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 Three Reasons Why the Israel-Gaza Ceasefire Won't Last

PLANK NOVEMBER 21, 2012

Three Reasons Why the Israel-Gaza Ceasefire Won't Last

BY JOHN JUDIS

Egyptian Foreign Minister Mohamed Amr has announced a ceasefire in the war between Israel and Hamas. It's good news that the fighting will stop. But aside from the immediate cessation of hostilities there's little to cheer about. Here are three reasons why in the absence of considerable outside intervention, it's only a matter of time until war breaks out again.

A comprehensive peace agreement is not in sight: Peace in the former Palestine rests not only on a permanent ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, but on a comprehensive agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. There is little question that the Palestinian Authority government on the West Bank would welcome such an agreement along the lines of the [Bill] Clinton parameters that were drafted at the end of his term after the failure at Camp David. But Netanyahu’s government and Hamas have both rejected any such agreement.

Some American politicians talk as if beginning the “peace process” merely entails getting Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas into the same room, but a minimal condition of beginning the peace process would be an agreement by the Netanyahu to freeze the settlement expansion and by Hamas to abide by a two-state agreement—or even better to join Fatah in a unitary government that negotiates such an agreement. Without these two prior conditions being met, there is little point in talking about a peace process. 

With governments like these, war is hard to avoid: Netanyahu’s Likud Party and Hamas are different sides of the same dystopian coin. Netanyahu’s Likud party is the latest incarnation of Zionist Revisionism, which originally advocated a Greater Israel that included both the West Bank and Jordan. Many in the party remain committed to a one-state solution. Hamas, which originated out of a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, is also committed to a one-state solution, but an Islamic rather than Jewish state. 

Both the Likud governments and Hamas have done what they could to undermine any attempts at a two-state solution. Politically, they feed on each other. Netanyahu and Likud can point to Hamas as a reason to fear a Palestinian state and to continue expanding into the West Bank. Hamas can point to Likud as a reason to reject Abbas’s moderation and to fire rockets into Israeli towns – an irresponsible tactic that is designed to provoke a retaliation that will result in thousands of Palestinian deaths. With governments like these, conflict isn't a matter of circumstance, but ideology. 

Governments and movements are susceptible to change. And that includes Netanyahu’s Likud government and Hamas. In his last tour as prime minister, Netanyahu opposed Oslo, but in 1998, buckled to Bill Clinton’s pressure to abide by it. Under pressure from Barack Obama, Netanyahu rhetorically endorsed a Palestinian state. Hamas for its part has repeatedly hinted and even said in May 2011 that it would abide by a two-state solution as a transitional measure. But left to their own devices, Likud and Hamas will not moderate their views. That will only happen with outside pressure. 

The United States has chosen not to get involved: Hillary Clinton seems to have succeeded this week in speeding up the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas, but she also wasted precious time in visiting the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah on her way to Cairo. The P.A. had nothing to do with the conflict between Israel and Hamas, and had no role in resolving it. If the U.S. wanted to talk to the participants in the conflict, and get them to stop, it had to talk to Israel and Hamas. But it has refused to talk to Hamas until it recognizes Israel, even though the United States talks to plenty of countries—take Saudi Arabia, to begin with—that have never done so. And Congress, with AIPAC looking on, has also ruled against any American efforts to talk with Hamas. 

Diplomacy does not required loving, respecting, agreeing with or trusting another country or movement. It is a means to affect their behavior. But in this case, the United States has consistently subordinated its foreign policy to that of the Israeli government—and I use the term “government” not “people,” because I would argue that energetic American diplomacy, absent any artificial constraints, could benefit the Israeli as well as American and Palestinian people.

Washington has reserves of power in the region that it has left untapped; and it can also now call on Egypt, which has considerable influence with Hamas. The United States has leverage on the Palestinian Authority and can influence Hamas directly, if it begins to communicate directly with the group, pressuring it to stop its rocket attacks on Israel and to join Fatah in a unity government. The United States has always had leverage on Israel. The Obama administration has to begin using that leverage—pressuring Netanyahu to stop the growth of settlements and to begin negotiations with a willingness to exchange land for peace—even if that means bucking AIPAC and Congress. Without pressure of this kind, there will not be, as Hillary Clinton put it this week, a “durable peace,” or any peace at all for that matter.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 78 comments

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

78 comments

Netanyahu DID freeze settlement expansion for 6 months -- whereupon Hamas took that as an expression of weakness and did nothing until the very end of the period. Face it -- as long as Hamas continues to demand the destruction of Israel, bringing Netanyahu to the table will accomplish little. He can give up all kinds of territories -- as long as Israel exists, Hamas won't agree to it. Or at least, will take what it can get, then continue to pursue its true agenda.

- AllanL5

November 21, 2012 at 7:03pm

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

"Netanyahu DID freeze settlement expansion for 6 months " 10 months.

- Noga

November 21, 2012 at 7:12pm

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

I don't remember much attempt at "moral equivalence" during the election campaign. There was no question who was good and who was evil and no timidity about pushing that line.

- Noga

November 21, 2012 at 8:40pm

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

I think moral equivalence means something different from balancing viewpoints in a regular free election. It tends to involve taking two parties to a conflict and suggesting that, despite apparent major differences in goals, motives etc, one is obligated to regard them as equally complicit in either the conflict and/or some situation that has led to it. A classic example would be to have regarded both the Soviet Union and the US/NATO as dominating players in a global conflict (the Cold War) and to deny to both the privilege of claiming the more virtuous or admirable motives or objectives. To that extent, neither extremely pro-soviet or extremely pro-American positions were implying "moral equivalence" as they were in fact arguing that one side was morally superior.

- ironyroad

November 21, 2012 at 9:27pm

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

universally acknowledged comment to John Judis: "You deserve no such attention"

- K2K

November 21, 2012 at 9:57pm

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

"With governments like these, war is hard to avoid: Netanyahu’s Likud Party and Hamas are different sides of the same dystopian coin. Netanyahu’s Likud party is the latest incarnation of Zionist Revisionism, which originally advocated a Greater Israel that included both the West Bank and Jordan. The party remains committed to a one-state solution. Hamas, which originated out of a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, is also committed to a one-state solution, but an Islamic rather than Jewish state. " John Judis for part of it right but left out the most important part. Jabotinsky the god father of the Likud was a strong believer in Parliamentary Democracy. He especially admired the British system. Hamas may also believe in one Muslim State (actually it's one Muslim world, but never mind--just a small detail), but no one in Hamas believes in Parliamentary Democracy. The Herut, and then the Likud has stood for elections multiple times has been in and out of power too. How many times did Hamas give up power because they lost an election? The similarities John Judis wrote about are skin deep. On a deeper level, the likud and hamas have nothing in common.

- arnon1

November 21, 2012 at 11:48pm

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

It is not clear that Abbas would "welcome" a settlement along the lines of the Clinton parameters. Ehud Olmert made an even more generous offer, and Abbas did not even respond.

- harveychai

November 22, 2012 at 10:06am

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

There are many more reason why this peace treaty won't last, none of them even similar to the those that Judis describes. This is an article written by "an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing".

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

November 22, 2012 at 10:40am

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

If this were Facebook, I would press "Like"under your comment, makover:)

- Noga

November 22, 2012 at 11:48am

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

I am sorry Israel didn't remove Hamas from power. The conflict has been has taken on a life of its own in discourse where it is seen as merely a conflict between Israel and Gaza. It should be framed as a conflict between Hamas and liberal values. Hamas as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood represents a troglodytic religious ideology which represses members of their own community (women and until the last century slaves) and is hostile to other religious minorities. By pointing out Hamas's anti-liberalism the conflict can be seen not as one between Hamas and the Jewish State but between Hamas and all liberal progressive values. Moreover, Hamas (like Hezbollah) claim that only Islamicist values can defeat the Jewish State. These claims have been and are being accepted by larger Arab Muslim world. Hence defeating Hamas will show that they are no more able to defeat Israel than was the Arab nationalist ideology of Nasser or the baathists in Syria and Iraq. In any case, the conflict needs to be re-framed in way that reflects reality. I now the media loves to see every conflict in terms of the good guys vs. bad guys, the weak versus the strong or in terms the aggressor and victim. (Binary thinking lands itself to bumper sticker cliches.)

- arnon1

November 22, 2012 at 11:58am

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

harveychai "It is not clear that Abbas would "welcome" a settlement along the lines of the Clinton parameters. Ehud Olmert made an even more generous offer, and Abbas did not even respond." Abbas want respond until he is sure that he will supported by other Arab States. This in itself shows that the conflict is not between Israel and "Palestine" but between the Arab world (and now the Muslim world including Iran and Turkey) and Israel. This too needs to be insisted upon.

- arnon1

November 22, 2012 at 12:02pm

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

arnon: The conflict was never Israel-Palestine but always Israel and the Arab world. Now, as you pointed out correctly it is also Muslim world.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

November 22, 2012 at 1:05pm

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

| makover "arnon: The conflict was never Israel-Palestine but always Israel and the Arab world. Now, as you pointed out correctly it is also Muslim world." Yes, of course, but the media ( and even some policy makers) has always portrayed it as a conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. The ability to change the nature of the conflict i most people's minds was a media victory for the Arabs. The Arabs (Now Muslims in general) allow Palestinians to make war but they want allow them to make peace. The Islamicist coming to power in Egypt and elsewhere could change public perception. Israel needs to work on that.

- arnon1

November 22, 2012 at 3:05pm

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

Happy Turkey day, everybody.

- arnon1

November 22, 2012 at 6:19pm

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

Judis articulates what I believe is at the very least the most widely held view of the Likud in the world. I share that view. My Thanksgiving guests have an even more negative view of Israel's role in the conflict and think Hamas is justified. The usual suspects then amuse and reassure themselves by trading back and forth the contrary opinions championed by AIPAC and the discredited neo-con right. Sound and fury from nobody, a dwindling minority in the world, signifying less the nothing. The Likud will not have Greater Israel and Israel will not in the end have the settlements no matter how convinced the usual suspects are of Israel's righteousness and the Arabs' guilt. That is a dead narrative that the world does not believe. Abbas accepts publicly that Israel is the land west of the Green Line and Palestine the land to the east. In response, Neranyahu scoffs. That is in a nutshell the narrative that will drive the outcome. No one cares that Hamas is illiberal. Israel's occupation in the service of colonization is profoundly illiberal, the realization in fact of the Jabotinskian dystopia that Hamas can only dream of.

- roidubouloi

November 22, 2012 at 9:44pm

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

So Roido's friends think that Jews were the bad guy and the Muslim Arabs the good guys. What a surprise. Do they also think that Hitler was right, Roido?

- arnon1

November 22, 2012 at 9:55pm

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

Here is another way Israel won: "India eyes Israel's Iron Dome to counter Pak, puppets" http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-eyes-Israels-Iron-Dome-to-counter-Pak-puppets/articleshow/17329499.cms They will be selling lots of Iron Dome and its future upgrades.

- arnon1

November 22, 2012 at 9:57pm

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

Yes, arnon, and John Judis surely thinks Hitler was right too. Indeed, anyone who is not willfully stupid enough to accept the weird AIPAC view of reality, who manages to observe that the Likud intentionally perpetuates the conflict in order to maintain the settlements and control over the Palestinians also thinks Hitler was right. You are at the point where you remind me of the Republicans who managed to convince themselves that Romney was about to win. You just keep repeating to yourself the nonsense that makes you feel better. Yes, the vast majority of liberal people in the world think Israel is perpetuating the conflict to realize its designs on Arab land because they all think Hitler was right. Feel better now?

- roidubouloi

November 22, 2012 at 10:31pm

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

No, not Judis, just your friends and you. If calling me a Republican is the best you can do, you are pathetic. You remind me of the Jewish so called intellectuals during WW2 who didn't have enough time to think about the Jews of Europe. Your life is so much more important. The war with Hamas wasn't about Netanyahu or the coming election. It was about Hamas murdering Jewish civilians. Of course that doesn't mean babkes to a shit-head like you, but it did mean something to Obama. The only reason you and your friends are on the side of Hamas is because you think they won the propaganda war and you don't want to be on the losing side. You are a a loser Roido, anyway.

- arnon1

November 22, 2012 at 10:50pm

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

Actually roi reminds me of Irène Némirovsky, a Jewish author who wrote successful novels which depicted ugly, monstrous Jews. When she was deported to die in Auschwitz, her husband, Michel Epstein "pleaded with the German ambassador for her release, arguing that "it seems ... unjust and illogical to me that the Germans would imprison a woman who, though originally Jewish, has no sympathy, and all her books show this ... for Judaism." Minus the talent, of course. roi should be treated with compassion, not anger, for his need to curry favour with such friends.

- Noga

November 22, 2012 at 11:17pm

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

Another problem: the Palestinians don't agree with each other. But: this is unsustainable. When people start making excuses for Hamas - which is shocking to me - it's really time to stop screwing around. This situation demands a solution and making excuses for settlements just won't cut it. I don't understand where Likud et.al. expect all the Palestinians to go or why they think they can ignore their nationalism. It isn't going to disappear, neither are the Palestinians, and it's fortunate that people realize the Israelis are isolated and outnumbered. Good. So do something.

- Sophia

November 22, 2012 at 11:55pm

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

By the way people should realize that Hamas isn't just shooting at Jewish Israelis. There are lots of Arabs and other people in Israel besides Jews. Listen. Israel is precious, and as a multicultural democracy it is rare and worth defending. Therefore: it's important to confront the people who think the land west of the Jordan is all magically going to become devoid of Palestinians with their own nationalist ideals. It isn't. So can we discuss without insults?

- Sophia

November 22, 2012 at 11:59pm

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

Sophia actually believes that in her recent comments here she is taking a stand against ".. the people who think the land west of the Jordan is all magically going to become devoid of Palestinians with their own nationalist ideals." How is it possible to take her seriously I can't imagine. "...people should realize that Hamas isn't just shooting at Jewish Israelis" Sure. It is one of Hamas's objectives to exterminate the Negev Bedouins, as well. They say so in their Charter. " ... Israel is precious, and as a multicultural democracy it is rare and worth defending." precious AND worth defending? Thank God for Sophia

- Noga

November 23, 2012 at 8:58am

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4HBlAf9g6dc

- Noga

November 23, 2012 at 10:56am

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

Professors who are pro Israel are being intimidated at some Universities. No wonder many of them find it easier to be anti Israel. Many of these do so out of fear.

- arnon1

November 23, 2012 at 12:22pm

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

Obviously you are quite out of intellectual gas, arnon. Doesn't take much to exhaust your very limited and juvenile repertoire of ideas. I wasn't suggesting that you are a Republican. Merely that you are self-deluded -- quite like a Republican -- endlessly repeating the pointless in order to ignore the obvious. Here is another example, from the despised, anti-Semitic NYT, of the views of the world outside the jingoist, AIPAC-Likud-Jabotinisky bubble inhabited by the soi-disant friends of Israel here at TNR: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/23/opinion/americas-failed-palestinian-policy.html?ref=opinion Yours is a dead ideology of racial and ethnic domination, already rejected by the civilized world. How ironic that Jews, of all people, should embrace it. The longer Israel clings to it, the worse it will be for all concerned, Israelis, Palestinians, and the rest of us.

- roidubouloi

November 24, 2012 at 11:31am

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

The piece that TNR hid following the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/23/opinion/americas-failed-palestinian-policy.html?ref=opinion Yours is a dead ideology of racial and ethnic domination, already rejected by the civilized world. How ironic that Jews, of all people, should embrace it. The longer Israel clings to it, the worse it will be for all concerned, Israelis, Palestinians, and the rest of us.

- roidubouloi

November 24, 2012 at 11:33am

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

"Yours is a dead ideology of racial and ethnic domination," "jingoist, AIPAC-Likud-Jabotinisky bubble" Clearly, Zionism is nothing if not fascist. As always at a certain point roi gets so carried away by the sway of his own rhetorical soaring that he begins to believe himself.

- Noga

November 24, 2012 at 1:57pm

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

Roid, I don't understand why you get so itchy and scratchy about Zionism. It is just another another European-style national liberation movement, similar to the more liberal ones. If you don't like it and find it confining or embarrassing, you can just walk from it. That is your right. I think it's quite alive and successful. It revived an old nation, restored their ancient language and dignity, absorbed immigrants from all parts of the Earth, and built an advanced economy that withstood the recent economic downturn. It inspires a lot of people. Most of the anti-Zionists just didn't want the Jewish people to rise from near death. It wasn't supposed to. Islam better fits your definition of an "ideology of racial and ethnic (Arab) domination".

- amidut

November 24, 2012 at 3:22pm

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

While being no fan of Netanyahu, Olmert offered a Clintonesque proposal and what was Abbas response - well it was not to give a response! Recently Abbas in an interview on Israeli TV seemed to endorce a 2 state solution without the right of return. Later when speaking to his own people in Arabic he denied that he would have give up the right of return. The simple fact is that Abbas cannot even today accept the idea of a Jewish state. Anyway when it come to the Israeli-Arab situation everyone with little actual knowledge of the situation there seems to feel free to opine what Israel should do or not do.

- jneuberg

November 24, 2012 at 7:41pm

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

“Here is another example, from the despised, anti-Semitic NYT, of the views of the world outside the jingoist, AIPAC-Likud-Jabotinisky bubble…” It’s obvious that Roido has never read Jabotinsky. The less he knows about a subject the more he starts to question the intelligence of his opponents. I am no Jabotinsky political admirer as I am of say Ahad Ha'Am, but on ly someone who lives in anti-Zionist bubble like Roido would call Jabotinsky a racist. One can disagree with someone on grounds other than “racism,” but then you need to know what you are talking about. The only subject Roido has shown some objective knowledge (not original, btw) is in economics. like his posts on law his comments on these subjects are mere text book reproductions. His mind is like a broken down xerox machine which repeats what his brain photocopied some time ago.

- arnon1

November 24, 2012 at 7:57pm

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

Thus spake ROIDO: "Obviously you are quite out of intellectual gas, arnon. " Obviously you are NOT out of intellectual GAS. your comments are mere vapor that dissolve when a light is shone on them.

- arnon1

November 24, 2012 at 8:03pm

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

ROIDO quotes an article published in the antisemitic NY Times by a Palestinian activist named Yousef Munayyer as if he were the voice of reason and impartiality. What is "impartial" Yousef Munayyer view of the conflict? It's all the fault of the racist Jews. What is his remedy. The US should stop supporting the racist Jews and start supporting the anti-racist Hamas and other Arab Muslim liberals. And the brilliant gas man ROIDO goes along with it.

- arnon1

November 24, 2012 at 8:14pm

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

http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2012/11/timetables-personal-and-historical.html "I will just say a little by way of further commentary on the above issues before going on to enter my two major reservations. As regards the earlier points in that list of agreements, it is now clear, if it wasn't already, that Israel has lost the propaganda battle (aka the effort to persuade people that there is a just Israeli cause), and there is nothing that can be done to reverse its defeat. This is not because there is no just Israeli cause. It is because for a wide swathe of left-liberal and 'anti-imperialist' opinion there is now no way Israel can conduct itself from which it will earn moral credit. It is irredeemably tainted in its origin. Conversely, and in the same quarter, there is nothing that Hamas or other representatives of the Palestinian people can do, no wrong or outrage they can commit, which will not be morally 'cleaned up' by the perception that these representatives are supposedly the pure vehicle of a struggle against injustice. Neither the codes of war nor the principles of international law nor the ordinary requirements of humanity count for a tittle or a jot against the volume of hatred that Israel incurs each time a new armed conflict breaks out. The double standards that underwrite all this and the stinking hypocrisy of it are one thing; but another is the rank failure of anyone to find the terms in which it can be rationally and convincingly explained. For want of such explanation, it is impossible to believe that anti-Semitism plays no part in it. Jonathan doesn't say this but I for my part do. I would also want to point out, as he does not, that one of the main conduits for the types of anti-Israel cheerleading of which he is tired is the Guardian."

- Noga

November 24, 2012 at 9:05pm

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

One thing that is missed in the discussion is that there are alternatives on the Palestinian side to both Hamas and Fatah, such as Wasatia and the Palestinian National Initiative, as there are on the Israeli side to Likud though the latter is more well known. The issue is, what can be done to strengthen the accommodationists on both sides of the conflict in their internal political struggles against the rejectionists? On the Palestinian side, support for the accommodationists will come from the accommodationists delivering results for the people. Unfortunately, the only ones who have been able to deliver anything for the Palestinians have been Hamas, which has be backed to the hilt by Islamists worldwide, while most of the West refuses to acknowledge that the genuine accommodationists exist. What's needed is 1) for Israel to make an agreement with one of the Palestinian third-parties to produce something, anything, of value for the Palestinian people so that the third-parties will gain some measure of public esteem and 2) for the West to provide assistance for the third-parties to establish charity networks so that they can build public support the way Hamas has.

- sighthnd

November 24, 2012 at 9:07pm

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

Sightnd, I am no Likud supporter but negotiations have to be conducted between parties who represent their people. Right now Netanyahu is the PM. I wish he weren't, but he is. It is hard to know who represents th other side and if they are willing to negotiate a peace agreement for a two state solution. Abbas, may be or may not be that party. I don't know how much authority he has and if he can deliver a peace agreement. It seems s if he is willing to reh an agreement but he is going about it the wrong way. The illiberal and despotic Hamas is out ofth question as a negotiating partner. I am not very optimistic about ant deal in the near future. Perhaps after the elections in the early spring.

- arnon1

November 24, 2012 at 9:25pm

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

Roid: The problem I have with your position is that you seem to hold that for any piece of land, the only information you need to know as to how to allot it is, "Did Jordan conquer it 1949?" Were there Jewish communities on any of those plots of land prior to that conquest? Is that plot of land significant in Jewish history? Are there any security considerations in who possesses that plot of land? By your reasoning, all of that is irrelevant if Jordan conquered it in 1949. If so, then it is for the Palestinians, via their representatives, to decide what to do with it. If they want that part of land judenrein, it shall become judenrein. If they want to trade it for other land to do with as they please, it shall be traded. Your self-righteousness that Jordan's 1949 conquest trumps all drives a wedge between those who agree with that notion and those who don't rather than between those who believe in reaching an accommodation with the Palestinians, including giving them substantial amounts of land and uprooting many settlements, and those supporting Greater Israel. I will grant that Netanyahu does not offer much to the Palestinians that is substantially different from Greater Israel. However, if you paint everyone willing to offer something meaningful to the Palestinians without accepting the notion that Jordan's 1949 conquest trumps all with the stroke you use for Netanyahu, you're basically saying that any accommodation short of accepting Jordan's conquest is meaningless. If that's the case, why support accommodationism. If you were to present me with a map of how the land should be allocated, I would listen to any argument of where to draw the line accept Jordan's conquest. If it's control over their own population centers, freedom of movement, expansion space or something I haven't thought of, I'm all ears. Why is refusal to accept Jordan's conquest as conferring an unquestionable right racist?

- sighthnd

November 24, 2012 at 9:37pm

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

Judis: "The Obama administration has to begin using that leverage—pressuring Netanyahu to stop the growth of settlements and to begin negotiations with a willingness to exchange land for peace—even if that means bucking AIPAC and Congress. Without pressure of this kind, there will not be, as Hillary Clinton put it this week, a “durable peace,” or any peace at all for that matter." Judis is out of his depth on this subject. And he refuses to learn.

- amidut

November 24, 2012 at 9:47pm

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

Arnon1: First, the international community didn't seem to think that way about the Geneva Accords. That aside, I think that the internal political positions of the accommodationists follow a different dynamic on the Israeli side than on the Palestinian side. On the Israeli side, the accommodationists will win as soon as the broader public sees that there is a Palestinian that is willing to end claims for a price that they are willing to accept. As of now, Abbas does not fit that bill for a large part of the Israeli public, no matter how many international figures insist that he just has to be. My thoughts are that Abbas plays the part for the international community as the Palestinian willing to accept a reasonable compromise with Israel that Paul Ryan played for the domestic press here of a Republican who is serious about budget issues. However, convincing the Israeli public may not require a reasonable Palestinian partner who is in power at any particular point in time. It may be possible that if a genuine partner were to gain international esteem, that Israelis would trust a government that would hold the line against the Palestinians currently in power but be open to a broad deal with one of the alternatives should they come to power. On the Palestinian side, things are more complicated. The largest difficulty the accommodationists have is that they have no means to get their message out broadly. Giving them the means to establish charity networks is one way to enhance their perception among the Palestinians. One other potential measure would be to help village chiefs who are both sympathetic to these alternatives and close to the de facto border with Israel to break away PA rule and conduct their own foreign affairs with Israel. This would give the alternatives a chance to demonstrate what genuine accommodation can deliver to the Palestinians.

- sighthnd

November 24, 2012 at 10:14pm

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

Jordan's conquest is not the point, sighthnd. Just one more attempt at justifying the indefensible with another false narrative. The UN partitioned Palestine in 1948. This was the world's resolution of competing Jewish and Arab claims to sovereignty, one sought avidly by the Jews of Palestine who wanted to be the majority in their own country. The West Bank is part of the Arab partition. Israelis wish to claim a right of conquest, relying perhaps on the precedent of the War of Independence after which Israel successfully incorporated all of the land west of the armistice line. But there is no more right of conquest. It is a vestige of another world that does not any longer exist. This is why resolution 242 explicitly states the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." The principle is not limited to aggressive war. Moreover, Israel has not incorporated the West Bank and extended its municipal law there. Thus, even if Israel had the right to incorporate the occupied territory, it has not done so. The Fourth Geneva Convention, to which Israel is a party, prohibits an occupying power from transferring its own population into occupied territory. If there were any doubt, the UNSC has adopted multiple resolutions making clear both that Israel may not unilaterally change the legal status of the occupied territory, nor may it settle the occupied territory. In the absence of a peace settlement, Israel has the right to maintain military occupation to the extent necessary for its own security. Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, an occupying power may not burden the civil, economic, and political life of the inhabitants of occupied territory more than necessary for purposes of security. The opinion of Justice Buergenthal of the ICJ in the security barrier case makes clear that, even if Israel has the right to build a security barrier, to the extent that the barrier is routed in a manner to protect the illegal settlements, the barrier too is illegal. Security measures may not be more burdensome than necessary for LEGITIMATE security needs, which do not include protection of illegal settlements. Buergenthal is a Jewish survivor of Auschwitz and Sachsenhausen. Is he too supposed to be an anti-Semite or closet Nazi because he is able to recognize the obvious illegality of the settlements? That is all there is to it, sighthnd. Israel is not a law unto itself. The illegality of the settlements, and of occupation measures made more burdensome by them is established by the UN Charter and UNSC resolutions thereunder, which Israel is bound to observe, and by the Fourth Geneva Convention, which Israel is also bound to observe. None of this is grounded in Jordan's 1950 annexation of the West Bank. All of the furious accusations of anti-Semitism, against everyone and anyone, from Thomas Friedman, to Jeffrey Goldberg, to the New York Times, are meant to divert attention from a very simple, obvious truth: Israel defies the UNSC and the Fourth Geneva Convention and has made itself an outlaw nation within the Western world. It is, as far as I know, unique in that respect. The settlements and Israel's defiance of the UNSC are a constant provocation to war, as colonial settlement has been in every place and in every time in which it has occurred. By insisting on defying its obligations, Israel therefore perpetuates a conflict that taxes and threatens the rest of the world. There are many other outlaws in the world, but none of them claims membership in the Western community of nations for which the UN and international law are uniquely their vocation and project in international relations. Israel, by thus far succeeding any having its behavior condoned by the west (by inaction due to the threat of US veto of any sanction) casts the entire project of international law into disrepute by making it seem that the law that the west expounds is purely a tactic to bind non-western nations, to be ignored whenever the powerful nations of the west find it inconvenient for their interests. If Israel is not entitled to incorporate or settle the West Bank, how do we know that by doing so illegally it endlessly provokes the war it claims rhetorically to want to end? The words of Vladimir Jabotinsky himself are instructive: "Every reader has some idea of the early history of other countries which have been settled. I suggest that he recall all known instances. If he should attempt to seek but one instance of a country settled with the consent of those born there he will not succeed. The inhabitants (no matter whether they are civilized or savages) have always put up a stubborn fight. Furthermore, how the settler acted had no effect whatsoever. The Spaniards who conquered Mexico and Peru, or our own ancestors in the days of Joshua ben Nun behaved, one might say, like plunderers. But those “great explorers,” the English, Scots and Dutch who were the first real pioneers of North America were people possessed of a very high ethical standard; people who not only wished to leave the redskins at peace but could also pity a fly; people who in all sincerity and innocence believed that in those virgin forests and vast plains ample space was available for both the white and red man. But the native resisted both barbarian and civilized settler with the same degree of cruelty. Another point which had no effect at all was whether or not there existed a suspicion that the settler wished to remove the inhabitant from his land. The vast areas of the U.S. never contained more than one or two million Indians. The inhabitants fought the white settlers not out of fear that they might be expropriated, but simply because there has never been an indigenous inhabitant anywhere or at any time who has ever accepted the settlement of others in his country. Any native people – its all the same whether they are civilized or savage – views their country as their national home, of which they will always be the complete masters. They will not voluntarily allow, not only a new master, but even a new partner. And so it is for the Arabs." Prior to the Partition, there were competing claims to Palestine. The claim of the Jews to the Arab partition has been extinguished, just as the Arab claim to Israel has been extinguished. Israel demands that the Arabs accept the finality of this international arbitration of competing claims. Abbas has done so. The Arabs have every right to demand the same of Israel. Netanyahu refuses. Jabotinsky inveighed against what he took as a the false belief that the Arabs would peacefully accept Jewish settlement and sovereignty in Palestine. But Netanyahu is much, much worse in that he will not even accept peace from the Arabs. He intentionally prevents the possibility of peace because he knows perfectly well that peace and Israeli colonization of the West Bank are incompatible. As between peace without colonization and colonization without peace, he prefers the latter. This makes him a liar and a threat to world peace. The refusal to accept that the Arabs of Palestine have the same inherent right to sovereignty as do the Jews of Israel is racist. Just as the refusal to accept that the Jewish people have the same inherent right to sovereignty in their land as do the other peoples of the earth is anti-Semitic. _____________________ Arnon pisses on his own shoes but fails to notice. What all of the apologists, with their extreme intellectual contortions and absurd delusions, are unable to consider is even the possibility that Israel, by settling the West Bank and insisting on maintaining its illegal settlements, is both in the wrong and preventing peace. The collective opinion of most of the civilized world in this regard, including the New York Times, may be but a simple and straightforward expression of the better argument. Hurling mud and whining about anti-Semitism do not obscure the truth.

- roidubouloi

November 24, 2012 at 10:45pm

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

sighthnd, I read your response with interest. I don't have time to reply with the detail your comment merits. IN general I don't disagree with what you wrote. I will only add that any discussion of the Arab Israeli conflict has to take into consideration the politics of the moment. Both sides respond to events as they unfold. The Palestinian Arabs at the end of the day will accept a peace accord when they see that they have no other choice. Just as Hamas agreed to a "cease fire" because they had no other choice. And just as Hamas called their acceptance "a victory" so too will the wider Palestinian community call its acceptance of an accord a victory. The same is true for Israel though they seem to have for the foreseeable future many more options. Finally, the confusion surrounding the cease fire reflects the wider confusion in middle eastern politics. Egypt is still in turmoil, Syria is in shambles tens of thousands of dead must weigh heavily on the minds and conscience of the "Sunni' countries." Also the Shiite challenge to the Sunni's in Syria and elsewhere is a huge problem for them. Hamas (and Gaza) is not as urgent an issue in the Sunni world as it was say four or five years ago. Hamas it seems to me is just now learning that lesson. We'll see what happens in the next few months.

- arnon1

November 24, 2012 at 10:51pm

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

ROIDO, is full enough o write another long screed which reads like he copied it from some book. Nothing the idiot (in the original sense of the word) says gives one confidence that he knows what he is talking about. He is one of those fools who thinks that if someone "is smaat' and got good grades in school he must know what he is talking about. What nonsense. The German nazis killed tons of very "smaat Joos" who couldn't believe that anyone could hate them. The same fate awaits todays "smaat Joos" who think that if they only blame other Jews that they will be spared by Hezbollah, Hamas and their ilk. I got no time for "smaat boychiks' like ROIDO.

- arnon1

November 24, 2012 at 11:00pm

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

Self-evidently, arnon, you have nothing to say. This is clearly way over your head, as evidenced by your comment that I appear to have copied from a book. I didn't. But to you, in your ignorance, it must surely appear that way. You cannot imagine that anyone could fashion a coherent argument without copying from a book because you can't. Do you really suppose that what you "have time for" is of any importance? That this is somehow a meaningful retort coming from someone as utterly trivial as you? You have no time because you have no brains (and are obviously irritated that anyone else does). For you to say something meaningful would therefore require an infinite amount of time. The best you can do is resort to childish insults. If you had anything substantive to say, you would. More than likely, you are terrified at the prospect of airing substantive views in public and being humiliated. That makes perfect sense.

- roidubouloi

November 24, 2012 at 11:12pm

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

LOOK WHO IS BACK. SMAAT BOYCHIK ROIDO "Self-evidently, arnon, you have nothing to say." Yet he keeps coming back to talk to someone who has "nothing to say." ROIDO is real smaat aint he.

- arnon1

November 24, 2012 at 11:29pm

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

"This is why resolution 242 explicitly states the 'inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war.' " But the right to exclude Jews from residence in Hebron and Gush Etzion was gained via Jordan's conquest in 1949. Is that acquisition admissible or not? You keep going on and on about Israel's acquisition by war of the right to settle people in their historic homeland, yet seem to have no problem with the Arab world's acquisition by war of the right to exclude those people from their historic homeland.

- sighthnd

November 24, 2012 at 11:49pm

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

The rights and claims of refugees are a different matter from the settlement of occupied territory or Israel's frustration of Palestinian sovereignty in order to maintain the illegal settlements. Do you really think it is in Israel's interest to argue that Jewish refugees from Hebron have a right of return? That said, I have repeatedly suggested that the best outcome for Israel would be for the large settlement blocs close to the Green Line to be maintained within Arab Palestine and for Israel to accept a like number of Arab returnees, a compromise of refugee claims on both sides of the line. Or, Israel can negotiate for the complete extinction of Palestinian claims west of the Green Line in exchange for the liquidation of all the settlements and the extinction of all Jewish claims east of the Green Line. Either way, Israel has no right to settle the West Bank by force of arms any more than Arab refugees have the right to press their claims in Israel by force of arms. Does Israel want to argue that Arab violence is legitimate so long as the claims of Arab refugees are legitimate? I don't think so. This is precisely what the Arabs claimed in the years during which they refused to accept the legitimacy of Israel and the illegitimacy of war in pursuit of their political goals. What part of "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" seems unclear to you?

- roidubouloi

November 25, 2012 at 12:05am

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

sighthnd, not just the Arab world that is excused from laws that apply to Jews. After WW2 Poland, Czechoslovakia, and many other European countries acquired land through conquest. those borders were readjusted and made legal by treaty. Then there is the land acquired by China, etc. It's only when it comes to Jews that everyone gets excited about "the law."

- arnon1

November 25, 2012 at 12:06am

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

"The rights and claims of refugees are a different matter from the settlement of occupied territory or Israel's frustration of Palestinian sovereignty in order to maintain the illegal settlements." And that is why Hamas has been friign rockets at civilians in Israel. That's why Jews have to be condemned as "racists." Leave it to Roido and his buddies at the NY Times to find a "legal" reason to condemn the Jewish State.

- arnon1

November 25, 2012 at 12:19am

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

The Fourth Geneva Convention came into being in 1949. The UN Charter was signed in 1945. Israel became a member of the UN, thereby bound to observe UNSC resolutions, in 1949. We no longer live in a world in which acquisition of land by conquest is "admissible" or in a world without the UN and the Security Council. Too late. On the other hand, if we did live in that world, Israel would likely not exist. Israel is the only western nation in persistent and flagrant violation of UNSC resolutions. By ignoring those resolutions, it perpetuates a war that threatens the world. That is more than enough reason to get excited. Further, in the Roadmap, Israel agreed to suspend all settlement growth, explicitly including so-called "natural growth." The word of the Likud is useless. "The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law,[1][2][3][4][5] but Israel maintains that they are consistent with international law[6] because it does not agree that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the territories occupied in the 1967 Six-Day War, due to lack of a legal sovereign of these territories.[7] The United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Court of Justice and the High Contracting Parties to the Convention have all affirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply.[8][9] Numerous UN resolutions have stated that the building and existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are a violation of international law, including UN Security Council resolutions in 1979 and 1980.[10][11][12] UN Security Council Resolution 446 refers to the Fourth Geneva Convention as the applicable international legal instrument, and calls upon Israel to desist from transferring its own population into the territories or changing their demographic makeup. The reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions has declared the settlements illegal[13] as has the primary judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice[14] and the International Committee of the Red Cross." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements

- roidubouloi

November 25, 2012 at 12:23am

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

Israel has the right to take whatever measures are necessary to protect itself from rockets. Israel has the obligation not to settle the West Bank. Jabotinsky explained why this is a provocation to war. It is not at all complicated, at least for those of at least average intelligence. "United States The United States has never voted in favor of any UN Resolution calling the settlements illegal. An opinion by a legal adviser to the U.S. Department of State found the settlements contrary to international law in 1978, though no Administration has officially stated so since the Carter Administration. On April 21, 1978, Legal Adviser of the Department of State Herbert J. Hansel issued an opinion, on request from Congress, that creating the settlements "is inconsistent with international law," and against Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.[46] Hansell found that "[w]hile Israel may undertake, in the occupied territories, actions necessary to meet its military needs and to provide for orderly government during the occupation, for the reasons indicated above the establishment of the civilian settlements in those territories is inconsistent with international law."[47][48] This opinion, "has neither been revoked or revised,"[46] and remains the policy of the United States according to Hansel, The Washington Post, and the Rand Corporation's Palestinian State Study Project.[49] The Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations all publicly characterized the settlements as illegal.[50] In February 1981, Ronald Reagan announced that he didn't believe that Israeli settlements in the West Bank were illegal.[51] He added that "the UN resolution leaves the West Bank open to all people, Arab and Israeli alike".[52] Hoping to achieve a peace deal, he nevertheless asked Israel to freeze construction calling the settlements an "obstacle to peace." The permissive attitude taken by America accelerated the pace of Israel's settlement programme.[51] Reagan's view on the settlements legality was not held by the State Department.[46] Since the Clinton administration, the U.S. has continued to object to the settlements, calling them "obstacles to peace" and prejudicial to the outcome of final status talks. Although President Barack Obama and diplomatic officials in his administration have stated, "the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements,"[50][53][54] in February 2011 the U.S. vetoed a Security Council resolution that would have declared the settlements illegal.[55] Israel In 1967, Theodor Meron, legal counsel to the Israeli Foreign Ministry stated in a legal opinion to Adi Yafeh, the Political Secretary of the Prime Minister, "My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention."[56] The legal opinion, forwarded to Levi Eshkol, was not made public at the time, and the Labor cabinet progressively sanctioned settlements anyway; this action paved the way for future settlement growth. In 2007, Judge Meron stated that "I believe that I would have given the same opinion today."[57]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements#United_States

- roidubouloi

November 25, 2012 at 12:28am

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

"The Supreme Court of Israel in a ruling of 30 May 2004 judged that "the military operations of the [Israeli Defence Forces] in Rafah, to the extent they affect civilians, are governed by Hague Convention IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land 1907 . . .and the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 1949."[86] A further June 2004 Israeli Supreme Court ruling concerning the West Bank stated that "the point of departure of all parties - which is also our point of departure - is that Israel holds the Area in belligerent occupation (occupatio bellica)" and that the military commander's authority is "anchored in IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 1949."[87][88]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements#United_States

- roidubouloi

November 25, 2012 at 12:35am

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

Here we are discussing Hama's attack on civilians and our legal Roido (legal robot) brings up Thevreason 4th Geneva convention as if that were what the war was about. If it has to do with Israel (doesn't matter what: scientific discoveries, art and literature, discoveries of treatment of disease, Etc) an anti israel legal robot will bring up "illegal settlements."

- arnon1

November 25, 2012 at 12:48am

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

The Gazans have an obligation not to attack Israel or use violent means to achieve their political goals. Israel has the right to take whatever measures are necessary to protect itself from rockets. Israel has the obligation not to settle the West Bank. Vladimir Jabotinsky explained why this is a provocation to war and has been in every time and place in history. It is not at all complicated, at least for those of at least average intelligence.

- roidubouloi

November 25, 2012 at 1:03am

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

The settlements although no to Israeli image are a mostly straw man to attack Israel. During Saadat Begin agreement and during Sharon evacuation of Gaza strip Israel dismantled large settlement blocks in Sinai and in the Gaza strip and will do so again if the peace with with the Palestinians will require it. Robert Malley and Hussein Agha, not known to be friends of Israel have come to similar conclusion. Writing last year in New York Review of Books they stated: "Israel possesses a variety of potential responses. Already, by unilaterally withdrawing from Gaza, former prime minister Ariel Sharon transformed the numbers game, effectively removing 1.5 million Palestinians from the Israeli equation. The current or a future government could unilaterally conduct further territorial withdrawals from the West Bank, allowing, as in the case of Prime Minister Salam Fayyad’s West Bank government, or compelling, as happened in Gaza, large numbers of Palestinians to rule themselves and mitigating the demographic peril. The options, in other words, are not necessarily limited to a two-state solution, an apartheid regime, or the end of the Jewish state. But the issue here is as arnon put it Hamas' continues attacks against Israeli civilians and the so called lack of sympathy or empathy of progressive circles to Israel's predicament.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

November 25, 2012 at 9:15am

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

Here is an example of "progressive circles": http://www.honestreporting.ca/news_article_name/HRCandtheCentreStronglyCondemnOffensiveStatementsofLaPresseJournalistNathaliePetrowskiNovember252012.aspx "Innocuous photos of smiling young Israeli soldiers led Ms. Petrowski to conclude on November 21 that Israeli soldiers are "brainless (...) happy to go to war and kill people". Petrowski cruelly stated "if they should catch a bullet (...) I hope they will continue to smile ".

- Noga

November 25, 2012 at 11:43am

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

Vladimir Jabotinsky explained why this is a provocation to war and has been in every time and place in history. The writings you cite of Jabotinsky clearly show a view of history through the lens of events in Europe. For instance, Jabotinsky gives the impression that the South American Indians were united in opposition to the Spanish conquistadors because everyone is opposed to invaders. In reality, when the conquistadors came, all except one were allied with them, as documented in the Nova episode "The Great Inca Rebellion" (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/great-inca-rebellion.html). It was only after that one opponent was vanquished that the conquistadors rewrote history to exclude their allies from any part of their victory and then turned on their erstwhile allies. Later, the British colonists in North America similarly allied themselves with some tribes only to double-cross their allies when no longer needed. It is only when viewed through the lens of European nationalism that one would see those as instances of natives instinctively opposing the invader. A better historical paradigm would be the 19th century history of Jews in the Ottoman Empire. It was around this time that you had the absorption of christogenic antisemitism into Islamic culture, as witnessed in the 1840 blood libel in Damascus. There were also massacres against the Jews of the OE at that time, such as one in Safed in 1834. Note, that was before Herzl even had the idea to bring Jews back to Palestine en masse, let alone the yishuv actually doing so. I would maintain that whatever animated the uprisings against the indigenous Jews across the OE in the pre-yishuv days is what animates the Palestinian National Movement today, not Israel's "provocations" as you insist is the case, Roid. So what is it that animated the pre-yishuv violence against the Jews? Some of it could be the preferential treatment, or at least from the perspective of other Ottoman subjects, the sultanate gave to the Jews. Then, as the power of the sultanate waned the less favored subjects vented their rage against it at the closest manifestation of the sultanate. However, another component is that the Muslims developed an attitude that Jews in their midst should be like clay in a potter's hands, with themselves as the potters. This belief system to a particularly sharp hit when Jews, untermenschen as far as they were concerned, came flowing in, with no intention of submitting to living under the strictures of dhimmitude. There is one place outside the Middle East where there was such an attitude of one group feeling that another group should submit to it like clay in a potter's hand. It's called the Jim Crow south. Peace did not come to the south by coddling the white southerners' sense of victimhood that the blacks' affronts to them constituted a legitimate grievance and thus stopping the blacks to committing those "affronts." Rather, peace came to the south when the white southerners were broken of the notion that the blacks should be like clay in a potters hands. Such is how peace will come to the Middle East, when the Arabs are broken of the notion that the Jews should be like clay in a potter's hands.

- sighthnd

November 25, 2012 at 12:18pm

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

Noga "Here is an example of "progressive circles"" I don't see this as an example of progressive circles; I see this as an example of anti-war rhetoric. Anti-war rhetoric has its own long history (it was already old when Stephen Crane wrote The Red Badge of Courage”) and much of it is pretty mindless. Petrowski’s post adds to the mindlessness by not contextualizing the photo. A single photo tells you very little about larger issues and the fact that this Petrowski thinks it does shows what a malicious fool she is. But, her attitude is in keeping with the idiocy of such anti-war rhetoric: Crane never introduces the issue of slavery into his novel since to do so would complicate questions of pacifism in the face of evil. The same is true of Catch 22. Heller never introduces the larger issue of genocide into his novel. I don't remember him ever mentioning the word Jew in his novel. Even a minimal allusion to genocide would make Yossarian’s pacifism seem a selfish self-delusion. Petrowski is many things: stupid, bigoted, sadistic. However, one thing she is not is “progressive.” Neither are those who champion a retrograde and reactionary Hamas, “progressive.”

- arnon1

November 25, 2012 at 12:24pm

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

Israel willfully perpetuates its own "predicament" by refusing both to cease its illegal colonization or to part with its illegal settlements as part of a comprehensive peace. There is no reason for that to evoke sympathy. If Israel stops its illegal conduct, enters peace negotiations, and offers either to remove its illegal settlements or to barter them for something that the Palestinians actually want -- land they want in exchange or recognition of the right of return of Palestinian refugees or some combination of both -- and if the Arabs refuse that offer, there will be reason enough for sympathy. Until that time, Israel remains the author of its own predicament, regardless of the histrionic language above. Whatever the lens, Jabotinsky was quite right. No people has willingly been colonized. The nonsense about potter's clay is just that, romantic nonsense. If Israel insists on waiting until the Arabs are broken, it will destroy itself. Sooner or later, the combination of Arab numbers and financial power will prevail. The notion that there is some way out by annexing part of the West Bank is also romantic nonsense. If the stalemate persists, the UNSC, with or without a supporting judgment from the ICJ, will eventually force Israel out of the West Bank. The tragedy is that, if Israel waits until it is forced, it will likely be forced out of Jerusalem as well. The occupation is a wasting asset. A smart prime minister would recognize that it is better to barter the wasting asset for something than simply wait until it is exhausted and can no longer be bartered for anything. That is not Netanyahu, or the Likud, who think they can play cat and mouse with the world forever. The messianic nuts who govern Israel think the messiah will save them and prefer to wait. The idea that Sharon successfully rid Israel of Gaza is fanciful. Doesn't seem to be rid of it at all. It is an open wound. Little by little, Israel is being forced to give ground on its blockade of Gaza. Meanwhile, the existence of this wound further erodes Israel's diplomatic and strategic position. The Arabs are playing a long game. Israel stupidly plays along, consoling itself with its self-declared righteousness (aided and abetted by its so-called friends who do nothing but reinforce Israel's revanchist delusions, see above). The withdrawal from Gaza was the right move, but only as part of a comprehensive strategy of separation from Arab Palestine. Sharon, despite his heavy responsibility for the settlement policy, ultimately realized they are a strategic liability and would have followed through. Netanyahu, who has the strategic vision of an ant, has stalled to Israel's detriment. A classic comment about financial markets is that it is possible to be absolutely right but lose your shirt while waiting for the market to come around to your point of view. The civilized world rejects Israel's claims to be the party defending itself, with good reason. Its actions in the West Bank belie those claims. It is a widespread human understanding that being colonized will inevitably provoke a violent response. But, even if Israel were right, it doesn't matter. Israel will dig its own grave while waiting for the whole world somehow to be convinced that Israel's colonization of the Palestinians is not indeed provocation to war. No one in the civilized world or the uncivilized world believes that now, including the government of the United States, and no one is likely to be convinced. Only those in the self-serving AIPAC-Likud-Jabotinsky bubble believe it. Keep talking to yourselves and praising each other for your perspicacity.

- roidubouloi

November 25, 2012 at 1:44pm

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

Roid: Do you know a single thing about 19th century Jewish history of the Ottoman Empire? "The nonsense about potter's clay is just that, romantic nonsense" Could you cite some evidence? If that is so, why did Jews sitting down at the Western Wall for Yom Kippur in 1928 and Tisha B'Av in 1929 become an umma-wide cause celebre? "The notion that there is some way out by annexing part of the West Bank is also romantic nonsense" Based on what? Would Beitar Illit remaining permanently in Israeli hands in any way hinder the Palestinians from establishing a state? The problem is in holding territory deep into where the Palestinians live. "It is a widespread human understanding that being colonized will inevitably provoke a violent response." If there were any accuracy to that observation, why isn't Tibet a tinderbox? "If Israel stops its illegal conduct, enters peace negotiations, and offers either to remove its illegal settlements or to barter them for something that the Palestinians actually want -- land they want in exchange or recognition of the right of return of Palestinian refugees or some combination of both -- and if the Arabs refuse that offer, there will be reason enough for sympathy." The Palestinian National Movement will not accept anything that does not give it the means to dismantle the State of Israel. The right of return, if accompanied with Israeli citizenship, will provide that means. Essentially, whatever demographic threat posed by holding on to Judea and Samaria would also be in effect under right of return plus citizenship whatever land Israel relinquishes. Thus, whatever Israel offers short of the tools of self-dismantling, the PNM will say it's not enough and the world will find the PNM's additional demands sufficiently reasonable so as not to offer Israel sympathy. "If Israel insists on waiting until the Arabs are broken" I'm not saying that the Arabs will have to be broken of the notion that they will one day not be dispossessed. I'm saying that they will have to be broken of the notion that they will one day dispossess the Jews, that there will be a day when Jews can no longer assemble in front of the Western Wall, let alone on the Temple Mount. Note the comparison I made--the way the southern whites were broken of maintaining Jim Crow. It doesn't have to take place by way of those currently in power losing the will to try to dispossess the Jews. It can happen by way of those with no ambition to dispossess the Jews taking power. However, that is unlikely to happen as long as the worlds VSP's insist that those seeking to dispossess the Jews are actually reasonable and thus there is nothing that the reasonable Palestinians can offer their people that they cannot get from their current crop of leaders. "Israel willfully perpetuates its own 'predicament' by refusing both to cease its illegal colonization or to part with its illegal settlements as part of a comprehensive peace" Was the yishuv a crime against humanity? If you say that the settlement activity, which is no different from the yishuv activity, is illegal because the law was enacted in 1949, why is it that the law was came too late to save the Jewish community of Hebron, which was in continual existence since the end of the Crusades and posed no threat to Arab polity there, but came just in time to give a veto to those who ethnically cleansed the city on having their act undone? "Only those in the self-serving AIPAC-Likud-Jabotinsky bubble believe it." Aren't you in something of your own bubble that gives credence to every PNM demand?

- sighthnd

November 25, 2012 at 2:43pm

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

The news is that there is an Iranian ship full of missiles headed for Gaza accompanied by Iranian warships. If this is true it would constitute an act of war. I hope it doesn't come to that.

- arnon1

November 25, 2012 at 4:19pm

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

sighthnd, I don't know what your aim is in engaging, Roid. If you are hoping for a rational discussion, forget it. Some one had Roid read and memorize script many years ago and he has not been able to think clearly about events there. This is why he can't talk about activity in all its manifestations and variations. He can't take into account actual events. His script tells him that Israel is wrong and the Palestinian Arabs are right and no matter what happens (whether Jewish civilians including babes are killed like flies) his certainty about culpability in the conflict will never change.

- arnon1

November 25, 2012 at 4:32pm

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

More of your childish foolishness, arnon. It is a very deep concept, I know, quite difficult for you to grasp, but never-the-less: (1) The illegal colonization of the West Bank does not justify violence against Israel. The Palestinians must pursue their political goals by non-violent, political means. (2) Neither the violence of the Palestinians, or some of them, nor their attitudes towards Israel and Jews justifies the illegal colonization of the West Bank by Israel or security measures made more oppressive to defend illegal colonization or restrictions on the civil, economic, and political life of the West Bank beyond what is necessary for Israel's security. The five-year old version that might be easier for you to grasp is, "Two wrongs don't make a right." Your hyperbolic claim that I think "Israel is wrong and the Palestinians are right no matter what" is just your juvenile hyper-ventilating. It means nothing. Israel is wrong when it is doing wrong that cannot be justified by the necessities of self-defense and security. There is no plausible security or defense interest in colonizing the West Bank. It is prohibited by the Fourth Geneva Convention, UNSC resolutions, and is condemned as such by the entire world. Therefore, Israel is wrong to colonize the West Bank. Moreover, this ongoing violation of the human rights of the Palestinians, as established by international treaties and conventions to which Israel is a party, is necessarily a provocation to war. There has never been a time when any people willingly submitted to colonization (even if some people's initially misunderstood and believed that colonizers could be useful allies). A nation that truly wants peace does not engage in provocative acts that are prohibited by international law. Israel engages in provocative acts that are prohibited by international law. It is easy enough to conclude therefore that Israel does not want peace but something else. What then would it be seeking by such behavior? Rather obviously it seeks continued dominion over land that it cannot rightfully claim and will not be able to keep in a peace settlement. By maintaining a state of war -- hopefully at a low level that is not very damaging to Israel -- the Likud government, with its long and never-abandoned ideological history of seeking "Greater Israel," intentionally frustrates peace and thereby evades being called to account for its human rights violations. The patent object is to maintain the current state of affairs for a sufficiently long time that it becomes a fait accompli, incapable of being reversed. It is a vain hope. Borders are not physical things. They are a matter of political decision. The border of Israel can be fixed at the Green Line at any time that the world community summons the will to do so. While it is unlikely that it would demand that populations be moved, the border, and hence the government, of the West Bank can never be placed beyond the ability of world powers to determine. Borders change all the time. They are inherently fixed only insofar as people accept that as such. In this case, the UNSC has already declared, repeatedly, that Israel cannot unilaterally alter the legal status of the occupied territories. The UNSC having declared its intentions at the outset and repeatedly admonished Israel to conform its behavior to the dictates of law, it is unlikely that Israel will in the end be permitted to gain its object simply as the result of its own defiance. Of course, it might if it were in a position to withstand sanctions, as Iran is at least for some time. But Israel is too small and too dependent on world trade for that. Nor are the people of Israel willing in the end to be cut off from the western world merely to maintain de facto sovereignty over the West Bank. Israel's colonial enterprise is doomed. Why then should Israel not persist and simply dare the world to act, accepting in the future, if absolutely necessary, the outcome it will not accept today? Because there is something that Israel ought to fear more than the loss of control over the West Bank. That is the claims of Palestinians west of the Green Line. There is a strong argument, based in international humanitarian law, that refugees have a right of return. Israel may hope to wait them out, until almost all are dead, and argue that the right of return is personal and is not passed on to descendants. That might work. Or it might not. A people that claimed a right of return after some 2,000 years is not entirely well placed to make the argument. The world forced the acceptance of returnees in the former Yugoslavia. It is not out of the question that it might some day do the same in Israel. That would be a disaster. Given the futility of Israel's colonial enterprise, the smart thing to do would be to use the opportunity presented by the apparent willingness of the PA to reach a peace agreement -- without however ceding the settlements to Israel -- to extinguish the claims of the Palestinians west of the Green Line. Israel has the opportunity to bargain away something it cannot in the end keep anyway -- the settlements -- in exchange for something it should desire second only to its physical security. A deal that provides for Israel's physical security and extinguishes Palestinian claims in exchange for mutual acceptance of the Green Line as the border and condominium in Jerusalem would be a very good deal for Israel. So good, that clods like Netanyahu cannot take advantage of the opportunity. That is a colossal strategic error, worse than the error of building the settlements in the first place. ______________________________ sighthnd, I really don't know what you are talking about. What is the relevance of the history of the 19th century, or of the 20th century, or of Arab attitudes? There is a plausible argument by the Arabs that, from the gitgo, they were wrongfully colonized by the Jews. I don't myself accept that, but it is not an absurd argument. If the Arab narrative is right, do the Arabs thereby become entitled to a one-state solution in which the Jews are demographically submerged? If on the other hand your version of the Jewish narrative is right, does Israel thereby become entitled to colonize the West Bank in defiance of the Fourth Geneva Convention and the UN Security Council? Almost all of what you have to say is essentially irrelevant. There is no right to acquire territory by conquest. The world's governing body has clearly set out that Israel may not unilaterally acquire territory in the West Bank or change its status as the fruit of the Six Day War. It has been declared that neither party can obtain territory by force of arms, with de facto recognition of the territory west of the 1949 armistice line as being Israel. That is that. The end. Israel can negotiate with the Palestinians for modifications of the border, but to make a deal you have to offer something the other side wants. The Palestinians are not going to cede the settlements in exchange for scraps of desert that no one wants. They have refused repeatedly to do so despite the conviction in Israel that it is incumbent upon them to do so in the interest of peace. It is not incumbent upon them to ratify Israel's illegal settlement. Israel wants to hold Palestinian statehood hostage to the making or a territorial deal that Israel wants. That is why Israel threatens the Palestinians for making application for a seat in the General Assembly as a non-member state. Israel will fail, because Palestinian statehood is not in the end something for Israel to confer or withhold. It is their right, exactly as it was the right of the Jews to declare their state in the land allocated to them by the 1947 partition plan. Sooner or later, Palestine will be a fully-recognized state, with or without Israeli recognition, just as Israel became a recognized state without Arab recognition. Then Israel will have to justify its occupation of another state. If it holds on, it will gradually be forced to surrender control. There is simply no future for Israel in the West Bank. The conflict will not be settled by the endless rehearsal of historical grievances, something you seem to find edifying but irrelevant none-the-less. It will be settled by the mutual recognition that people on both sides do indeed have rights established by international law, including the right to secure and recognized boundaries, the right to be free from violence and threat of violence, the right to pursue national existence within recognized boundaries, and the right to be free of prohibited colonization. Matters that are legally uncertain, such as the claims of refugees on both sides of the Green Line and the status of Jerusalem, to which neither can lay unambiguous claim by virtue of the UN partition plan and subsequent UNSC resolutions, will have to be compromised somehow. Abbas has stated that he accepts that Israel is the legitimate sovereign west of the Green Line. Netanhyahu, and Israel under his leadership, do not know how to say yes. It is not necessary for the West Bank to remain Judenrein as part of a peace settlement. But it will be under Palestinian sovereignty, because it was given to them by the UN and Israel's wrongful settlement cannot upset their claim.

- roidubouloi

November 25, 2012 at 7:33pm

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

My goodness, another long screed by Roido full of the same old, same old screed he had posted and re-posted time and again. Roido has got a lot of time on his hands.

- arnon1

November 25, 2012 at 7:49pm

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

And another short but inane remark from the empty-headed arnon. What an inarticulate clod you are, arnon. Reduced in moments to the sputtering frustration of a child. Do you manage to hold a job? Do you have adult friends? Do you have a diagnosable condition or are you simply not very bright and frustrated by your all too obvious lack of ability?

- roidubouloi

November 25, 2012 at 8:05pm

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

I gather that even the five-year-old version was over your head. Not that I am surprised.

- roidubouloi

November 25, 2012 at 8:06pm

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

Rodo, ha, ha, ha,....

- arnon1

November 25, 2012 at 9:18pm

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

Regarding Arnon's comment about Iran's resupply mission to Hamas in Gaza. Iran must consider Gaza very important to its war with Israel and must be smarting from Israel's successful defense, if not victory, in last week's war with Hamas. The attempt to resupply missiles to Gaza by sea is quite risky. In spite of the fact that Hamas supports the Sunni opposition to the Assad regime in Syria, a client of Iran and Russia.

- amidut

November 25, 2012 at 9:23pm

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

"Israel is the only western nation in persistent and flagrant violation of UNSC resolutions." Israel is the only nation with enemies capable of rousing the UNSC to do their bidding. "UN Security Council Resolution 446 refers to the Fourth Geneva Convention as the applicable international legal instrument, and calls upon Israel to desist from transferring its own population into the territories or changing their demographic makeup." Let me get this straight. If you have a family that had lived in Hebron since the 18th century or earlier and an army came in and kicked that family out of its home in 1948, that is 100% AOK. However, if in 1967 a subsequent military action makes it possible for that family to return to its home, THAT's a war crime. Any law that allows that deserves absolutely zero respect. Come up with an interpretation that reaches the same conclusion for each case and you'll find respect for the law. "I really don't know what you are talking about. What is the relevance of the history of the 19th century, or of the 20th century, or of Arab attitudes?" The history of the 19th century is where PNM attitudes were formed. PNM attitudes as to assessing whether PNM grievances should be taken at face value, that they are merely opposed to Jews colonizing their land or that Jews are not subject to every whim of the Waqf. You're well versed in every aspect of Jewish activism that sought to subjugate the Arabs, and declare that their writings are all you need to know about what motivates today's Israeli right. The entire question about the PNM is, is their objection that the Palestinians lack self-determination or is it that Jews have it. When it comes to history that would suggests the PNM's motivation is the latter, you wave your hand and declare it "irrelevant." Could you show the intellectual honesty to refrain from designating facts as relevant or irrelevant based on whether they support or refute your argument. "The Palestinians are not going to ..." Unlike you, I make a point of distinguishing between the PNM and the Palestinians. Don't tell that Palestinian opinion supports most of the PNM's demands. One, most Palestinians are brainwashed by the PNM's propaganda machine and have limited access to alternative viewpoints. Two, facts on the ground can change opinions. For instance, Israelis were overwhelmingly against ceding Sinai before the Camp David Accords were finalized, but afterwards they overwhelmingly supported it. Creating a functioning Palestinian state would alter Palestinian opinion as to the necessity of filling it with the rest of Jordan's conquest. However, the PNM will never permit a Palestinian state to truly function on less than all of Jordan's conquest because the objective is not to provide any benefit to the Palestinians, rather to impose a cost on Israel. If giving all of Jordan's conquest to the PNM does not lead to marked improvements for the Palestinians, so much the better because it would create a justification for more demands from Israel.

- sighthnd

November 25, 2012 at 10:38pm

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

Yes, Israel won the battle with Hamas, but it didn't complete the job and that is really disappointing. Likud's Netanyahu talks tough but when it comes to action he rarely delivers. The labor party knew how to talk about moderation and compromise, but they knew how to win wars. In 73 they stared down the Soviet Union which had threatened to nuke Israel. I doubt Dayan, Golda Meir, or even, Levi Eshkol would have stopped half way before they finished the job in Gaza. Netanyahu and Lieberman say that if Hamas resumes rocket attacks they will go in and and take them out. We have heard this before. I hope the voters move away from the boastful but vain Netanyahu-Lieberman coalition. The more "moderate" Shaul Mofaz would know how to take on Hamas.

- arnon1

November 25, 2012 at 10:48pm

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

Illegal settlement is not a war crime. It is a human rights violation. The settlers are hardly returnees to their former homes. And if they have the right to return, then so do the Arabs who left or were forced from homes west of the Green Line. Insisting on a personal right of return is not exactly a winning argument for Israel. In any case, laws don't always have exactly the consequences you might like, but you don't therefore get to make up your own. Israel claimed the land west of the Green Line and excludes the Arabs who used to live there. It has no more claim upon the land east of the Green Line, certainly not by virtue of military conquest. A unified state of all the land west of the Jordan ought not run afoul of the Fourth Geneva Convention as the land, once incorporated into metropolitan Israel, would no longer be occupied. But then Israel would have to grant all the Palestinians equal political rights or be guilty of apartheid. Its either a one-state solution or a two-state solution, not one and half states for Israel and half a state for the Palestinians. That is not defensible and there is no need to try to defend the Fourth Geneva Convention by defending such an absurdity. Your point about how Israeli opinion changed once the Camp David Accords were finalized is exactly the reason why all this crap about Israel not having a partner for peace is just that, a bunch of crap. It is Israel that will not allow a functioning Palestinian state unless the Palestinians will first agree to Israel's land-grab. Hence, it is Israel that refuses to make peace. Maybe the Palestinians would likewise refuse to make peace even if Israel offered to get off of their land, their remnant of the 1947 partition, but we won't know that until Israel stops holding peace hostage to its illegal settlements. What matters about the Israeli right is what it does. That what it does is consistent with its long-standing ideology merely eliminates ambiguity about what it is doing. The history is irrelevant because the matter has been adjudicated by the UN, and the result was partition, and that at the behest of the Jews. The bases of claims prior to that event no longer matter. They are liquidated in the partition plan. The Arabs have to accept the partition, just like the losers of a lawsuit have to accept the authoritative outcome even when they believe it unjust. The Arabs don't get to re-litigate by force of arms. But neither can the Jews re-litigate the partition by force of arms. UNSC resolutions make that perfectly clear. Your view, or anyone's view, of the justice of two states is likewise irrelevant, although it hardly seems unjust to me that the Arabs get their own state since Israel refuses a unitary state. There is no ambiguity about the Arab opposition to the partition. But when Abbas says he accepts Israel is the territory west of the Green Line, he is accepting the outcome of both the partition and the war that followed. Whether it is what he yearns for is also irrelevant. Past time for Israel to do the same. All of the moaning and groaning about the injustice of it all, how the Arabs did this that or the other thing or how they REALLY believe this that or the other thing or how they REALLY only want the end of Israel, is likewise completely irrelevant. Honestly, intellectually, completely irrelevant. If they will accept the partition, as de facto reduced by the 1949 armistice, and accept reasonable accommodations for Israel's security, taking full account of the history of war, then Israel has no further legal basis for occupying the West Bank or trying to prevent Palestinian statehood, anymore than the Arabs had a basis for trying to prevent Jewish statehood.

- roidubouloi

November 25, 2012 at 11:14pm

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

You gotta forgive the pathetic Roito (the rat-o) he just need to have the last word, even if his last word is no different from his first word.

- arnon1

November 25, 2012 at 11:45pm

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

Yeah. And my last word is you're a moron. Henceforth known as "moron1." One idiot like you is more than enough. Got that, moron1?

- roidubouloi

November 26, 2012 at 12:31am

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

Arnon: The time have changed. There is nothing to complete unless Israel wants to rule Gaza again. Actually, I think that this was a wise decision. It's easy to go into Gaza, its difficult to get out. We've been there before, we know what it will take. I think by now everybody, even Hamas realizes the magnitude of their defeat. Also, let's remember that both Dayan and Golda Meir allow the debacle of 73 to happen.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

November 26, 2012 at 7:12am

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

Makeover, times may change, but the animal's nature doesn't. We'll know soon enough if Netanyahu struck a good deal. As for the 73,war, it was a system failure but since Labor was in power at the time the had to take responsibility. (The failures remind me ofvPearl Harbor.)

- arnon1

November 26, 2012 at 3:06pm

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

Not mowing the grass. Bailing water. The ship is still sinking because, unlike Sharon, Netanyahu is a strategic nitwit.

- roidubouloi

November 26, 2012 at 8:53pm

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

This would be unbelievable except that we can see and hear it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_gs7igC5siY

- Noga

November 27, 2012 at 6:56pm

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

arnon: I agree, the time will change but I still think it was the best deal under the circumstances, by the way, I was wrong about the crowds in Cairo. roid: Just the opposite, Sharon was tactical genius, I think Bibi is more of a strategic thinker.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

November 28, 2012 at 7:19am

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

noga: I agree, this was surreal.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

November 28, 2012 at 7:25am

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close