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 Europe is Not Entitled to Hector Any Country

THE SPINE JANUARY 13, 2011

Europe is Not Entitled to Hector Any Country

BY MARTIN PERETZ

In the circles in which I move there are many people who are quite snarky about Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman. I've never really understood why. Maybe it’s just because he wants higher taxes than they do. But as an explicator of economic realities he as good as they come. And in a New York Times Magazine essay about the grim financial status of contemporary Europe he has made it all crystal clear.

Most of the members of the European Union have made a tremendous mess of their fiscal situation, and many are in desperate trouble or near- desperate trouble looking into the future. In fact, three or four of them are facing the governmental equivalent of bankruptcy now. Right now.

But their foreign ministers still strut around the Middle East giving Israel instructions about imaginary Palestine. And not just their foreign ministers but the multitude of E.U. diplomats who've been parked in Brussels (which is the capitol of the almost none-existent state of Belgium.) I had dinner with friends at a restaurant in Jerusalem the other night. We'd been displaced from a private room in the eatery and I asked by whom. I was told that it was taken over by Avigdor Lieberman, the near- fascist foreign minister of Israel. And whom was he hosting? Baroness Ashton of Upholland, the Union's High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. (Some of you may recall  that I don't much like her or her policies.) Lieberman and Ashton. What a pair! From opposite corners of the ideological map -he representing hard-line Russian Jewish immigrants, she speaking for the declining socialist cadres of Europe- they speak past each other unto illusions. Surprisingly, Cathy, as she likes to be called, was smiling when she left. And Avigdor? I couldn't see how his face read because he was surrounded by the usual big men who guard the world's leaders.

Lieberman's party is now pushing a measure in the Knesset to have a parliamentary inquiry into the foreign financial support received by organizations he doesn't like or trust. And the truth is that I don't like most of them myself. The New Israel Fund, for example, which - aside from backing some environmental groups and civil liberties agencies including those which fight against sexual bigotry- finances movements that support the boycott of Israel. Whether I like them or not is hardly the matter.  Or, for that matter, whether Lieberman likes them or not. The question is whether there should be transparency in the political order or not. Lieberman's motivations aside, I believe there should be. Just like in the United States.

But here comes the Spanish ambassador to Israel, Alvar Iranzo, shaking his finger at the Jewish state for even contemplating measures that would open the books on foreign contributions to domestic agencies.

It's actually more than a bit ridiculous for countries that cannot manage their own essential functions to be so ready to chastise Israel. Spain is waging an ongoing struggle with the Basque nationalist movement which has a terrorist past and terrorist tendencies still. But nothing like the Palestinians' unique contribution to terrorism as a method and as an end. More important than the Basque country is the separatist province of Catalonia. It is a mild society that begins south of Barcelona and ends at the French border. It wants independence and it deserves it. Like the Kurds. And that, too, will come.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 138 comments

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

138 comments

Marty usually curses Lieberman before obliquely praising him. (Must he always inoculate himself from Cambridge society disapproval?) It is surely about time that NGO's in Israel reveal their sources of funding, especially from abroad. Should a democracy tolerate less? There seems to be ample evidence of European meddling in Israel. And it's hard to imagine Lieberman grovelling to that ignorant haughty European proconsul Lady Ashton. It is interesting that federal Europe, which is in so much financial trouble, has undermined the modern states and helped to devolve power to historic regions, in Spain to Catalunya and the Basque country, raising expectations of yet more autonomy. If the European super-state recedes, would Spain reassert itself? Is Spain's neurotic hectoring of Israel mostly due to the Socialist government? Are the Spanish socialists more anti-Israel than the other European Left? Or are other factors at work? Israel does have some outspoken friends in Spain, like Jose Maria Aznar and Pilar Rahola. TNR should provide us an informed analysis of that situation.

- amidut

January 13, 2011 at 9:47pm

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

I had a dog called Hector once. I chose the name.

- ironyroad

January 13, 2011 at 10:08pm

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

I had a dog once called, irony, because he refused to hector anyone.

- arnon

January 13, 2011 at 10:12pm

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

"Lieberman's motivations aside, I believe there should be. Just like in the United States." I don't understand it. Marty agrees with Lieberman but seeks to convince himself and others that HE is motivated by the best of reasons while Lieberman, is, well, motivated by a near-fascist reasons. Well said, amidut, about the self inoculation. Though it be a pretty ineffective kind of vaccine. It won't work on those students who chased him around at Harvard.

- noga1

January 13, 2011 at 11:51pm

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

Obviously a noble creature, arnon. The original from which the current irony is descended, perhaps? I'd like to think so.

- ironyroad

January 14, 2011 at 5:08am

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

"Le Divorce: Why Belgium, home of the European Union, has never been more disunited." by Ian Buruma January 10, 2011 The New Yorker - not available online, but a really good look at the possible/probable devolution of Belgium which helps explain Peretz's cryptic "...Brussels (which is the capitol of the almost none-existent state of Belgium.)..." I continue to think the best way to get the Palestinians back to direct negotiations with Israel is to ask Lady Ashton to relocate to Ramallah, with a beach house in Gaza. Eventually, Hamas and Fatah would agree on something - both would prefer face-to-face with Avigdor Lieberman to more of the Baroness Lady Ashton :) Between Peretz's revulsion of the ultra-Orthodox, and disdain for the Russians, I am somewhat surprised Peretz can stomach leaving Tel Aviv, where I assume he can avoid physical contact with the citizens of Israel that trouble him so.

- K2K

January 14, 2011 at 7:08am

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

"I am somewhat surprised Peretz can stomach leaving Tel Aviv, where I assume he can avoid physical contact with the citizens of Israel that trouble him so" Peretz is pretty disappointing in his lack of charity. He has his own version of good/bad Jews that, to me, is no less repellent coming from him than it is coming from Mearsheimer/Walt. They share a distaste, from different directions.

- noga1

January 14, 2011 at 7:31am

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

Ironyroad: Did you have a cat named Achilles?

- noga1

January 14, 2011 at 7:58am

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

"the devil's not so black as he is painted" Old E. European proverb. Peretz's dislike of Lieberman and the Israeli olim from the former Soviet Republics has become a shibboleth of the liberal Jewish establishment in primarily US but also in Israel. It unfortunate being mostly a result of lack familiarity with them and strong prejudice against the so called "Russians". Lieberman's opinions with some notable exception do not contradict the general Israeli attitudes. Lieberman's positions vis a vis Palestinians are for most parts more liberal than the majority of Israeli public. The Western press descriptions of Lieberman as unhinged Arab hater contributed to him being viewed as some kind of an ogre. Being called "an ex bouncer" portrays him as a thug. Yes, he was a bouncer in Russia at the age of 19. All of us did unsavory and menial jobs while in college, myself included.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

January 14, 2011 at 8:13am

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

According to TheFreeDictionary.com, a "bouncer" is "A person employed to expel disorderly persons from a public place, especially a bar." So, what's necessarily wrong with that?

- amidut

January 14, 2011 at 9:39am

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

I no longer expect good judgement or good will from Mr. Peretz's rants, but this one even abandons logical coherence. Here's the argument. - Greece and Portugal and Ireland have serious financial problems. - Therefore: - Europeans cannot legitimately criticize Israel's policy toward the Palestinians. This is simply embarrassing.

- K_Wilson

January 14, 2011 at 9:57am

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

K Wilson Precisely. This is the academic's equivalent of a schoolyard taunt. "Yeah, well your banks suck, so you can't tell us a thing about our colonization of our neighbors. And your Mom dresses you funny, too."

- gwcross

January 14, 2011 at 10:13am

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

"Lieberman's opinions with some notable exception do not contradict the general Israeli attitudes. Lieberman's positions vis a vis Palestinians are for most parts more liberal than the majority of Israeli public."
Which doesn't say much for the Israeli public.

- misterbones

January 14, 2011 at 10:14am

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

K_Wilson: European financial issues are just a side problem though not completely unrelated. I think that Peretz gives a good example of Spanish and other European nations hypocritical behavior toward Israel in relation to their own ethnic minorities striving for Independence. Why do you think this is a rant?

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

January 14, 2011 at 10:18am

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

misterbones: Your comment doesn't say much about your understanding of the conflict. Israel has offered Palestine to Palestinians several times. In response, each time they started a war. Screw me once, shame on you. Screw me twice, shame on me.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

January 14, 2011 at 10:22am

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

touche, ironyroad.

- arnon

January 14, 2011 at 10:36am

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

The first two paragraph of the article, immediately following the headline "Europe is Not Entitled to Hector Any Country", are all about European economic problems. Spanish minority issues are mentioned in passing at the end. Eight out of ten or Mr. Peretz's columns are rants these days; ten out of ten if they're about Israel or Obama's foreign policy.

- K_Wilson

January 14, 2011 at 10:59am

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

I wouldn't call this forum a column. It's a blog and the very raison d'etre of a blog is that it is a room for rant. It's personal space in which to ventilate about one's most cherished interests and concerns. This is the difference between the printed media and the Internet. You don't find Peretz's posts in the print issue of the magazine.

- noga1

January 14, 2011 at 11:17am

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

"Which doesn't say much for the Israeli public." The Israeli public is a stupid, bigoted, ignorant segment of the people, kept as a secret from the media: http://latma.co.il/latmatv.aspx?listId=0&ItemId=12 Around 2:24 minutes.

- noga1

January 14, 2011 at 11:43am

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

" Lieberman and Ashton. What a pair! From opposite corners of the ideological map -he representing hard-line Russian Jewish immigrants, she speaking for the declining socialist cadres of Europe- they speak past each other unto illusions. Surprisingly, Cathy, as she likes to be called, was smiling when she left. And Avigdor? I couldn't see how his face read because he was surrounded by the usual big men who guard the world's leaders." This is quite funny. KWilson and his ilk need to get a sense of humor. This is a blog where Peretz indulges in private speculations and one of the best out there. It's not meant to be journalism or political theory. We are also not in Wilson's classroom.

- nr106646

January 14, 2011 at 11:49am

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

It's his column (OK, blog; so I'm old-fashioned; sue me); he can write what he likes, but logical incoherence and undigested bile are no better on a screen than in the pages of a magazine. It is certainly not journalism nor political theory. Perhaps it's intended to be humor, but I doubt it.

- K_Wilson

January 14, 2011 at 12:34pm

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

Evidence of European hypocrisy is not lacking, here is some. "Et Tu Europa?" By Hadar Sela http://propagandistmag.com/2011/01/11/et-tu-europa

- nr106646

January 14, 2011 at 12:39pm

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

(OK, blog; so I'm old-fashioned; sue me); Leave your address and phone number and a lawyer will get in touch with you.

- nr106646

January 14, 2011 at 12:40pm

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

Evidence of hypocrisy on all sides is rarely hard to find, alas, but there's a fundamental problem with charges of hypocrisy, even if true. Say I'm doing something wrong. I point out that someone else is also doing wrong. The fact that I may be a hypocrite has nothing at all to do with whether the actions I'm denouncing are good or bad. Evil is still evil, even if pointed out by a scoundrel.

- K_Wilson

January 14, 2011 at 1:00pm

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

"Evil is still evil" ??? What "evil" is that?

- noga1

January 14, 2011 at 1:02pm

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

K_Wilson “Evil is still evil, even if pointed out by a scoundrel.” Not necessarily. A scoundrel would have a hidden motive for pointing out evil in others. Europe with its history of evil doing against Jews isn’t free of the taint of hypocrisy or worse when criticizing a Jewish country.

- nr106646

January 14, 2011 at 2:12pm

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

nr106646, there is no need to invoke Europe's crimes against the Jews in order to point to its hypocrisy. Enough to look at more recent history, as the Israeli journalist Ben-Dror Yemini did here: "We, Israelis, owe no explanations to the Europeans. They owe us explanations. The Taliban has not fired any rocket into any European city. Hamas shoots into Israeli towns. The Taliban does not proclaim a sacred desire to kill all Europeans. Hamas promotes the killing of Jews in its charter and Hamas leaders repeat this instruction religiously in their sermons. Yet Europeans continue fighting in Afghanistan, justifying their war on the grounds that they are at war against a central faction of Islamic fanaticism, just like Israel fights against the Hamas. Moreover, the Hamas' threat to Israel's security and future is far greater and more immediate than any threat the Taliban poses to Europe. So why are Europeans allowed to conduct a war on territory that is thousands of miles removed from their homes, kill hundreds or thousands of innocent civilians and claim that their cause is necessary, while Israel cannot do the same? By what right do they absolve themselves while condemning Israel? Proportionality Thousands of Taliban fighters die each year as compared with "just" a few tens of European soldiers. Hundreds or thousands of civilians die in Afghanistan, as compared to zero civilian casualties in Europe. So you, in Europe, purport to lecture to us, Israelis, about war ethics and "proportional responses?" Are you for real?" http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archive/2009/01/chapter-2-war-crimes-and-the-failure-of/index.shtml

- noga1

January 14, 2011 at 2:37pm

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

This is silly. Crimes against Jews in Europe were committed by actual people. The vast majority of those people are now dead. The fact that Germans murdered Jews 70 years ago, or that Spaniards expelled Jews 500 years ago, has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of anything a present-day German or Spaniard might say about Israel. Again, the hypocrisy of a critic is no defense. Whether an act is wrong or right, the motives or faults of the one who points it out do not change that fact.

- K_Wilson

January 14, 2011 at 3:05pm

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

K_Wilson "This is silly. Crimes against Jews in Europe were committed by actual people. The vast majority of those people are now dead. The fact that Germans murdered Jews 70 years ago, or that Spaniards expelled Jews 500 years ago, has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of anything a present-day German or Spaniard might say about Israel." There is nothing silly about it. Those crimes were committed by a culture. Just as it was white Americans who enslaved African Americans so it was Europeans who imprisoned Jews for many centureis in ghettoes and then murdered most of them. Cultures do not change very quickly and it will take many generations before Europe will rid itself of this guilt.

- nr106646

January 14, 2011 at 4:04pm

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

"The fact that Germans murdered Jews 70 years ago, or that Spaniards expelled Jews 500 years ago, has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of anything a present-day German or Spaniard might say about Israel." That's not quite a correct statement. Christopher Caldwell (Weekly Standard, June 5, 2002): “For anyone who inhabits Western culture, the Holocaust made that culture a much more painful place to inhabit – and for any reasonably moral person, greatly narrowed the range of acceptable political behaviour. To be human is to wish it had never happened. (Those who deny that it did may be those can’t bear to admit it happened,) but it did. If there is a will-to anti-Semitism – then the Arab style Judeophobia, which is an anti-Semitism without the West’s complexes, offers a real redemptive project to those Westerners who are willing to embrace. It can liberate guilty, decadent Europeans from a horrible moral albatross. What an anti-depressant! Saying there was no such thing as the gas chamber is, of course, not respectable. But the same purpose can be served using what Leo Strauss called the reductio ad Hitlerum to cast the Jews as having committed crimes identical to the Nazis’. They must be identical, of course, so the work of self-delusion can be accomplished. We did one, the Jews did one. Now we’re even-steven”. Frank Furedi, Professor of Sociology at University of Kent, and author of "Politics of Fear": "For a variety of reasons, Israel has come to bear the cross of the West’s sins. In Europe in particular, there is a powerful sense of weariness towards Israel. ‘If only it would go away, then we would have a chance for peace in the Middle East’, is the fantasy view of some European officials and writers. Others simply resent Israel’s claims to special status on the basis of its links with the Holocaust – which is why there is a growing trend to turn the moral power of the Holocaust against Israel. The West’s estrangement from Israel today does not mean it is ready to rethink its transformation of the Holocaust into a new moral symbol. All that it means is that the West increasingly embraces the ‘good Jews’ who were the victims of the Nazis, while distancing itself from the ‘bad Jews’ who are alive and kicking in Israel." Criticism by Germans and Spaniards towards Israel's policies would have been acceptable had it been not so excessive, harsh, misguided and often hypocritical. Example: http://blog.z-word.com/2010/09/a-spanish-socialist/

- noga1

January 14, 2011 at 4:06pm

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

“Again, the hypocrisy of a critic is no defense. Whether an act is wrong or right, the motives or faults of the one who points it out do not change that fact.” Hypocrisy is a character defect and not an opinion. The hypocrite hides his hypocrisy. The hypocrite can’t be taken seriously.

- nr106646

January 14, 2011 at 4:08pm

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

Noga, I don't need instruction on how to respond to a poster.

- nr106646

January 14, 2011 at 4:11pm

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

Marty, It’s disappointing to see a journalist of your caliber disseminate misinformation like this. Mr. Lieberman’s proposed inquiry is clearly aimed at stifling dissent, with perilous consequences. The escalating attempts by right-wing factions in and around the Israeli government to shut down and even criminalize the necessary work of the human rights community delegitimizes Israel’s standing as a democracy in the eyes of its allies in the U.S. and Europe. The New Israel Fund, unlike most of its critics, is completely transparent in its finances. You need look no further than our website – www.nif.org – to find up-to-date information about our funding its sources and our grants. Moreover it is against NIF policy to fund global BDS activities against Israel or to support any organizations that have global BDS programs. Again, this information is easily found on our website. Sincerely, David Rosenn Chief Operating Officer, New Israel Fund

- WeAreNIF

January 14, 2011 at 4:12pm

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

nr106646 "Noga, I don't need instruction on how to respond to a poster." I was responding to the substance of your argument.

- noga1

January 14, 2011 at 4:32pm

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

"Again, the hypocrisy of a critic is no defense." I agree, it is no defense. However, pointing out the European hypocrisy clearly shows that this criticism has nothing to do with Israeli "sins". The criticism of Israel by the European states is a result of guilt feelings in regard to their own countries imperialism, colonialism, racism, genocide, etc that this sanctimonious preaching is designed to cover.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

January 14, 2011 at 4:41pm

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

"Those crimes were committed by a culture. Just as it was white Americans who enslaved African Americans so it was Europeans who imprisoned Jews for many centureis in ghettoes and then murdered most of them. Cultures do not change very quickly and it will take many generations before Europe will rid itself of this guilt." This logic makes me cringe, even though as a descendant of the 1847 Irish diaspora I suppose I'm entitled to use it in miniature. This is the logic of endless, arrogant retribution, of blood revenge. By like token, the Serbs were entitled to murder Croats because of Jasenovac in 1943, and were entitled to murder Bosnian Muslims because of Kosovo Polje in the middle ages. Survviving a massacre, even an unprecedented industrial-scale massacre, does not give you (or your descendants) a free lifetime pass from moral judgement for your curent actions.

- gwcross

January 14, 2011 at 4:45pm

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

gwcross "urvviving a massacre, even an unprecedented industrial-scale massacre, does not give you (or your descendants) a free lifetime pass from moral judgement for your curent actions." Where was this argument made? If you cite it, then you can support its veracity from the many comments made in this thread. I put it to you that this is a slanderous accusation.

- noga1

January 14, 2011 at 5:14pm

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

"I was responding to the substance of your argument." I am not interested in your "response." Take over someone's elses argument.

- nr106646

January 14, 2011 at 5:20pm

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

" . . . it will take many generations before Europe will rid itself of this guilt." To put it bluntly ,this is complete hogwash. We are responsible for the misdeeds of our ancestors? Sorry; I decline. I had no hand in conquering North America and driving out the original inhabitants, nor in driving the Celts and Picts out of England, nor in the persecution of Protestants under Queen Mary, nor of Catholics under Elizabeth I, nor in the internment of Japanese during WWII. I have never owned a slave, never hired a child to work in a coal mine or textile mill, never colonized a country or oppressed anyone. I refuse to take on any guilt for the blood-soaked history of the human race, or even for a part of it, although like everyone else I have the responsibility to correct injustice as best I can. I have enough trouble with my own personal screwups which I can do something about, thank you. And once again, whether an act is wrong or right, the motives or faults of the one who points it out do not change that fact.

- K_Wilson

January 14, 2011 at 5:25pm

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

"I am not interested in your "response." What you are interested in is irrelevant. You made a comment and I saw fit to respond to it. This is a message board, not your private playground. You can ignore my response or rebut it. You can't tell me not to make it.

- noga1

January 14, 2011 at 5:26pm

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

An article describing NIF role in BDS. http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=179631

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

January 14, 2011 at 5:29pm

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

“This logic makes me cringe..." Cringe all you like it doesn’t change history. "even though as a descendant of the 1847 Irish diaspora I suppose I'm entitled to use it in miniature.” You would be if British hypocrites formed hundreds of organizations to criticize the country of Ireland. “This is the logic of endless, arrogant retribution, of blood revenge.” No it isn’t. It’s the logic of historical humbleness. Jews aren’t interested in revenge. They are interested in being left alone and not hounded by the children of the European murderers of their parents.

- nr106646

January 14, 2011 at 5:30pm

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

"To put it bluntly ,this is complete hogwash. We are responsible for the misdeeds of our ancestors? Sorry; I decline" You can decline but you cannot dissolve a legacy, a culture that sprang out of these events and their consequences. The argument about guilt is made by Europe when it tries to absolve itself of its past crimes, or at the very least dilute is humongous sense of guilt, by turning the onus for bearing the impact of the Holocaust on to the Jewish state. Try to understand the argument that is being made here. It is very simple and straightforward. But you will have to read with greater attentiveness what is being said.

- noga1

January 14, 2011 at 5:31pm

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

"What you are interested in is irrelevant" Almost as irrelevant as your comments.

- nr106646

January 14, 2011 at 5:34pm

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

"And once again, whether an act is wrong or right, the motives or faults of the one who points it out do not change that fact." Of course motives make a difference. It is a difference of a fair criticism or an unfair, biased and prejudiced criticism. Motives distinguished between facts, fantasy or pure propaganda. Motive is what turns a mole hill into a mountain.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

January 14, 2011 at 5:37pm

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

“To put it bluntly ,this is complete hogwash. We are responsible for the misdeeds of our ancestors? Sorry; I decline. I had no hand in conquering North America and driving out the original inhabitants, nor in driving the Celts and Picts out of England, nor in the persecution of Protestants under Queen Mary, nor of Catholics under Elizabeth I, nor in the internment of Japanese during WWII. I have never owned a slave, never hired a child to work in a coal mine or textile mill, never colonized a country or oppressed anyone. I refuse to take on any guilt for the blood-soaked history of the human race, or even for a part of it, although like everyone else I have the responsibility to correct injustice as best I can. I have enough trouble with my own personal screwups which I can do something about, thank you.” Tabula rasa, Wilson. “And once again, whether an act is wrong or right, the motives or faults of the one who points it out do not change that fact.” The motives of the perpetrator make a difference in law.

- nr106646

January 14, 2011 at 5:42pm

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

"misterbones: Your comment doesn't say much about your understanding of the conflict. Israel has offered Palestine to Palestinians several times. In response, each time they started a war. Screw me once, shame on you. Screw me twice, shame on me." Doesn't say much for your understanding of the conflict, makover, that you actually seem to believe that Israel has "offered Palestine to the Palestinians" even once. What it has offered is Palestine shorn of the pieces that Israel, having illegally settled them, would like to keep for itself. Not the same thing at all. Is this lack of understanding on your part, or just your propaganda?

- roidubouloi

January 14, 2011 at 5:55pm

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

Of course motives matter. But the motives and character of a critic have nothing whatsoever to do with whether the act criticized is right or wrong, or whether the criticism is accurate or not. Still less does the mere nationality of a critic have anything to do with the accuracy of the criticism. Wrong is wrong, whoever points it out.

- K_Wilson

January 14, 2011 at 6:10pm

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

"And once again, whether an act is wrong or right, the motives or faults of the one who points it out do not change that fact." You just have not been here long enough, KWilson, to understand that, for Peretz's Israeli followers here on the Spine, the standard response and excuse for anything that Israel does that is morally reprehensible is that 1) someone, somewhere is doing something worse and 2) anyone who criticizes Israel instead of spending his time criticizing all of the someones somewhere else doing worse things is a hypocrite. Hang around for a while. You will get the hang of it. But I hope you have a strong stomach and a thick hide.

- roidubouloi

January 14, 2011 at 6:17pm

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

Wilson you can't separate the critic from his criticism in real life. It may not matter in science, mathematics or logic who proposes an hypothesis, comes up with a proof, or syllogism, but it does matters a great deal in the world of politics. It especially matters in the world of political morality.

- nr106646

January 14, 2011 at 6:20pm

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

And by the time we have had the sins of our ancestors attributed to us, what living being could possibly be pure enough to criticize Israel? None. No, criticism of Israel is reserved to G_d alone. It is over the pay grade of mortal beings. Hence, whatever the criticism, we must direct ourselves to a determination of just why and how the particular critic lacks standing. If nothing else, it takes our attention away from the problem at hand. "Look! Cows."

- roidubouloi

January 14, 2011 at 6:26pm

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

"What it has offered is Palestine shorn of the pieces that Israel, having illegally settled them, would like to keep for itself. Not the same thing at all. " The difference between Palestine and "Palestine shorn of the pieces that Israel, having illegally settled them, would like to keep for itself." is not such that it can be described as "not the same thing at all". It's mostly the same thing, if the Palestinians were really interested in statehood. In negotiations, one side makes an offer and the other side considers it short of what they want, they make a counter offer. Israel has repeatedly made offer after offer in which those pieces that Israel, having "illegally" settled, got smaller and smaller. Olmert's offer was 100% for 100% land, plus Jerusalem. Still the offer was declined, and no counter offer ever presented by the Palestinians. In the meantime we hear about RoR, East Jerusalem, refusal to accept Jewish history in Israel, and educating the children that "Palestine" stretches from the Sea to the Jordan river. Only viewed from the Palestinian POV, whose maximalist aspirations extend to all of Israel, can Israel's offers be perceived as "Not the same thing at all. " I agree that it is not at all the same thing to offer a Palestine next to Israel or a Palestine INSTEAD of Israel. Let it be noted that roi takes the Palestinian POV: nothing but the dissolution of Israel will do.

- noga1

January 14, 2011 at 6:30pm

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

I don't know what people here are talking about. All I am saying is that it matter who criticizes whom and for what reason. I assume that if a right wing conservative like Palin criticizes liberal policies even Wilson and his ilk would point a finger to the author of the critique. Only the self righteous don’t take the reality of actual politics into consideration. This has nothing to do with thinking that Israel is beyond criticism or of being a “follower of Peretz.” From what I have been reading of Peretz he hardly endorses all of Israel’s policies. It’s people who condemn Israel for existing that think that no one can or should defend the country of Israel.

- nr106646

January 14, 2011 at 6:41pm

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

From what I have been reading of Peretz he hardly endorses all of Israel’s policies." He has made that clear in a couple of posts here for which he was reproved severely by some commenters.

- arnon

January 14, 2011 at 7:09pm

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

"Only viewed from the Palestinian POV, whose maximalist aspirations extend to all of Israel, can Israel's offers be perceived as "Not the same thing at all. " I agree that it is not at all the same thing to offer a Palestine next to Israel or a Palestine INSTEAD of Israel. Let it be noted that roi takes the Palestinian POV: nothing but the dissolution of Israel will do." Stuff and nonsense. I have no desire for a one-state solution. My whole complaint with the über-Jews who refuse to vacate the occupied territories in their entirety is that they are heading Israel either to a one-state solution or to apartheid, oblivious to the disastrous consequences for Israel in either case. When Israel offers the Palestinians sovereignty over all of the occupied territories, some form of condominium in Jerusalem, and either to accept Arab returnees to Israel in numbers equal to the settlers or to vacate its settlements in the occupied territories, THEN it will be able justly to claim that it has offered Palestine to the Palestinians. Would Israel dare? I doubt it, because the Palestinians would either accept or be compelled to accept by other powers. Then Israel would have a peace treaty and there would be two states for two people. Israel will not dare because it wants the territory it has settled more than it wants peace, even more than it wants finally to extinguish the claimed Palestinian right of return. Israeli claims that there can be no peace with the Arabs are but smoke to obscure the present reality that Israel will not make peace if the price is the territory it has illegally settled. Of course, my view has absolutely nothing to do with either wishing the dissolution of Israel or being indifferent to Israel's legitimate demands for security and its own territorial integrity. Claiming that I do wish the dissolution of Israel is simply noga's means of trying to discredit the criticism by discrediting the critic with fabricated accusations. This is standard practice here at the Spine.

- roidubouloi

January 14, 2011 at 7:18pm

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

There are not many here, nr, who condemn Israel for existing. It is however common practice to attribute that view to any critic of Israel. It is a propaganda technique plain and simple.

- roidubouloi

January 14, 2011 at 7:20pm

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

"I don't know what people here are talking about." That can put one at a disadvantage, NR. But I think the fact is that there are a couple of confusing but quite natural overlaps going on, especially among posters who have differing attitudes (although possibly sharing similar touchstone values) toward criticism of Israeli policies and goals by outsiders. In general, to return to the issue under discussion earlier, the hypocrisy of a particular critic can of course be what discredits that criticism, even though it might equally be made from another source against whom an accusation of hyprocrisy has no purchase. If I'm being criticized, it's good for me if it happens to be coming from someone who has serious credibility issues. To that extent Noga's extended quotes on the previous page -- e.g. on the European tendency to divide of Jews into the inoffensive spiritual folks who were exterminated by the Nazis and their satraps on one side, and the nasty rough colonial settler types who are lording it over the Arabs on the other -- are useful elaborations.

- ironyroad

January 14, 2011 at 7:40pm

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

I fail to see the utility, irony. Nothing about the dichotomy is responsive to criticism of Israeli conduct toward the Arabs. It evades the question entirely and substitutes a discussion of who has sufficient standing to criticize Israel. For the Israeli nationalists who now seem to predominate, the answer is "no one."

- roidubouloi

January 14, 2011 at 8:28pm

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

Israelis seem to do a good job criticizing other Israelis, based on Ha'aretz... Have to admit, always a pleasant surprise when BBC America news is forced to cover so many other stories they have no time to include the sins of Israel, not even in the bottom banner scroll. Tunisia (amazing that no one died from all that tear gas), Ivory Coast (making the UN look completely impotent), floods in Brazil, Australia, and Sri Lanka - my goodness, they did not even bother with Hezbollah walking out of Lebanon's government tonight. Seemed a bit uncomfortable with reporting on miracles required for sainthood in the Catholic Church.

- K2K

January 14, 2011 at 10:40pm

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

K2K: I must admit I was amazed. Listened to BBC programs on Tunisia and not one word on Israel. I thought I was listening to a wrong radio station. Then turned on Sky news, and the same thing.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

January 15, 2011 at 7:11am

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

makover: well, it seems the EU, and the Muslim Arabs, are just too pre-occupied by Sudan, Lebanon, and Tunisia to have time for Israel, this week :) http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=123686#axzz1B0ZFaDQn "Three Arab models are worth watching" By Rami G. Khouri Saturday, January 15, 2011 I wonder how long before the msm notices that Iraq is, surprisingly, currently the only Arab Muslim-majority country with a somewhat functional democracy? no disrespect intended to the monarchies of Morocco, Jordan, and Kuwait.

- K2K

January 15, 2011 at 11:09am

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

"Olmert's offer was 100% for 100% land . . . ." Can you expand on that? I'm honestly not refuting or agreeing. Also, it would help my understanding of your argument if you could try to use as back up the least biased source you have. Not that you care about my understanding, but I figured I'd at least ask.

- MOLLYSIMON

January 15, 2011 at 1:48pm

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

"Not that you care about my understanding" Then why ask? I'm sure you can do your own googling if you even fractionally interested in learning about Olmert's offer.

- noga1

January 15, 2011 at 2:00pm

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

Roid, I'm often in agreement with you, but do you really mean to say that all of the settlements be cleared out? Granted, my understanding of modern warcraft is not very sophisticated, but I do wonder how you think Israel can keep Tel Aviv safe from West Bankers lobbing bombs near, if not into, Tel Aviv. Unless you are saying that clearing settlements is not the same thing as leaving behind occupying forces. I suppose if we weren't leaving in Plato's cave, that could be a possibility. Still, I really can't imagine where within the green you are going to put 400,000 Israeli settlers. Another thing: I'm not saying that the Palestinians should be punished, but I am saying that if for decades they showed no sign of conciliation, you kind of lose your right to getting everything you want. I know that on purely moral arguments, from the point of view of Jesus, say, that you could tear this argument apart. But we're talking about humans. And in the face of years of some pretty vicious insurgency/terrorism, I myself might not be inclined to give everything back. I think that asking Israel to do so is holding them to some Jesus standard that we expect from nobody else in the world. This is not to say that Israel's recent policies are anything to be proud of. Just that when you make such a purist argument, you really can't expect any kind of willigness to bend. In my 47 years, I have learned at least that much.

- MOLLYSIMON

January 15, 2011 at 2:07pm

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

Interesting that when asked to do what you insist others do, you recoil very self-righteously. To quote Mike Nichols in the movie "A New Leaf," "You are perfect."

- MOLLYSIMON

January 15, 2011 at 2:09pm

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

PS Roi, I'm saying that in order to get some concessions from Israel, there is such a thing as everyday politics. I think the US could be leaning on Israel more than it is. But that's not the same as as asking for the politically impossible, in this country as in Israel.

- MOLLYSIMON

January 15, 2011 at 2:12pm

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

Noga I wrote to soon. Silly me. What you really meant to say is that you can't source such a ridiculous claim with facts. Yes, rhetoric is a beautiful thing. Say it enough and at least some idiots will start to believe it.

- MOLLYSIMON

January 15, 2011 at 2:14pm

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

Molly: You are indeed silly and incredibly lazy, prejudiced, ignorant and coarse minded. You wouldn't know what truth looks like if it came and bit your nose off. http://contentious-centrist.blogspot.com/2009/02/so-close-yet-so-unachievable.html

- noga1

January 15, 2011 at 3:32pm

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

I'm not convinced by Bernard-Levi's quote of Ehud Olmert. I see no maps, no data, no talk of how this would happen. Granted, I think Olmert was a brave man, but this number just doesn't make sense in the face of 400,000 settlers now living in occupied territories--a number that continues to grow as Israel continues to build illegally. Here are some actual numbers from the Israeli General Spiegel. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/mapping-israeli-settlements-on-the-west-bank/ The facts here don't contradict Olmert, but do undercut any claims that Israel's sacrifice is an enormous kindness--most of their settlements are illegal in the eyes of the general. There's also a handy-dandy map to show just just how widely the West Bank is pocked with these settlements. And these don't even include the so-called legal settlements. If I lived in a state the size of Delaware, I shouldn't be too happy with Canada setting up similar illegal settlements within my borders--never mind the so-called legal settlements not shown on the map. Knocking Phillip Weiss just won't do in this case. The man may be a nutter, but in this case the map provided by his reader is very much fact-based. No quotes necessary. If Olmert had made such claims fifteen years ago, I'd find him far more credible. But things change. Now, his numbers don't add up.

- MOLLYSIMON

January 15, 2011 at 5:27pm

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

Hey Molly, check this out. From everybody's favorite source (not biased Fox News, God forbid): http://www.haaretz.com/news/pa-rejects-olmert-s-offer-to-withdraw-from-93-of-west-bank-1.251578

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

January 15, 2011 at 5:37pm

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

BHL is a French philosopher, ergo, he is either lying or he doesn't have enough language skills to understand what Olmert was saying. Molly sees no maps. Molly, who so scrupulously believes accounts of settlers urinating on Palestinians! Molly, you are silly and incredibly lazy, prejudiced, ignorant as well as coarse minded. Furthermore, you are incapable of actually understanding what the components of that offer were.

- noga1

January 15, 2011 at 6:43pm

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

And BTW, Olmert is hardly a "courageous man". He is currently under police investigation for some very serious corruption charges.

- noga1

January 15, 2011 at 6:45pm

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

makover: "K2K: I must admit I was amazed. Listened to BBC programs on Tunisia and not one word on Israel. I thought I was listening to a wrong radio station. Then turned on Sky news, and the same thing." http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/01/ny_times_blames_israel_for_tun.html NY Times blames Israel for Tunisian revolution.

- noga1

January 15, 2011 at 8:33pm

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

Let's start here, Molly, from the Haaretz piece linked by makover: "In exchange for West Bank land that Israel would keep, Olmert proposed a 5.5 percent land swap giving the Palestinians a desert territory adjacent to the Gaza Strip. "The Israeli proposal is not acceptable," Abbas's spokesman said. "The Palestinian side will only accept a Palestinian state with territorial continuity, with holy Jerusalem as its capital, without settlements, and on the June 4, 1967 boundaries." __________________________ What "100% land for 100% land" means is that Israel offers to give the Palestinians some worthless desert adjacent to the Gaza strip in exchange for the Palestinians conceding to Israel big chunks of the land that Israel has illegally settled in the West Bank. It is claimed to be "100% for 100%" because the geographical area is supposed to be the same. The Israelis have all convinced themselves that this is very generous, but what it amounts to is this: We will keep the most important pieces of what we have illegally settled in exchange for giving you some land you don't want. In addition, you (the Palestinians) will surrender your claims to your former homes finally and irrevocably. In exchange, we will allow you the sovereignty which is not ours to give and to which you are entitled anyway under the principles of the Treaty of Paris and League of Nations and the UN Partition plan by which Israel itself was established. What kind of deal is that? Usually when you make a deal you give up something you don't want to part with in order to get something else. Israel's notion of a deal is that it is to get everything it wants -- the settlements, extinguishing the Palestinian claims in Israel -- other than a piece of what it has taken illegally and has in any case no hope of physically incorporating into Israel in exchange for the Palestinians getting none of what they want other than the sovereignty to which they are entitled anyway in land accorded them by the UN. The Palestinians would have to be fools to accept such a deal, and so far they have not shown themselves to be such fools. The only thing that makes it seem plausible is that the Israelis essentially threaten to hold the Palestinians as a whole hostage indefinitely until they surrender this ransom. The Palestinians appear to be willing to wait in the certain knowledge that Israel's position as occupier cannot endure indefinitely and that, if they are willing to wait long enough, they will get all of the West Bank east of the Green Line without having to give up anything for it. Read what Abbas said, and didn't say. He did not say that a settlement must include the Palestinian right of return, only the land within the 1967 boundaries. To me, that says that the Palestinians are willing in the end to surrender their claims against Israeli territory within the Green Line, that Israel passionately wants. A two-state solution in which Israel still ends up with more than its share of the UN partition, the Arabs less, and a transfer of population that the Arabs have never otherwise been willing to concede. That is an obvious basis for peace, but Israel will not accept it because it also wants land beyond the Green Line. Thus, as I have said for some time, it is not true that Israel is willing to make peace. It is only willing to make peace if it is allowed to keep a good piece of the land that it has taken hostage. As for the settlers and the Palestinian right of return, I don't think it is necessary to the outcome that the settlements be completely evacuated. I think that they can remain as part of Palestine. That would itself be a considerable concession on the part of the Palestinians since the all of the settlements are illegal. However, I also don't think Israel can have it both ways, insisting that Israeli setters remain in Palestine while refusing to allow any Palestinian refugees to return to Israel. I think Israel has a choice to make. If it really finds the settlements such a compelling interest that it wants to keep them, or some of them, intact, then it will have to concede something in order for the Palestinians to agree to concede what they have no legal duty to concede. That would most likely be allowing some Palestinians to return. I doubt that any population deal that were other than one to one could be made to seem just. Thus, I think that Israel will in the end be faced with the choice either to evacuate the settlements completely in exchange for the Palestinian concession of the right of return or to allow a right of return to the extent that Israelis are to remain behind in Palestine. The symmetry is what makes the deal possible. As for Israeli public opinion, I don't think it matters very much. If you want to make peace, you cannot insist that concessions are impossible because public opinion will not allow it. Public opinion never wants to make concessions. The art of the deal is to trade equal quanta of pain for equal elements of gain. Right now, Israelis see no need to make serious concessions (other than of what they know it is geographically impossible for them to keep) because they are under no pressure. Hence, the Israeli idea of generosity is that the Palestinians are to gain exactly nothing, indeed considerably less, than that to which they are legally entitled and the UN will by and by give them once the world is thoroughly tired of Israeli intransigence and game-playing. Then the Israelis will find themselves under considerable pressure, and perhaps that is the only thing that will force them to accept peace. The US might force their hand, but has shown no willingness to do so as of yet. I wouldn't want to place any bets on just which shoe will drop first, but I am willing to bet that if the Palestinians can avoid violence, they will succeed in forcing Israel out by using the machinery of the UN and the International Court of Justice. With an exchange of population, settlers in Palestine and returnees to Israel, Israel can claim that it was forced to accept returnees in order to secure the settlements. The Palestinians can claim they were forced to accept settlements in order to make it possible for some Palestinian refugees to return. Each can claim not to have conceded any matter of principle, only to have made a pragmatic compromise that is better than the alternative -- evacuation of the settlements by the Israelis and complete abandonment of the right of return by the Palestinians. All of this is a completely separate matter from security arrangements. Given the range of rockets, I don't think the settlements are relevant at all to the security question. That will depend on effective means of ensuring that Palestine has no military capability. And that will be the case regardless of the structure of settlement of the territorial and population issues. As a matter of technical fact, the issues are separate. A territorial and population resolution does not solve the security problem and vice versa.

- roidubouloi

January 15, 2011 at 8:54pm

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

The American Thinker is a a rightwing rag. In a lie typical of the right, which does not know how to do anything other than lie about absolutely everything all the time, it claims falsely that the NY Times "blames Israel" for the revolution in Tunisia. Not at all. Instead of reading the drivel from The American Thinker, one ought to read the Times article it links http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/15/world/africa/15region.html?_r=2&ref=anthonyshadid

- roidubouloi

January 15, 2011 at 9:03pm

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

"it claims falsely that the NY Times "blames Israel" for the revolution in Tunisia. Not at all. " Not at all? "Yet the street protests erupted when Arabs seemed more frustrated than ever, whether over rising prices and joblessness or resentment of their leaders’ support for American policies or ambivalence about Israeli campaigns in Lebanon in 2006 and Gaza in 2009. " The writer offers 4 reasons: 1.rising prices 2.joblessness 3.resentment of their leaders’ support for American policies 4.ambivalence about Israeli campaigns in Lebanon in 2006 and Gaza in 2009. The first two reasons appear the most plausible. The last two reasons appear to be a gloss imposed on an event too good not to be attributed to anti-Americanism and Israel. So why not blame Israel? Slip it into the flow like it was the most natural producer of resentment and revolutions in the Arab world. But then the NYT is an honorable paper. What it says must be true.

- noga1

January 15, 2011 at 9:17pm

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

First of all, even assuming that the Time explanation of the views of Tunisians is correct, that does not amount to blaming Israel for anything. Nor does the Times so much as suggest that even the Tunisians blame Israel for their domestic circumstances. The Times says that part of Tunisian popular frustration is about the Israeli campaigns in Lebanon and Gaza, and this is almost trivial in the context of the whole article. So what? Are not Jews at times "frustrated" about the world response to events affecting Israel? You, noga, express nothing but. There is no possible construction of the Times article upon which it could possibly be said that Israel is being blamed for anything. It is a lie. A typical right-wing lie from a typical right-wing rag.

- roidubouloi

January 15, 2011 at 9:25pm

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

The Times was trying to say "resentment of their leaders ambivalence about Israeli campaigns." This cannot possibly be construed as blaming Israel for anything, whether the phrase is read correctly or as you parsed it.

- roidubouloi

January 15, 2011 at 9:37pm

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

The article provides a list of reasons and concludes with: "resentment of their leaders ambivalence about Israeli campaigns." If I say: I'm going downtown to see a movie, return my book to the library and meet a friend for coffee, what I'm saying is that all three are reasons for why I'm going downtown. YOU cannot decide for me that having coffee with a friend is a dismissable reason because I'm going downtown anyway.

- noga1

January 15, 2011 at 10:02pm

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

I have yet to find any journalist other than the NYT Shadid who reports or thinks foreign policy has anything to do with the events in Tunisia. But, surely now the idea will become part of the storyline of the Jasmine revolution. or not. Maybe the Mossad-trained sharks can be blamed for the food inflation and widespread unemployment, but it is more likely the Tunisians, if they think about foreign relations beyond Europe and North Africa, wonder how they can get on the lifetime dole as the Palestinians have done. The food markets in Gaza look a lot better than the food market the BBC showed in Tunis. Sunday's NYT page 1 feature story is "Israel Tests on Worm Called Crucial in Iran Nuclear Delay". Obviously, there is not enough news from Sudan, Lebanon, Tunisia; floods in Brazil, Australia, and Sri Lanka; or that the credit rating of the United States is suddenly at issue. No, I have not read it - I find reading the NYT is of more interest outside the international news and opinion columns. Good movie times/theater search function...

- K2K

January 15, 2011 at 11:32pm

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

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/13/breaking_up_is_good_to_do "Breaking Up Is Good to Do: Southern Sudan is just the beginning. The world may soon have 300 independent, sovereign nations ... and that's just fine. " BY PARAG KHANNA [poses a solution to] "...post-colonial entropy. Except for a few, rare cases, many of the colonies that gained their independence a half-century ago have since experienced unmanageable population growth, predatory and corrupt dictatorship, crumbling infrastructure and institutions, and ethnic or sectarian polarization." At least this author gives the Kurds their own country, after South Sudan, and, of course, Palestine. No functioning, elected government required for the palestinians.

- K2K

January 15, 2011 at 11:40pm

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

I'm not deciding anything. Nor am I making any claim about what is motivating the Tunisians. Quite simply what the Times said can at best (or worst) be understood to mean that Tunisians' resentment over their perception of "ambivalence" by their government toward Israel's campaigns in Lebanon and Gaza is among the reasons for their hostility toward their own government. I haven't the foggiest idea whether this is true or not, but, either way, it cannot possibly be understood as blaming Israel for anything. That is a lie, a smear, by the so-called American Thinker. The language used by the Times cannot under any circumstance sustain the interpretation but this right-wing piece of crap.

- roidubouloi

January 16, 2011 at 12:00am

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

"Exiled opposition leaders, many of whom have lived abroad for decades in France or Britain, prepared to return in the hope of rekindling their movements. Perhaps foremost among them was Rachid al-Ghannouchi, a progressive Islamic leader who founded the Hizb al-Nahdah, or Renaissance Party. He was imprisoned twice in the 1980s and granted asylum in Britain in 1993." This is from the NY Times, today. I wouldn't be surprised if Tunisia ends up with an Islamic "progressive" dictatorship.

- arnon

January 16, 2011 at 12:09am

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

roi said: "... assuming that the Time explanation of the views of Tunisians is correct, that does not amount to blaming Israel for anything.... It is a lie. A typical right-wing lie from a typical right-wing rag." Roi then said: "Quite simply what the Times said can... be understood to mean that Tunisians' resentment over their perception of "ambivalence" by their government toward Israel's campaigns in Lebanon and Gaza is among the reasons for their hostility toward their own government." You see, from "It is a lie" that the NYT actually counts Israel as one of the reasons for Tunisian revolution, roi's argument morphed into agreement while pretending he is still disagreeing: "is among the reasons for their hostility toward their own government." Typical roial shenanigans who thinks words are not really attached to their meanings. I will concede that the headline "NY Times blames Israel for Tunisian revolution." is exaggerated by putting an emphasis on one reason among a few offered by the NYT writer.

- noga1

January 16, 2011 at 7:18am

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

K2K: I must again bring in Larry from Tel Aviv. I think he explains everything calmly and with a great reliability. Even r...i (and let's spit three times at the sound of this unholy name) would agree that this is the real reason for all the calamities visiting the Muslim/Arab world (including Tunisia): 39. Larry in Tel Aviv Who says we didn’t send that vulture to spy on the Saudis? The Saudis are smarter than you know, the rest of you naively assume that we can’t train all kinds of birds brainwashed to be loyal to the Zionist Imperialist Plan for World Domination and send them on spying missions. We can fit the birds with miniature cameras and the new generation of nanotech heat-seeking missiles even. Just like drones, but this is far more ingenious, subtle, cunning and effective, and the Saudis know it. Some birds carry encrypted coded information in scrolls tied to their talons, then carried by the birds to Zionist spies across Arabia and the Middle-East and even unto Iran, Turkey and as far as Pakistan and Kashmir. This way a lot of top secret information is sent back and forth, bypassing the risks of electronic and telephone communications being uncovered. Kind of like the carrier pigeons used during World War 1. We don’t just use vultures of course, we have trained swallows, herons, hawks and ravens. Each bird has its own speciality, its own strengths and weaknesses, and their missions are tailor-made to cater to the temperaments of the different species. We had to abandon working with Egyptian geese after it turned out that some of them were double agents working for.. Egypt. Likewise ibises and the crow were just not cut out for this kind of work. The recent mysterious deaths of thousands of blackbirds in Arkansas was actually tied to a top secret high risk mission orchestrated by the IAF and the Mossad. Those blackbirds paid the ultimate sacrifice. They were part of the 9th blackbird air division, affiliated with the IAF, their main airbase just south of Bat Yam (south Tel Aviv) on the coast. It was a mission that ended badly as we all know, they knew the risks going in, they were under no illusions. I am not at liberty to reveal what that mission was exactly, nor how they were killed. I have already revealed too much and don’t want to put my life in danger by revealing top secret Israeli war and sabotage plans. I am naturally not at liberty to reveal how I know all this and who I work for exactly, but you can guess. Remember you read it here first, it will never be leaked by WikiLeaks. The Saudis of course know why. Namely WikiLeaks is a Mossad false flag operation. Everybody knows that much, well except the zombie proles in the West who we have wrapped round our fingers through our Zionist control and manipulation of the American, British and European media, as is obvious to anybody who sees through the indoctrination of the Zionist puppet masters and their lies. The risks I take in leaking this info, you all have no idea. January 6, 2011 - 12:48 am Link to this Comment

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

January 16, 2011 at 9:19am

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

Also read this article in the Tablet. Assisted Suicide When the Western press gives credence to anti-Israel propaganda, as it did in recent reports about a Palestinian woman killed by Israeli tear gas, it’s Arabs who are hurt most http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/55704/assisted-suicide/

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

January 16, 2011 at 9:44am

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

The EU certainly now has it's moment to focus it's foreign policy eye on Tunisia, whose citizens are widely reported to be the most literate, secular, pro-western of Arab nations. makover: I am going with the Mossad-trained sharks re: Tunisia, since tourism is so important there :) Thanks for the tabletmag link. When I read about the clouds of tear gas in Tunisia, and saw the BBC reporter actually in a cloud of tear gas, I wondered why no one died from the Tunisian tear gas...guess the Palestinians will have to prove Israeli tear gas is different from Arab Muslim tear gas :)

- K2K

January 16, 2011 at 12:05pm

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

K2K: The Palestinians are just so much more sensitive than any other people. It's because of the Israeli libido inducing chewing gum. noga: did you notice that roid has just become real estate appraiser to the Palestinian Authority? He must have just recently received his Israeli Real Estate Appraisal Licence. If you missed it, here it is: "What "100% land for 100% land" means is that Israel offers to give the Palestinians some worthless desert adjacent to the Gaza strip in exchange for the Palestinians conceding to Israel big chunks of the land that Israel has illegally settled in the West Bank." Obviously land around Halutza that would increase the size of the Gaza strip, "the most densely populated area in the world" by about 20% plus a tunnel crossing the Negev is worthless to PLOroi. Anything short of Hertzliya is unacceptable to him.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

January 16, 2011 at 12:53pm

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

Noga's typical Alice in Wonderland manipulation of the English language. There is a world of difference, to those who are not propagandists and actually have some concern for truth, between "Israel to Blame for Tunisian Revolution" and "Tunisian Frustration with Government Attitude Toward Israel Contributes to Revolution." This has nothing whatever to do with the truth value of either claim. In this case, the claims were not the point. The American Thinker's characterization of what was said by the NY Times is the issue. The Times said the latter. The American Thinker characterized it as the former. Noga endorese the lies of The American Thinker. This is the behavior that readers of the Spine have come to expect of her. She is a propagandist and inveterate liar herself so there is every reason for her to endorse the same behavior by others. No matter how noga twists and turns to justify the lies by The American Thinker, they remain that, lies. She, of course, approves.

- roidubouloi

January 16, 2011 at 1:02pm

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

It is not I who is making real estate appraisals, but makover and the rest of the Israeli fantasists who cannot understand how the Palestinians can fail to recognize what they take to be their own extraordinary generosity. Mutual bargain for exchange means that what you offer has to be more valuable to the person(s) to whom you are making the offer than what you are asking in return. Makover the real estate appraiser insists that what Israel offers is more valuable to the Palestinians than what Israel asks of them. Oddly, they don't see it that way. But, since makover understands better than they the generosity of Israel in offering to give back a piece of what it has taken illegally, he insists that they just don't understand. They understand very well. That Israel is unable to snooker them into a lousy deal is ultimately Israel's problem. Keep up the great work digging that hole deeper, makover. But will you be able to climb out of the hole before it collapses on you? No reason to think so. That is what it means to delude yourself. PLOroi? The best you can do in the face of your disastrous policy mistakes is childish insults? Oh, wait, I forgot. The last time you had something to say it was about "brain farts." So, yes, we have in makover a kindergarten mentality trying to address problems of war and peace, life and death. Are most Israelis like you, makover, or are there some adults who live there too?

- roidubouloi

January 16, 2011 at 1:09pm

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

"It is not I who is making real estate appraisals, but makover" You can't come up with anything original PLOroid? Your PLO talking points don't tell you how to respond?

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

January 16, 2011 at 1:26pm

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

Do you think that you are worthy of anything original, makover? Your thought is too trivial to require even that minimal effort. Why would I bother when your intellectual confusions are so obvious and picking them apart is so easy? Besides, it is much more amusing to point out that, as usual, you cannot walk and chew gum at the same time.

- roidubouloi

January 16, 2011 at 1:36pm

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

PLOroi: Yawn, yawn...what a bore you are.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

January 16, 2011 at 1:40pm

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

Enjoy your nap old man. Early and often is the best way to go.

- roidubouloi

January 16, 2011 at 1:47pm

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

PLOroid: Yawn...

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

January 16, 2011 at 1:58pm

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

Still awake? Try a little warm milk, or gum some toast dipped in milk.

- roidubouloi

January 16, 2011 at 2:20pm

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

Noga, I don't think asking for a map to outline the offer is so outrageous. Especially in light of Roi's point that the Israeli deal really meant a population transfer to the desert. You're right, Olmert was not brave. Though that has nothing really to do with his legal troubles. It has to do with his utterly unacceptable offer.

- MOLLYSIMON

January 16, 2011 at 3:02pm

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

Roi, thanks so much for your detailed outline of Olmert's offer. That's what I'd hoped to get from Noga, a detailed outline. But I'm small-minded. I'm not willing to go with the big idea encapsulated in a one-sentance quote from Olmert. Interestingly, I don't recall myself dismissing BHL himself, only finding the quote insufficient as proof. Though it appears in the end that Noga was right. Olmert was not a brave man--though that, of course, has nothing to do with his legal troubles.

- MOLLYSIMON

January 16, 2011 at 3:16pm

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

Well, it wasn't that detailed, but that is the critical element, the "100% for 100%," that was referred to here. I believe that there is no map that you can see because Olmert refused to allow the Palestinians to have a copy of his proposal. He did not want it made public, before or after the fact, and so literally put it on the table, allowed them to look, but would not give them a copy. Hence, there are many details that remain unknown.

- roidubouloi

January 16, 2011 at 4:08pm

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

roi to makover: "Enjoy your nap old man. " makover is lucky enough to have a girlfriend who is not only attractive but brainy and scholarly as well. Furthermore, they go to parties and have fun. If I remember correctly, roi, it was you who asked for some time off to take a nap at least once before summoning the energy to respond to a comment. It emerges as a safe bet, that whenever you curse and fulminate to your imaginary enemies it is yourself you take as a model.

- noga1

January 16, 2011 at 5:07pm

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

"Noga, I don't think asking for a map to outline the offer is so outrageous" Maps are a sensitive thing and they don't make a public appearance until the very final stages of a negotiations. Look up what Dennis Ross had to say about maps in his criticism of Jimmy Carter. If you continue to refer to roi for understanding issues about Israel, Israel will end up in your mind like Dorian Gray's picture, at the end of his life. A monstrous place full of liars and scoundrels, murderers and abusers, thieves and pimps and whores and what not. You are too lazy to do the legwork yourself, too eager to please and flatter aggressive men with your croonings and pleadings and reassurances. What kind of a woman are you? Can you ever actually think for yourself? Must you always look for chauvinistic "protectors"?

- noga1

January 16, 2011 at 5:19pm

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

Yeah, shape up Molly. Then you too can be a ptarmigant like noga who ruminates aloud about how much better life would be if, as a self-declared straight woman, she had a gay husband.

- roidubouloi

January 16, 2011 at 5:40pm

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

"noga who ruminates aloud about how much better life would be if, as a self-declared straight woman, she had a gay husband." It was just an unlikely theory, roi, done in the spirit of general amusement which was the mood in the thread until you showed up in your jackboots. But you do keep returning to it and bringing it up. I wonder why. There is nothing in this theory that can humiliate me. So why does this theory bother you so much?

- noga1

January 16, 2011 at 5:59pm

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

Your amusing musing puts nicely into context your faux-feminist assault on Molly Simon, don't you think? I will let her be the judge of whether you ought to feel humiliated. Rest assured, however, that once one finally gets your measure, you are definitely a source of amusement. The humor is inky black, but you are humorous none-the-less. :-)

- roidubouloi

January 16, 2011 at 6:28pm

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

I see you do not answer my question, roi. Sawdust and no water in sight, that's what talking to you feels like.

- noga1

January 16, 2011 at 6:43pm

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

Yes, maps are a sensitive thing. But Roi came back with some very interesting numbers and facts related to the proposal. A mass uprooting and transplant into a desert isn't be much of an offer. By the way, I have no problem with Roi speaking up on my behalf. Nor do I have a problem getting information from him--especially when as his arguments usually make sense to me.

- MOLLYSIMON

January 16, 2011 at 8:17pm

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

"A mass uprooting and transplant into a desert isn't be much of an offer." I didn't take the trouble of reading anything roi had to say but if this is one of his interpretations then he certainly did not understand the offer that Olmert made. Or perhaps you didn't understand what roi was saying? Yes I know you don't have a problem Roi speaking up on your behalf. That was the point I was making, that you are incapable of thinking for yourself. I can never understand why anybody would outsource their thinking capabilities to another.

- noga1

January 16, 2011 at 9:31pm

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

I did not say anything about uprooting to the desert. I think this is a misunderstanding of something I did say in adverting to the Israeli demand that the Palestinians abandon their claimed right of return, thereby accepting as final a population transfer that they have never previously been willing to accept. It is interesting to learn that noga makes accusations about what I have said or failed to say without actually reading what I write (and this is surely true with respect to others as well). That explains a great deal. Many of her interpretations and attributions are truly bizarre. Now that she has admitted that she makes these accusations without actually reading the text she is commenting upon, it is at least clear how she can arrive at her many outlandish conclusions. A bit of the mystery is solved!

- roidubouloi

January 17, 2011 at 12:23am

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

Sorry about that Roi. I will reread. I must have skimmed. Noga: Roi has the stomach to deal with your barbs. I don't. If you'll note, when we began this "discussion" and since, I have not made one attack on you, only disagreed. I really don't want to get into the personal vitriol. It ends up making me feel awful. I always regret it. If you really think I can't speak up for myself, so be it. That's your opinion.

- MOLLYSIMON

January 17, 2011 at 1:31am

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

Roi: "What "100% land for 100% land" means is that Israel offers to give the Palestinians some worthless desert adjacent to the Gaza strip in exchange for the Palestinians conceding to Israel big chunks of the land that Israel has illegally settled in the West Bank." I erroneously concluded that the Palestinians would be moved to that desert. "A two-state solution in which Israel still ends up with more than its share of the UN partition, the Arabs less, and a transfer of population that the Arabs have never otherwise been willing to concede." So I'm still uncertain here, but what I now believe you mean is that the transfer is on the part of the Israelis.

- MOLLYSIMON

January 17, 2011 at 1:40am

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

"It is interesting to learn that noga makes accusations about what I have said or failed to say without actually reading what I write " Yet I gave you some credit in my comment when I told Molly "but if this is one of his interpretations then he certainly did not understand the offer that Olmert made. Or perhaps you didn't understand what roi was saying?" It's not a good sign roi that Molly, who declares she is an admirer of yours, only "skimmed" and got an important element wrong. If she doesn't read you properly, who does?

- noga1

January 17, 2011 at 6:46am

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

The Odd Couple: molly: "I erroneously concluded that the Palestinians would be moved to that desert." PLOroid: "I did not say anything about uprooting to the desert." molly: "So I'm still uncertain here, but what I now believe you mean is that the transfer is on the part of the Israelis."

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

January 17, 2011 at 6:51am

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

"when we began this "discussion" and since, I have not made one attack on you, only disagreed." Molly there is a record of your slanders and venom towards me that cannot be undone. You can take my "barbs" (which are nothing but cold and accurate estimates of your intellectual abilities and vulgar thinking) as an installment towards defraying some of the costs of your self indulgence.

- noga1

January 17, 2011 at 6:55am

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

Molly: "'A two-state solution in which Israel still ends up with more than its share of the UN partition, the Arabs less, and a transfer of population that the Arabs have never otherwise been willing to concede.' So I'm still uncertain here, but what I now believe you mean is that the transfer is on the part of the Israelis." ____________ The population transfer envisioned by Israel as final settlement runs in two directions, Palestinians who formerly resided in what is now Israel permanently barred from returning and Israeli settlers permanently residing in land that was part of the Arab partition of Palestine. Even without the settlers, Israel still envisions permanent exclusion of the Palestinian refugees from Israel, "a population transfer that the Arabs have never otherwise been willing to concede." Despite Israeli insistence that this is "very generous" on the part of Israel because some of the settlements in far-flung places dispersed throughout the West Bank would not become part of Israel while the major settlement blocs would, the Palestinians have given no indication that they are willing to accept this formula. Their idea is, you go back to your side of the 1967 lines and we will go back to ours and we will each have a state. Some, maybe most, of them continue to insist that Palestinian refugees be allowed to return to Israel. This position on their part is exactly as extreme as the Israeli bid to incorporate the major settlement blocs that it has created illegally, and Israel has never given any indication that it would accept Palestinian refugees returning in more than a handful for symbolic reasons (bad symbolism in my opinion). A sensible and plausible solution is either that the Palestinian refugees return only to Palestine and the Israeli settlers return to Israel OR Israeli settlers remain in Palestine as minority Palestinian citizens with an equal number of Palestinian refugees allowed to return to Israel. I think Israel can achieve peace on either basis. It cannot achieve peace on the basis that its illegal settlers stay where they are and the illegal settlements are incorporated into Israel but Palestinian refugees are to be forever excluded. None-the-less, Israeli propaganda (see makover above) keeps insisting that the Palestinians have been offered a state in Palestine and obstinately refuse to accept because they will not make peace with Israel and continue, despite their recognition of Israel, to aspire to Israel's elimination. The Palestinians might not in fact be willing to make peace on the basis either of mutual acceptance of a settler/re-settler population or mutual exclusion thereof. What is inarguable is that Israel has not offered anything of the kind and will not do so because it is afraid that the Palestinians would accept and the game would be up on its bid to claim the fruits of its illegal settlement activity. The priority for Israel is not peace but the legalization of the illegal settlements and their incorporation into Israel. If one has eyes and ears, that is perfectly obvious.

- roidubouloi

January 17, 2011 at 9:31am

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

What I did not perhaps make clear enough earlier is that, if Israel really believed its own propaganda that the Palestinians will not make peace, it would offer them just what I have described confident in the knowledge that the Palestinians would refuse. This would have huge diplomatic benefits for Israel while maintaining the status quo. Israel does not make this offer because it is not at all confident that the Palestinians would decline (the government likely believes the Palestinians would accept) and it wants to keep maneuvering for incorporation of the major settlements.

- roidubouloi

January 17, 2011 at 1:29pm

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

Roi: " . . . if Israel really believed its own propaganda that the Palestinians will not make peace, it would offer them just what I have described confident in the knowledge that the Palestinians would refuse." Exactly. Frankly, I cannot wait for the EU to declare East Jerusalem the capitol of the Palestinian state.

- MOLLYSIMON

January 17, 2011 at 5:19pm

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

"Frankly, I cannot wait for the EU to declare East Jerusalem the capitol of the Palestinian state." Why?

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

January 18, 2011 at 8:57am

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

I find strange the expectation that Europe will declare any city capital of any country. It's about as rational as saying: I cannot wait for roi to declare Molly the next editor in chief of TNR.

- noga1

January 18, 2011 at 1:20pm

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

Anti-Zionists contend the United Nations as an outsider had no authority to bestow statehood upon Israel in 1947. Strange then that all these European and Latin American nations now claim said power. The economic malaise spreading across Europe is entirely relevant to the continent's embrace of anti-Israel sentiment. Once again Europeans demonstrate their age-old tendency to blame their problems on Jews, especially when times are tough. Today they sublimate their hatred of the Jewish people through the Jewish state, unable to admit their true feelings even to themselves. But their complaint is still the same: eighty years later and much of the world still demonizes Jews as outsiders.

- drheingold

January 18, 2011 at 3:33pm

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

Makes about as much sense as: "Frankly, I cannot wait for the EU to declare East LA the capitol of the Baja California state."

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

January 18, 2011 at 4:31pm

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

Frankly, I can't wait for roi, speaking on Molly's behalf, to explain how the EU is absolutely the authority to declare East Jerusalem the capitol of the Palestinian state and why it should matter to Israelis and the rest of the world that it did so.

- noga1

January 18, 2011 at 4:45pm

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

I cannot wait for K2K to declare Brooklyn to be the capital of hectoring.

- ironyroad

January 19, 2011 at 12:55am

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

Hate to disappoint, but while the EU would not have such authority, the UN must might. Mandatory Palestine was a UN protectorate. Unlike what is now Israel, Jordan, and the Territories, Jerusalem was not allocated to either the Jews of the Arabs. While a border adjustment between neighboring states or proto-states might be internationally recognized outcome of war, there is serious question whether any war could defease the jurisdiction of the UN. If the UN decided to assert is de jure sovereignty over Jerusalem under the Mandate, it would likely have the better argument in international law that Israel's incorporation of Jerusalem cannot in any way limit the UN's authority there. And the Security Council has the muscle if it ever decides to use it. That of course depends on the US. All the more reason for Israelis to continue to do their best to alienate the government of the United States while insisting, loudly and laughably, that it is the government of the US that must, for some unknown reason, do its best to secure the trust of the government and people of Israel. One would think that the security of the US depends on the political and military support of Israel.

- roidubouloi

January 19, 2011 at 12:35pm

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

Geez. "the UN just might"

- roidubouloi

January 19, 2011 at 12:35pm

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

'Hate to disappoint," roi, you never disappoint. One presses a button and the automatic answering machine plays its pre-recorded and familiar message.

- noga1

January 19, 2011 at 2:22pm

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

Well, you see, noga, not to point a finger at anyone in particular, but there are some intensely stupid and ideologically hidebound people in the world, particularly right-wing, uber-nationalist types, for whom one has to repeat the same thing perhaps hundreds of times until they begin to get the point. One can also note them here repeating themselves endlessly and it behooves the reality-based community to respond appropriately. I try to do my part.

- roidubouloi

January 19, 2011 at 3:33pm

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

roi, you are not doing your job properly. You are pretending that Molly, on whose behalf you speak, and who is, I agree, an "intensely stupid and ideologically hidebound" person, meant to said the UN and not the EU. Therefore your entire explication can be seen as the "oh, look, cows, let's bait them" fallacy. BTW, I've never heard of such a possibility as you depict here. Wresting Jerusalem from the Zionists seems like an aspiration more befitting Ahmadinejad.

- noga1

January 19, 2011 at 5:44pm

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

I don't purport to speak for Molly. I don't know whether she intended to say EU or UN. The point, however, is that it is not the case that the final status of Jerusalem will be determined by "the Zionists" alone. It is a typical Israeli fantasy that the fact that Jerusalem is largely unrecognized as Israel's capital, or even by many nations as a part of Israel under applicable UN resolutions, is meaningless. This fantasy has been made possible only because Israeli dominion over Jerusalem has largely been a de facto result of the Arab refusal to make peace. As that has changed and continues to change, the status quo in Jerusalem is less and less likely to be maintained. That looming reality is yet another reason why Israel, despite its professions to want peace, continues to evade peace and do what it can to provoke Arab hostility in a manner that allows it to deny doing so. Repetition, repetition, repetition. It is an unfortunate truth that obvious realities remain beyond the cognitive reach of so many.

- roidubouloi

January 19, 2011 at 6:47pm

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

"... As that has changed and continues to change,..." Talk about fantasies. What has changed is Iranian power in the Middle East which is consolidated upon an ideology of totalitarianism, eliminationist antisemitism and Islamism. These, in the Arab world, are interchangeable terms. Fact, that even those Arab regimes who would make peace with Israel are in mortal dread of their own populations which have been engorged upon a steady diet of antisemitic conspiracies that they can no longer differentiate between a shark, a hawk, a squirrel, and a Mossad agent. Anyone who believes that the Arab world is moving towards peace must be living in some alternative universe where wishes substitute reality.

- noga1

January 19, 2011 at 7:59pm

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

Nothing worse than actually believing your own propaganda. Netanyahu's maneuvering constantly to make peace talks impossible is the best evidence of his concern that, if there were talks, there might actually be an offer he would have a hard time refusing. Indeed, the abrupt demand that the framework of Oslo be overturned and that the Arabs abandon the right of return in advance of talk makes clear beyond peradventure just how afraid of talks Netanyahu is. Like Major Major Major, you can only see him when he is out. Netanyahu only wants peace talks when he is sure there won't be any. Not at all the behavior of a man certain that the Arabs will not offer peace on terms that the world might find very appealing. As or more important, the endlessly repetitive Israeli narrative that you recite is locked in the past. It fails to notice, among other things, that not so very long ago Palestinian recognition of Israel, constantly reaffirmed by Abbas, would have been impossible, a Saudi peace plan on any terms would have been impossible, PA security cooperation with Israel would have been impossible. It is not enough, but the failure to take note that the world around Israel is changing is certainly to be locked not in an alternative universe by in a universe that exists only in the mind of Israelis who cannot accept that the future will not be the one they wish. Better to pretend that nothing is happening. That is why Israeli diplomacy in our time is such a failure. It is premised on a world that existed 30 and 40 years ago but is not the world of the present. Too bad.

- roidubouloi

January 19, 2011 at 9:06pm

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

"It fails to notice, among other things, that not so very long ago Palestinian recognition of Israel, constantly reaffirmed by Abbas," http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=4014 "Contrary to the repeated statements by Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas to foreign leaders that the PA recognizes Israel, the PA internally in Arabic continues to deny Israel's existence and to present a world without Israel. The PA transmits the message to its people that it does not recognize Israel's existence, describing all Israeli land, cities and regions as "Palestinian." Palestinian TV is one tool among many use" roi has to be very careful not to read certain sources. Ignorance must be maintained at all costs.

- noga1

January 19, 2011 at 11:02pm

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

http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=4394 "PA TV music video: "We won't throw down our weapons. We treat the rifle as a brother" Nabil Shaath: "We are aware that at the present time it is impossible to return to the armed struggle.""

- noga1

January 19, 2011 at 11:06pm

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

Here in a nutshell is the insanity of modern Israel. While in the absence of a peace treaty and settlement they are still claiming your land, you are not only claiming their land but actually occupying it, settling it, and restricting their use of and access to it. You take their rhetorical claims, that cause you no actual, concrete harm in the present, to be inimical to peace and indicative of unwillingness on the part of the Arabs to make peace. Yet you insist against all evidence that Israel's exercise of power over them and concrete actions not merely to claim their land rhetorically but to take it from them and exclude them are not an obstacle to peace. Whatever they may say about Tiberias and Rosh Hanikra, they are not building apartments there, now are they? Moreover, despite your abhorrence of their rhetorical claims, you are completely unable to consider how Israeli action would appear to the other side. When they make peace and settle a border, they won't be able to lay claim to Tiberias. Yet you want to make peace while continuing to occupy their land. Completely nuts. Self-serving in the extreme and nuts. Read all the sources you want. The problem is you believe your own ridiculous propaganda, just as they believe theirs, and the facts matter not at all.

- roidubouloi

January 19, 2011 at 11:58pm

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

"The problem is you believe your own ridiculous propaganda, just as they believe theirs, and the facts matter not at all." Talking about extreme and nuts: roi tells Israelis who have been engaged with the Arabs for over a century not to believe what Arabs say, quite openly, to their people, and to believe instead their prevarications in English. I think the time for this game is over. Roi's contention was that "his fantasy has been made possible only because Israeli dominion over Jerusalem has largely been a de facto result of the Arab refusal to make peace. As that has changed and continues to change..." and then he says: "You take their rhetorical claims, that cause you no actual, concrete harm in the present, to be inimical to peace". Apparently, Palestinian declarations in the media, in school books and in their cultural productions that Israel is part of Palestine, that they will take up arms against it at the appropriate moment, are all just "rhetoric" and anyone watching, listening and reading it who concludes that peace is not their suit is not only an extremist but a nutcase, too. (I can understand that roi thinks rhetoric is just rhetoric. He seemed rather surprised that anyone would take his Stalinist words amiss ("... the enemies of America are not just the Iranians, Moslem terrorists, the Chinese, and such, but the entire American right... Every last one of them is an enemy of the United States of America....) , What's wrong with a little collective demonization?)

- noga1

January 20, 2011 at 7:05am

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

The disconnect from reality is total. My point is not at all that words are meaningless and should be ignored, for their effect or as a guide to intention, but that deeds, concrete acts are even less to be ignored. Arab claims to Israeli territory are only rhetorical. Israeli claims to Arab territory are being carried out with an army, construction, settlement, and the control of resources and exclusion of the Arabs from their own land? Which then is the more devastating obstacle to peace, the clearer evidence of malign intent, their impotent words or your oppressive deeds? The answer is obvious to all who do not share in the apartheid/colonialist ambition with which Israel is seized. Time indeed for the game to be over, and it will be. As the Arabs slowly master their violent elements, the world grows more and more impatient with Israel's colonialist prevarication, as it should. The game is ending. Israel's occupation is on borrowed time. The propaganda falls on deaf ears except in Israel.

- roidubouloi

January 20, 2011 at 9:04am

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

"As the Arabs slowly master their violent elements, the world grows more and more impatient with Israel's colonialist prevarication, as it should. The game is ending." Well, then. We'll wait for the Arabs to master their violent elements and then we can talk about ending the occupation. In the meantime the world grows weary of the "Palestinian problem", Europeans are much more worried about their own Arabs, the US is devoting ever so many more resources to finding alternative energies, and wooing China, and apparently Iran's nuclear longings have been hampered for at least four years. roi, your faith in the inevitability of this denouement is as touching as a Haredi Jew's faith in the coming of the messiah.

- noga1

January 20, 2011 at 12:06pm

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

We'll see what happens when the Palestinians line up sufficient support and declare a state in all land east of the Green Line. Will the Americans and Europeans yawn because of their other preoccupations? You hope so. I wouldn't be quite so sanguine.

- roidubouloi

January 20, 2011 at 5:36pm

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

The recently released "Palestine Papers" suggest that roi's assessment of Palestinian position is at best misinformed: http://blogs.cfr.org/abrams/2011/01/24/the-palestine-papers-first-look/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+eabrams+%28Elliott+Abrams%3A+Pressure+Points%29 "Second, these negotiations over possible compromises will surprise no American and no Israeli. In the United States and in Israel there have been twenty years of discussions of the compromises needed for a final status agreement. This has not been the case among Palestinians, where the debate has been far less free. There are still constant calls among Palestinians and in Arab capitals for a complete return to the 1967 “borders,” which are in fact the 1949 armistice lines and to which there will never be a return. Palestinians may be surprised to learn that their negotiators understood this quite well and that the negotiations were actually about how far from the 1949 lines a final deal might go."

- noga1

January 24, 2011 at 12:01pm

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close