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 Barack Obama Vs. Mort Klein. Who The Hell Is Mort Klein?

THE SPINE JULY 15, 2010

Barack Obama Vs. Mort Klein. Who The Hell Is Mort Klein?

BY MARTIN PERETZ

The president doesn’t like Mort Klein. I don’t know whether they’ve ever met. But the Obama folk did convene a meeting for the president with the “Jewish leadership,” which included, as it happens, American Jewish organizations (new on the block and who are financed mostly by Jewish billionaires who care not a fig for the survival of a people they do not think of as their home) believing that Israel is basically responsible for the intensity and duration of the conflict with the Arabs, in general, and the Palestinians, in particular. Anyway, Klein is president of the Zionist Organization of America which makes him, if you’ve read Jeff Rosen’s dazzling TNR essay on Supreme Court justice Louis Dembitz Brandeis, a literal successor to Brandeis who himself had difficult views on a settlement with the Arabs. A literal successor, nonetheless, in the same way that Elena Kagan will be.

Now, Klein takes a harder line than Brandeis did. But then the Arabs had not waged five wars against Israel, and the Palestinian cause had not yet been invented. There were cases of random terror as much against Jewish agricultural workers as against Arab effendi. In any case, the map of the Levant was being divided, and a tiny portion had been allocated to the Zionists—as larger divisions were cut out for new states like Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, etc. Not democratic states or even states cut to demography. Each of these states, by the way, is still a mess, which is a massive understatement. Except the Zionist encampment of Israel, a modern state with a free press, an independent judiciary, a real university system and an open culture. OK, smartass, give your ardor to Palestine. It will be like having given your ardor to Khmer Rouge Cambodia.

Barack Obama came to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue a year-and-a-half ago with clear rhetoric and fuzzy ideas about the Middle East. Many Jews and Jewish organizations went along, hoping against hope that the man would learn. Some say he has; some say he at least has doubts about what were once his certainties. Others say he is just playing for time. I can’t say that I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. But I did spend a week campaigning for him in Jewish Florida, and frankly I resent the certainties I uttered then. And my readers should also resent them. In any case, pessimism is a Jewish trait. So I’m a pessimist.

And so is Mort Klein who has learned much from history. Those mainstream Jewish leaders who attended Obama’s exclusive White House meeting are no longer so high on his neat plans and on his fantasy expectations. Klein, who was explicitly and deliberately excluded, has the satisfaction of other invitees’ deep new doubts. And J Street? Well, J Street is J Street.

Klein is a bit of a nudnik. He does release a statement just about every day. Mostly I just let them pass. But today’s hit me in the solar plexus. It came a few days after the president said that he was optimistic about the proximity talks. Maybe he is. I, on the other hand, can’t see any reason to be. The New York Times’ seasoned reporter Isabel Kershner writes in an article today what is virtually a dirge.

Why did Klein’s epistle shake me so? Because it is about Palestinian opinion measured by a reasonable—that is, honest—Palestinian survey. Here it is ZOA’s press release in its entirety. What it tells us is that the Palestinians have given in on or even modified the most fanatic of their demands. Progress? Tell it to J Street.

POLL: PALESTINIANS OPPOSE RENOUNCING SO-CALLED ‘RIGHT OF RETURN’ BY AN OVERWHELMING 82% TO 14%

A new poll shows that Palestinians oppose by an overwhelming 82% to 14% the renunciation of the so-called ‘right of return,’ the legally baseless demand that all Palestinian refugees of the 1948-49 war and their millions of descendants return to Israel. This opposition was expressed even if the price of maintaining the ‘right of return’ was the non-conclusion of a peace agreement with Israel. The poll, conducted by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion (PCPO), also found that, by a nearly identical margin of 82% to 13%, Palestinians would oppose the Palestinian leadership waiving the ‘right of return’ in exchange for financial compensation for refugees and their descendants. It also found that Hamas is more than doubly popular in PA-controlled areas in Judea and Samaria than in Hamas-run Gaza (41% in the West Bank versus 20% in Gaza) (‘PCPO Poll of Palestinians - 81.8 % won’t drop right of return even if means deal breaker and no state, Hamas more popular in West Bank than Gaza,’ Independent Media Review Analysis, July 12, 2010).

This overwhelming level of support for the ‘right of return’ is consistent with past polls:

  • August 2007: A Jerusalem Media and Communications Center poll found that nearly 70% of Palestinians wanted the refugee issue resolved by return of all refugees to “their original land,” not a new Palestinian state (Rick Richman, ‘What Most Palestinian Believe,’ New York Sun, November 12, 2007).

  • February 2006: 83.3% of the Palestinian Arabs oppose dropping the legally and morally baseless so-called ‘right of return’ of refugees and their millions of descendants to Israel and reject substitute solutions to the refugee issue (Palestinian Center for Public Opinion (PCPO) poll, February 16-20, 2006).

ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, “It is crystal clear from this poll and a great deal of other data that Palestinian society clearly opposes acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state and consistently favors by large majorities positions that indicate this – support for the co-called ‘right of return’; support for terror attacks on Israelis; and opposition to an end of claims after any signed agreement, among other things.

“Despite these poll results, the Obama Administration persists in claiming that Palestinians are committed to a peaceful future and seek only statehood alongside Israel. By stating the opposite of what the facts warrant, it is misleading the American public and pursuing a policy which lacks any factual basis. The consistent high levels of Palestinian public support for the so-called ‘right of return’ which would see Israel destroyed by inundation of hostile Palestinian refugees and their descendants, demonstrates all too clearly that Palestinian society is not reconciled to the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state.” 

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 125 comments

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

125 comments

As ever, "honest" = "comports with how I view the world"

- miceelf

July 15, 2010 at 2:16pm

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

The poll results cited by the ZOA's press release are more or less consistent with other polls done on the question of the right of return. To the best of my recollection, there has never been a poll from any reasonably competent and intellectually honest polling organization -- Palestinian or otherwise -- that had materially different results let alone showing a majority, even a slim majority of Pals giving up on the "right" of return. Those who are surprised by these poll results are in effect admitting to a great deal of ignorance on the Palestinian mindset & political culture. For starters, there has never been a Palestinian leader, especially one affiliated with the officially sanctioned PLO that has ever said a word publicly about giving up on the "RoR" in English or in Arabic. And any one who has bothered to follow both the official and unofficial Palestinian media in Arabic (translated in to Hebrew or English, but originally in Arabic) on the Palestinian Media Watch web site (here) would know that the expectation of getting the "RoR" is constantly inculcated into the Palestinian mindset so as to make it impossible for any Palestinian leader to compromise on the issue. In case you were wondering, the official Pal media is controlled by the office of the P.A. president, originally the "moderate" Yasser Arafat (I mean the omniscient and infallible NY Times said he was a moderate and / or a pragmatist) and subsequently by Abu Mazen, a.k.a. Mahmoud Abbas (ditto on the moderate / pragmatist). Indeed the only ones whoever said that the Palestinians understand that they have to forgo their claim on the "RoR" were the Oslo Accordians -- most notably Yossi Beilin & Shimon Peres, & their acolytes & sycophants. That proposition (among others) was tested in the Camp David talks during the summer of 2000 when Arafat - urged on among others by his adviser at Camp David Abu Mazen -- wouldn't hear of it. And it was tested again less than two years ago by Ehud Olmert in his negotiations with Abu Mazen, who considered Olmert's offer -- which was based on no "RoR" or only a symbolic "RoR" -- to far to make it worth a counter offer. Israelis understand this very well now. That is one of the main reasons that the Israeli left wing (Labor + Meretz) has shrunk from ~55 seats in the Knesset to 16 seats. Other leading lights of the Zionist Left, most notably Prof. Shlomo Avneri also understand this and speak and write accordingly. Perhaps the most striking and interesting of the "newly penitent" in this arena is (former?) new historian and darling of the post-Zionists, Benny Morris. Beilin still doesn't understand this or doesn't want to understand this. And the ostensibly pro-Israel American left (e.g., Israel Policy Forum, New Israel Fund, Americans for Peace Now, and especially especially especially the jerks at J Street) refuse to understand this, in part because they take their direction and inspiration from Yossi Beilin. A classical case of the blind leading the blinder. Or the useful idiot leading the brain dead or intellectually dishonest. So where does that leave Obama? Since he more than anyone else (well, except maybe for George $oro$) is responsible for elevating J Street to their front line status in the American Jewish community, he seems to also have fallen for the no "RoR" fantasy. Yes, I am giving Obama the benefit of the doubt. A lot of doubt. Hershel Ginsburg Efrata / Jerusalem

- ginzy

July 15, 2010 at 4:27pm

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

From: The Palestinian Covenant and Its meaning" by Y. Harkabi, 1979: "One must be cautious and restrained in assessing national movements and their doctrines, especially when they are at loggerheads with one’s own. However, I cannot help feeling that the covenant is an ugly document according to its stand. It is not a manifesto of an extreme, lunatic fringe "faction, but the essence of the outlook of the center and mainstream of the Palestinian movement. The covenant represents an egoistic stand that does not show the slightest consideration for the adversary, nor any trace of recognition that he too may have a grievance, a claim and justice. The Palestinian Covenant claims absoluteness and ‘totality’ – there is absolute justice in the Palestinian stand in contrast to the absolute injustice of Israel; an unqualified Manichean division of good and evil; right is on the Palestinian side; the Israelis are barely human creatures who at most may be tolerated in the Palestinian state as individuals or as a religious community, with their numbers reduced to 5% of their present level (Article 6 in the 1968 version) and then assimilated in an Arab environment; the historical link of the Jews with the land of Israel is deceit; the spiritual link as expressed in the centrality of the land of Israel in Judaism is a fraud; international decisions such as the Mandate granted by the League of Nations and the united Nation Partitions Resolution are all consigned to nothingness in a cavalier manner. The covenant, from beginning to end, in every one of its articles, is characterized by one-sidedness; the Palestinians arrogate rights that they are not prepared to grant to their rivals. There is no ray of light in Zionism; it is totally depraved. History is distorted-Zionism is represented as if it were from the start a conquering movement, while in fact its achievements were brought about by hard labour and its lands bought with money, and a case can be made that the Arabs by their attacks on Israel forced into conquests. As against the vices of Zionism, Palestinians bath in self-righteousness, conferring on themselves spiritual virtues and moral values. The covenant is a document of arrogance, without a sign of the humility that should be the lot of the human condition; it is completely expressed in absolute terms, without traces of any relativity. The covenant provides an example of the mischief of absolute national ideologies and the need for relativity in political positions in general, and more so, in conflict situations. It is a lesson we should all learn. Absolutist political positions as in the Covenant should be rejected whatever their provenance. Relativity follows from the recognition that the adversary, too, has rights and aspirations, is also enmeshed in contradictions, dilemmas of his human existence, and writhes in their agony and that he, too, possesses moral personality. A relativist position is an extension of the Kantian categorical imperative – in a conflict situation – to view the adversary as constituting a moral agent and a goal, not merely a target to hit. A relativist position is required even in a practical manner as a precept of conventional wisdom that political entities do not act in the world in isolation and that an extreme position taken by one side, or a far-reaching action, may be considered by his rivals a provocation and a transgression to which he may over-react in a fashion detrimental to both sides. Hence, the need for individuals, as well as for nations, to behave prudently, exercise restraint, and endeavour to search for conciliation and compromise. Such an approach is a head on negation of the PLO position. For the PLO compromise is anathema. A conciliatory attitude was denigrated as despicable “compromising mentality” by the 11th PNC."

- noga1

July 15, 2010 at 7:10pm

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

"Klein, who was explicitly and deliberately excluded..." Yes, YES! There's a conspiracy afoot! "I can’t say that I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt." Given that Peretz recently wrote that the administration's handling of the flotilla matter caused him to revise his thinking in a direction more favorable to the president, it's hard to figure out what the above means, but then, why even attempt to be clear when you can just take another potshot?

- TJ814

July 16, 2010 at 1:02am

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

Good that you own up to at least one of your mistakes Martz, but I'll really be impressed when you call out your pal Samantha Power. Anyway, THIS is the crux of the entire Israel debate. You can be, as I am, adamantly opposed to the settlements, willing to see Obama exert significant pressure on Israel to freeze or even reduce them, and still end up at the same place as Marty or any other "Likkudnik" -- beyond that point there needs to be a clear recognition by the Palestinians and Arab states that they accept a Jewish state of -some- boundaries before more concessions will be asked of Israel. Everything (history, polls, etc.) points against the Palestinians/Arabs doing this. Israel's "I want to save Israel from itself!" critics try to avoid talking about this because they can't bring themselves to commit to a point where they'd support a status quo that's pretty close to what we have today, even though they know it's likely.

- Lymon1

July 16, 2010 at 6:55am

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

ginzy - if you come back, is there a map of what is currently the Lieberman proposal for populated land exchange. I do not understand where the 'triangle' is. Setting aside the intransigence of the Palestinians, it appears that Syria's Assad may be about to flip to the West for real because of the offshore natural gas deposits - quite a juggling act because Assad still sees The Lebanon as part of Syria even if Lebanon does not. How this will impact the PA is unknown, but a separate peace with Lebanon and Syria obviously changes the dynamics for Israel. Getting their piece of the offshore natural gas potential is a serious motivator for Greater Syria.

- K2K

July 16, 2010 at 8:30am

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

So, Lieberman's big idea is to go back to the start and re-partition Palestine all over again based on the current population distribution, including the illegal settlements. But if he really wanted to go back to the start, then one would first have to repatriate the Palestinian refugees and their descendants and then look at the map for purposes of partition. That is hardly what Lieberman has in mind. Lieberman's notion is as ludicrous as the idea that the refugees of 1948 will be allowed to return to Israel. But if anyone's project has a better claim relative to the status quo ante, it is the Palestinians, not Lieberman. Lieberman's purpose is ethnic cleansing. The refugees don't need to have a political goal of the destruction of Israel, although many certainly do. They can just claim to want to go home without cleansing anyone. It is not a crime for refugees to claim the right of return. It is a crime for them to pursue that goal by other than peaceful, political means. I don't personally give any credit to the Palestinian refugee claims because they are the victims of aggressive war by the Arab nation, Israel has absorbed just as many Jews who are refugees from that nation, actively driven out, and the Jews lost more land in Arab countries than the area of Israel. The ethnic cleansing and population transfers have already happened -- perpetrated by the Arabs. There is no reason for Israel to undo one part of the Arab crimes while the balance can never be redressed. However, I do not agree that their aspiration of return is the same thing as the aspiration to destroy Israel. To equate the two is merely propaganda, the effort to claim that it is just that the Palestinians surrender all in a peace settlement while Israel surrenders little other than land it cannot keep anyway while remaining a Jewish-majority state. Israel has to decide what it wants to insist upon and what it is prepared to give in order to get. Thus far, it offers very little. It wants to keep as much of the illegal settlement bloc as possible without incorporating any Arab population, transfer Arabs to Palestine (or at least Israel's Foreign Minister, not a nobody, wants to), and extinguish any Palestinian right of return. But there is no more reason for the Palestinians to legitimize Israel's illegal settlements than there is for Israel to reverse the outcome of the war of aggression against it in 1948. That Israel is not going to agree to a Palestinian right of return does not make the Palestinians into monsters for claiming one as Ginzy would have it. The Palestinians' desires in this regard deserve a lot more sympathy than the aspiration of the Zionist right to keep the West Bank without according the inhabitants political rights -- apartheid. A one-state solution is not inherently illegitimate. The right-wing Zionist aspiration is. Back in the real world, in order to obtain a settlement, the Palestinians too are going to have to give up things, and the claimed right of return is it. So far, there is no evidence that the Palestinians have a partner for peace in Israel, only a partner willing to keep what it wants and give what it doesn't want. When Israel is willing to concede Palestinian sovereignty in the entire West Bank in exchange for Palestinian abandonment of the claimed right of return, then there will be the basis for a two-state solution that does no grant to either side the fruits of its wrongful behavior. At that point, Israel will be able to claim that it has offered peace, not just self-aggrandizement that it calls peace.

- roidubouloi

July 16, 2010 at 3:47pm

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

In the end then, what can we do? Part of me wishes Obama would just walk away telling everyone there to sort it out themselves and that he has better things to do, but no one will let him, not the Arabs, not the Israelis (who, after all, have to maintain this fiction of a process as much as anyone). Obviously it is fundamentally impossible for the US to satisfy both sides, and it is not in our own best interest to look to satisfy one side (like it or not we have multiple responsibilities in the region). Lets face it, there are no answers, nothing Obama can do. Let him engage in his useless kabuki dance, or push him to walk away from the issue entirely.

- blackton

July 16, 2010 at 7:30pm

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

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4441.htm July 12, 2010 Report No.624 "Internal Conflict in Lebanon Over Control of Oil and Gas Resources" What MEMRI does NOT address is which companies from what countries will work with Lebanon and Hezbollah, and Syria, to develop their offshore natural gas. Certainly not Iran. Israel has been working mostly with U.S.-based firms (ok, Republic of Texas). The estimated surplus just from Israel's Leviathan field would go to EU countries. No wonder Assad invited Senator Spector last weekend, and Sarkozy appointed Jean-Claude Cousseran, former ambassador to Cairo, Beirut, Tehran, and also headed France's foreign intelligence agency as 'special mediator' for Syria.

- K2K

July 16, 2010 at 8:59pm

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

Is Ford's confirmation as ambassador to Syria still held up in the Senate? I just did a quick search but couldn't find anything recent. This might be a good time to stop dicking around.

- ironyroad

July 16, 2010 at 9:22pm

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

Israel has already made the offer of giving up the West Bank in exchange for Palestinian abandonment of the right of return and the Palestinians have rejected it - on more than one occasion. What makes anyone think the Palestinians will accept it now? The poll cited in the article clearly says "even if it is a deal breaker." And certainly the PA leadership, which has done nothing toward ending the Jew-baiting hate propaganda, will not soften their subjects toward a compromise, especially since they would prefer to die of natural causes. Blackton here pretty much gets it right. Bush did not walk away from the peace process so much as he went through the motions after realizing that when he stops banging his head against the wall, the pain goes away.

- NR114746

July 17, 2010 at 1:33am

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

Roi, I think you're mistaken about the ROR not equating to the destruction of Israel. It certainly would destroy Israel, which is why the Israelis are trying to get the PA to recognize the Jewish character of Eretz Israel. "Returning" 4 million "refugees" to Israel would fundamentally change the nature and demographics of the state, plus it would probably result in a civil disaster. It's important that Israel be recognized and respected for what it is. Unfortunately the "Arab Peace Plan" and the PA, to the best of my knowledge, both insist on ROR which means they don't recognize Israel, period.

- Sophia

July 17, 2010 at 3:24am

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

Sophia: "Returning" 4 million "refugees" to Israel would fundamentally change the nature and demographics of the state, plus it would probably result in a civil disaster. It's important that Israel be recognized and respected for what it is. Unfortunately the "Arab Peace Plan" and the PA, to the best of my knowledge, both insist on ROR which means they don't recognize Israel, period." I quoted earlier in the thread from 1979 Harkabi's book in which he analyzes the Palestinian Covenant because I think it gives us insight into the intractability of the Palestinian position and why that is: ""The covenant, from beginning to end, in every one of its articles, is characterized by one-sidedness; the Palestinians arrogate rights that they are not prepared to grant to their rivals. " This has not changed. This central document has formed the very core of Palestinian identity which, simply stated means that there can be no Palestinianism co-existing with an Israel legitimate presence. That is why no matter how deep Israel's compromises will be, they will never be enough to put an official end to Palestinian hostility. The school curriculum, the media hate propaganda are all meant to insure that the future generations internalize this principle as an article of faith. Helen Thomas was not expressing an extremist marginal position when she suggested what she suggested. This is the prevailing and respectable view in the Palestinian mainstream, as a recent example shows: "his confusion is well illustrated in the quote from Abdel Qader Ismail, 24, a former employee of the military intelligence service who now produces anti-Israel plays: Our play does not mean we hate Israel. We believe in Israel’s right to exist, but not on the land of Palestine. In France or in Russia, but not in Palestine. This is our home. It never seems to occur to Ismail that Israelis have no wish to live in France or Russia but instead want their own homeland, which they have demonstrated time and again that they are willing to share with the Palestinians if only they will finally accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state in part of that small country." http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/tobin/328011

- noga1

July 17, 2010 at 9:12am

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

This is a very thoughtful article by Yoram Hazony who painstakingly explains the problems Israel faces today: http://via.readerimpact.com/v/1/792bc4b1ec4cad1e102bfb9bbcc0325c6b7210346658c26c One thing I don't quite understand is why, if it is Israel's self-determination and self-defense based on this principle that is anathema to European intellectuals, why Palestinians pursuing the exact same objectives, are not similarly opposed?

- noga1

July 17, 2010 at 10:14am

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

"One thing I don't quite understand is why, if it is Israel's self-determination and self-defense based on this principle that is anathema to European intellectuals, why Palestinians pursuing the exact same objectives, are not similarly opposed?" Noga, I think JDyer on another blog described it very correctly as saying that the left regards Palestinian and 3rd World nationalism and religious fanaticism as a source of revolutionary zeal which is therefore forgiven and should be even supported. Israeli nationalism and national aspirations however, are viewed as colonial and imperialistic and as driven by the West colonial project. I think similar views were expressed by Paul Berman.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

July 17, 2010 at 11:24am

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

Noga: I just read Hazony's article. Fascinating and depressing.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

July 17, 2010 at 11:45am

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

There cannot be the Right of Return. It would be catastrophic for Israel. And Mr. Peretz, what do you mean, you are a pessimist? You were touting Barack Obama in 2008. Oh now, sure. And why should Mort Klein's missive have upended you so? Surely you had at least a sense of these numbers. This microfocus on everything Levantine is amusing. Events will meander on, people will muddle through, it is time for a trank, MP.

- liberal reformer

July 17, 2010 at 12:42pm

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

Hazony's article is very good -- it reminds me of a segment of an interview with Berman (I think) that someone posted here a couple of weeks ago. The theme of the discussion was the sense of Jewish "lateness" being indicted ever since the Jews were the prime suspects in "CSI: Birth of Christianity": from being the refusers/killers of Christ to the creators of an Israeli nation, they are always seen as occupying the "wrong" side of the historical moment.

- ironyroad

July 17, 2010 at 2:01pm

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

I basically agree with Blackton and NR114746 that Obama should give up trying to railroad the Israelis and Arabs into a final solution about Palestine. The Israelis and Arabs have irreconcilable existential interests. Obama egotistically thinks he knows the elements of a just solution and can assemble it with the right diplomacy, he is being egged on by professional peace processors, and the Arabs, Iranians, and now the Turks, who try to maneuver the US into fighting with Israel. But he will fail if he takes the bait. Besides, the United States has more pressing concerns in the Middle East than Palestine. I've read Hazony's article, too. Thank you, Noga, for linking it here. Hazony clearly explains non-anti-semitic liberal European hostility to Israel. He argues for the creation of a convincing new theory of nation-statehood to supplant Kantian universalism. I wish him well, but events validate and disprove theories. Kantian universalism's moment arrived after WWII, 150 years after Kant. Kantian Europe will eventually dissolve because of its own internal contradictions and external enemies, not because of theorizing by Zionists seeking a solution to their current political isolation and the inclinations of a generation of European liberals. What about Islam's own unpalatable vision of a Kantian peace? And what about the question that Makover raises about the hypocrisy of presumably Kantian liberals who support Palestinianism but disparage Zionism?

- amidut

July 17, 2010 at 2:53pm

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

well stated amidut "Besides, the United States has more pressing concerns in the Middle East than Palestine." I would add Obama has more pressing concerns in America's Middle West, West Coast, Northeast, and Gulf Coast, than Palestine. Probably explains why the Obama family is in Maine for vacation.

- K2K

July 17, 2010 at 5:40pm

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

Seems to me that the history and paradigm of the U.S. - that is, us - runs counter to the paradigm of a melting together of former nation states. We are a nation of immigrants, most of which fled here from oppression in their homelands, and are justifiably proud of the ways their struggles could find a permanent homeland in a foreign country. I greatly doubt that Americans (any more than Canadians, Mexicans, Venezuelans, Cubans, Brazilians, etc.) would entertain the idea, or swallow the paradigm, of abolishing national borders and sovereignties. For the same reason, we are the nation most sympathetic with Israel. Israel has never closed its doors to immigrants, indeed it has welcomed them much as we are welcoming of them. The same I doubt of Arab nations, at least anytime soon.

- Tgossard

July 17, 2010 at 6:00pm

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

Sophia, My point is that there is nothing inherently evil or hostile about Palestinian aspirations to return and whether or not it would "destroy" Israel may be far less important to them than the fact of returning. That doesn't mean that Israel should concede the point. Quite clearly I think it should not. But demonizing them formthe aspiration is preposterous. It is also hypocritical. Much of Israel didn't worry too much about the demographic implications of settling the West Bank and whether that to

- roidubouloi

July 17, 2010 at 7:07pm

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

and whether that too might destroy Israel as a Jewish majority state. One might conclude that Israel's demographic concerns are not exactly pure. Israel takes it for granted that there will not be any meaningful right of return, but that doesn't mean that the claim is inherently illegitimate and that Israel should therefore expect to concede nothing in exchange or Palestinians agreeing to forgo it. It is a significant claim by the Palestinians and for them. Something will have to be paid for them to give it up, and I think that will be sovereignty over the West Bank, in its entirety. NR is incorrect when he says that Israel has offered this. It has only offered to give up the West Bank shorn of the pieces that it wants to keep, the settlement bloc.

- roidubouloi

July 17, 2010 at 7:18pm

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

There's no small degree of irony in TNR quoting "honest" and "reliable" polls about the, clearly absurd, negotiating card that is the right of return. It's a bit hard to take when I see Chait correctly point out the invalidity of Republican propaganda equating Obama's low poll rating with a wholesale rejection of Liberal economics: The economy did it, it's structural and all that, don't you people know your political science! Exactly what number should we expect from such a Palestinian poll? "Yes, we do not have a right to feel aggrieved."? Sweet Jesus. Reaching for such polls as some proof of an unreasonable position is as ridiculous as The Wehner Fallacy. Maybe it's time for a Chait/Marty Fallacy?

- IggyPop

July 17, 2010 at 8:01pm

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

Roid is scratching his ass about Israel again.

- amidut

July 17, 2010 at 8:08pm

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

"Something will have to be paid for them to give it up, and I think that will be sovereignty over the West Bank, in its entirety." A lot is already being paid for it, like for example equal portions of territory from Israel proper. Those parts are approximately equal to the territory that Israel anticipate to annex. Is the ROR right inherently illegitimate? I think it is. A people cannot be allowed to start wars of annihilation, promptly loose them and then lobby the international community for "annulment". It is unheard of. There is and should be a penalty for this kind of behaviour. Furthermore, we are not talking about people who were dispersed thousand of miles around the globe. Most of the refugees moved couple of kilometers from where they lived before, surrounded by the same population, speaking the same language and having the same culture and in addition, most of them are not refugees at all but children of refugees, who were born outside of armistice lines. The fact that the Arabs did not allow them to assimilate to host county is not Israel's fault.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

July 17, 2010 at 8:10pm

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

absolutely makover, "A people cannot be allowed to start wars of annihilation, promptly loose them and then lobby the international community for "annulment". It is unheard of" There should NOT be do-overs for professional refugees unto the fourth generation. 63% of Americans, when asked by the Gallup Poll "In the Middle East situation, are your sympathies more with Israel or with the Palestinian Arabs?”, 63% say Israel. 15% say Palestinian Arabs. The other 22% have no opinion. http://www jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/gallup.html

- K2K

July 17, 2010 at 8:57pm

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

It seems to be all but impossible for some to hold two thoughts in their heads at the same time: that justice does not in the end oblige Israel to accept a Palestinian right of return but that the people who were displaced don't necessarily bear individual blame or responsibility for this state of affairs. For rather obvious reasons, Israel is also in an awkward position to argue that the passage of time alone or the fact that many of the claimants are not themselves refugees but descendants of refugees extinguishes their claim. Nor is the fact that the Arabs did not allow them to assimilate to the host country the fault of the refugees. Hence, their aspiration to return is not reprehensible even though it cannot be accommodated. Indeed, Israel wants the claim extinguished once and for all precisely because it is not without legitimacy. If there were no basis for the claim, then it would simply be ignored by Israel in negotiations which is far from the case. Israel demands that the claim, not just violence in pursuit of the claim, be abandoned. On the other hand, just as the outcome of a war of aggression cannot be annulled, so too the settlement of the West Bank in violation of treaty obligations to which Israel is itself a party cannot be ignored. The fact that Israel chose to ignore the plain language of the Fourth Geneva Convention and a host of Security Council resolutions is Israel's fault and not that of the Arabs who live in the West Bank. Israel cannot claim international legality and justice for its own positions regarding the right of return if it denies the existence of any system or regime of international legality and justice. And if it does not deny the existence of such a system, it is without any basis for laying claim to sovereignty over land it settled illegally. It will not be possible to have it both ways. __________________ There is no reason for me to be scratching my ass when it is amidut's ass that is, with very good reason, itchy.

- roidubouloi

July 17, 2010 at 9:17pm

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

"Exactly what number should we expect from such a Palestinian poll? "Yes, we do not have a right to feel aggrieved."? Quite so, Iggy. And it is not exactly an indication of a willingness to make peace if Israelis insist that Palestinians are monsters for feeling aggrieved. The demonization of the other party is not exclusively on the part of the Arabs.

- roidubouloi

July 17, 2010 at 9:21pm

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

Feeling aggrieved is one thing. Refusing to negotiate based on such grievances is another. Further: there is no other population in the world with its own UN agency dedicated to maintaining perpetual refugee status, through generations. This is a unique feature of the Arab diaspora that fled Israel in 1948 and its descendants and the way their status has been handled by the UN, as distinct from all the other people in the world who've been displaced by war and/or population transfer, state-building, forced flight as in the Middle Eastern Jewish diaspora. Also, the other millions upon millions of refugees in the world, to the best of my knowledge, are required to show they've been residents of a country or region for more than 2 years in order to qualify for UN aid and protection - generally I think about a generation. The Arab population that fled Israel, on the other hand, only had to show that they were resident in the area from 1946 to 1948. It seems that the UN itself has been aiming to annul Israeli statehood, by the simple means of flooding the nation sooner or later with "refugees" as well as maintaining an ever-growing population in a (to date) rootless situation; but also in making distinct somehow the Jewish state, which isn't treated in any respect like other nations - including the many which were created since WWI. Arafat himself claimed the "Palestinian womb" as the primary "weapon" against Israel - as though a woman's body and her children should be used to create a destructive force. The issue of recognition is core to accepting a real peace process. Without that there are only time outs between wars, and the demographic war is Weapon #1. The recent piece in the New York Times about Gaza reflected this fact. Recognition of Israel, on the other hand means that real work toward peace can begin. Anyway, here's an interesting piece that seems to encapsulate some of these arguments including Roi's: http://www.forward.com/articles/6070/

- Sophia

July 17, 2010 at 9:53pm

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

"Recognition of Israel, on the other hand means that real work toward peace can begin." Not quite. September 9, 1993 Yitzhak Rabin Prime Minister of Israel Mr. Prime Minister, The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era...I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments: The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security. The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. The PLO commits itself...to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations...the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators...the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant. Sincerely, Yasser Arafat. Chairman: The Palestine Liberation Organization.

- roidubouloi

July 17, 2010 at 10:13pm

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

as of today, "Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said he'll resume direct peace talks if Israel accepts its 1967 frontier as a baseline for the borders of a Palestinian state and agrees to the deployment of an international force to guard them." but, Abbas, Mitchell, and Netanyahu has to separately consult with Egypt's Hosni Mubarak on Sunday (just returned from cancer treatments in Paris), and then Abbas has to consult unspecified Arab foreign ministers, and then who knows what will change by Monday because Fatah is saying no way to direct talks, and Hamas is still outside the conversation.

- K2K

July 17, 2010 at 10:14pm

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

"the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant." from Andrew Bostom's blog: http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2009/05/29/the-%E2%80%9Cmoderate%E2%80%9D-palestinian-faction%E2%80%99s-vision/ "Benny Morris in the book “One State, Two States” just published by Yale University Press, decries the “mendacious implication” of Palestinian agit-prop, pseudo-academic Rashid Khalidi, and his ilk, that the PLO Covenant was ever “amended in a positive, two-state direction.”

- noga1

July 17, 2010 at 10:37pm

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

"I see this agreement as being no more than the agreement signed between our Prophet Muhammad and the Quraysh in Mecca." "we now accept the peace agreement, but [only in order] to continue on the road to Jerusalem." "And no, the permanent state of Israel- no! It is the permanent state of Palestine. Yes, it is the permanent state of Palestine." Arafat's Speech in Johannesburg May 10, 1994

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

July 17, 2010 at 10:46pm

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

"I see this agreement as being no more than the agreement signed between our Prophet Muhammad and the Quraysh in Mecca." "we now accept the peace agreement, but [only in order] to continue on the road to Jerusalem." "And no, the permanent state of Israel- no! It is the permanent state of Palestine. Yes, it is the permanent state of Palestine." Arafat's Speech in Johannesburg May 10, 1994

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

July 17, 2010 at 10:46pm

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

Sorry, for some reason it posted twice. I have to leave you now. Need to catch a nap before work tomorrow.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

July 17, 2010 at 10:48pm

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

There goes roi again with his Fourth Geneva Convention. Some history is in order. When the UN passed the 1947 partition plan, Israelis (then known as Palestinians) accepted it even though the territory would be carved up in the form of a crazy checkerboard, while the Arabs, both resident and adjacent, rejected the proposed Arab state and declared war. Israel not only won the war but annexed a considerable amount of the Arab territory captured during the fighting and moved (oh, the horror) settlers into that territory. The 1949 armistice agreements were substantially less than a peace treaty, and any attempts to bring about such a treaty over the next 18 years were stillborn given their feebleness. Meanwhile, the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem were annexed by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. In 1967, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, in a fit of stupidity, went to war against Israel and lost all its captured territories west of the River Jordan. Following the Six Day War, the UN passed Resolution 242, declaring that Israel withdraw to "secure and recognized boundaries." Israel offered once again to negotiate a deal with the Arabs, including Palestinians, that would enable it to carry out that resolution, but the Palestinians refused and resorted to terrorism. Thus, they rejected their own state again as in 1947 and King Hussein of Jordan rejected negotiations with Israel to restore his rule over the West Bank. With the status of these territories in limbo, Israelis began settling into them as they had settled the captured territories of 1949. When Israel concluded its peace treaty with Egypt in 1979, it withdrew from the Sinai to the "secure and recognized" boundary it enjoys today. Not long afterward, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan renounced all claims to the West Bank, rendering the River Jordan its "secure and recognized" boundary and leaving the status of the West Bank even more uncertain and inchoate. With no one seeking to negotiate the birth of an Arab state in these territories, Israel continued to settle these areas. Finally came Oslo, in which Israel would work out an agreement for the creation of a Palestinian state. The Palestinian Authority came into being given jurisdiction over those areas not settled by Israelis or held by the Israel Defense Forces for security purposes, with final status negotiations to resolve the issue of these disputed plots of land. Those negotiations took place at Camp David in 2000, with a follow up at Taba. Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered nearly all the captured territories, far more, as I recall, than most Israelis expected him to offer, but Yasser Arafat rejected the deal, not because he was unhappy with the border adjustments, but because HE DEMANDED THE RIGHT OF RETURN AS NONNEGOTIABLE. Instead, Arafat went to war, attacking Israel with suicide bombers, effectively tearing up Oslo. Israel had every right to respond by sending Arafat and the PA packing, but chose to keep it in place in its own self-interest. The war on the West Bank effectively ended with Arafat's death. Since then, an endless parade of diplomats have tried to put Humpty Dumpty back together with a succession of formulas and "road maps," as though they were white-coated lab technicians. And the status and sovereignty of the West Bank remain just as uncertain as the day the Palestinian Arabs rejected the 1947 Partition Plan. And the Fourth Geneva Convention is nothing more than a stick for the believers in the socialism of fools to beat Israel with.

- NR114746

July 17, 2010 at 11:12pm

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

"There goes roi again with his Fourth Geneva Convention. Some history is in order." All that history is completely irrelevant, NR. The provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention protect the inhabitants of occupied territory. How the Occupying Power came to be such, whether legally or illegally, is irrelevant. You recited this history because it establishes the legality of Israel's occupation and you think that this fact, legal occupation, obviates the provisions of the Convention, but it doesn't. The terms of the Convention apply whether the occupation itself is legal or illegal. There is no question that the West Bank, exclusive of the annexed area around Jerusalem, is occupied because Israel itself acknowledges this territory to be occupied, administering it under "military occupation government." Thus, the terms of the convention apply. They prohibit the Occupying Power from transferring its population to the occupied territory. Just that simple, and really no way around it. The inhabitants of the territory continued to have certain human rights, recognized by Israel as a signatory to the convention, regardless of the fact that the territory is legally occupied, regardless of the fact that the Arab states refused to negotiate, engaged in terrorism, all the history you recite. The Convention assumes that there has been a war, else there would not have been an occupation. For that reason, the settlements are illegal. The territory that Israel occupied in 1948, in contrast, was incorporated into Israel and the inhabitants were all accorded political rights. Hence, it was no longer occupied. Israel did not similarly incorporate the West Bank for two reasons. First, that would have been contrary to Resolution 242. Second, if Israel had incorporated the West Bank and not accorded the inhabitants equal political rights, it would likely have been guilty of the crime of apartheid, a criminal violation of human rights conventions, unlike the settlements which are prohibited but not a war crime. If Israel had incorporated the West Bank and accorded the inhabitants equal rights, there would already have been a one-state solution and Israel's future as a Jewish majority state would be in jeopardy. With respect to the incorporated areas in and around Jerusalem, there is likewise no longer an occupation. The incorporation may be illegal, and the UNSC so regards it, but the Fourth Geneva Convention doesn't apply because Israel has extended its municipal law and accorded the inhabitants equal political rights. So, NR, this is a case of Israel beating itself with a stick, or, rather, its messianic right-wing beating it with a stick. If you want to argue that international law makes the Arab invasion of the nascent Israel a crime, you have no basis for dismissing the rest of international law that Israel currently finds inconvenient because it made the deliberate decision to ignore it. It is a mess to be sure. If you don't like it, call the Likud, a corporation of fools if there ever was one.

- roidubouloi

July 18, 2010 at 12:10am

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

And really, NR, what is the point of claiming that Israel has offered to recognize Palestine sovereignty over all of the West Bank when you know perfectly well that isn't the case. Do you think the history you cite magically transmutes that fact too into its opposite?

- roidubouloi

July 18, 2010 at 12:12am

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

http://themagneszionist.blogspot.com/2010/01/are-west-bank-settlements-illegal.html In his dissenting opinion to the 2004 decision of the International Criminal Court against Israel's "Separation Wall" Judge Thomas Buergenthal wrote: Paragraph 6 of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention also does not admit for exceptions on grounds of military or security exigencies. It provides that "the Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies". I agree that this provision applies to the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and that their existence violates Article 49, paragraph 6. It follows that the segments of the wall being built by Israel to protect the settlements are ipso facto in violation of international humanitarian law. Moreover, given the demonstrable great hardship to which the affected Palestinian population is being subjected in and around the enclaves created by those segments of the wall, I seriously doubt that the wall would here satisfy the proportionality requirement to qualify as a legitimate measure of self-defence. (The opinion can be read on Mitchell Bard's website, the Jewish Virtual Library, here.) Buergenthal, a Holocaust survivor, a distinguished human rights judge, and a hero in Israel for his dissenting opinion in this case, did not even bother to argue that Israeli settlements are illegal. By 2004, no serious legal expert thought otherwise. Perhaps it is fitting that one year after the Gaza fiasco, the Israeli Hasbara crowd – those on the right wing of it, anyway – are resurrecting some very old chestnuts, like: the West Bank is not Occupied Territory, or that if it is, the Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply to it, or that if it does, Israel is not violating it through settlements, blah, blah, blah.

- roidubouloi

July 18, 2010 at 12:32am

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

Everything above is quoted from the linked blog. They are not my words.

- roidubouloi

July 18, 2010 at 12:34am

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

Thanks, NR114746 for another injection of reality into the... yawn.

- K2K

July 18, 2010 at 12:37am

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

K2K, suddenly a fan of reality. What a marvelous conversion!

- roidubouloi

July 18, 2010 at 12:55am

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

Orwell yawning: "...To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth. ..."

- K2K

July 18, 2010 at 2:07am

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

Oh very, very good, K2K. Sophisticated. Piquant. But do you understand so much as a word of it? Or is this just another instance of you merely cutting and pasting? Hint: The answer to the latter question is obvious.

- roidubouloi

July 18, 2010 at 2:25am

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

roid is a big yawn of a word terrorist, a Terroroid. The Terroroid deploys various propaganda techniques in his compulsive mission to disrupt The Spine, the alleged redoubt of neo-cons in his conspiracy-wracked brain. The Terroroid uses a pattern of posting consecutive attack comments in order to derail any dialog between other commenters. When the Terroroid escapes his restraints, and, if I am in a counter-terroroidism mood and unwilling to waste time to use other counter-terroroidism techniques, anything George Orwell wrote about any propaganda technique will compel the Terroroid to a flaccid counter-attack.

- K2K

July 18, 2010 at 8:35am

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

You're right, K2K. Sophia and others should stop long-winded responding and explaining to Roid. He is totally dishonest.

- amidut

July 18, 2010 at 9:38am

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

Lick your wounds children. I know that you and your fantasy lives suffer when anyone dares to challenge them with reality (of which K2K now claims to be a fan). So, sit in the corner, whisper, point, and giggle, as befits your mental age, until you feel better. But do know that the adult world awaits when you are game to try it on.

- roidubouloi

July 18, 2010 at 10:22am

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

just posted online: "Should Israel Bomb Iran?: Better safe than sorry" BY Reuel Marc Gerecht "There is only one thing that terrifies Washington’s foreign policy establishment more than the prospect of an American airstrike against Iran’s nuclear-weapons facilities: an Israeli airstrike. Left, right, and center, “sensible” people view the idea with alarm. Such an attack would, they say, do great damage to the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan, where Tehran would counterattack, punishing “the Great Satan” (America) for the sins of “the Little Satan” (Israel). An Israeli strike could lead to the closing of the world’s oil passageway, the Strait of Hormuz; prompt Muslims throughout the world to rise up in outrage; and spark a Middle Eastern war that might drag in the United States. Barack Obama’s “New Beginning” with Muslims, such as it is, would be over the moment Israeli bunker-busting bombs hit. An Israeli “preventive” attack, we are further told, couldn’t possibly stop the Islamic Republic from developing a nuke, and would actually make it more likely that the virulently anti-Zionist supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, would strike Israel with a nuclear weapon. It would also provoke Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps to deploy its terrorist assets against Israel and the United States. Hezbollah, the Islamic Revolution’s one true Arab child, would unleash all the missiles it has imported from Tehran and Damascus since 2006, the last time the Party of God and the Jewish state collided. An Israeli preemptive strike unauthorized by Washington (and President Barack Obama is unlikely to authorize one) could also severely damage Israel’s standing with the American public, as well as America’s relations with Europe, since the “diplomacy first, diplomacy only” Europeans would go ballistic, demanding a more severe punishment of Israel than Washington could countenance. The Jewish state’s relations with the European Union—Israel’s major trading partner—could collapse. And, last but not least, an Israeli strike could fatally compromise the pro-democracy Green Movement in Iran, which is the only hope the West has for an end to the nuclear menace by means of regime change. This concern was expressed halfheartedly before the tumultuous Iranian elections of June 12, 2009, but it is now voiced with urgency by those who truly care about the Green Movement spawned by those elections and don’t want any American or Israeli action to harm it. These fears are mostly overblown. Some of the alarmist scenarios are the opposite of what would more likely unfold after an Israeli attack. ..." [Gerecht's remaining 7,000 words are a methodical analysis of each of these scenarios, starting with "Anti-Semitism run amok", and can be read at: http://weeklystandard.com/articles/should-israel-bomb-iran July 26, 2010, Vol. 15, No. 42] .

- K2K

July 18, 2010 at 10:32am

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

Gerecht's piece is worth reading for its dishonesty. Contrary to K2Ks characterization, Gerecht is unable so support any of the claims he makes in his lede. He devotes a large section to the depth of anti-Semitism in Iran, then another section to the increasing brittleness of the Iranian regime on a shrunken base of clerical and popular support and participation. He concludes this with the rather astonishing claim that, when such brittle dictatorships are militarily challenged from outside, they are much more likely to fall than to consolidate their power and that this will more likely than not be the case in Iran if the regime were "embarrassed" by an Israel airstrike. Needless to say, he gives not a single example to support this historical claim. Can anyone think of one? I can't. Gerecht does not claim that Israel can succeed in halting the Iranian program or even venture to say how much it might be damaged. Indeed, he confesses his doubt, that the program may be so well advanced and dispersed that it is too late. His thesis, however, is that even a "half-successful" Israeli raid has the prospect of so destabilizing the Iranian regime that it falls and that this is therefore Israel's best strategic option. Note well, he does not claim that a raid will halt the program, but that the Iranian government will fall as a result. He doesn't even bother trying to explain why we should expect that the government that emerges would be any better or safer for us and Israel than the government that is there now. He than goes on to claim, without any real support, that Iran will be too timid to do any of the things that are feared (after explaining in his section about anti-Semitism that Iran has not at all been too timid to do such things in the past when it was, by his lights, even less rabidly anti-Semitic than today). He concludes with a discussion of the reasons why Iran might lose control of nukes, if it got them, to factions within the ruling clique who would be willing to use them. Also needless to say, he doesn't bother to reconcile the thesis that Iran might be sufficiently out of control to use nuclear weapons (with the likely result of its annihilation), but would not be so out of control as to engage in any of the other military/terrorist actions that he pooh-poohs, even as, he claims, the regime is crumbling. Amazing to me that just because a guy has history with the CIA and is set up in a right-wing think tank, he can spout so much complete nonsense and not be laughed out of the room. But then, given the nonsense that the right spouts in public every day, I should have learned by now.

- roidubouloi

July 18, 2010 at 11:23am

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

Amidut, my long-winded response to roi was to set the record straight for you and others who may not be aware of the history behind this controversy. Roi is too far gone in his psychopathic animus to listen to reason. Anything that refutes his blather is "irrelevant," the sure sign of a sick mind.

- NR114746

July 18, 2010 at 12:28pm

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

And what sort of mind, NR, is incapable of absorbing information contrary to settled believe and can respond only with invective evidencing "psychopathic animus?" Why don't you take your complaint about the "psychopathic animus" of noting the legal irrelevance of the history you recite directly to Justice Thomas Buergenthal? Write to him and tell him he has a sick mind. Do you have the courage of your convictions? ________________________ http://themagneszionist.blogspot.com/2010/01/are-west-bank-settlements-i... "In his dissenting opinion to the 2004 decision of the International Criminal Court against Israel's "Separation Wall" Judge Thomas Buergenthal wrote: Paragraph 6 of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention also does not admit for exceptions on grounds of military or security exigencies. It provides that "the Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies". I agree that this provision applies to the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and that their existence violates Article 49, paragraph 6. It follows that the segments of the wall being built by Israel to protect the settlements are ipso facto in violation of international humanitarian law. Moreover, given the demonstrable great hardship to which the affected Palestinian population is being subjected in and around the enclaves created by those segments of the wall, I seriously doubt that the wall would here satisfy the proportionality requirement to qualify as a legitimate measure of self-defence. (The opinion can be read on Mitchell Bard's website, the Jewish Virtual Library, here.) Buergenthal, a Holocaust survivor, a distinguished human rights judge, and a hero in Israel for his dissenting opinion in this case, did not even bother to argue that Israeli settlements are illegal. By 2004, no serious legal expert thought otherwise. Perhaps it is fitting that one year after the Gaza fiasco, the Israeli Hasbara crowd – those on the right wing of it, anyway – are resurrecting some very old chestnuts, like: the West Bank is not Occupied Territory, or that if it is, the Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply to it, or that if it does, Israel is not violating it through settlements, blah, blah, blah."

- roidubouloi

July 18, 2010 at 12:49pm

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

So what if the Palestinian Arabs don't want to give up the demand of demographic invasion? They'll be made to. This entire blog post is a waste of space, given that.

- egottlieb

July 18, 2010 at 1:53pm

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

egottlieb "So what if the Palestinian Arabs don't want to give up the demand of demographic invasion?" The Pals have no say in the matter, They were merely mostly following orders from the Arab League when they left to become refugees, and they are still following orders to stay put or else demand to go to Israel. In the meantime the leave in houses collect checks from the UN and pretend to live in tents.

- jdyer

July 18, 2010 at 3:12pm

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

Of course the Palestinians are ultimately going to give up the right of return. The question is what will Israel give in exchange. The effort to demonize the Palestinians understandable desire for such a right is propaganda, Israelis and Jewish sympathizers justifying to each other why the price should be zero. But it won't be because that's just not how the world works. In the end, the Palestinians will give up what they say they will never yield, abandonment of their claim of a right of return and recognition not just of Israel but of its borders. Israel will give up what its says it will never yield, Palestinian sovereignty over the entire West Bank save Jerusalem. In Jerusalem, there will be some form of condominium. If Israel insists on keeping settlements in Palestine, it will have to accept some Palestinian returnees in exchange, and vice versa.

- roidubouloi

July 18, 2010 at 5:33pm

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

From: http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/39355/hollow-men/ "A common explanation for the turning away of the intellectuals from Israel is that the Jewish state forfeited the world’s sympathy once it was no longer perceived as the underdog in its conflict with the Arabs. Israel’s sin, in this reading, is that it didn’t lose. However, this would suggest that intellectuals misunderstand a uniquely American concept: The underdog does not win the pity of the chorus because he is crushed by his tormentors; rather, he is the champion who perseveres because the stubborn stars that rule his nature will not permit him to choose otherwise. Perhaps his friends will abandon him, and maybe his family, too; neither his wife nor children signed on for such an arduous journey. If he intends to follow this hard path, he may well travel alone. Such is the stuff of big-ticket American heroism. It is odd that the American intelligentsia cannot recognize in Israel the likeness of our literary models, Melville’s Ahab, Fitzgerald’s Gatsby, Hawthorne’s Hester Prynne. Rather, the intelligentsia is more like Hester’s hypocritical neighbors. If Israel is portrayed as the Dirty Harry of nations, then its accusers are the tepid bureaucrats mistaking cowardice for compassion, who chide Clint Eastwood’s Callahan. In reality, of course, Israel isn’t all that heroic. No one and nothing is. Israel’s men and women of honor do not accomplish Homeric deeds in south Lebanon or Gaza to the beat of martial songs, like the resistance; instead they ride the bus home on the weekend to see their parents, go out drinking with friends, and pick up the wrong guy or girl in a smoky bar with awful pop music. “Our warriors,” says one former tank driver, “are Jewish boys who are bossed around by their wives.” And yet during the war with Hezbollah four years ago, the country’s incompetent political and military leadership sent too many of those Jewish boys to their deaths, without sufficient training or a strategy for victory. It seems like almost every day there is news that another of Israel’s chief political leaders is under investigation for corruption charges, which is to say the system is rotten and the system works. To say that Israel is normal is to say that it is, like all democracies, mediocre."

- noga1

July 18, 2010 at 5:34pm

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

I think that "underdog" is not a particularly good term to apply to Ahab or Gatsby (Hester Prynne is an odder case). They are a type of tragic hero with a Romantic twist but their heroism is built on misunderstanding, misreading, or a false identity. The "underdog" title might be more appropriate for, say, Tom Joad in "The Grapes of Wrath" or Jake Barnes in "The Sun Also Rises." Hester is admittedly a heroine of the Romantic self -- her sensibility drives her to refuse to knuckle under to the "iron men" of the Puritan establishment. But she knows when to compromise and how to adapt to circumstances nonetheless. To that extent, Israel might be indeed an anti-hero in the Chandler/Hemingway/Hammett noir mode. "Down these mean middle-eastern streets a nation must go . . ." Is it true that that mode is, or seems to be, no longer as culturally popular among American or European intellectuals? "The Wire" and "Mad Men" with their pantheon of anti-heroes suggest that a noir feeling is very much alive, however. "Munich" is a very noir film, too.

- ironyroad

July 18, 2010 at 5:54pm

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

Where is your proof that the Palestinians will give up the right of return? Either put up or shut up.

- NR114746

July 18, 2010 at 5:59pm

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

"Of course the Palestinians are ultimately going to give up the right of return. The question is what will Israel give in exchange." There is no evidence that this will ever happen no matter what the Jews do short of turning themselves into a minority. "The effort to demonize the Palestinians understandable desire for such a right is propaganda, Israelis and Jewish sympathizers justifying to each other why the price should be zero. But it won't be because that's just not how the world works." This is just malicious nonsense that views all peoples, except Jews, as rational.

- jdyer

July 18, 2010 at 6:04pm

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

what irony wrote about Tabletmag's confusion re: literary underdogs. I would add that being the "Dirty Harry of nations" should make Israel the most popular country on earth, as Clint Eastwood is the most popular movie star, in part due to his early Man with No Name and Harry Callahan roles. [Callahan] "is completely incorruptible, is devoted to protecting and avenging the victims of violent crime and when pursuing criminals, tries to minimize the danger for innocent bystanders as much as possible." quote from wiki The people of the world yearn for righteous justice, even when it is a bit rough.

- K2K

July 18, 2010 at 7:00pm

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

"Where is your proof that the Palestinians will give up the right of return? Either put up or shut up." It should be clear, NR, that such a thing is not capable of proof or disproof any more than it is possible to prove in advance that they won't. However, consider all the alternatives. The Palestinians know as well as pretty much everyone else does that Israel will never agree to this. The only power that might then force Israel to agree is the United States. What is the likelihood that the United States would try to impose a Palestinian right of return upon Israel? Remote in my opinion. So, the Palestinians can only bargain this chip for something. They cannot ever cash it in. Israel wants the Palestinian claim as an insurance policy against future war or future international pressure. That has a real value for which Israel would pay something, but not an unlimited value. Indeed, it only has value to Israel if there is a peace treaty so that the matter can be laid to rest. If there is no peace treaty, then there is no peace to insure and the Palestinian surrender of the claim is of no value. What do the Palestinians want, short of the return of Mohamed to give them all the land of Israel? All the land east of the Green Line, including east Jerusalem. They have already said they recognize Israel within the 1949 armistice line (that they sometimes refer to as the 1967 border). Unclear that they want the settlements all gone although they would certainly like fewer of them. And they want no Israeli security presence. This is the maximum they can possibly hope for. If they don't bargain their chip for something in the context of a peace treaty, what do they get? Not certain, but the likelihood is no presence in east Jerusalem, no right of return, a continued Israeli security presence. The ringer is the settlements. It is a reasonable bet on their part that if Israel maintains all the settlements, international pressure will ratchet up until Israel is forced to withdraw, to where exactly is unknowable. Could be all the way to the Green Line, could be something less. Could be a big win for the Palestinians or not, and could be a long time or not. It is a risk they seem to be willing to take as there is not much downside for them. The other possibility is that Israel establishes a de facto border on its own and leaves enough of the West Bank for a Palestinian state so that the world is interested, but not much interested. Then they have none of Jerusalem, no right of return, and Israel retains part of the West Bank for its settlement bloc and a security presence. This is about the worst outcome that the Palestinians could expect. So, if the Palestinians want to do better than their worst outcome -- a piece of Jerusalem and sovereignty over all the West Bank, rather than none of Jerusalem and limited sovereignty in most of the West Bank -- they have to bargain away the right of return. The problem with Israel's negotiating position thus far is that it pretty much offers the Palestinians their worse outcome, at least while they still have the card of international pressure and the card of no surrender of the claimed right of return. If, however, Israel were to move to establish a de facto border, both those cards become wasting assets and the Palestinians have to come to the table and negotiate seriously or perhaps lose them. If they are at all rational, and I think they are whatever the millenial rhetoric, I think they will do the rational thing. For the same reason, Israel will surrender sovereignty over all of the West Bank. It is the only way it can get a deal. The difference between a de facto border and no deal and a settlement is that Israel keeps sovereignty over the settlement bloc and all of Jerusalem. The alternative is that it shares Jerusalem, lets the Palestinians have sovereignty over the settlement bloc, but ends the dispute with finality, extinguishing the right of return. Since Israel has already accepted the notion of condominium in Jerusalem, the marginal cost to if of final settlement that extinguishes the right of return is Palestinian sovereignty over the West Bank. Those are, as a practical matter, most of what is still in play. There is nothing more that the Palestinians can get for surrendering the right of return. There is nothing more that Israel can surrender to extinguish the right of return. That deal will be cut unless, due to bad brinksmanship, the situation gets out of control. The negotiations are stuck because there is no downside to the Palestinians to waiting and Israel cannot create a downside without moving toward unilateral withdrawal. Netanyahu's government is likely incapable of doing that. Hence, the Palestinians wait. The brinksmanship is that, unless Israel manages to create some incentive for direct talks, the stasis may break open the dam of international pressure. Given that it won't start drawing a border, the best thing that Israel can do is publicly agree to the Palestinian demand for a building cessation in order to force them to the table. Once there, there will be two things on the table: settlement bloc and right of return. Neither side will get both. Obviously, Israel, at the end of the day, will stick on right of return, not on West Bank sovereignty. If Israel offers complete West Bank sovereignty and the Palestinians won't say yes, Israel can walk and draw a border or walk and continue to play on the brink with the international community. I still think that, if they were at the table and Israel made the offer (with suitable set-up, like a junior high date, to make sure through an intermediary that the offer would be accepted), it would be accepted. There is enough face-saving in that deal to make it work. Not a proof, to be sure, but the most likely case.

- roidubouloi

July 18, 2010 at 8:23pm

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

One more thing. The claim is often made that the Palestinians are irrational. I don't see that at all. Just the reverse. It has to be kept in mind that most of the really bad decisions on the Arab side were made by others than the Palestinians, Arab states that really didn't give a damn about them, including the Jordanians and Egyptians who in 1948 occupied what will become Palestine at the end of the day. Since the Palestinians gained some autonomy, they have behaved ruthlessly but largely rationally, including coming to the table and agreeing to Oslo when they had not better option for moving forward. (Do not understand from this that I condone their terrorism. I don't at all, but that is not the same thing as concluding that it is simply irrational. Given the goals of al Qaeda, 9/11 wasn't irrational either.) The one huge tactical error on the part of the Palestinians was Arafat refusing to counter-offer and continue negotiating, choosing instead to walk away from the table and start the Second Intifada. That was senseless and has cost the Palestinians enormously. Or, rather than senseless, it was a case of Arafat minimizing what he perceived as risk to himself at the expense of his people, an act of singular cowardice.

- roidubouloi

July 18, 2010 at 8:37pm

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

"The claim is often made that the Palestinians are irrational. I don't see that at all. Just the reverse. It has to be kept in mind that most of the really bad decisions on the Arab side were made by others than the Palestinians..." The abuse excuse: This is demonstrably false. The Arabs in mandate Palestine had rejected all the proposals made by Yishuv, including a bi-national State. They attacked Jewish settlements in 1947 and joined the Arab League when the latter declared war on the nascent State. The Palestinian Arabs have acted what they perceive to be their own interest which is to dominate the region from the sea to the Jordan river which is one of their slogans. They are not irrational, but neither are they ready to make peace. Just today a PA spokesman speaking for Abbas said that he was ready for "direct talks" with Israel, but that country would have to declare that they are ready to withdraw to the 67 borders before such talks could begin. (Quoted on an NPR news report) Is this realistic? Is this a signs that they are serious about negotiations? "Since the Palestinians gained some autonomy, they have behaved ruthlessly but largely rationally, including coming to the table and agreeing to Oslo when they had not better option for moving forward." Yes, I suppose that the second intifada in the middle of "peace talks" was a sign that they are ready for peace talks. "Given the goals of al Qaeda, 9/11 wasn't irrational either." And given the goals of the Nazis, murdering populations en masse, wasn't irrational either. But this is stretching the meaning of the word "rationality." It confuses rationality with rationalization. Or to put it another way, it says that instrumental reason as goal oriented behavior is all there is to rational beings.

- jdyer

July 18, 2010 at 9:02pm

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

I think the question of the goal or a movement or organization is also relevant for evaluating rationality. Al Qaeda's goal of turning back modernity and reinstating (or installing) primitive Islamic rule across the world is, for a number of reasons, impossible or so far from reality as to be a type of Edenic restoration myth. A functioning Palestinian nation-state, however, is something that can be realized. The problem arises if the goal of a Palestinian state is a kind of placeholder for a different objective: the extinction of Israel. I don't know enough about Palestinians to know to what extent the real attitudes of people comport with the rhetoric of their political representatives (either Fatah or Hamas).

- ironyroad

July 18, 2010 at 9:59pm

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

ironyroad “I think the question of the goal or a movement or organization is also relevant for evaluating rationality. Al Qaeda's goal of turning back modernity and reinstating (or installing) primitive Islamic rule across the world is, for a number of reasons, impossible or so far from reality as to be a type of Edenic restoration myth.” This may not be their only or even main aim, Irony. If you are going to evaluate the Palestinian goals from their point of view, for the sake of consistency you need to do the same for al Qaeda. Their goal isn’t the impossible goal of attaining some Edenic restoration myth. It is to create a Muslim Ummah imbued with the values of original Muslim Ummah. The aim isn’t necessarily irrational or unattainable if you have decided that to struggle for it is in itself a religious duty. The irrationality comes into play if at all if one thinks (as some Muslim scholars have argued) that the means of attaining the Ummah contradict the ultimate values of the Ummah. To me the whole enterprise is irrational because the Ummah is based on non-rational ideals, not to mention that to sanction wholesale murder of Infidels leaves one without any way of protesting retaliatory attacks and wholesale killing of Muslims.

- jdyer

July 18, 2010 at 10:42pm

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

"The Palestinian Arabs have acted what they perceive to be their own interest which is to dominate the region from the sea to the Jordan river which is one of their slogans." Which is exactly why the are not irrational. The fact that the goal is one that is discreditable is a separate point. If a criminal methodically plots and carries out a crime to gain something that clearly would be in the criminal's interest, that is not irrational behavior, it is criminal behavior. If criminality were per se insane, then no one would be sent to jail as the insanity defense would apply to all. The Arabs were committing crimes against an international legal order, but one that they did not consider legitimate. Just as your own opinion about the legitimacy of government does not allow you to ignore it, not pay taxes, commit what the legal regime declares to be crimes, so too that Arabs cannot. But that does not make them irrational in pursuit of their interests, and they have repeatedly demonstrated that they will bend when it is clear that they have no alternative. Had the international legal regime been otherwise, then the Jews moving to Palestine and establishing their own state there would have been criminal. That does not mean it would have been irrational, or for that matter unjust, for them to seek to do so. _____________________ "Yes, I suppose that the second intifada in the middle of "peace talks" was a sign that they are ready for peace talks." As already stated, "The one huge tactical error on the part of the Palestinians was Arafat refusing to counter-offer and continue negotiating, choosing instead to walk away from the table and start the Second Intifada. That was senseless and has cost the Palestinians enormously. Or, rather than senseless, it was a case of Arafat minimizing what he perceived as risk to himself at the expense of his people, an act of singular cowardice." ______________________ "Given the goals of al Qaeda, 9/11 wasn't irrational either." And given the goals of the Nazis, murdering populations en masse, wasn't irrational either. But this is stretching the meaning of the word "rationality." It confuses rationality with rationalization. Or to put it another way, it says that instrumental reason as goal oriented behavior is all there is to rational beings." No, it doesn't say that at all. Of course, if you define rationality as intending to do whatever you do -- as in, "If your intention is to enjoy free fall for a few seconds even though you will then die for it, it is perfectly rational to jump off a tall building." -- then it is rendered void of meaning. However, given the number of civilizations that have sought conquest and domination of others, it would be very difficult to say that this goal is irrational. It is by modern ethical standards reprehensible, but hardly irrational. And if the goal is pursued rationally, then one would have to say that the reprehensible people pursuing are rational in their behavior. The Palestinian goal, however extremely one wants to state it, of expelling people, the Jews, whom they regard as there illegitimately is not irrational. Their tactics in pursuit of it have not been irrational. And when circumstances have made clear that there is nothing that they can gain by pursuit of a particular course, they have bent, including recognizing Israel which for many years they swore they would never do. The Nazis, in contrast, were irrational because there was in reality nothing much for them to gain, and a great deal risked, to murder Europe's Jews. They pursued this goal that could gain them nothing concrete even to the detriment of their war effort. That is irrational unless, as described above, the intention to do anything at all is tautologically rational. ____________________ "Just today a PA spokesman speaking for Abbas said that he was ready for "direct talks" with Israel, but that country would have to declare that they are ready to withdraw to the 67 borders before such talks could begin. (Quoted on an NPR news report) Is this realistic? Is this a signs that they are serious about negotiations?" "Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told visiting U.S. envoy George Mitchell on Thursday that his government would condition talks over Palestinian statehood on the Palestinians first recognizing Israel as a Jewish state. "Israel expects the Palestinians to first recognize Israel as a Jewish state before talking about two states for two peoples," a senior official in Netanyahu's office quoted the new prime minister as telling Mitchell, U.S. President Barack Obama's special envoy to the Middle East." http://www.haaretz.com/news/netanyahu-demands-palestinians-recognize-jewish-state-1.274207 I see no difference whatsoever between Netanyahu's demand for concession in advance of the talks and the Arab demand for concession in advance of the talks. If this is proof that the Arabs are not serious about negotiations, it is equally proof that Netanyahu is not serious about negotiations. If it is proof that the Arabs are not willing to make peace on rational terms, it is equally proof that Netanyahu is not willing to make peace on rational terms. What is most interesting about this is that each side, in making this demands for prior concessions, is demonstrating that the very two issues that I said were the keys to resolution are in fact the principal interests of the two sides. Netanyahu's "Jewish state" formulation is taken to mean no Palestinian right of return. And the Palestinians are stating that their critical issue is return to the 1967 borders. Each would of course like the other to concede its main goal in advance of negotiations. Wouldn't that be nice if your opponent gives you what you most want before the negotiations even begin? Of course, this is not going to happen. Of course each side is trying to procrastinate by throwing up impossible conditions. But in the course of doing so, they are clarifying what the real stakes are. If someone can get them to the table and keep them there, they will cut just the deal I described. Their rhetoric is practically screaming that this is the case. Netanyahu did not state as his precondition that the Palestinians concede sovereignty over the settlement bloc as this would imply that the right of return is negotiable. The Palestinians did not state Israeli acceptance of the right of return as a precondition as this would imply that that the right of return is not negotiable. The inference is almost ineluctable that the Palestinians will negotiate away the right of return and that Israel will end up on "the 67 borders." However, they may mutually agree to modifications of those positions as a bargain while maintaining their principles. Thus, in exchange for allowing the settlement bloc to remain in Palestine, Israel may accept some Palestinian returnees.

- roidubouloi

July 18, 2010 at 10:48pm

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

Roi du (well you know what he is Roi du) says: “The Palestinian goal, however extremely one wants to state it, of expelling people, the Jews, whom they regard as there illegitimately is not irrational. Their tactics in pursuit of it have not been irrational. And when circumstances have made clear that there is nothing that they can gain by pursuit of a particular course, they have bent, including recognizing Israel which for many years they swore they would never do.” This is a crock. The Palestinians recognize Israel on Tuesday and by Friday they never heard of the Jewish State. They sit down to peace conference on the 10th of the month and by the 17th they decide to launch an intifada. Then it has to start all over again. Their goals are rational, as I said above only in an instrumental sense and Roi di can write himself till he goes numb with carpal tunnel and it won’t make the Palestinians rational in any other sense. This too is a crock: “The Nazis, in contrast, were irrational because there was in reality nothing much for them to gain, and a great deal risked, to murder Europe's Jews. They pursued this goal that could gain them nothing concrete even to the detriment of their war effort.” This shows how little Roi du knows about the Nazis. They believed, and their ilk, still believe (as do Islamists) that Jews are evil. This is why they killed them wholesale. From their point of view they were merely protecting themselves from some malignant force. This wasn’t just propaganda this is what they believed. But Roi du knows better. “That is irrational unless, as described above, the intention to do anything at all is tautologically rational.” This is Roi du’s definition of rationality and it is tautological.

- jdyer

July 18, 2010 at 11:36pm

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

“The Nazis, in contrast, were irrational because there was in reality nothing much for them to gain, and a great deal risked, to murder Europe's Jews. They pursued this goal that could gain them nothing concrete even to the detriment of their war effort.” I should add that from Roi du’s point of view had the Nazis something to gain from murdering Europe’s Jews then their actions would be considered “rational.”

- jdyer

July 19, 2010 at 12:03am

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

just meant to comment that the concept of rational behavior is not the same in every culture. tribal blood feuds? the design of traffic circles in Jakarta? pet rocks? thanks jackson, for the smiles. otoh, he might decide the economic benefit of looting Europe, Jews first, was rational to the end, blissfully ignoring the acceleration of death transports in order to achieve Judenrein Reich. then this thread will turn into WW2.

- K2K

July 19, 2010 at 12:32am

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

jackson is unable to distinguish between rationality and criminality. "Murder" is a moral category. It is incommensurable with rational and irrational. Murderers can be rational or irrational. The murder of the Jews did not advance, and indeed hindered, the Nazi project of European and world domination. It was both criminal and irrational. The Nazis also had irrational beliefs about Jews because their beliefs were both untrue and they had no evidence for those beliefs other than that they believed them. Thinking some people to be evil is not necessarily irrational. We think Islamists are evil, but we have some evidence on which to base that judgment, their actions. There were no actions of the Jews upon which the Nazi beliefs about them could rationally have been based. The Nazis simply invented lies to justify their beliefs. The Islamists are not incorrect that we want a world that is congenial to our own interests politically and culturally, which they think is inimical to theirs. Nor are they incorrect that we support autocratic and oppressive regimes in the Moslem world out of our own self-interest. However, the means that they have chosen to contest with us and advance their interests are criminal and immoral. We also sometimes do things that are criminal and immoral. I see plenty of evidence of Palestinian criminality in the past, in some cases continuing into the present. I don't see a lot of evidence of irrationality. To the contrary. Even their current procrastination about engaging in negotiations is a rational strategy given their relative weakness and the possibility that other powers will come to their aid if the current impasse continues long enough.

- roidubouloi

July 19, 2010 at 12:55am

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

In a similar vein, we regarded the Soviets as being rational, and based our defense policy on that justified belief, despite the fact that they were extremely brutal, committed many crimes, and certainly did not share our morality.

- roidubouloi

July 19, 2010 at 1:08am

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

roidu...: "jackson is unable to distinguish between rationality and criminality." This from someone who just posted that the Palestinian use of terror is not irrational since it's aimed at achieving their goals. The rest of his typed message is just a smoke screen to avoid conceding that his original view was false and incoherent.

- jdyer

July 19, 2010 at 1:11am

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

Terror is brutal and criminal. It is not irrational. It is the tool of the militarily weak. Menachem Begin was a terrorist. If we do not regard him now as a criminal, it is only because we consider his goals to have been just. I find it difficult to find a meaningful difference between the bombing of the Khobar Towers and the bombing of the King David Hotel, apart from the goals being pursued. Indeed, the Palestinian use of terror is criminal but not irrational.

- roidubouloi

July 19, 2010 at 1:19am

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

“The Nazis also had irrational beliefs about Jews because their beliefs were both untrue and they had no evidence for those beliefs other than that they believed them.” This sentence doesn’t make sense. According to Roi people who hold beliefs that the majority do not share are therefore irrational. This is too ridiculous a claim to take seriously. Moreover, the belief that Jews were evil was held at the time by more than just the Nazis. It’s hard to say how many Christians then believed this, but I would guess that before Vatican 2 many did. I could go on. Better admit that your original view of what is rational is off the mark. Time to slumbers.

- jdyer

July 19, 2010 at 1:21am

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

"The Nazis also had irrational beliefs about Jews because their beliefs were both untrue and they had no evidence for those beliefs other than that they believed them." Palestinians have irrational beliefs about Israeli Jews and Jews in general. It is hard for me to see how roi can claim they act rationally when they have internalized those beliefs which are untrue and and which they have no evidence whatsoever that there was even a grain of reality in them. Beliefs such as that the blue stripes on the Israeli flag actually represent the rivers Nile and Euphrates "secretly" expressing the desire of Jews to conquer all of the land between the Nile and Euphrates rivers. Yasser Arafat, Iran and Hamas also made this allegation. Palestinians do not treat these myths as such. They believe them to be true. And if such is the knowledge that informs their decisions, then, according to roi's own standard, in what way are they different from the Nazis? Hasn't their charter made it clear that there can be no legitimacy for a Jewish sovereignty in Palestine? Isn't there a very tight link between such beliefs, their authoritative scriptures (The charter) and their chosen way of fighting Israelis (terrorism which simply refuses to differentiate between rational targets such as army bases and uniformed soldiers and children on their way to school)? To suggest that Palestinians act rationally is to excuse their terrorism, violence, antisemitic propaganda that strips Israelis of their humanity. To suggest that Palestinians act rationally is to pretend that their history has been a rational denouement from being displaced to becoming a fourth generation refugee people who are out of place even when they dwell in countries that share their own culture, speak their own language and worship the same God. Rationality is about solving problems in ways that minimizes suffering and encourages stability. Palestinians seem to be working consistently and relentlessly in the opposite direction. They are the successful product of Arab rejectionism. I say "successful" because for people like roi (and many many others) their behaviour and choices make sense, so much sense that he have been devoting most of his times on these boards to villify Israel's choices and render them as "irrational" vis a vis the "rationality" of Palestinians.

- noga1

July 19, 2010 at 8:49am

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

There is no question that the Palestinians and Arabs harbor hateful and irrational ideas about Israel and the Jews. But I don't really see that those ideas are what have animated their tactics (their motives quite likely, but not their tactics) since the creation of Israel. If you understand their objective, their tactics on the whole make sense. I don't say that to defend what they do, I think their actions have been illegitimate from the start, but because, in the course of telling oneself that they are simply nuts, one fails to see the sense in their behavior and thus fails to understand how to deal with it. Recognizing that criminals may apply themselves rationally toward a criminal end does not relieve a crime of its criminality or inhumanity. The converse is also the case, and applies with special relevance to Israel: that one has justice on one's side does not ipso facto render everything one does rationally related to one's legitimate ends. It is not all of a piece. The Palestinians are not entirely rational, or irrational, in their behavior and neither is Israel. This takes us back to the discussion about "knowing your enemy." I think it is important, indeed critical, to know your enemy, but that begs the question of what it is you have to know about him. I think what you have to know are his goals, his means, and how he intends to use those means to achieve his goals. Kind of like solving any crime, including one that has yet to occur -- motive, means, and opportunity. Whether his goals are motivated by religious belief or by something more prosaic is not necessarily of any more importance than what he eats for breakfast. "Rationality is about solving problems in ways that minimizes suffering and encourages stability." I wish Israel acted rationally in accordance with those words. It doesn't. It is impossible to reconcile the West Bank settlements with this sentiment. But it is not really a good definition of rationality because rationality implies nothing about the legitimacy of goals. To see whether behavior toward solving a problem is rational, you first have to define the problem. What, for example, would be the rational solution for the Palestinians if they believe that the Jewish presence in Israel is indistinguishable from the European invasion of the Americas and that their position is exactly that of the North Americans being invaded? (I disagree with that stylized history. I think that the Arabs are in Israel by virtue of colonial conquest and want to hold on to that conquest against the claim of the inhabitants pushed out, the Jews.) A peaceful one might be to concede the presence of the Jews but demand the recognition of their own legitimate presence including in all the places from which they fled or were driven. That would be a one-state solution, and Israel, understandably, rejects it. The Jewish solution has been to trade a piece of the Jews historical claim to all of Israel in exchange for Jewish autonomy and self-determination, but that is not the only conceivable peaceful solution. Given Jewish refusal, what then is the rational solution to the Palestinian's problem as they conceive it? How would it look different from what they have done, given what they first imagined was their military strength that has proven to be military weakness? If you accept that they are willing to commit crimes in pursuit of their goals, I don't see that their behavior has been irrational, criminal, yes, irrational, no. The claim is sometimes made that the Palestinians and Arabs are irrational because they refuse to accept defeat. But the fact is that they are not defeated, nor can they be. Their immediate ambitions have always been defeated, and they have suffered losses. But they are still there, they still have power in the world, and they can rationally believe that over time their power relative to Israel may grow. In the meantime, Israel has not the means to defeat and subjugate them (the Palestinians yes, but the Arab nation as a whole, no) and so cannot force a peace upon them as the Allies did to the Germans. Again, given the problem as they conceive it, how would their behavior look different than it does if they were trying to solve it rationally? Just accept defeat when they are not defeated? The problem with the Palestinians' behavior is not a lack of rationality, but lack of legality, justice, and morality. There is an international legal order, of which they are a part and were in 1948 and from which they have benefited as it created their states and relieved them of the colonial mastery of the Ottomans. The international legal order decided the contested claims in Palestine at least in part in favor of the Jews. Under the UN Charter, the Arabs had no right to go to war to contest that resolution. Theirs was a war of aggression and continues to be despite the passage of time. The tactics they have undertaken in what is already an illegal war, terrorism against civilians, are prohibited by the laws of war (that international law that you, noga, consistently pooh-pooh). Hence, the problem is that their behavior has been criminal, not that it has been irrational. (Which is not to say that every single thing they have done has been rational. Or course not.) They need not have accepted the creation of Israel as just. That will forever be a matter of opinion and, in truth, there was no means of achieving perfect justice for both Arabs and Jews. The partition was a compromise. But they needed to accept the partition as legitimate because that was the decision of the international order -- the loose, ill-defined, still coming into being, but none-the-less "government" of the world. Just like you cannot commit murder even if you are a Native American who believes your land to have been stolen and that you are fighting to recover it. The Palestinians have no obligation that I can see to surrender their claims and regard themselves as having been justly treated. But they have no right, no just claim, to pursue their political goals with violence. Whatever is rationally done to frustrate them in this is legitimate self-defense, rational, legal, and just. To suggest that the Palestinians act, on the whole, rationally excuses nothing. Rationality, legality, and morality are incommensurable categories. Anything may be one of them without necessarily being the other.

- roidubouloi

July 19, 2010 at 11:07am

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

Since we seem to have to refer everything to the Nazis in order to be sure we are correct, I would point out that the Nazis irrationally believed that the Jews were an obstacle to their goals when that was not true to any meaningful degree whatsoever (unless you simply define the goal as getting rid of the Jews). The belief that it was so was completely irrational as there was no evidence for the belief, let alone convincing evidence. Israel most certainly is in the way of the Arab goal of hegemony over all lands in which Arabs live. That is not an irrational belief. The goal is illegitimate, but it is not imaginary that Israel stands in the way.

- roidubouloi

July 19, 2010 at 11:12am

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

"The language you use affects your credibility, Frank Luntz says. ... focus group research into Israel’s communications practices on behalf of The Israel Project advocacy group... the reason The Israel Project exists is because nobody was focusing on the impact of messaging – not the delivery of it, but the impact of it. To this day there is insufficient appreciation of the impact that words, and how they are delivered, can have on audiences. ... You have to create an environment where people feel free to ask questions, where they feel to challenge, and where they feel free to express their support for this country. ... Why can’t Israel demonstrate, communicate, the human dimension of all that has happened in this region? Not for 50 years, but for 3,000 years? ... If this were a serious approach by serious people, which [Israel’s leaders] are, they would put in as much discipline to their public education as they do to their public defense. They would realize that language can sometimes be even more powerful than the gun or the tank. ... The Palestinians will say the same word, the same sentence, the same phrase, in the same way, again and again and again. And it doesn’t matter who’s saying it. They have one set of talking points and that is what they deliver in every interview, no matter what the question is. The Israelis...Can’t even agree on what the talking points should be. We are handicapped by our democracy. They are not. ... Another point is the difference between Palestinians and Hamas. I never call it the Palestinian government in Gaza, ever. Hamas says everything, communicates everything. In fact, we were working on a group in Britain, and the group was so hostile to Israel that I was really getting offended. I was so angry at how bad it was, I’d given up. An hour and a half, I’m trying every exercise, every dial test, every way to move them... Nothing worked. Who were they? High income, high education, politically connected... There was no message that resonated remotely well with them. And I finally said “to hell with it. We’ll give them the Hamas Charter.” I had taken the exact language from the Hamas Web site, word for word, edited down to one page. And I just said, “We’re gonna give it to them, we’ll do the exercise and I will let them go early.” And I handed it out to them and I went into a back room and I watched people’s body language. They’re shaking their heads. You know Brits, they don’t have a “tell.” The British population is so diplomatic and so careful, they don’t show emotion. (Mimics British child:) “Oh mummy, you won a million pounds.” (Mimics polite, thoroughly unmoved British mother:) “That’s lovely.” There’s no passion. But here, they’re looking up in dismay, they’re looking at each other, they’re looking down, they’re folding [the paper with the charter] and then they start looking at it again. Now there are 30 people in a room that should only seat 25. So they’re already a little bit agitated that they’re all crunched in there. And I wait for each one and I’m watching the physical language and I figured, this is great. I’m gonna move a third of them. [In fact, though], 28 of the 30 said, “How dare Israel negotiate with these people?” Remember, part of the British culture is diplomacy. So if they see a country that is so hostile to their culture of diplomacy, then they, even people who hate Israel, at that point said, “Do not negotiate with Hamas. You cannot negotiate with an organization that believes in this, that would even write this.” It changed everything. ..." from David Horowitz's extensive interview with Frank Luntz published July 16, 2010: http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=181565

- K2K

July 19, 2010 at 11:16am

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

roidubouloi "The problem with the Palestinians' behavior is not a lack of rationality, but lack of legality, justice, and morality." The same can be said about the Nazi State and its policies, and at the end of the day the allies didn't want to negotiate with them. They demanded total surrender. I am not saying that this should be our policy towards the PA but you should realize into the kind of conundrum your arguments have led you. Moreover, seeing the irrational side of the Palestinian’s behavior should stop policy makers and intellectuals (well maybe not intellectuals, since many of them are not 100 percent rational either) from offering justifications and excuses on their behalf. It will mean treating them as adults and not as children.

- jdyer

July 19, 2010 at 11:25am

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

"...Obama even called Mahmoud Abbas on July 9th and thanked him for his "strong support," and his "commitment to peace," after Abbas had told an Arab League Summit in Libya in March: "If you want war, and if all of you will fight Israel, we are in favor," and after Abbas stated directly to the President on his June visit to the White House: "I say in front of you, Mr. President, we have nothing to do with incitement against Israel, and we are not doing that." Not only can ongoing incitement be viewed on www.MEMRI.org and www.pmw.org, but Abbas continues to refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist, supports "armed resistance" against Israel, but he allows his Palestinian Authority (despite signed agreements in the Oslo Accords) to spew anti-Semitic blood-libels; glorify terrorism by honoring murderers as martyrs in Palestinian schools, mosques and public squares; create children's television programs that praise the religious war against Israel; use Palestinian textbooks to teach Palestinian children that Tel Aviv and Haifa are part of Palestine; have maps designed that do not even show an entity called Israel; and actively promote a boycott of Israeli goods on the West Bank. So far as Israelis are concerned, the key test of the Palestinian commitment to peace is not what Abbas and his colleagues say to Americans in English, but what they say to Palestinians in Arabic -- about Israel, about terrorism and about desiring a real peace. ..." quoted from "Israel to Obama: It Is Not Your Name; It Is What You Do" by Mark Silverberg July 19, 2010 at 5:30 am http://www.hudson-ny.org/1419/israel-to-obama-not-your-name [K2K does not agree with all charges against Obama by Silverberg in the rest of his essay. K2K thinks, if Fatah/PA/Abbas insist on 1967 borders as a pre-condition to direct talks, then K2K's pre-condition is they must publish new maps showing and naming Israel with Israel shown in size proportion to the entire Arab League countries from Morocco to Iraq and the Arabian peninsula, new maps that are hung on the walls of every classroom and PA office throughout the West Bank and Gaza, and mail a copy to every household]

- K2K

July 19, 2010 at 11:31am

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

roidubouloi “Since we seem to have to refer everything to the Nazis in order to be sure we are correct, I would point out that the Nazis irrationally believed that the Jews were an obstacle to their goals when that was not true to any meaningful degree whatsoever (unless you simply define the goal as getting rid of the Jews). The belief that it was so was completely irrational as there was no evidence for the belief, let alone convincing evidence.” First, I refer to the Nazis because their behavior was so clearly non rational (in fact they rejected rationality as “Jewish”—but to know that you would have to take ideas more seriously as a cause of organizational and State policies) and because many of their beliefs about Jews are rampant in the Middle East. Both the Nazis and the Islamist quote the “Elders of Zion” as fact. For you to say that Islamists like the former Jerusalem Mufti, al Qaeda, Hamas and the behavior of the Palestinians is rational you would also have to say that the behavior of the Nazis is rational. You seem to be constitutionally incapable of admitting that your argument in favor of Palestinian rationality is bunk. In any case, the 20th century was full of irrational States, from Mussolini to the Bolsheviks who killed not just Jews but whole classes of people as class enemies, or race enemies, or just enemies of the State. According to you their policies and acts must have been rational since they had a clearly defined goal. “Israel most certainly is in the way of the Arab goal of hegemony over all lands in which Arabs live. That is not an irrational belief. The goal is illegitimate, but it is not imaginary that Israel stands in the way.” By the same token Jews were in the way of creating a pure Aryan hegemonic Empire. They were also perceived as biologically dangerous. They were also perceived as ideologically dangerous pacifists which stood in the way of a “pure Aryan” world view which valued war as a way of life. By the same token the upper and middle classes were I the way of creating a purely working class State under Soviet dominations and had t be gotten rid of in the millions. They also had to destroy in the name of socialist realism all religious thought and Western idealism; hence the creation of the gulag purgatory and hell. What Roid confuses is explanation with rationality. Just because you can explain a behavior doesn’t mean that it’s rational in a broader sense.

- jdyer

July 19, 2010 at 11:51am

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

07/19/2010 - 11:21am EDT | roidubouloi I thought to make a comment like that, miceelf, and then figured, why bother? But I am glad you did. The point needs to be made again, and again, and again because the racist son-of-a-bitch Peretz and his ilk will never stop making theirs and decent people need constantly to repudiate them and their racism. Martin Peretz should not be permitted to tarnish the good name of the United States of America. [copied from] http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-spine/76354/international-conference-in-kabul-very-important-ban-ki-moon-and-hillary-clinton

- K2K

July 19, 2010 at 12:15pm

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

The link doesn't work, K2K.

- MOLLYSIMON

July 19, 2010 at 12:24pm

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

Roid, this is what I find so remarkable--and almost admirable--is how Marty doesn't give a shit whether he comes off as being a racist. I mean, you've got to hand it to him. He really doesn't care what other people think. Even if it means "tarnishing" the reputation of TNR. He is, to use a favorite word of Noga's, "incontinent." It's the behavior that people dying of cancer exhibit. Life is shorter than you think, say what you mean. I think that's living life to its fullest.

- MOLLYSIMON

July 19, 2010 at 12:34pm

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

Marty certainly doesn' give a shit about trolls posting here.

- jdyer

July 19, 2010 at 12:50pm

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

Why should he, jackson? He has you as his very own pet troll.

- roidubouloi

July 19, 2010 at 1:37pm

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

No, Peretz doesn't give a shit whether he comes off as being a racist. Nor does he mind being one. He enjoys it. No doubt all racists get a similar thrill from openly expressing their perversion. It provides a kind of psychic release. I think it is important for people who read the Spine (which I believe includes more than a few who don't care to comment lest they drown in this cesspool) that there are some who publicly deplore Peretz's racism lest silence be taken as acceptance.

- roidubouloi

July 19, 2010 at 1:41pm

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

The funny thing is that K2K thinks it somehow embarrasses me, or should, that he re-posts my comment. I think it should embarrass him that he has no words, however moderate in tone, with which to deplore Peretz's bigotry. I am happy to have him re-post mine on every TNR thread from here to eternity. Saves me the effort of repetition. I only wish there were a way to post and re-post K2K's tacit approval of Peretz's anti-Moslem racism.

- roidubouloi

July 19, 2010 at 1:53pm

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

Roidu “Why should he, jackson? He has you as his very own pet troll.” I would rather be his pet than yours. You are an embittered old man who hasn’t learned anything in the last half century. You think al Qaeda is rational but not the Nazis. The one deadly and murderous organization in the world that made meticulous plans to annihilate a people, that used rational industrial method for the purposes of mass method, was irrational. Compared to them Soviets were sloppy and their methods of liquidation chaotic. This was what excited debate about the nature of totalitarianism in the last half century. But how would you know, you don’t read about ideas, you certainly don’t read any books that offer opinion contrary to yours. You just say things you think will make you look “rational and intelligent” and when that doesn’t work the real Rou du comes out; the foul mouthed bully, who can’t even come up with an original insult. You are an angry vain man. Peretz may be a lot of things, but he doesn’t confuse a wish for a more rational, peaceful and orderly world with the reality of the existence of irrationality. In other words he knows what he is talking about, you don’t. He know a hawk from a handsaw, I doubt you do.

- jdyer

July 19, 2010 at 1:59pm

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

Someone should define "rationality" here so we're all on the same page, or are given the opportunity of being so. For my part, I believe that while the creation of a Palestinian state is a rational goal (it's conceptually understandable and possible within the limitations of the world as we know it) the rolling back of western modernity and the re-creation of the medieval muslim empire is not (hence the irrationality of Al Qaeda's goals, whatever about the functionality of their methods, which is a separate question).

- ironyroad

July 19, 2010 at 2:04pm

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

I would rather you were his pet than mine too. I think mass murder is irrational. But, in my mind, political slaughter (a moral outrage, but one with a long pedigree, including in the west) becomes mass murder when the people being killed do not or no longer pose a threat or obstacle to political ambitions and it is done anyway merely as an expression of rage, hatred, and absolute power. There is a difference between rational brutality, as appalling as it is, and senseless murder and sadism. Senseless murder and sadism certainly characterizes the Nazis, and Stalinist Russia, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and genocide in Africa. There have been brutal, criminal Moslem regimes, including those of Iraq and Syria, but as bloody as they have been, the bloodshed has been used mostly for political purposes. So far, the Moslems have not been mass murderers. There appear to have been 100,000 civilian deaths as a result of our war in Iraq. Given the lack of a defensive purpose or UNSC authorization, I think that is a war crime. But it is not "mass murder" as that term is used. We had a definite political purpose, although an illegitimate one. We did not aspire to kill these civilians, although we were indifferent to their fate while in pursuit of our illegitimate purpose. Be that as it may, western wars in the Middle East have killed tens of thousands of Moslems. Not since the Middle Ages have Moslems killed large numbers of people in the west. This is a fact about which we are blithe. But it infuriates the Moslem world, particularly when we talk about terrorism. Oddly, they do not see much difference between civilians killed by bombs from the sky and civilians killed by suicide bombers, the poor man's cruise missile. I don't think you do know a hawk from a handsaw, jackson. Everything that you deplore becomes the same thing. You are unable to draw important distinctions and hence you are oblivious both to risks and opportunities in the world.

- roidubouloi

July 19, 2010 at 2:26pm

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

"the rolling back of western modernity and the re-creation of the medieval muslim empire is not (hence the irrationality of Al Qaeda's goals, whatever about the functionality of their methods, which is a separate question)" Are you sure these are al Qaeda's goals, irony? What if their goals were to expel westerners and western cultural, religious, and political influence, not western technology, from the Moslem world and to create a single theocratic rule for that world forcing all Moslems to behave in extremely "traditional" ways expressing "piety" in their behavior whatever they may be thinking? That is oppressive and illiberal in the extreme. But is it irrational? Is it impossible to achieve? Is it more irrational than the Soviet aspiration to world-wide communist revolution or less likely to be achieved than our aspiration of world-wide liberal democracy?

- roidubouloi

July 19, 2010 at 2:33pm

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

"In philosophy, rationality and reason are the key methods used to analyze the data gained through systematically gathered observations. In economics, sociology, psychology and political science, a decision or situation is often called rational if it is in some sense optimal, and individuals or organizations are often called rational if they tend to act somehow optimally in pursuit of their goals. Thus one speaks, for example, of a rational allocation of resources, or of a rational corporate strategy. In this concept of "rationality", the individual's goals or motives are taken for granted and not made subject to criticism, ethical or otherwise." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality

- roidubouloi

July 19, 2010 at 2:36pm

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

"Marty certainly doesn' (sic.) give a shit about trolls posting here." And that's what makes him so admirable. It's the part of him that doesn't give a shit about what anyone thinks. If he did, he wouldn't be so (and here's where once again I borrow from Noga) "incontinent."

- MOLLYSIMON

July 19, 2010 at 2:52pm

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

"It's the part of him that doesn't give a shit about what anyone thinks." This isn't true. He doesn't care what most posters here think, but he does care what his real audience thinks. The two are not the same.

- jdyer

July 19, 2010 at 3:08pm

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

Roidureien is till going around in circles justifying hmself. All he does with every post is reveal another layer of ignorance.

- jdyer

July 19, 2010 at 3:11pm

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

I have wasted enough time on roidurien.

- jdyer

July 19, 2010 at 3:12pm

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

"This isn't true. He doesn't care what most posters here think, but he does care what his real audience thinks. The two are not the same." Precisely. And that is why it is important to debunk the crap that Peretz spews. For the benefit of the real audience.

- roidubouloi

July 19, 2010 at 3:55pm

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

"while the creation of a Palestinian state is a rational goal (it's conceptually understandable and possible within the limitations of the world as we know it) the rolling back of western mod" If it's rationality you are after, ironyroad, then you should ask yourself what is rational about this kind of envisioned Palestinian state: "Ramzi, a public school teacher from the city of Rafah, said in a widely expressed sentiment. “All the land is ours. We should turn the Jews into refugees and then let the international community take care of them.” http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/ht/display/ContentDetails/i/14573 No doubt roi will proclaim this to be a perfectly rational goal.

- noga1

July 19, 2010 at 4:49pm

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

"For the benefit of the real audience." Who are "the real audience"? "the racist son-of-a-bitch Peretz and his ilk will never stop making theirs and decent people need constantly to repudiate them and their racism. Martin Peretz should not be permitted to tarnish the good name of the United States of America." Sounds like something Senator McCarthy would say. All that is missing from this patriotic zeal is "unAmerican activities". Nice going, roi. Oh, btw, I'm gratified by MollySimon's admission that she uses my favourite word. It seems that what I say seeps through as in osmosis. It starts with a word here and a phrase there, all perfectly harmless and neutral, and pretty soon we shall have her belting out "Hatikvah" at Dizengoff Center on Friday mornings.

- noga1

July 19, 2010 at 4:59pm

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

roid on K2K: "I think it should embarrass him that he has no words, however moderate in tone, with which to deplore Peretz's bigotry. ... I only wish there were a way to post and re-post K2K's tacit approval of Peretz's anti-Moslem racism." 07/03/2010 - 12:29am EDT | K2K ""small-minded, mean-spirited" is an understatement for the grotesque insensitivity and perverse ignorance of Martin Peretz's sick reaction to what is a horrendous tragedy intended to destabilize the Pakistani government. There is no place for bad humor in this, ... Peretz should NOT be intending to teach anyone, especially young Israelis, anything. ..." [one example of K2K's "tacit approval of Peretz's anti-Moslem racism" posted at "Who Murdered The 41 Sufi Muslims in Lahore? A Multiple Choice Question" by Martin Peretz] http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-spine/76026/who-murdered-the-41-sufi-muslims-in-lahore-multiple-choice-question

- K2K

July 19, 2010 at 5:00pm

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

Ah, the lovely Noga. I would more than happily sing the hatikva anywhere in Israel. In fact, I'm next to certain that I have. Years and years ago. Though now or ever not on land stolen by the settlers.

- MOLLYSIMON

July 19, 2010 at 7:19pm

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

roidurien ""This isn't true. He doesn't care what most posters here think, but he does care what his real audience thinks. The two are not the same." Precisely. And that is why it is important to debunk the crap that Peretz spews. For the benefit of the real audience." This character specializes in non sequiturs. Does this non entity think that the real audience bothers with his comments? If so he is mistaken.

- jdyer

July 19, 2010 at 7:25pm

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

roidurien ""This isn't true. He doesn't care what most posters here think, but he does care what his real audience thinks. The two are not the same." Precisely. And that is why it is important to debunk the crap that Peretz spews. For the benefit of the real audience." This character specializes in non sequiturs. Does this non entity think that the real audience bothers with his comments? If so he is mistaken.

- jdyer

July 19, 2010 at 7:25pm

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

Noga, I agree that the statement as quoted from the article is not a rational one. That's why I didn't quote it or anything like it or imply with a single word that "rational" would include a solution that involves the disappearance or annihilation of Israel. How obvious does one have to be in these debates? I'm presuming that when I describe a "Palestinian state" as a rational goal and distinguish it from the fantasies of Al Qaeda, that people around here (where I and they have mostly been participating for years now) grasp without over-exertion that it's a Palestinian state in a equitable two-state solution that I'm referring to. Is a return to the axiomatic required for every comment posted?

- ironyroad

July 19, 2010 at 8:37pm

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

But I was not impeaching your understanding, ironyroad. How many times do I have to tell you that I know you are a decent and knowledgeable person with real affection and commitment for the safety of Israel? I am only trying to point out that what you consider the desirable and eminently rational solution does not mean that when Palestinians speak of a Palestinian statehood they have the same meaning in their minds. People always talk about the two-state solution as if it is such a self-evident solution acceptable to BOTH sides. And it is clearly not so. An ode to ironyroad: O Irony Irony Road Your frowns ill bode And I'm not cast in the mode for acting like a toad So spare me this time, do! It is about nothing much ado

- noga1

July 19, 2010 at 9:01pm

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

"This character specializes in non sequiturs. Does this non entity think that the real audience bothers with his comments? If so he is mistaken." None of whom is know to jackson dyer. No matter. He knows! Then there is nothing to worry about, jackson. It is safe for you to ignore me. No one is interested anyway.

- roidubouloi

July 19, 2010 at 10:08pm

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

Uhh, jackson. You don't seem to know what a non sequitur is.

- roidubouloi

July 19, 2010 at 10:09pm

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

If it is rationality you are after, noga, what is rational about settling the West Bank in a manner that has only three possible outcomes: the settlements becoming part of Palestine, the settlements being liquidated, or apartheid.

- roidubouloi

July 19, 2010 at 10:13pm

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

07/19/2010 - 3:12pm EDT | jdyer I have wasted enough time on roidurien. 07/19/2010 - 7:25pm EDT | jdyer roidurien ""This isn't true. He doesn't care what most posters here think, but he does care what his real audience thinks. The two are not the same." Precisely. And that is why it is important to debunk the crap that Peretz spews. For the benefit of the real audience." This character specializes in non sequiturs. Does this non entity think that the real audience bothers with his comments? If so he is mistaken. _______________ That's very good, jackson. You managed to keep your obsession under control for four hours and thirteen minutes. I'll bet that was hard for you. Reminds me of the scene in Roger Rabbit where Roger is unable to restrain himself from responding to "Shave and a haircut . . . " The steam is coming out of his ears, his eyeballs are bulging, he is bouncing around uncontrollably. Finally, he has to burst through a wall, " . . . two bits."

- roidubouloi

July 19, 2010 at 10:21pm

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

"what is rational about settling the West Bank " Again, for the umpteenth time, it depends on which settlements you are referring to. Those along the Green Line have been meant to thicken Israel's narrow waist so as to reduce the likelihood of returning to what Abba Eban called "The Auschwitz borders". The more in-depth settlements were indeed motivated by an irrational need to resurrect a past, both recent and ancient. They might have been avoided if Israelis had not been barred from access to their holy places during the Jordanian occupation of the WB or have not had the experience of seeing their sacred places treated as garbage dumps. It all goes back to Palestinian maximalist demands as expressed with much honesty in their Covenant, which they have not renounced until now, a failure that stands in the way of their accepting Israel as a sovereign Jewish entity in the Middle East.

- noga1

July 19, 2010 at 11:42pm

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

Noga, I'm aware of that. I'm aware of plausible double-talk, hermtically sealed self-delusion, and the dark gap between rhetoric and reality. But real negotiation involves a recognition of the self-evident by both or all parties. I was making, I remind you, a distinction between Al Qaeda and the Palestinians that I think is worth making, in the context of rationality of objective. But. I'm owed an ode, so I'll take it and your point too.

- ironyroad

July 20, 2010 at 2:12am

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

I hesitate to point out the commonality of Al-Qaeda and Hamas as Islamist movements descended from the same intellectual seed of Sayyid Qutb. It was a much better start to the day to read Asharq Al-Awsat's Khaled Mahmoud 18/07/2010 interview of Libya's Saif al-Islam Gaddaf on the Palestinians "they all want to kill the vineyard guard at the expense of getting the grapes". I posted much more, and the URL to the entire interview, in the Abbas thread. Will wait for the hard copy of TNR in the mail to read more about Qaddafi's son...

- K2K

July 20, 2010 at 9:36am

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

Noga, I offered up something over on the "Palin, Islam, and the English Language" thread on the same lines as my "Shakespeare in Ramallah" thing at the old pub. Not as ambitious, by any measure, of course. More a tapas dish than a full meal. But nobody took it up or responded in any way! Can you believe it! Maybe it wasn't all that funny or all that authentic-looking, but someone who's not a TNR subscriber but reads around the blogs here told me she fell for it. But my imagination has now been set ticking . . .

- ironyroad

July 20, 2010 at 11:12am

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

Thanks for directing my attention to it. I had a sort of stressful morning at the doctor's and your riff made me burst into laughter amid the tears so you can rest assured it is indeed funny. When I was studying French full time we used to play a game called "Dictionary". Someone would pick an unknown word and we would each provide a meaning and then vote on which was the most plausible. My meanings usually garnered most of the votes, no matter how fanciful they were. I learned something very valuable playing that game. That as long as I presented my meaning as a dictionary entry, much as you did, with some reference to etymology, examples etc, people would fall for it. Most of times my fellow-students thought it was the real thing and wondered how I knew all that. All of which did not prevent me from being duped by your Shakespeare in Ramallah blurb. I swore I would never believe you when you quote extensively from some source which is not tethered to some real link. As you tried to do with Seinfeld in Pakistan. "But my imagination has now been set ticking . . ." I'm throwing down the gauntlet, ironyroad. Try to dupe me, if you dare!

- noga1

July 20, 2010 at 11:55am

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

Roidurien: "That's very good, jackson. You managed to keep your obsession under control for four hours and thirteen minutes." This from someone who can't keep his obsessions under control for even five minutes. The same is more of the same obsessive nonsense from the kingofnothingness. Roidurien is a neoknownothing.

- jdyer

July 20, 2010 at 12:04pm

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

"It all goes back to Palestinian maximalist demands as expressed with much honesty in their Covenant, which they have not renounced until now, a failure that stands in the way of their accepting Israel as a sovereign Jewish entity in the Middle East." I fail to see how this explains the policy of settlement beyond the "thickening of the waist." As I just pointed out on another thread, and have said any number of times, I would have preferred if Israel had been in a position to retain all of Jerusalem and the "thickening" of the Green Line. I believe that the overreach of settling throughout the West Bank has made this impossible by keeping the state of the de facto border perpetually unsettled. Had Israel limited its territorial ambitions to this are of and proximate to Jerusalem, it might have gotten away with creating a new de facto border that might have become a de jure border (I say might because it is surely not certain), particularly if those 500,000 Israeli settlers were all what amounted to suburbs east, north, and south of Jerusalem. That would have been a demographic fact extremely hard to change. The zeal and over-ambition of the Likud has instead created a situation where the overwhelming likelihood, in my opinion, is a withdrawal to the Green Line with some condominium in Jerusualem. Whether Jewish settlements will remain in Palestine (I think some will) remains to be seen. The "good news" in a way is that technology has rendered the thickening almost moot. In the absence of tanks and artillery (surely not something that the Palestinians will be able to obtain under any plausible security arrangement), the threat is from rockets. As to these, the thickening at the waist makes very little difference. The only defense is to ensure that they are excluded from the West Bank. If the settlement bloc remains in Palestine, with a Palestinian obligation to ensure their security, I think the Palestinians will do so. Because the settlements are "just over the line," the failure to do so would simply result in Israeli re-occupation and annexation of those areas plus Palestinian exclusion from Jerusalem. The Palestinians would have everything to gain and nothing really to lose by keeping the peace and ensuring the security of Jewish Palestinians.

- roidubouloi

July 20, 2010 at 12:05pm

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

"Shave and a haircut . . ."

- roidubouloi

July 20, 2010 at 12:08pm

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

Noga, the Pakistani Seinfeld story was genuine: http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/entertainment/1997/12/04/1997-12-04_pakistani_show_a_thinly_veil.html

- ironyroad

July 20, 2010 at 12:45pm

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

That was not the story you tried to push on me, ironyroad.

- noga1

July 20, 2010 at 4:29pm

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

Noga: " I had a sort of stressful morning at the doctor's . . . ." I sincerely hope that it's not too serious and that you will be OK soon.

- MOLLYSIMON

July 20, 2010 at 4:43pm

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

Time will tell but thank you, Molly.

- noga1

July 20, 2010 at 5:09pm

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

Huh? That's the only "Pakistani Seinfeld" story I can recall. What do you remember? Also, I echo molly.

- ironyroad

July 20, 2010 at 5:41pm

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

It was a made up story, irony. You admitted as much at the time. Something about a Pakistani TV station planning to produce a Pakistani version of Seinfeld with Elaine in a burka or something like that. Soon after your published your Baluchi Cheers and I thought at the time the Pakistani Seinfeld must have stimulated your creative juices.

- noga1

July 20, 2010 at 5:49pm

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

OK. I was -- my guess is now -- exaggerating the story I'd once heard on NPR about the Pakistani TV version that had aired for a few months several years earlier. I may have embroidered it a bit, or perhaps the NPR story had not made it clear that the whole thing was in the past. So I may have made up the burqa bit. In fact, I may perhaps not have admitted that I got the story from elsewhere. But I'm a person of impeccable honesty and integrity -- so how could that happen? I'm a bit confused now, a few years later, as it sounds like the one actual fact is taking on two different manifestations, but the bottom line is that any Pakistani Seinfeld notion, in toto, came from that story on the radio. And I think I probably got the Baluchi "Cheers" idea from musing on the Pakistani "Seinfeld." Oh what a tangled web we weave . . . It's funny how old Victorian moral epigrams come back to one.

- ironyroad

July 20, 2010 at 6:53pm

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close