THE SPINE MARCH 16, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Yes, many—likely most—Israelis want this or that part of the city to go ultimately to the Palestinian Authority, a larger portion more forthcoming than less… But none want any of it to go to Hamas. Who will be the legatee, however, is not something that Israel has the ability to decide.
Some Israelis want the whole of Jerusalem to remain under their sovereignty. That is neither feasible nor desirable.
The opportunities are very small, indeed. The Arabs are enraged, although they are easily enraged and have been enraged for decades. Since the mid-1800s, Jerusalem has had a Jewish majority. (This is an index of how important the Muslims’ “third holiest city” truly was to them.) In any case, it also has a (substantial) Jewish majority now, even though Palestinians have been surreptitiously moving into a Jerusalem controlled by Israel.
Why are they doing that? There is only one reason, and it is that these Palestinians do not want to live under Palestinian sovereignty. And who is to blame them? Do you think a single one of the Arab citizens of Israel will make aliyah to Palestine? Or are you crazy?
Frankly, the major difficulty is that the Jewish neighborhoods and the Arab neighborhoods are interlocked, like one hand folded into another. They are now more interlocked than ever. There is no clean way to separate between peoples, especially between angry peoples. And the bald truth is that Palestinians can be called out to riot at the drop of a hat. In fact, they are rioting right now.
Pity the cartographers who will have to draw the maps. At the end of 2000 and the beginning of 2001, the mapmakers drew lines that split Old City neighborhoods in half. The P.A. was assigned two sides of the Armenian Quarter, and Israel the dividing road between the two.
Here is a conflict between two demographies. The Palestinians have an empty vastness to the east of the city and adjoining it. Let them build there and attach whatever they build to their Jerusalem. Just as the Israelis built westward. The few areas of real estate in conflict are, indeed, really few.
Barack Obama has tried to enforce his hyperhysteria on the subject by, well, hyperhysteria. He even thinks he can force a change in the Israeli government. But, on Jerusalem, for all their differences, the major political parties are united. Labor, Bibi’s natural opposition, will not unconditionally cede the future of the city to Arab whims or Obama’s fantasies. Anyway, it’s in the government. More importantly, Kadima, which is Bibi’s natural ally, is out of the government and in opposition; it, too, supports building in Jerusalem--modestly, to be sure. Israel is united on this. It is a factor the Obami must contend with.
53 comments
Some Israelis want the whole of Jerusalem to remain under their sovereignty. That is neither feasible nor desirable. Bullshit, it is both feasible and desirable. Are you aware that the Northern Irish are considered Irish citizens and can have Irish passports if they choose? Let the Arab Palestinians have the same kind of rights. Having walls zigzagging all over Jerusalem would be a disgrace. The Palestinian authority can be given a Vatican type of enclave in East Jerusalem for their capital but the entire city proper should be under the military protection and security of Israel. The Palestinians will greatly benefit to this as well, increased trade, security, access to health care, etc. It sounds like Marty is advocating for an Arab ghetto in Jerusalem, it would be a long term disaster.
- blackton
March 16, 2010 at 2:40pm
"And the bald truth is that Palestinians can be called out to riot at the drop of a hat." So too the Haredi, whether it be over a parking lot in the Arab section of the city open on Satudays, an Intel plant that needs to maintain production on Saturdays so the product does not spoil while being cured, or over a vacant lot with 5,000 year old dead pagan bones adjacent to a hospital so that the hospital has to build its emergency room yards away from its main building. Religious extremists are religious extremists. They may vary in numbers and intensity from time to time, but one thing is true of all of them— they will not listen to reason because they are always right. They make life unpleasant for the rest of us, even if we're 8,000 miles away. Smell the burning trash cans in Mea Shearim. . . er, I mean the coffee.
- Stuart Wilder
March 16, 2010 at 3:58pm
I agree with Blackton. It would be ironic if we enabled a real apartheid situation wouldn't it, a city of walls, rather than working to reconcile people and inspiring them to live like neighbors. In an era of real peace, which will take some time to achieve, Jerusalem could easily be a shared and open capitol. But to accomplish this we have to lead by example, reinforcing ideals of tolerance, patience and mutual respect. Unfortunately I think we have taken a huge step backwards in the past few days. The hard line of the Administration, for which I voted, hasn't been helpful imo and I am personally shocked by this. I think it's potentially disastrous. Beyond that regarding any part of Jerusalem as a "settlement" is a real problem. It also tends to buy into the idea that Jewish history is meaningless, which is especially hurtful concerning the Old City. Since 1948, has the world condemned siege, attack and the banishment of Jews from its ancient core? Part of any real peace means respect for "the other's" history and humanity. This overreaction has also provided a perfect excuse not only for rioting but for backing away from negotiations, indeed it's put Abu Mazzen in a real spot as he can't appear less hardline than the President. In a situation like this underreaction is better than overreaction because emotions are already running high and the slightest thing provides an excuse for violence. Maybe first we need to address issues like outside incitement, bigoted propaganda, hurt from previous wars, and competing religious and historical claims. Without recognition of psychic issues and previous damage no outside force can create peace.
- Sophia
March 16, 2010 at 4:32pm
But a city of walls is not apartheid. Palestinian citizens permanently subject to municipal government by Israel in which they have no vote, that would be something very much like apartheid. Possibly a least-bad solution nonetheless, but the alternative of partition and walls and such is how you avoid apartheid. I wonder whether it wouldn't be better for the U.S. government to express no preferences at all with regard to any issue that impinges on a final territorial settlement. At least in public. All parties know what a final agreement will require: Palestinians must give up the right of return to Israel, Israel must give up some degree of control over some portion of Jerusalem (even blackton's proposal involves this), and both parties must agree to territorial swaps to make both sides whole. Since these are known, and have been known for at least 20 years, does it really profit anyone for Washington to restate them? Such a stance might both better suit what should be the American position (an ally of the state of Israel, and a friend to the people of Israel and to the people of Palestine) and enable us to play a more constructive role in facilitating negotiations than we have under Bush the Lesser and Obama, both of whose administrations have been very forward in making demands of both parties as if we were a third party to the dispute.
- rhubarbs
March 16, 2010 at 5:11pm
"Palestinian citizens permanently subject to municipal government by Israel in which they have no vote, that would be something very much like apartheid." Palestinians do have the vote in municipal government. They choose to boycott the elections. "Due to the Palestinian leadership's policy of non-cooperation or samud,5 Jerusalem Arabs do not present themselves as candidates for the City Council. Only a miniscule percentage vote in the municipal elections.6 Most refuse to cooperate with the Israeli municipal administration, either because they reject any act that might be construed as submitting to Israeli rule or because others have intimidated them.7 Indeed, the PLO and the Palestinian Authority strive to coerce Jerusalem's Arabs to observe their policy of total non-cooperation.8 Consequently, the city's Arab residents have abdicated any direct role in the democratic political process by which the city is governed.' http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-spine/israelis-are-undivided-jerusalem#comments
- noga1
March 16, 2010 at 5:27pm
I could see (but would not like) Jerusalem split between two entities, with a border running through the city. Time would be needed to separate sewage, water, probably power etc.. However to think that a single city could be a shared capitol between two inherently unfriendly political entities is a naive utopian fantasy. And we have had more than enough of that. The tangles & complications would be endless and unworkable. Can anyone give me an example, a working example, of a capitol city shared between two countries, let alone two countries whose relationship is cold to hostile at best? I can't. Ergo, to assume that it would be workable in the case of Jerusalem is rather far fetched. Add to the messy mix the contemporary Islamic hostility to any recognition of any sort of Jewish connection to the city -- best exemplified by the rabid attacks on the dedication of the rebuilt Hurva synagogue in the heart of the Jewish quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem -- and envisioning that "Jerusalem could easily be a shared and open capitol" takes no account of the reality on the ground. As Ari Shavit pointed out in Ha'aretz last week (here) the great failure of the Zionist Left in Israel is its inability to recognize and deal with reality. BTW, all Arabs living within the municipal boundaries of J'lem are permanent residents, with regular Israeli ID cards and all the social benefits and rights -- except for voting -- of an Israeli citizens. They also have the option to become citizens and gain the right to vote. Historically relatively few have elected to do so, but more are now as part of the move of more eastern Jerusalem Arabs into the western neighborhoods. They are the last ones who would want to live under the aegis of the P.A., peace or no peace. Hershel Ginsburg Efrata / Jerusalem
- ginzy
March 16, 2010 at 5:39pm
ginzy, the Vatican is one. As to naive utopian fantasies, might you be interested in the story of the two Berlins (OK, too easy) and how about Nicosia? In March 2008, a wall that for decades had stood at the boundary between the Greek Cypriot controlled side and the Turkish side was demolished. The wall had cut across Ledra Street in the heart of Nicosia and was seen as a strong symbol of the island's 32-year division. On 3 April 2008, Ledra Street was reopened in the presence of Greek and Turkish Cypriot officials. Anyway, I don't foresee any peace process in the near (or even far) future that would lead to this result, just that that ideal is better than Jerusalem split apart like Nicosia or Berlin.
- blackton
March 16, 2010 at 7:53pm
"Can anyone give me an example, a working example, of a capitol city shared between two countries, let alone two countries whose relationship is cold to hostile at best? I can't" Sorry, but just to be clear Nicosia in Cyprus is an example of a shared Capital city, between the Turks and the Greeks, whose relationship is as cold and hostile as it is between the Jews and Arabs.
- blackton
March 16, 2010 at 8:00pm
I am personally of the view that Jerusalem and Israel would be better off with the city as its undivided capital. But if Israel chooses to concede sovereignty over some part of the city in order to make peace, I would be the last to suggest that it ought not do so. I am also of the view that Israel can legitimately incorporate any contiguous part of the West Bank if it is prepared to accord the inhabitants full political rights and citizenship, as it is willing to do for Arab inhabitants of Jerusalem. Whether this would be wise in light of the demographics or whether incorporation not sanctioned by agreement with the Arabs would be able to sustain the pressure of world opinion are different questions. What is clearly unacceptable in the modern world is for Israel to be in its present position in which it governs a subject population that does not enjoy equal political rights while maintaining extra-territorial possessions, the detached settlements, in territory it will not incorporate. If one wants to talk about the failure to recognize reality, a failure of the Zionist Right, this would be the place to start, and it exceeds by an order of magnitude the wildest fantasies of the Zionist Left. This is an unsustainable position and the longer it is sustained, the weaker Israel's position becomes. If Israel had somehow managed to rid itself of the bulk of the West Bank and incorporate parts of it, there would have been Arab revanchism to be sure, and anger in other parts of the world to be sure, but, in the absence of any subject population, the world would have grown to tolerate this and impatient with Arab rejectionism. The best evidence of this is that this is precisely what happened after the War or Independence which turned armistice lines into de facto borders, including within them a lot of territory from the Arab partition, to the point where most of the world incorrectly believes the Green Line to be the legal border of Israel. In reality, Israel has no juridically recognized borders. None-the-less, with time, de facto borders become de jure borders so long as the inhabitants within them are accorded equal political rights. The maintenance of its control over a subject population of hostile Arabs is the single factor that prevents Israel from having either de jure borders or de facto borders that inevitably become to be recognized as de jure borders. Thus, by maintaining the Greater Israel fantasy on the ground, if no longer in its rhetoric, Israel keeps its own borders unsettled and risks the prospect, the growing prospect, that whatever process finally brings those borders to rest will not be in its favor. The Arabs understand this. They understand that if they agree to a settlement based on de jure borders, they will not have the ability in the future to re-strike the deal. Thus, whatever deal Israel might be willing to make today is likely the least that they could obtain. That is why the last round of Camp David negotiations failed. If, on the other hand, they prevent the conflict from coming to rest, as they routinely and strategically do, the possibility that the correlation of political, military, and economic forces may give them a better deal in the future continues to exist. Consider it like an open option. At the termination date, the option ceases to have value. If it remains open, it continues to have value, however low the odds of coming into the money. The Arab strategy is one that makes a virtue out of military weakness, putting in place of military strength the ability both to wait and to suffer for a very long time. The suffering is itself a weapon that invites the world's sympathies and makes the mere fact of Israeli dominion -- occupation -- increasingly unacceptable. Just as an impatient world is unwilling to entertain the threat of force with respect to old boundary disputes, so too is it unwilling to reprise the history of how a population became a subject population. It wants the condition to end as it is a provocation to the system of nation-states and destabilizing to it. This explains why the Arabs at regular intervals do things that seem perversely to increase their own misery. Their misery combined with Israel's dominion over them is their weapon of choice in the absence of military strength. It is not a stupid strategy, although it is not easy to endure. It is a strategy that is moving slowly but continuously in the Arabs' favor, and there does not appear to me to be any reason to thing that this process will come to a halt on its own. What is perverse from the point of view of Arab objectives is the continued violence. If the Arabs declared a state, abjured violence, and refused resolutely to concede Israeli claims to any territory beyond the Green Line, I think it likely that they would eventually succeed in gaining sovereignty over everything to the east of the Green Line, including East Jerusalem, because that line had become a de facto border after 1948. Of course, for Arabs whose objective is to destroy Israel, that is unacceptable. Hence, it is in their interest to prevent even a settlement that conceded any Arab claims to the west of the Green Line while conceding to Palestine all territory to its east. They want the war to continue forever unless and until their objective is achieved, and they therefore use terrorism to prevent any peace to which a majority of Palestinians might grow accustomed from ever taking hold. If the Arab strategy, despite its self-inflicted pain and difficulty, is moving slowly but continuously towards its goal -- a territorial settlement that is highly unfavorable to Israel -- how can it possibly be in the interest of Israel to assist the Arabs in their strategy by acting in a manner that makes it more rather than less difficult to abandon its dominion over the Palestinians? It cannot be. Yet, in the grip of its extreme right-wing, the mirror image of the Arab rejectionists who simply want to frustrate peace forever, this is exactly what Israel does. Although not the worst example -- that would be the detached settlements themselves, its tolerance of illegal settlements, and everything that increases Arab misery -- the latest egregiously mistimed announcement about building in Jerusalem is an example of Israel at its strategic worst. At the very least, Israel would need to conduct itself in such a manner that the Arabs are blamed for the situation, to the greatest extent possible, although the very imbalance in power makes it unlikely that Israel could ever relieve itself of the perception that it is principally responsible for the current situation. The endless historical justifications of how we got here are the best effort in that direction and they are unavailing. The reasons why Israel tries to distinguish its policy in the West Bank from its policy in Jerusalem are obvious. But for that distinction to have worked, it would have required a degree of tact in the execution that is far beyond the capability of the messianic right-wing. It would have required a very public and forthcoming loosening in the West Bank, including the suspension of all construction, with a policy of very, very limited and gradual work in Jerusalem for the purpose of sustaining the claim of right with the least provocation. Slicing the salami in exceedingly thin slices. At this point, Israel ought to consider deeply how to get itself out of the mess it is in, of being stuck with no negotiations and a subject population that is gradually dragging it down by being unwilling to be pacified. The smart move at this point would be publicly to suspend all residential building over the Green Line, while insisting publicly that it concedes nothing as to the final status of any territory or population, as a declared gesture of good faith for the resumption of direct negotiations. It need not have come to this, but the right-wing has over-played its hand, as it always does, perpetually weakening Israel's position. Whether or not negotiations commence, Israel should be completing its security fence (should have long since finished it), preparing the infrastructure to the west of it for separation from the West Bank, and completing a military reservation along the Jordan River. The likelihood is that, sooner or later, Israel is going to have to withdraw unilaterally its population from most of the territory of the West Bank. If Israel is prepared to do this, there is actually less likelihood that it will be compelled to do this, because it is perfectly clear that if it does so the line to which it withdraws will become the de facto border. The Arabs will want to prevent this. The other thing it should be doing, with or without ongoing negotiations, is everything it can conceive of to produce prosperity in the West Bank and the integration of the West Bank economy with that of Israel, consistent with the demands of security. Conversely, it should be minimizing to the greatest possible extent consistent with security the presence of the IDF in West Bank. Together, these things are the best available negation of the Arab strategy of continuing unrest and self-imposed subordination. The situation created by settlement of the West Bank is by this time so fraught that this is merely the best that can be done under the circumstances. It is far from ideal. But, as things stand, Israel has no strategic and implied threat other than its own demographic submergence in Palestine, a prospect that the Arabs welcome. By giving itself a credible threat of unilateral civilian withdrawal and continued military occupation (what did not occur but should have in Gaza), Israel at least gives itself some strategic room for maneuver. As things now stand, courtesy of the messianic right, its strategic situation is hopeless.
- roidubouloi
March 16, 2010 at 8:09pm
Nicosia, Cyprus is really the only other Divided Cpital City. Divided between the Greeks and the Turks it has been divided since the British granted Cyprus independence. The United Nations has called on Turkey to remove their miltary forces from Cyprus. Another British Mess that the UN thinks they can maintain at status quo for the next 100 years. Here's an idea. Let Turkey have the other half of Cyprus and give Israel full soviergnty over Jerusalem, solve two 50 year old disputes with one swap. Let the Greek Cypriots move to Israel and the Palestinian Arabs go to Turkey or Cyprus.
- CRS9TNR
March 16, 2010 at 9:13pm
Peretz writes "Palestinians have been surreptitiously moving into a Jerusalem controlled by Israel. Why are they doing that? There is only one reason, and it is that these Palestinians do not want to live under Palestinian sovereignty. And who is to blame them?" That is an awful thing to write. After years of the West Bank getting shot up, bombed, subjected to martial law and being riddled with check-points and settlements, I don't doubt that some Palestinians want to move to Jerusalem. You can argue that the Palestinians brought their fate on themselves and I am not interested in having that argument for the millionth time, but claiming that they are fleeing Abbas-Fayyad misrule is chutzpah at its finest. To borrow an analogy from Raymond Chandler, that's like knocking out someone's teeth and then accusing him of mumbling.
- WillPastor
March 17, 2010 at 1:43am
Are you 100% certain of your facts Will Pastor? There are after all other reasons people might want to live in Israel and these include religious and gender tolerance. And, refugees from other conflict zones seek asylum in Israel, including people from the Sudan.
- Sophia
March 17, 2010 at 2:47am
Just time for a few quick comments (Roi you outdo me in the massiveness of your missives; maybe I'll have time to fully digest it during Passover break & after I am done with all the doings from my daughter's wedding last week & caught up on my work). "...if it is prepared to accord the inhabitants full political rights and citizenship, as it is willing to do for Arab inhabitants of Jerusalem." The Arabs of post-67 Jerusalem are deemed permanent residents with full social (including National Insurance payments) / medical / educational rights plus the right (usually an un-exercised) to vote in municipal elections. Sort of like a Green Card plus. They can elect to become full citizens with the right to vote nationally if they choose. Again it's THEIR option. Most have opted not to take citizenship under implicit and explicit threat from the PLO, Hamas etc. With a few exceptions (most notably Benny Elon former MK National Union) it is generally understood and accepted that any Palestinians living in areas of Judea & Samaria that are formally annexed to Israel will gain the same status as Palestinians living in the post-'67 neighborhoods of J'lem -- permanent residents with the option to become citizens. There is one interesting case brewing. A Palestinian village located in the heart of Gush Etzion (I am not naming it out of concern for their safety) wants to become part of the Gush Etzion Regional council (i.e., the local government for the Gush Etzion region exclusive of Efrata & Beitar). They already have close relationships with the Council and many work in the Council's facilities. The head (i.e., the mayor) of the Regional Council Sha'ul Goldstein is in favor, as are many if not most members of the Council. The issue seems to be stuck in the national gov't probably fearing negative repercussions from from the official Pals plus the so-called "International Community". Pastor -- Historically Arabs have always voted with their feet when they could do so. If you go to the Mahaneh Yehuda open market in the western part of Jerusalem, you will discover that many of the stalls have been bought up by Palestinians from eastern Jerusaelm in order to plant roots in the Western side of the city, in anticipation of its eventual division. Often they will then rent or even buy apartments in the Nahla'ot area near the market to complete the transfer. Increasingly, some of the better off eastern J'lem Pals are quietly moving in to the French Hill and Ramat Eshkol neighborhoods for the same reason. Quietly, because they fear retribution from the "official" Palestinian institutions. Researchers from various Jerusalem oriented think tanks (including those identified with the moderate left) have reported repeatedly that many Pals from eastern J'lem prefer the current status quo rather than falling prey to the PLO & P.A. Aside from the obvious social benefits from being Israeli residents or citizens they fear for their wallets & their lives if left to live under the P.A., let alone Hamas (who would likely win a free election). In Efrat we know of any number of Pals from the area for whom living under the corruption ridden P.A. unfiltered by Israel is their worst nightmare; as is you hear complaints about dealing with the P.A. The inconvenient truth of the endemic corruption problem has been assiduously ignored by most of the MSM (it's not politically correct) but the election strength of Hamas, including in Gaza is largely due to the perception (correct or not I don't know) that they are far less corrupt than Fatah & the PLO & the P.A. Abu Mazen appointed eastern J'lemite Fahmi Shabaneh to expose & root out corruption but then fired him when Shabaneh actually had the gall to do what he was hired to do. Shabaneh is now if fear of his life. As would be expected most of the Western MSM, including the ostensibly august NY Times ignored or downplayed the story. The story was broken and published by the Jerusalem Post’s fearless and peerless Palestinian affairs journalist Khaled Abu Toameh (e.g., here, , ). These are facts which I grant are at variance with the central dogmas of political correcticism (the western church). Such is the law of nature. Political correctness is inversely proportional to factual correctness But it makes no difference. Right and wrong and legal arguments are irrelevant. What counts is US power & the perks of the presidency. Obama “does” Jewish, he doesn’t “do” Israel. That’s life. hg P.S. Interesting tidbit. The Israeli Hebrew language daily Makor Rishon reported the other day that the actual maps signed as part of the 1949 cease fire agreement between Israel and Jordan indicate that Ramat Shlomo was not built on land that later became the “West Bank” but rather is situated in what was no-man’s land between 1949 and 1967. Thus the land is between the respective Green Lines.
- ginzy
March 17, 2010 at 7:23am
Additional articles by Abu Toameh that fell off into the Mediterranean bit bucket: here and here. hg
- ginzy
March 17, 2010 at 7:29am
P.P.S. Nicosia is a DIVIDED city, not a shared city. That was the case already in January 1971 when I visited there and I understand it's even more so now. I believe that laws, city ordinances, zoning rules (and committees), police forces, in short all aspects of governance are separate and different for the two parts. Remember, as far as Turkey is concerned there are two separate countries. If you will note the beginning of my post I said I could envsion (sadly) a divided city but not shared. Again, is their any example of a capitol SHARED (as opposed to divided) between inherently hostile populations? hg
- ginzy
March 17, 2010 at 7:36am
But let's be clear: Obama is not demanding that there never be building in East Jerusalem, he's asking for a temporary settlement freeze so he has something to take back to the Palestinians and make demands of them. While reasonable people can disagree weather the Palestinians deserve any concessions, the U.S. is completely in its rights to ask for it. What are we talking about, a single year freeze? I'm sorry but if THAT'S the "do not cross" line for "united" Israeli opinion then we have a serious problem. It's like giving an unemployed friend lots of money for years and then he tells you he can't watch your dog for a week while you're on vacation because it will cramp his style too much.
- Lymon1
March 17, 2010 at 10:36am
Lymon, Don't be naive. There is nothing more permanent than something temporary. And the reality is that few Israelis - even among the center-left punditry - trust Obama at this point. He has reneged too many times on previous arrangements. Also the Palestinians will always stake out a more extreme position than that staked out by the Obamanaughts. And I will remind you that Ramat Shlomo is not "East" Jerusalem - it's north. And it's not part of the West Bank (it was no man's land between '49 and '67). Hillel Halkin provides a good analysis of this point here: http://www.nysun.com/foreign/american-credibility-at-stake-in-showdown-over/86911/ hg
- ginzy
March 17, 2010 at 11:12am
ginzy, that is my point. I don't want it shared in the way you seem to think I do. I would like Jerusalem to be nearly totally controlled by Israel, the Palestinians there could be like the Northern Irish, having dual citizenship (if they chose Israeli). I would hate to see the city having huge walls, etc. Divided cities have always been a failure. Look at Northern Ireland's history for that. By the way, I understand you are saying you can't have a shared Capital city between two hostile forces. I am not stating that I am for that. But you are making the assumption that Pals and Israels will be forever hostile, I am saying a potentially non-hostile situation is like the Vatican City in Rome, or even (in a kind of indirect analogy) Belfast in Northern Ireland. It is a Capital city populated by historically hostile peoples (the Catholics and the Protestants) In any case, if Israel and the Pals decide to divide up Jerusalem like Nicosia or Berlin was, it is your business.
- blackton
March 17, 2010 at 11:49am
Ginzy, that's positively Orwellian ("there is nothing more permanent than something temporary") -- if the mighty Bibi can spit in Obama's face today, he could spit in Obama's face even harder after saying "Out of deference to our great friend the United States, we are freezing all settlements for a year" and a year later if there was no meaningful concession by the Palestinians restarted (and actually, a "horizontal freeze" would probably have sufficed -- as Dershowitz said, adding a few floors to an apartment building is different than tearing down a few Palestinian houses and replacing them with Jewish ones). In fact, had Bibi done such a thing, here's what likely would have happened: all the people against it would, a year later, be the loudest ones proclaiming that the Israelis had given the Palestinians a chance to stop the settlements and they rejected it, just like all those most against Barak's offer in 2000 today use Arafat's rejection as a major talking point. And I wouldn't disagree. More fundementally, your logic is a blank check -- it says "no matter what one party might owe another, they can never ask that the debt be paid back because it might be a slippery slope to something greater." Regardless of what one feels about the legality of the settlements or if a feeze is a good tactic, we've done enough to demand it and that much is Obama's call. blackton -- I would argue that New York City is a bit like this -- isn't the UN headquarters considered some sort of sovereign area?
- Lymon1
March 17, 2010 at 12:19pm
Dollars to donuts Obama demands bibi continue indefinitely the 10 month freeze in Judea & Samaria when it expires in September. The one thing Obama ever asked of the Pals is that they stop their incitement & celebration of violence. The Pals announce that they are going to name a square in Ramallah (or the El Bireh suburb) after the terrorist responsible for one of the worst & bloodiest attacks in Israeli history (about 30 killed, many more wounded). Biden visits Ramallah, asks Abu Mazen to cancel the naming as it was clearly at variance with Obama's request. Abu Mazen says sure. A day or two later they go ahead with the naming. Nary a peep out of the White House on that. I guess Biden wasn't sufficiently insulted. What's the lesson to the Pals? Do what you want, Obama won't do a thing. Roi dismissively says that's a symbol which is not important -- Roi will never ever criticize Obama because one doesn't criticize gods. Anyone who knows anything about the middle east knows that symbols mean a lot here and the manipulation of symbols can kill -- example, the staged killing of Mohammed al-Dura. Many Israelis were killed to avenge his fictional death. Now you could say so what do what Obama asks since the Obamanaughts are holding a gun to your head. Fair enough. But don't be surprised when Israelis, even those of the moderate left (i.e., to the right of Meretz) simply don't like or trust Obama. And don't tell me (as did Ethan Bonner in an interview with Chris Mathews) its racism. One other question - given that Abu Mazen rejected the supergenerous offer made by Olmert, an offer that even Tzippi Livni & Ehud Barak thought was dangerous and unwarranted, what could possibly come of negotiations now especially if Obama won't pressure the Pals? hg
- ginzy
March 17, 2010 at 12:49pm
thank you malahat -- what was your original handle again? hg
- ginzy
March 17, 2010 at 1:14pm
ginzy, and what would happen if Obama did pressure the Pals? Nothing. Palestinians haven't even taken yes for an answer, what good can no do? I think you are being a tad naive or maybe disingenuous in your expectations of what any American administration can do with regard to the likes of the PLO. The only reason there is pressure for negotiations is so that the US can mollify the Saudi princes, and lessen one small area of conflict between us and the Iraqis, etc. It is a show and if the show saves the lives of American soldiers, I am all for it. As to the negotiations, I am fully aware that no good will come of it And cut back on the hyperbole, no one here worships Obama or consider him a god, it is needless provocation and undercuts your arguments. As to me, I just roll my eyes at such statements. You have a strong enough argument to make without resorting to such snark.
- blackton
March 17, 2010 at 2:11pm
Well unfortunately the violence in Jerusalem has continued and King Abdullah of Jordan is now claiming The Jews Want to Rid Jerusalem Of Arabs. This is unhelpful. Oh, a rocket hit today too, from Gaza. I'm especially concerned with these reports supposedly made by the US Military that Israel represents a threat to American soldiers. This has a familiar ring to it, unfortunately. And, I don't doubt that Arab and other Muslim leaders are blaming Israel for their problems including extremism. This is not a new tactic, here's a Guardian piece from a few years ago, which details some of the problems confronting the Arab world: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/29/un-report-arab-world I'm very concerned about this. I think the whole situation is lamentable and also very dangerous. One of the ironies here includes the fact that many on the Left deplore US intervention in foreign governments, for example the overthrow of Iran's Mossadegh continues to rankle and of course there is the arming of Iraq and also Iran/Contra and several examples in Latin America. Yet, anti-Israel forces who have no problem attacking "neocons" for creating "regime chance" Iraq, are perfectly happy with the idea of perhaps trying to foment "regime change" within a fellow democracy. One had hoped for a less aggressive foreign policy, and also more realism, you'll excuse the term, for the problems posed by democracy itself, ie it's inherently unruly and difficult to control, which I think is the part of the idea.
- Sophia
March 17, 2010 at 3:46pm
sophia, which reports? someone in the US military said Israel represents a threat to US soldiers? Link please. It is absolutely ridiculous for anyone to say so.
- blackton
March 17, 2010 at 5:57pm
blackie, it's way passed my bedtime, so no time to really respond to your reaction to my posts. But here is a link that explains what the bit is or was about the Israeli threat to US soldiers. It's a distortion of something that Petreus said -- http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/boot/258946 Also just to show what kind of Pandora's box Obama's exaggerated reaction opened, the Pals are now calling the dedication of the rebuilt Hurva synagogue a war crime. If there ever was an example of how ridiculous the whole international law & human rights industry has become, this is it: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/pollak/259906 hg
- ginzy
March 17, 2010 at 6:48pm
Blackie, a private conversation got leaked and it was Petraeus who said so. Can't remember if anybody else concurred, but I believe others in the joint chiefs of staff did. Sorry, but if our military is telling us, I'd say listen.
- MOLLYSIMON
March 17, 2010 at 7:38pm
yeah ginzy, I am afraid you are right that this has turned into a stupid pissing match over a mishandled issue (the announcement, not the building). And thanks for the leak. Just fix health care please. Molly, I got no problems with Obama yelling at Netanyahu for show (within limits) as I don't have any problems with this particular development in Jerusalem (as long as it is natural and doesn't muscle into any Arab neighborhoods, I, for one, had no idea it was already a jewish neighborhood). If "standing up" to Israel consisted of nothing but this, then fine. As to Israel being the cause of the death of American soldiers, ok, I guess, but so is being American and being non Muslim, and so is TV and music. Acknowledging these Arabs idiocies is not the same as saying Israel is at fault. I really don't know the answer, how much do you mollify these princelings and how much do you tell them to piss off. This is why I could never be a diplomat. I would have long ago told the Palestinians to f off, I got my own problems.
- blackton
March 17, 2010 at 8:58pm
The following is from the prepared statement by General Petraeus to the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday:
http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2010/03%20March/Petraeus%2003-16-10.pdf- ndmackenzie
March 17, 2010 at 9:03pm
Well, ginzy, it seems to have escaped your notice that Israel is a client state of the US and the Palestinians are not. I find this comment bizarre, "With a few exceptions (most notably Benny Elon former MK National Union) it is generally understood and accepted that any Palestinians living in areas of Judea & Samaria that are formally annexed to Israel will gain the same status as Palestinians living in the post-'67 neighborhoods of J'lem -- permanent residents with the option to become citizens." This is only plausible if the areas in contemplation are those contiguous to the Green Line or consist of one or another of those insane "archipelago plans" like the one I saw Sharon present at a small ADL meeting circa 1996. It surely has never been contemplated that any contiguous area embracing the detached settlements would be annexed as that would mean a huge demographic shift within Israel. However, this points up the legal frailty and foolishness of Israel's position. It wants to claim that Jerusalem is different. But if it claims the right to build in Jerusalem as formally annexed and the right to build in the territories without any annexation or claim that they are Israeli territory, what's the difference? Since Israel has not established any meaningful distinction, why on earth should it expect the rest of the world to take notice of the distinction that it now wants to draw in its own very obvious self-interest? But wait, you say, in Jerusalam Arab residents are accorded, or at least can elect, full civil political rights. If we treat the entire citizenry as citizens, then we have every right to impose its own municipal laws and codes. Fair enough. But the obvious implication is that where Israel fails to do so it cannot then impose its own municipal laws and codes or treat the territory other than as occupied. It's either occupied or incorporated. It cannot be both. Without rehearsing the whole of the Geneva Convention and related law regarding moving one's own population into Occupied Territory, in Jerusalem, Israel can make the claim, with stature regardless of the fact that the world does not agree, that the territory is not occupied because it is incorporated under claim of right. In the rest of the West Bank, it cannot make this claim because Israel itself maintains the "occupied" status precisely in order to avoid having to accord the inhabitants political rights. The basic point to be made is that in these arguments about exactly what Obama or the US owes Israel, Israel has not a leg to stand on. It has pressed expediency in its own behalf far beyond any plausible bounds of law and international commitment, including undermining the roadmap by ignoring, whether with or without sub rosa US sanction, its public commitment to cease its expansion in the occupied territories. In light of that history, to then start complaining that the US acts expediently after Israel itself fecklessly changes the equation with its blunder is, quite frankly, absurd. As argument, it doesn't even rise to the level of gematriya, Finally, as to the piece you linked, the writer declared Netanyahu both innocent of any devious intention and in fact much too smart ("never accused of being stupid") to have done such a thing knowingly. I got off the bus right there. I think Netanyahu is malicious, dishonest, and far too stupid ever to do the smart thing. Hence, I did not find myself in agreement with the writer. With a miscreant like Netanyahu as prime minister, with your obvious support, you only make yourself look foolish hurling insults at Obama and his supporters. If we are the naïve faithful, then you are the insane deluded, with far greater stakes riding on your delusions than upon our faith.
- roidubouloi
March 17, 2010 at 9:42pm
Ginzy says: "Roi dismissively says that's a symbol which is not important -- Roi will never ever criticize Obama because one doesn't criticize gods. Anyone who knows anything about the middle east knows that symbols mean a lot here and the manipulation of symbols can kill -- example, the staged killing of Mohammed al-Dura. Many Israelis were killed to avenge his fictional death." You have completely twisted the meaning of what I said and stood it on its head. What I was calling attention to was your hypocrisy in considering the symbolism of Arab actions as being of surpassing importance while insisting that there is no symbolism in Israel actions that should be regarded as serious. I do indeed think that the symbolism matters and that lives can be lost as a consequence. For example, I think the symbolism of Israel's slap in the face of the US Vice President during a state visit for the purpose of advancing peace is pretty clear -- "Don't think for a second that we take you or the US peace efforts seriously. At best we will go through the motions, and we certainly will not modify our behavior in any important respect to try and achieve success. Beyond that, we think we can pretty much ignore your interests as we see fit and there is nothing really that you can do about it." You can argue that it wasn't Netanyahu, but the result of the fragility of his coalition and the free reign that gives his extremist coalition partners. That wouldn't impress me in the slightest. All it amounts to saying is that the extremists are in charge and Netanyahu is not. And that's pretty much the case. Hence, one should ignore Netanyahu and direct one's attentions to inducing the desired behavior by Shas. I'm much tougher than Obama or Tom Friedman. In Obama's position I wouldn't just get angry. In Biden's position I wouldn't get on the plane and leave a note saying call me when you are serious as Friedman proposed. I would call up Netanyahu and tell him that his government's stunt just cost his country $1 billion and ask pointblank whether he would like to try for two. For good measure, I'd also aks him whether he would like me to call his Shas coalition partner directly or would like to convey the news himself. And when the Israeli government started meddling in US affairs, lobbying the Congress to undo my policy, I'd make it $2 billion in a heartbeat and ask whether he wants to try for three. Obviously, there is no point in trying to communicate with an Israeli government by other than these crude means.
- roidubouloi
March 17, 2010 at 10:03pm
roid, I took ginzy to task for hyperbole, so it is only fair I do the same to you: insane deluded? I don't like Netanyahu, and I think the announcement was a huge blunder, the only growth that there should be there is organic, on undeveloped land in Jewish neighborhoods. I am not sure why you are against this, it is not like Arabs living in any part of Jerusalem are not accorded the same rights. Equal treatment under the law, justly derived at is all I ask. I think this whole thing is being all blown out of proportion by everyone. Enough with the overreactions. To say this was the worst crisis in 35 years is ridiculous. This is not a crisis, it is a spat. Crises lead to war or threat of war. So lets calm down a bit.
- blackton
March 17, 2010 at 10:13pm
blackton, I am not against the building in East Jerusalem. I am in favor of an undivided Jerusalem, although I would never criticize Israel for deciding that its interests in concluding a peace outweighed its interest in Jerusalem. That is entirely their call. The point, rather, is that far more important than these houses or even the "principle" of sovereignty in Jerusalem is the adroit management of Israel's military, diplomatic, and security affairs. When building in Jerusalem takes on messianic significance, as it does for the Haredi Jews (whom I find every bit as offensive and dangerous as every other sect of religious nuts in the world), then it becomes impossible to behave sensibly. This little cock-up is what you get. Yes, I think people who criticize Obama and his supporters while having voted for and supporting Netanyahu are insanely deluded. Or rather, as I said, if we who support Obama are the "naïve faithful," then, by comparison, those who support Netanyahu are the "insanely deluded." It wasn't meant to be taken literally, blacton. I was mocking Ginsburg and his repeated claim that those who on balance agree with Obama are embarked on some religious epiphany. It is a slimy tactic that avoids substance of any kind and is meant to paint those on the left, who for the most part seldom in religious thrall, with the defects of those on the right, who too often are. Propaganda, pure and simple, properly deflated by pointing out the extreme hypocrisy. More seriously, when Netanyahu was elected, I said he is a clod who repeatedly demonstrated his cloddishness in international affairs in his previous turns in government. I don't think Israel can afford him, and this is a nice little example of why not. But then, I am old enough to recall such as Abba Eban. The Jerusalem Arabs do not as a practical matter have the "right" to live anywhere, and there is no question that Israeli government funds are spent disproportionately on the Haredi to the detriment of other worthy groups, including Arabs.
- roidubouloi
March 17, 2010 at 11:14pm
"I said he is a clod " Roi is only doing what any loyal subject would do, that is, follow the leader in fire and in water: "people near the President say that, for one thing, Obama doesn't think that Netanyahu is very bright, and there is no chemistry at all between the two men -- " http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/03/what-obama-is-actually-trying-to-do-in-israel/37548/ I know very few Israelis who share this view of Netanyahu's mental abilities. I conclude from this that there is a fundamental disagreement as to what the word "intelliigent" means. Israelis think Ehud Barak is very bright but they also remember what his type of governing policies has brought forth. They may not like Netanyahu very much but the remember that as the Finance minister he weathered the most constant and scathing public pillorying and denigration as not even Roi is capable of imagining and emerged pretty successful. Israelis, much to American consternation, do not vote with their emotions and cannot afford to indulge in Obamatical sentimentality. I agree with Goldberg that it would be best if Kadima, Sharon's party, would have been included in the coalition. But it was Livni's call and she rejected it, for her own interests. Unlike Barak who joined it because he recognized that sometimes personal ambition must be shelves for the greater good. Livni is shaping up to be like Shimon Peres, without Peres's vindicating record of honorable service. That leaves her merely as a not much trusted candidate. If Obama is trying indeed to push her to the front of the line Israelis will become even more edgy. Israel is not a banana republic and Israelis of whatever political colour cannot stand to be taken for one.
- noga1
March 18, 2010 at 8:43am
For the record, I developed my opinion that Netanyahu is a clod long before I knew that Barack Obama existed on the planet. You have far more opportunity blindly to follow your leadership through fire and water than I do. It appears that you are anxious to take it.
- roidubouloi
March 18, 2010 at 10:16am
As I recall, Livni refused to join the coalition due to disagreement over how to engage in the peace process. Although I no longer recall the details, I also have some recollection of an offer from Netanyahu that she couldn't possibly accept. That would be in character.
- roidubouloi
March 18, 2010 at 10:20am
"You have far more opportunity blindly to follow your leadership through fire and water than I do" I doubt it. I would never engage in the sort of vulgar and incontinent character assassination that seems to be your preferred method of persuasion. And I would never make the mistake of comparing you to Obama, who is, when all is said and done, a gentleman. Not that I expect you to understand the meaning of this term. Livni should have joined the coalition. It was what most Israelis wanted and it was needed. She will never manage to live down that disgrace but she could still make amends.
- noga1
March 18, 2010 at 10:43am
Is Obama's manufactured crisis over "settlement expansion' in Jerusalem endangering Israelis' lives? "Israel warned of a harsh response on Thursday afternoon after a Thai greenhouse worker was killed when a Kassam rocket fired by Gaza terrorists exploded in the Netiv Ha’asara area. The man, in his 30s, was evacuated to Ashkelon’s Barzilai Hospital, where doctors were forced to pronounce him dead. A small Islamist faction calling itself Ansar al-Sunna claimed responsibility for the attack. In a statement e-mailed to reporters in Gaza, the al-Qaida-inspired faction said the attack was a response to Israel's "Judaization" of Islamic holy places in Jerusalem and elsewhere in the West Bank." http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=171296
- noga1
March 18, 2010 at 10:52am
A tangent but one worth noting: I do recall once TNR taking a very hard line against Israel. It was when Israel wanted to sell some sort of military high technology to China. And, as I recall, Israel backed down on that one.
- Lymon1
March 18, 2010 at 11:11am
Noga, you are an extremely sick individual, incapable in your torment and rage of making sense out of anything. I didn't even bother to respond to your insult with an insult, but your furious rage is triggered anyway. I understand the torment. -- Your own obsessions and compulsions, shared by your ideological soulmates of the Israeli right, are leading you over a cliff, because the world simply will not give you what you regard as your just due no matter your fury. You see the disaster unfolding, but you cannot stop yourself from engaging in the same self-defeating, self-destructive behavior. Collectively, with Netanyahu as your leader, you are like an unthinking beast trapped in a tar pit; the more you struggle to escape, the more things seem to go the wrong way. If you were capable of reasoned thought rather than frustrated rage, you could perhaps see that there is a way forward. But you are not. Spitting your rage at me doesn't help you one bit. You are still trapped in the pit, and I am only trapped by my pity for Israel that you are slowly dragging down.
- roidubouloi
March 18, 2010 at 12:25pm
" ... vulgar and incontinent character assassination that seems to be your preferred method of persuasion." Right on cue...
- noga1
March 18, 2010 at 1:53pm
Noga: ...Livni should have joined the coalition. It was what most Israelis wanted and it was needed. She will never manage to live down that disgrace but she could still make amends... I am interested in this. You generally seem to have a lot of resources at hand. Could I ask you to guide me to a fair and balanced analysis of why Livni said she could not join the coalition as against her self interested political calculations and also of the Israeli reaction at the time and even now, if any such are at convenient hand? I'd be obliged.
- basman
March 18, 2010 at 3:28pm
I'm not sure I can oblige, Basman. Here is something by Goldberg: "But back to Tzipi. Tzipi Livni, leader of the centrist Kadima Party, made a decision to stay out of the government, a decision that looks more and more catastrophic each day. Without her, Bibi -- who is, in my belief, a pragmatist -- was forced to bring in far-rightists who seek to undermine any move to negotiate a peace deal with the Palestinians. Now, Bibi isn't faultless here. It's his job to lead. But if he could lead Israel together with Barak's Labor Party, and Livni's Kadima Party, in a strong, center-right coalition, the events of this past week would probably not happen again." http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/03/its-all-tzipis-fault/37714/ Here are a few links I saved at the time of the formation of the coalition: http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-2009-02-20-voa55-68715112.html http://www.cfr.org/publication/18585/prospects_for_a_centrist_grand_coalition_in_israel.html http://www.cfr.org/publication/18585/prospects_for_a_centrist_grand_coalition_in_israel.html This is key, in my opinion: "She is expected, as she did at Sunday's meeting, to demand Netanyahu announce his support for a two-states-for-two-peoples solution, reported Ha'aretz, adding that Netanyahu would likely maintain his refusal, as such a stance would put him at odds with his right-wing allies, but would suggest that the two parties create joint teams to draft basic political guidelines" http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-02/27/content_10912475.htm Netanyahu has since announced his support for a two-states-for-two-peoples solution, and Livni's basic demand has been met and she could have joined the coalition to create a centrist government which is what the people want. Moreover, she is in complete agreement with Netanyahu's policy regarding the large settlement blocks: http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1260181017198&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull If she persists in her refusal, I think we can assume she has other interests dearer to her than the best for Israel.
- noga1
March 18, 2010 at 4:30pm
Let's try again: I'm not sure I can fully oblige, Basman. Here is something by Goldberg: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/03/its-all-tzipis-fault/37714/ "But back to Tzipi. Tzipi Livni, leader of the centrist Kadima Party, made a decision to stay out of the government, a decision that looks more and more catastrophic each day. Without her, Bibi -- who is, in my belief, a pragmatist -- was forced to bring in far-rightists who seek to undermine any move to negotiate a peace deal with the Palestinians. Now, Bibi isn't faultless here. It's his job to lead. But if he could lead Israel together with Barak's Labor Party, and Livni's Kadima Party, in a strong, center-right coalition, the events of this past week would probably not happen again." __________________ Here are a few links I saved at the time of the formation of the coalition: http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-2009-02-20-voa55-68715112.html http://www.cfr.org/publication/18585/prospects_for_a_centrist_grand_coalition_in_israel.html http://www.cfr.org/publication/18585/prospects_for_a_centrist_grand_coalition_in_israel.html This is key, in my opinion: "She is expected, as she did at Sunday's meeting, to demand Netanyahu announce his support for a two-states-for-two-peoples solution, reported Ha'aretz, adding that Netanyahu would likely maintain his refusal, as such a stance would put him at odds with his right-wing allies, but would suggest that the two parties create joint teams to draft basic political guidelines" http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-02/27/content_10912475.htm Netanyahu has since announced his support for a two-states-for-two-peoples solution, Livni's basic demand would have been met and she could have joined the coalition to create a centrist government which is what the people want. If she persists in her refusal, I think we can assume she has other interests dearer to her than the best for Israel.
- noga1
March 18, 2010 at 4:33pm
Thank you very much Noga. I'll have a look at what you provided.
- basman
March 18, 2010 at 4:48pm
And right on cue for you, noga. Your tactics would make you the perfect Palestinian terrorist. You abuse anyone who disagrees with you by distorting their words, hurling insults, whatever your twisted, if unimaginative, mind can manage to spew in the moment. And then, invariably, when it comes back at you, whether mildly, proportionately, disproportionately, you immediately adopt your preferred posture - the eternal victim. At the same time, you are the perfect anti-Zionist, the eternal ghetto Jew, the perpetual martyr. It is no wonder that you cannot imagine any way that Israel can actually succeed and not martyr itself. Your entire sense of agency has vanished into your totally internalized state of victimhood. Come to think of it, that's exactly what you and the Palestinians have in common, the shared source of your death-wish and theirs -- the fierce determination always to be and remain a victim, never to take positive responsibility for the outcome, never to control events, always to be controlled by them, while exalting your victimhood as some mark of righteousness. How did such as you ever get to be an Israeli?
- roidubouloi
March 18, 2010 at 6:14pm
In light of Netanyahu's refusal publicly to embrace the two-state solution (as if there could possibly be any other solution) in order to form a unity government with Kadima, followed by his subsequent public acceptance of that very position, I think we can assume that he has other interests dearer to him than the best for Israel. This is what makes Netanyahu such a clod. He consistently manages to make the worst of any diplomatic and political situation. When he was asked by the United States for a building freeze, he could have taken the opportunity to declare that, despite the political difficulty and burden for Israel, he would accede to the request in order to give every chance for success to the diplomatic initiatives of the new US administration. He would have set himself and Israel up beautifully for any outcome. Instead, he refused, wheedled, and whined. By the time he ultimately agreed, he had the worst of both worlds, the freeze he wouldn't agree to and not an ounce of good will or diplomatic gain. Similarly, when the US gains an inch of ground with an agreement to proximity talks, instead of making a virtue out of necessity by again expressing his willingness to be forthcoming in pursuit of peace, Netanyahu pisses all over the whole thing with the embarrassing announcement about new construction in East Jerusalem. Abba Eban's famous quip about the Palestinians could apply just as well to Netanyahu, "He never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity." If this man can be thought intelligent, it is indeed a very strange definition of intelligence.
- roidubouloi
March 18, 2010 at 6:32pm
Love the Goldberg piece. He starts by saying this: "Based on my e-mail traffic from the right end of the spectrum, people seem to think that, in a previous post, I was blaming Bibi for Israel's lengthy series of diplomatic screw-ups. I'm not, mostly." So who is to blame according to Goldberg? Why, Tzipi Livni for not joining the coalition! Netanyahu's incompetence, it turns out, is all Tzipi Livni's fault. Can the right-wing ever cease to amaze? At least he got one thing right: "Israel's lengthy series of diplomatic screw-ups."
- roidubouloi
March 18, 2010 at 6:40pm
One other thing I have noted both in this thread and before: For the neighborhood Israelis, any Israeli public support of Netanyahu is clear evidence that he is right. Contrariwise, American public support for Obama is clear evidence that they are in some sort of messianic thralldom. Similarly, any failure by Obama to achieve a dramatic breakthrough, whether with Iran, the Palestinians, the Russians, the Chinese, is taken as evidence of his incompetence and naïvete (no doubt because we had gotten so used to such a series of stunning military, diplomatic, and policy successes during the previous right-wing administration of Bush). But Netanyahu's affirmative screw-ups are not evidence that he is a screw-up. Nope. They are evidence that Obama is a screw-up. Or that Livni is a screw-up. Or that Israel is faced with an array of satanic forces. I am shocked, shocked, that there is rank hypocrisy going on in this establishment.
- roidubouloi
March 18, 2010 at 6:56pm
Noga, the very thing you quoted ,and which I repeat, sounds right to me, both in its assessment of what Livni should have done as an act of statesmanship and of Netanyahu as at bottom a realistic pragmatist. ....But back to Tzipi. Tzipi Livni, leader of the centrist Kadima Party, made a decision to stay out of the government, a decision that looks more and more catastrophic each day. Without her, Bibi -- who is, in my belief, a pragmatist -- was forced to bring in far-rightists who seek to undermine any move to negotiate a peace deal with the Palestinians. Now, Bibi isn't faultless here. It's his job to lead. But if he could lead Israel together with Barak's Labor Party, and Livni's Kadima Party, in a strong, center-right coalition, the events of this past week would probably not happen again...
- basman
March 18, 2010 at 9:55pm
And what responsibility does Netanyahu, this so-called realistic pragmatist, bear for his refusal to create a broad coalition by publicly committing to a two-state solution long after the entire world -- including an overwhelming majority of Israeli public opinion -- had come to understand that there is no other basis for solution? Some pragmatist. Unless, that is, the definition of a pragmatist is someone who, driven by ideology, always does too little, to late, for the least possible gain. Truly, there is no disastrous consequence of its ideology that the right will not excuse or simply pretend does not exist, be it the American right, the Israeli right, or its Canadian cheerleaders. No matter the scale of the disaster they create, it is ALWAYS "someone else's fault." The standard excuse, of course, is that it is the fault of the left for failing to prevent the right from fucking-up. And here it is again.
- roidubouloi
March 18, 2010 at 10:18pm
From my perspective, you're talking to yourself. As I told you before, you're of no use to me.
- basman
March 18, 2010 at 11:16pm
Don't flatter yourself, basman, by supposing that I am actually addressing myself to you because I stick pins in your inanities. I do so purely against the possibility that someone else might be misled by you. You are the same coward and whining cry-baby you were the last time I left you blubbering in an incoherent heap. You and noga, two peas in a pod. You both throw punches and then collapse in an orgy of self-pity when they come back at you. How very right-wing -- all hat, no cattle.
- roidubouloi
March 18, 2010 at 11:53pm
So sorry, basman. I see that, with the use of a question mark, I misled you into thinking I was talking to you. When you pose a question and then answer it yourself, that's called a "rhetorical question." It is a type of rhetorical device, not to be read literally as an invitation to respond.
- roidubouloi
March 19, 2010 at 12:00am