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 Obama Made The Construction Moratorium The Issue That It Is....

THE SPINE OCTOBER 1, 2010

Obama Made The Construction Moratorium The Issue That It Is. Now the Palestinians Are Stuck With It. And So Is He.

BY MARTIN PERETZ

Every so often I sit down with a Palestinian contact of mine, and he unburdens himself.

About the “blind to opportunity” Palestinian leadership, about the “incorrigible” Israelis and about the “knows from nothing” president of the United States.

The “blind to opportunity” phenomenon is an old story. The most egregious instance of it was the Palestinian rejection of Ehud Barak’s initiative, coached and coaxed by Bill Clinton, at Camp David in 2000. But the letter from George Bush initiative of 2004 outlining the “road map” to a settlement was a further instance of the Palestinians’ throwing away opportunities that might occur again.

The experience with “incorrigible” Israelis is also a familiar. The very latest example was when the country’s foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, addressed the General Assembly with ideas completely out-of-synch with the prime minister’s views and with the positions of his coalition. All that Netanyahu could do was slap Lieberman’s stubby fingers. My view? The f.m. is a liar and a thug. Alas.

But, in a way, the person who has most defined the recent history of the conflict is President Obama whose ignorance of the real issues is matched only by his arrogance about the wisdom of his views. I gather that this arrogance extends to other matters. But there is no issue—certainly in foreign policy—about which his passion is stronger, whether his passion was shaped by Rashid Khalidi, Columbia University’s Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies, or not. Alas, passion mixed with only a glimmer of learning is toxic when it is expressed with power and control.

The president’s haughtiness on this congeries of issues seems to know no limits. A New York Times article, “Obama Tries to Calm Tensions In Call for Religious Tolerance,” by Helene Cooper on September 11 indicates that “relations between the United States and the Muslim world (are) perhaps at their most frayed since the invasion of Iraq seven and a half years ago.” Isn’t it ironic, then, that—if the assertion is correct—its essence should have come about nearly half-way into Obama’s term and after he had so indulged Islamic sensibilities in both the religious and political spheres. Still, Ms. Cooper paraphrases the president as criticizing the “continued vilification of Islam in the United States.” Does he really believe that he is without sway on these matters? If he does wouldn’t it be better if he could just keep quiet?

But, of course, he doesn’t think he is without sway. So the president has spoken of his Christian faith on several occasions—in fact, only the day-before-yesterday, answering a woman’s question in an Albuquerque backyard. If he were a Republican liberals would have gotten the willies: what’s all this Christian stuff? Yet a dopey 20% of this slightly dopey nation believes that the president is a Muslim. Oy, vey!

Why? Because he feigned knowledge of Islam that he probably didn’t have.

And he took a clear Palestinian view of their conflict with the Jewish state, Israel.

Indeed, it was only in what I guess was desperation that he for the first time admitted (in his speech at the United Nations) that the land the Romans called Palestine was actually “the historic homeland of the Jewish people.” This admission was very, very late in coming, and it certainly was not something that Khalidi taught his innocent pupil. Perhaps it was a sop to the Israelis to get them to continue the ten-month construction moratorium on the West Bank. This moratorium, which was established at Obama’s insistence, had been in effect for more than nine months without the Palestinians negotiating at all. The Israelis hadn’t even gotten one session when they sat down across a table with the Palestinians. (Not sitting down with the Jews is an old Arab habit, going back to the Paris peace conference which opened on January 19, 1919 and continuing on and on until only recent times. But then you had two presidents who understood the issues: Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.)

The currency for verbal intercourse was now that the Israelis stop construction in the territories. But whose idea was this? The fact is that Obama made it the center of his peace strategy from the beginning. This put Israel in a bind. But, worst of all, it put the Palestinians in a much greater bind. They had no room to maneuver. If the president of the United States insists that new building not be done even in settlements that every one knows will remain with Israel how can the Palestinians palaver in any other circumstance? The Palestinians are trapped in Obama’s truculence. The president also urged the Palestinian Authority to consult with the Arab League about its conundrum. This is the most concrete evidence that Obama knows squat about the region. The Arab League always takes a hard-line. And that is what it will do this week. In fact, as Ha’aretz and the Jerusalem Post report, the League is planning to bring the matter before the Security Council.

George Mitchell has already landed on the troubled turf. And then the desperate Baroness Ashton of Upholland arrived, also expecting to see Netanyahu and Abbas. Before flying she had wasted the time of Hillary Clinton with whom she held a bullshit press conference. Of course, she also demands an extension of the moratorium. I’d like one, too. But I don’t believe it will do anything but prove once more the false peace bona fides of the Palestinians.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 95 comments

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

95 comments

Wait, wait. You are saying that 1. you'd like to see an extension of the moratorium, too, and 2. that problem with extending the moratorium is that it will just expose the 'false peace bona fides' of the Palestinians, but 3. you call Obama an idiot in this standoff and not Netanyahu? Perhaps you wrote your post before it was publicized that the U.S. wrote Israel a letter promising unprecedented arms sales and guarantees for Israel's future security in exchange for a two month freeze, including promises to have US troops in the Jordan valley, new generation of aircraft that the US hadn't offered before, guarantees for UN protection, and other things that would have lasted well beyond a 2 month settlement freeze, but that Netanyahu said no. The problem, Mr. Peretz, with people like you is that you enable people like Netanyahu. My perspective is that Netanyahu has allowed his dislike of Obama and his desire to get even for being humiliated at the White House last year get in the way of protecting Israel. If Iran is Israel's biggest issue, it is unwise to alienate Israel's biggest allie. The idiot is Netanyahu, here, as he got amazing concessions out of the US and then spit on them. Yes, he gets the 'benefit' of making Obama look stupid, but personally I'd prefer billions of dollars of concessions over winning a spite match with the US president. Plus Netanyahu is alienating even the American Jewish community now, of which I am a member; I haven't felt so disappointed with Israel in my lifetime.

- sokol8

October 1, 2010 at 10:18am

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

sokol8 "Perhaps you wrote your post before it was publicized that the U.S. wrote Israel a letter promising unprecedented arms sales and guarantees for Israel's future security in exchange for a two month freeze, including promises to have US troops in the Jordan valley, new generation of aircraft that the US hadn't offered before, guarantees for UN protection, and other things that would have lasted well beyond a 2 month settlement freeze, but that Netanyahu said no. " Israel has denied that it has received such a letter.

- jdyer

October 1, 2010 at 10:50am

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

"PM supports continued talks: 'We have a mission for peace' " By JPOST.COM STAFF "Netanyahu tells Mitchell that Israel wants to continue direct talks after Palestinians threaten to walk away from the table; Egyptian FM says settlement freeze not an important issue. " "Also on Friday, Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmad Aboul Gheit criticized the Palestinian Authority for its "insistence" on a moratorium on building in the settlements." ------------------------ "The meetings with Mitchell come following reports on Thursday that US President Barack Obama had sent Israel a draft letter in which he offered security guarantees – including a continued Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley after the creation of a Palestinian state – if Israel in exchange re-instituted the moratorium on new settlement construction for 60 days. A White House and a State Department official denied the existence of such a letter." http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=189854

- jdyer

October 1, 2010 at 10:54am

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

jdyer: Yes, the US did send a letter. Link is here. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/netanyahu-rejects-u-s-guarantees-in-exchange-for-renewing-freeze-1.316517 The US denials were that Obama wrote a letter, whereas in reality the draft letter was written by US officials, if not Obama himself. What's the difference? Well, it looks worse to have headlines saying Netanyahu rejectis Obama's letter, than Netanyahu rejects US draft letter--but it's really all the same, at the end of the day. Obama knew about and supported the concessions. Okay, now that we've established that. Any other points?

- sokol8

October 1, 2010 at 11:16am

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

Breaking news: "A White House and a State Department official denied the existence of such a letter." [The context wherein Egypt indirectly tells Obama to drop the obsession with settlements:] "...We have a mission for peace," Netanyahu added. The Palestinians have threatened to walk away from peace talks if Israel does not renew the 10-month construction freeze that ended on Sunday. Mitchell also plans to meet with Abbas, in an attempt to salvage the talks. Also on Friday, Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmad Aboul Gheit criticized the Palestinian Authority for its "insistence" on a moratorium on building in the settlements. In an interview with London-based newspaper Al-Hayat, Aboul Gheit said waiting for a renewed freeze will only complicate peace talks, and that the most important issue is borders. Aboul Gheit also hinted that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas does not think a settlement freeze is essential. The meetings with Mitchell come following reports on Thursday that US President Barack Obama had sent Israel a draft letter in which he offered security guarantees – including a continued Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley after the creation of a Palestinian state – if Israel in exchange re-instituted the moratorium on new settlement construction for 60 days. A White House and a State Department official denied the existence of such a letter." "PM supports continued talks: 'We have a mission for peace' By JPOST.COM STAFF 10/01/2010 12:41 http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=189854

- K2K

October 1, 2010 at 12:33pm

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

my apologies jackson, did not realize you had posted the same JPost article. otoh, this one merits redundancy! I would add that 1) Obama should know to keep some diplomacy private, and 2) considering what is happening in Pakistan, perhaps Obama should listen to Egypt on how to NOT make Israel or settlements such an obsession!

- K2K

October 1, 2010 at 12:37pm

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

|sokol8 "jdyer: Yes, the US did send a letter. Link is here. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/netanyahu-rejects-u-s-guarante." Sokol, Haaretz' story talks about “unnamed sources” Why take the word of unnamed sources? It's doubtful that such a letter exists, but we should find out about it soon enough. Still, I don’t often agree with Haaretz’ views. Having said that Netanyahu is not someone with whom I often agree. Still, I doubt that even he would have used the lame excuse of “his credibility” as a reason for rejecting the letter’s content, if it even exists.

- jdyer

October 1, 2010 at 12:52pm

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

"Yet a dopey 20% of this slightly dopey nation believes that the president is a Muslim. Oy, vey! Why? Because he feigned knowledge of Islam that he probably didn’t have." Shorter Peretz: blame the victim. Par for the course for you, sir.

- TJ814

October 1, 2010 at 12:53pm

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

"Shorter Peretz: blame the victim." Barack Obama is a victim?

- noga1

October 1, 2010 at 12:55pm

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

Whatever, people are posting the same JPost article. The US clearly made offers to Israel. Here's a NYTimes article on the subject: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/01/world/middleeast/01mideast.html?ref=world money quote: " .. on Wednesday, the White House’s senior Middle East advisers, Dennis B. Ross and Daniel B. Shapiro, briefed Democratic representatives on Capitol Hill about what Mr. Ross described as a “string of assurances in return for a two-month moratorium,” according to people who were in the meeting. "These would include additional military equipment — missile systems, aircraft, and satellites — a pledge to help Israel enforce a ban on the smuggling of weapons through a Palestinian state, and a promise to help forge a regional security agreement that would defend Israel against the threat posed by Iran. "Mr. Netanyahu has brushed aside these offers, officials said. For him, said an Israeli official, the political necessity of standing firm on settlements outweighs any security incentives offered by the United States. " Okay, folks, there you have it. Standing firm on settlements outweighs "any security incentives" by the US. That's not really true, of course, as they already gave a 10 month freeze already; rather, Netanyahu is spitting in Obama's eye. And at quite a cost to Israel, too.

- sokol8

October 1, 2010 at 1:00pm

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

"The currency for verbal intercourse was now that the Israelis stop construction in the territories. But whose idea was this? The fact is that Obama made it the center of his peace strategy from the beginning." Fine, you can disagree with it, but would it really have been too much to ask that people wait for a few months before they build an addition to their house. "This put Israel in a bind." How so? A temporary freeze really would have been so terrible? "But, worst of all, it put the Palestinians in a much greater bind. They had no room to maneuver." Absolute horseshit. How would continuing the construction freed up the Palestinians to deal? And worse, they have zero intention of dealing ever. They don't want just the West Bank, they want all of Israel. You are insane if you think the Palestinians are trapped by anything Obama says (would that he had that power), they are trapped by their own delusions that if they wait long enough they will recapture all of Israel and drive the Jews into the sea. So just stop blaming Obama for horseshit he has no control over. Blame him for naivete for calling for a temporary freeze, which is now over, as a way to spur talks. He gave it a shot, he failed, now we should call it a day. And if I were Obama I would be tempted to flip you all the bird. He is in an impossible no win situation. The Palestinians are too far gone and if he were to back the Israelis in building the settlements, the whole Arab world (and a nice chunk of the rest of it) would turn against him. Best solution is to say "not our problem, you deal with it." Only then can Israel decide if it wants to annex the West Bank or if it wants to build a huge wall leaving the Palestinians on the other side of it. At this point, I don't care. But it is up to Israel to make up its mind what it wants to do and leave the US out of it.

- blackton

October 1, 2010 at 1:35pm

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

And, of course, Marty himself offers no solutions whatsoever. Nada. Just blame Obama for not doing what no other President has come close to doing. For Christ's sake, Clinton and Barak offered the Palestinians the Sun and the Moon and the Palestinians said, no, we want Israel (the right of return, or should I call it the right to invade Israel with millions of Arabs who will suddenly claim long lost ancestry in Israel) As I said, make up your mind, either annex it, or draw a border and build a wall, but to pretend a slow, piecemeal annexation (no new settlements, but construction within a settlement and when it gets too big, well we can just take a little piece of land here or there) will fool anyone is silly. I truly have no idea what Netanyahu's intentions are. If he hopes to have a piecemeal annexation of the West Bank so that a separation becomes impossible, then he is doing a good job. And I said, I don't even care if this is so, but stop blaming Obama because of it.

- blackton

October 1, 2010 at 1:46pm

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

And do you even read your own magazine, this is Chait: Now, it's true that Israel has a significant minority of settlers who are committed to endless occupation, and this bloc wields a veto over the current Israeli government. But that bloc is empowered by a center that believes (wrongly, in my view) that occupation is essential to its own security. The Israeli experience of the last decade has seen withdrawals from occupied territory quickly followed by terrorist attacks launched from that same territory. Israelis may be misguided in thinking they're helping their own security by remaining in the West Bank, but it's no mystery why they think this. And if it became clear that the Palestinians' primary goal was to create a homeland living peacefully next to a Jewish state, the Israeli political spectrum would shift back toward a more dovish government. Since there is no chance that there will ever be Palestinians that want a homeland living peacefully next to a Jewish state, this makes the peace process impossible.

- blackton

October 1, 2010 at 1:53pm

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

I think President Obama made a mistake too, it's obviously painted everybody into a corner. That said, I wish the moratorium had been extended or at the very least, there was clarification about which projects are going forward, where they are and if they will be within existing blocs that are de facto considered Israeli at this point. The sad thing is, though, that even if PLO and the Israelis manage to come to an accord, neither outside agitators in Europe and elsewhere, including Iran, will shut up and Hamas have vowed to fight to the bitter end.

- Sophia

October 1, 2010 at 1:54pm

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

The Arabs had 10 months to sit down with the Iraelis while the settlement freeze was in place and didn't. They insisted on silly proximity talks which everyone knew would go nowhere. I'm not saying the Israelis should start building again (two months is not exactly a long time), but to blame this on Israel is not a serious argument.

- SJ_LEX_LEO@YAHOO.COM

October 1, 2010 at 1:55pm

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

Blackton, I am not sure that the Israelis are wrong about their own security. Consider the geography involved, not to mention key resources such as water; plus the history of "land for peace." In the case of the Sinai, a cold peace has evolved, but hatred of Israel and antisemitism are rife in Egypt. A significant change in the Egyptian government, including one that empowers more Egyptians and makes the state more democratic, could result in a shredding of the peace agreement with Israel. One hopes not, but it's possible. In the case of Lebanon and Gaza, withdrawals resulted in war and increased vulnerability. Admittedly, these were unilateral withdrawals. That's why, in the absence of ironclad agreements with the Palestinians backed by international peace-keeping with teeth, simply "ending the occupation" is probably not a good idea vis a vis the West Bank. Meantime, good faith negotiations must continue - regarding borders, resource sharing and mutual security concerns. This doesn't mean the Israeli public is stupid or wrongheaded or bad for being worried about their security.

- Sophia

October 1, 2010 at 1:59pm

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

Sophia, that is Chait, not me. I was just wondering if Marty reads his own magazine since Chait wrote something so different on his own blog. I don't think building a wall will compromise Israeli security since Israeli tanks could storm in any time they felt threatened. For the record I don't see Netanyahu going this route at all. The constructions will continue and the settlements will continue (which I don't even care about) but just don't blame Obama or the Democrats if it does. "Meantime, good faith negotiations must continue - regarding borders, resource sharing and mutual security concerns." I agree with that, there is a practical side of the occupation. Personally I am coming to the conclusion that a permanent occupation of the West Bank is best for all involved, just leave Gaza to rot in its own cage as a cautionary tale, whatever Palestinians are unhappy can move to the Gazan mini state.

- blackton

October 1, 2010 at 2:10pm

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

Sorry Blackton!

- Sophia

October 1, 2010 at 3:44pm

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

More denials that a letter was sent to Netanyahu by the Obama administration: http://www.forward.com/articles/131776/ "White House: Obama Did Not Send Letter To Bibi" By Barak Ravid (Haaretz), Jack Khoury and Natasha Mozgovaya "The White House denied on Thursday that U.S. President Barack Obama sent a letter to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu proposing a set of U.S. guarantees to Israel in exchange for Israel extending a freeze on settlement construction in the West Bank for another two months. “No letter was sent to the Prime Minister. We are not going to comment on sensitive diplomatic matters,” said Benjamin Chang, the deputy spokesman for the White House National Security Council. It is not clear, however, whether Obama could have made the offer via means other than a letter." Read more: http://www.forward.com/articles/131776/#ixzz118gS7sQN

- jdyer

October 1, 2010 at 3:59pm

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

Israel expands, that's what they do. It matters little who the US President is, who the Israeli leader is (Rabin was probably an exception), and what state of political nature the Palestinians find themselves in; Israel expands. Israel would obviously prefer that, while expanding, Palestinians wouldn't blow themselves up in Sbarro pizzerias or rain rockets onto southern cities, that would be nice for Israel. But they don't care enough about such things to actually stop what they're doing, expanding. The Palestinian leadership would be nuts to negotiate while Israel is still expanding. It demonstrates that Israel isn't even vaguely serious about stopping the one thing they've been doing basically relentlessly since 1977, expanding. (Pulling out of Gaza was a big exception). Sorry everyone, the Palestinian position is perfectly sensible: "Stop expanding, and we'll start talking." I can make this case so easily, so simply. Usually, the other case is just long, dull, incredibly turgid prose, the most convincing of which pretty much comes down to 'Israeli culture is superior.' You can't claim 'expansion=security,' in fact, it's pretty obviously the opposite. The wall=security, so I can understand that, but now that the wall is effective, what's up with the continued expansion? Can anyone make a non-manifest destiny case for Israel's expansion to me clearly, simply, and succinctly?

- mmathog

October 1, 2010 at 7:04pm

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

Actually, malahat, I like the rubber/road nature of these current negotiations. I find it super clear and frankly refreshing. I don't know if Obama and Co. did that on purpose or blundered into it, and I don't care.

- mmathog

October 1, 2010 at 8:13pm

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

Not that the NYT ever has balanced news when it comes to Israel, but, even if Ross and "...Shapiro, briefed Democratic representatives on Capitol Hill about what Mr. Ross described as a “string of assurances..." that had more to do with the midterms where a number of Jewish members of Congress are facing constituents who ask why they blindly support Obama's blunders, as malahat wrote "...Obama's blundering turned what should be a secondary issue into a bright red line for both..." One clue of the heat was Howard Berman, chair of House Foreign Relations, suddenly coming out that Obama should be clear that military action against Iran is a serious option. And, why should ANY country believe anything Obama promises, even in writing. He can always change his mind on November 3. or November 4.

- K2K

October 1, 2010 at 8:24pm

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

I'm getting confused at this point. If the Palestinians assure us that the crucial thing for them is a settlement freeze, and we in turn pass on that message to the Israelis, who respond with a moratorium, then it's difficult to accuse the U.S. of all parties of putting the situation in a bind. What is more positive to Marty's case is that, having made the case for a freeze, the PA didn't use it immediately. That is something that -- on the face of it -- one might suggest looks like running out the clock on yet another opportunity. I don't believe that will be to the ultimate benefit to the Palestinians. Nevertheless, that is not an American problem in the immediate sense, nor indeed Obama's. One gets the impression that a number of people in the Middle East (and here) are operating on the theory that Obama is a pushover. The domestic arena at least is littered with the corpses of people who thought they had this guy in their gunsights. I am certain he and others in the administration realize what is under way.

- ironyroad

October 1, 2010 at 11:05pm

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

If someone has mentioned this, so sorry. But if there was a letter, from what I have read, it provided that the U.S. would not ask Israel for a further freeze past the further proposed 60 days.

- basman

October 1, 2010 at 11:32pm

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

"If the Palestinians assure us that the crucial thing for them is a settlement freeze, and we in turn pass on that message to the Israelis, who respond with a moratorium, " That's an extremely generous retelling of the incident of the 1600 units in Ramot Shlomo , a JEWISH neighborhood in Jerusalem that had been turned by Obama's into a "settlement", deserving the public humiliation of Israel's PM on top of the loudly-proclaimed accusation that Jewish families living in that neighborhood are the cause why American soldiers get killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. That was Obama's lowest point, as far as Israel's supporters are concerned and hopefully he has gained some deeper knowledge and understanding of the Palestinians to never repeat that mistake. Palestinians are in no position to "assure " anybody of anything.

- noga1

October 1, 2010 at 11:34pm

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

well stated noga. However, I thought Obama made the settlements a key issue, in response to the J Street part of his base (which now seems to be George Soros), NOT at the request of the Palestinians, who use the settlements to convince western leftists that Israel is an imperialistic concrete-monger. even though it is mostly Palestinian workers who pour the concrete. I think Obama's "lowest point, as far as Israel's supporters are concerned" is yet to come. my guess it will be around the time Hezbollah launches 40,000 missiles into Israel. I admit to being in a very bad mood over the NYT coverage of the New York elections. Countdown to the day when they notice that Chuck Schumer is on the ballot. Today they are too busy urging pre-ordained Governor Cuomo to focus on same-sex marriage. Is there something in America's water system that has induced insanity?

- K2K

October 2, 2010 at 3:21am

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

mmathog, given your smug sneering tone, I'm not sure that facts will have all that much impact on your opinions. But I like the challenge of making a clear, simple and succinct case that Israel's "expansionism" is no more than a smokescreen issue used by the Palestinians to rally the simple-minded to their side. 1. Israel has withdrawn from Gaza, from Lebanon, and from the Sinai (a territory many times larger than the State of Israel). This doesn't square with "Israel expands, that's what they do" -- not unless you are determined to believe this regardless of any facts to the contrary. In countless wars, particularly when the aggressor has been defeated, lands that have been captured have been retained in whole or part. Are you angry with the French that they took Alsace-Lorraine from the Germans after WWII? Why not? 2. The PLO's campaign to liberate occupied territories, namely Israel proper, began before Israel occupied Gaza or Judea and Samaria. The "occupied territories" issue was retrofitted to their agenda once it was realized that it played particularly well with the morally righteous, anti-imperialist crowd. They have yet to produce a map that includes ANY of present Israel in their fantasies of a future Palestine. 3. The moratorium on all building of any sort in all the "disputed territories" had been in effect for 10 months. If this is the core issue, why didn't Abbas take this as a sign of good faith and sit down to talk. Is it possible that he waited until the clock had almost run out because he just couldn't pass up such an easy opportunity to make Israel look bad? 4. Lastly, remind me why it is that Jews can not build houses in any area that might become part of a future Palestinian state. Arabs live and build in Israel proper. Why can't Jews live and build in Arabs lands? Can you provide a simple, clear and succinct explanation that might help me understand this mysterious lack of reciprocity?

- willjames77

October 2, 2010 at 5:43pm

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

1. Well I said 'since 1977,' so I think that precludes the Sinai. As for Lebanon, jeebus, it's LEBANON. It's another country. Should that count as 'withdrawal'? They did indeed withdraw from Gaza, which I noted as a real exception to my 'Israel expands, that's what they do' framework. I think Alsace-Lorraine has been disputed for quite some time, I don't know, but I think the burden is on you to make that an apples to apples comparison. 2. Undoubtedly historically, 'the PLO' has wanted to drive the entire state of Israel out. However, since no one with any power whatsoever or whom anyone is listening to is putting Haifa or Tel Aviv on the agenda, who cares? I don't see any of these folks at the negotiating table. As for your scare quotes around occupied territories, I entirely reject the premise that it was cynically retrofitted. Palestinians have complained non-stop about expanding settlements for 25-30 years. 3. Abbas DID take the moratorium as a sign of good faith, he started talking. I see no point in Palestinian leadership continuing to talk when Israel keeps expanding. In fact, it's a good sign that he talks when expansion stops, and stops talking when it starts. To me it shows he's serious when he's talking. He could talk in either case but one would suspect he wouldn't ever be interested in a deal. Also willjames, your consistent scare quotes around your phrasing wrt the territories gives your game away. 4. Israel has immigration policies, like every other country. I imagine Arabs that are Israeli citizens have citizen rights. I imagine Arabs who conform to legal immigration policies also get rights. I do not know what a future immigration policy of a future Palestinian state would look like. It would probably be a lot less liberal than Israel's is. That remark reminds me of what someone said about the mosque in lower manhattan: "why can't I build a church in jeddah??" My reply to you is the same as my reply then: I'm proud that America (and Israel) has a more open and tolerant society than the Arab Middle East, I'd like to keep it that way.

- mmathog

October 2, 2010 at 7:29pm

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

Noga, you may think I was being "generous," but I have to say that I think the notion that the U.S. thought up the settlements freeze entirely on our own just to make life difficult for Israel is extremely generous to us -- although in a very peculiar way that would suggest we want more tension for the sake of it. I don't think most Americans have a particular interest in a freeze or not. But it's pretty undeniable that the symbolic value -- from + to - depending on who you are -- of the settlements (and I accept that some are unjustly framed by that term) makes them a difficult topic to avoid in any serious negotiation. Politics can stand or fall on symbols, sometimes.

- ironyroad

October 2, 2010 at 7:31pm

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

"t I think the notion that the U.S. thought up the settlements freeze entirely on our own just to make life difficult for Israel is extremely generous to us " The Obama administration pounced on that 1600 units like a dog on red meat. Apparently Jerusalem zoning committees cannot meet and decide these things without taking into consideration that Obama is ambushing Israel with the intent of blowing such incidents out of all proportion for some God knows what purpose. It was an extremely foolish thing to do, for someone who purports to want to promote compromises, not block them. You don't even want to understand how Israelis reacted to that move. If there had been any doubt about Obama's dislike for Israel that clinched it. Israelis might understand if such reaction took place regarding some settlement situated deep within Samaria. But in a Jewish neigbourhood in Jerusalem? Here is what Aaron David Miller, by no means an Israel stooge, says: "The idea that the United States can pummel a close ally into accepting a deal that undermines its security or political interests is flat-out wrong. The Middle East is littered with the failed schemes of great powers that tried to impose their will on small tribes. Pressuring Israel (and the Arabs, too) has been an inevitable part of every successful negotiation in which the United States has been involved. But that fight must occur within a relationship of trust and confidence, and with U.S. willingness to offer not just the prospect of pain but the prospect for gain. " http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/01/AR2010100103144.html I think by now most reasonable people realize Obama made a big booboo with that overblown reaction. How is he going to ask Palestinians to compromise over blocks of settlements when he himself was poking about the legitimacy of Jewish neigborhoods in Jerusalem?

- noga1

October 2, 2010 at 8:27pm

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

[PM Netanyahu said:] “The way to reach a historic peace agreement between our two peoples is to sit around the negotiating table continuously and with seriousness, and not to leave it, because that is the place to solve our differences,” the prime minister said. “The Palestinians conducted direct talks with Israeli governments for the last 17 years amid building in Judea and Samaria, including during the last year of the preceding government. ..." ... An Arab League forum is expected to meet in Libya next Friday to discuss whether the PA [represented by Mahmoud Abbas, whose term as President of the PA expired in January, 2009 so he now has to ask the Arab League for permission to talk with Israel?] should continue direct talks even though the moratorium was not extended. In Damascus [Syria] on Friday, Hamas chief Khaled Mashaal said Israel’s insistence on being recognized as a Jewish state was a conspiracy against Palestinian refugees. Mashaal was speaking at a mass wedding organized by Hamas for more than 700 couples. Family is the central element of Palestinian society and the “occupation [Israel] fears the coming generation. They fear our people in the Gaza Strip and in the West Bank as well as Palestinian territories occupied in 1948. “They are preparing their plans after they failed to break these people who do not surrender and who pass on the mantle from one generation to another,” Mashaal said. The belief in diplomacy as the only way the Palestinians will achieve a state of their own is “one of the biggest mistakes,” he said. He claimed that the Palestinian leadership was “drowning in politics.” Politics must be put aside, he said, since “resistance and jihad come from society,” he said. ..." [which explains the inisistence on jihad from Hamas, which so many on the left in Western countries believe represents the Palestinians because Hamas won one election, but has not intention of ever holding a second election] http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=189956 as reported one hour ago. willjames: it is clear that mmathog "I do not know what a future immigration policy of a future Palestinian state would look like." is not able to process that you are asking why Jews currently living in the settlements in Judea and Samaria will not be allowed to STAY and live in a future Palestinian State. mmathog thinks forced removal of 50-100,000 Jews is the only solution. mmathog can not process the idea that Jews are human beings. mmathog thinks "it's a good sign that he talks when expansion stops, and stops talking when it starts." by conveniently ignoring Abbas refused to talk for the first nine months of the building moratorium, and was dragged to direct talks in the tenth month, protesting every step of the way. The settlements as a "barrier to direct talks" is Obama's great mistake that he keeps on making, which is solely to pander to the remnants of his base in the anti-war left. Personally, I think America's anti-war left so obsessed with Israel as "expansionist imperialist" should all be forcibly removed from American soil, stripped of their passports due to collective treason, and airlifted into Gaza where they can enjoy the totalitarian hospitality of Hamas. Start with Greta Berlin's Free Gaza, and all her Code Pink ladies who lunch on the blood and bodies of dead Jewish settlers murdered by Hamas. willjames: not available online, but Evan Osmos essay on the Dalai Lama and the fate of Tibet in the October 4 issue of The New Yorker explores the consequences of China's military conquest of Tibet in the 1950's and how they now can intimidate any country from even acknowledging the Dalai Lama as Tibet's government-in-exile. Too bad Israel does not offer the natural gas offshore the Gaza coast to China. China knows how to stamp out "resistance and jihad" whilst encouraging the settlement of however many Han Chinese it takes to eliminate the indigenous population.

- K2K

October 2, 2010 at 8:38pm

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

Netanyahu pursues two-month extension http://www.smh.com.au/world/netanyahu-pursues-twomonth-extension-20101003-162qn.html

- basman

October 3, 2010 at 11:12am

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

I'm willing to believe that it's members of Netanyahu's coalition, rather than Netanyahu himself, that are the biggest barriers to extending the moratorium, then again, maybe not. Since the moratorium lasted 10 months, and since it appears that there were no deleterious effects on Israel because of moratorium, and since the other side is saying 'ending the moratorium harms us and we'll negotiate in good faith if you extend it,' why not, so to speak "call the Palestinians' bluff" (I put in scare quotes because I don't think they're bluffing, others do, that's fine.) Stopping the building helps the Palestinians and doesn't harm Israel, it's therefore pretty tough for Israel to defend ending the moratorium.

- mmathog

October 3, 2010 at 1:02pm

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

"Stopping the building helps the Palestinians and doesn't harm Israel," Depends where.

- noga1

October 3, 2010 at 3:32pm

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

mmathog, 1. Only one out three, eh? Sinai doesn't count because it was too early? Lebanon doesn't count because the Israelis had no business being there keeping terrorists from shelling civilians in northern Israel? Alsace-Lorraine is one example among dozens of possible ones after the first and second world wars. Surely we don't need to argue about these well-known facts. Of all the redrawn borders of the post-WWII world, Israel's is contested without end and deemed illegitimate. 2. The Palestinians have had many opportunities to stop complaining and accept offers of statehood. Instead, while pretending to negotiate in good faith the last time around, Arafat was secretly preparing a terror wave that caught his naive partners by surprise and cost a thousand Israelis their lives. 3. Abbas started talking 9 1/2 months into a 10 month moratorium. How can you not notice this? What more obvious sign of bad faith could he possibly give? 4. I'm glad also that we are more liberal than the Muslim world. And while we can't predict what policies in a future Palestinian state might look like, the implementation of the death penalty for anyone who sells a house to a Jew gives one some indication of coming attractions. The core question remains unanswered: Arabs live and build in Israel proper. Why can't Jews live and build in Arabs lands? Because they hate us and it makes then angry? Is this a compelling moral argument for ceasing housing construction in Jerusalem?

- willjames77

October 3, 2010 at 7:29pm

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

Some perspective about endless Palestinian complaints: "Shehadeh was born on a Jordanian-controlled West Bank that had about 500,000 people. By the time the Israelis arrived, in 1967, it had something like 700,000. Today there are maybe 2,500,000 Palestinians, and 300,000 Israelis. Do the maths: it's a vastly more crowded place than it used to be, most of the added population are Palestinians, and the picturesque but primitive little villages he and I both remember from our youth are gone forever, with or without Israeli settlers. As for the roads, not long ago I was driving along Route 60, the main north-south artery of the West Bank, which in its present form has been paved by Israel. About 90% of the vehicles had Palestinian license plates, and I doubt their drivers were complaining that the road is much better than the original one paved by the British in the 1920s. If ever both sides manage to agree on partition, the Israelis will leave the infrastructures for the Palestinians, and probably also the settlements. At one point he bemoans the ugly growth of Jerusalem, no longer a picturesque town in his mind. In 1967 there were 250,000 people there, 70,000 Palestinians; today there are 670,000, 270,000 of them Palestinians. Again, do the maths. Also, I might add, the statement that settlements of Jews are always esthetically uglier than Arab towns is racist. No author could get away with making such a statement unless it be about Jews." http://yaacovlozowick.blogspot.com/2010/10/reflections-on-palestinian-walks.html

- noga1

October 3, 2010 at 7:42pm

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

Willjames7, not for one minute do I not support Israel but your last questions, if I'm reading them right, in 10/03/2010 - 7:29pm EDT seem off the mark. The Arabs who live and build in Israel proper are her citizens. The settlements are in occupied territory, disputed territory, characterize them how you will. The argument is that building on them is de facto possession and dispossession that will ultimately become de jure by sheer passage of time and attrition of Arab will. If your questions go to why Jews can't build and live on other Arab lands, there is no good answer of course and that double standard is palpable. All of that said, and all of your previous good answers to Hog granted, I can't understand the case against a pragmatic two month extension of the freeze. My reading is of the reporting on this issue is America has pledged to Israel not to request a further extension after that. On a different point I'm into Kermode's third lecture but put his book aside, it's such a struggle, to read some other things, what a contrasting pleasure, with the intention, I warn you, of coming back to it and you on it, I hope.

- basman

October 3, 2010 at 9:34pm

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

"I can't understand the case against a pragmatic two month extension of the freeze." Neither can I. Which is exactly why I reserve any judgment about why it appears to be a problem for Netanyahu. Maybe because the freeze encompasses Jerusalem? Perhaps Obama should not have denied on the Sharon-Bush understandings concerning these "settlement blocks"? Maybe it made Israelis, justifiably, wary of American pledges when it comes to Jerusalem settlements?

- noga1

October 3, 2010 at 10:45pm

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

1. Of course Sinai doesn't count. The peace deal with Egypt, by far Israel's most dangerous enemy, gave Israel the necessary security and freedom with which to begin expansion into the west bank. 2. Clinton and Barak demonstrated w/o a shadow of a doubt that Arafat was an asshole. At this point, it seems like Obama and Abbas are beginning to demonstrate pretty clearly that Netanyahu is an asshole. You keep saying 'Abbas making Israel look bad...' well, it's pretty easy to make Israel look bad. Call his bluff. If Israel stops building and the Palestinian leadership still waffles, believe me, I'll change my mind. 3. I did not know that Abbas had taken so long to begin negotiations, but I also don't know why he took so long, so I'm not ready to concede that he waited until a few weeks ago just to pull out once the moratorium ended. I'll need more evidence of his motives. 4. The compelling moral argument for ceasing construction on disputed land is that it's not their land to construct on, it's theft. Also, basman. You probably won't like his answer either because you deride the notion that the land is even disputed.

- mmathog

October 4, 2010 at 12:09am

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

Netanyahu's argument has been that it is bogus to pre-condition negotiations upon the acceptance of an opponent's demands. Presumably the point of negotiations is to resolve disputes over land, boundaries, etc. rather than to accede to an opponent's demands before sitting down to talk. A building freeze has never before been a condition for negotiations between the parties: why now? What is being offered in exchange for this concession by the Palestinians? 0 From the perspective of simple justice, I see no compelling argument for ceasing housing construction in Jerusalem. From the perspective of political expediency, there are many compelling arguments. Thanks to the success of Arab propaganda, the world today is full of people who believe that the land west of the Jordan was stolen from the Palestinians. Ninety percent of them don't know recent history well enough to recall that the West Bank used to be administered by Jordan. Back then there were no "Palestinians", just second-class Jordanian Arabs living a miserable existence in a Jordanian territory. Jordan attacked Israel from that territory, lost the war, and hence lost the territory. I cite Alsace-Lorraine as an example of a similar scenario that bothers no one today because it involves the French and Germans, and not the Jews. For the single case of Israel, any land taken from any of its neighbors in the course of defensive wars is, de facto, "stolen". The fact that thousands of resident Jews were expelled from East Jerusalem by the Jordanians after the city was divided following the War of Independence is not even considered -- it doesn't fit into the narrative of the land-hungry Jews stealing native peoples' land. All that said, I also hope that Netanyahu agrees to the extension of the building moratorium because it would make Israel look reasonable and also bring in substantial economic and military assistance from the U.S. The grim alternative would be to alienate the good will of the world's media spectators who don't have a clue as to what's really going on.

- willjames77

October 4, 2010 at 7:44am

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

"The peace deal with Egypt, by far Israel's most dangerous enemy, gave Israel the necessary security and freedom with which to begin expansion into the west bank." mathog displaying his/her profound ignorance of the subject about which he/she is talking about: "Second Part: Five years of autonomy for the Arab of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, negotiated final status Status: Massive Non-Cooperation This process was to be inaugurated by a transition period of five years of autonomy for the Arab of Judea, Samaria and Gaza. After three years negotiations would be opened between Israel, Jordan, Egypt and representatives of the Arab residents to determine the final status of these areas. As for the implementation of the agreement relating to Judea, Samaria, and Gaza it never got beyond the stage of preliminary talks between Israel and Egypt. At no point did Jordan or any of the Arab residents in the areas show any sign of co-operating in the autonomy plan. The preliminary talks themselves came to a standstill because of differences of interpretation of the Camp David terms. Put briefly, it may be said that each side proposed conditions in conflict with those terms. " http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~samuel/peaceegypt.html "This was the most comprehensive of all the articulated Arab plans designed to ensure a dismantling of Jewish State. The policy it formulated accorded well with the "philosophical" negation of the very existence of a Jewish State which had long been pronounced by Egyptian intellectuals and policy makers. In their restrained language they seek peace with the Jews of Israel provided they relinquish Zionism. A leading exponent of this philosophy is Dr. Butrus Ghali who, in a symposium. in Cairo in 1975, posed a series of rhetorical questions: Will Israel agree to become part of the region? Or will the nature of the Zionist existence prevent Israel's assimilation in the Arab homeland? ...Will Israel become a Jewish nation possessing an Arab character among the united Arab nations? Or are these peace-bearing ideas without foundation in reality, so that the conflict will go on for tens of years and a fifth Arab-Israeli war break out, and then a sixth and a seventh? In a follow-up to this symposium Ghali was asked, in an interview to the Middle East Review (Autumn 1975): Assuming that Israel believes-or continues to believe-that its self-determination requires that it maintains its Jewish character, and assuming that a general notion of self-determination in international law would be that Israel, as well as any other state, can determine for itself the nature and development of its political orientation, do you think that the Arab view that you have disclosed to us, which I think is an important one, is one that will improve the possibility for peace in the Middle East? Or is it one that might have to change with your own developing attitude? To which Ghali replied categorically: Then we will have no integration of Israel into this region. Assuming that Israel takes this very stiff attitude, defending its sovereignty according to this very radical way of thinking, I think you can have no peace in this region. This position was further elucidated by a former Egyptian Prime Minister Mustafa Khalil, in a guest lecture he delivered at Tel Aviv University in December 1980. He commenced his talk by asserting that he wished to speak frankly and scientifically. He then pointed out that "We do not regard the Jews as a nation at all, but as a religion only. The Jewish religion is one of the three great religions, but when it comes to nationality, a Jew can be an Egyptian Jew or a French Jew or a German Jew." In this spirit Mr. Khalil went on to predict that Israel would in fact "change." "We wish very much to live as good neighbours with you," he said "but we are taking into account that you will undergo great changes." He was frank also about the real roots of the conflict "There was a temporary conflict between us, beginning in 1948", he said. In other words, the conflict is not offshoot of the 1967 occupation but originates in the very establishment of the Jewish State. No special scientific expertise is required to perceive that Khalil's. remarks share a common origin with the Palestinian Covenant of the PLO. (See page 246). "

- noga1

October 4, 2010 at 7:54am

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

"At this point, it seems like Obama and Abbas are beginning to demonstrate pretty clearly that Netanyahu is an asshole. " Hardly. Anyone thinking Netanyahu is an asshole based on Abbas walking away from talks because the bulldozers are clearing space in crowded Jewish neigbourhoods in Jerusalem for new buildings after having dawdled for 9.5 months when they weren't, is himself an asshole. The question is: do the Palestinians want their own state or don't they? It seems not. They look for excuses to walk away. Who knows, maybe they like the situation as it is, for all their wailing and whining.

- noga1

October 4, 2010 at 8:03am

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

noga: you really think it's the Palestinians controlling the outcome here? "Netanyahu's argument has been that it is bogus to pre-condition negotiations upon the acceptance of an opponent's demands. Presumably the point of negotiations is to resolve disputes over land, boundaries, etc. rather than to accede to an opponent's demands before sitting down to talk. " Yeah willjames, and it's a weak-assed argument. It's weak because the negotiations are about actual land swaps, refugee rights, jerusalem, water rights, etc... noga, why did you make me slog through that lengthy and irrelevant passage? The fact on the ground is: After deal with Egypt, Israel, rightly, felt A LOT more secure. They used that newfound security for many things, one of them was expansion. "Jordan attacked Israel from that territory, lost the war, and hence lost the territory. " Fine. And then what happened next? Israel offered a path to citizenship for all the human beings left on that territory, and now, decades later, they all have voting rights? If it's Israel's land, then the people on it need proper representation in the Israeli government, or it's apartheid. If it's Israel's land, then it's not their land to build on.

- mmathog

October 4, 2010 at 3:46pm

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

Mathog's first statement: ""The peace deal with Egypt, by far Israel's most dangerous enemy, gave Israel the necessary security and freedom with which to begin expansion into the west bank." mathog's second statement AFTER being educated about the autonomy plan: "After deal with Egypt, Israel, rightly, felt A LOT more secure. They used that newfound security for many things, one of them was expansion." First statement suggests that Israel signed a peace agreement with Egypt IN ORDER TO clear resources for expansion in Samaria and Judea. Second statement suggests that Israel's new sense of security helped it achieve many things, including settlements. The small difference, eh?

- noga1

October 4, 2010 at 5:17pm

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

" you really think it's the Palestinians controlling the outcome here?" Yes. They are holding the key. All they need is to insert it into the keyhole and the door will open wide. The key being: Palestinians no longer seek to kill Israelis, plan to kill Israelis, want to kill Israelis, or plan to destroy Israel. All it takes is articulating words and making a commitment. Why can't they do it? Do you have an answer?

- noga1

October 4, 2010 at 5:21pm

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

Noga, "My mind's made up. Don't bother me with the facts. Especially if it involves reading more than a paragraph". Enough wasted breath. On another front, "Divided We Fall" was the only one of eight items I ordered from Amazon while in the States that never made it. The vendor is issuing me a refund. Back to square one. I will re-order and someday we will actually get to chat about it...

- willjames77

October 4, 2010 at 5:57pm

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

"If it's Israel's land, then it's not their land to build on." Funny when people actually say what they mean despite themselves...

- willjames77

October 4, 2010 at 6:02pm

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

no, it's a typo. I thought you were too smart to get all pedantic on me willjames, don't force me to rethink that.

- mmathog

October 4, 2010 at 7:11pm

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

If it's NOT Israel's land, then it's not their land to build on. Happy now?

- mmathog

October 4, 2010 at 7:12pm

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

"don't force me to rethink that." Yes willjames, don't force mathog who has displayed here such familiarity with the records of history and such perspicacious understanding of the I/P conflict, to re-evaluate the levels of your IQ. How will you be able to recover from the mortification of being downgraded by the likes of mathog? It's called a Freudian slip, mathog. You can google the term.

- noga1

October 4, 2010 at 7:26pm

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

"First statement suggests that Israel signed a peace agreement with Egypt IN ORDER TO clear resources for expansion in Samaria and Judea." I never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever meant that. And nothing I typed implies that. Pathetic, can only win an argument by inventing my meaning? "My mind's made up. Don't bother me with the facts. Especially if it involves reading more than a paragraph". More like a totally irrelevant piece. "Palestinians no longer seek to kill Israelis, plan to kill Israelis, want to kill Israelis, or plan to destroy Israel. All it takes is articulating words and making a commitment. " That's pretty nuts noga. willjames, you got somewhere with the original challenge, I agree that, outside of the west bank, Israel has shown it doesn't always need to expand. You also made me think about Abbas' motives a bit more, I do need a real answer as to why he waited 9 months. However, you're still ultimately unconvincing. You're FAR too dismissive of the notion that the land is in dispute, that it's legitimately immoral and therefore radicalizes the Palestinian population, and you suffuse your arguments with 'why can't we do wrong if they do wrong' assertions and you seem to struggle with the basic notion of 'statehood.' Also, getting nitpicky on typos and re-inventing my meaning? Lame. If you guys wanna think I'm an ignorant fool to make yourselves feel better, I don't really care. Me? I think you're kinda deluded.

- mmathog

October 4, 2010 at 7:29pm

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

it's a typo asshole, pathetic.

- mmathog

October 4, 2010 at 7:31pm

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

Mathog: " you really think it's the Palestinians controlling the outcome here?" Noga: Yes. They are holding the key. All they need is to insert it into the keyhole and the door will open wide. The key being: Palestinians no longer seek to kill Israelis, plan to kill Israelis, want to kill Israelis, or plan to destroy Israel. All it takes is articulating words and making a commitment. Why can't they do it? Do you have an answer? mathog: That's pretty nuts noga.

- noga1

October 4, 2010 at 8:13pm

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

mathog: "You also made me think about Abbas' motives a bit more, I do need a real answer as to why he waited 9 months." Whatever answer we give you (how about waiting for Obama to deliver the Final Final Solution?), you can not process because you actually believe noga's "Palestinians no longer seek to kill Israelis, plan to kill Israelis, want to kill Israelis, or plan to destroy Israel" is "pretty nuts". Anyone who does NOT understand that NO Palestinian leader can EVER make peace with Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people is captive to the Palestinian narrative of the "imperialist Jews" who should go back to wherever they came from. It is Islam that is imperialist. No inch of soil that was under Islamic rule in the past can ever be safe from re-conquest. That is why no Arab country ever gives the Arab Muslims of "Palestine" the welcome mat of full citizenship. Only the Arab Muslims of "Palestine" are permanent refugees unto the third and fourth generation, for all eternity. Only the Arab Muslims of "Palestine" teach their children that it is glorious patriotism to murder Jews. 10/04/2010 - 7:44am EDT | willjames77 comment is artfully inspiring!

- K2K

October 4, 2010 at 9:25pm

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

mmathog you should answer Nogs's to the point ? as in: ....Yes. They are holding the key. All they need is to insert it into the keyhole and the door will open wide. The key being: Palestinians no longer seek to kill Israelis, plan to kill Israelis, want to kill Israelis, or plan to destroy Israel. All it takes is articulating words and making a commitment. Why can't they do it? Do you have an answer?... Seems to me to be one of the basics here.

- basman

October 4, 2010 at 11:38pm

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

p.s I don't think you're an "ignorant fool". I think the opposite: like a smart guy.

- basman

October 4, 2010 at 11:43pm

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

...If I were making the case against a two month freeze it would be that unless final borders can be negotiated in two months, presumably then also rendering settlements settled (ed- stop settling in with the settle puns!) then what then? Another extension or failure of the talks because of Israeli intransigence?... I thought of that and it's a decent point. But it's a pragmatic issue and to me if the two months bring some real talks getting going that benefit outweighs cessation of building and if the freeze for another two months produces nothing of value or substance--which is likely--then no one can call Israel pisher. The other serious pragmatic downside is pissing off the U.S.

- basman

October 5, 2010 at 10:58am

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

malahat: "the benefit to Obama of having punted the issue past the midterms..." is a real consideration. The idea for the extension is to get Israel out of the headlines. It is in Israel's interest to punt past the midterms without sensational headlines. One example: Chuck Schumer is on the ballot. The NY media goes to great lengths to avoid mentioning this, or the name of his opponent, Jay Townsend. Schumer is running "introducing himself to NY" television ads that deliberately fail to note that he is a Democrat, as if we do not know he has been our Senator for 12 years. The NY Jewish vote (13%) can decide any statewide election, and half of it is NOT liberal. If you can not vote against Obama, you can vote against Schumer, who has other negatives due to his very close ties to Wall Street. http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2010/10/04/nyregion/20101005_DEMS.html There are other contests in which voter backlash over Obama on Israel counts, not necessarily just because of Jewish voters. When Robert Wexler endorsed Charlie Crist for the Senate in Florida, you know the Democrat candidate Meeks is losing the pro-Israel vote to Marco Rubio.

- K2K

October 5, 2010 at 11:28am

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

...why make the settlements a dealkiller now?.. My fundamental view is that Israel would make peace if it could--just as Noga said in sher so far right to the point unanswered ? to mmathog--but that Abbas can't/won't and is playing a game of pretending to want to negotiate but really is unable/unwilling to get down to any substance either on real points or just as a matter of genuine, good faith process. From that perspective, another 2 months, with the U.S. apparently saying it won't push for futher freezes, at least blanket freezes, I still don't see the anti 2 month argument. Check out, mind you, Barry Rubin in today's or yesterday's J. Post for his op ed argument anti, including his deconstruction of the apparent U.S. sweeteners.

- basman

October 5, 2010 at 12:54pm

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

Basman, do you really believe that Israel should be allowed to continue expanding until the Palestinians say yes to a deal of Israel's liking? Are you suggesting that Israeli actions are a valid consequence because those damn Palestinians refuse to sign on the dotted line? Roi made this point time and time again, and he never received a satisfactory answer. It was always, lets change the conversation. Or in his actual words, "Look over there--I see cows!" Since Roi is not here, I will do my best (which in comparison to Roi is lousy) to make his view clear: Roi didn't really care about the Palestinians or Arabs in general. There was no sentimentality there. And as he argued more than once, after Jews were driven out of Arab countries, Israel certainly didn't owe the Arabs anything. But he was always clear that continuing expansions were immoral and self-defeating. It's times like this that I really miss the old Roid.

- MOLLYSIMON

October 5, 2010 at 2:55pm

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

And just to be clear, I don't think the Palestinians are genuine partners in seeking peace. But that still doesn't change the wrongness of ever-expanding settlements.

- MOLLYSIMON

October 5, 2010 at 2:58pm

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

"But that still doesn't change the wrongness of ever-expanding settlements." Which settlements?

- noga1

October 5, 2010 at 3:52pm

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

Kind of what Nogs says. One needs to be discriminating about what settlement construction. For example, I can't see an objection to internal growth in the blocs adjacent to Jersualem Israel is likely to keep or an objection to building in Jerusalem. Other building not related to security makes little sense to me and never did.

- basman

October 5, 2010 at 5:08pm

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

Barry Rubin is such a smart cookie. Great op-ed piece. What a pleasure to see him cut through all the obfuscation like a hot knife through butter. It poignant to see how desperately everyone wants to believe that Obama will pull a rabbit out of a hat, if only Bibi .... And it's sobering and painful to realize that the other side is playing its hand, as always, in bad faith and in the hope of accruing small wins that will someday tip the scales in their favor. Playing liar's dice seems to be the only game they know... mmadhog probably thinks that Rubin is just another dumb jerk who can't his ass from a hole in the ground, but this is just idle speculation...

- willjames77

October 5, 2010 at 6:36pm

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

I agree, Basman. However, from what I understand, these communities keep getting bigger and bigger, taking up more and more land. I do not know specifics because my knowledge in this area is minimal. But to say that the Palestinian complaints are ridiculous is just flat-out unfair. And I will reiterate that the Palestinians are not genuine partners in peace. They will grab onto anything, and it seems the Israelis just keep letting them grab and grab again.

- MOLLYSIMON

October 5, 2010 at 6:39pm

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

Basman, if you're still out there, Kermode's Chapter 3 has some wonderful material about the "middle realms". He explores the path through which medieval speculation about the nature of angels forced consideration of intermediate states between pure spirit and crass matter. The immediate relevance of such considerations may not be apparent, but there's really some there there--particularly in terms of understanding the realms of art in so far as they are neither eternal nor mortal--but somewhere in between. Since I know you're an astute reader Hamlet, see if you can find Owen Barfield's essay on Hamlet and you'll get a sense of what's possible along these lines in terms of revisioning our understanding of the ontological status of works of art. Yes, I agree that Kermode is maddeningly unclear and difficult as a writer, but who else discusses some of these things? To be continued...

- willjames77

October 5, 2010 at 6:54pm

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

One thing: I'm still waiting for an answer to this, which I analogize to the kid saying, amidst all the preening, "the emperor has no clothes": ....Yes. They are holding the key. All they need is to insert it into the keyhole and the door will open wide. The key being: Palestinians no longer seek to kill Israelis, plan to kill Israelis, want to kill Israelis, or plan to destroy Israel. All it takes is articulating words and making a commitment. Why can't they do it? Do you have an answer?... about which further, it seems to me, that, without an answer, there is, in such fundamental ways, nothing more to be said, though, of course, there is.

- basman

October 5, 2010 at 8:44pm

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

Basman, you still haven't answered my question. Is building in the territories some sort of punishment to Palestinians for not saying uncle? Is Israel going to keep encroaching on Palestinian land until a peace agreement as been made? I'll say it again: The Palestinians are not honest partners in peace. But what does that have to do with Israel's continued expansion into land that does not belong to it.

- MOLLYSIMON

October 5, 2010 at 9:36pm

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

Molly it's tough talking to you about this when you say "I do not know specifics because my knowledge in this area is minimal." I'll say no one is "punishing anyone" so far as I can see. And please explain what encroachment there is if Israel builds in Jerusalem, lawfully, and builds in blocs it's understood it's going to keep in any event? And I'm not saying "... that the Palestinian complaints are ridiculous..." or if I did I'd need to know where.

- basman

October 5, 2010 at 10:44pm

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

Here is a critique of the settlement freeze from the Israeli Right: "On May 29, 2009 – six months before the freeze on Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria and three weeks before Netanyahu's "Two States Speech" at Bar Ilan University – the Washington Post reported that Mahmoud Abbas "fully expects that Netanyahu will never agree to the full settlement freeze." Abbas assumed that it would take a multi-year US pressure to force Netanyahu to publicly accept the two-state formula and to freeze Israeli settlement construction." The Washington Post assumed that it is "a Palestinian fantasy that the US will simply force Israel to make critical concessions, whether or not its democratic government agrees, while Arabs passively watch and applaud." However, Abbas, the Washington Post and Obama have learned that Jerusalem is capable of transforming red lines into pink lines. In March 2009, upon Netanyahu's entry into the Prime Minister's Office, Obama's team was convinced that he would be susceptible to pressure for a complete freeze of Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria. They dismissed the advice by veterans of President Clinton's team to refrain from such pressure, lest Netanyahu defy the pressure, while enjoying the support of most Americans and most legislators, thus dragging Obama into a losing proposition. However, they found out that Jerusalem could transform red lines into pink lines. Netanyahu's first 18 months in office demonstrated that submission to pressure intensified pressure, radicalized Arab expectations and demands, undermined Israel's moral standing, eroded the PM's image and the strategic posture of the Jewish State in the Middle East and in Washington, DC and weakened the conviction of Israelis in their own cause." http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3964458,00.html To re-cap the central issue: it's about turning red lines (in Jerusalem and on vital security concerns) into pink ones. I think the rumored Obama letter about reassuring Israelis that the Obama administration is fully aware and pledged to Israel's security suggests that Obama, or someone around him, understands what the issue is for Israelis and tries to forestall Israeli concerns about the softening of red lines.

- noga1

October 6, 2010 at 9:55am

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

According to whose law? According to international law. I realize the international community could give a shit about Israel's safety, but that still doesn't give Israel the right to keep building. Here are some numbers. I'm not a great researcher but I found these, and I think they make my point. In the last 15 years, East Jerusalem growth has gone from 152,000 to 192,000. West Bank: 111,600 to 304,000. That's some pretty serious growth. Also, according to international law, this growth is illegal. So what can I say? Why is this punishment? Here, you may have me. Or maybe not. I realize you think in lawyer's terms, so legally, I could be wrong. However, I'm not crazy and alone in thinking that with a peace agreement, , borders would be defined. But as long as Israel continues to expand into East Jerusalem and the West Bank, they are putting "facts on the ground"--these will be much harder to negotiate. And frankly, I don't believe that Israel is acting in good faith. They are knowingly expanding into areas that technically belong to the Palestinians. So yes, the Palestinians hold the keys, but so do the Israelis. Alright, I think I've made my points, but I never know what to expect from Basman the Man. You will inevitably come up with some angle I hadn't even thought of, never mind considered. And by the way, I do not think for a minute that Israel should go back to the green line. I agree that those were "Auschwitz borders." But continuing to grow, on and on, just ain't right.

- MOLLYSIMON

October 6, 2010 at 1:54pm

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

"In the last 15 years, East Jerusalem growth has gone from 152,000 to 192,000. West Bank: 111,600 to 304,000." http://yaacovlozowick.blogspot.com/2010/10/reflections-on-palestinian-walks.html "Shehadeh was born on a Jordanian-controlled West Bank that had about 500,000 people. By the time the Israelis arrived, in 1967, it had something like 700,000. Today there are maybe 2,500,000 Palestinians, and 300,000 Israelis. Do the maths: it's a vastly more crowded place than it used to be, most of the added population are Palestinians, and the picturesque but primitive little villages he and I both remember from our youth are gone forever, with or without Israeli settlers. As for the roads, not long ago I was driving along Route 60, the main north-south artery of the West Bank, which in its present form has been paved by Israel. About 90% of the vehicles had Palestinian license plates, and I doubt their drivers were complaining that the road is much better than the original one paved by the British in the 1920s. If ever both sides manage to agree on partition, the Israelis will leave the infrastructures for the Palestinians, and probably also the settlements. At one point he bemoans the ugly growth of Jerusalem, no longer a picturesque town in his mind. In 1967 there were 250,000 people there, 70,000 Palestinians; today there are 670,000, 270,000 of them Palestinians. Again, do the maths. Also, I might add, the statement that settlements of Jews are always esthetically uglier than Arab towns is racist. No author could get away with making such a statement unless it be about Jews."

- noga1

October 6, 2010 at 2:56pm

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

"And by the way, I do not think for a minute that Israel should go back to the green line. I agree that those were "Auschwitz borders." But continuing to grow, on and on, just ain't right." Do you accept that the settlements along the Green Line are there for security purposes? How many of the 300,000 are settled in settlements that are meant to 'thicken" the Green Line in order to avoid returning to what you call ""Auschwitz borders" ? It seems to me that you accept the principle but not its application.

- noga1

October 6, 2010 at 3:01pm

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

"It seems to me that you accept the principle but not its application." I'm not sure I can argue with that, Noga. You might be right. I will say that there has to come a point at which Israel cannot continue expanding. There are building codes here in Santa Monica, and one of them is that houses may not be builder larger than TK square feet. In fact, they've become very fussy about development. For instance, I couldn't add more square footage to my house without having to go through some elaborate song and dance with the building and safety code people (and trust me, you do not want to get into any kind of discussion with these people. They are notoriously arbitrary. They made me add a shower rod AND curtain to a bathroom I renovated). It seems to me that Israel could start imposing restrictions if it wanted to. I'm not really willing to accept the stats from your previous post. I wouldn't expect you to accept stats from a pro-Palestinian source. (In fact, I myself wouldn't accept them.) I consider the New York Times to be impeccable. You don't. So I'll compromise and say The Washington Post, with its very pro-Israel op-ed page. Or anywhere the writer is known as being at least somewhat disinterested. By the way, I didn't originate the term "Auschwitz borders." That came from Abba Eban. But you knew that already. I think it's a very effective and visceral way of describing the original green-line borders. However, it may be an offensive term, so please correct me if I've offended.

- MOLLYSIMON

October 6, 2010 at 3:20pm

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

"I'm not really willing to accept the stats from your previous post. I wouldn't expect you to accept stats from a pro-Palestinian source. " Such skepticism reminds me of this quote: "Consider Jewish scholars in this light: All of them have a high regard for logic, that is for compelling agreement by force of reason; they know, with that they are bound to win even where they encounter race and class prejudices and when one does not like to believe them. For nothing is more democratic than logic; it is no respecter of persons and makes no distinction between crooked and straight noses.." (Nietzsche, The Gay Science, 348) I think Dr. Lozowick is well aware that his stats are not likely to be believed by those who would like not to believe him for the sole reason that he is a Jew speaking on behalf of Israel. As for "I wouldn't expect you to accept stats from a pro-Palestinian source. " Well, you are right that I always check sources that are quoted in pro-Palestinian sources. The following thread @ an Arab blogger is a nice illustration as to why (if you have the patience to follow through): http://bujassem.blogspot.com/2010/03/israel-and-uae-women.html

- noga1

October 6, 2010 at 6:43pm

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

Noga, Of course I have the patience. And know, too, that I'm not averse to changing my mind--that is, your stats win over my stats. But it doesn't change my fundamental beliefs that getting deeper and deeper into Arab territory is wrong. And I believe that to be true given an ISRAELI document that was leaked: That most of the Jewish settlements, at least as of four or so years ago (and that it may be a longer time, as the older I get the faster time goes by) are built on Palestinian private property. This was not a Palestinian document. I will read your link because I always learn something from you--i.e. that Nietzsche quote. I will next reply once I've read your link.

- MOLLYSIMON

October 6, 2010 at 8:22pm

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

Yikes. And if you read the posters, it's even scarier. Although one woman said something about when the Arab world sticks together, they can really get things done. So they themselves seem to recognize that it's their mutual hatred of Israel that keeps together. I don't know how you can stand reading these sites. They only serve to remind me of my powerlessness to change anything.

- MOLLYSIMON

October 6, 2010 at 10:35pm

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

"I don't know how you can stand reading these sites." I want to get to know the world we live in, the kinds of people we are up against. These are moderate Arabs, btw. All highly educated, the intellectual "elite".

- noga1

October 6, 2010 at 10:44pm

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

These are the elite????? Who's that professor at Columbia who claims we brought homosexuality to Islam? Now that's the elite!

- MOLLYSIMON

October 7, 2010 at 12:17pm

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

That's him: http://www.amazon.com/Desiring-Arabs-Joseph-Massad/dp/0226509583 Try this, another one of the educated elite: http://dubai-jazz.blogspot.com/2009/12/gaza-freedom-march.html

- noga1

October 7, 2010 at 1:04pm

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

I would love to see you demolish dubai-jazz. You could take him apart in about five sentences.

- MOLLYSIMON

October 7, 2010 at 3:33pm

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

Noga, I just read through your exchange which Dubai-Jazz. And I'm amazed that you have the patience and the stomach to carry on an extended dialogue with such a wretched scumbag. The guy has the intelligence and sense of humor of a demented six-year-old who enjoys torturing stray cats. This is clearly not someone who will recognize the errors of his ways no matter how lucidly they are presented to him. I puzzled that you consider it worth your efforts. Pearls before a real swine...

- willjames77

October 7, 2010 at 6:07pm

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

Wait, that was Noga? Send me more links to your demolition derbies.

- MOLLYSIMON

October 7, 2010 at 9:42pm

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

"And I'm amazed that you have the patience and the stomach to carry on an extended dialogue with such a wretched scumbag. " I wonder at myself actually. But how is one to know what is possible and what you are up against unless you try to talk to these guys? I've fashioned myself after Obama...

- noga1

October 7, 2010 at 11:35pm

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

Isn't it kind of ironic that the people who are most concerned with female chastity have no restraint at all when it comes to the chastity of Jewish women? In case one wonders where this is coming from, here is an Egyptian lawyer's recommendation concerning sexual harassment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDqWGtykYNE&feature=player_embedded

- noga1

October 8, 2010 at 7:24am

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

Noga, Our nut-cases are the fringe; their nut cases are the mainstream.

- MOLLYSIMON

October 8, 2010 at 11:46am

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

Also, practically speaking, where are these Israeli women whose bosses are Arab? Is there such a thing? Unicorns, I tell ya, unicorns.

- MOLLYSIMON

October 8, 2010 at 11:52am

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

It's a parallel universe where values like common sense and common decency seem to have vastly different meanings and applications attached to them. There is no way this kind of hatred and malice can be rolled back.

- noga1

October 8, 2010 at 1:17pm

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

"Our nut-cases are the fringe; their nut cases are the mainstream." Mollysimon, I think you hit paydirt. That's as clear a summary of the problem as I've heard from anyone. btw, you can read Noga's exchange with Mr. Sleeze at the dubai-jazz link she posted above (10/07 1:04pm). Have a barf-bag handy.

- willjames77

October 8, 2010 at 7:40pm

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

Noga, I'm intrigued by your claim of following in Obama's footsteps in trying to take the measure of your opponents. I worry that you may be giving him too much credit; I'm not convinced that he's done it as consciously as you are attempting to do. But if he has, it will be interesting to see what strategy evolves from his experiment. His current efforts to "re-start the peace process" remind me all too much of the Prince's efforts to get Cinderella's slipper on her sisters' fat feet.

- willjames77

October 8, 2010 at 7:52pm

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

Here is what I said: "But how is one to know what is possible and what you are up against unless you try to talk to these guys? I've fashioned myself after Obama..." Here is how I should have said it: But how is one to know what is possible and what you are up against unless you try to talk to these guys? [tongue in cheek alert] I've fashioned myself after Obama...

- noga1

October 8, 2010 at 8:32pm

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

I suspected initially that there was an ironic side to your comment. But the more I thought about it, the more it also seemed to me to have some validity as a way of taking the measure of one's opponents. Making a generous gesture is not a bad way to see if there is any good will on the other side. Clinton and Barak's offer to Arafat removed any doubt about reasonableness or integrity on his part for all but a handful of dimwits. Ditto for the withdrawal from Gaza. In your blog postings to Mr. Sleeze you offered him the opportunity to correct several gross distortions and misrepresentations. And he made it clear that he had no interest in anything but smearing and sneering. Now that Obama has had an all-too-similar similar response from Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the rest of his would-be interlocutors, I keep waiting for him to show some capacity to be offended. I think Obama's real loss of credibility began when the Republican congressman shouted "You lie!" and he just continued his healthcare speech instead taking him down. Americans despise leaders who don't know how to conduct themselves when they are being disrespected.

- willjames77

October 9, 2010 at 6:45pm

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

It's often hard to know how to react to direct challenges like this. There was this story about George Bernard Shaw that when the premiere for Pygmalion ended and he was called to the stage to be applauded, someone from the gallery jeered: Booooo.... And Shaw replied: I agree with you, old chap, but as you can see, we are outnumbered. Very few people can respond to jeers with this kind of wit and be well remembered for it. Obama cannot be expected to deal with this kind of heckling when he is making a serious speech. But he also should not be whining about it afterwards, one way or another. It is unfortunate that the president has not proved to be all that his admirers saw in him. I would have loved the opportunity to live through an American presidency that was truly up to the leadership and wisdom of historical leaders, like Churchill, or JFK, who seems to be the last president capable of making some sort of inspirational appeal to people that can cross oceans and deserts.

- noga1

October 9, 2010 at 7:01pm

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

Great G.B. Shaw story! When I ponder my own disappointment with Obama, I'm puzzled by the lack of connection between his thrilling rhetorical abilities and his lackluster political behavior. I remember hearing his speeches and being convinced that we had finally found a great leader. I don't think it was just demagoguery--there was so much intelligence and conviction. Yet once he got into the ring, it feels like he's just been bounced around. And when he comes out swinging, it generally seems desperate, ill-conceived and poorly focused. Lord knows it's not an easy job, but I expected so much more.

- willjames77

October 10, 2010 at 7:02am

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

I think Obama's greatest moment will be recorded as his success in being elected. That, ironically, appears to be the crowning point of his presidency so far. Even his oratorical talents have declined. To me he seems exhausted most of the time.

- noga1

October 10, 2010 at 7:13am

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close