The New Republic

Marty, I understand what you are trying to say. But you have some facts wrong. You make it sound as if Goldberg is just guessing about Obama's goals wrt Netanyahu. You discredit his value to his readers: he was reporting. Perhaps someone else was speculating, but Goldberg has connections within the WH and is a valuable reporter, rather than a blogger, as a consequence. Further, you should be embarrassed by your consistent agreement with Commentary. Rubin is an imbecile whom Jon Chait has regularly handled, someone so low as to use anti-semitic stereotypes to describe Jews who dislike Sarah Palin. Or perhaps you and Wieseltier and Chait etc all hate the military and sports.

- rlgordonma

March 19, 2010 at 8:02am

It seems in the modern era to have become the singular delusion of the right-wing that "right makes might," that if we have justice on our side, that if our enemies are vicious and evil, that the means to accomplish our ends magically appear. Or, even worse, that whatever we choose to do in the name of our just cause will magically succeed, whether it is adapted to the task or not. This is Bush-think: It doesn't matter if we fight a strategically pointless war in the wrong place against the wrong enemy. If we declare that we are there to fight terrorism, we will prevail. And if we prevail, then terrorism will be defeated even if terrorists weren't there in the first place. The endless rehearsal of the justice of Israel's cause, the fault for the current situation, the viciousness of its enemies, etc., etc., etc. -- the Talmudism of the conflict -- has come so to dominate the thinking of the right that it is seemingly impossible for them to ask, let alone answer, the simple question: What is the best way for us to get out of this mess? It has seemingly become acceptable to sit in the mess, sinking under its weight, as long as a good argument can be made that it is someone else's fault -- the Arabs, the Europeans, the anti-Semites, the Americans, Obama, Axelrod, Emmanuel. The list is long and ever-growing. Martin Peretz is a major contributor to this genre. This post can, along with the blogs of Jennifer Rubin, can now be placed on top of the stack. If the Talmudism were at least good PR, then it would have some point. But, under the weight of the occupation, it has ceased to be useful even as that. In the face of the fact of Israeli domination of millions of Palestinians, the world, with the exception of the Jews for whom this remains of surpassing importance, as pretty much lost interest in the arguments and the historical blame. If pieces such as this have any purpose at all, it is only to persuade the right of its eternal righteousness (its favorite undertaking in any case) with perhaps the slight hope that some Jews who support the Democratic party can be persuaded to abandon support for President Obama. It surely has nothing to do with getting Israel out of an untenable situation. The right seems to believe that, if justice is on your side, Masada is a perfectly good outcome. I am bored and frustrated with the Talmudism of the conflict as it is pointless. No one is persuaded in any case. Those who were persuaded of the justice of Israel's position remain so. Those who are not remain so. The Talmudic argument merely draws time, attention, and energy away from the urgent task of devising strategy and tactics to get out of the mess into a sustainable strategic position. I cannot imagine that anyone could continue to draw comfort from the argument over justice, but apparently they do because they do nothing else and can talk about nothing else.

- roidubouloi

March 19, 2010 at 9:23am

Uh oh, Obama use an arguably inappropriate diplomatic word, "condemn," with respect to construction in Jerusalem. This is a very important issue. I am grateful to Jennifer Rubin and Martin Peretz for calling it to our attention.

- roidubouloi

March 19, 2010 at 9:27am

I should have added that the use of the word condemn demonstrates how trivial it is that Israel took the opportunity of Vice President Biden's visit to announce additional construction in Jerusalem. It is the acute sensitivity of Peretz to the proper ranking of symbols and symbolic acts that makes him such a valuable contributor to the public debate.

- roidubouloi

March 19, 2010 at 9:29am

Marty, thank you for combatting Obama's insane, immoral anti-Israel policy. You're performing a great public service for America. Liberals can and should enthusiastically support Israel. The anti-Israel crowd is a replay of 1930's fellow traveling with Stalinism and Hitlerism. But, please spare us the personal stuff about your dislike for Mrs. Elliott Abrams. Maybe insiders know who she is and what that's all about.

- amidut

March 19, 2010 at 9:56am

I agree with amidut. Obama is Hitler, or Stalin, or maybe both, or at the very least a Stalinist and a Nazi. Oh, the insanity! Thank you, amidut, for bringing this to our attention. You have a firm grasp of the reality of the situation that his largely escaped notice.

- roidubouloi

March 19, 2010 at 10:37am

keep harping Marty, despite the distracting ignorance of so many like roidubouloi

- K2K

March 19, 2010 at 10:50am

Yes, marty, keep harping. If you pile up enough words, the world will quickly forget that there is any issue extant regarding Israeli West Bank settlements or the status of Jerusalem, Israel's domination of several million Palestinians, and the Israeli blunder during the visit of Vice President Biden, and join you instead in parsing the use of the word "condemned" in diplomatic parlance and the subtle shades of meaning that it can convey in different contexts. Then Obama-Hitler-Stalin will be forced to change his policy. Your steadfast focus on the critical issues is an inspiration to all. You are a credit to the Jewish people.

- roidubouloi

March 19, 2010 at 11:16am

It seems that in its own ponderous way the immediate issue is easing up as Netanyahu offers some concessions--short of American demands--to mollify American concerns, and if the Palestinians agree, to get the "proximity talks" going. But it's also all so surreal. The talks may get going but they aren't going anywhere. The best way forward, in a nutsehell, imho, as Yossi Halevy Klein noted here, is: …To achieve eventual peace, the international community needs to pressure Palestinian leaders to forgo their claim to Haifa and Jaffa and confine their people's right of return to a future Palestinian state—just as the Jews will need to forgo their claim to Hebron and Bethlehem and confine their people's right of return to the state of Israel. That is the only possible deal: conceding my right of return to Greater Israel in exchange for your right of return to Greater Palestine. A majority of Israelis—along with the political system—has accepted that principle. On the Palestinian side, the political system has rejected it. In the absence of Palestinian willingness to compromise on the right of return, negotiations should not focus on a two-state solution but on more limited goals. There have been positive signs of change on the Palestinian side in the last few years. The rise of Hamas has created panic within Fatah, and the result is, for the first time, genuine security cooperation with Israel. Also, the emergence of Salam Fayyad as Palestinian prime minister marks a shift from ideological to pragmatic leadership (though Fayyad still lacks a power base). Finally, the West Bank economy is growing, thanks in part to Israel's removal of dozens of roadblocks. The goal of negotiations at this point in the conflict should be to encourage those trends…

- basman

March 19, 2010 at 11:42am

"Until that happens, and until the Palestinians definitively repudiate terrorism and establish a state with functioning institutions, the smart diplomats are spinning their wheels." I agree with this completely. "When they aren’t inflaming the situation, that is." Is bullshit, as though the simple announcement of the construction would not have offended the perpetually offended Palestinians. Look, I think this is all utter bullshit, and foresee Jerusalem being under Israeli control for another generation at least so it doesn't matter what any of us say, but from a theoretical standpoint Marty has his logic wrong. Lets just remove the names of all the parties to show some illogic here. Since X there has been an internationally recognized Green line between two opposing forces (with some small parts in a no mans land) Side B has always been irrational and claims everything. Side A is in favor of dividing the City into 2 respective parts. Since then there has been movement and construction by both sides on both sides, with some more than other however the internationally recognized Green line has not changed (fairly or not). Here is the fundamental illogic. Side A has conceded it is willing, in the name of peace, to divide the city into 2 separate parts. This is a major concession and the starting point of negotiations, not the ending, what remains is how the city will be divided. Here is where the problem arises: Every A government since X, of left or right, has asserted that the city in question is its capital and has allowed its people to build there. The current crisis stems from the announcement of plans--not actual construction--in a part of the city five blocks FROM the Green lines and in a neighborhood that very clearly will remain part of side A after any negotiated settlement. So where is the negotiation? Side A is asserting claims in areas they intend not to negotiate on, areas that the rest of the world doesn't recognize as their own (the justice of this is irrelevant) Now A is certainly within its rights to say this is non-negotiable, but they have to recognize that such claims can have adverse effects on the negotiations. And yes, I am aware Side B is insane, but that doesn't make Side A right in its assertions that this disputed lands is theirs no matter what. In the midst of this is Side C who has interests outside of this specific area and for whatever reasons wants the illusion of progress to help satisfy those outside interests. The problem with Marty is he simply can't divorce himself from his emotionalism and view it all in a detached fashion. For me, in a practical matter, it is not so much the building as it was the announcement, because it came across as incredibly one sided and stupid. Why was there no concurrent announcement of the building a many units for Arab residents of Jerusalem, in fact, why is there never any such announcement? After all, it must certainly happen. Why not? let me hazard a guess, the building happens and no one cares enough to make any grand announcements. It was incredibly naive for people not to expect a big announcement in a disputed area (I don't care if it is 10 feet in, much less 5 blocks) would not have blowback.

- blackton

March 19, 2010 at 12:01pm

Yossi Halevy Klein, all I can say is amen to all that. No emotionalism, just a good cold hard look at reality. No shit, basman, that one item you posted is far more persuasive than the dozens of Marty's cringe inducing rants. You know, his overworked hyperbole will even turn off supporters. Where did you find that? And more like that please.

- blackton

March 19, 2010 at 12:10pm

oh yeah basman, I gotta look at bylines more often. My bad. I agree with Klein the Obama administration has overreacted creating a pissing match where none needed to be. But the point now is not to join in the pissing match but to put it back into our pants and zip it up.

- blackton

March 19, 2010 at 12:17pm

oh, and i think ginzy was right the Obama admin. saw this as a crisis they didn't want to waste so they could essentially slap Netanyahu around to get concessions.

- blackton

March 19, 2010 at 12:37pm

I agree with Halevi to this extent: Any final settlement that accords the Palestinians less than every square inch of territory east of the Green Line is impossible at this time. If Israel were willing at this time to concede every such inch, including the annexed parts of Jerusalem, and the withdrawal of all its population from that territory in exchange for the Arab renunciation in perpetuity of any claims upon the land to the west of the Green Line, a settlement might be possible now. But it might not. It may be that no Palestinian government can concede Arab claims west of the Green Line. And it may be that no Israeli government can concede Israeli claims east of the Green Line. Attempting prematurely to do so has as much possibility of inflaming the situation as it does of quieting it, as we should have learned from the failure of the negotiations amongst Clinton, Barak, and Arafat. That is not necessarily fatal to progress. Russia and Japan have yet to sign a peace treaty concluding WWII because of their unresolved dispute over four Kurile Islands. But they have managed to live peacefully alongside each other for the past 65 years notwithstanding. Sometimes formal finality is too painful and it is best just to forgo it. So, to the extent that Halevi argues for moving forward toward the goal of final settlement, as fast as possible but without making everything conditional on achievement of final settlement, that is sound, pragmatic advice. However, that does mean moving forward, making progress. For most of the past couple of decades, the Likud and Palestinian hardliners have cooperated in making demands of each other with the precise purpose of making progress impossible. They have both sought to claim the mantle of aspirant to peace without actually having to move in that direction, the Likud so that it could consolidate claims east of the Green Line, the Palestinians so that they could continue to maintain their claims west of the Green Line. The latest insistence that the Palestinians must publicly accept Israel as a Jewish state before there can be movement is but more of the same. "But," the Israeli nationalists insist, "how can we possibly make peace if they will not accept Israel as a Jewish state?" They of course understand quite well, as do the Arabs, that there can in the end be no peace and no Palestinian state without the acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state. The sole purpose of this posturing is to prevent progress by insisting that particular parts of the end must come at the beginning. With equal lack of justification, the Palestinians can and do say that before there can be negotiations the Israelis must accept the Saudi plan for total withdrawal to the Green Line and an Arab right of return. Self-evidently, this is not a way to conclude peace but a way not to conclude peace. Any successful start of negotiations must also take into account the disparity of power of the parties. It is self-evident when the Palestinians sit down for negotiations with the Israelis that they are implicitly accepting the existence of Israel as a Jewish state, as no one, including the wildest extremist, could possibly believe that a possible outcome of negotiations with Israel is for Israel to concede either its existence or its status as the Jewish state. Both are a foregone conclusion. On the other hand, there is no such foregone conclusion of a Palestinian state, particularly as the Likud long denied that that was even a possible outcome. Thus, sitting down with some equality of dignity does require, as Tzipi Livni insisted, that Israel publicly accept the two-state solution. Netanyahu finally did this, albeit grudgingly, but if one is serious about negotiations, it would not hurt a bit to reiterate that the mutually desired outcome of the negotiations is an independent Palestinian state with mutual security for Palestine and Israel (again implicitly acknowledging the existence of Israel). The stated purpose of negotiations should be to move forward toward that goal as fast as possible, taking whatever interim measures, for mutual confidence, for economic benefit, for mutual security, for any and every good reason, move the situation closer to that goal. Precisely because it is rather unlikely that a final settlement of all matters and claims can be reached in the near-term, or perhaps not for a very long time, productive negotiations require that Israel stop construction in the West Bank, other than in the parts it has formally annexed, and otherwise conduct itself in ways that reduce tensions and avoid public provocations and humiliations. People can sometimes agree tacitly to ignore things they don't like going on right in front of their eyes. But, if you insist on pointing it out and calling their attention to it, their shame makes it impossible for them to continue to avert their eyes. The role of shame in all violence is hugely underestimated; it is a principal driver. If Israel truly wants to create peace, it ought to strive to stop shaming the Palestinians. It is exactly this that was the tremendous fault of the Ramat Shlomo announcement. Not only did it slap the US in the face with its own retreat from the demand for a total cessation of construction beyond the Green Line, including Jerusalem, it took advantage of the unusual public attention of the Vice President's visit to shame the Palestinians all over again. This virtually demanded that the US then renew its call for a complete cessation of construction and that the Palestinians fly into a rage -- again making progress impossible, exactly what the announcement was intended to achieve. I blame Israel unequivocally for this. I personally do not accept that the reaction to the announcement was anything other than perfectly foreseeable and in fact intended. If Israel will not stop West Bank construction until final settlement, and final settlement really isn't a prospect until conditions change for the better, then what it is essentially telling the Palestinians is that they are expected to conspire in their own undoing, to engage in a process that will simply allow Israel to continue building its position in the West Bank indefinitely. Faced with that prospect, by far the best strategy for the Palestinians is to avoid negotiations, allow the situation to get worse without the cover of ongoing negotiations, and maneuver to build international pressure on Israel. That tactic is completely sensible when one thinks a bit about the balance of power. Thus, if Israel truly wants to move forward toward peace, it has to stop building. There is no way around it. The Israeli posture makes as much sense as would Arab insistence that, pending a final settlement extinguishing Arab claims west of the Green Line, Palestinian Arabs must be allowed to continue migrating into Israel because their loss of the right to do so can only be the outcome of the negotiations. Everyone would think that preposterous. Israel's position is no less preposterous if its goal is genuinely to end the conflict and live in peace and security. There is plenty of reason to question whether the latest Likud government has that goal. It is either intensely stupid or still pursuing its bad faith strategy of years past, or maybe both. Take your pick.

- roidubouloi

March 19, 2010 at 1:20pm

It would be excellent diplomacy on the part of the United States to treat Russia, a former and perhaps future super-power, nuclear-armed, and a permanent member of the Security Council whose vote and cooperation the US needs exactly as the United States treats Israel, its dependent client state. It is a hallmark of sound power politics and diplomacy completely to ignore any reality of power, as the right-wing morons above now suggest, in favor of a principled stand that treats all situations in the same manner on the basis of the application of abstract principles. Thus, as Peretz has pointed out, one must take care to use such words as "condemn" in diplomatic speech in a manner that can be considered fair, fairness too being the essence of power politics. Happily, one can anticipate that if the United States treats Russia as if it were a mere client, the Russians will be so pleased that they will come around on sanctions and we will be able to avert a nuclear-armed Iran. We must be grateful that we have with us so many right-wing morons who help us always to find the true path.

- roidubouloi

March 19, 2010 at 1:27pm

"It will be interesting how this measures up on the Obama Richter-Crisis scale vis a vis the Israeli announcement of 1600 units last week." President Obama's very short (non-existent) fuse vis a vis Israel is a privilege he bestows only on Israel. He does so because what's he got to lose if Israel takes offense? He does so because he can. Israelis are being placed in an unbearable position of being indebted to the US for being US's best and most loyal and trustworthy ally in this cynical region where ancient grudges and superstitions dictate policies and not what is best for the people's future. Simultaneously, Israelis are supposed to absorb all this bile from this benefactor because they, unlike the peoples of the region, understand what interests are and do not have the numbers, or the real estate, or the oil, or the mass murderous rage, to merit all this beneficence. So they are expected to grovel when told it is time for them to grovel. It's time to know exactly what's what. Full and unambiguous clarity is needed.

- noga1

March 19, 2010 at 1:42pm

And what if they did, malahat? Do you think that because Israel pokes its thumb in the eye of the US and gets chewed out and possibly a change of policy direction as a result that we owe Russia the same treatment? Russia is not a dependent client, but a peer with things we need. The job of US diplomacy is to protect US interests. That requires understanding what action on the part of the US is most likely to achieve its own goals. It is not about treating different nations according to any abstract notion of fairness. Doing so would only result in achieving none of its goals.

- roidubouloi

March 19, 2010 at 1:53pm

Poor Israel! How terribly taxed by is relationship of dependence on the US. Look where that has gotten it. And just imagination, that there should be some expectation of reciprocity on the part of the US and its president, which means not the gifts that Israel wishes to bestow at the least cost to itself, but accommodation to US interests and a decent respect for them and for its officers. There is no free lunch. Not at the lunch counter and not in international affairs.

- roidubouloi

March 19, 2010 at 1:57pm

Well, you can put it that way and you wouldn't be wrong. I don't think that the Russians feel free to embarrass the United States, but they also can do so with relative impunity because they are not dependent. They do have to think about what they may want with us, and vice versa, but the exchange is between parties with relatively equal power. Hence, whatever we think of their behavior, we have to exercise caution in our own interest. I assume they do too and that any slights are carefully thought out. Israel is a dependent. If it refuses to take account of our interests, it is not only a dependent, but a liability. We have every good reason to let it know that we do not want it to be a liability and that if it is there are likely to be consequences. This is actually a favor to Israel because states don't have friends, they have interests. It is not really in Israel's interest to become a liability perceived as such by the USG and the American people, as we are almost the only diplomatic friend it has. Think of it this way. If a really big guy takes offense at something you have done and, looking down from a height six inches greater than yours, calls you an asshole, you really ought to think twice about threatening to send him to bed without his supper if he doesn't apologize immediately and take a time out. On the other hand, if your 10-year old did the same, you might do just that. Should one feel free to call you an asshole but heaven help the other? Pretty much, yes. That's how it is in the real world. You respect the power of those who have it, and you insist that those over whom you have power at least respect yours. Otherwise, things get out of hand and you are going to take a lot of punishment.

- roidubouloi

March 19, 2010 at 4:19pm

"... just imagination (sic), that there should be some expectation of reciprocity on the part of the US" I think your comment reinforces my point much better than I could make it. This is the kind of canard that Israel has to deal with. A poor dependent given a life of luxury unencumbered by any demand for reciprocity whatsoever. When once, just once, an expectation of self-denial is expressed, poor dependent, typically, bites the hand that feeds it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_%E2%80%93_United_States_relations#Counter-terrorism http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=12828 http://www.factsandlogic.org/ad_02c.html With friends like roi, does Israel need enemies? But I do wonder why such high levels of invective are needed in order to respond to the raised eyebrows at Obama's incomprehensible dealing with 1600 apartments in a Jewish part of Jerusalem? Sometimes (often) the person who shouts the loudest has the least to say for himself, so he makes up with noise for what is lacking in substance. In texts, vituperation, mindless exaggeration, demonization, insults, proliferation of sarcastic asides, ad homs etc are considered noise. [Signal-to-noise ratio is defined as the power ratio between a signal (meaningful information) and the background noise (unwanted signal)]

- noga1

March 19, 2010 at 4:46pm

" It is not really in Israel's interest to become a liability " It is possible, with the right combination of a charismatic leader, his captive following and an obedient media, to create any impression that leader may wish to create. But it does not end there, because liabilities are also in the eye of the beholder. And someone who is not a liability can be made to be a liability. It is much like any other slander. Once a slander is made, though, it is damn hard to undo. Impossible, I would say. But of course these are ethical concerns that have nothing to do with nations and interests.

- noga1

March 19, 2010 at 4:59pm

Marty, I'm sure that Commentary et al. appreciated your endorsements, but wouldn't it have been simpler to just provide a link to the Likud website?

- tmitch57

March 19, 2010 at 9:39pm

I find Obama's anger perfectly comprehensible. It is not for Israel to define the interests of the US and then insist that it is an asset the US on that basis. It is for the US to define the interests of the US and ask that, in exchange for its patronage and support without which Israel would not long survive, Israel demonstrate a decent respect and consideration for those interests AS THE US DEFINES THEM. It may not be the happiest of states to be a dependent client, but that is the reality of Israel's existence since its founding. Notwithstanding its heroic deeds in its own defense, it would not exist without US patronage, both at its founding and since. That is just how it is. Given the essential nature of the patronage, Israel is very ill-advised to insist that the relationship be defined by US deference to Israeli interests whether or not they are in conflict with US interests. * * * Malahat, your Machiavelli just won't fly. I was not for a moment suggesting that Clinton and Obama ought to accept the slight from Putin, nor that Russia is equally powerful. But it is a peer, with a crucial veto on the Security Council, even if the US is primus inter pares. Israel is not a peer. For those reasons alone, but also because the array of overlapping interests and competing interests with the Russians bears no resemblance whatsoever to the interests of the US and Israel, Obama's dealings with Israel have exactly zero relevance to his dealings with Russia. There is absolutely no basis for "equivalent treatment" because there are no rules of the game that raise any such expectation. The rules are that the US acts in its best interests, with due regard to the immediate circumstances and its long-term relationships. As to what the US ought to do in a particular situation, that is an entirely different question. Given the situation in Iran, the US is not in a particularly strong position with regard to Russia at the moment. Understandably, the highest priority of the US-Russian relationship at this point is the security of their nukes. After that, securing their cooperation on Iran, if that is possible on acceptable terms, is the highest priority. That may require a lot of lip-biting and swallowing of behavior by which Russia, the weaker power, attempts to assert its importance. Knowing how to deal with that is the art of diplomacy. On a given day, that may require being feared. On another day, it may not. Anyone who thinks that there is some absolute rule in this regard would be a very poor diplomat. On which point, I will raise your Machiavelli with a Teddy Roosevelt: "Speak softly and carry a big stick." Even that doesn't apply to Israelis, however. It is the nature of that culture that one cannot speak softly and expect anyone to pay attention, which makes it all the more amusing that Israelis now complain about Obama being too angry, too loud, whatever. One should see what goes on on the floor of the Knesset.

- roidubouloi

March 19, 2010 at 9:51pm

Oh really? And what leverage, exactly, does the US have over Iran, Russia, N. Korea, Syria, Venezuela, or China? Do tell, in each case please, what you think would constitute being tough to your standards. Prior to Bush, the US at least enjoyed a certain prestige amongst its enemies. That was largely dissipated by Bush's war in Iraq and its demonstration of US impotence and military exhaustion -- fighting only in Iraq! As a result, we have considerably less leverage and prestige today that we did before the administration of the Idiot-in-Chief. In any case, since you are a fan of toughness, explain how that is to be demonstrated in each case. Otherwise, you accusations against Obama and Mme. Clinton are really quite empty of meaning, just slurs really. While you are at it, any single example of such toughness on the part of Bush, other than the invasion of a two-cent power like Iraq on a pretext, would be welcome. Just to establish the standard that is.

- roidubouloi

March 19, 2010 at 11:39pm

Yeah, Tora Bora tough. What sanctions do you imagine we could impose on Iran that we haven't already imposed on Iran? Come on, malahat, don't be evasive. Give us some remotely plausible version of your Machiavellian inspiration of fear as it applies to Russia, Iran, N. Korea, China, Syria, Venezuela. Tell us how you would inspire Machivellian fear. Or at least give us some recent example of the US doing so. Just so that I can understand how it is done and what you mean by inspiring fear. Should we nuke 'em? Threaten to nuke 'em? Because if you can't come up with at least one example of how a tough-guy like you, not a wimp like Hillary or Obama, would discipline Russia, et alia, then I would have to say you are just blowing smoke. (But we already know that's the case, don't we? You just don't want to admit that you have not the slightest idea of how to make your tough talk a reality.)

- roidubouloi

March 20, 2010 at 1:03am

Not as simple as it sounds. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1926655,00.html Exhausting the possibilities for Russian and Chinese cooperation may be a better bet. Whenever the Security Council has been unified, Iran has bent. Of course, faux-tough-guy Bush made a whole little sideline out of pissing on the Russians. Look where it has gotten us.

- roidubouloi

March 20, 2010 at 9:26am

You have got to be kidding, Mr. Peretz: Podhoretz fils is "producing a fine and fresh Commentary?" More like a stale and mediocre Commentary. I read Commentary back in the glory days of the 1970's and 80's and I can assure the readers of TNR that there is nothing fine and fresh about that magazine these days. John Podhoretz is a poster child for the lectures I like to give on regression to the mean and on nepotism. Virtually all of the neoconservative progeny are inferior products compared to the Irving Kristols, the Midge Decters, the Norman Podhoretzs, et al. What Mark Lilla has written about the now-defunct Public Interest, that it was a bang-up publication at the outset but all too soon became a home to the likes of the supply-side ideologues goes double for Commentary under J. Podhoretz. Yes, they are more realistic on the Mideast than many commentators are and this must be the only reason that you heap accolades on this tired periodical. About the only thing worth reading in Commentary, besides some of the coverage of the Middle East, is the excellent Terry Teachout and occasionally, a book review or two. The New Republic is a far superior magazine to Commentary but thirty years ago it was a much closer call.

- liberal reformer

March 20, 2010 at 3:14pm

"the Palestinians don't want peace" Right. The Palestinians. Because, you know, they all think with exactly the same mind, not like they're individuals or moral agents with some modicum of free will or anything.

- miceelf

March 20, 2010 at 3:55pm

libref: agree and disagree with you. On the agree side: It says something that Peretz can be so benign about Jennifer Rubin being "over the top”. That phrase is euphemistic and rationalizing--as in "There goes Jennifer just being Jennifer. What are you going to do?"--of a multitude of intellectual sins. She's smart and writes well and unrelenting. I'll grant her that. But on the blurry line between polemics and propaganda she has both feet clearly planted on the propaganda side. "Over the top" is insufficient to characterize her egregious, unrelenting and, finally, rabid hatred of Obama and the Democratic--read Liberal--agenda. She cuts him not an ounce of slack and she is patently unfair in laying all criticism at his feet in the most supercilious, one sided and circular manner imaginable. Reading her, you'd think he is the worst president in the history of your republic and has not done a single good thing. Blogging is in part the art of translating the idiosyncratic into the interesting and persuasive. For me, it's, at its heart, a polemical art. But that it is that does not of course justify intellectual disreputability, which in Jennifer Rubin is manifest, and in which Peretz unwittingly steeps himself by equating her being over the top to that in himself. In fact, he's not as bad as her but it’s revealing of an ocean of self unknowing and poor judgment that he does not see what a terrible equation it is for him. What he should answer for himself is, given that he favors the passage of health care reform and given his criticism of ideologically demented Republican resistance to it, how can he cite her quality and strength as a blogger when she is, on the question of health care reform, the poster woman of such ideological extremism. That extremism is not to be dismissed as "over the top"; it's to be seen viral, virulent, bad faith, anti intellectual disreputability. Here's a kind of irony: Wieseltier's well taken, recent and highly controversial criticism here of Andrew Sullivan applies to Peretz as well. The hinge of Wieseltier’s criticism as I read him was not anti Semitism but, rather, intellectual disreputability. Disagree: I subscribe to Commentary having done so from the late sixties, when it was beginning to leave its liberalism behind, to date. I was about to give up its ghost before John Podhoretz gussied it up. Before that, save for occasionally good articles, it was like wading through the repetitive sludge each time I read it. But its new iteration, though I find the content predictable, it’s spritely and varied with newer, younger, better writers, expert in their areas, though they write out of a fixed perspective. don't know really how to engage with you on the new Commentary save for trading subjectivities. But I'd be happy, if you’re interested, to take, say, the March issue and tell you why I think it’s pretty good. I'd say generally though as against Jennifer Rubin's blogging propaganda, it's by and large on the polemical side of that line (even though she contributes articles to it as well. Nothing, after all, is perfect or close to it.)

- basman

March 20, 2010 at 6:12pm

Plus she's a big fan of Sarah Palin, who Peretz reviles.

- basman

March 20, 2010 at 6:34pm

What's embarasing, or really disgraceful, is invoking a convicted felon like Elliot Abrams. Abrams was one of the biggest proponents of the death squads in Nicaragua: he first denied their existence, and then excused their evil. In the end, of course, the sandanistas gave up power, not because of Abrams' butchers, but with the vote...they lost an election and left. What Peretz et al forget is that this is the United States and Obama conducts foreign policy in OUR best interests....NOT in the best interests of Israel.

- OscarPeck

March 20, 2010 at 8:53pm

Amen, Oscar.

- roidubouloi

March 20, 2010 at 11:06pm