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 “The Palestine Peace Distraction,” "The False Religion...

THE SPINE APRIL 27, 2010

“The Palestine Peace Distraction,” "The False Religion of Middle East Peace,” And Other Significant Recantations

BY MARTIN PERETZ

Barack Obama came into office with one messianic mission. It was to bring statehood to the Palestinians. Of course, even he understood that he couldn’t quite put it that way. But statehood for the Palestinians necessarily also meant Palestinian peace with Israel, an aim worthy enough for any American administration. So that became his primary foreign policy mission. Still, the fact is that he saw the shadings of the conflict only through the eyes of the “disinherited.” And they really had nothing much to give in any transaction. Ipso facto, it was from the Jewish state that all the concessions were to be had.

However committed he was to this formula, the president required another rationale to make his pitch sound like a genuine argument. He found it in the security interests of the United States. As it happens, having put the Muslim world at the very center of the American universe through signs and secret signs, he was able to make Israel bear the burdens of our troubles or, rather, to make it responsible for our failures in diplomacy and our casualties on the battlefield. Indeed, Obama may actually believe that this Islamic atrocity or that (or, for that matter, all of them) can be attributable to Zionism, about which he has never, never said a good word.

There is a long (pseudo)realist tradition in American foreign policy that puts the Jews at odds with our national interest. Eisenhower’s foreign policy tutor, John Foster Dulles, thought he could lure Gamal Abdel Nasser away from his Third World revolutionary fantasies if only Israel would not stand in the way. James Baker, who found ample common cause with Saddam Hussein, found the Israelis awfully incompatible. Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, about whom I’ve written several times, are the shoddy intellectual heirs to this morally corrupt tradition.

There is, to be sure, another line of so-called realism about the Middle East. Two of its major intellectual figures have now written what I take the liberty of calling apostasies from their previous calling. They are Richard N. Haass and Aaron David Miller, with whom I’ve quarreled (maybe even intemperately), but whom I’ve always taken to be absolutely honest.

Now president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Haass is the author of “The Palestine Peace Distraction,” a longish op-ed in Monday’s Wall Street Journal.

... it is easy to exaggerate how central the Israel-Palestinian issue is and how much the U.S. pays for the current state of affairs. There are times one could be forgiven for thinking that solving the Palestinian problem would take care of every global challenge from climate change to the flu. But would it? The short answer is no. It matters, but both less and in a different way than people tend to think.

The Palestinian impasse did nothing to dissuade Arab governments from working with the U.S. to oust Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in the Gulf War when they determined it was in their interest to do so. Similarly, an absence of diplomatic progress would not preclude collaboration against an aggressive Iran. Just as important, a solution would not resolve questions of political stability and legitimacy within the largely authoritarian Arab world.

Alas, neither would terrorism fade if Israelis and Palestinians finally ended their conflict. Al Qaeda was initially motivated by a desire to rid the Arabian Peninsula of infidels. Its larger goal is to spread Islam in a form that closely resembles its pure, seventh-century character. Lip service is paid to Palestinian goals, but the radical terrorist agenda would not be satisfied by Palestinian statehood.

What is more, any Palestinian state would materialize only amidst compromise. There will be no return to the 1967 borders; at most, Palestinians would be compensated for territorial adjustments made necessary by large blocs of Jewish settlements and Israeli security concerns. There will be nothing more than a token right of return for Palestinians to Israel. Jerusalem will remain undivided and at most shared. Terrorists would see all this as a sell-out, and they would target not just Israel but those Palestinians and Arab states who made peace with it.

The danger of exaggerating the benefits of solving the Palestinian conflict is that doing so runs the risk of distorting American foreign policy. It accords the issue more prominence than it deserves, produces impatience, and tempts the U.S. government to adopt policies that are overly ambitious.

How does this argument conclude?

The Palestinian leadership remains weak and divided; the Israeli government is too ideological and fractured; U.S.-Israeli relations are too strained for Israel to place much faith in American promises. The West Bank is the equivalent of a fragile state at best. What is needed are sustained efforts to strengthen Palestinian economic, military and governing capacities on the West Bank so that Israel will come to see the Palestinian Authority as a partner it can work with.

Also needed are efforts to repair U.S.-Israeli ties. The most important issue facing the two countries is Iran. It is essential the two governments develop a modicum of trust if they are to manage inevitable differences over what to do about Iran's nuclear program, a challenge that promises to be the most significant strategic threat of this decade. A protracted disagreement over the number of settlements or the contours of a final settlement is a distraction that would benefit neither the U.S. nor Israel, given an Iranian threat that is close at hand and a promise of peace that is distant.

This is cold comfort for Obama.

And the other essay, “The False Religion of Mideast Peace,” by Aaron David Miller in the May-June issue of Foreign Policy should be even colder comfort Obama. Miller subtitles his piece, “And why I’m no longer a believer.” The personal quality of the writing gives it the authenticity of a confession. But it is analytically audacious and the history on which it rests is both straight and compelling.

Right now, America has neither the opportunity nor frankly the balls to do truly big things on Arab-Israeli peacemaking. Fortuna might still rescue the president. The mullahcracy in Tehran might implode. The Syrians and Israelis might reach out to one another secretly, or perhaps a violent confrontation will flare up to break the impasse.

But without a tectonic plate shifting somewhere, it's going to be tough to re-create the good old days when bold and heroic Arab and Israeli leaders strode the stage of history, together with Americans, willing and able to do serious peacemaking.

I remember attending Rabin's funeral in 1995 in Jerusalem and trying to convince myself that America must and could save the peace process that had been so badly undermined by his assassination. I'm not a declinist. I still believe in the power of American diplomacy when it's tough, smart, and fair. But the enthusiasm, fervor, and passion have given way to a much more sober view of what's possible. Failure can do that.

The believers need to re-examine their faith, especially at a moment when America is so stretched and overextended. The United States needs to do what it can, including working with Israelis and Palestinians on negotiating core final-status issues (particularly on borders, where the gaps are narrowest), helping Palestinians develop their institutions, getting the Israelis to assist by allowing Palestinians to breathe economically and expand their authority, and keeping Gaza calm, even as it tries to relieve the desperation and sense of siege through economic assistance. But America should also be aware of what it cannot do, as much as what it can.

These are heavy-weight defections from what has become a big cliche. Alas, cliches are the mark of Obama’s foreign policy. The fact is that almost everybody who knows anything knows this. And the wisdom is seeping into the body politic.

Our allies wonder why the president is so disdainful of them. Our antagonists read the tea leaves. Soon Obama will be alone with his mirror. His diplomacy is already a disaster.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 99 comments

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

99 comments

Haass: "...the Israeli government is too ideological and fractured..." fails to understand how the Israeli electorate has changed since 1993, and more so since 2000. Meretz and Labor now have only 16 seats combined in the Knesset. Peretz: "And the wisdom is seeping into the body politic." Yes It Is, also seeping into the White House while they develop their foreign policy narrative, which, excluding the inappropriate intro joke, Jones tried to capture in the actual speech, linking the "Arab-Israeli conflict" mostly with Iran: [our NSA does not recognize there are Arab Jews who vote in Israel???, that Shas is stronger than Labor in the Knesset?] Remarks by National Security Advisor James L. Jones at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy [minus the introductory joke] "... Of course, one of the ways that Iran exerts influence in the Middle East is by exploiting the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict. Iran uses the conflict to keep others in the region on the defensive and to try to limit its own isolation. Ending this conflict, achieving peace between Israelis and Palestinians and establishing a sovereign Palestinian state would therefore take such an evocative issue away from Iran, Hizballah, and Hamas. It would allow our partners in the region to focus on building their states and institutions. And peace between Israel and Syria, if it is possible, could have a transformative effect on the region. Since taking office, President Obama has pursued a two-state solution—a secure, Jewish state of Israel living side by side in peace and security with a viable and independent Palestinian state. This is in the United States’ interest. It is in Israel’s interest. It is in the Palestinians’ interest. It is in the interest of the Arab countries, and, indeed, the world. Advancing this peace would also help prevent Iran from cynically shifting attention away from its failures to meet its obligations. ..." full transcript at: http://www.favstocks.com/remarks-by-national-security-advisor-james-l-jones-at-the-washington-institute-for-near-east-policy/219504/ Right now, India is debating why Obama's Pakistan policy is pushing India to support Iran, in addition to India's oil needs, and perhaps remnants of Persian affinity from the Moghul era. It seems Pakistan's ISI and military are demanding that Afghanistan tell India to close India's four consulates. Obama's #1 priority should be from Iraq east through India.

- K2K

April 27, 2010 at 3:01pm

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

Mr Peretz, I wholehearteldy agree with almost everything you've said, except the part about Obama seeing the conflict through the eyes of the disinherited. While you are correct in saying that this issue is not as important as it is made out to be, that is really beside the point, which is, the apartheid nature of Israeli domination over the Palestinians. Either give the Palestinians equal rights as citizens of a greater Israeli state, or give them their own state. That, in my opinion, is Obama's view of the situation. Once this issue is addressed, the Palestinians will be judged on what they do with their freedom. Until then, Israel is on the hook.

- wkwami

April 27, 2010 at 3:07pm

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

I'm not one of those who thinks that Obama came to office with any "messianic mission", except perhaps the naive hope to end partisan rancor in Washington. But even if one lists the issues, foreign and domestic, on which his administration has spent the bulk of its time and political capital, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is definitely not one of them.

- wildboy

April 27, 2010 at 3:43pm

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

Obama's greatest mission was Palestinian statehood???? Really? Not post partisanship? not health care? Not getting out of Iraq? Not diplomacy generallY? And, of course, it couldn't possibly be that his goal is palestinian-israeli peace, and he sees Palestinian statehood as a means to that end. No, his "real" goal is palestinian statehood. Peace between israel and palestinians is just a means to that nefarious end. Oy vey.

- miceelf

April 27, 2010 at 3:55pm

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

Marty again loses credibilty in the first paragraph: "messianic mission", "primary foreign policy mission" (wildboy accurately puts the the lie to that one), "eyes of the 'disinherited'" and then comes the inevitable conclusion that poor little Israel is being bullied by the Arab-loving Obama administration. It's one thing to have an opinion, but it doesn't need to be irrationally based.

- appleton

April 27, 2010 at 4:12pm

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

"Alas, cliches are the mark of Obama’s foreign policy." As opposed to the foreign policy of the previous administration, which was highly original, I suppose, and consisted of completely original bons mots?

- ironyroad

April 27, 2010 at 4:24pm

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

Like, for example, "You're either with us or against us."

- ironyroad

April 27, 2010 at 4:24pm

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

Meanwhile, Andrew Sullivan points us to an excellent post by Gideon Rachman in the FT: -- The Israelis are certainly right to argue that there is no guarantee that a freeze on settlements will lead to a peace deal. On the other hand, there certainly is a guarantee that a continued expansion of settlements will ensure that no peace deal is ever possible. The West Bank is already a small and arid place – and bits of it keep being chipped away. As the bitter Palestinian joke has it: “We’re negotiating over how to divide a pizza and the Israelis keep eating bits of it.” For that reason, Mr Obama is right to identify a halt to “settlement activity” as crucial. (my emphasis) -- Israelis have many theories about why Mr Obama is being so beastly to them. The wilder fringes of the Israeli right insist that the US president is an anti-semite – despite the fact that both his chief-of-staff and his top political adviser are Jewish. Even leftwing commentators muse that Mr Obama may be more instinctively sympathetic to the developing world than to the Jewish state. -- But no special explanation should be needed for Mr Obama’s insistence on a settlement freeze. Such a policy is in the interests of Israel as well as the Palestinians. Israelis may fear and even detest Mr Obama – but the American president is actually doing them a favour. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/310bdc10-5163-11df-bed9-00144feab49a.html

- ndmackenzie

April 27, 2010 at 4:35pm

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

"Marty again loses credibilty in the first paragraph: "messianic mission", "primary foreign policy mission" (wildboy accurately puts the the lie to that one)," Peace making is always messianic in nature, unlike healthcare reform or resolving partisan bickering in Washington, which belong in the realm of the very possible and doable. "Messianic" to me means that it is a grandiose aspiration, an ambition that flies in the face of hatred and totalitarian rejection of human rights. If a British PM in 1938 had suggested the possibility of peace between Germany and Britain, achieved without the intervening war, he would have been called "messianic". As long as the Arabs are bristling with war mongering and incitement for hatred, Obama's peace plans will remain essentially "messianic". I only hope they will not turn apocalyptic. A great Jewish innovator once said that if you wish, it does not have to be a messianic fairy tale. If Obama genuinely wishes for peace, he should look to his Muslim allies and demand their contribution, in the form of cessation of all incitement to violence, all weaponization of terrorist entities and all generic rejectionism. But, like the man who lost his keys among the bushes but is looking for them under a street light because it's dark where the bushes are, he keeps searching for peace in the wrong lane. Maybe he is not interested in being the savior of Jews.

- noga1

April 27, 2010 at 4:38pm

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

"As opposed to the foreign policy of the previous administration, which was highly original, I suppose, and consisted of completely original bons mots?" Indeed. And if President Bush was an intellectual gnome there is no reason to rail at Obama for being just as intellectually gnomish.

- noga1

April 27, 2010 at 4:40pm

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

Noga wrote: "If Obama genuinely wishes for peace, he should look to his Muslim allies and demand their contribution, in the form of cessation of all incitement to violence, all weaponization of terrorist entities and all generic rejectionism." The above precondition is unrealistic and not particularly relevant to ending Israeli aparthied against the Palestinians. If anything it only serves as a convinient excuse for those of you who are not interested in peace, but rather the indefinate perpetuation of those policies. The freedom of the Palestinians should not be linked to what they may or may not do once they are granted freedom and the right to self determination. How can Israel, given its peoples own history of suffering, continue this sort of apartheid domination of the Palestinians and not see anything wrong with it? "Maybe he is not interested in being the savior of Jews." Maybe he doesn't need to be the savior of Jews. He just needs to advocate for the rights of all human beings, whether Jewish or Palestinian.

- wkwami

April 27, 2010 at 5:02pm

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

wkwami “The above precondition is unrealistic and not particularly relevant to ending Israeli aparthied against the Palestinians.” What “Israeli Apartheid?” It's obvious you don't know anything about Israel or about South Africa under the apartheid regime.

- jdyer

April 27, 2010 at 5:10pm

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

“Israeli Apartheid?” the Bishop Desmond Tutu Effect. Tutu says apartheid, ergo, must be true. sigh. Guess Peretz needs to work on his persuasive writing skills to get people to read, at minimum, Aaron David Miller's essay, “The False Religion of Mideast Peace,” because putting it in the title was not enough. sigh. Anyone interested in trying to connect the recent dots on the ground (including the meaning of the apparent freeze on building in Jerusalem)? "Netanyahu plays a complex game" by Victor Kotsev at http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LD28Ak02.html

- K2K

April 27, 2010 at 5:38pm

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

jdyer wrote: "It's obvious you don't know anything about Israel or about South Africa under the apartheid regime." You have no idea what my life's experiences are, let alone what I know or don't know. You may quibble with my choice of words, and I'm certainly open to revising the use of "apartheid", if that helps to foster better dialogue. So what would you prefer to call the Israeli dominion over the Palestinians? I will gladly defer to whatever term you deem acceptable from now on, as it is not my intention mischaracterize, or to have my words become a distraction to the issue itself.

- wkwami

April 27, 2010 at 5:58pm

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

The thing is, Haass's prescription - Washington should focus on the nitty gritty of helping Palestinians in the West Bank build a functioning state with a nascent civil society - is (A) exactly what the Obama administration is doing and (B) pretty much the nightmare scenario for current Israeli policy. The Obama administration has spent most of its actual effort in the I-P arena supporting Fayyad and increasing the quantity and quality of U.S. assistance with such things as police training and micro-credit. If current trends hold, then by 2012, or possibly even late 2011, the PA could credibly declare statehood and demonstrate sovereignty over at least 45 percent of the West Bank. If the PA did so, several European states would rush to recognize Palestine. Probably Germany, maybe France and Holland, probably Russia and China within the first day. Which would open the floodgates; within a week only Israel and the US would be holdouts. (Think of how German recognition of Croatia accelerated Yugoslavia's dissolution.) If Israel took any action to punish the PA for declaring independence, it would become natio non grata everywhere but Washington for a generation. This would put Israel in a real bind, with an internationally recognized State of Palestine in existence and demanding the Israeli evacuation of the entire West Bank. An absolute disaster for Israeli policy, if not for Israel itself. This is why the attempt to reestablish Israeli-Palestinian negotiations is so urgent. Not because it serves some messianic U.S. desire to bring peace to the world or create a homeland for the dispossessed, but because Palestinian statehood is coming. Probably sooner than later, and the more the U.S. does as Haass suggests, the sooner that date will be. Working to reestablish meaningful bilateral I-P relations now is the single best thing Washington can do to minimize the danger to Israel when a Palestinian state comes into being, the most effective way to maximize the degree to which Palestinian statehood happens on Israel's terms and in accordance with, not opposition to, Israel's security. The problem with the Obama team's I-P diplomacy is not that they're pursuing nefarious goals, but that like the previous administration they're pursuing the right goals with insufficient competence. For Bush the Lesser, it was elections for their own sake, which empowered Hamas. For the Obami, it's demands for "confidence building" measures counterproductively beyond what is actually necessary to restore minimum working trust. These are problems of poor execution, not evil intent.

- rhubarbs

April 27, 2010 at 6:07pm

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

K2K wrote: "Guess Peretz needs to work on his persuasive writing skills to get people to read, at minimum, Aaron David Miller's essay, “The False Religion of Mideast Peace,” because putting it in the title was not enough. sigh." Easy there fella, we can disagree, but we don;t have to be disagreeable. What makes you think I haven't read the essay in question? I actually agree with the gist of Mr. Peretz's article, and that of Aaron David Miller, among others. But after all that is said and done, my question is, under what conditions would Israel grant the Palestinians their right to self determination? The argument, which Mr. Peretz himself has made in the past, seems to be that the Palestinians deserve what they are getting because they did not agree to peace in the past. And then Noga seems to suggest that it will require Muslim contribution in the form of cessation of all incitement to violence, all weaponization of terrorist entities and all generic rejectionism, for peace to be a possibility. Should Palestinian right to self determination be dependent on what they may or many not believe about Israel? I think not. Just give them their freedom and hold them accountable for what they do as a nation. If a free Palestinian state were to continue to incite violence againt Israel or Jews anywhere, I would be the first to advocate a fierce and uncompromising response from Israel to eliminate that threat.

- wkwami

April 27, 2010 at 6:15pm

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

good points rhubarbs, although I think Germany would be the last EU country, with Sweden and Norway fighting for first place to recognize a Palestinian State. I read Der Spiegel to relax about Israel. wkwami: wow, I was not directing that at you, just the general way these threads pivot to pick on Peretz, who DOES need to work on his persuasive writing skills. you asked "Should Palestinian right to self determination be dependent on what they may or many not believe about Israel?" If Hamas controls the government, You betcha! Until the Palestinians resolve their own divided politics peacefully, how can they claim the status of nation-state? I have read the Hamas Charter, and no one should believe Israel will take the risk of trusting this version of Hamas. A good confidence building step is Fayyad's announcement of council elections on the West Bank in June, to see how Hamas does at the local level. Peacefully includes they throw eggs at each other on the floor of Parliament (Ukrainian version). If this were my world, I would first 'grant' the Kurds self-determination as an example of how to do it. They were denied Kurdistan after the Treaty of Versailles, yet despite every form of brutality in four countries, including Saddam's genocide, the Kurds have shown a better way. enough, from me, on the Palestinians

- K2K

April 27, 2010 at 6:40pm

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

"The Obama administration has spent most of its actual effort in the I-P arena supporting Fayyad and increasing the quantity and quality of U.S. assistance with such things as police training and micro-credit. " ______________ "The Palestinian prime minister boasts of being an economic reformer, yet in practice the growth we have seen under his leadership originates in greater international aid, which has been growing as result of a promise he has not delivered on: Minimizing Palestinian government bureaucracy. Moreover, he has enjoyed an unusual contribution – the shopping sprees undertaken by Israeli Arabs, with government approval, in Palestinian towns. These purchases boosted the Palestinian economy in Judea and Samaria by more than 10%, thereby boosting the total value-added tax pouring into the PA’s coffers by hundreds of millions of shekels. Not only has the Israeli government refrained from demanding repayment of these VAT sums, estimated at about NIS 1 billion (roughly $280 million) a year and belonging to Israel by law and in line with agreements with the PA – according to a document recently distributed by our Foreign Ministry, Israel has granted an exemption from issuing invoices to PA merchants. And so, we are granting the Palestinian Authority (completely voluntarily and in contradiction to the law – according to the Foreign Ministry Document) a gift totaling additional hundreds of millions of shekels a year. Fayyad wants us to give him more territory, seemingly one needed for “independence.” He also wants us to continue serving as his excuse for not investing the funds at his disposal in development – each report he submits to the World Bank is replete with excuses as to why the development funds had not been fully used. Would you like to guess who he blames? " http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3879870,00.html

- noga1

April 27, 2010 at 6:47pm

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

wkwami “You have no idea what my life's experiences are, let alone what I know or don't know.” I do know what you wrote and what you wrote about Israel, is false. “You may quibble with my choice of words, and I'm certainly open to revising the use of "apartheid", if that helps to foster better dialogue.” This want do, apartheid is not just a word, either a country lives under a legal system called apartheid or it doesn’t. You can’t have an honest dialogue if you don’t know what you are dialoging about. “So what would you prefer to call the Israeli dominion over the Palestinians?” It’s not what I prefer to call something. The Palestinians in the territories are under occupation. They are not part of Israel. The solution is to stoop the occupation through negotiations between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority.

- jdyer

April 27, 2010 at 6:50pm

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

"The freedom of the Palestinians should not be linked to what they may or may not do once they are granted freedom and the right to self determination." Not surprised that anyone advocating for Palestinians in this reckless manner would insert this new parameter into the formula of peace, considering the very real and present example of Gaza. A nation earns the right for political self-determination if it is seen to be a peace loving nation with the intention to live in peace and harmony with its neigbours. According to wkwami, this principle is nullifiable vis a vis the RIGHT of Palestinians to have their own country. Well, there is no such automatic right. "d. Is a Palestinian unilateral declaration compatible with the right to self-determination? The right to self-determination is not a general right to statehood. Under international law, this right cannot be applied in an absolute or one-sided way. Like every right, the exercise of self-determination must be balanced against other rights, including the rights of others to territorial integrity and self-determination. In the Israeli-Palestinian context, the right to self-determination can only be realized within the agreed peace process framework since only in this way can an accommodation of conflicting rights be reached in a manner that is consistent with the self-determination principle. Indeed, on the basis of this framework, bilateral negotiations have already resulted in a significant degree of self-determination for the Palestinian people, with over 97% of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip living under the authority of a Palestinian Council which they themselves have elected. Palestinian attempts to circumvent the peace process and unilaterally declare a state in disregard of Israel's legitimate rights would not only undermine any chance for a lasting peace settlement it would also be inconsistent with the principle of self-determination." http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/A+Unilateral+Palestinian+Declaration+of+Statehood-.htm

- noga1

April 27, 2010 at 7:20pm

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

Rhubarbs is right, as usual. A Palestinian state is coming sooner rather than later. It will be widely recognized. It is in Israel's profound interest to negotiate its way out of the West Bank rather than wait until the UN pushes it out. And it will within a not very long time after the declaration of a Palestinian state, as state that will quickly be admitted to the UN. The indefinite continuation of the status quo is simply not among Israel's policy options. Israel has been running out its own clock with its absurd settlement policies. A wise leadership would know when to stop.

- roidubouloi

April 27, 2010 at 10:01pm

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

noga, even if one grants that everything you say is true, and I mostly agree with you, none of it matters. Neither Israel nor the Palestinians are now or will be bound by the fine points of international law. The Palestinians don't have to "earn" self-determination, just as the Jews of Israel did not have to "earn" self-determination in 1948. As the wise man said, "Deserve's got nothing to do with it." If Palestinians have a functioning state apparatus, and if they exercise de facto sovereignty over some contiguous territory, a unilateral declaration of statehood and independence will be recognized by most of the world almost instantly. If this happens, Israel will be well and truly (though not existentially) screwed. The question, then, is not what do the Palestinians deserve, but how do we manage the course of events to minimize bad outcomes and maximize good outcomes. Being in the de jure right is of no comfort if one ends up in the de facto wrong; as the legendary Irish gravestone reads, "Here lies the body of Mike O'Day / Who died defending his right of way / His right was sure, his will was strong / But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong."

- rhubarbs

April 27, 2010 at 10:01pm

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

The article linked just above by the Israeli Foreign Ministry is a howler of self-delusion: "A Unilateral Palestinian Declaration of Statehood: Should it be Recognized? August 2000 Palestinian representatives have repeatedly threatened to unilaterally declare an independent Palestinian state. Indeed, following the conclusion of the Camp David Peace Summit, Palestinian leaders have re-emphasized their purported right to declare statehood unilaterally. In the event of such a declaration, states will need to consider whether the Palestinian entity is, in fact, eligible for recognition as a sovereign state. In particular, each state will be required to address three fundamental questions: 1. Does the Palestinian entity satisfy the traditional criteria for statehood? 2. Does it satisfy additional contemporary criteria for statehood? 3. What other legal or policy considerations apply?" It goes on to discuss all the reasons why a Palestinian state would not satisfy "traditional" criteria for statehood and should not, under international law, be recognized. Except that it will be recognized by almost every nation in the world. International law, to the extent not reduced to positive law by treaty, is customary and descriptive. It is what states do, not what is prescribed. In this case, they are going to recognize a State of Palestine, and right quick too. Then Israel will be occupying a member state of the UN. Not a good position to be in.

- roidubouloi

April 27, 2010 at 10:05pm

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

roid, one saving grace for Israel in the event of a Palestinian declaration of independence is that UN membership applications must be approved by the Security Council before they can be voted on by the General Assembly. So the United States can block Palestinian UN membership on the reasonable grounds that the status of Palestine remains contested. However, this will tend to raise pressure on Israel to adhere more strictly to its legal obligations as an occupying power, and it will be diplomatically costly for the United States. The problem with the latter is that US diplomatic strength will be Israel's main bulwark in a statehood crisis, so actions that hurt the US position will reduce the US ability to intercede on Israel's behalf. In such a crisis, American support will be a wasting resource for Israel.

- rhubarbs

April 28, 2010 at 8:21am

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

Quite right, rhubarbs. I have been trying forever on these blogs to point out that, despite the bluster, the diplomatic posture of the US is an essential bulwark for Israel, and that working in concert with the US is therefore essential for Israel. All the go-it-alone stuff is practical nonsense. I would not expect the US to be a lone dissenter for very long on the subject of UN membership for Palestine. Indeed, I think it may not hold out at all on the probably correct theory that the cost exceeds the benefits and that the place to draw the line is on specific proposals for what Israel "must" do.

- roidubouloi

April 28, 2010 at 8:35am

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

is Obama's arrogance contagious?

- K2K

April 28, 2010 at 2:33pm

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

"International law, to the extent not reduced to positive law by treaty, is customary and descriptive. It is what states do, not what is prescribed." I learned a lot from roi about International Law. When he applies International Law to the issue of settlements, borders etc International law is clear cut, the only and final arbiter. When he applies I-L to Palestinian Statehood, I-L becomes fuzzy, impressionistic, a mere horizon, by no means a prescription, only a suggestion. So what is this international law that he keeps referring to? Does it matter at all? Is it constructed in such a way as to fully apply to Israel but to none others? Is international Law custom-made to answer to only Israel's "crimes' of settlement in their historic heartland?

- noga1

April 28, 2010 at 3:56pm

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

Whence 'International Law' flows: "As if it is not enough for Israel: (1) to create a state of immigrants on eighty percent of historic Palestine against the will of its indigenous people, the Palestinians, and expel, through ethnic cleansing and massacres, which are fully documented, most of the Palestinians from their homeland that became Israel, to be followed by the destruction of their homes and villages and the erasure of their history in their country and all indications that they had ever been present there; (2) to occupy the rest of Palestine, what is now known as ‘Occupied Palestinian Territories’, to again create another wave of Palestinian refugees, to confiscate more land to establish illegal Israeli settlements, to oppress humiliate, and control their lives, their movements, their very means of existence, to force them into total submission; (3) to create the largest open-air prison in the world, through the construction of a wall that completely excludes the Occupied Palestinian Territories from the rest of the world. Its consequences amount to an act of siege and economic genocide; a wall that the International Court of Justice has ruled to be illegal and should be demolished; (4) to let loose hordes of marauding gangs of Israeli illegal settlers so as to launch pogroms against Palestinians, to burn their crops when ready for harvest, to uproot olive trees, tens and hundreds of years old, create more illegal settlements on any Palestinian land these gangs may decide upon, all under the protection of the Israeli Defence Force. Now: It is the turn of the dead, kidnapped and killed Palestinians. Their human organs, as reported in the press, can be a source of immense wealth through illegal trafficking in the world market. Israeli physicians, Medical Centres, rabbis and the Israeli army may to be involved, according to reports published in the Swedish press and criminal investigations in the United States. After Israeli physicians remove organs they think marketable, the soldiers bury the bodies in graves that carry only numbers and no names, or place them in sealed caskets and deliver them under curfew conditions to the families and supervise the digging of the graves and burial. We call upon physicians, medical centres and associations everywhere to condemn and boycott Israeli physicians and medical centres; " http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/AAD8F4BF423DD2D8852576DA006C08BA http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1314451&ct=8219697 More like Mos Eisley, a "wretched hive of scum and villainy."

- noga1

April 28, 2010 at 6:23pm

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

Another opinion: "A New Approach to the Israeli-Palestinian Proximity Talks" By Steven L. Spiegel http://www.jewishjournal.com/opinion/article/a_new_approach_to_the_israeli-palestinian_proximity_talks_20100428/

- jdyer

April 28, 2010 at 6:24pm

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

noga: "...according to reports published in the Swedish press..." is the part of this scurrilous petition to the UN that makes me want to [use your imagination]. I followed every echo of Bostrom's Aftonbladet opinion last year up to this petition. It is beyond comprehension that anyone could believe anything the United Nations says or does once they accepted this. if possible, a new low for the U.N. and it's special standard for all things Israel. jackson: re: Spiegel's new approach. Abbas already flat-out said no, even before he gets permission from the Arab League on May 1 to move forward on ANY proximity talks. Ehud Yaari is naive. The JPost today says even the previously thought-of-as-totally-illegal West Bank settlements are now being looked at differently, depending on whether they are built on 'unclaimed land', which was the concept explored in the two articles on the 'illegal settlement myth' that got the International Law Rules Crew here so exercised in a previous thread.

- K2K

April 28, 2010 at 7:46pm

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

here we go, Israeli-reality versus Roid-dreams: "Israel won't honor outpost pledge By TOVAH LAZAROFF 28/04/2010 04:49 Legal status, rather than promises to US, will determine their fate." [primarily whether the outpost was built on land belonging to the state (legal) or privately owned Palestinian land (illegal), and 'no more unilateral concessions' position] "...Ya’alon recalled that Netanyahu, soon after becoming prime minister, reiterated the promise previously made by prime ministers Sharon and Olmert to demolish the 23 hilltop communities, which are peppered all over the West Bank. "He [Netanyahu] said we accept our commitment regarding dismantling 23 outposts that were defined by the Sharon government as illegal,” said Ya’alon. But that changed, Ya’alon said, after a dispute broke out with the Obama administration regarding the significance and validity of Sharon’s understandings with the Bush administration about settlement growth. “He [Netanyahu] accepted that [commitment to demolish the outposts], until it became clear that the US administration does not accept the commitments of the previous administrations.” A second official, responding to the Ya’alon comment, said the minister was “expressing his own opinion,” but did not deny that the pledge to dismantle the outposts had been superseded in the wake of the wider dispute on settlement growth. ..." http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=174144

- K2K

April 28, 2010 at 8:12pm

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

Netanyahu and Obama -- Who is cooler, which one calmer? Which one keeps his nerve in crisis? Which one pays the going prices For a slight increase in tension -- Something many like to mention? Obama, Netanyahu -- Let's hope they won't go too far to Regain pragmatic karma, Netanyahu and Obama.

- ironyroad

April 28, 2010 at 9:20pm

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

I guess if you were left to cool your heels in some side room in the WH while your host went off to have his dinner you would not feel too inclined to oblige even a more reasonable request than the one Obama made. He with the ice in his veins seems to be prone to short temper, pettiness and petulance only when it comes to Israel. A truly intelligent leader would not have behaved this way. We have seen evidence of how he glad-handed the antisemitic Chavez and bowed to the Saudi king and then he turns around and insults, knowingly, deliberately, the head of the state he proclaims to be an American ally and vows eternal friendship for? What the heck is he thinking about? And what was that point, about returning Churchill's bust to the Brits? He could have asked for it to be placed somewhere else in the WH, out of his sight, if it grates on his nerves that much, but to make a point of returning the gift to the gift-givers? And none of the Obama club members here notice a pattern?

- noga1

April 28, 2010 at 9:44pm

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

I once asked you ironyroad if you would share some of your poetry with us. I take it this is your response, a bit late and not too inspired. A haiku would have been a better form for this kind of topic, I think.

- noga1

April 28, 2010 at 9:48pm

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

You take it a little askew, Noga. The above was something of a doggerel exercise that just came to me. The haiku would indeed be more demanding. But I remember you asking me that a little while ago, about my own poetry. It made me feel nervous, for a couple of reasons. One is that TNR isn't really a literary discussion board (although critical discussions do break out quite often, as we've seen), so the natural opportunity to post something like that doesn't come about often, to say the least. Another reason is that it's mine, rather than ironyroad's, if you see what I mean. It might be jarring, to others as well as myself. A third reason is that I imagine a few posters around these parts do some creative writing of different kinds in these very times, whereas my own poetic efforts are really things I produced 15-20 years ago. One or two recent efforts, also, but not many. I don't actually see my small stack of poems as being contemporary with me any more. Perhaps not totally logical, but there you are.

- ironyroad

April 28, 2010 at 10:11pm

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

Israel won't willingly dismantle settlements built on private land, or settlements built on land it says was unappropriated, or even settlements that are illegal under its own law. This is just to be expected based on prior behavior. But that doesn't mean that it will retain sovereignty over the land east of the Green Line. That is a matter that Israel will not in the end be able to determine on its own. It will then have to decide whether to leave the settlements in Palestine and, quite likely, whether to accept an equal number of Palestinian refugees. There is no reason to expect Israel to keep its prior commitments regarding settlements. It has not up until now (see, e.g., the Road Map). Any excuse will do. Or no excuse.

- roidubouloi

April 28, 2010 at 10:13pm

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

From the article linked above. It seems that the "roid dreams" as K2K refers to them may have far more reality than anything that has occurred to him in the course of a lifetime: "But now that the Prime Minister appears to have quietly imposed a de facto freeze on building in East Jerusalem, the talks finally appear about to begin imminently. This is good news, but the US should pursue them on the basis of a new agenda. Instead of focusing on the central issues for finally resolving the conflict, the discussions should build on several useful and intriguing recent proposals from Palestinians and Israelis alike, to create a fledgling Palestinian state quickly, and then build on that achievement to address the core issues in a new and rejuvenated set of direct talks. And what are these ideas? Prime Minister Salaam Fayyad has proposed using the advances Palestinians are making on the West Bank in institution building from security to economic structures to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state in 2011. Shaul Mofaz, the hitherto hard line Israeli former Minister of Defense, is suggesting “the immediate establishment of an independent disarmed Palestinian state,” followed by a guarantee of discussions on final status issues. He suggests quickly expanding the areas of the West Bank where Palestinians are largely in control so that the Palestinians will have “60% of the territory of the West Bank and 99% of the population”. Ehud Yaari, Israel’s leading TV analyst on Arab affairs, suggests “immediately negotiating the establishment of a Palestinian state within armistice boundaries before a comprehensive peace is secured…” " Well, what do you know? I say that a Palestinian state is imminent, and suddenly Shaul Mofaz agrees. This man is at least smart enough to see the handwriting on the wall and to understand that a Palestinian state that comes into being with Israel's cooperation is much better for Israel.

- roidubouloi

April 28, 2010 at 10:18pm

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

Despite all of the incredible whining and victimhood on display here in resopnse to Obama, and the repeated assertions that, because he has "lost the trust" of the Israeli public, nothing will move, it seems that things do move. Apparently Obama has more real power with regard to Israel than the whiners and self-proclaimed victims care to believe. Not a surprise to me.

- roidubouloi

April 28, 2010 at 10:20pm

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

I always assume people are reluctant to share their poetry. It's like revealing one's innermost vulnerabilities and very few are actually willing or able to trust others not to cheapen or exploit them. You have a way of disarming me, ironyroad, which I find very frustrating. I cannot remain angry with you even though I try my best :)

- noga1

April 28, 2010 at 10:24pm

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

Oh. Well, me neither. I do think we seemed to grasp each other's perspective more generously at the old pub. It saddens me sometimes to think that that has vanished. But, Noga -- just think! One day the breakthrough will come and the purifying stream of anger will flow, glittering and endless :)

- ironyroad

April 28, 2010 at 10:35pm

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

I am very easily mollified. A cute pun or a clever use of a cliche and all negative feeling evaporates!

- noga1

April 28, 2010 at 11:17pm

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

Arab League's Abbyss O dreams Fayyad is real Gates loves real Barak

- K2K

April 28, 2010 at 11:22pm

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

Los Angeles Jews Write the Pal-lywood ending: Rump State. Cut. Credits. my Haiku dedicated to Steven L. Spiegel's "A New Approach to the Israeli-Palestinian Proximity Talks". Perhaps the Jewish Journal can get Steven Spielberg to polish the script, which would mean a different ending.

- K2K

April 28, 2010 at 11:45pm

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

K2K, you have unexpected dimensions (as I think I've said before). Noga, anyone who uses the term "mollified" (which almost nobody does anymore) dissolves any defensiveness my side. Mollified. Sweet Mollified Malone.

- ironyroad

April 29, 2010 at 12:20am

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

thanks irony. Haiku is fun. yeah, mollified really rolls off the tongue. English is a boundless pleasure. but, like every language, it forms a unique view. I suppose the only reason the world is not in a constant state of war solely because of language mishaps is music and sport. :)

- K2K

April 29, 2010 at 12:41am

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

Trochaic tetrameter can be fun too.

- ironyroad

April 29, 2010 at 1:06am

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

"English is a boundless pleasure." Yes it is. Embedded in it is the ability to grow, borrow, emulate, change, evolve, devolve, and all this without shame, without apologies, and without any need to keep itself "pure". I'm channeling my life as a Quebecer here. In Quebec, French is the beginning and the end of all consciousness, yet most Quebecois speak and write a dull, narrow sort of French often full of basic grammatical and spelling errors. So I've often wondered if, in their feral attempts to preserve their language as pristine, resist Anglicisms and force its importance on unsuspecting people, they are actually doing their object of love the very opposite of their aspirations. Language cannot flourish in a state of siege.

- noga1

April 29, 2010 at 7:20am

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

while the Obami and the U.N. and [fill in the blank] obsess over creation of a Palestinian state, it seems Libya's Qaddafi has the right idea, different continent. from: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/04/28/africa_needs_a_new_map?page=full "Africa Needs a New Map: It’s time to start seeing the redrawing of the continent’s colonial borders as an opportunity, not a threat. " BY G. PASCAL ZACHARY | APRIL 28, 2010 " ..Qaddafi just gave voice to what others must have been thinking: Time to split Nigeria up. But in Africa, the declaration fell on deaf ears. Nigeria recalled the Libyan ambassador and firmly rejected the idea. ...And what of Somalia, a benighted nation stitched together out of three pieces -- bequeathed by two European powers -- only in 1960? Somalia is today effectively three nations anyway, two of which, Somaliland and Puntland, cannot receive international recognition despite providing relatively decent services to their residents. If they were true "states" by international standards, aid, diplomats, and security assistance from, for example, U.S. Africa Command, could pour in. ...Others will wonder if new borders can really change the continent's record of abysmal governance. The answer is a certain yes: There is no better incentive to get your house in order than taking over a responsibility as huge as running your own state. Many of these concerns are valid. But the redrawing of Africa may happen whether we will it or not. Next year's vote in Sudan could finally put to pasture the acceptance of African borders as unchangeable -- and put the engineering of new African states at the top of the international agenda. Qaddafi was crazy enough to tackle the issue head on. Now who will be brave enough to be next?"

- K2K

April 29, 2010 at 10:17am

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

K2K of course cannot observe his own incoherence. While deriding the inevitable Palestinian state, he declares that re-drawing the borders of Africa to minimize multi-ethnic states would be a boon. Does he prefer a one-state solution with equal political rights for all between the Jordan and the sea? No. Does he prefer a two-state solution? No. He prefers that Israel dominate the Palestinians forever. And he complains on another thread about bigots to the left of him, nutjobs to the right of him. You have met the bigot, K2K, and he is you. That makes you both a bigot and a nutjob! No place for you on the left or the right, is there? The drawing of a boundary between Palestine and Israel may also happen whether we will it or not. "Shaul Mofaz, the hitherto hard line Israeli former Minister of Defense, is suggesting “the immediate establishment of an independent disarmed Palestinian state,” followed by a guarantee of discussions on final status issues." Welcome to the real world, K2K. Visit briefly and then return to your nutjobbery. You get only a day pass.

- roidubouloi

April 29, 2010 at 10:32am

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

A friend of mine from Quebec and I were both involved in grad student politics in California ten-eleven years ago. In the umbrella organization, which had both grad and undergrad associations from the various UC campuses, we found the wild-eyed undergrad-radical ambience very off-putting. Once we were at a meeting where there were "safe space" workshop groups forming, and my friend (who was the actual delegate from our campus) was wondering which one he could bear to go to -- GLBT students, racial minorities, students with disabilities etc. He said: I don't know if I can sit through these workshops. Ok I'm gay, but I just couldn't deal with that GLBT stuff. I'm not a racial minority. And I'm not disabled. I said: Wait a minute -- that disability thing. He looks at me curiously. And I said: Well, you are Quebecois . . .

- ironyroad

April 29, 2010 at 11:19am

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

fwiw, I have tried to be consistent in my point that a prerequisite for ANY CURRENT solution is an end to the political division of the Palestinians so that they have a legitimate political leader who, at minimum, acknowledges the existence of the State of Israel. Playing victim is unbecoming for any people aspiring to self-determination. Shaul Mofaz can say what he wants, but Abbas and the Arab League, the other part of the real world, have said NO, NO, NO to “the immediate establishment of an independent disarmed Palestinian state,” followed by a guarantee of discussions on final status issues." roid, you really should temper what you post online. maybe one person would then pay you the serious attention you crave.

- K2K

April 29, 2010 at 11:31am

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

"While deriding the inevitable Palestinian state" Has K2K derided a Palestinian state? Or Obama's way of getting there? Or the Palestinian notion of what a Palestinian state is? Can you ever represent a position as it is put forth without dressing it up in your own black and white garments? BTW, I'm still waiting for your answer about the different approaches you exhibit to International Law, where in one case (Israel's settlements) it is the only acceptable ruler while in the other case (Palestinian statehood) it is just a fuzzy horizon depending on the will of nations.

- noga1

April 29, 2010 at 11:32am

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

my purpose in posting the FP article on Oaddafi's idea to redraw Africa's post-colonial borders was more about the need to redraw other post-colonial borders, in Syria/Lebanon, Kurdistan, and especially, Pakistan, in contrast to the Obami and the U.N. obsessive focus solely on Palestine. Jerusalem is once again the center of the world, as it was on global maps until the 15th century.

- K2K

April 29, 2010 at 11:40am

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

noga on roid: "Can you ever represent a position as it is put forth without dressing it up in your own black and white garments?" no, noga. roid's world is devoid of the subtle gradations of gray between black and white, a sad worldview made even sadder by the fear of any intrusion of red, blue, or yellow.

- K2K

April 29, 2010 at 11:45am

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

"And I said: Well, you are Quebecois . ." Mordechai Richler derived a lot of fun taking potshots at the Quebecois. His criticism of law 101 bordered on the comedic genius. But he was also very generous towards them, describing them as gracious, hospitable and sexy (unlike Anglos). But I have to say that while at the time I found it vastly entertaining (having suffered the burden of Law 101 which is at its most draconian on immigrants) I realized in later years how his hyperbolic descriptions could be abrasive, offensive and even misleading. That is when he wrote a book about Israel in which he expressed himself ignorantly and condescendingly about the Israelis who were hand picked by his hosts to serve his various needs during his sojourn at the prestigious neigbourhood of Mishkenot Shaananim in Jerusalem. He reserved his saltiest contempt for Sephardic Israelis (shades of Arendt, there) which I found disgusting in someone who expressed such sympathy for the plights of Palestinians. His one redeeming statement in the book was when he acknowledged his gratitude that for the first time in Jewish history, in a confrontation with a murderous enemy, it was the Jews holding the guns.

- noga1

April 29, 2010 at 11:59am

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

Is Law 101 about speaking French?

- ironyroad

April 29, 2010 at 1:17pm

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

Bill 101: "requires exclusive use of French in all commercial, official and public activities, and an offshoot, Bill 178, which prohibits exterior signs in any language but French. Bill 178 has spawned a watchful Commission de Protection de la Langue Francaise. The commission, it appears, is so watchful that it has forced the removal of a pub sign that advertised in English "TODAY'S SPECIAL / Ploughman's Lunch," while criticizing le Musee Beaux-Arts de Montreal for supplying labeling and exterior signage in English in order to welcome American visitors. " One of the clauses Richler ridicules stipulates that all signs have to be in French, and if English is provided, it ought to be printed in half the size of the French message. Richler suggests that the bill should extend to speech sound as well, and that people who speak English should do at half the decibel levels that French speakers do.

- noga1

April 29, 2010 at 2:08pm

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

Sacre bleu!

- ironyroad

April 29, 2010 at 3:49pm

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

Tabarnak!

- noga1

April 29, 2010 at 5:37pm

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

Did K2K deride the inevitable Palestinian state? Quite clearly if one understands English: "while the Obami and the U.N. and [fill in the blank] obsess over creation of a Palestinian state" as if self-determination for Palestinians too were merely some strange "obsession" of "Obami" and the reviled U.N. and others too trivial to name. And yes, K2K is both bigoted and incoherent as there is worse going on in Africa than in Palestine that K2K clearly thinks might abate with ethnic self-determination there. * * * As for getting attention, K2K, that is your problem. Hence your rambling, incoherent efforts to string together enough arcane and obscure historical and cultural references to persuade us here that you are worthy of intellectual respect. Do you think citation is an adequate substitute for thought? I'm not starving for approval or attention as you are. I state my opinions for what they are worth to anyone who is interested. Any for anyone who isn't, that's just fine with me. I would prefer not to have your attention as you add nothing of value.

- roidubouloi

April 29, 2010 at 7:05pm

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

stones cast without stones incoherent rage drops stones with sun unseen

- K2K

April 29, 2010 at 7:43pm

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

master speaks deeply profound, moving, syllable short in second line

- roidubouloi

April 29, 2010 at 9:21pm

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

"master [roid] speaks deeply" "There, you impudent dog! Now will you learn not to answer back when I speak to you? Take the horse back, and clean him properly. I'll teach you your place!" Harriet Beecher Stowe, Uncle Tom's Cabin, Ch. 23 "I looks like gwine to heaven, an't thar where white folks is gwine? S'pose they'd have me thar? I'd rather go to torment, and get away from Mas'r and Missis. I had so." Uncle Tom's Cabin, Ch. 18 "When I have been travelling up and down on our boats, or about on my collecting tours, and reflected that every brutal, disgusting, mean, low-lived fellow I met, was allowed by our laws to become absolute despot of as many men, women and children, as he could cheat, steal, or gamble money enough to buy,--when I have seen such men in actual ownership of helpless children, of young girls and women,--I have been ready to curse my country, to curse the human race!" Uncle Tom's Cabin, Ch. 19

- K2K

April 30, 2010 at 11:10am

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

"Pearls before swine" is from Matthew 7:6 in a section of Jesus Christ's Sermon on the Mount, implying that things should not be put in front of people who don't appreciate their value.

- noga1

April 30, 2010 at 11:23am

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

pearls cast before swine sinking beneath muck and mire no austen today

- roidubouloi

April 30, 2010 at 11:51am

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

"Pearls before swine" indeed! though rather insulting to the entire Sus genus, historically victimized. Ex: Babe is a superior pig, yet settles for Farmer Hoggett's "That'll do, pig. That'll do." I just love how popular culture redeems rodents, pigs, and otherwise scary insects and predators. Snakes have no chance for redemption.

- K2K

April 30, 2010 at 11:56am

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

"Through early morning fog I see visions of the things to be the pains that are withheld for me I realize and I can see... [REFRAIN]: that suicide is painless it brings on many changes and I can take or leave it if I please. I try to find a way to make all our little joys relate without that ever-present hate but now I know that it's too late, and... [REFRAIN]that suicide is painless it brings on many changes and I can take or leave it if I please. The game of life is hard to play I'm gonna lose it anyway The losing card I'll someday lay so this is all I have to say. [REFRAIN]that suicide is painless it brings on many changes and I can take or leave it if I please. The only way to win is cheat And lay it down before I'm beat and to another give my seat for that's the only painless feat. [REFRAIN]that suicide is painless it brings on many changes and I can take or leave it if I please. The sword of time will pierce our skins It doesn't hurt when it begins But as it works its way on in The pain grows stronger...watch it grin, but... [REFRAIN]that suicide is painless it brings on many changes and I can take or leave it if I please. A brave man once requested me to answer questions that are key is it to be or not to be and I replied 'oh why ask me?' [REFRAIN]'Cause suicide is painless it brings on many changes and I can take or leave it if I please. ...and you can do the same thing if you please."

- K2K

April 30, 2010 at 12:00pm

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

"no austen today" The day is not yet over!

- noga1

April 30, 2010 at 5:11pm

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

""no austen today" The day is not yet over!" noga: there is only so much of a composite Lady Catherine/Mr. Collins/Philip&Augusta Elton that ANYONE can take, which is why Austen used them as secondary characters. Where is Colonel Brandon?! Did you read Caroline Glick today in JPost? She still thinks the Jewish vote will swing to the GOP, which it will in some congressional races, especially the one for Obama's former Senate seat, probably also for the Florida Senate race. I think many more Jewish democrats will do what I did in September, 2008. Stop donating money to ANY Dem candidate, and donate instead to the Jewish National Fund for direct benefit to Israel.

- K2K

April 30, 2010 at 6:50pm

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

"Where is Colonel Brandon?!" That would be ironyroad, albeit with some Tilney thrown into the mix:) "The person, be it gentleman or lady, who has not pleasure in a good novel must be intolerably stupid "

- noga1

April 30, 2010 at 7:38pm

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

"That would be ironyroad, albeit with some Tilney thrown into the mix:)" not so sure about that composite, ironyroad is a bit less Brandon, and more Edward Ferrars, a most honorable gentleman, with a bit of shy insecurity. I admire Colonel Brandon's mix of honor and resolute action, the most excellent of Austen's male characters. Ah, a chorus just rang out from the Republic of Pemberley: "Darcy!" :) alas, duty calls me away...along with acute distraction over China, dandelions, and anything else unrelated to TNR.com and Israel.

- K2K

April 30, 2010 at 8:10pm

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

A kindred spirit! What a pleasure to exchange names with someone for whom they actually mean something! I stand by Brandon but with a lot more of Tilney, come to think of it, than originally proposed.

- noga1

April 30, 2010 at 8:18pm

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

Darcy is to Austen what Rochester is to Charlotte Bronte.

- noga1

April 30, 2010 at 8:20pm

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

"Darcy is to Austen what Rochester is to Charlotte Bronte." agreed. my personal favorite is still Brandon even though, as a great admirer of practical, useful women, I always wanted him to go for Elinor instead of Marianne. I admire Brandon's unwavering loyalty, without Darcy's status-based prejudice, or the bitterness of Captain Wentworth. I do not yet see ironyroad as a man of action. Would he fight a duel? Irony is more Tilney than Brandon. Is it Brandon's love of poetry and music that has you so resolute in your opinion? BTW, Have you ever seen the first film version of P&P with Laurence Olivier and Greer Garson, speaking American?

- K2K

April 30, 2010 at 10:16pm

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

I have all known versions of P&P on my shelves. I didn't say Brandon was my favorite. That would have to be Wentworth: "you pierce my heart". There is something irresistible about an embittered lover when he finally gets wise to the truth and reality.

- noga1

April 30, 2010 at 11:06pm

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

"I have all known versions of P&P on my shelves." I loved "Bride & Prejudice", and "Lost in Austen", but draw the line with the vampire books. Desecration. Ok, I have to ask if you have ever seen the 1995 film version of "Cold Comfort Farm". I never read that book, but thought the film a re-telling of "Emma", and not because of Kate Beckinsale. It seems the original book is considered a re-telling of "Wuthering Heights". I read Chomsky on Israel at AsiaTimes.com yesterday, and just read my first Mearsheimer. I am not sure how much Austen it will take to recover, but I do have episode 9 of Colonel Sharpe fighting for Wellington on hand, which will have to do.

- K2K

April 30, 2010 at 11:42pm

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

"I do not yet see ironyroad as a man of action." "I see" said the blind man. But he didn't see at all.

- ironyroad

May 1, 2010 at 12:38am

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

"It seems the original book is considered a re-telling of "Wuthering Heights". Makes sense. No, I did not see "Emma" in it though the heroin is "Emmaish", officious and charming, and manages to fix everybody's life just so: "Jane Austen and I have so much in common - neither of us can endure mess. " :) I thought the movie was quite a good adaptation of the novel. ___________ "I do not yet see ironyroad as a man of action. Would he fight a duel?" I think he would. I'd tell you why, but I think we embarrassed him enough.

- noga1

May 1, 2010 at 8:15am

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

"I think he would. I'd tell you why, but I think we embarrassed him enough." agree, I was already embarrassed for my part in the character dissection before my last comment, and here apologize profusely to ironyroad the human being, the man behind the online wordstream.

- K2K

May 1, 2010 at 9:45am

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

and hope ironyroad understands that all of the Austen characters we debated are, without exception, male fictional heroes, because they are completely honorable gentlemen.

- K2K

May 1, 2010 at 9:48am

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

Yes, but let's just reiterate that of all the male characters Austen approves, it is only Tilney whom she endows with her sense of humour and irony. And while the gallant Brandon can speak ponderously of the demi-god Shakespeare and majestic Milton, it is Tilney who is given credit for enjoying " The Mysteries of Udolpho".

- noga1

May 1, 2010 at 10:47am

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

"I do not yet see ironyroad as a man of action. Would he fight a duel?" I think he would. I'd tell you why, but I think we embarrassed him enough." _______ You only embarrass yourselves, most obviously with your delusions that you are terribly witty. No. You are terribly juvenile. The games you play are what one would hear if listening in on a gaggle of spiteful 12-year girls. Only the references are different.

- roidubouloi

May 1, 2010 at 11:58am

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

"The games you play are what one would hear if listening in on a gaggle of spiteful 12-year girls." as opposed to roid's jackal pack gross-out body-function humor, the province of 12-year old boys? noga once cautioned that we should not mention roid's family, but I truly hope roid's adolescent daughters are living far away from him, with their mother, all reading Jane Austen, aspiring to find men like Brandon, Tilden, and Wentworth in their future.

- K2K

May 1, 2010 at 1:09pm

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

correction, "...aspiring to find men like Brandon, Tilney, and Wentworth in their future."

- K2K

May 1, 2010 at 1:11pm

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

And I truly hope you have no children at all. It would be tragic for them, and the world does not need any more of you or like you.

- roidubouloi

May 1, 2010 at 1:14pm

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

"And I truly hope you have no children at all. It would be tragic for them, and the world does not need any more of you or like you." What a truly spiteful and malevolent thing to say to anyone. Just when I thought your couldn't get any lower, you prove me wrong. You have no bottom line.

- noga1

May 1, 2010 at 1:55pm

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

roid: "the world does not need any more of you or like you." an effective recruiting poster slogan for Obama's foreign policy, and the Democratic Party?? "So let that be a lesson to one and to all; a person is a person, no matter how small."

- K2K

May 1, 2010 at 3:09pm

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

Then maybe you are finally catching on, noga. No matter how nasty, vicious, ugly you and the rest of the jackal pack get, I am right there, in your face, feeding you back what you serve, with an extra helping. Because I am not afraid of you, I am not intimidated by you, and I am willing to get as dirty as necessary to deal with you and prevent you and the rest of the jackals from dominating this place with your scummy tactics and abusive behavior. Nothing less than constant helpings of your own behavior is ever going to persuade you to act like a decent human being, and, if even that doesn't work, at least you will have to sit in the swill you serve up. You will not be able to abuse on others and avoid the same because they are unwilling to get down in the gutter with you. My view is that, if that's where the vermin live, that's where you have to go to get rid of them. So, better get used to it. There is no escape. If you don't like it, the only way out for you is to behave in the manner that you would like to be treated. Otherwise, you will have to endure indefinitely what you do to others. Condign punishment. Consider it law enforcement. A public service.

- roidubouloi

May 1, 2010 at 3:38pm

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

"noga once cautioned that we should not mention roid's family, but I truly hope roid's adolescent daughters are living far away from him, with their mother, all reading Jane Austen, aspiring to find men like Brandon, Tilden, and Wentworth in their future." "And I truly hope you have no children at all. It would be tragic for them, and the world does not need any more of you or like you." ____________ As you sow, so you shall reap.

- roidubouloi

May 1, 2010 at 3:41pm

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

fwiw, my patrilineal DNA has already transformed and reshaped the modern world. the lawyers are on my mother's side of the family.

- K2K

May 1, 2010 at 4:18pm

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

roid: " the world does not need any more of you" Perfect phrasing for Obama's appeal to voters over 50, white men, married white women, Mormons, and whoever is part of the 60% of America he thinks he no longer needs to maintain the Democratic majorities in congress. "So let that be a lesson to one and to all; a person is a person, no matter how small." from "Horton Hears a Who". Sometimes, only Dr. Seuss has true wisdom.

- K2K

May 1, 2010 at 4:26pm

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

It seems President Obama wants us to be civil, from his commencement address at UMichigan today via the NYT: "...He urged the graduates to engage with people from different backgrounds and different experiences, and with opposing points of views. “If you’re someone who only reads the editorial page of The New York Times, try glancing at the page of The Wall Street Journal once in awhile,” he said. “If you’re a fan of Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, try reading a few columns on the Huffington Post Web site.” Mr. Obama has followed his own advice, a White House spokesman said afterward, and tunes in to his critics on the cable television channels, particularly when he has time during travel on Air Force One. “It may make your blood boil,” the president said. “Your mind may not often be changed. But the practice of listening to opposing views is essential for effective citizenship.” For Mr. Obama, whose presidency has, for more than a year, been the object of both adulation from supporters and vilification from critics, the speech harked back to his campaign days, where he sought to portray himself as a unifier. ...He said he had decided to talk about civility in American politics after a kindergarten class wrote to him, with each student asking a question. ... “But it was the last question in the letter that gave me pause,” he said. “The student asked, ‘Are people being nice?’ ” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/us/politics/02obama.html I retract my 4:26 pm comment where I speculate that Obama would ever quote roid's " the world does not need any more of you" actually, I think the Obama family will read Jane Austen together when Malia and Sasha are older.

- K2K

May 1, 2010 at 4:41pm

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

That Obama is civil and you can quote him does nothing whatever to redeem you or your behavior, and certainly not the tenor of your criticism of him. You're still a bum.

- roidubouloi

May 1, 2010 at 5:12pm

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

"Then maybe you are finally catching on, noga." I firmly believe that most posters and readers here catch on to you very early on. You leave nothing for the imagination. "Marya Petrovna has not listened to Kiryakov for long, but already she feels that she is bored and repelled by him, that his even, measured speech lies like a weight on her soul.... The mother tells her that he is always like that. . . . He is honest, fair, prudent, sensibly economical, but all that to such an exceptional degree that simple mortals feel suffocated by it. His relations have parted from him, the servants will not stay more than a month; they have no friends; his wife and children are always on tenterhooks from terror over every step they take. He does not shout at them nor beat them, his virtues are far more numerous than his defects, but when he goes out of the house they all feel better, and more at ease. Why it is so the woman herself cannot say. " http://chekhov2.tripod.com/086.htm

- noga1

May 1, 2010 at 5:12pm

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

Comfort yourself however you like. But then let me again leave nothing to the imagination: When you and your buddies behave like pigs, I will treat you like pigs -- because you deserve it. And I am not leaving this house, so you won't ever get to feel better or more at ease in your behavior. You could consider behaving in the manner you claim to approve, just to demonstrate to one and all that you are not the atrocious hypocrite you appear to be. That possibility seems never even to cross your mind, however. So, I regard it as unlikely.

- roidubouloi

May 1, 2010 at 5:43pm

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

It's not I who would feel better, and more at ease, if you left this house, sweet roi:)

- noga1

May 1, 2010 at 5:56pm

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

"...does nothing whatever to redeem you or your behavior, and certainly not the tenor of your criticism of him...." No more First Amendment in Obamaworld? Thanks for the heads-up. I thought the warnings from the right about the re-education camps was part of their hysterical ODS. I am glad that a kindergartner asked the President of the United States ‘Are people being nice?’, and that he took the question seriously. He was an excellent role model, an anti-bully, during the campaign. It was the intolerance of two of his pledged delegates that made me lose hope so fast, followed by Ryan Lizza's profile of Obama as Chicago pol in The New Yorker (fist-bump cover issue), Obama's choice of Jason Furman as economic advisor solely to appease the Clintonistas, opting out of public financing, supporting subsidies for corn ethanol AND the import tariff on Brazilian sugar ethanol, the dance for the Jewish vote in Florida, and then choosing so many professional politicians and not one businessperson for the cabinet. Gates and Chu were his best picks. I was troubled with Geithner ONLY because he had many opportunities to be pro-active during his NY Fed tenure, but I am very glad he speaks Mandarin. Most presidents have displayed their inexperience in foreign relations during their first year. Now that I have read Jim Jones and Hillary Clintons recent speeches, I better understand the strategy even if I still disagree with some of the specific steps. moving back up the evolutionary scale to pig is okey-dokey. Highly intelligent mammals. Of course, now that we know TNR, and Peretz, are targets for the 'Afrikaners' versus 'Righteous' propaganda campaign, I guess we have to assume roid is a minion of Mearsheimer, assigned to The Spine. And I have to pack for the re-education camp. Details must be in The Patriot Act. :)

- K2K

May 1, 2010 at 7:13pm

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

Peretz wasn't complaining about Mearsheimer. He was boasting about being a target of Mearsheimer. He takes it as confirmation that he is right. That's way too easy.

- roidubouloi

May 1, 2010 at 10:11pm

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

Criticism can be criticized, for its tone, for its lack of honesty, and for being ill-informed. There is no First Amendment right not to be criticized for what one says. Even in Obamaworld.

- roidubouloi

May 1, 2010 at 10:13pm

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close