line? Would you like to check on the rights of the "palestinians" living in Gaza under Hamas control or in the West Bank under Fatah? And would you please cut the crap about "illegal occupation"? Yes -- there are serious long-term problems in maintaining the current arrangements. But they ain't nothing compared with the flat-out refusal of the Arab world to acknowledge Israel's right to exist, and in the continuing violence now coming from Gaza, and the not-so-subtle verbalized threats emanating from other places in the oh-so-peace-loving Muslim world.

- LISAH

November 16, 2012 at 6:19pm

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

basman, the distinction you attempt to make between Gaza and the West Bank is about like the distinction between Occupied France and Vichy France. Fact is, Israel will not stop illegal colonization of the West Bank in order to come to the table to make peace. Abbas says Israel is the state west of the 1948 armistice line, the recognition that Israel has claimed for 60 years to want, and Netanyahu pooh-poohs. If Israelis believe that the occupation is an existential threat, they are none-the-less unwilling to stop illegal settlement, condemned by the whole world, in order to rid Israel of that threat. Israel endlessly accuses the Arabs of bad faith, of not being willing to make peace while claiming to want peace. There is no greater expression of bad faith than Israel's insistence on continuing to colonize the Arabs while claiming it wishes peace. Second would be Israel's insistence that the Palestinians abandon their claimed right of return in advance of a final settlement, a matter specifically consigned by Oslo to final settlement. As Israel will not make peace, it must continue to occupy the West Bank, subjecting itself to the long-term existential threat that we are told here it recognizes "no less than its critics." In what manner then can Israel be said to recognize the threat? Rhetorically? Given its actions, the only possible conclusion is that Israel doesn't want peace; it wants the settlements. It cannot have both. Hence it will not come to the table. We shall see whether the PA bends to Israeli threats and abandons its pursuit of recognition by the General Assembly. I think not. Israel is as adamantly opposed to Palestine pursuit of legal means to statehood, the very means, General Assembly action, that created the State of Israel, as it is to violent means. It wants to hold Palestinian statehood hostage to Palestinian legitimation of the illegal settlements. The strategy is ultimately doomed.

- roidubouloi

November 16, 2012 at 6:31pm

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

The occupation is legal to the extent necessary for Israel's security. The settlement of occupied territory is flagrantly illegal. To the extent that the illegal settlement imposes a more burdensome occupation than otherwise necessary, the occupation too is illegal. That is what the Israeli justice on the International Court of Justice concluded in the security fence case -- that to the extent that the security fence is more burdensome to protect illegal settlements, the fence too is illegal. Colonization is a constant provocation to war. Worse, if the Palestinians abjure violence, Israel says, "See, the settlements area not an obstacle to peace." If they resort to violence, Israel says, "See, the Arabs will never make peace." It is Israel that will not make peace because it cannot make peace and have the illegal settlements too. The circumstances of Tibetans, Gazans, Chechens do not alter that reality one iota. They are beside the point. The Palestinian Authority recognized Israel at Oslo. Only this week, Abbas reiterated that the PA accepts Israel as the state west of the 1948 armistice line (even though that includes parts of the Arab partition as granted by the UN). Yet still, the defenders of Israel's illicit lust for Arab land insist that the Arabs will not recognize Israel. It is Israel, not the Palestinians, that will not accept the State of Israel within its "1967 borders."

- roidubouloi

November 16, 2012 at 6:40pm

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

"BEIRUT: Palestinian refugees will not become citizens of a new Palestinian state, according to Palestine’s ambassador to Lebanon. From behind a desk topped by a miniature model of Palestine’s hoped-for blue United Nations chair, Ambassador Abdullah Abdullah spoke to The Daily Star Wednesday about Palestine’s upcoming bid for U.N. statehood. The ambassador unequivocally says that Palestinian refugees would not become citizens of the sought for U.N.-recognized Palestinian state, an issue that has been much discussed. “They are Palestinians, that’s their identity,” he says. “But … they are not automatically citizens.” This would not only apply to refugees in countries such as Lebanon, Egypt, Syria and Jordan or the other 132 countries where Abdullah says Palestinians reside. Abdullah said that “even Palestinian refugees who are living in [refugee camps] inside the [Palestinian] state, they are still refugees. They will not be considered citizens.” Abdullah said that the new Palestinian state would “absolutely not” be issuing Palestinian passports to refugees. Neither this definitional status nor U.N. statehood, Abdullah says, would affect the eventual return of refugees to Palestine. “How the issue of the right of return will be solved I don’t know, it’s too early [to say], but it is a sacred right that has to be dealt with and solved [with] the acceptance of all.” He says statehood “will never affect the right of return for Palestinian refugees.” Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Politics/2011/Sep-15/148791-interview-refugees-will-not-be-citizens-of-new-state.ashx#ixzz2CQsKqDPu (The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)

- Noga

November 16, 2012 at 6:47pm

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

Yes, malahat, Israel is running out of friends, including states that were formerly supportive. The only thing that stands between Israel and UNSC sanctions to enforce UNSC resolutions is the US veto. But the pressure will grow. It the PA gains the recognition it seeks at the General Assembly, it may be able to resort to the International Court of Justice. If if obtains judgment, it will be increasingly difficult for the US to interpose its veto threat to prevent UNSC resolutions from being enforced. The day that sanctions become a reality and Israel is faced with the threat of being cut off from the west, it will fold its hand. Stupid beyond stupid to wait for the inevitable. The occupation is a wasting asset, ultimately doomed whether Israel agrees or not. To fail to get the most now in exchange for ending the occupation is criminal neglect on the part of Netanyahu -- no matter how many Israelis approve.

- roidubouloi

November 16, 2012 at 6:48pm

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

"He says statehood “will never affect the right of return for Palestinian refugees.”" This is a matter consigned by Oslo to the final settlement. Part of Netanyahu's strategic blindness is failing to take the opportunity to extinguish Palestinian claims west of the Green Line in the context of a final peace. In the end, if Israel continues down the same path, there will be a Palestinian state, the occupation will end, and the Palestinians refugees may be able to enforce a right of return to their former homes west of the Green Line, just as refugees from the Yugoslavian wars have been able to do. Netanyahu plays with fire and doesn't even know it. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

- roidubouloi

November 16, 2012 at 6:52pm

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

"He says statehood “will never affect the right of return for Palestinian refugees.”" This is a matter consigned by Oslo to the final settlement. Part of Netanyahu's strategic blindness is failing to take the opportunity to extinguish Palestinian claims west of the Green Line in the context of a final peace. In the end, if Israel continues down the same path, there will be a Palestinian state, the occupation will end, and the Palestinians refugees may be able to enforce a right of return to their former homes west of the Green Line, just as refugees from the Yugoslavian wars have been able to do. Netanyahu plays with fire and doesn't even know it. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

- roidubouloi

November 16, 2012 at 6:52pm

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

No idea why that doubled up.

- roidubouloi

November 16, 2012 at 6:53pm

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

It's telling that the Egyptian and Arab reaction in general to Israel's response to rockets attacks and murder of its civilians was to cynically claim that Netanyahu sent planes to silence the rocket launchers for "political" reasons. It's even more telling that this view has been aped by many anti-Israel and antisemitic Western left wing publications such as the Guardian.

- arnon1

November 16, 2012 at 7:03pm

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

nayyer_ali “It's the occupation, stupid. The Kurds of Turkey, Chechens in Russia, Tibetans in China, are all citizens with rights. Only Israel insists on keeping 5 million Palestinians in bondage in perpetuity.” Ali, you post seldom here and usually to attack Israel’s legitimacy. There is no comparison between the Tibet (where millions were killed by China) or Chechen’s in Russia (that an ongoing struggle going back to the 19th c ) or The Kurds in Turkey ) Alone among the three peoples named about, the Arabs on the West Bank and Gaza had chances for setting up their own countries had they been willing to compromise in 1947, in 1967 and in 2000. Neither the Kurds, nor the Tibetans nor the Chechen’s have had such a choice. It’s also interesting that none of these three peoples have had much international support though their plight was and is much more dire than that of Palestinian Arabs either in Gaza or on the West Bank. The Gazans suffer more from Hamas than they do from Israel. Not that Ali gives a shit about that. Ali then goes on to compare the situation in Israel with that of the US. This is just idiotic and not wroth answering. And no Aliu the demographics in Israel are not comparable to that of the US. The PA has actually inflated the number of Arabs in the refugee camps and on the West bank and these have never been checked by independent sources.

- arnon1

November 16, 2012 at 7:13pm

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

Sophia “Well, I'm starting to lean toward the one state solution. If Israelis don't decide to make a real border forthwith, and getting out of the West Bank, then integrating both territory AND PEOPLE into the state of Israel is the only rational (and fair) solution. The status quo cannot continue. It's flat wrong. And, it's dangerous, for all concerned.” I am not surprised that you would endorse a so called one State Solution which is a kind of “final solution” to the Jewish problem in the mid-east. A one state means another Arab State with the Jews at the mercy of Islamist parties some of whom have nazi like ideas about how to deal with Jews. A prolonged conflict is preferable to suicide. If you can’t stand the conflict, Sophy, why don’t stop being Jewish and stop pretending that you believe in “peace and human rights.” There is no such thing as human rights in the mid East except in Israel. But I will not attempt to convince someone who believes that everyone should get alone even if it means that Jews need to stop being Jews. If this is what you think you have no business talking about “peace in the Middle East.’

- arnon1

November 16, 2012 at 7:19pm

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

roidubouloi "The occupation is legal to the extent necessary for Israel's security. " True, yet the issue before us in not the West Bank or settlements which I am against. The issue is Hamas and it's killing of Israeli civilians. let's deal with one issue at a time.

- arnon1

November 16, 2012 at 7:22pm

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

Well, malahat, it is certainly possible that even after a comprehensive peace that settles the issues of mutual recognition of statehood, borders, refugees, existing settlements, security, and water rights that the Arabs would continue to pursue violence against Israel. Some of them perhaps as it seems that every country harbors crazies. But I don't think that the world would give them sympathy any longer, including most of the Moslem world, which would remove the existential threat to Israel. In that the Israeli commitment to the settlements, including the continuation in the present of illegal settlement, perpetuates a state of war, it is responsible for the continued state of war, with all that entails.

- roidubouloi

November 16, 2012 at 7:22pm

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

Halevi's article was touching, but it was naive to think that Israel can detach itself from what is going on in Egypt, Syria, and other places in the mid-east. Hamas is certainly taking advantage of the changes in the region to try ans start a region wide wart against the Jewish State.

- arnon1

November 16, 2012 at 7:24pm

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

There is no dealing with one issue at a time. Israel has an absolute right to do what is necessary to defend and prevent rocket attacks from Gaza. It also has an absolute obligation to desist from settling the West Bank. If it has any concern for its future, it would do so and make its way to the table to negotiate a comprehensive peace. As I said to malahat, if Israel perpetuates war, it will have perpetual war, with the right of self-defense of course, but with war none-the-less.

- roidubouloi

November 16, 2012 at 7:24pm

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

Steve Bell on Tony Blair and William Hague's role in Israel-Gaza clash – cartoon: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cartoon/2012/nov/15/israel-gaza?fb=native

- Noga

November 16, 2012 at 7:51pm

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

noga: that is some cartoon! The "Protocols" must be a big seller in the UK. sigh. malahat: the missiles might be from Iran, but I think Iran cut Hamas off. The escalation in numbers of launches immediately followed the state visit by Qatar to Gaza (ok, and after the US election). Qatar is very feisty - they deployed fighter jets in the Libya campaign. Now arming (some) Syrian opposition factions, and now Gaza. btw, Marc Tracy on IDF's social media front is refreshingly balanced.

- K2K

November 16, 2012 at 8:09pm

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

I posted it for Sophia's sake. The Guardian pushes the same kind of final solution she, by her own admission, is leaning towards. What kind of one state solution is being proposed by the Guardian's Totalitarian left, which this kind of cartoon helps propagate?

- Noga

November 16, 2012 at 8:19pm

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

http://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/2012/11/16/want-to-occupy-something-occupy-gaza/ One new Youtube, plus Klavan's One State Solution, re-posted after he heard Bret Stephens’ say: “I’m in favor of a two-state solution, if the other state is Canada.”

- K2K

November 16, 2012 at 9:26pm

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

To understand why the idea that Netanyahu is the puppet master of two prominent English politicians is so attractive, I suggest reading page 232 of Darkness at Noon, where the Stalinist grand inquisitor explains what truth is: "Truth is what is useful to humanity" http://books.google.ca/books?id=ONCuLMzDA98C&pg=PA232&lpg=PA232&dq=gletkin++darkness+at+noon+peasants+saboteur&source=bl&ots=OYCaJzKwaX&sig=l6sHiAUV3pMPY4MdWd-3QMPh7rE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=w_emUKfzII_V0gGG1IE4&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=gletkin%20%20darkness%20at%20noon%20peasants%20saboteur&f=false

- Noga

November 16, 2012 at 9:39pm

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

It is time to replace Hamas and let Abbas take over the reins in Gaza. Let peace and constructive work be the norm instead of destructive violence by the gazans. Clean up the destructive fanaticism that only brings defeat after defeat to the gazans. It is just ridiculous that Israel provides electricity, water, food to the gazans. And that Hamas and the other fanatics indulge in providing violence attacking Israelis. As usual the other Moslem countries just stand by, and help violence to go forward. Iran provides all the arms for violence. Heck Iran had a factory building missiles for Gaza/Hamas in Sudan that was recently destroyed by Israel. And Qatar and Egypt continuously advice Hamas not to attack Israel, and are ignored royaly.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 16, 2012 at 9:50pm

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

November 16, 2012 "Steve Bell and editorial oversight" http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2012/11/steve-bell-and-editorial-oversight.html

- arnon1

November 16, 2012 at 11:00pm

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

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/opinion/hope-for-a-peaceful-israel-dwindles.html?ref=opinion&_r=0 What else is there to say? Except that it is not despair that causes Netanyahu to abandon pursuit of the two-state solution he never wanted in the first place and which he has worked to extinguish. It is greed for that which Israel cannot legitimately have, the land of the Palestinians that it occupies.

- roidubouloi

November 17, 2012 at 12:22am

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

"But I condemn Israel’s current leaders for failing to recognize that the best defense is peace." Peace with whom, Hamas? Jessica Apple sounds like she was born, yesterday. No, this morning. I say, this knowing full well, that Netanyahu is not the most perspicacious leader Israel has had.

- arnon1

November 17, 2012 at 12:46am

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

Peace with whom, Israel? Israel under Netanyahu doesn't want peace and won't make peace. It wants the settlements in the West Bank and control over the rest of it and thinks it can "mow the grass" forever. Because that's what Netanyahu's entire political career has been about.

- roidubouloi

November 17, 2012 at 12:50am

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

We know your views, Roid.

- arnon1

November 17, 2012 at 1:13am

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

"Oh, and by the way… Gene, November 16th 2012, 9:21 pm A tragically typical day in Syria. Reports are coming in of tens of people killed or wounded in the shelling of a peaceful anti-government demonstration in Aleppo. Al Arabiya correspondent Mohammad Dughmush was among the wounded. In an exclusive video to Al Arabiya, Dughmush appeared wounded as he explained how the demonstration was targeted and struck by a shell. “There are tens of dead or wounded, I’m not sure… The dead bodies were feet away from me,” said Dughmush as he laid in bed with eyes shut, barely gaining the strength to talk. “The demonstration was 100% peaceful and was purposefully targeted with a mortar shell,” he added. The Syrian Local Coordination Committee reports: Number of martyrs in Syria today has risen to 107 including 4 women and 3 children; 34 martyrs were reported in in Damascus and its suburbs; 25 in Aleppo most of them in Bustan Qaser; 10 in Idlib; 8 in Daraa; 7 in Hama; 6 in Raqqa; 6 in Deir Ezzor; 5 in Homs; 3 in Banyas; 2 in Lattakia; and 1 in Qunaitera Angry demonstrations have broken out in cities across the globe. I made that last part up. Update: Jeffrey Goldberg, who has some other interesting things to say, writes: An acquaintance of mine, a Syrian living in Beirut, wrote me in frustration about this last night. “We get very little interest from the international press compared to the Palestinians. What should we do to get more attention?” My advice is to get killed by Jews. Always works" http://hurryupharry.org/2012/11/16/oh-and-by-the-way/

- arnon1

November 17, 2012 at 1:16am

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

Here is Goldberg: " JEFFREY GOLDBERG Jeffrey Goldberg is a national correspondent for The Atlantic and a recipient of the National Magazine Award for Reporting. Author of the book Prisoners: A Story of Friendship and Terror, Goldberg also writes the magazine's advice column. More EMAIL GOLDBERGRSS FEEDBOOKS The Iron Dome, Press Bias, and Israel's Lack of Strategic Thinking INTERNATIONALNOV 16 2012, 4:01 PM ET177 Some observations as the Gaza crisis continues to unfold: 1. The Iron Dome anti-rocket and missile defense system seems to work better than most people expected. Israel is becoming very good at shooting down missiles. 2. Israel also seems to be getting better at not killing civilians in Gaza. The numbers are of course too large, and this could change in an instant, but right now the casualty rate is much lower than in Operation Cast Lead. And yes, of course, much smaller than the numbers from the American drone war in Pakistan. Hamas, of course, is trying to maximize civilian casualties. Which brings me to: 3.The media is biased against Israel. Yes, got it. Yes, Israel is being judged harshly. Yes, I know that probably 300 people have been murdered in Syria since this Gaza affair started, and no one cares. An acquaintance of mine, a Syrian living in Beirut, wrote me in frustration about this last night. "We get very little interest from the international press compared to the Palestinians. What should we do to get more attention?" My advice is to get killed by Jews. Always works. That said, what do pro-Israel people want? And what does Israel itself want? Israel is more powerful than its Palestinian adversaries, and the press almost axiomatically roots for the underdog. There is much greater sympathy for the Palestinian cause than before, which is partially Israel's fault -- if Israel didn't appear to be a colonizer of the West Bank, it would find more sympathy. Jews, and certainly a Jewish state, are never going to win popularity contests, but the situation wouldn't seem quite so dire to Israelis and their friends if people plausibly believed that the Netanyahu government was interested in implementing a two-state solution. 4. Barack Obama hasn't turned against Israel. This is a big surprise to everyone who has not paid attention for the last four years, or who had decided, for nakedly partisan reasons, to paint him as a Jew-hater. 5. Israel's media campaign -- Gamify? -- is disgraceful. David Rothkopf just pointed out to me that people are most influenced by their enemies. In this case, the braggadocio of the IDF is beginning to resemble the braying of various Palestinian terror outfits over the years. All death is tragic, even the deaths of your enemies. 6. I'll be asking the same question over and over again the coming days: What is Israel's long-term strategy? Short-term, I understand: No state can agree to have its civilians rocketed. But long-term, do Israeli leaders believe that they possess a military solution to their political problem in Gaza? There is no way out of this militarily. Israel is not Russia, Gaza is not Chechnya and Netanyahu isn't Putin. Even if Israel were morally capable of acting like Russia, the world would not allow it. So: Is the goal to empower Hamas? Some right-wingers in Israel would prefer Hamas's empowerment, because they want to kill the idea of a two-state solution. But to those leaders who are at least verbally committed to the idea of partition, what is the plan? How do you marginalize Hamas, which seeks the destruction of Jews and the Jewish state, and empower the more moderate forces that govern the West Bank? Here's one idea: Give Palestinians hope that Israel is serious about the two-state solution. And how do you do that? By reversing the settlement project on the West Bank. It is not unreasonable for Palestinians to doubt the sincerity of Netanyahu on the subject of the two-state solution, when settlements grow ever-thicker. There's no way around this: The idea of a two-state solution will die if Israel continues to treat the West Bank as a suburb of Jerusalem and Kfar Sava, and not as the future location of the state of Palestine. UPDATE: 7. Hamas also lacks coherent thinking. Here is David Makovsky of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy on where Hamas went wrong in this latest round of violence: Hamas seems to have miscalculated on several fronts. First, it may have believed that Israel would avoid major action for fear of antagonizing the new government in Cairo, given Gaza's proximity to Egypt and Hamas's close ties with the Muslim Brotherhood. It may also have believed that recent shows of regional solidarity (including the Qatari emir's visit to Gaza last month and ongoing support from Turkey) would raise the diplomatic cost of Israeli action to prohibitive levels. In addition, Hamas may not have expected an attack against a high-profile target like Jabari, which was a change from Israel's pattern of sporadic retaliation to rocket fire. Indeed, Israel considered him a leading terrorist -- he was responsible for overseeing at least one suicide bombing in the late 1990s and was key in Hamas operations during the second intifada, when the group carried out numerous suicide attacks. And when Hamas took over Gaza in 2007, he organized its fighters into a military force with companies, battalions, and brigades. Jabari is also believed to have overseen the detention of kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, allowing himself to be photographed when Shalit was swapped for Palestinian prisoners last year." http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/11/the-iron-dome-press-bias-and-israels-lack-of-strategic-thinking/265360/

- arnon1

November 17, 2012 at 1:18am

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

Roidubouloi, I do not understand why you keep harping on settlements. That is by far not the principle obstacle to peace. Case in point - there are no settlements in Gaza, all of them were forcibly dismantled by Israel in 2005. Yet, Gaza rockets continue to rain down on Israeli cities. During the 2000 Camp David summit, an astonished Arafat was offered a permanent solution to 90% of all outstanding land issues that would pretty much dismantle all but a few Israeli settlements and forevermore stop settlement expansion. He refused and walked out of the talks without even so much as a counter offer. In fairness to Arafat, had he accepted peace with Israel and declared the conflict to be over, the duration of his personal survival would be directly correlated to the duration of his return trip to the territories. The conflict ultimately has very little to do with Israel's misguided settlements. Today’s Palestinians consider all of Israel a settlement and will not be satisfied until the Jewish state is eradicated through either direct armed struggle or backdoor stratagems like the so called “right of return”. This view is not merely held by a minority of “crazies” as you put it, but a by sizable majority of Palestinians. No Palestinian leader can agree to any peace or security arrangement that permanently precludes this ultimate goal – which is of course why Arafat fled the Camp David summit. I am sorry, but real peace is currently not possible To pressure Israel into making unilateral concessions or to accept a counterfeit peace arrangement is to knowingly or inadvertently advocate for its destruction.

- Nicomachus

November 17, 2012 at 2:39am

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

The short answer to you, Nichomachus, is to read the Goldberg article posted by arnon just above your post. I don't think that the settlements justify the violence that emanates from Gaza; I think that the Palestinians should pursue their political goals peacefully (and would get much further faster if they did). But, of course, Israel levies threats when they do pursue their political goals by legitimate political means, such as the same appeals to the UN that the nascent State of Israel employed at its own creation. Irony of ironies: Then the Arabs said the UN cannot create a Jewish state without the consent of the Arab population and any such state would be illegitimate and a violation of Arab rights. Today, Israel says the UN cannot create a Palestinian state without the consent of Israel and any such state would be both illegitimate and a violation of Israel's rights. The Arabs were wrong then, Israel is wrong now. This is what it means to live under a system of law, international law, however imperfect, that disputes are to be resolved by legal and political means, not by violence or by the exercise of power, and the violence it entails, in violation of law. That said, your post implies that the violence would be justified if the settlements, and the growth of the settlements, were occurring in Gaza, as if there is some relevant distinction between Gaza and the West Bank. This is tantamount to saying that the French in Vichy had no business attacking the Germans because Vichy France wasn't occupied although northern France was. Most important, it is not a unilateral concession for Israel to stop enlarging its settlements. The settlements are flatly, flagrantly illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention and a large number of UNSC resolutions. Israel has an absolute obligation to cease its illegal settlement whether there is peace or not. It cannot legally settle occupied territory. Israel wants to continue its illegal activity and use its own violations of law as a bargaining chip. It also uses them to frustrate the possibility of negotiations because it does not want a negotiated solution. It wants no solution, not a one-state solution, not a two-state solution. One should not then wonder why, as Goldberg says, "It is not unreasonable for Palestinians to doubt the sincerity of Netanyahu on the subject of the two-state solution, when settlements grow ever-thicker. There's no way around this: The idea of a two-state solution will die if Israel continues to treat the West Bank as a suburb of Jerusalem and Kfar Sava, and not as the future location of the state of Palestine." There has never been a time and place, nichomachus, when colonization was not a provocation to war, usually ending up as a war of extermination. Friends of Israel might wish the world were still in a time when such wars of extermination were countenanced. But, since World War II, they are not. The world has grown up a bit morally. Israel cannot now do what the Europeans did to the Native Americans or a host of other conquerors did when they conquered territory. It is Israel's fate to have been born in the world of the United Nations and the Geneva conventions. But, of course, had it not been for that world, Israel would not have been born. There is no going back. ________________________________ Yes, arnon, you know my views and I know yours. I was unaware, however, that Jeffrey Goldberg shared my views until I read your post.

- roidubouloi

November 17, 2012 at 7:40am

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

Please note the historical analogies employed by roi to justify his positions about Israel. Israel is compared to Nazi Germany, to American settlers decimating the native population in order to take the land on which he now lives btw, and other colonizers in history, like the Arabs conquering Africa, Asia and parts of Europe. Does anybody really agree with these analogies? http://www.rebelyid.com/2011/05/inconvenient-truths-in-the-middle-east/

- Noga

November 17, 2012 at 8:11am

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

"The case for war, by Amos Oz Amos Oz is a world-renowned Israeli writer. In Israeli political terms he is considered a ‘dove’. During previous wars, for example the first Lebanon war of 1982, Oz was an outspoken critic of the Israeli government. Not so, however, with Israel’s war against Hamas. Here is a short article by Oz in support of the decision to go to war against Hamas, which was published on various websites at the beginning of the war. Amos Oz: “The systematic bombing of the citizens of Israel’s towns and cities is a war crime and a crime against humanity. The State of Israel must defend its citizens. It is obvious to everyone that the Israeli Government does not wish to enter Gaza…. but the suffering of the citizens surrounding Gaza cannot go on….. …. The Arab world will rally together around the atrocious sights that Al-Jazeera will air from Gaza, and the world court of public opinion will rush to accuse Israel of war crimes. This is the same court of public opinion that remains unmoved by the systematic bombing of population centres in Israel. … …. Hamas’ calculation is simple, cynical and evil. If innocent Israelis are killed – good. If innocent Palestinians are killed – even better. Israel must act wisely against this stance, not out of the heat of the moment….” - For more see www.tundratabloid.blogspot.com, 28 December 2008

- Noga

November 17, 2012 at 8:38am

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

Oz's article appears here as well, in case you can't open the link i provided above: http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/000999.html

- Noga

November 17, 2012 at 8:50am

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

I seem to recall that, "in the world of the United Nations and the Geneva conventions", when the invading army is China, and the new colony is Tibet, the argument reverts to(paraphrasing) 'international law does not apply to great powers' or maybe it was the pronouncement that "Kashmir is a mere boundary dispute". Or was it the Sudan example, that it is ok to commit ethnic cleansing/genocide as long as it is inside your post-WW2 artificially created colonial borders. Whatever. Perhaps there are tens of thousands of blankets secretly infected with smallpox (the Lord Jeffrey Amherst Doctrine circa 1700's Massachusetts) awaiting deployment by Mossad.

- K2K

November 17, 2012 at 8:51am

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

Ah yes, the argument goes like this it seems: There are malefactors all over the world, and through time, many that engaged or are engaged in deeds far worse than anything that Israel does. Why then should there be any legal constraint on Israel, at least until it is as bad as Sudan, or China in Tibet, or Germany in France, or the Europeans in the Americas, or who knows which side of the dispute in Kashmir? A Jewish man beats his wife. The police show up to arrest him. He says, "Why are you picking on me? Because I'm Jewish? There are drug dealers murdering people all over black communities and no one cares. But if the Jews were doing it, there would be outrage." What do you think? Does the Jewish wife-beater get off? Does he deserve to get off because worse crimes are being committed by other people elsewhere? Or does membership in civilized society mean that each of us can be held to the standards of civilized society, even though some others get away with crimes? Let's try some simple lessons in civilization and legal order: 1. The reason why the Gazans ought not pursue their political agenda violently is that they ought not pursue their political agenda violently. It is not because they are ostensibly not occupied, although they are besieged, and those in the West Bank are occupied. That suggests that violence in the West Bank would be perfectly legitimate, which it is not. Whether the French were entitled to resort to guerrilla warfare against the Germans was not a function of whether they lived in Vichy France or Occupied France. 2. That China is a Great Power and cannot be restrained by the UNSC, anymore than the United States could be restrained by the UNSC when it engaged an illegal invasion and war of aggression in Iraq, does not mean that the UNSC cannot in practice restrain other nations. It has and it will. Nor does it mean that its mandatory resolutions should be ignored until such a time as we establish a more perfect world legal order. Unless, that is, we think we live in a world where there are no legal and moral boundaries, in which case, why all the complaining about Arab violence? That reduces Israel's claim of justified self-defense to nothing more than propaganda for its use of violence and Amos Oz to a mere propagandist. There either are or are not justice claims that deserve our respect, on their merits not based on who advances them. 3. That Israel has every right to defend itself and to do what is necessary to overcome the will and ability of the Palestinians to do it harm does not now or ever give Israel license to violate the human right of the Palestinians not to be colonized by Israel. 4. If you poke a dog with a sharp stick and it attacks you, you have the right to defend yourself and even to kill it if necessary. But you still bear the moral responsibility for the outcome. _______________________________ Has anyone here ever suggested that Chinese occupation of Tibet is morally acceptable, that ethnic cleansing in Sudan is morally acceptable, or that whatever India or Pakistan does in the course of what is in fact a boundary dispute is morally acceptable? Not that I recall. Rather, the point that is difficult for some to understand is that the inability of the international legal order that we have to address all crimes does not mean that it should address none or that every state has license to commit whatever crimes it wants. The Jewish man may not beat his wife because drug dealers are committing murder and getting away with it. Nor does he escape moral responsibility because others elsewhere are committing worse crimes that are not addressed. Should this really require explanation, or is the explanation necessary only because of the efforts of some at obfuscation?

- roidubouloi

November 17, 2012 at 9:38am

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

More bluntly, I gather that as long as Israel does not engage in biological warfare it is supposed to be beyond criticism. Strange notion, to say the least. As for analogies some don't like, it is often repeated here in defense of Israel's colonization of the Palestinians that the Allied powers after World War II moved borders and populations around because they were the victors. That was a different world, before the establishment of the international legal order in which we now live, an order created in reaction to the horrors of World War II. There was a time when women were regarded as the property of their husbands or fathers. Now they are not. If our sense of justice evolves and we establish new rules in response, we don't allow exceptions because things used to be otherwise. Israel cannot colonize the Palestinians as the spoils of war. It did successfully absorb the parts of the Arab partition that lay west of the 1948 armistice line. But then the world changed. What was permissible then, is no longer permissible.

- roidubouloi

November 17, 2012 at 9:53am

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

Here is the rationalization for Israeli violation of law linked by noga: "The most inconvenient truth of the entire region is a simple look at a map. Israel is such a tiny piece of land in the midst of an Arab sea. Do we really think that making Israel give up any land at all is the single most critical component for peace in the region?" There are some who value land to which they have no legal claim -- because the UN said so -- more than peace in the land they do have. They should not be surprised then that they have no peace. Abbas says he accepts Israel within the 1967 borders and that he cannot return to Safed where he was born. In response, Netanyahu scoffs.

- roidubouloi

November 17, 2012 at 9:59am

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

"Abbas says he accepts Israel within the 1967 borders and that he cannot return to Safed where he was born." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/05/world/middleeast/in-palestine-abbas-spurs-right-of-return-uproar.html?pagewanted=all "President Abbas himself beat a hasty retreat. In an interview with an Arabic newspaper published Sunday, he said he was talking only of his personal aspirations, not about giving up anyone’s rights, and called the refugees “a sacred matter” that could be resolved only as part of a larger agreement through negotiations. " http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=7847 Let's all listen to roi's prescriptions and simply take his Murti-bing pills.

- Noga

November 17, 2012 at 11:17am

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

Roid, save your typing fingers. Israel does abide by international law. No other country in the region including Turkey has a better record. Even the US and many European countries go against international law when it's in their interests. The issue of the settlements, (which I keep saying I am against) is the only issue that challenges international law. The settlement policy is part of the conflict hat needs to be adjudicated. Just because you are a lawyer you keep bringing up legal issues. However the conflict isn't about law, it's about Israel's existence. That is the essence of the conflict and had Israel withdrawn from the West bank as rt did from Gaza it would be dealing with rockets from that territory also. I don't intend to get into a protracted discussion about this. Right now the problem is with Hamas launching rockets into Israel and Israel's right to defend itself. That is what this is about.

- arnon1

November 17, 2012 at 11:21am

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

Amos Oz who is not shy about criticizing Netanyahu had this to say: "The systematic bombing of the citizens in Israel’s towns and cities is a war crime and a crime against humanity. The State of Israel must defend its citizens. It is obvious to everyone that the Israeli government does not wish to enter Gaza; the government would rather continue the ceasefire that Hamas violated and finally revoked. But the suffering of the citizens surrounding Gaza cannot go on. The reluctance to enter Gaza stems not from indecisiveness but from well knowing that Hamas is actually eager to cause Israel to embark on a military operation: If dozens or even hundreds of Palestinian civilians, women and children are killed in an Israeli action, radicalism would gain strength in Gaza, Abu Mazen’s rule in the West Bank might collapse, and Hamas extremists could replace him. The Arab world will rally together around the atrocious sights that Al-Jazeera will air from Gaza, and the world court of public opinion will rush to accuse Israel of war crimes. This is the same court of public opinion that remains unmoved by the systematic bombing of population centers in Israel. Massive pressure will be exerted on Israel to restrain itself. No such pressure will be placed on Hamas because there is no one to pressure them, and there is almost nothing left with which to pressure them. Israel is a country; Hamas is a gang. What remains for us to do? The best thing for Israel is to achieve a total ceasefire in exchange for alleviating the blockade of Gaza. If Hamas insists on refusing the ceasefire and continues bombing Israeli citizens, we must take care lest the military action play into Hamas’ hands. Hamas’ calculation is simple, cynical and evil: If innocent Israelis are killed – good. If innocent Palestinians are killed – even better. Israel must act wisely against this stance, and not out of the heat of the moment" http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/000999.html

- arnon1

November 17, 2012 at 11:26am

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

I have already linked above to and quoted what Amos Oz said.

- Noga

November 17, 2012 at 11:39am

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

OK now that everybody's ticked off - If sincere efforts are not being made to create a border and withdraw from the West Bank then what. You get all bent out of shape and accuse us, who have concrete ideas about solutions (such as dealing with the settlement issue and making a border, stop occupying etc) of not being real Jews, so forth. That's truly absurd. Do you guys really think we don't value Jewishness or for that matter Israel? The opposite is true. We can read the tea leaves, #1, and see how isolated Israel has become. So, I for one am really afraid for the state and people of Israel. It is time to get serious about the peace process. There is no excuse for making these settlements. That would be a big start - a sincere and honest settlement freeze. And #2, what about Jewish values? Where does it say we're in favor of occupation, suppression of another people and war?

- Sophia

November 17, 2012 at 11:49am

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

Above points about minority rights in various states, such as Kurds, are well taken. Religious and ethnic minorities are not treated very well in the Middle East. The sense of identification of family, clan, tribe, sect and religion is so powerful it seems to trump everything else. A friend of mine, of Palestinian Christian descent, says of the ME, "religion is destiny." Individualism, even allegiance to a modern nation state, isn't as powerful as one's inherited identity. We see that Lebanon, in the low status of Copts in Egypt, internal conflicts in Syria and Iraq, between Berbers and Arabs, Sunnis, Shi'a and Sufi Muslims, and it's a prime motivator for war between Israel and Arabs and maybe Iran. So, changing that will be difficult if it's even possible. What can be done is to remove a thorn from the lion's paw in the way of the occupation. Doesn't this make sense? Otherwise you're really stuck with two options: oppression of another people, endless war, or a binational state with all the problems inherent in that situation, which are pretty big. That said it might be doable. Although, we still have Civil War issues here. But, one thing's for sure: not doing ANYTHING is leading to tragedy.

- Sophia

November 17, 2012 at 11:55am

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

You and us. The really good Jews can read the tea leaves. Sophia admits that her articulations about Israel are based on reading tea leaves. Reading tea leaves is a form of divination which relies on the psychic's ability to interpret and predict the future from the patterns created by loose tea leaves. It couldn't get more fantastic than this. roi with his murti bing pills and Sophia with her tea leaves are urging pragmatism and International Law. Theatre of the absurd.

- Noga

November 17, 2012 at 11:57am

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

Anyway it is too late for Sophia to pedal back after she has already admitted to being inclined towards a one state solution. Funny how nobody talked about one state solution when Palestinians were under Jordanian rule. It was cleaner and more honest then. No Israel. End of discussion. What next, Sophia? Are you going to join BDS? "It is important never to forget that many of the activists behind IAW and BDS are not interested in simply “reforming” Israel. As Norman Finkelstein made clear recently at Imperial College, London, leaders of the BDS movement “think they are really clever” by covering up their real intentions when they call for a “three-tier” agenda of ending the occupation, demanding the right of return for all Palestinian refugees and equal rights for all Arabs in Israel. “You know and I know what the result is. There is no Israel!” he said." http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=258507

- Noga

November 17, 2012 at 12:04pm

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

No, arnon, Israel does not abide by international law, and the matter has already been adjudicated. Do yourself a favor and read the ICJ opinion on the question of Israel's security fence. The settlement by Israel of occupied territory is in flagrant violation of the human rights of Palestinians under the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Israeli justice on the ICJ wrote that, to the extent that the security fence is for the purpose of protecting the illegal settlements, it too is illegal. Also, contrary to your claim, the conflict is not about Israel's existence because Israel's existence is not at this point threatened by the Palestinians. They don't have the means and there is no plausible set of circumstances in which they will, including a peace settlement. The larger Arab nation, that you insist should be indifferent to Israel's illegal acts against fellow Arabs (just as I suppose Americans in California should be indifferent to the destruction of the World Trade Center because it did not occur in California), may at some point have the means to threaten Israel's existence. Do you suppose that the threat from the larger Arab world, the vast sea as described in the article noga links, will be mitigated by the continued occupation of the West Bank, or by settling Orthodox mommies and their 10 children there? The fact is that Israel refuses to stop its illegal settlement activity, despite the condemnation of the entire world, the requests of the US, a multitude of UNSC resolutions, in order to come to the negotiating table. It wants to make is cessation of its own illegal behavior a matter for negotiations. noga quotes this as Abbas' supposed "retreat" "President Abbas himself beat a hasty retreat. In an interview with an Arabic newspaper published Sunday, he said he was talking only of his personal aspirations, not about giving up anyone’s rights, and called the refugees “a sacred matter” that could be resolved only as part of a larger agreement through negotiations. " He did not retreat, even rhetorically, from his statement that Palestine does not include the territory west of the Green Line. The matter of refugee rights is indeed a matter consigned by the Oslo agreements to a final, negotiated settlement. Abbas did not want to be understood as abandoning the claims of refugees? He damn well shouldn't be. He was perfectly right to distinguish between what he accepts on his own behalf and the claims of hundreds of thousands that Israel has agreed are to be settled by negotiation as part of a final peace agreement. He would be a fool to do otherwise. Israel will not so much as come to the negotiating table because Israel does not want peace. It wants the Arabs' land and it knows that it cannot take their land east of the Green Line, extinguish their claims west of the Green Line, and also have peace. As between making peace and the land to which it has no legitimate claim, Israel chooses war so that it can cling to that land. THAT is what this conflict is about today. Meanwhile, Israel's strategic situation continues to deteriorate. Although Israel devoutly wishes to play the entire world for fools -- to keep selling the same tired lie that is the Arabs and not Israel that will not come to the table -- the world is not buying. There simply aren't that many fools to be found. Israel becomes only more and more isolated and, sooner or later, the Arab world, and the larger Moslem world, will develop the power, military and diplomatic, to threaten Israel's existence in fact.

- roidubouloi

November 17, 2012 at 12:46pm

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

If Abbas keeps his cool, Palestine will be recognized by the General Assembly. I believe that it will then be able to sign the Geneva Conventions as a State Party. I believe it will then be able to bring action against Israel in the International Court of Justice. It will win its claim, as the ICJ has already made clear its views on the illegality of Israeli settlement of the occupied territory. With time, that ruling will become the basis for sanctions against Israel. If the US blocks them in the UNSC, they will be imposed by state actors unilaterally, as is happening today when the US and EU impose sanctions on Iran that are not approved by the UNSC. On the day when the EU tells Israelis they cannot take a holiday in Rome, that, if they insist on keeping all they land they occupy, land that does not belong to them, they will have no place else to go, the war will come to an end. Probably a lot sooner. Once the specter of international sanctions becomes real enough to a majority of Israelis, the war will be brought to a close, notwithstanding continued enmity and belligerent rhetoric on the part of Palestinians, Arabs, or the larger Moslem world. Suddenly Israelis will discover that their existence does not in fact require, or even become more secure from, the continued occupation and settlement of the West Bank. I just hope you are around to see the day, arnon.

- roidubouloi

November 17, 2012 at 12:56pm

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

"He did not retreat, even rhetorically," Murti bing classic. People who are under attack from a determined enemy ingest the enemy's freely distributed pills and this gives them a sense of meaning and happiness. Then war breaks out, and rather than fight they just to welcome the enemy, and are ceremoniously and with much affection beheaded, one after the other, feeling happy and at peace with the world. Roi here reassures us that Abbas is all for peace and that Israeli Jews really really must believe what he tells them in English and block out what he tells his people in Arabic. roi reassures us that what Palestinians are taught, lectured and sermonized in the media and the mosques mean absolutely nothing. Deep deep in their hearts they don't really want to destroy Israel. And if they do, so what? Netanyahu! Settlers! International law!

- Noga

November 17, 2012 at 1:01pm

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

Netanyahu and the rightwing religous nuts whose agenda dominates his government are handing out all the Murti-Bing pills that Israelis can swallow, as fast as they can swallow them. One need only read here to find as much double-think and double-speak as one has the stomach for.

- roidubouloi

November 17, 2012 at 1:04pm

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

Sophia "Above points about minority rights in various states, such as Kurds, are well taken. Religious and ethnic minorities are not treated very well in the Middle East." These are phrases that belong in discussions in which civil society has already been established. In Europe there are tensions between ethnic, religious and nationalist minorities and the State. Yet there is an overwhelming sense that these tensions are wrong. In the Middle East there is no such large consensus. Only in Israel does one find a consensus that humanitarian values should predominate. By collapsing Israel into its surrounding milieu you are bringing civil society to non Israelis you are merely destroying those tenuous values that exists in that one place.

- arnon1

November 17, 2012 at 1:05pm

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

NOGO and ROIDO can attack each other till next May. Neither will change the other's point of view. There are more important and interesting things to talk about.

- arnon1

November 17, 2012 at 1:06pm

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

Whether or not Israel has a partner for peace, whether or not the Palestinians will make peace based on the 1967 borders as they claim, Israeli colonization of occupied territory is flatly, flagrantly illegal, a violation of the human rights of the Palestinians under the Fourth Geneva Convention to which Israel is a signatory. Only an Israeli, or soi-disant supporter of its right-wing, extremist-dominated government, stuffed chock full of Murti-Bing pills, could fail to understand that this is a constant provocation to war, as colonization has been everywhere and at all times in human history. Even in the Middle East. The security measures needed to protect the illegal settlements compound the problem.

- roidubouloi

November 17, 2012 at 1:11pm

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

"Netanyahu and the rightwing religous nuts whose agenda dominates his government are handing out all the Murti-Bing pills that Israelis can swallow, as fast as they can swallow them" Israel is the one place in the world where the citizens are most likely to be immune to murti-bing. You can't soap them up with feel good statements and soothing prophecies. Anyone who has one iota of knowledge about Israel would know that.

- Noga

November 17, 2012 at 1:11pm

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

This is what war crimes and crimes against humanity looks like: "The Noble and the Base: Poland and the Holocaust" http://www.thenation.com/article/171262/noble-and-base-poland-and-holocaust?page=full#

- arnon1

November 17, 2012 at 1:14pm

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

When you have something important or interesting to say, arnon, we are all ears. Have you changed anyone's point of view lately? Has anyone ever changed your point of view in the course of your entire life? What is the most important and/or interesting thing you have ever said in your entire life? Please bless us by sharing. Or could it be that we have read here today all the important and interesting things you have to say. Rather meager, don't you think?

- roidubouloi

November 17, 2012 at 1:14pm

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

"When you have something important or interesting to say, arnon, we are all ears." OXOX :)

- Noga

November 17, 2012 at 1:15pm

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

The illegal settlements are neither a war crime nor a crime against humanity. They are, however, violations of Palestinian human rights. The Fourth Geneva Convention makes a distinction between crimes and other violations. Read it some time. If they were a crime, Israeli leaders would by now be doing time in the Hague.

- roidubouloi

November 17, 2012 at 1:17pm

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

Typically noga, to re-characterize and re-state something someone else says so that she can find a basis for criticism. I did not say anything about whether Abbas should or should not be believed. I didn't say anything about what is in the hearts of Palestinians. The basis for peace is in viable international arrangements, and the question to be answered by peace negotiations is whether such can be framed. Israel refuses to come to the table. It can cite its beliefs about what the Palestinians believe as its excuse, but it refuses to negotiate peace. Only someone stuffed with Murti-Bing pills (self-administered) could fail to observe the obvious reason: that Israel cannot have both peace and the Palestinians' land and fears to come to the pass where there is no longer any ambiguity about that, where it can no longer claim rhetorically that the Arab mind, rather than Israeli greed, is the obstacle to peace. Because then the world will react.

- roidubouloi

November 17, 2012 at 1:25pm

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

"Obama reiterates support for Israel's right to defend itself" "PM Netanyahu calls US president to update him on Gaza operation, thanks him for investment in Iron Dome defense system. White House says leaders discussed options for de-escalating situation" Yitzhak Benhorin http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4306918,00.html

- arnon1

November 17, 2012 at 1:28pm

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

Here is what you wrote: "There are some who value land to which they have no legal claim -- because the UN said so -- more than peace in the land they do have. They should not be surprised then that they have no peace. Abbas says he accepts Israel within the 1967 borders and that he cannot return to Safed where he was born. In response, Netanyahu scoffs." You were criticizing Israelis for valuing land over peace, and then mentioned how Abbas, in his statement (that he hastily withdrew) values peace over land. This is the logical interpretation of your own words and formulation. Perhaps you were surprised by your own unwitting clarity in the matter? Typical of roi that when someone actually takes his words seriously, he should then pour thousands of words trying to convince himself that he didn't really say what he said. I think we get your view: International Law as the basis for peace. And that international Law should be applied at its harshest and most literal to the Israeli party. Yet hasn't International Law changed according to circumstances? The Brits were given a mandate based on International law to supervise Palestine for Jewish statehood and encourage and manage Jewish immigration. Ten years later the British were fighting Jewish immigration, again, with the backing of this rather volatile and malleable International Law. The Partitioning of Palestine was unacceptable to the Arabs even though it was based on International Law. That means they didn't give a rat's ass for international Law then. Now Arabs have found the benefits of International Law again, when it seems to serve them to criminalize the Jewish state. International Law dictates that a state is fully justified and obliged to defend its citizens yet the International community, which is presumably in charge of and formulates International law condemns Israel for doing just that, accusing it of violating International Law. So how reliable is International law as the basis for peace in such a conflict?

- Noga

November 17, 2012 at 1:49pm

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

As ever, noga must first re-write my words and attribute to me things I don't think in order to take issue. I neither said nor implied anything about what Abbas values. I correctly reported that he publicly accepts the existence and legitimacy of the State of Israel within the 1967 lines. He quite properly clarified that this does not settle the claims of Palestinian refugees, a matter that Israel itself agreed at Oslo is to be resolved in the context of a final peace agreement. Indeed, Abbas did not even assert a position as to how these must be resolved. He reiterated what Israel has already agreed to, that this is to be resolved by negotiation as part of a final settlement. The Palestinians have no partner for peace. The inveterate liar, Netanyahu, instead of saying that Israel must not let this opportunity, this reiteration of Palestinian acceptance of the existence and legitimacy of Israel pass without doing what it can to establish Abbas's sincerity, responds with the dead Likud talking point, that Israel has no partner because Abbas's deeds belie his words. Like any liar, Netanyahu accuses the other of his own discreditable behavior. It is Netanyahu's deeds that belie his words, as if there exists a soul in the world who would believe Netanyahu's professions of peace even without his insistence on continuing Israel's illegal actions. My point was about Netanyahu, not about Abbas, plainly so for those who understand Englishnand choose to do so. The irony of Israel's military action now is that it virtually ensures that Abbas will persist at the UN and that the General Assembly will grant the sought after status to Palestine. If I were Abbas and Netanyahu makes good his threat to strangle the PA, I would call Netanyahu's bluff and disband the PA, surrendering full responsibility for governing the West Bank back to Israel, the Ocupying Power under international law. The military, economic , and above all diplomatic cost of the occupation would rise enormously as a result.

- roidubouloi

November 17, 2012 at 4:20pm

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

According to roi, Israelis do not have the right to defend themselves because there is never a good moment to so. What can he otherwise mean by stating : "The irony of Israel's military action now is that it virtually ensures that Abbas will persist at the UN "?? How many dead Israelis there have to be to meet roi's condition to go to war? As far as I'm concerned, one is too many.

- Noga

November 17, 2012 at 6:35pm

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

Some of you, you know who, think that Israel can successfully appease the Arabs and other Muslims with concessions on the settlements and other issues. They will not be appeased. They believe that the only appropriate position for the Jews is under foot. That is the requirement of Islamic law, called Shariah, a universal law to be applied to all, believers and non-believers, for all time in all places. This is helpfully reinforced by modern antisemitism and the modern instruments of propaganda and terror. The only appropriate response to such a barbaric and illiberal culture is to instill fear and hopelessness in the enemy. This is not some territorial conflict between two little peoples. It is Israel against the Islamic Goliath. In a more reasonable world, Israeli acquiescence on strategically located settlements would be reciprocated with peaceful and respectful gestures by the Muslims and their advocates. Unfortunately, Israeli withdrawal from most of Judea and Samaria would be interpreted by Arab Islamic warrior culture as a sign of weakness, therefore worthy of contempt. There would be further demands. Judea and Samaria would shortly after be armed with thousands of rockets, like Gaza, with the advantage of occupying a higher elevation. My fellow liberals have a hard time understanding that some people live by a different code, where it is really nobler to hate others, to conquer, and to die in battle. The Israelis are under no obligation to commit suicide. Their national strategy must be to build themselves up as a regional economic and military power, supported by aggressive diplomacy, and prepare to rule over Muslims for a long time. That requires a mind set different from rabbinic and diaspora culture. As for the "Jews" at the NY Times, they've always been on their knees. They are so pathetic.

- amidut

November 17, 2012 at 7:59pm

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

Hamas has threatened that if Israel uses ground troops they will be confronted with the Hamas armada of suicide bombers. We see Hamas at its worst of savagery fanaticism Islamists . Although they sound like children that never developed. At any rate they are very primitive and very criminal. They don't belong to the 21st century. No wonder the rest of the Moslem countries consider the Gazans despicable and inferior. As it is, Israel provides the Gazans with water, electricity, food, medicines. The UN refugees chapter UNRWA provides money for daily living, and the Islamic countries like Iran , Qatar,, provide the thousands of missiles for attacking Israel. And most of the Gazans are unemployed, except fanatics Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Aqsa "Martyrs", who are busy firing the missiles/rockets. In the West Bank, Abbas and Fayad and the Israeli army have minimized the fanatics. Hence Judea and Samaria can continue progress constructively . Palestinians have jobs, and are busy as construction workers.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 17, 2012 at 10:17pm

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

Very well said by amidut.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 17, 2012 at 10:19pm

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

A must see cartoon http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151238805241435&set=a.10150944018581435.439409.507736434&type=1&relevant_count=1&ref=nf

- JAIMECHUCH

November 17, 2012 at 10:24pm

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

Roi, I'm a big supporter of yours on domestic policy, but all this talk that the center of the struggle here is over UN legalities and Geneva Conventions (both of which, last time I checked, are rarely enforced) is so much nonsense. Sure the settlements should go. Sure Bibi is corrupt, disgusting human being. But the fact is, that a poll by One Voice Palestine in 2009 (I believe) showed only 17% of the Arab population in the Levant as being in support of giving ANY land to an opposing state in some sort of final settlement. Which, by my math, means that 83% of Palestinian Arabs are dedicated to the goal of pushing the Jews into the sea, as the Secretary General of the Arab League vowed they would do in 1948. For what it's worth, the pollster's sister organization in Israel showed 71% support for (some sort of) a 'land for peace' deal. Noga's comment of 1:49 has you pretty much nailed on this issue. There's nothing to do with legalities. Only morality and war (but, yes, the settlements should be frozen immediately--the problem is, that's not remotely the central issue).

- Curran1

November 17, 2012 at 10:27pm

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

(I hope Amidut's at least partly wrong...and likewise hope that getting rid of the settlements can be a positive step that will at least clarify the...optics of the situation for naive foreign observers, but I have to admit it's hard to see much else coming out of it)

- Curran1

November 17, 2012 at 10:59pm

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

Of course there are people that are ignorant. Others are de mentally biased. Some are self hatred and demonize the great prime minister Bibi. They all fail. They can not live with the fact that the liberated territories have come a great length of advancement, peace and progress. For Jews to be proud of this great positivism. As compared to all the negatives that come from the Arab world. Thus admire the achievement of Judea and Samaria even if it acidities your ill stomachs. NEW DOCUMENTARY SHOWING THE BEAUTY OF JUDEA AND SAMARIA________________________________________ New documentary showing the beauty of Judea and Samaria http://dusiznies.blogspot.com/2012/11/new-documentary-showing-beauty-of-judea.html (Scroll down for video) The Jews living in Judea and Samaria and other settlements are seen as heroes by many Jewish people. These settlers are there to protect the Jewish land given to them by god. The media often refers to Judea and Samaria as the West Bank, while trying to paint these settlers as violent people. Yet this is far from the truth, with one visit to the settlements you see the peace, unity and love that exists in these settlements. One man decided to change the view of the Jews about Judea and Samaria by recording a documentary about Jewish life in a settlement. Ezra Ridgley visited Israel for the first time 10 years ago and was deeply moved by the dedication and commitment of Jews settling in these communities. Previously, I had seen Israel "as a nation still struggling with dealing with the Arabs and still not as modern as the West. That changed immediately after my first visit.” Ridgley said: “I started traveling through dozens of cities and towns across the country and I was pleasantly surprised at how modern and beautiful Israeli cities are. This was the Israel I was never told about.” Ridgley decided it was crucial to let others know what was really going on in the Jewish settlements. He took many photographs, did interviews and started a website. After returning many times and having visited over 100 settlements he wrote a book: Judea and Samaria - The land of God. The book documents the optimism of Jewish settlements and how Jews are returning to the land that was written about in the Bible. It also proves that the West Bank land belong to the Jews historically, legally, religiously and morally. One of his objectives is to combat negative stereotypes about people living in the settlements. “I found the people to be interesting, cultured and refined, not extreme or violent, as we hear in the media," he said. Now Ridgley has taken the many hours of video recordings and made it into a 90-minute documentary called: “The Spring of Judea and Samaria." He hopes his documentary reaches many Jews so they can become educated on the truth about Israeli settlements. They will get a firsthand look into the life of Jews in these settlements. http://dusiznies.blogspot.com/2012/11/new-documentary-showing-beauty-of-judea.html All proceeds will go to Bnei Chayil Yeshiva Kedumim in the Samaria region and Girls High School in Kochov Tzvia Ya'akov of the Binyamin region. Both schools help children who are struggling with emotional and/or learning problems. "My goal with the book and the video is to create a new awakening to the land that is central to our identity and Jewish heritage. When we can all see the clearer picture, the Jewish world will focus more attention and realize that settling in this land is essential for our future and continued existence as a people.” Ridgley said. Posted by Dusiznies at 11:59 AM Email This BlogThis! Share to Twitter Share to Facebook Labels: Documentary Judea and Samaria, Judea Samaria Reactions:

- JAIMECHUCH

November 17, 2012 at 11:29pm

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

The beauty of Judea and Samaria. The pride of the Jews. http://dusiznies.blogspot.com/2012/11/new-documentary-showing-beauty-of-judea.html

- JAIMECHUCH

November 17, 2012 at 11:33pm

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

I don't know what exactly the NY Times' problem with Israel is, but everyone of their "news" articles manage to place that country in the wrong: it fighting at the wrong time, in the wrong place, its strategy is flawed, it caused the battles by doing "X" (never mind that X came after the other side killed Israeli civilians. They often end their articles by quoting some "Israeli expert" who just happens to confirm the reporters view that Israel is losing. They have been writing similar reports since the mid 70's. For a country that's losing it's in pretty good shape militarily and economically. I have no idea what it will take to make the NY Times offer more reasonable if not more truthful account of Israeli society in war and peace? No person who cares about truth should take that paper's analysis too seriously.

- arnon1

November 18, 2012 at 12:33am

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

arnon. Although I don't want to get into this discussion here, but what did you expect from a newspaper whose new Middle East correspondent, soon to be stationed in Israel (supposedly of Jewish faith) responds to congratulations of well wishers with "shukrans" and gets her introduction to the area from Ali Abunimah and Philip Weiss – founders of the Electronic Intifada and Mondoweiss websites. Two of the most anti Israeli, some say antisemitic websites. Did you expect anything else? I didn't.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

November 18, 2012 at 9:25am

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

Have you visited MW or EI? They are the Mos Eisleys of the Internet, as far as Israel and/or Jews are concerned. The only antisemite they ever identified was Gilad Atzmon the ex-Jew ex-Israeli who was quoted by Erdogan in his famous kerfuffle with Peres at Davos. They determined this with the help of AbuKhalil, for whom every Arab ruler is a Zionist, including Morsi, for not fighting Israel on any possible level. Abukhalil, who calls Sadat a Nazi and an antisemite for his history in WWII, attributes no such honours to the much more evident case of the Mufti. Sadat is singled out as an antisemite because he dared make peace with Israel. This is the chain of associations that Mondoweiss and Electronic Intifada are embedded in, and I remember well Jodi Rudoren's gushing over Ali Abunimah when she was appointed to the job. In the twisted journalistic ethics of today, to be an anti-Zionist and to associate with such sources of information is key to brilliant careers. Don't forget that according to Mearsheimer and Walt, Philip Weiss, the genius behind Mondoweiss, is a "Righteous Jew". And today it seems everyone wishes to make that list, that had been redacted by these two so-called respectable academics who both possess such German-sounding names.

- Noga

November 18, 2012 at 9:53am

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

Roid wrote "This is tantamount to saying that the French in Vichy had no business attacking the Germans because Vichy France wasn't occupied although northern France was" Equivalency between Israel and Germany as well as comparing France to Hamas is entirely invalid. Eradication of the German nation state was never a French goal. Furthermore, the French entities were not administered by independent local governments as in the case of WB and Gaza. Hamas was elected by Gazans and represents Gaza, not all Palestinians and their interests everywhere. They have no legitimate authority outside of Gaza. Unlike northern France, there is a recognized independent government in the WB and they are observing a cease fire with Israel despite the settlements. Which brings us to another question, what group does Israel negotiate the status of WB settlements with? Hamas which is doing the fighting supposedly on behalf of the settlements issue, but does not actually administer the WB? Or the PA which administers with WB, but is Hama’s enemy? The notion is absurd. Furthermore, I hope you are not suggesting that Hamas would cease their attacks if Israel unilaterally returned the WB settlements. The exact opposite would actually occur. Hamas would claim victory and escalate their methods. As I said before, the only “settlement” the conflict is really about is Israel itself. The anti-semitic Unites Nations and the International Kangaroo Court can “adjudicate” whatever they want. Israel (and United States, China, Russia, etc) do not recognize the ICJ as a binding authority. And even if Israel did recognize it, legal declarations that require her to commit suicide are morally illegitimate. The only path to a real peace for Israel is one that guarantees her long term security. This requires that the Palestinians settle for something other than total sovereignty and accept that Israel is here to stay for good. If Hamas or PA or whoever the heck represents Palestinians wants an end to settlements in the WB, they are going to have to negotiate for it. Until then, he settlements are merely a red herring propaganda talking point for Hamas and Israel’s critics.

- Nicomachus

November 18, 2012 at 12:54pm

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

amidut, I agree entirely. The "Jews" at the NY Times are useful idiots to their exterminators.

- Nicomachus

November 18, 2012 at 1:01pm

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

Anyone who tries to engage in a reasonable discussion with roi is wasting time. First, there was no binding adjudication about the settlements and the fence, despite what he says. There was an advisory opinion, which is non binding and not declaratory of anything other than someone's opinion. Moreover, every state acknowledges that international law is not a suicide pact and reserves the right to ignore it if the necessity of its defense overrides the law's dictates. The Palestinian Authority, in its Gaza branch, is committing crimes against humanity and promises to destroy Israel and send the Jews into the sea, and roi is worried about a fence! And what Abbas says he recognizes begs the issue. Israel will not settle for the 1948 armistice lines and he knows it, so he is recognizing nothing. As for Israeli greed, described by roi, I've heard that garbage all my life -- Israeli/Jewish greed and lust for what someone else has. Anyone who talks like that is not worthy of any respect. Roi's profound ignorance of Israe is shown by his redundant and hateful description of the motivation of the vast majority of Israelis. Since 1947, Israel's neighbors have been intent on destroying it. Israel's first and foremost desire is for peace, but not any old peace -- it must be peace with security. A Jew-free West Bank would not assure security to Israel. Hence one basis of the legitimacy of the settlements. There is a long list of other bases of legitimacy -- roi can look them up.

- PeteBeck

November 18, 2012 at 3:17pm

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

"... I agree entirely. The "Jews" at the NY Times are useful idiots to their exterminators." Problem is Nicomachus is that the owners of the NYTimes won't be harmed, other "lesser Jews" will suffer retribution. This is what happened during WW2 the Times hid the news that Jews were bein killed and as a consequence many more Jews died because of their decision not to stand up for Jews even though they privatelbdidveverything they could to sav their own family members.

- arnon1

November 18, 2012 at 3:24pm

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

I was very interested to learn -- one of the things that I didn't know before I joined the conversation at TNR some years ago -- that Palestinian political leaders often say something very different to their Arab-speaking domestic audiences from what they have said to the international audience. It makes a lot of sense to the extent that it's somewhat of an extreme version of something you can find elsewhere too. This fact is often utilized in these arguments to the effect that the people who grab onto some reasonable or conciliatory remark by an Arab political leader -- e.g. Abbas -- are just being naive because they don't understand that said leader immediately races down to the nearest Arabic media outlet to cancel out or re-interpret what he has just said to the BBC or whomever. Indeed -- the argument goes -- the majority of Arabs/Palestinians only hear the domestic version anyhow. While accepting the logic of the case thus made, it seems to me to be, upon further reflection, a bit of a fudge. Even if the Palestinian leader X is doing exactly that, that is in and of itself no reason to take the comments made to the international audience as less than valid. The very gap itself seems to offer leverage to the other party, as there is a negotiating maneuver in which one takes the comments of the other party seriously when they are not expecting it, hence wrongfooting them. The mere fact that Abbas was being conciliatory only when he made the comment about his home town to international media, and backed off when we was speaking to a Palestinian audience, should not be seen as an excuse for not taking him at his word, as taking him at his word would cause a tension or rift in the Palestinian rhetorical front. To put it succinctly, I get the impression that the determination that Palestinian leaders speak with a forked tongue is being used to delay any progress, when in fact with smart diplomacy and tactics it could be used to advance progress.

- ironyroad

November 18, 2012 at 6:35pm

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

Isn't that what Clinton and Ehud Barak did when they decided to take Arafat's at his English words and invite him to a summit to iron out a final settlement? And what happened to everyone's surprise except for the most hawkish of Israelis who can speak Arabic, the action that followed this summit was in perfect accord with what Arafat promised in Arabic and in perfect contradiction to the promises he made in English. Israelis may be fooled time and again, but not again and again and again. But that's an inconvenient truth for those who would burden Israel with any murderous outcome for their naivete.

- Noga

November 18, 2012 at 7:45pm

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

" but I thought it was a remarkable thing for Abbas to say." It was and I hope like you that he won't suffer the fate of Jordan's first King Abdullah I bin al-Hussein. I also liked the Israeli President's response when he called him a "remarkable leader." He hasn't been till now, but it took a lot of guts and a lot of love for his people for Abbas to come out and say what he did. http://www.timesofisrael.com/peres-praises-abbas-for-new-brave-statements-on-solving-conflict-urges-israel-to-reach-out-to-him/

- arnon1

November 18, 2012 at 11:06pm

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

On "just wars" and "proportionate response": http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/11/18/america-israel-gaza-the-world/ "...Israel’s fiercer critics attack it for fighting unjust wars against the Palestinians. For some, Zionism itself is an illegitimate idea and a state that has no right to exist has no right to defend itself. Anything it does to defend itself is a crime. This is how Hamas and many others think and it is why people in this camp are able to work themselves up into such a froth of indignation and rage when Israel responds to their fire. For others, Israel may have a right to exist, but its occupation of the West Bank and other crimes against the Palestinians have deprived it of a just grounds for war when Palestinians attack it. People in this camp attack any use of force by Israel as lacking jus ad bellum, basically because they think Israel has forfeited its jus by its occupation and settlement policy. This is where a lot of the non-Muslim European left comes out and it is why they are so quick to attack Israel for a war which, after all, was triggered by rockets from Gaza landing in Israel. ..."

- K2K

November 19, 2012 at 7:59am

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

Curran, All the speculation about what the Palestinians will and will not agree to is just that, and hardly a reason for Israel to continue its illegal settlement with the evident purpose of frustrating negotiations. When there are no negotiations, we will know. With one exception. Although Israelis, and those who buy every bit of Israeli propaganda, have managed to talk themselves into the idea that it is both trivial and obviously necessary for the Palestinians to cede the major settlement blocs to Israel in exchange for bits of marginal desert that no one wants, as long as the physical area is the same (Here, we'll take New York AND, lucky you, you get 400 square miles of the Pecos desert!), the Palestinians have repeatedly refused to accept this deal. It is a deal for fools and suckers. Israel has no legal claim on the occupied territory east of the Green Line. Not only the ICJ has said so, but the UNSC has said so repeatedly. The boundary can be modified for bona fide, or at least plausible, security reasons under 242. Not to satisfy Israel's territorial ambitions. The Palestinians likewise have no more claim on land west of the Green Line. Netanyahu knows perfectly well they he cannot obtain peace AND the settlements. He also knows perfectly well that if he enters final settlement negotiations it will sooner or later become clear that peace can be had if Israel will finally accept that the settlements are illegal. Possibly Israel could actually trade land that both Israel and the Palestinians actually want in exchange for the settlements, but it is doubtful that Israel would surrender any incorporated territory other than the scrap of desert it now offers. Possibly the settlements would be permitted to remain in Palestine in exchange for Israel accepting a like number of Palestinian returnees, the deal I think would be smart for both sides. Or the settlements will have to go. There is not going to be peace for Israel and legitimation of its illegal settlements too. And there will be some form of condominium in Jerusalam. Netanyahu will not negotiate because once the Palestinians are clearly offering a two-state solution in which the land east of the Green Line is theirs and the land west of the Green Line is Israel -- just as Abbas has now publicly stated -- and that it is Israel that will not make peace on that basis, the diplomatic fall-out would be unbearable for Israel. Thus, Netanyahu prefers to procrastinate, to create new obstacles to negotiations as necessary, and to do his best to blame the Palestinians. Abbas has shrewdly thrown another dagger through the heart of Netanyahu's lies. If the settlements are not indeed the principal obstacle to peace, why doesn't Netanyahu agree to stop their expansion and put the Palestinians to the proof that they will not, as you say, make peace? I think the answer is obvious. _____________________ PeteBeck should spare us all any more of his ignorance of law. Yes, the opinion about the security barrier is an "advisory opinion." It says so right at the top. So what? It is not merely some ignorant opinion such as PeteBeck would offer us. It is the opinion of the International Court of Justice itself. Technically speaking, all opinions are advisory. They are not the law of the case, which is the actual decision in favor of one party or another. They are judges advising litigants, the public, and other judges, higher and lower, how they understand the law and what everyone should therefore expect. Opinions manage legal expectations. When the ICJ itself tells you what its opinion is, it is telling the world how it will rule if a binding case reaches it and advising the world as to how to understand legality -- just like binding opinions do. Moreover, there are a raft of UNSC resolutions declaring Israel's settlements to be illegal and abjuring it to desist. These ARE legally binding on Israel as a signatory to the UN Charter. Indeed, in an important sense, the UNSC is a higher authority than the ICJ. Judgments of the ICJ have to be enforced by the USNC, which can do so or not in its discretion. But the UNSC does not require an ICJ opinion as a basis for its legally BINDING resolutions. It can rely on them or not as it chooses. It has plenary authority. Bye Pete. Come back when you have something informed to add to the discussion.

- roidubouloi

November 19, 2012 at 12:40pm

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

As for taking every at their word in English, the platform of the Likud still calls for a Greater Israel including all of the land west of the Jordan. It has never been amended. If we are to take political rhetoric, rather than what is offered or not in the context of negotiations, as the limit of what one or another actor will due, then we must accept the Netanyahu's nominal agreement with a two-state solution is a blatant lie. The ones who were snookered at Oslo were Arafat and the Palestinians. They recognized Israel in the present in exchange for the promise of a future peace agreement and independent state. Then Israel proceeded to continue with its illegal settlement of the West Bank. Israel has broken every commitment to cease the growth of settlements, including, most recently, the commitments made in the Roadmap. Americans may be fooled by Israel time and again, but not again and again and again. That is an inconvenient truth for those who imagine that American power can forever be enlisted in the project of illegal Israeli territorial aggrandizement. The rhetorical ground on which Israel stands continues to shrink as evidenced by its growing isolation. With Hamas in Gaza as the bad cop and Abbas in the West Bank as the good cop, proffering peace in contrast to Hamas' threats, the outcome is clear, except to those burdened with their own naïveté.

- roidubouloi

November 19, 2012 at 12:49pm

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

"As for taking everyone at their word in English . . . as the limit of what one or another actor will do . . . "

- roidubouloi

November 19, 2012 at 12:50pm

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

The liberated legal territories are booming with progress. Judea and Samaria are a proud accomplishment of the best there is in Judaism. Products from Judea and Samaria are preferred purchases by the Palestinians for their high quality. Palestinians have plenty of construction jobs in the rapid development of Judea and Samaria. But Galicianer dishonest self hatred Jews like roi..dent hemor..roid spread their brainless venom and failed mediocrity, a meshugener and meshumet, don't feel sorry for this mediocre vermin.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 19, 2012 at 2:51pm

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

" failed mediocrity" ?? Does that make him a genius? "mediocre vermin" ??? Vermin is either vermin or not. There is no such thing as mediocre vermin. "Galicianer dishonest self hatred Jews like roi" You shouldn't tar Galicieners with a roid brush. How are they responsible for this person's musings? And BTW, roi is very honest about his opinions; especially as he manages to render them with as much venom and distortion as possible he is being totally honest. Furthermore, he is very loving of himself. I don't think there is another poster hereabout who thinks so well of themselves as he does. The question is: is he a Jew? And the answer is, most probably yes. So what? Pablo Cristiani was a Jew, too, and a rabbi to boot.

- Noga

November 19, 2012 at 3:22pm

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

"11/19/2012 - 12:49pm EDT | roidubouloi As for taking every at their word in English, the platform of the Likud still calls for a Greater Israel including all of the land west of the Jordan" Oh look, cows ...

- Noga

November 19, 2012 at 3:25pm

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

He is dishonest because there is no proof of 4th Geneva convention. The liberated territories are legal, and Judea and Samaria are progressing with the efforts of hard working, pioneering intelligent Jews ,lovers of Torah, lovers of God. In comparison with the mediocre vermin that roi..dent hemor..roid is. Hard to pinpoint where his virulent hatred comes from. Psychiatrists would have a plain field explaining the extreme brain damage roid..ent. hemor..roid has. Unless this Galicianer dishonest self hatred Jew is already in a mental institution. He is obsessed with hatred towards Israel and the liberated legal territories. Judea and Samaria laughs at this mediocre vermin. Have you noticed that the Gazans did not fire missiles at Judea and Samaria?

- JAIMECHUCH

November 19, 2012 at 4:06pm

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

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/hamas-rockets-hit-their-own-civilians-twice-as-often-as-they-hit-israelis/ "This sort of thing is not really a problem for Hamas, which is unique in viewing its own civilians not only as collateral damage, but as successful hits so long as their deaths can be blamed on Israel. That was the case with Mahmoud Sadallah, a Muslim child presented to the Egyptian Prime Minister by the Hamas leader in a splashy photo op, who was actually killed by a Hamas rocket. Sixty out of the 703 rockets Hamas fired during the four days of Operation Pillar of Defense fell inside the Gaza Strip on Palestinian civilians, PMO Spokesman said on Twitter on Saturday. Only 27 of the rockets fell on urban areas in Israel. Hamas would rather have a higher kill ratio of Israelis, but it will also accept a kill ratio of their own Gazan Muslims. And if they can’t kill Israelis, they can still terrorize them with constant launches and remain relevant that way while giving their Qatari backers a good show for their money. As long as Israelis are running to shelters in major cities and Obama is pleading with Egypt and Turkey to convince Hamas to accept a ceasefire, then Hamas is still winning."

- Noga

November 19, 2012 at 4:54pm

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

Yes, and as long as Palestinian violence allows Israel to continue its agenda of colonizing the West Bank without suffering real consequences with the rest of the world, then I suppose Israel is winning. Strange notion of winning. I am sure that the Gazans have no actual sense of grievance and simply like to see their children killed. Or maybe they believe, whether rightly or not, that the loss of their young people is a tragic consequence of necessary battle. In that, they may just resemble Israelis. Why oh why don't the Palestinians want to be colonized and dominated by Israel? Per Jaime Chuch, don't they see how wonderful life would be if only they did? Why don't they understand that it is their own fault that Israel colonizes them -- for security reasons, of course? Israel is safest when it colonizes the Palestinians. Hence, Israel has no choice. ______________________ I find it fascinating that the defenders or Israel's violations of the human rights of the Palestinian Arabs run short of argument so quickly and must turn to ad hominem attacks on those with whom they don't agree. Doesn't say much for their arguments, or for them.

- roidubouloi

November 19, 2012 at 5:31pm

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

The time will come when the Jewish people will look back on the colonization of the West Bank and wonder how they could ever have deluded themselves that peace and colonization could possibly be reconciled.

- roidubouloi

November 19, 2012 at 5:32pm

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

The more you repeat "colonization" when you describe settlements in WB the less meaningful this term becomes. Israel was also accused of colonization after the 1947 war. But we all know what colonization looks like, BTW. Here is two examples: http://abagond.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/map_of_the_british_empire_in_the_1920s.png http://indoeuro.bizland.com/project/chron/arab1.jpg Here is a comment I found on the Internet: "Again the classic trope about Zionism being equal to colonialism/imperialism/racism/anything-very-bad-ism. ... The truth is that Zionism is a unique phenomenon in history that does not fit any ready-made rubrics, and this baffles many historians. Trying to make it a colonialist project is trying to fit a round peg in a square hole."

- Noga

November 19, 2012 at 5:51pm

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

"Colonialism is the establishment, exploitation, maintenance, acquisition and expansion of colonies in one territory by people from another territory. It is a process whereby the metropole claims sovereignty over the colony, and the social structure, government, and economics of the colony are changed by colonizers from the metropole. Colonialism is a set of unequal relationships between the metropole and the colony and between the colonists and the indigenous population." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism The shoe fits. Israel has no claim to the territory of the West Bank. It was part of the Arab partition of Palestine and resolution 242 prohibits Israel from incorporating the territory or making unilateral changes, as do a raft of other UNSC resolutions. The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits Israel from settling its own population there. It should also be recalled that for years the government of Israel claimed that it was not violating the Fourth Geneva Convention because the settlements were inherently temporary and could be removed as part of a final peace settlement. The Arabs, quite properly, considered this claim a fraud. There is also a decent argument that the system in the West Bank constitutes apartheid as the two populations are subjected to different law and economic and social opportunities on the basis of ethnicity. Notably, the Arab inhabitants of the West Bank are not permitted to live in the Jewish settlements and the inhabitants of those settlements enjoy privileges, as to movement, water, economic opportunity in Israel, not accorded to the Arab inhabitants. Settling the West Bank was a colossal error in addition to being illegal. Now Israel cannot bring itself to make peace because it would be required to acknowledge the error and remedy it.

- roidubouloi

November 19, 2012 at 9:40pm

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

BS a la roid..ent hemo..roid. The territories were liberated and are legal. UN resolutions are thoroughly ignored by the Arabs/Moslems, thus are worthless. UN is thoroughly biased and unfair against Israel. Arabs/Moslems want no peace with Israel or the Jews. This is the real world. Israel has to defend itself. And the cliche applies again and again. Never again. And the self hatred Jews are just a bunch of traitors.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 19, 2012 at 11:55pm

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

"Colonialism is a set of unequal relationships between the metropole and the colony and between the colonists and the indigenous population." Jews are not indigenous to the West Bank (Judea and Samaria)? Isn't the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan also a colonialist project according to this formula? I don't see anyone making that allegation, anywhere. Maybe because are Arabs are considered indigenous to the Middle East no matter where they wish to live in the region, unlike Jews? Should we cooperate with revisionists who wish to re-create the past the better to suit their political agendas of the present?

- Noga

November 20, 2012 at 8:16am

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

The question of whose territory is whose was settled by the UN in the partition plan. The War of Independence and the 1948 armistice lines de facto modified the partition because the territory west of the line was incorporated into Israel and the UN did not stand in the way. Having learned the lesson of 1948, the UNSC made clear in resolution 242 that the territory conquered in 1967 could not similarly be incorporated. In any case, Israel cannot incorporate the territory and not its population, which Israel, for obvious reasons, will not do. I have said repeatedly here that, in my opinion, Israel could incorporate the West Bank without running afoul of the Fourth Geneva Convention, as incorporated territory would not be occupied. But then Israel would be compelled to grant equal political and civil rights to the Palestinians or clearly commit the crime of apartheid. So anathema is this one-state solution, to Israelis, not seemingly to the Arabs, that noga accuses any Jew who suggests such a thing of perfidy. If the territory is not incorporated, it is occupied and settlers are not indigenous. The overlapping claims to Israel have been settled by partition, at the insistence of the Jews, not of the Arabs. Having insisted on partition, the Jews may not colonize Arab Palestine, even though it is not yet a state, any more than Arabs can freely claim the right to settle in Israel without the consent of the government of Israel. Palestine may not be a state, but the human rights of the inhabitants are protected by the Fourth Geneva Convention and UNSC resolutions. Does Israel wants to live in a world of barbarism, without rules? "Colonialism is a set of unequal relationships between the metropole and the colony and between the colonists and the indigenous population." Israel is the metropole, the West Bank is the colony, the settlers are not indigenous, even if they might have claimed to be before the UN partition, and the relationships are decidedly unequal. Israel is illegally colonizing the West Bank and insists on continuing to do so rather than make peace. It is that simple.

- roidubouloi

November 20, 2012 at 10:48am

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

"Having learned the lesson of 1948, the UNSC made clear in resolution 242 that the territory conquered in 1967 could not similarly be incorporated" Not really. There are two equally VALID interpretations of 242 and no one as yet managed to bridge that gap, if, as you claim, it is a zero sum game. Perhaps the Sharon-Bush understandings did attempt such a reconciliation but as you know, you and Obama claim that there was no such understanding.

- Noga

November 20, 2012 at 11:29am

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

There is no interpretation of resolution 242 that permits Israel to incorporate the occupied territories. There are competing interpretations as to marginal boundary changes, but those are in any case to be agreed upon between the parties, not unilateral. If there was ever any doubt, subsequent UNSC resolutions have made it abundantly clear and indisputable that Israel may neither unilaterally change the legal status of the occupied territories nor settle them. There is no one with authority in the Bush administration who acknowledges the purported side agreement contrary to the express language of the Roadmap. This is the invention, whether contemporaneous or after the fact, of Elliot Abrams who had no such authority as National Security Council adviser but claims to have negotiated this understanding. The letter from the Israeli ambassador to the administration seeking to confirm what he understood from Abrams received no response.

- roidubouloi

November 20, 2012 at 1:59pm

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

As well, Abrams was convicted on two counts of lying to Congress in connection with the Iran-Contra affairs. He is not a reliable source even as to his own actions. But his duties at the National Security Council gave him no brief to negotiate with Israel let alone to approve on his own a purported agreement.

- roidubouloi

November 20, 2012 at 2:01pm

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close