THE PLANK JUNE 4, 2007
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Both John Judis and Matthew Yglesias
misinterpret what I wrote about The Nation editorial on the two-state
solution. It is true that the editors of that magazine voice their support
for such a solution. But they couch that support with vague statements like
this one: "For many years this magazine has supported a two-state solution.
... But we recognize that as realities on the ground shift, so must our
thinking." And then there's this, the editorial's final sentence, which leaves
the very question of their ostensible support for a two-state solution up in
the air: "The two peoples must be afforded the right to live in peace and
dignity, on fully equal terms, whether in one state or two." And, while
The Nation may occasionally express its support for the two-state
solution, no other journal of opinion has printed more pieces over the years
expressing support for a one-state solution (the current issue includes 3
articles which do just that). This is not to say that magazines ought not to
print articles expressing viewpoints with which the editors disagree--but
The Nation has so frequently run articles calling for a one-state
solution (a rather weighty issue, considering that it would entail the
dissolution of a U.N. member state) that it puts the sincerity of their
supposed support for a two-state solution into serious question.
But what really gets my goat about the editorial--and what both Judis and
Yglesias conveniently ignore--is The Nation's overly sanguine description of
Palestinian politics. It is a common tactic of those unfairly critical of
Israel to equate both the Israeli and Palestinian polities in terms of their
temperament, political culture, and desire for peace. That Palestinian
parties are actually waging war against one another (while still finding
time to lob missiles at Israeli civilians) as Israeli parties debate in
parliament does not seem to change The Nation's
analysis. Its editorial contrasts the overwhelming
majority of stubborn Israelis who "viscerally, emphatically oppose both the
binational and secular democratic models" with "[t]he mainstream of the
Palestinian liberation movement," which, "for its part, has for three decades
supported the two-state solution," (not true) "and even the Islamist Hamas,"
which "has indicated that it would acquiesce" (so untrue it's amazing
The Nation would even try to pull this on its readership).
Finally, I respectfully disagree with Judis that criticizing
a magazine for hoodwinking its readers (into thinking that Hamas is rational)
and for persisting in a falsehood (that a known Communist spy was not a
Communist spy) is in any way akin to the echo-chamber tactics of the worst
left-wing blogs.
--James Kirchick
58 comments
Yeah, it's awful for an editor or publisher to shill for a convicted criminal. Thank God Mr. Peretz would never do that. And, in rereading your original piece, I still think that Judis' reading is more plausible than your retelling. If he really misstated your position, you're not as good a writer as you seem.
- miceelf
June 4, 2007 at 10:41am
James Kirchick continues his distortion of the Nation editorial: "Its editorial contrasts the overwhelming majority of stubborn Israelis who "viscerally, emphatically oppose both the binational and secular democratic models" with "[t]he mainstream of the Palestinian liberation movement," which, "for its part, has for three decades supported the two-state solution," (not true) "and even the Islamist Hamas," which "has indicated that it would acquiesce" (so untrue it's amazing The Nation would even try to pull this on its readership)." What the Nation actually said was as follows: "But to abandon the two-state solution, as a way out of today's seemingly insuperable barriers, doesn't so much answer questions as raise new ones. The chief difficulty is perhaps in popular reception, from both Israelis and Palestinians: While a large percentage of Israelis--anywhere from 40 to 60 percent, depending on when and how they're asked--support a two-state solution, 95 percent or more viscerally, emphatically oppose both the binational and secular democratic models." I think that, in context, it's clear that what the Nation meant was that 95 percent of Israelis oppose both the binational and secular democratic models _of_a_one-state_solution._ (Yes, they could have written more clearly, but "binational" makes sense only as a description of a one-state proposal.) I neither subscribe to the Nation nor support a one-state solution, but I think Kirchick has simply misread the editorial. (The alternative interpretation would be more problematic.)
- tarfon
June 4, 2007 at 10:48am
He's not misreading it. He's irritated that the article is characterizing Israelis as stubborn for not essentially supporting the end of the Jewish state while at the same time falsely portraying the other side as eager to reach a reasonable two-state accommodation.
- jhildner
June 4, 2007 at 10:56am
"Nation editors didn't seek out these conclusions, nor do they represent a change in our policy." One wonders why they printed these articles then. "For many years this magazine has supported a two-state solution in which Israel would fully withdraw from the territories occupied in 1967, in accordance with UN resolutions, and a State of Palestine would be formed in those territories, with its capital in East Jerusalem." Well this was always one model of the two State solution. The more realistic one would hold that the borders of these States would be arrived at through negotiations and would not necessarily endorse the 67 lines although they would probably pretty much conform to them with modifications. "But we recognize that as realities on the ground shift, so must our thinking." Realities are always shifting does that mean that we should be changing constitutions and borders every few generations? "Many have begun to wonder whether partition is still possible, given the growing settlements in the West Bank; the collapse of the peace process; the hardening of Israeli attitudes in the face of a second, bloody intifada; the descent of the Palestinian national camp into fratricide; and the unwillingness or inability of the Bush Administration to re-engage in serious peace talks or even to recognize the democratically elected Palestinian government." These laundry list of changing realities are not commensurable. The fact that there is "bloody civil war in Gaza" is not the same kind of obstacle to a two State solution as either the building of settlements or the intifada. Settlements can be moved for the sake of a peace deal and hopefully the intifada will end at the conclusion of a peace treaty. As for the Palestinian civil war, that is an internal affair of the Palestinian people just as the bickering over how Jewish should Israel be is an internal Israeli affair. "But to abandon the two-state solution, as a way out of today's seemingly insuperable barriers, doesn't so much answer questions as raise new ones." This is the least of the problems with such a "final solution" (I am using the terms with all its ignominious historical associations). A binational State means a majority Arab State and the demise of the Jewish State. It does not mean a State where two cultures can live side by side in peace and harmony. There are a number of insurmountable obstacles of which the most important are religion, language, and culture. Then there is the issue of who will own which parcel of land. In a binational State the "refugees" will come knocking at doors and claiming that its their land that the people are living on. In a binational State life will be even more violent than it is today. It will be Iraq raised to the nth degree. Israel/Palestine isn't Belgium or Switzerland and will never be. It will be lucky if it avoids the fate of Rwanda. More likely it will look like Lebanon for a while before it descends into Rwanda. Finally, the Jews who are not known for being stupid even if those on the extreme-left embrace stupidity and blindness for the sake of peace, will never go for it.
- jacksondyer
June 4, 2007 at 10:58am
I appreciated your response. I posted the editorial on your original post and in all fairness, the editorial itself can be read different ways, depending upon your pov and preconceived perceptions of The Nation and its approach to the politics of the region. I have to admit that I think that The Nation, in an attempt discuss a "hetereodox" [tnr's pet delusion] approach to policy of the region, did bring in talk of a "one state" approach. Some readers like you may see that and only see that. Others, like me or other Talk Backers, can see that, see it as a discussion point, and as I read the rest of the editorial, read it as a possibility that the rest of the editorial argues against and does not recommend. I am a reader of The Nation and though their thinking on Hamas is very different from TNR, I do beg to differ with you that the magazine "hoodwinks" its readers into thinking that Hamas is a conciliatory negotiator partner. As for the Alger Hiss/Victor Navasky thing, my suggestion to you that that was one, a gratuitous and irrelevent snark and two, I do not agree with you about Navasky's supposed contention that Hiss is innocent. The last editorial I read from Navasky about the issue centered on Irving Stone and how the "case closed" scholars, citing the Verona cables, have not discussed the possibility doubt about whether these messages are as clear cut as initially thought. Now, I did not attend that recent conference that got that TNR Open U scholar all in a tizzy. Perhaps Navasky got up on the table and announced that Alger Hiss was innocent. If he did, then I look forward to reading his reasons for this contention. But the bottom line is that this Hiss thing was a chicken shit non sequitur and as long as you engage in this Peretzian type tactic, you will continue to struggle for credibility not only with TNR readers but with readers all over the poly journal spectrum.
- MrCookie1
June 4, 2007 at 11:00am
jacksondyer- you're kidding, right? TNR published a letter from George Soros- does that prove some kind of change TNR's policy?
- miceelf
June 4, 2007 at 11:20am
"TNR published a letter from George Soros- does that prove some kind of change TNR's policy?" Come on, miceelf, a letter is not the same as articles and book reviews. The book review, for example, "The State of Zionism" by Brian Klug use of history was tendentious at best and deliberately prevaricatory at worst.
- jacksondyer
June 4, 2007 at 11:45am
I agree, and although I particularly enjoyed the "chicken shit non sequitur", I write to endorse most heartily the entire last paragraph of your comment above. This guy has no credibility. Neil
- purcellneil
June 4, 2007 at 11:55am
Thanks. The really sad thing is that you don't get a second chance to make a good first impression and because Kirchick's has not only fouled up his first impression, but at least the next four impressions, he is, at least as far as TNR is concerned, screwed. Obviously, I do not know the the kind of advice Kirchick has been getting but the bottom line is that Kirchick is clearly not a welcome addition to the TNR roster of stars. Actually, this is kind of sad but people, even young people, make their own choices and this guy has chosen to take a path that will only make him TNR's court jester. How long the magazine will put up with his shit is the operative question....
- MrCookie1
June 4, 2007 at 12:13pm
Take it easy. I think he makes a legit point here. The Nation is careful not to all-out endorse a one-state solution, but it is loudly entertaining the concept and doing so sympathetically. That concept necessitates the end of the Jewish state, doesn't it? Also, as is typical, The Nation does indeed distort mainstream viewpoints on both sides of the conflict to draw a false equality (or false inequality, as it is often the Israelis who are portrayed as the more stubborn or extreme side).
- jhildner
June 4, 2007 at 12:28pm
Fair or not, he thinks he can do it, because Marty can and he's Marty's protege. But, as every employee everywhere in the frickin world knows, the rules are different for the boss.
- miceelf
June 4, 2007 at 12:30pm
You said: "As for the Alger Hiss/Victor Navasky thing, my suggestion to you that that was one, a gratuitous and irrelevent snark and two, I do not agree with you about Navasky's supposed contention that Hiss is innocent. The last editorial I read from Navasky about the issue centered on Irving Stone and how the "case closed" scholars, citing the Verona cables, have not discussed the possibility doubt about whether these messages are as clear cut as initially thought." Now, Ron Rosenbaum on his blog said the following about Navasky: "The Hiss Case: For Those Who Still Care, I'm Point Number 8 I just got back from a big party thrown by the New York Times Book Review and though there were many luminaries, my favorite encounter was with one of my favorite people, Victor Navasky, former editor of The Nation, now chairman of The Columbia Journalism Review He told me that my theory of the case had been "point 8" in his recent keynote address to a conference of Alger Hiss case scholars held at NYU. In his key note speech Navasky, one of the few sane holdouts for Hiss' innocence (he conceded-this is hot news in some circles-that he now believed Julius Rosenberg was a spy though not the kind of spy who "stole" the "secret" of the atomic bomb), told me he'd enumerated the ten theories of the Hiss case. There were the varieties of those who believed Hiss was guilty, the varieties of those who believed Hiss was framed by Nixon. And within this latter camp were those true believers who advanced as "evidence" the fact that Hiss continued to maintain his innocence until his death. Yes, it's true, this is considered a strong point by many Hiss dead end true believers. Why would he do that, they'd say if he weren't actually innocent. In point 8 Navasky summarized my opinion on the case: Hiss was guilty but in maintaining his innocence he was continuing to maintain the operational practice of spies: never admit anything, because your admission could incriminate those still operating, or give credence to those who believed that the kind of spy network Hiss (I believe) belonged to, was far more prevalent and influential on policy and history than those who operated the networks would want us to believe. In other words, I believe Hiss spent his life after he was released from jail deceiving his own supporters in the Hiss-is-innocent movement into wasting their lives on a lie, because he was in fact guilty as sin. his very guilt was justification for his bad faith to his deluded followers. This is not what Navasky believes and he told me he thought a forthcoming essay by Kai Bird in The American Scholar would cast further doubt on the Hiss verdict, particularly whether Hiss was in fact the code name "ALES" in the Venona papers. (If you don't know the "ALES" controversy in the Venona papers-ALES was supposedly Hiss's Soviet secret cable traffic code name-I just don't have space to start explaining it, Go Google)." Kirchick really got your goat by daring to criticize your darling Nation magazine. From my perspective the critique wasn't strong enough.
- jacksondyer
June 4, 2007 at 12:30pm
"Fair or not, he thinks he can do it, because Marty can and he's Marty's protege." How the hell do you know what he thinks?
- jacksondyer
June 4, 2007 at 12:32pm
First, note my post. I did say that I was not informed on what Navasky may or may not have said at the conference. Second, I have read your link and still cannot find where Navasky says that Hiss was innocent. I do know that Navasky's point about the Venona cables is part of his critique of the "case closed" scholars but again, your link says that Ron Rosenbaum BELIEVES that Navasky BELIEVES... I will stand corrected when I read exaclty what Navasky said. Kirchick's misreading, purposeful or not, of the Nation editorial has taught me not to trust Marty's acolytes until I READ it myself. If - or when - I read Navasky say that Hiss is entirely innocent, I will stand corrected and owe you a drink. Pardon me though if I do not see Ron Rosenbaum's musings as the final verdict. The Nation is my darling btw. I am very critical of many of their stands. I do however, say that The Nation does not delude themselves that they are "hetereodox" when they are, on key issues, totally orthodox. They proudly admit their orthodoxy. It is only TNR that likes to delude themselves that they're something that they're not.
- MrCookie1
June 4, 2007 at 12:41pm
I'm a student of human nature. That's all. It's the logical explanation.
- miceelf
June 4, 2007 at 12:55pm
This is not to say that magazines ought not to print articles expressing viewpoints with which the editors disagree--but TNR has so frequently run articles attacking progressive politicians and policies that it puts the sincerity of their supposed support for progressivism into serious question. I love it!
- meelar
June 4, 2007 at 12:58pm
Good dodge, no cigar. " It is only TNR that likes to delude themselves that they're something that they're not." And what is that, pray tell?
- jacksondyer
June 4, 2007 at 1:03pm
"I'm a student of human nature. That's all." If you were a good student, you would never have uttered the following, oxymoron: "It's the logical explanation." Human beings are anything but logical.
- jacksondyer
June 4, 2007 at 1:06pm
you are too clever by half. "This is not to say that magazines ought not to print articles expressing viewpoints with which the editors disagree--but TNR has so frequently run articles attacking progressive politicians and policies that it puts the sincerity of their supposed support for progressivism into serious question." have they? how many? name five! Besides where did TNR say they were a progressive magazine? They are a liberal magazine which is a more realistic thing to be than a so called progressive.
- jacksondyer
June 4, 2007 at 1:12pm
and what is that, pray tell? That they're a hetereodox magazine. Good dodge. Well, perhaps, but you know me enough to know that if I read Navasky saying what you, Kirchick and Rosenbaum are saying he is saying, then I will gladly concede the point. You will be, then, correct and I will be then, wrong. Happened before. Will happen again.
- MrCookie1
June 4, 2007 at 1:13pm
are logical. But as you probably know, "the only logical explanation" is not a claim that an explanation has internal logic, but that it's the only one available. Technically, I might have avoided this exchange if I had said "plausible," but what would be the fun in that?
- miceelf
June 4, 2007 at 1:17pm
The Nation was always too far left for me; I appreciated TNR's more center-left disposition and more moderate and reasonable tone. This President, and the Iraq war in particular, have pushed me further left than I ever thought possible. I think I'll check out what The Nation has to offer - thanks for the tip. Neil
- purcellneil
June 4, 2007 at 1:27pm
"...but that it's the only one available." You mean it's the only one you could up with to support your species claim of being a "mind reader," don't you?
- jacksondyer
June 4, 2007 at 1:42pm
"This President, and the Iraq war in particular, have pushed me further left than I ever thought possible." and who said that the Iraq war was a right wing war? Is that because Bush is supposed to be right wing?
- jacksondyer
June 4, 2007 at 1:45pm
...attempting to disown GW. And appropo. Glenn Greenwald - The great right-wing fraud to repudiate George W. Bush
- KillboyPHD
June 4, 2007 at 2:10pm
What is striking about JK's comments is that he makes no mention whatsoever of the many readers/posters who spotted his hurried misreading of the Nation piece and discussed its peculiarities: yeselson at #15 in the original thread deserves special recognition. Oh well -- wasting one's sweetness on the desert air, as Gray put it.
- ironyroad
June 4, 2007 at 2:15pm
You don't have to know anything about The Nation's editorial to critique writing ability. Kirchik's original post was unfocused, and in my opinion couldn't possibly have persuaded someone who was unaware of the issues. My summary: "The Nation discusses alternatives to the Israel/Palestine problem. They make claims about the situation that are completely wrong. This provides further evidence that they are anti-American." Huh? This response was at least better prepared, and implies a good deal more thought went into its presentation than the original piece. Being "right" is immaterial when you're trying to persuade people. Writing in anger only debases yourself.
- TMastermind
June 4, 2007 at 2:22pm
Jacksondyer. That's your story. There's little wisdom in noting the reason why a dog licks his balls, and that's basically all I've done or claimed.
- miceelf
June 4, 2007 at 2:23pm
Kirchick attacks Matt Yglesias ; Ma rty Peretz approvingly cites Charles Krauthammer's diagnosis of 'Bush derangement syndrome' ; Pe retz again, applauding an article in the Weekly Standard that unfairly attacks American feminists ; Mar ty Peretz: racist ; Brink Lindsey wants to cut Social Security
- meelar
June 4, 2007 at 2:28pm
James Kirchick attacks Ted Kennedy. Real liberal there, guys
- meelar
June 4, 2007 at 2:33pm
You are going to kill me laughing, boy. I never said that Bush wasn't right wing. I said that the war wasn't necessarily a right wing project no more than the war against Milosevich was a left wing project. The tragedy is that a right wing President led the effort to rid Iraq of Saddam. I wish it had been Clinton, or Gore who had prosecuted the war.
- jacksondyer
June 4, 2007 at 2:45pm
- jacksondyer
June 4, 2007 at 2:46pm
- jacksondyer
June 4, 2007 at 2:47pm
2:45pm EDT: I never said that Bush wasn't right wing. 1:45pm EDT: Is that because Bush is supposed to be right wing? Narrowly true. Nice CYOA there.
- KillboyPHD
June 4, 2007 at 2:50pm
miceelf #11 "Fair or not, he thinks he can do it, because Marty can and he's Marty's protege."
- jacksondyer
June 4, 2007 at 2:50pm
Our examples are not accurate: Take the link to the article on Hoff Summers, you may disagree with what she said (and I do admire, though not always agree with Dr. Nussbaum---see her brilliant current article in Dissent, however, Hoff Summers was criticizing feminists for not standing up for women in the Muslim world. If that you example of a non "progressive" piece than you are all wet. I don't have time to critize each of your other examples but I have my doubts that they would support your charge.
- jacksondyer
June 4, 2007 at 2:56pm
That was a question not a statement. Re-read it in context, dr. killer.
- jacksondyer
June 4, 2007 at 2:58pm
Yes, I said that. And, as I said later, it takes little in the way of mindreading to draw that conclusion.
- miceelf
June 4, 2007 at 3:00pm
Indeed, it was a question. Which is why your 2:45 post was "narrowly true". You "never said that Bush wasn't right wing", you merely implied it.
- KillboyPHD
June 4, 2007 at 3:13pm
There are a couple of good reasons to believe that the article was a deeply anti-liberal piece, starting with the fact that it was published in the Weekly Standard. But the best one is this: the article deliberately twisted the facts in order to smear American feminists. It seems to me that Summers' primary interest is attacking the left, not actually helping the plight of women in Iran. P.S. I apologize for the screwed-up link in the earlier post.
- meelar
June 4, 2007 at 3:23pm
"Indeed, it was a question. Which is why your 2:45 post was "narrowly true". You "never said that Bush wasn't right wing", you merely implied it." Ha! If you thought my question implied that Bush wasn't right wing then you better give you phd back. You need remedial reading lessons, boy.
- jacksondyer
June 4, 2007 at 3:36pm
"Yes, I said that. And, as I said later, it takes little in the way of mindreading to draw that conclusion." Well, I didn't draw that conclusion. But then, I am no mindreader not even minimally so.
- jacksondyer
June 4, 2007 at 3:39pm
You screwed up the link this time too. No matter. This is the least of you problems. You are another gunning for Peretz who doesn't know how to read. First in the article Sommers states that some women did protest the treatment of women under Islam. Second she said that there was no major mobilization effort among women in the US. She quoted Martha Nussbaum and Phylys Chesler to that effect. Then she offered this gem from the Nation writer Katha Pollitt: "The primary focus is on the "terror" at home. Katha Pollitt, a columnist at the Nation, talks of "the common thread of misogyny" connecting Christian Evangelicals to the Taliban." In other words to "progressive" femenists there is no difference between the Taliban and evangelical Christians. This article whatever you think of it is NOT an attack on "progressives." Not unless you take Katha to represent progressives. Here is an article by a progressive woman. Read it if you can: "Against Academic Boycotts" By Martha Nussbaum Spring 2007 MarthaNussbaum
- jacksondyer
June 4, 2007 at 3:57pm
if you spent half the time reading and thinking that you do gunning for Marty Peretz you'd be way ahead.
- jacksondyer
June 4, 2007 at 3:58pm
The sooner you guys stop arguing over inanities with jackson, the sooner he'll shuffle back to The Spine.
- ratnerstar
June 4, 2007 at 4:03pm
Look who has just joined the party? Another obsessed Peretz hater.
- jacksondyer
June 4, 2007 at 4:12pm
I suspect what separates us is less whether we're mindreaders or not, but how each of us feels about Martin Peretz (and, by extension, his newest appendage)
- miceelf
June 4, 2007 at 4:27pm
that and the desire not to condemn prematurely.
- jacksondyer
June 4, 2007 at 5:01pm
Regardless of what Kirchik said in his original piece on The Nation's editorial, the simple reality as things now stand is that a one state solution means the end of Israel. I'd in good faith like to see here the argument against that proposition. That The Nation editorial cannot, at a minimum, even advert to that reality as a concern on the 40th anniversary of the six day war when "never again" for a while looked more like "yet again", but rather speaks, disingenuously, of Israelis "viscerally, empahtically" opposing a "secular democratic model" as though it wasn't the only democracy in the neighbourhood, is just amazing to me. If one reads the reality of the proposition into the entirety of the editorial including its capper--"whether in one state or in two"--then I think Kirchik is right to take umbrage, however infelcitously he at points may have done so. On the substance of his argument against the editorial, I think he's right.
- basman
June 4, 2007 at 9:18pm
From my reading of it, the Nation merely said that Israelis oppose (viscerally and emphatically) the secular democratic model of a theoretically non-confessional one-state solution to the Middle East situation (as opposed to, for example, two separate secular and democratic states, or one such state and one Islamic theocracy, or two theocracies, or whatever you're having yourself). The piece does not imply that Israelis are opposed to secular democracy per se, which would be ludicrious (one could argue nuances about the "secularity" of Israel but it's clearly not a theocracy, whatever one thinks of its occupation policies in the territories over the years). The reality behind the comment seems to be the simple truth, no matter what outsiders might think. I find it odd that the defenders of JK seem to want to replicate his confused and hurried misreadings, as they seek some stable ground from which to re-argue a point that nobody really disagrees with: that a binational or one-state solution has little future.
- ironyroad
June 4, 2007 at 10:27pm
-- his inability to resist making irrelevant digs Cuba and Hiss are just as embarrassing now as in his original post.
- ironyroad
June 4, 2007 at 10:30pm
digs about Cuba and Hiss
- ironyroad
June 4, 2007 at 10:31pm
I don't think The Nation or anyone else in this country is calling for the demise of Israel. Even those of us who sometimes question her actions, are nonetheless committed to Israel's security. However for Peretz and Kirchick, any criticism or deviance from perfect alignment with Israel is something to be stomped aggressively -- and sometimes the stomping is all in error, rooted in misunderstanding and an appetite for infelicity. What winning ways these boys have. Neil
- purcellneil
June 4, 2007 at 11:11pm
As I said/asked before, and respectfully, what do you think about the editorial being so blithe about, or open to, the possibility of a one state solution, even though, as Israelis see it, and as many others see it, that spells the doom of their country, without the editorial even acknowledging that argument? If you don't think that solution spells out the end of the state of Israel as things now stand, what's your argument against that likelihood? If you can't make that case, then what ought your reaction to the editorial be? Itzik
- basman
June 4, 2007 at 11:22pm
Itzik, I was reacting to Kirchick, more than to the editorial. As a reader of TNR, and not yet of The Nation, I am more interested in what happens here, and frankly I find Kirchick's Bill O'Reilly snarling dog routine tiresome and offensive - and out of touch with the temper and sophistication of this journal as a whole (excepting of course the old crab). I am sure that a one-state solution would be disastrous for Israel -- I have no love for the Palestinians and I don't blame Israel for not wanting to be a minority in a common state with them. I am also sure that the movement towards a two-state solution has been a disaster, and appears to be getting worse rather than better. My take on The Nation's editorial and the articles they chose to publish is that they are right to consider all points of view -- if only in the hope that such dialogue may shed some light on a topic that, a la Kirchick, grows ever darker and more dismal. Neil
- purcellneil
June 5, 2007 at 8:38am
A regular reading of articles in The Nation gives one an impression of content, wide-eyed incompetence mating with cluelessness and rage. The nostalgia of any of the articles is powerful to anyone who has read a college newspaper or stayed up late rambling about politics with one's twenty-year-old friends. The errors, both editorial and factual, are numerous, but, as numerous as they are, they are dwarfed by the wishful, backward thinking. Of course, a one-state solution would presage the demise or flight of Jews throughout what is now Israel. The writers of The Nation know this, but do not care; the only place one can find concern for Jewish victims of terrorism in The Nation is in the form of an occasional, poorly-written fig leaf followed by a "but" defending that terrorism, and most of the articles on Israel predicate their positions on Israel's inherent illegitimacy as a state. One supposes that perhaps the writers do not realize the unintended consequences of the dozens of idiot policies they support, but then one reads an article that reveals that they do realize the consequences. And that is terrifying. The articles are sometimes sober and reasoned in contrast to the venomous and ignorant postings of the readers - the likes of ndmackenzie and jacksondyer are mild in comparison - but that is not always the case, nor is it saying much. The Nation is stomach-churning and frightening. It is a magazine for the sort of person who always has a Bush joke ready as a non-sequitur response to anything, no matter how inappropriate. It is a magazine for obsessed lunatics, and presents an instructive lesson in how good liberals can become horrible fascists when they value liberal methods more than liberal goals or the rule of law.
- phargle
June 5, 2007 at 11:41am
What we have been dealing with here, however, is the sort of person who always has a Cuba or Alger Hiss remark ready as a non-sequitur response to anything, no matter how inappropriate.
- ironyroad
June 5, 2007 at 4:16pm
"What we have been dealing with here, however, is the sort of person who always has a Cuba or Alger Hiss remark ready as a non-sequitur response to anything, no matter how inappropriate."
- basman
June 5, 2007 at 6:45pm