The New Republic

I am sorry Ehud Barak is leaving politics. He was a sane and really smart politician in an otherwise mediocre government. I know nothing about the general who is supposed to replace him (Ya'alon) so I can't say anything about him.

- arnon1

November 27, 2012 at 12:45am

And according to the NYT, "all the biased news fit to print", "the most decorated Israeli military man".................. He blew it in 2006 Lebanon, he blew it in 2008 Gaza. Of course it was the troika...Olmert -Barak-Livni. And to top it his delivering to Arafat during the Clinton years just lead to the intifada. Well as NYT used to say "the most decorated Israeli military man ever". Tsk tsk tsk tsk tsk

- JAIMECHUCH

November 27, 2012 at 1:40am

That's quite a switcheroo. I'm wondering now. All those against a strike on Iran have always paraded Yaalon's position as one of deep knowledge, understanding and moderation to support their objection. Surely someone like that with his background and experience would know. So how are they going to relate to him if he become Minister of Defence for the settlements? Are the same people going to discredit his experience and knowledge now?

- Noga

November 27, 2012 at 6:50am

Depends on whether the question is one of military tactics and efficacy or political tactics and efficacy. Does Yaalon offer any deep knowledge of world politics? Based on what? Did Barak for that matter?

- roidubouloi

November 27, 2012 at 7:13am

Given that Barak was hardly able to moderate the Likud position on settlements, seems like the switch is a good one on balance. Maybe Yaalon can moderate Netanyahu's position on Iran. Israel is only going to move on the settlements when forced to do so by the United States, with the implicit threat that, if Israel does not accept the United States position, it will face worse from the UNSC. It has always been thus and will continue to be, with the exception of Sharon. But there is no one to replace Sharon. In that sense, Yaalon's views on the settlements don't make much difference, whereas his views on Iran might.

- roidubouloi

November 27, 2012 at 7:18am

Abbas has apparently said that, if the General Assembly recognizes Palestine, he will enter negotiations without any preconditions, getting himself out of the current stalemate over settlement construction. Do we suppose that Yaalon imagines that Israel can in fact negotiate with the Palestinians without negotiating over territory? Do we suppose he thinks there are no consequences in Israel refuses what the US considers an equitable offer from Abbas? Of course, if Abbas declares his readiness for unconditional negotiations, we may see Netanyahu find some new way to stall. But he doesn't have much goodwill with Obama, having backed the wrong horse in the American election. Obama does not have to worry about re-election and he can conduct foreign policy, including exercise of the UNSC veto, or not, without congressional approval. Abbas may just have lucked into the right historical moment to get a deal, regardless of what Yaalon thinks about the settlements.

- roidubouloi

November 27, 2012 at 7:23am

"We can live like this for another 100 years, too". Yes. That is the attitude that it will take to really resolve this conflict, assuming it can be resolved. Any rush to resolution merely strengthens the hands of Hamas and the terrorists. Because as long as they can behave badly, but Israel is pushed to compromise, the situation will not resolve.

- AllanL5

November 27, 2012 at 9:11am

The Likud primaries yielded and even more right wing slate of candidates than hitherto if that's possible. It's going to be an interesting election and for the sake of the country I hope Netanyahu loses.

- arnon1

November 27, 2012 at 6:09pm

"Abbas has apparently said that, if the General Assembly recognizes Palestine, he will enter negotiations without any preconditions,...." Really? "Palestinians refuse clause in UN draft barring criminal charges against Israel Washington had sought to soften wording of draft resolution, but Palestinians submitted final proposal earlier Tuesday and have refused to discuss changes." http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/palestinians-refuse-clause-in-un-draft-barring-criminal-charges-against-israel.premium-1.480931 Abbas speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

- arnon1

November 27, 2012 at 6:12pm

And exactly why should Palestinian statehood be conditioned on a license to Israel to commit crimes? The whole point of judicial resolution of disputes is as a substitute for violence. If Israel is committing crimes in Palestine, they should be prosecuted. Even better, if it does not think it is immune, Israel might refrain from committing crimes. A license to do so is quite outlandish. Plainly what Israel wishes to be able to do is hold Palestinian statehood hostage, and violate the human rights of the Palestinians with impunity while it does so, until the Palestinians cede to Israel that land that Israel covets -- notwithstanding the provision of resolution 242 as to the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war. Let's hope that this is the beginning of the end of this tactic. If Israel realizes that it cannot have the Palestinians' land, it may re-discover a desire for peace and security within its own borders, while granting to the Arabs the same.

- roidubouloi

November 27, 2012 at 7:07pm

From the haaretz article: "At the center of the Palestinians' steadfast refusal to alter the resolution draft lies the demand that a clause be inserted into the resolution stating that the Palestinians would not approach the ICC in order to file charges against Israeli officials. The United Kingdom has made it clear to the Palestinians that it will support their measure in the United Nations if they provide guarantees that they will not seek to file criminal charges against Israeli officials with the ICC. The British did not state whether they were requesting oral or written guarantees from the Palestinians. The Palestinians made it clear to the U.S. and several prominent European Union member states that they are only prepared to provide an oral guarantee that they will not seek to file charges with the ICC for a temporary period of approximately half a year. After the end of this period, they stated, they would consider themselves no longer bound by this guarantee." ____________________ It is quite shameful that the US and the UK, prosecutors at the Nuremberg Tribunal, the direct antecedent of the International Criminal Court, should be trying to obtain for Israel the right to violate the Geneva Conventions and Protocols with impunity. It is as or more shameful that the state of the Jewish people, who were the principal target of Nazi war crimes and crimes against humanity, should be seeking such impunity. This is how distorted we have become because of Israel's desire for land it cannot have and the willingness of the west to condone through inaction Israel's illicit behavior. In light of Netanyahu's temporary suspension of settlement construction, the Palestinians' willingness to allow only a 6-month moratorium on seeking criminal charges is ironic in the extreme. "You agree to stop violating our rights for a limited period, and we agree not to seek to have you prosecuted for a limited period." __________________________ I should also like to recall that for some years now on these pages I have been predicting exactly this outcome while being attacked for doing so by the soi-disant friends of Israel. Apparently, the truth was too much for them to bear. Very rightwing, insisting upon your own reality.

- roidubouloi

November 27, 2012 at 7:21pm

"It is quite shameful that the US and the UK, prosecutors at the Nuremberg Tribunal, the direct antecedent of the International Criminal Court, should be trying to obtain for Israel the right to violate the Geneva Conventions and Protocols with impunity" This is Roido's comment and is not in the article. It continues his obsession with the ICC (which has very little to do with the Nuremberg tribunals) as some sort of neutral dispenser of morality and justice. It is not, it is another political institution used by countries and blocks of countries with power to carry on their war against their enemies. Abbas is ready to let Hamas and other groups to attack Israeli civilians while he sits back and pretends that he is above it all. Yet he will use diplomacy and law i his continued war against the Jewish State.

- arnon1

November 27, 2012 at 7:48pm

"This is Roido's comment and is not in the article." Not at all. It IS in the article. Indeed, it is the very subject of the article. Here is the haaretz headline and the sub-headline, for those having difficulty reading the article. "Palestinians refuse clause in UN draft barring criminal charges against Israel" "Washington had sought to soften wording of draft resolution, but Palestinians submitted final proposal earlier Tuesday and have refused to discuss changes." And of course, Bibi sent his top lawyer to Washington to try and assist with these changes. Seems he has suddenly woken up. The Geneva Conventions, and the ICC to enforce them, are self-consciously, deliberately modeled on the Nuremberg Tribunal. That is, as a matter of fact, the history. If Abbas commits war crimes or crimes against humanity, Israel can seek to have him prosecuted by the ICC as the Palestinian Authority has already attempted to accede to the Rome statute and Palestine will certainly do so. How exactly Abbas would restrain Hamas is, to say the least, obscure since it was Hamas that kicked the PA out of Gaza. Be that as it may, the PA will be liable to prosecution by the ICC too. The characterization of the ICC as a tool of war betrays gross ignorance of what the court has in fact done together with the special tribunals created for Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, et alia. Diplomacy and law are the proper alternative to war. Neither war nor diplomacy nor law is there to assure that Israel gets what it wants to the detriment of other people. Nor are Israel and its designs the measure of all things of value in the world.

- roidubouloi

November 27, 2012 at 8:39pm

this retirement is a shame, I have always like Barak...even in his failure of the peace accords he gave it an honest shot. roid, remember the saying: the Palestinians (especially under Arafat) will never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

- blackton

November 27, 2012 at 8:39pm

I would never want to disagree with Abba Eban, blackton, for whom I have only the highest admiration, but the Palestinians have slowly been learning that violence is a dead-end for them that only allows Israel to prolong the occupation and the settlements, whereas law and diplomacy offer them a way out. Do you know how the prosecutors and investigators at the ICC describe what they are doing? They say that they are "fighting impunity." For some time now, it is the Likud that has been missing every opportunity in the belief that it could continue obstructing peace and settling the West Bank with impunity. Time for Netanyahu to come to the table and negotiate a two-state solution that either respects that the settlements are on land that is not Israel or bargains to keep them in exchange for something the Palestinians actually want -- land they want or the right of return that they want or some combination within agreed upon limits. That will likely shatter the Likud as it now exists, but my Israeli brother-in-law tells me today that he thinks that there are enough in the center, on the left, and among the more moderate elements of the Likud to form a majority. I have no knowledge at all about Israeli politics that would enable me intelligently to agree or disagree with his opinion. "History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives." Abba Eban.

- roidubouloi

November 27, 2012 at 8:50pm

"... but the Palestinians have slowly been learning that violence is a dead-end for them that only allows Israel to prolong the occupation and the settlements, whereas law and diplomacy offer them a way out." Sure, and Hamas is full of space aliens and not Palestinian Arabs.

- arnon1

November 27, 2012 at 9:18pm

Roido is getting carried away by his rhetoric. He Thinks that if he rights enough about how wonderful law and diplomacy are the "peace loving Palestinians" that inhabit his imagination will become real.

- arnon1

November 27, 2012 at 9:21pm

What is becoming real is a Palestinian state, and what is coming into view is the end of the occupation. Abbas' rhetorical adherence to non-violent methods, and the pacification of the West Bank, have a great deal to do with that reality. My imagination has very little to do with it. There is no shortage of bellicose rhetoric to be found in Israel. Maybe the "peace loving Israelis" of my imagination, rather than the land-grabbing reality of the Likud, will become real too once the land-grab becomes clearly hopeless and risky. The way is open for Netanyahu to negotiate a two-state solution that provides for Israel's security within its borders, extinguishes Palestinian refugee claims, and establishes condominium in Jerusalem for the benefit of Jews, Moslems, and Christians. Or, he can waste precious time fulminating and speculating about the "real" intentions of the Arabs, as Israel's self-declared friends do. You make peace with your enemies, not with your friends. Until you make peace, they are your enemies. If you make peace, they are not.

- roidubouloi

November 27, 2012 at 9:52pm

Even Hamas understands that violence prolongs the occupation and settlement. That is precisely what they want to achieve in the near-term, to prevent the conflict from being brought to rest in the belief that time is on their side and that, if the conflict is not settled, eventually, be it 100 years or more, the Arabs will ultimately prevail and destroy the Jewish state. This is why John Judis correctly describes Hamas and Likud as alter-egos. Likud has the same delusion that, if the conflict can be kept from coming to rest long enough, Israel will ultimately succeed in capturing the settlements and in rendering Palestine a de facto territory of Israel.

- roidubouloi

November 27, 2012 at 10:09pm

Israel doesn't have a hundred years, it likely has less than 20 to get a favorable deal from the Palestinians. Like Dick Morris, the Likudniks are delusional and missing the massive demographic and political changes sweeping the scene. Consider that in 1900 there were 20 Jews worldwide for every Palestinian, in 2050 the numbers will be even, or that in 1900 there was one Jew for every 15 Muslims, in 2050 the ratio will be 1:200. Or that Muslims account for over 20% of births in Israel this year. In 1956 France and Britain conspired with Israel to attack Egypt, next week they will both vote to recognize Palestine (perhaps the fact that Muslim voters gave Hollande his winning margin over Sarkozy had something to do with France's position). If Israel wants to keep a Jewish majority state on 70% of the land, it better grab that deal fast, cause window will close in the next two decades on that possibility. The canard that Barak offered a decent deal at Camp David is nonsense. There was no generous offer, which is why the Israelis never made public the maps. In truth Barak offered the Palestinians two divided blocs with Israel running a corridor from Jerusalem to the Jordan River. The valley would be "Palestinian" but leased back to Israel indefinitely. There would be no border with Jordan, and Israel would keep all of its large settlements. Barak was so unhinged he wanted to run Israeli highway to Hebron and keep the Hebron settlement too. The Palestinians were never offered East Jerusalem, just a token fraction to plant a flag. If Israel wants peace the price is clear, 67 borders and remove the settlements. Until then, they are choosing to continue the conflict in the name of greed for more Palestinian land. The Palestinians recognized Israel in the Oslo Accords, the manufactured demand to recognize Israel's "character" is just a smokescreen to avoid peace. Did we recognize communism when we recognize China, or apartheid when we had relations with White South Africa, or Wahhabism when we recognize Saudi? Of course not, to demand that Palestinians recognize Zionism is just stupid. They offer the Israelis two-states, what Israelis do with theirs is not for the Palestinians to decide.

- nayyer_ali

November 27, 2012 at 10:30pm

roidubouloi "Even Hamas understands that violence prolongs the occupation and settlement." And of course Roido has evidence to support his contention that Hamas believes that violence prolongs occupation. This is why Hamas fired thousands of rockets at Israeli civilians. But Roido doesn't need evidence, not when he has nayyer_ali (aka MacEachern) his alter ego on his side.

- arnon1

November 27, 2012 at 10:42pm

"This is why John Judis correctly describes Hamas and Likud as alter-egos." Where does he say that, roidubouloi? Not in this article. Did you read the article or are you just saying that he says what you would have said? You are a liar.

- arnon1

November 27, 2012 at 10:50pm

What about Right of Return, nayyer_ali? Is that part of your deal? Or are you saying two states for two peoples, one Jewish, one Arab, with neither having a right to return to that which is not theirs? Total settling of debts, so to speak.

- Noga

November 27, 2012 at 11:02pm

"The canard that Barak offered a decent deal at Camp David is nonsense." Nayer MacEachern Ali like Roido speaks with the voice of the omniscient author knowing for certain that the Jews did not want peace at Camp David. nayer like his Hamas friends dreams of single judenrein Palestinian State.

- arnon1

November 27, 2012 at 11:12pm

John Judis, the other day, here at TNR: http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/110404/three-reasons-why-the-ceasefire-wont-last "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." ________________________ You are over-wrought, arnon, to the point where you are merely spitting and hissing. It is one of the hallmarks of strategic nitwittery to assume or believe that enemies are simply mad dogs, bereft of reason, purpose, guile other than murder. That is always possible. But if one assumes that enemies are rational and pursuing goals intelligently, even if they are goals that you consider malign, it is possible to learn a lot. Judis explains very well in a couple of paragraphs just how the mirror actions of Likud and Hamas conspire to the same end, the perpetuation of the conflict. He may be wrong, of course, but it is a shrewd analysis. More than I can say for the fulminations of the friends of Israel who frequent these pages. I don't agree with everything nayyer ali says, but I often agree with a lot of it. And he is always thoughtful, composed, and analytical. Again, more than I can say for the friends of Israel. They tend to deploy sputtering insults first, second, and third pausing only to rehearse their grievance clichés. Intelligent, thoughtful analysis? Not only do they not offer any, they get intensely irritated when anyone else does.

- roidubouloi

November 27, 2012 at 11:13pm

Of course Israel wanted peace at Camp David, along with Palestinian land upon which Israel has no legitimate claim. The land was, however, more important than the peace. Hence, no peace. When Israel offers peace along the Green Line with condominium in Jerusalem, then we will see who it is who wants peace and who does not. Despite the constant insistence by the Likud and its fellow travlers that Israel has no partner for peace, Israel will not make that offer out of fear that the Palestinians would accept.

- roidubouloi

November 27, 2012 at 11:19pm

Why are there so many "Barak"s in important positions? Is this the sign of the "End Times." Why is possibly the most religious place in the world the most violent, full of "haters," and filled with conflict? Well, maybe it's a good thing there will be one less Barak in the pot. We're close to being able to colonize Mars. Whom to we choose as the first colonists? The Israelis? The Palestinians? The Iranians? The North Koreans? Would they be able to find enough room to coexist on their own planet?

- skahn

November 27, 2012 at 11:21pm

Noga: The right of return is a matter of negotiation, whatever the Palestinians accept is fine with me. I'm not Palestinian. My guess is that all sides know there will be no large scale return of Palestinians into Israel, and public opinion polling of Palestinian refugees has found that a single digit fraction would want to move to Israel if that was even offered. Financial compensation, a handover of evacuated settlements, and resettlement in the US and Europe are likely how this gets handled in the end. Arnon: I don't know what "the Jews" want, I know what Barak offered. Perhaps you know what "the Jews" want, and you could enlighten us. I would refer you to page 142 of the Brandeis History Professor Bernard Wasserstein's book "Israelis and Palestinians" for a map of Barak's offer. Look it up instead of wallowing in your own prejudice.

- nayyer_ali

November 27, 2012 at 11:27pm

I have written here many times that the best deal for both sides would be for the Palestinians to accept the settlement blocs in exchange for Israel agreeing to accept an equal number of Palestinian returnees. This would give expression to the religious/territorial/revanchist/nostalgic claims of both. Failing that, the settlements go in exchange for complete extinguishment of Palestinians refugee claims. The sensible solution for Jerusalem is Palestinian sovereignty in some portion of East Jerusalem, but as an enclave surrounded by Israel. This would permit the city to be open, as it should be, to all its inhabitants. The Palestinians can hardly expect recognition of their religious attachment to Jerusalem if they refuse to recognize the senior and more important claim of the Jews. Jerusalem is the creation of the Jews. It is to Judaism what Mecca and Medina together are to Islam. The span of time from the Jewish foundation of Jerusalem to Mohammed is considerably longer than the span of time from Mohammed to the present. In exchange for a Palestinian enclave in Jerusalem, Israel should demand an Israeli enclave in Hebron, a hostage to peace. The Jewish claim upon Hebron is every bit as strong as the Moslem claim upon Jerusalem. If the Jews cannot return to Hebron and be sovereign there, there is no reason at all to acknowledge Moslem claims in Jerusalem. If the Hebron enclave were threatened or collapsed, the Palestinians will know that their enclave in Jerusalem will be no more, annexed to Israel merely by Israel closing its border. Similarly, if the settlement blocs remain as part of Palestine, it will be evident that, if the Jewish residents are not allowed to live there in peace and security, Israel will simply annex them. It is not beyond the mind of man to devise security arrangements along the length of the Jordan Valley that prevent arms smuggling. Access to the Jordan Valley for Israel can be from the Galilee and the Dead Sea, without need of intrusions through the heart of the West Bank. But, if the Palestinians want transit rights between the West Bank and Gaza, when and if Gaza is pacified, they must be willing to grant Israel similar transit rights through the West Bank between the Arava, the Galilee, and Jerusalem. That covers borders, refugees, settlements, security, transit, Jerusalem, and Hebron. I am sure that if those are settled, they can figure out something with regard to water.

- roidubouloi

November 27, 2012 at 11:41pm

I just ordered Wasserstein's book. Only one more left at amazon.com. A mere $7.00!

- roidubouloi

November 28, 2012 at 12:01am

I see no similarity at all between Nayyer_Ali and S MacEachern. MacEachern routinely made up stuff, or took it off of anti-Semitic websites or literature, to bolster his criticism of Israel. I don't ever recall reading Nayyer_Ali do that.

- roidubouloi

November 28, 2012 at 12:05am

"Wasserstein's main area of interest is Jewish history. His current areas of research involves three projects: first, a study of European Jewish intellectuals in the period after 1945; secondly, a book on the Jews in Europe on the eve of the Second World War; and thirdly, a micro-historical study of the relations of Jews with their neighbours in a small Polish town, Krakowiec, over the period 1772 to 1946." It seems that Israel is not this historians main interest. From the Amazon webpage: "Reasoned and balanced, [this book] makes a compelling case that demographic, socio-economic, environmental, and territorial imperatives must eventually bring Israelis and Palestinians to a peaceful resolution."—Eric Silver, Jewish Chronicle Who can be against that. However this is not what Nayyer ali said above: "Israel doesn't have a hundred years, it likely has less than 20 to get a favorable deal from the Palestinians. Like Dick Morris, the Likudniks are delusional and missing the massive demographic and political changes sweeping the scene. Consider that in 1900 there were 20 Jews worldwide for every Palestinian, in 2050 the numbers will be even, or that in 1900 there was one Jew for every 15 Muslims, in 2050 the ratio will be 1:200. Or that Muslims account for over 20% of births in Israel this year. In 1956 France and Britain conspired with Israel to attack Egypt, next week they will both vote to recognize Palestine (perhaps the fact that Muslim voters gave Hollande his winning margin over Sarkozy had something to do with France's position). If Israel wants to keep a Jewish majority state on 70% of the land, it better grab that deal fast, cause window will close in the next two decades on that possibility." Aside from the fact that Ali is making up the demographic numbers (from where did he get this data about "ratio of Jews to Arabs in 1900?" Over which territory is he talking about? n Jerusalem there was a Jewish majority. Also how does he know what the demographic s will be in 2050? The real number of Palestinian Arabs is a mystery since the Arabs have never allowed an independent agency to do a survey. The tenor and tone of nayyer ali is anit Jewish ( his posts revolves around the warning to Jews you better give up or else. We have heard this before. I don't believe that Nayyer ali is who he says he is. He is MacEachers or someone of his ilk. "I just ordered Wasserstein's book. Only one more left at amazon.com. A mere $7.00!" Roido payed to much for Wasserestein's book. You can get for a penny. http://www.amazon.com/Israelis-Palestinians-They-Fight-Second/dp/B0078XYME2/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354080082&sr=1-2&keywords=Israelis+and+Palestinians%3A++Why+do+they+Fight And like everything else, you get what you pay for. In this case you'll get a penny's worth of history.

- arnon1

November 28, 2012 at 12:38am

nayyer_ ali ".... next week they will both vote to recognize Palestine (perhaps the fact that Muslim voters gave Hollande his winning margin over Sarkozy had something to do with France's position)" We'll see hoe Britain is going to vote, but Hollande has been more pro Israel and pro Jewish than many Jews in France thought he would be. Still, I wouldn't ascribe the "Arab vote" to as the primary reason for what a head of State does. Muslim Arabs in this country tried to take credit for Obama's election in 2008.

- arnon1

November 28, 2012 at 12:48am

Nayyer_Ali didn't cite Wasserstein for anything other than the map of what Barak offered at Camp David. arnon, who exhibits all the signs of being a racist when it comes to Moslems and Arabs, pompously says, "We have heard this before." As if any decent person would want to be part of arnon's "we." Maybe Avigdor Lieberman, or Feiglin. As for arnon's disagreement with Nayyer-Ali's point that Israel is running out of time, and his unsupported claim that this is "anti-Jewish," here is what Ben Birnbaum just said in the TNR post about Livni: "In Israel’s political cacophony, Livni again provides a clear voice saying what’s become increasingly obvious: that with a rising Hamas and an aging President Mahmoud Abbas, Israel’s chances for striking a final-status agreement with the Palestinians are quickly evaporating. Whether Israelis will listen is another matter." I suppose that makes Birnbaum anti-Jewish, because he, like Nayyer-Ali and me, believes that the procrastination of the Likud in making peace is detrimental to the future of Israel and its prospects for survival. arnon is a thug and a child all at the same time. He cannot distinguish an observation about what is or may be from hostility and animus. When he is unable to respond with argument, which is generally the case, he immediately resorts to accusations of anti-Semitism or childish insults at the level of a five-year-old. Nayyer_Ali makes his points thoughtfully, if urgently, and with far less overt animus that anyone here who is a purported friend of Israel. He does not at all deserve the smear campaign by the thug, arnon.

- roidubouloi

November 28, 2012 at 1:08am

"Nayyer_Ali didn't cite Wasserstein for anything other than the map of what Barak offered at Camp David." Roido, you said you haven't read the book how do you know that the map cited there supports your friends contention that Barak didn't make a "fair offer?" He called Barak "unhinged" which is not exactly either diplomatic or scholarly language. You can't have it both ways: you can't pretend that you and your buddy are impartial scholars and start insulting and using personal attacks on people you disagree with. Anyways, Arafat he did not like the offer made to him didn't come back with a counter offer. Instead he launched the second intifada and was surprised that Israel reacted with so much force to his attacks. So who in fact was deranged? (I am not pretending to be impartial in this debate. Your pal did more than just talk about maps.

- arnon1

November 28, 2012 at 1:26am

You have real trouble following the ball, arnon. I have no idea about the provenance of the map to which Nayyer_Ali referred and didn't claim to. But neither do you. Rather than go look it up, which is exactly what I intend to do when I get my copy of the book, and see what the authority is, you just attempt to discredit Wasserstein and thence Nayyer_Ali. I was pointing out that your effort to do so was irrelevant because Nayyer_Ali was not citing Wasserstein for his analysis, only as the source of this map of what Barak offered at Camp David. In any case, Nayyer_Ali cited Wasserstein in response to your accusation that he was making it all up. He at least has some responsible authority for his claims. The one making it all up is you. I wouldn't myself describe Barak as unhinged, but Israel has managed to talk itself into the belief that the absurd land swaps it proposes are somehow inevitable and that it is churlish of the Palestinians to refuse. But the deal that Israel offers is a deal for dummies -- "You abandon your claims west of the Green Line, you give us the pieces of the West Bank that we want with the settlements on them, you get a symbolic presence in Jerusalem and some scraps of desert that no one wants." Why on earth would the Palestinians accept that? They would have to be idiots. Yet Israel convinces itself that the refusal, at least three times, to accept some version of this deal is Palestine's refusal to make peace. Just the opposite. It is Israel's refusal to make piece unless it can pocket the land that it settled illegitimately, in defiance of the UNSC, the US, and the Fourth Geneva Convention as interpreted by its own counsel. If that is not unhinged, it bespeaks a delusional state due apparently to too much time imbibing Israeli propaganda to the point where he believed it. This is a pretty widespread phenomenon in Israel, very reminiscent of the delusions of the American right. They spend so much time talking to each other and ignoring the rest of the world that they come to believe their own bullshit and are outraged when no one else does. Indeed, that is a pretty good summary description of what goes on in these blogs. The self-described friends of Israel are immediately whipped into a fury when other people do not blithely accept Israeli or AIPAC propaganda and talking points. One does not have an obligation to be a scholar when criticizing a political figure, anymore than political figures apply the standards of scholarship to what they do and say. None of that justifies Arafat's Second Intifada. It was outrageous and a huge setback for both Israel and Palestine. But Arafat's outrages also do not justify Israel's illegal behavior. Arafat did not license Israel to violate international law.

- roidubouloi

November 28, 2012 at 1:49am

Arnon: I did say Barak was unhinged at Camp David, by which I meant he was out of touch with any sense of reality. If he really thought that a final offer that involved Israel slicing and dicing the West Bank so much that not even the Hebron settlement would have to be evacuated constituted a "generous offer" whose refusal was the basis of claiming that Palestinians don't want peace, that qualifies in my book as unhinged. I am not a scholar, and I am not impartial, but I don't engage in outrageous prejudiced and racist diatribes, which flow from you with regularity. Your anti-Muslim bigotry is vile and constant.

- nayyer_ali

November 28, 2012 at 10:56am

Roid: The best account of Camp David itself is Clayton Swisher's "The Truth About Camp David". He interviewed almost everyone involved in the negotiations and presents a thorough account of what was happening in the months before and during the summit. His map of Barak's proposal is slightly different than Wasserstein's, all the Camp David maps depend on some guesswork about the exact course of the lines as the Israelis never officially released any maps, but they are generally in agreement, as are other versions of the Camp David map (National Geographic published a version of it too).

- nayyer_ali

November 28, 2012 at 11:08am

"..., you just attempt to discredit Wasserstein and thence Nayyer_Ali." Nonsense, nayyer ali provided Wasserstein as a historian and an authority on the Middle East conflict. He is an historian and but he is not an expert on Arab Israeli conflict. The rest of what you and your buddy Ali write is interpretive rather than factual. I wasn't attacking Wasserstein whose books on Jewish history in Europe I am eager to have look at.

- arnon1

November 28, 2012 at 12:03pm

"Arnon: I did say Barak was unhinged at Camp David, by which I meant he was out of touch with any sense of reality." Out of touch with whose "reality?" Yours? As I said if Arafat didn't like the offer he was under obligation to come up with a counter offer. He never did. He turned instead to violence. Arafat behavior can be described as "unhinged."

- arnon1

November 28, 2012 at 12:05pm

"Clayton Swisher wrote a rebuttal to Clinton and Ross's accounts about the causes for the breakdown of the Camp David Summit in his 2004 book, The Truth About Camp David.[28] Swisher, the Director of Programs at the Middle East Institute, concluded that the Israelis and the Americans were at least as guilty as the Palestinians for the collapse." Clayton Swisher also has a blog in Al Jazeera. He is not exactly neutral. Besides his rebuttal only convinced those anti Israel activists like who wanted to be convinced like M J Rosenberg. It's obvious were natyyer ali is coming from, which is OK,, but let's not pretend that he is either an expert or neutral about the conflict. Besides I am not convinced that nayyer is not the name of a poster who posts he under other names.

- arnon1

November 28, 2012 at 12:13pm

I realize you are unhinged, arnon, but if you are going to make up preposterous lies, even about small matters, you should perhaps not do so when the language refuting you is here on the very same page. Here is the total extent of Nayyer_Ali's citation to Wasserstein: "I would refer you to page 142 of the Brandeis History Professor Bernard Wasserstein's book "Israelis and Palestinians" for a map of Barak's offer. Look it up instead of wallowing in your own prejudice.' He made no claim whatsoever about Wasserstein's authority and did not cite to him for anything other than the fact that there is a map of what Barak offered at Camp David on page 142 of Wasserstein's book. You can admit to having been out of line any time you are moved. ____________________ Nayyer_Ali, thanks. I will get that one too. I read some long excerpt or review (either here or in the NYT) of a book, perhaps this very one, about what went on at Camp David. It certainly didn't sound very promising or skillful as diplomacy. Rather, it sounded as though Clinton and Barak were double-teaming Arafat hoping to corner him into a deal (because they, not Arafat, were both out of time in office) and had virtually convinced themselves that they had successfully done so because Arafat was not really bargaining with them, just being slapped around. Then, when Arafat walked away, they were stunned. Never-the-less, Arafat should have countered, even after the conference, rather than resort to violence and poison the well. Quite apart from moral judgments about him (and mine are quite negative), he was a man who had by then passed his moment. He no longer understood the constellation of forces around him and made an enormous tactical mistake. It is one of the many ironies of the conflict that Israel, while deploring Palestinian violence, has in fact been more responsive and accommodating in response to violence than in response to the absence of violence. This has created perverse incentives. The rest of the world, however, is much more responsive to Palestinian non-violence, as we are seeing this week. In that the Palestinians cannot seriously hope to achieve their goals through violence against Israel, but can hope to achieve them with sufficient support from the rest of the world, they are far better served by non-violence. It appears to me that Abbas at least has figured this out. Israel in contrast seems stuck, bizarrely threatening the Palestinians for resort to diplomatic and legal rather than violent means. I was fascinated to read in Yossi Beilin's recent piece that Palestinian statehood is not in fact a matter that Oslo provided was to be negotiated with Israel. That is of course exactly as it should be as the right of the Palestinian's to statehood is theirs, without regard to Israel, just as the right of the Jews to statehood in the land allocated to them by the UN partition was not properly subject to Arab approval. But, if you listen to Israeli propaganda, and its AIPAC/American echoes, you would think that the Arabs have a duty to negotiate their statehood with Israel. Plainly they must negotiate about borders and security, within the 242 framework, but not about their statehood itself.

- roidubouloi

November 28, 2012 at 12:28pm

Nayyer_ali does not pretend either to be expert or neutral. Is either one supposed to be a prerequisite for expressing an opinion here? I don't recall reading anyone else here who is either expert or purports to be neutral. Certainly not arnon or the rest of the self-declared friends of Israel. arnon seems to think that anyone who does not accept Israeli/AIPAC propaganda is automatically discreditable for that reason alone. "We know where he is coming from." How utterly ridiculous. It is obvious "where arnon is coming from" too.

- roidubouloi

November 28, 2012 at 12:32pm

LATEST ON SYRIAN FIGHTING? For Syria’s new opposition head, Zionism is ‘a cancerous movement’Mouaz al-Khatib, widely seen as a moderate religious figure, also praised Saddam Hussein for ‘terrifying the Jews’ By ELHANAN MILLER November 26, 2012, 6:13 am 22 http://www.timesofisrael.com/syrian-opposition-leader-calls-zionism-a-cancerous-movement/ http://www.timesofisrael.com/explosions-rock-damascus-leaving-a-reported-20-dead/#comments

- JAIMECHUCH

November 28, 2012 at 12:52pm

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/as-a-muslim-i-say-hamas-is-harming-palestine/ As a Muslim I say Hamas is harming PalestineNOVEMBER 20, 2012, 12:30 PM 80 1 Email Print Share Ceylan Özbudak is a Turkish peace activist… [More] Ceylon's website I am a Muslim. And a devout Muslim. I love all Muslims very dearly. My love is for all believers. Right now it is impossible to support the loss of innocent lives in both Israel and Palestine. So far, more than 130 Palestinians and four Israelis have been killed. Direct peace talks should immediately begin and both sides should consent to this. Otherwise, whichever international laws we look at, launching rockets at a state and causing the deaths of its citizens attracts a right to reprisal. In this way, both sides justify their actions by consider the strikes as defense on their part. Besides, even if unintentionally, Hamas is putting Palestine in the wrong in the eyes of international organizations by constantly adopting this mistaken approach. If the Palestinians wish to enjoy greater justification, the way to do this is not by slaughtering innocent people on the other side. Such attacks during a state of peace will attract a reprisal anywhere in the world. Civilian people in Israel are living in fear in shelters due to the rockets fired from Gaza. There has been blind conflict between the two sides for many years now; the children of Israel on the one side and the children of Ishmael on the other. These two peoples that should be living side by side in peace in those ancient, lovely lands are fighting one another instead. Many people in Palestine I have spoken to are exceedingly alarmed by this behavior of Hamas’s and do not support attacks on the innocent people of Israel. There is nothing to support in this behavior, which will clearly never produce any results and that merely causes destruction. If people support that and say they are Muslims, then they are unfamiliar with the commandments of the Quran. Whether or not the response to these attacks is a just one, is another matter. The idea that any war would ever inflict equal casualties on both sides is also not realistic. This would be state terrorism. So once again we come down to the need for a peaceful solution. An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. At this point the only way to resolve matters is to cease fire and attain direct peace without any further defense. As a matter of fact, this conflict can solely be settled with love and compassion just as religion commands us. That being the case, the task of finding the middle ground again falls to Muslims. Egypt and Turkey need to come together and find middle ground between the sides. The Jews are our brothers in the oneness of God. Allah says in the Quran: …make peace between your brothers and have fear of Allah so that hopefully you will gain mercy. As a Muslim I am reaching out with love and compassion to the people of Israel and the people of Palestine who are both our brothers. As Muslims, we should work together and strive for a union among our brothers living in the Holy Lands. Turkey and Israel working together hand in hand, will be a step toward the establishment of a new pact. The opinions, facts and any media content here are presented solely by the author, and The Times of Israel assumes no responsibility for them. In case of abuse, report this post.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 28, 2012 at 12:57pm

"He made no claim whatsoever about Wasserstein's authority and did not cite to him for anything other than the fact that there is a map of what Barak offered at Camp David on page 142 of Wasserstein's book." You are the unhinged "professor" who can never admit that he is wrong. No sane person quotes someone approvingly unless he thinks that person is an authority on the subject quoted. "You can admit to having been out of line any time you are moved." Yes, you can, though I know that acknowledging that you are wrong is beyond you. Roido thinks: "I am ROIDO the all knowing, I never make mistakes. I am a character from a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta. "I am the Captain of the Pinafore! And be it understood, I command a right good crew. Though related to a peer, I can hand, reef, and steer, And ship a selvagee; I am never known to quail At the fury of a gale, And I'm never, never sick at sea! Bad language or abuse, I never, never use, Whatever the emergency; Though "bother it" I may Occasionally say, I never use a big, big D — What, never? No, never! What, never? Hardly ever! Hardly ever swears a big, big D — Then give three cheers, and one cheer more, For the well-bred Captain of the Pinafore! Then give three cheers, and one cheer more, For the Captain of the Pinafore!"

- arnon1

November 28, 2012 at 7:38pm

“I see no similarity at all between Nayyer_Ali and S MacEachern. MacEachern routinely made up stuff, or took it off of anti-Semitic websites or literature, to bolster his criticism of Israel. I don't ever recall reading Nayyer_Ali do that.” Roidubouloi is to eager to defend Nayyer. Could he and Nayyer be the same poster? People don't usually defend other posters as often and as much as Roidubouloi does Ali.

- nr106646

November 28, 2012 at 7:53pm

Nah. I don't think roi is doubling. He is too arrogant to share the credit of his brilliance. Ali is not smac. Smac is a real antisemite, possibly from a family of antisemites. There is an Aryan flavour to his antisemitism. Ali is just anti-Israeli in the most fundamentally Arab way which means that for him Jews, unless they are like roi, are inherently suspect of Zionism which for him is a crime against humanity.

- Noga

November 28, 2012 at 8:26pm

Ahh. The goon squad returns, begging to be allowed to engage in its routine thuggery, lying, and smearing without criticism or response. What a wonderful defense of Israel. Pity the Jewish people to be publicly represented by such as these.

- roidubouloi

November 28, 2012 at 11:36pm

idubouloi loves us goons. Look how he keeps coming back for more. Can't get enough of us.

- nr106646

November 29, 2012 at 12:08am

Perhaps Israel watchers also need to factor in palestinian politics. If Meshal gets Hamas to start with pre-1967 lines, then the Likud-list stakes out post-1967 lines. It is entirely possible to substitute maps for missiles. some insight into palestinian politics: Nov 29, 2012 "Palestinian 'state' vote a crisis moment" By Victor Kotsev http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NK29Ak02.html (China's new passport map has annexed Taiwan, two provinces in India, and various islands, creating quite a fascinating "map war".)

- K2K

November 29, 2012 at 12:22am

Minus the vituperation some good comments. I'm afraid the basic thrust of the post is correct--there's no Mideast peace deal in sight, maybe ever. In my view there can't be until the Pals, who observed the Jews' success with playing the victim card and seem determined to play it over and over until it works again reality be damned, wake up to the fact that they don't have recourse to some special code of justice whipped up in talking shops like the UNGA. Central Europe is full with millions of people who were dispossessed in the wake of WWII. If you start an unprovoked war of aggression and lose, there are consequences, which applies to the Germans among them, and to the Arabs of Palestine. As far the Poles, Ukrainians, Balts, etc., simply tough shit. At the end of the day the Kurds, Pashtuns, Chechens, Baluchs, and probably a dozen more nations have a better claim to statehood than the made-up Palestinian "nation", which has never existed in thousands of years of recorded history. The "Palestinians" have been screwed by their own "leaders" far more than by Israel. There is no, zero, upside to a peaceful settlement for Arab leaders who have built a giant entitlement out of continuous conflict and victimhood. There is no deal they would accept, including that every Jew in Israel drown themselves and their families in the sea.

- Robert Powell

December 8, 2012 at 4:13pm