SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Not Since Never Have the Palestinians Had a More Sympathetic...

THE SPINE OCTOBER 15, 2009

Not Since Never Have the Palestinians Had a More Sympathetic American President

BY MARTIN PERETZ

No, not Dwight Eisenhower (and his secretary of state, John Foster Dulles), who thought of his Arabs as the Egyptians. Frankly, in 1956, nobody thought of Palestinians, including especially the Palestinians.

And, no, not even Jimmy Carter, who, while now especially entranced with the Palestinians, including Hamas, was beginning his macabre infatuation with Hafez Assad.

Then there was George Herbert Walker Bush and his sidekick James Baker, who didn't much like the Jews but wanted especially to please the Saudis. The U.S. provided arms to Saddam Hussein, who made the mistake of using them against Kuwait, which, of course, frightened "the kingdom." Hence the first Gulf war. A little simplified? Not much. Oh, yes, Baker gave Tom Friedman the White House telephone number and told him to give it to Yitzhak Shamir, who spoke only to himself. He's still alive and still mute. He once wagged his stubby little finger at me in Blair House.

That's more or less the presidential narrative except for Bill Clinton, who loved the Israelis so much that they loved him back and gave him what he wanted, even color-coding the Old City between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Arafat told him and them to go shove it. Apparently, Bill still loves Israel. (Apparently, he still speaks for the Jews as long as the price is right.) But it's hard to imagine that Hillary loves anyone. Anyway, she's been busy in Ireland (where "the troubles" are beginning again) and in Africa (where the troubles never end) and in China (to whose leaders she said nothing about human rights) and in Russia, where she had a low-level host and visited a low-level state in the Federation and unveiled a statue to Walt Whitman but didn't know he was gay and got into trouble with gay activists who were being beaten up by the present-day version of the Cheka.

And so, back to President Obama, who's been reciting the Palestinian narrative so much that he's got it memorized by heart. Which gives rise to the suspicion that it really comes from his heart. This is difficult for me since I gave a lot of energy (and the maximum amount of money allowed) to his campaign.

Still, my disappointments are nothing compared to those of the Palestinians and, for that matter, the other Arabs who don't care a fig for their Holy Land brethren (although they do like despising Israelis).

A Boston Globe headline over an Associated Press dispatch tells us that "Fatah says faith in Obama is gone." This was not about some hoodlum from the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade shooting off his mouth. It was an internal memo from Fatah itself, going exactly to the heart of the matter: "All hopes placed in the new US administration and President Obama have evaporated." Poof! Vanished.

A far more important story, this one by Charles Levinson, appeared in Thursday's Wall Street Journal. It was headlined "Palestinian Support Wanes for American-Trained Forces." These forces, called the Palestinian Authority Security Forces (PASF), have been being trained under the command of Lieutenant General Keith Dayton, a much-bemedalled military intellectual and infantry-division head who has served in Russia, Germany, and Iraq. I met him about a year and a half ago in a Tel Aviv hotel. With him was one of his aides, Dov Schwartz, presumably Jewish.

Let's face it: The PASF is the only proper military force the Palestinians have. Previously, and especially under the rais, Yasir Arafat, there were 13 independent Fatah security branches made up of undisciplined, corrupt, and brutal men, each of them what my mother would call a bulvan. (This is an onomatopoeic word. Yes, you've got its meaning.) Then there were the hoodlums of the other armed gangs--some ideological, none honest. Of course, Hamas is one of them. And Hamas is the sworn foe of Fatah and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.

How could the PASF not be an incredible improvement? They were trained by the Jordanian army, a disciplined fighting force going back to the British. They are under the supervision of British, Canadian, and American officers. In the beginning, there was broad support for the forces. The reason is that they brought public order. Day-to-day cooperation with the Israelis "has improved dramatically." And there is no way that the IDF can be out of the loop. There are a quarter of a million Israelis in the amorphously divided West Bank. Much of the operational intelligence comes from Israel. Without it, the PASF would be lost.

In a way, this is a model, the model for the future of a Palestinian state in the West Bank. It has to be an orderly state. But order among the Palestinians has always been a dicey matter. Then, too, it's not clear just how much strength Hamas has in the area. More and more, I suspect.

Still, there are accomplishments. Schwartz says "the Palestinians have undertaken a serious and sustained effort to return the rule of law to the West Bank. People now feel safe."

But safety may not be what the Palestinians really want. They may want the éclat of a Palestinian defeat of Israel. The Journal reports that there is much Hamas agitation in the West Bank. "Dayton's army serves the Jews," shouts a law student at a force officer. "There are growing signs that the local population are increasingly losing respect for the PASF." So reads an internal memo in General Dayton's headquarters.

Not a word about Obama in this news report. He may love the Palestinians. But not even they care.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 85 comments

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

85 comments

And just what is the "Palestinian narrative" that Obama has been reciting?

- dhurtado

October 15, 2009 at 10:40pm

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

I'm confused. Were the Palestinians supposed to continue having faith in Obama, or not to have had even a sliver of faith in the first place? Or were the Irish supposed to stop being troubled by troubles, or to be even more troubled, and tell Hillary Clinton that Walt Whitman was in fact born to a Russian mother in Cahirciveen, County Cork, who faked her son's birth certificiate so he could emigrate to the U.S. and run against Andrew Johnson in 1868? Or was Obama supposed to return the campaign contributions he got from Marty after he learned the Palestinian narrative? I understand the counter-argument against narratives, and some of it has merit. However, at the very least narratives usually have structure. Which the above post could do with a little more of, if I may be so bold.

- ironyroad

October 15, 2009 at 10:40pm

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

"This is difficult for me since I gave a lot of energy (and the maximum amount of money allowed) to his campaign." All the mote fool, you, Marty. And all because of your egotistical resentment of Hillary. "But safety may not be what the Palestinians really want. They may want the éclat of a Palestinian defeat of Israel." THis has been obvious since 1947, and before that they wanted the death of Jews in mandate Palestine as the deadly riots of Hebron and Haifa show.

- jacksondyer

October 15, 2009 at 10:49pm

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

Yes, his posts often lack structure, ironyroad. But they are meant to be off the cuff remarks. Hence the dizzying shift of focus and tone. I don't expect posts with tight structure. I kinda like his little heimishe chats even when I don't agree with everything he says.

- jacksondyer

October 15, 2009 at 10:56pm

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

Well, "not since never" isn't until tomorrow of course so we'll have to wait to confirm that. But I think it would be rather easy to confirm which president has been the most unwilling to be more realistic about the role Israel plays in America's foreign policy. Let's just round it off and say....all of them? Really, if there was absolutely no oil over there at all how many ex-presidents would even be able to point to Israel on a map? That's a joke, Marty. Yes, in poor taste. But I was born this way. It's congenital. So I can't be held responsible, right? It's genetic...beyond my control. Indeed, by 1956 Eisenhower never thought of the Iranians as Persians either, did he? We had the oil pumping back into the Shah by then. Tearing down their demcocracy along the way. Wasn't very, uh, Christian of us, though, was it? But oil is money and that always makes presidents do funny things. Doesn't it? Let's see: Install our thug, or keep the democracy going....Install our thug, or keep the Democracy going....Install our thug or keep the democracy going. Damn. Another one of those close calls again!!! Doesn't that just infuriate you when it comes to "doing the right thing" over in the Middle East? And, sure, maybe in 1956 the Palestinians never thought of themselves as being Palestinians. But few folks forget about being driven from their homes and having their communities uprooted. Shipped off to, say, Gaza? That kind of stuff can fester in your brain for decades. Bush 41. When you say he didn't much like the Jews, is that the same thing as calling him an anti-Semite? Is an anti-Semitic president okay if he doesn't let that interfer with being a pro-Zionist? And the Bush family and the royals in Saudi Arabia...they're practically family now aren't they. And, really, I can only link the Clintons now to the DLC and Bilderberg. And I can only link them to world domination of the global economy. Where does Israel fit into all that? Hey, you tell me. But please: Obama---the enemy of Israel? Oh, right. Sure. But this isn't about Obama at all. It's about you. Work things out with Rahm, okay? george walton

- iambiguous

October 15, 2009 at 10:56pm

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

Correction: "This is difficult for me since I gave a lot of energy (and the maximum amount of money allowed) to his campaign." All the more fool, you, Marty. And all because of your egotistical resentment of Hillary. "But safety may not be what the Palestinians really want. They may want the éclat of a Palestinian defeat of Israel." THis has been obvious since 1947, and before that they wanted the death of Jews in mandate Palestine as the deadly riots of Hebron and Haifa show.

- jacksondyer

October 15, 2009 at 10:57pm

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

crazy George is still under the illusion that Marty reads his posts. lonesome George needs to believe that someone cares about his bullshit. What he writes is bullshit because he doesn't know even the basic facts about the history that Marty refers to. Pathetic lose, that's what Walton is.

- jacksondyer

October 15, 2009 at 11:56pm

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

JD -- yes, I'm fond of associative strings too, at times. That kind of writing can sometimes reveal more than organized thoughts, paragraphs, and arguments. But if you're left thinking there's a point, but you're not sure what the point is, what then? I mean, there's a difference between (a) a genuinely associative meditation, that would take in the sunny fall day outside, the cheese sandwich you had for lunch, a strange conversation with a colleague, the novel you're reading on the subway, the memory of a former lover, and (b) an ostensibly spontaneous but in fact plannned political venting that is indeed associative on the surface but is more like an inventory of stuff you dislike w/o saying why you dislike it. Is Hillary Clinton wrong to be in Ireland, or just wrong to say what she said there? Is Ireland troubled? Is Russia troubling? Is Obama vindicated by the fact that Palestinians are now less than enamoured with him, or condemned? And if the one, or the other, why?

- ironyroad

October 16, 2009 at 12:52am

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

Oy, Marty. I knew you were deluded silly about Obama when you tried to make light of Rashid Khalidi's presence in his life. You even went as far as to call Khalidi an almost Zionist! You were so deluded that I sometimes wonder what value there is, if there is, to any of your judgments. From a completely sober point of view I don't think this is such a bad thing, for Palestinians to have that kind of a godfather. Because no matter how much Obama indulges them, they are still going to screw it. Because what they want he cannot deliver and there is a need for that reality to be seen to play out, and experienced by Obama and his many adulators. There is growing buzz about a third Intifada, did you know? I can feel the mounting animus and the excitement in the Arab blogs I read (Did you know that Obama is affectionately referred to as "Abu Hussein" in the Arab blogosphere?) and I can only read them in English. Imagine what the mood is like in Arabic! Palestinians are stuck in a mobile and not even Obama's silvery tongue can dislodge them. He cannot give them what they really want. In the meantime he can make things very bad for Israelis. But the world stage and its audience have been nicely, and successfully, groomed towards indifference to Israeli life, haven't they? One can read it in the comments to your implicit fears here, and no longer wonder how bad things can happen to Jews. The erratic structure of Marty's post is so much more germane to the scary possibilities he is trying to convey, isn't it? Here is a famous article from Martha Gelhorn. It was written in 1961. If you did not know this detail, you wouldn't realize that 49 years have passed since her report: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/196110/gellhorn

- noga1

October 16, 2009 at 7:14am

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

Great article Noga, thanks for the link. I was especially interested in the following comment by Martha Gelhorn: "UNRWA has never yet been allowed to make a total proper census of its refugee population, so statistics about the number of ex-Palestinians are nothing except the best estimate possible; UNRWA itself says this. Over half of the registered Palestinian refugees do not live in camps, but have made more or less comfortable private arrangements varying from first-class houses, at the top, to hand-built Hooverville shacks, at the bottom. UNRWA calculates that, at the end of June, 1960, 421,500 refugees were living in their camps, almost double their camp population ten years ago. The advantage of living in a camp is that life there is rent free; and for the poor, the standard of housing and sanitation in an UNRWA camp is better than that of the native population." I wonder how the population in the UN camps managed to double in ten years. Did the local poor register as "refugees?" There is also a terrific novel written in the same period by Muriel Spark that made the same point: "The Mandelbaum Gate" http://www.amazon.com/Mandelbaum-Gate-Muriel-Spark/dp/1566492262/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255695943&sr=8-1

- jacksondyer

October 16, 2009 at 8:26am

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

I don't disagree, Ironyroad. However, there is no sense of wishing Marty’s style were different on his blog. It is what he is and rather than becoming irate at every post I ignore most of it and just concentrate on his main point. It's some of the other posters that keep me here any way, and not Marty. Except for the autodidact, and a few others, most posters here are pretty good, a cut above the average in other blogs.

- jacksondyer

October 16, 2009 at 8:33am

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

"I wonder how the population in the UN camps managed to double in ten years. " Or how the number of Palestinian refugees grew from its initial estimate of 600,000 to 4 millions today. It's the only known genocide at the end of which the genocided population has grown by orders of sizes.

- noga1

October 16, 2009 at 8:52am

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

Jackson, when have you ever disagreed with something Marty has written, other than his affections for Obama? I want names, dates, places and citations. Also, I think that your comment about his "heimische chats" nicely captures what drives me bonkers about The Spine. Marty is just like many Jewish men (and women) of his generation in his richly incoherent prejudices and stubborn refusal to understand anyone else's perspective on things. And, like the cranky uncle that populates many a Seder table, he is absolutely unabashed in reciting those prejudices to anyone who would listen and justifying them as scientific proof. Once upon a time, when Jews were the playthings of history and rulers and could do little but pray and vent their frustrations in dimly lit rooms, such attitudes were wholly explicable even if they were not attractive. Today, when Jews have equal rights as citizens through much of the world and superior rights in a land of their own, such attitudes are petty and small-minded when they are not downright destructive of other people's lives and livelihoods (both Jews and Gentiles).

- wildboy

October 16, 2009 at 10:43am

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

"Marty is just like many Jewish men (and women) of his generation in his richly incoherent prejudices and stubborn refusal to understand anyone else's perspective on things" Perhaps. But he's dead right on Obama, whose absurdity reflects the absurdity of his age and education... That Peretz could support him when everything was in plain sight since O opened his mouth with his grandiloquent speeches only shows that men and women from that generation are incredibly naif... And international relations are not, I should say, my first preocupation. What O has made when turning Reagan's oligarchy into a plain kleptocracy is simply criminal...

- luispc

October 16, 2009 at 11:11am

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

Jackson: You beautifully describe Martin Peretz's intellectual musings and meanderings. Wildboy: You write of Mr. Peretz's stubbornness as if he has had his idee fixes forever. Do you even know that in his youth he was a leftist and had studied under Herbert Marcuse? He was disabused of his universalist notions by the rough lessons that history teaches. He decided that America and Israel are not such bad places after all. I am somewhat to the left of him but I have learned a great deal from him and I too think that these two countries are not such bad places. And how can you say that he refuses to see other perspectives when he - like myself - supports a Palestinian state? He just doesn't want that state to be a launching-off entity for further assaults on the people of Israel. What is wrong with that? Incidentally jackson, I have been trying to catch up with you for weeks. Just when I was going to write on James Wood's Thomas More essay, my computer essentially stopped working. When it was again functional at least a little bit, I posted at the Spine about my troubles but I never saw a response from you. I tried to inform you several times over the course of several weeks but when I was able to log on, I never saw a hint that you received my messages. I hope that you get this one. Also, my library copy of The Broken Estate had to be returned but I checked it out again. I am terribly sorry for the long delay. Might we have the discussion now? My computer is currently working fine.

- liberal reformer

October 16, 2009 at 11:35am

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

"...Marty is just like many Jewish men (and women) of his generation in his richly incoherent prejudices and stubborn refusal to understand anyone else's perspective on things..." Why single out Peretz's religion? Do Jews have a monopoly on "richly incoherent prejudices and stubborn refusal to understand anyone else's perspective on things"? At best, it's a rather ironic comment given the stream of condemnation of all things Israeli at the UNHRC, including, it seems, its right to defend itself and implicitly to exist.

- malahat

October 16, 2009 at 11:37am

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

"...Marty is just like many Jewish men (and women) of his generation in his richly incoherent prejudices and stubborn refusal to understand anyone else's perspective on things..." Perhaps I'm too sensitive, but the more I read it, the more I have trouble not interpreting that comment as something far worse than ironic.

- malahat

October 16, 2009 at 11:54am

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

I thought the post fairly coherent, albeit with a few digressions that didn't distract me. What's so confusing about what he's saying?

- basman

October 16, 2009 at 12:59pm

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

"Just when I was going to write on James Wood's Thomas More essay, my computer essentially stopped working. When it was again functional at least a little bit, I posted at the Spine about my troubles but I never saw a response from you." LR this is the first post by you that I have seen in weeks. Sorry about the troubles you have been having and let me know when you are ready.

- jacksondyer

October 16, 2009 at 1:12pm

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

bl462 "Why single out Peretz's religion? Do Jews have a monopoly on "richly incoherent prejudices and stubborn refusal to understand anyone else's perspective on things"?" This is the main problem I have had with Wildboy's many posts. While he says he is "orthodox" his post are just this side anti-Jewish bigotry. (Remember his attacks on "Russian" Jews?)

- jacksondyer

October 16, 2009 at 1:14pm

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

wildboy "Jackson, when have you ever disagreed with something Marty has written, other than his affections for Obama? I want names, dates, places and citations." Forget it. Do your own research. I am not accountable to you for my views on Marty.

- jacksondyer

October 16, 2009 at 1:15pm

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

basman "I thought the post fairly coherent, albeit with a few digressions that didn't distract me." Not incoherent but they don't show a preplanned structure. He tends to meander, which is ok with me.

- jacksondyer

October 16, 2009 at 1:18pm

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

Wildboy, what does this mean exactly: "Once upon a time, when Jews were the playthings of history and rulers and could do little but pray and vent their frustrations in dimly lit rooms, such attitudes were wholly explicable even if they were not attractive." Are you talking about the times the Jews were sent to the gas chambers? Or had to endure the pogroms? Or were stuck in ghettos under restrictive laws? Or banished from England, sent to sea, forced onto a sand dune, and then left to drown as the tide came back in? You're saying our leaders' "attitudes" "were not attractive"? Huh? Attitudes? Is that what their sense of hopelessness and doom were? I disagree with Marty here, but silly little posts like yours belittling past Jewish anxiety and dread belong in the trash bin.

- MOLLYSIMON

October 16, 2009 at 1:21pm

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

Good to see you again, Molly, and your comments are excellent.

- liberal reformer

October 16, 2009 at 1:32pm

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

Good to see you again, Molly, and your comments are excellent.

- liberal reformer

October 16, 2009 at 1:33pm

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

Jackson: I am ready now.

- liberal reformer

October 16, 2009 at 1:33pm

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

I am having a hard time figuring out what "Palestinian narrative" the old grudgeholder is referring. Is it simply that Obama's comments about Israeli's and Palestinians generally tell them both that they own a piece - large or small you call it - of their own conflict? That Palestinians have been occupied? This is a "narrative"? I think it resembles the truth. And remember, Obama never singles out the Israelis for criticism, he is perhaps the first President to look at this mess and say out loud, that they both, Israeli and Palestinian, share in the failure of the past 60 years. It is difficult for old people to change their habituated ideas and habits. I wouldn't expect someone like marty peretz to even welcome that contention that Palestinians deserve human respect. I have been a reader of his words for a long time and he has been clear in his bigotry towards Palestinians and middle easterners in general. I do believe that when dealing with the Palestinians, you need to remember that their leaders have been liars, terrorists, and killers and this is a good reason to have a monomaniacal viewpoint like peretz' around: He will never let you forget that brutal fact based upon 60 years of actions. And this is useful. However, listening to guys like marty will never solve the conflict. All it will do is make sure the conflict will never end, which from his point of view would probably be just fine and that Israelis need to be more aggressive, more bellicose, and better prepared to crush their enemy. What I hear Obama saying is that for this quagmire to ever end, both sides need to come to grips with their own actions that have perpetuated this conflict for far too long. Now that I think about it, perhaps the old grudgeholder is on to something. But unlike him, I think that this may be the only way to confront the conflict, not continue it forever.

- MrCookie1

October 16, 2009 at 1:38pm

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

Well, said, Cookie. (And I'm glad you're back to your old name.) liberalreformer: Nice to hear from you! I've been here a bit. You must have been away.

- MOLLYSIMON

October 16, 2009 at 1:49pm

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

basman, it just seemed a trifle long is all. I am very sympathetic to the Palestinians, they live under a terrorist cell in Gaza and under a corrupt oligarchy in the West Bank. And I doubt th elections were anything close to honest, people have to choose between Hamas or Fatah or die. Again, I don't think it matters a rats ass who is President, Joe Lieberman could be President and there would not be a slightest chance more for the peace process. Obama has not cut either military or economic aid to Israel, and that all runs on auto pilot anyhow. Nothing will change until the Palestinians change, so I am sure as hell not going to get hung up on the particular moves of Obama's kabuki dance. And I am with bl462, I don't think Marty's religion is the sum total of who he is here (if he were a Rabbi and this were a Rabbinical blog then yeah, but it ain't) so I don't see the point of bringing it up. He is a cantankerous old cuss, but that is a universal trait. And wildboy, yeah Jackson has disagreed with Marty on a ton of things besides Obama but to expect him to come up with names, dates, circumstances is unreasonable. I have myself disagreed with Marty about a ton of things but lord knows if I can remember the details now. Hell, I have disagreed with pretty much everyone at one time or another, but even if I agree with others more often, so what? If I agree with, say, Chris Orr 99% of the time (I don't), does that mean I am a shill for him, or does it just mean we have many ideas in common?

- blackton

October 16, 2009 at 1:53pm

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

"But unlike him, I think that this may be the only way to confront the conflict, not continue it forever. " I don't agree in the least. If there is ever a way to "confront the conflict" it will surely not be one in which one of the parties continues to be allowed to simply play the victim instead of undertaking some responsibilities. Which is precisely what is being allowed right now by Obama... It seems O has a talent for choosing what it seems to be The Way but ends up being nothing more than the easiest way to make life harder for anyone interested in any serious and fair solution. And it's not just Israel. Go ask Turkish women who live in Istanbul and were used to pursue lives in which they were free from using the veil what do they think about O "miraculous" Cairo speech... He only advanced the cause of ridiculous upper class Muslims living in the West to impose their burkas and burkinis not only on themselves but on their helpless daughters. On "burkinis": http://images.google.pt/images?sourceid=navclient&hl=pt-BR&rlz=1T4ADBF_pt-BRPT258PT258&q=burkini+foto&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=JbPYStGeLqKhjAeng_zdCA&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQsAQwAA

- luispc

October 16, 2009 at 1:56pm

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

I don't think the post is incoherent, but it's not quite The Wandering Rocks chapter of Ulysses either. It seems to have a message. That might be "Obama has adopted the Palestinian side in the I/P conflict but ha ha ha ironically they have now turned their backs on him" I could be wrong, and the message could be about how the ironies of history eventually capture us all and make ashes of our dreams. But it's a little difficult to say. Certainly if it's the first message, I see a startling lack of evidence that Obama is showing particular favor to the Palestinian "narrative," and the shift back toward violent militancy on their side -- if there is one -- is unlikely to make anyone happy other than those who feast on death and destruction. Indeed, if there is a central, and centrally negative, Palestinian "narrative," it seems to be the one that promises the eventual defeat and removal of Israel. The great problem is that, so far, no Palestinian leader has had the nerve to tell his people that story is a morbid fantasy and they need another narrative. Obama has not only not adopted that narrative but is working to get Palestinians to grow up and jettison it. But part of that struggle is showing that jettisoning it will also have positive gains. But Noga may well be right. The Palestinians are, perhaps, in love with failure and defeat, and will choose the melodrama of victimhood once again. That, however, does not invalidate this administration's struggle for a better outcome.

- ironyroad

October 16, 2009 at 2:07pm

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

luis, I disagree. I hardly think that reminding the Palestinians that they fire missiles into Israel and that this must stop is "allowing [them] to play the victim instead of undertaking some responsibilities." Seems to me that these verbal challenges do exactly the opposite. However, I do think that when he blends in critiques of Israeli policy, which as peretz correctly describes, is pretty unusual, then to people who have only heard 100% condemnation of the Palestinians coupled with 100%, unequivocal statements never challenging Israel on any of their actions, then to some, it seems like it is undermining Palestinian responsibility. But, as I see it, it doesn't. You say it does. So be it. Oh and Molly, yes, when tnr went to tnr 3.0, they made me take back my old name. Everyone says it is better. I agree. Good to see your name back on the boards, as it is good to see luispc and hopefully, we will even see old sleepyyavl, fangs sharpened and ready to go.

- MrCookie1

October 16, 2009 at 2:15pm

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

"It seems to have a message. That might be "Obama has adopted the Palestinian side in the I/P conflict but ha ha ha ironically they have now turned their backs on him"" Yes, this agrees with my own view of the post' intended meaning.

- jacksondyer

October 16, 2009 at 2:21pm

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

LR I posted some thoughts on Wood's introduction. Basman had posted his own reading of the introduction, here: http://www.tnr.com/blog/alan-wolfe/further-thoughts-untenable-distinction#comment-251714

- jacksondyer

October 16, 2009 at 2:22pm

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

Nice take on the burkini, Luis. Thanks for the link.

- jacksondyer

October 16, 2009 at 2:23pm

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

"But Noga may well be right. The Palestinians are, perhaps, in love with failure and defeat, and will choose the melodrama of victimhood once again. That, however, does not invalidate this administration's struggle for a better outcome." My own thought is that tackling the conflict will necessitate a paradigm shift on how we think about it. Each of the commenters have made some valid points here. However, until we begin thinking of the conflict as an Arab Israeli, or even Muslim Jewish conflict nothing will change. The Palestinians are merely a weapon in this larger conflict. Ironically, those antisemitic voices which keep saying that there will be no peace in the Middle East (some even say the world) implicitly recognize the conflict as one between Arab or Muslims and Israelis or Jews. Once we recognize what the true parameters of the conflict then we can’t pretend anymore that Arabs are merely reacting to the supposed “Israeli” mistreatment of the Palestinians. It’s as if in writing about antisemitism in Europe we only concentrated on Nazi Germany while ignoring its larger presence in all of Europe over hundreds of years as well as in Christendom. The Arabs aren’t merely reacting they are waging war on the Jewish State through the Palestinians any more than Nazi Germany wasn’t just reacting to the “oppression of the Sudeten Germans” but used it as a pretext to make war on Czechoslovakia.

- jacksondyer

October 16, 2009 at 2:43pm

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

Ah, I seemed to have opened up quite a can of worms here in the best manner of George Walton. So let me set a few things straight so that others can feel free to misinterpret them as they see fit: 1. I think that Martin Peretz's Jewishness informs his views on Israel and the Israeli-Arab conflict, as well as his perceptions of Arabs and Muslims generally, which roughly speaking account for about 75% of his posts on The Spine (at least in the absence of an active Presidential election). This is absolutely as it should be, since these are central issues to those of us Jews who are politically or intellectually engaged and care about Israel, so I don't have any qualms about Marty's choice of subject matter. But I also think that his views are prejudiced, often simplistic and insensitive and occasionally irresponsible, and in this regard they are representative of the views of many other American Jews of his generation on this issue. Pace Jackson, this is not slander but merely an observation borne of direct and extensive observation and a normative judgment on my part (similar to my observation and normative judgment that many former Soviet Jews have rather prejudiced views of Arabs and blacks, which is also borne of extensive and direct observation), for which I will ask for forgiveness from Hashem next year as I do every year. As for the predjuces of Gentiles of his generation, or Jews or Gentiles of any other generation on any other set of issues, these are legion and will ever be legion, but Marty doesn't choose to blog about them constantly so I don't think they are relevant to this discussion. 2. Yes, Molly, Jews were prone to prejudice, resentment and hatred throughout our long and tortured history, usually in response to oppression from Gentiles -- read the Talmud's discussion of Jesus, for instance, to see how such oppression breeds bitterness among the most learned and judicious of men. Prejudice, resentment and bitterness and are not attractive attitudes, even if the circumstances in which they are formed would make any normal human being embrace such attitudes, if only for the sake of sanity. I do not judge harshly those who had such feelings when they lived through the destruction of the Temple, the Inquisition or the Holocaust, or even if they were denied admission to Harvard or a seat on a stock exchange because of their Jewishness, even though I often disagree with the conclusions that they draw from their life experience. But I do feel free to heartily disagree with, and cast censure upon, someone who seems to have suffered little harm in his life for his faith or his roots but feels the need to slander individuals and communities on a routine basis. 3. Last, but not least, there should be an expectation that a person, no matter how old, needs to see the world for what it is and not for what it was. I don't think that Mr. Peretz makes much of an effort to do so and, while that is his prerogative, it is my prerogative as a reader to disagree with him and point out where he is simply spouting anger and not observing the world. To take one simple example, Marty constantly brings up the point that there was no "Palestinian" nation that was recognized by others until the 1970s, or a feeling of Palestinian nationhood until that time. This is more or less true as a historical matter, but what's the point of harping on this today? While a sense of "peoplehood" or "nationality" was perceived as a precondition of internationally recognized sovereignty between 1918 and 1945, this precondition lost its centrality after 1945 and especially starting in the mid-1950s and de-colonization took steam. Whether or not the Arabs of Gaza and the West Bank are "Palestinians", part of a broader "Arab nation" or simply a bunch of families and clans, the fact is that Israel's sovereignty over them is not recognized by anyone outside Israel (and, in the case of all except those residents of East Jerusalem, by Israel itself!), and even Marty accepts that Israel is not to rule over these people indefinitely. So why keep harping on this subject, except to vent anger and bitterness? At the end of the day, I think that it is a generational divide at work. I was born in 1971 and raised at a time when Israel was a reality, was roundly lauded among all of my peers and parents and was embraced for its success in war and peace. I grew up and first visited Israel (the first of about a dozen visits, including a year at a yeshiva after high school) at a time defined by the First Lebanon War, the First Intifada, the national anguish unleashed by Rabin's assassination and the odd national malaise of the late 1990s and the collapse of the peace process. I have no illusions that Israel was built and is populated by anyone other than fallible human beings whose leaders often act in the same blind, reactive and cynical ways that other national leaders do. I also fully recognize that, even though the Israelis' country and its society are much more progressive, democratic and rational than the lands and peoples that surround them (some of which I have also briefly visited), this doesn't excuse the mistakes of Israel's leaders and many of its voters. Perhaps it's my desire for Israel to succeed in the real world that drives my criticism. Shabbat Shalom.

- wildboy

October 16, 2009 at 2:58pm

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

Luis: I agree with a lot of what you have posted here, but particularly on the point of the "smug emptiness"--the phrase is not mine-- of Obama extolling the right of Muslim women to wear the veil. Here's part of something I said on a different thread to someone on the point: ...That the terrible suppression of women in Muslim orthodoxy is a sign of its medieval backwardness is true to say. That the theocratic imperative for women’s suppression of the self is manifest in the veils they must wear also is true to say. Against these truths, what sheer callowness and depths of preening self importance were revealed by the gratuitous nod to freedom of religion in America? Consider the implicit juxtaposition: your First Amendment against stoning women for adultery, clitoral circumcision, the utter abnegation of women’s sexuality, nay personhood. This juxtaposition informs, in Peretz’s—Marty’s if you will—apt phrase, “the emptiness of the smug"... It related to this post by Peretz: http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-spine/barack-obama-and-the-veil-the-president-vs-the-supreme-council-al-azhar-pinnacle-musl

- basman

October 16, 2009 at 3:06pm

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

irony: if you are here: go back to the "The Duel" thread. I told you a joke there, just as I titled your playlet. I need your evaluation, ranging from "made me laugh so hard it hurt" to "inner contemplative smile."

- basman

October 16, 2009 at 3:15pm

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

Luis, "He only advanced the cause of ridiculous upper class Muslims living in the West to impose their burkas and burkinis not only on themselves but on their helpless daughters." What are you talking about? You're telling me that upper-class muslims, i.e. educated muslims, well-to-do Muslims, not the ones living in the projects in Paris, want veils? I live in Los Angeles, we have plenty of muslim at my kid's school (and in my neighborhood), and I can't recall ever seeing any of their mothers wearing the veil. And yes, I live in a very comfortable area. Yes, maybe in Beverly Hills you get really rich Saudis or Iranians who do, but that's the exception. Obama was merely trying to show the Arab world that we are accepting of their customs--on the premise that many muslim women in the middle-East and beyond like wearing their veils. Which is true. I think the situation is far more complicated than you or Marty is letting on. For many of these women, going uncovered makes them uncomfortable. Sure, but we're all products, to some degree, of our culture. And as far as veiling goes, that's fine with me. Which isn't to say I don't recognize the question of degree. Do I think Burkas are horrific? Of course, but I can't see that Obama was going to start cataloging and rating in what was really meant to be a feel-good speech. He was contrasting us with the French, who are seen by Muslims as being intolerant of Muslim custom. He was trying to tell them that here in the US we are accepting of other people's cultures. As for Marty's complaint that Obama is bad for Israel. Wha? He backed off his call for a halt to expanding settlements. Which means that the latest 3500 settlements set to be built will soon become facts on the ground. What he did wrong was to make a blanket statement. He didn't say what kind of settlement activity. Which is a problem with Obama. He goes off half-cocked. Now he's backed off completely without any effort to be specific in areas he's right.

- MOLLYSIMON

October 16, 2009 at 3:24pm

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

irony: if you are here: go back to the "The Duel" thread. I told you a joke there, just as I titled your playlet. I need your evaluation, ranging from "made me laugh so hard it hurt" to "inner contemplative smile." basman, I was a bit bemused at first because the comments have flipped over onto a second page, which I didn't see initially. So part two was invisible, until . . . But I've recovered now! Phew! How about "had me walking about the room so I could laugh more energetically for at least two minutes solid!", is that ok?

- ironyroad

October 16, 2009 at 3:38pm

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

wildboy “I think that Martin Peretz's Jewishness informs his views on Israel and the Israeli-Arab conflict…” I don’t have a problem with this. I do have a problem with your generalizations about “Jews of his generation.” How do you know this have you done a survey of all Jews of his generation? Moreover, how do you know his views (and which views are you talking about?) are inaccurate (prejudiced)? The same with your view of Jews from Russia. “Pace Jackson, this is not slander but merely an observation borne of direct and extensive observation and a normative judgment on my part (similar to my observation and normative judgment that many former Soviet Jews have rather prejudiced views of Arabs and blacks, which is also borne of extensive and direct observation), for which I will ask for forgiveness from Hashem next year as I do every year.” Very cute, but your personal cynical observations mean nothing to me. In the meantime you are just spreading slander and lies about a whole generation of people as well as about an ethnic group. I have a very hard time taking your post seriously, WB.

- jacksondyer

October 16, 2009 at 3:38pm

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

...How about "had me walking about the room so I could laugh more energetically for at least two minutes solid!", is that ok?.. Are you kidding: it's already in the bank earning interest.

- basman

October 16, 2009 at 3:45pm

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

Jackson, I sometimes try to take your posts seriously, but you just resort to juvenile attacks and name-calling, so I don't think I'll ever make that mistake again. Frankly, you calling anyone out for making generalized observations about this group or that is really rich, since just in this thread you indulge in delicious generalizations about what "Palestinians" and "Arabs" really want. How do you know? Did you conduct a poll? How many Arabs or Palestinians have you ever met or spoken with? Why does it seem that you have no gainful employment other than to troll around Internet forums all day? Who is your stockbroker, so that I can enjoy leisure like yours? As my grandmother used to say, "Kish a bir inter zayn veidel".

- wildboy

October 16, 2009 at 4:09pm

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

..Kish a bir inter zayn veidel.. I get some of this, but it's ungoogleable as written.

- basman

October 16, 2009 at 4:37pm

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

wildboy "Jackson, I sometimes try to take your posts seriously, but you just resort to juvenile attacks and name-calling, so I don't think I'll ever make that mistake again." This is "rich" (to use your expression) coming from an someone who attacks all Jews "of a certian generation" or all "Jews from Russia." Your moralizing fervor has led your to hate your fellow Jews on the basis of no factual evidence except your own "experiences." "you indulge in delicious generalizations about what "Palestinians" and "Arabs" really want. How do you know? Did you conduct a poll? How many Arabs or Palestinians have you ever met or spoken with?" You are just repeating my charges against you. I have probably met more Arab people than you have both here in the US, in Europe and in Israel, including Arabs who spoke Hebrew. However, I made no generalizations about Arabs. I wrote about what their leaders say and do. For the rest go take your "moralizing" to The Nation website that's where all Jew hating Jews and many non Jews end up.

- jacksondyer

October 16, 2009 at 4:44pm

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

"I get some of this, but it's ungoogleable as written." It must be his Galizianer pronunciation, that and his bad spelling.

- jacksondyer

October 16, 2009 at 4:45pm

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

"Wild Boy" "Why does it seem that you have no gainful employment other than to troll around Internet forums all day? Who is your stockbroker, so that I can enjoy leisure like yours?" I am my own broker, Boy. You jealous? Would you like me to be your broker too. I am not cheap, though. My commission is fifty percent. Besides, unlike you I am pretty good at multi-tasking. Not that it take a lot of thought to take your shallow comments apart.

- jacksondyer

October 16, 2009 at 6:05pm

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

Wildboy "....As my grandmother used to say, "Kish a bir inter zayn veidel"." Not quite sure what that means, either, but my grandmother would probably fire back, "A schande far di goyim"

- malahat

October 16, 2009 at 6:49pm

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

A propos 0 at all, I notice that as at my last look, 4 seconds ago, Peretz's posts are 5 out of 5 for most commented on. The Plank by contrast on a quick look see looks deader than a doornail.

- basman

October 16, 2009 at 7:20pm

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

I don't want to get into the . . . er . . . substance of this argument but I should say in wildboy's defense that over on The Plank (the "Homestate Pride" posting now on p.2) he had a one-liner -- or more of a one-sentencer, I guess -- that should be in the running for Comment of the Week. Our other friend still hasn't quite recovered from it.

- ironyroad

October 16, 2009 at 7:29pm

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

...I don't want to get into the . . . er . . . substance of this argument but I should say in wildboy's defense that over on The Plank (the "Homestate Pride" posting now on p.2) he had a one-liner -- or more of a one-sentencer, I guess -- that should be in the running for Comment of the Week. Our other friend still hasn't quite recovered from it... Can you provide a link? I don't know what thread you are referring to?

- basman

October 16, 2009 at 9:36pm

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

jackson, Based upon what I sense about you, something tells me that you're a damn good broker. When my depleted nest egg fattens back up again, I will call you. 50% of something is better than 100% of nuthin'.

- MrCookie1

October 16, 2009 at 9:42pm

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

basman, Can you provide a link? I don't know what thread you are referring to? I had a hard time finding it, too. Here it is: http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-plank/homestate-pride-revisited

- malahat

October 16, 2009 at 9:56pm

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

"A propos 0 at all, I notice that as at my last look, 4 seconds ago, Peretz's posts are 5 out of 5 for most commented on." george: Do you own a dictionary? Good. Open it up to the word "shill". Now, I'm not saying Marty pays them or they pay Marty to comment in here. After all, I'm not a denizen of Talk Radio or Fox News. I really am fair and balanced. But think about it this way. According to Wikipedia, estimates of Jews on the planet now range from 12 to 18 million. So let's be super conservative: 10,000,000. And let's say there are 10 Jews responding on this thread. That means only 0.000001 % of the Jews worldwide are represented here. Kind of puts the even the more humiliating state of The Plank in perspective, eh? Besides, its been MONTHS now since a really dramatic news story has captured our imaginations. Even Balloon Boy doesn't qualify as REALLY dramatic, right? Wait until something explodes. They'll be back. Uh, won't they? gw

- iambiguous

October 16, 2009 at 10:10pm

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

Oh yeah, I forgot: If you note the top five posts that were actually READ, Marty has, well, none of them, right? How odd is that?!! gw

- iambiguous

October 16, 2009 at 10:13pm

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

Thanks bl462: I saw that thread but wasn't sure whether that was it.

- basman

October 16, 2009 at 10:33pm

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

I see the reality-challenged walnuts is also math-challenged.

- malahat

October 16, 2009 at 10:36pm

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

bl462, here's some advice worth every thing you're paying for it. Just ignore him, totally and not only totally but completely, and not only completely but also 100% of the time, give him not even the time of day, as they say. fwiiw,

- basman

October 16, 2009 at 10:48pm

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

basman, Thanks. It's excellent and sage advice. I'll try to follow it. And if I don't, please feel free to remind me in no uncertain terms.

- malahat

October 16, 2009 at 10:52pm

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

"50% of something is better than 100% of nuthin'." I concur. JD, if my academic career ever makes me something more than an owner of a Subaru Outback that I have to pay off in three years, I'll be calling you too!

- ironyroad

October 16, 2009 at 11:05pm

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

Is Jack really a broker or is this a running jest?

- basman

October 16, 2009 at 11:19pm

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

MrCookie1 " Based upon what I sense about you, something tells me that you're a damn good broker. When my depleted nest egg fattens back up again, I will call you. 50% of something is better than 100% of nuthin'." Thanks Jaunty and Irony, but I am not sure about. 50% of a debt is not better than ‘nuthin.’ Guys, please, I was joshing with ‘wildboy.’ I am as much of a broker as he is an “orthodox Jew,” whatever that means to him. I keep saying that anyone on the internet can be anyone. I just finished reading Samuel Beckett’s “The Unnamable” and it struck me what a perfect image of internet he offers there. The narrator exists only as a voice. There isn’t even a clear setting to story’s “action.” (All the action is verbal.) This is what the internet is like. We are all just voices and everything we think about each other is guesswork; some more plausible than other, but still guesswork. This is especially true when dealing with physical traits or referential facts. I believe, for example George Walton when he says he is ‘an autodidact.’ This is consistent with his having been so badly educated. I believe nothing else he says about himself. I can surmise that other posters judging from the quality of their posts are indeed educators (a noble profession in my book, and teach ESL course, or courses in literature or are lawyers. I’ll name no names. And this is enough for me. I love Aesop’s fable (The boasting Athlete”) where a character tells everyone that at Rhodes he was an athletic champion and accomplished this or that feat. Every time he would get in a jam he would say at Rhodes I jumped higher and farther than anyone else. To which some wag once replied, "hic Rhodus, hic salta! (Here is Rhodes, jump here.) This is what I think whenever people boast about themselves on various forums. We are all so anonymous here, and I love it.

- jacksondyer

October 16, 2009 at 11:46pm

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

".....please feel free to remind me in no uncertain terms....." gw: Oh, he will. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Hell, if it wasn't for all the folks bringing me up by reminding others that ignoring me is the best way to avoid doing that I would have long abandoned my mission here and gone back over to The Corner. There they can appreciate the essential absurdity of human existence by reminding everyone that I'm over here instead. gw

- iambiguous

October 16, 2009 at 11:53pm

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

Great post, Jackson.

- malahat

October 16, 2009 at 11:59pm

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

Yes, do ignore maleducated George Walton. Leave him to me. He thinks that 'human existence" is absurd, when it is the existent "George Walton" who is absurd.

- jacksondyer

October 17, 2009 at 12:02am

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

"100% condemnation of the Palestinians" Well, if O reached the point in which he condoned with the non recognition of Israel or with the firing of missiles by Hamas then he had reached the point of absolute lunacy... I hope we don't get there... The problem is that he is buying the supposed victimhood of Palestinians even if condemns the most morbid aspects of their conduct... It's like saying to a teenage brat, "you're basically right but..."

- luispc

October 17, 2009 at 4:00am

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

Sorry, wrong spot.

- luispc

October 17, 2009 at 4:02am

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

I see your point Basman. There is a delicate balance here. But, from my perspective, personal freedoms recognized after a basic respect for human dignity cannot become torpedoes for private opression denying that freedom. One has to go back to the foundation of liberty in order to see its limits, perhaps...

- luispc

October 17, 2009 at 4:06am

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

"What are you talking about? You're telling me that upper-class muslims, i.e. educated muslims, well-to-do Muslims, not the ones living in the projects in Paris, want veils?" Yes. As absurd as it may be. It's kind of fashionable amongst well-to-do European muslims, opposing their multicultural individuality on themselves and on everyone else... Just walk around Kensington today. You'll see not only veils but burkas as well. A sad spectacle... In America it is different. Perhaps because American society, at least on the coasts, shows a very evident spirit of inclusiveness that makes people want to integrate and forget where they came from... Perhaps because in America no one -- except pervert White supremacists -- think they own the country against everyone else, people feel confortable leaving their past behind them... The same generally doesn't happen in Europe sadly... so you really see a vicious circle of non integration + aggressive assertion of one's own background (however nasty and self opressive it may be). That's just a guess, but I think it is what explains the difference Nice to talk to you all again. Coming to The Spine is like coming to a decadent bar filled with ill tempered people, but one is just too old fashioned and stuborn to change (just kidding). The service still stinks though. I've answered to Cookie and Itzik and my posts didn't show on the right spot, at least until now.

- luispc

October 17, 2009 at 4:23am

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

It's worth actually reading the article that Peretz linked to: "Commanders of the U.S.-trained Palestinian security forces who have been locking up criminals and battling Hamas militants here for nearly two years have maintained morale in the ranks with a single promise: They will one day be the anchor of security for an independent Palestinian state. The lack of progress toward that goal is starting to sap Palestinian public support for the forces and erode morale among troops, even as they win praise and fresh funding from Washington for their accomplishments." Can you really blame the Palestinians here? They've made a serious effort to pacify the West Bank and their reward is continued settlement. They don't want to live in a well run Israeli colony, they want their own country. The PASF has done a great job of limiting violence in the West Bank, and the Israelis have to recognize that not with positive statements about the PASF (which are as helpful as Bin Laden's endorsement would be in an American presidential race) but with action. Settlement activity should be halted and the illegal (by Israeli law) settlements should be torn up tomorrow. Also, I'd point out that the examples of public Palestinian disrespect for the PASF cited in the article happened "Last fall" and "May 31" so it's hard to read waxing or waning into this.

- WillPastor

October 17, 2009 at 10:45am

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

"They've made a serious effort to pacify the West Bank and their reward is continued settlement." I don't understand the logic of this complaint. Palestinians making an effort to pacify reduce violence and extremism in their society is in the interest of Palestinians, first and foremost. Their "reward" is this: "Israel says its making good progress in removing checkpoints. "We took down over 160 road blocks -- permanent and temporary -- all over the West Bank," said Israel Defence Force spokesperson Avital Leibovich. The restrictions were put in place in 2000, at the outbreak of that year's Palestinian uprising. " http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091012/westbank_economy_091012/20091012?hub=TopStoriesV2 The mark of a civilized society is its effort to reach peaceful solution for conflicts through compromises. What have the Palestinians agreed to compromise about, vis a vis Israel's needs? Let's see that this pacified state continues and gets more entrenched, and what Palestinians are willing to compromise about. Judging by this interview with Abbas, it's the same old: http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD260309

- noga1

October 17, 2009 at 1:18pm

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

"According to Wikipedia, estimates of Jews on the planet now range from 12 to 18 million. So let's be super conservative: 10,000,000." Another interesting Freudian slip from george. Estimates range from 12 to 18 million Jews in the world but george can easily live with 10 million Jews! just like that, he erases between 2 and eight million Jews and with great alacrity in order to make some stupid point which only he and N&D Mackenzie can appreciate. Talk about unconscious and deeply-embedded desires which express themselves in convenient narratives and what not. I disagree with just about everything wildboy says, not least with his generous estimate of George's skills at woodworking. Would anyone want to sit on a chair made by george? http://www.galleriedebautte.com/spich-3.jpg

- noga1

October 17, 2009 at 1:36pm

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

This may be a very obvious comment, but nobody has made it, so . . . . It seems to me to be indeed a reasonable assumption (Noga's) that the primary consumers of the social good "safety/security" are those for whom it's provided. In this case, Palestinians on the West Bank. There are always secondary consumers too, and here one would be Israel. The degree of political division and hostility among Palestinians, however, is sufficient to have many who are willing to deny the secondary consumer his/her gain even at the expense of the primary consumer. And when the primary consumer is one's own people, then we have something close to civil war thinking going on. And that constituency -- I don't know its relative size -- would obviously be invested in developing and spreading a "narrative" in which the increasing disaffection of Palestinians toward the PASF is a central motif. We may be seeing the effects of such a campaign in reports such as the one cited. That said, narratives (as is often pointed out by commentators hereabouts, perhaps with a little too much vehemence at times) are not facts. And even clever and subtle attempts to weave a story of failure about the PASF can be derailed if the facts on the ground are different.

- ironyroad

October 17, 2009 at 2:01pm

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

Jack some how I don't think L.R. will ever get on to Woods. But the chat about it caused me to look at that site. I guess Utopia has gone by the boards, though not necessarily. But I hav been remiss in not addessing your last post coming at Wood's Introduction from another perspective. I'm going to consider it again, see if I have anything to add I'll let you know. And if not maybe we can kick around at some point ,if you want, to one of the essays. I'll give you a shout about that. (Btw since you're a broker you shoould know I took a hit with pork belly futures. I had some money riding on Limbaugh's NFL success.)

- basman

October 17, 2009 at 2:22pm

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

"(Btw since you're a broker you shoould know I took a hit with pork belly futures. I had some money riding on Limbaugh's NFL success.)" Me, a broker? Did you miss my post above?

- jacksondyer

October 17, 2009 at 5:29pm

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

JD, I think basman was pulling your leg. The joke wire runs from pork to belly to Limbaugh.

- ironyroad

October 17, 2009 at 5:36pm

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

Jack I was kdding. Anyway, I answered your post in Wood's intro.

- basman

October 17, 2009 at 7:50pm

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

noga: Estimates range from 12 to 18 million Jews in the world but george can easily live with 10 million Jews! george: Well, the more Jews there are in the world the tinier the percentage of Jews that Marty is able to draw to The Spine. Truly you can understand the need on my part to minimize his humiliation. He's practically like a father to me now. Sometimes though he can really...really...go off the deep end. So I just wanted to assure everyone here that not nearly as many folks who might otherwise be sympathetic to his cause is even aware of just how far off the deep end he does go. When will you ever learn to trust my intentions? If it's any consolation, however, Wikipedia notes the estimated population of Palestinians is around 10 million. But, again, being equally conservative here, let's say there are only 16 million instead. Satisfied? Oh, and I built the cross they crucified Christ on. Though, admittedly, Hamas provided the wood. gw

- iambiguous

October 18, 2009 at 12:57am

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

In george's world there are 10 million Jews and 16 million Palestinians. Interesting. We don't need Freud to interpret george's dreams for us.

- noga1

October 18, 2009 at 9:22am

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

Noga writes "Palestinians making an effort to pacify reduce violence and extremism in their society is in the interest of Palestinians, first and foremost" and Irony Road makes a similar point. Problem is, I'm not sure it's true. In the West Bank, the origin of the vast majority of suicide bombers, Israeli vs Palestinian violence has been much greater than Palestinian vs. Palestinian violence. Hence, pacification of the West Bank has been good for Israelis, and has mainly been good for Palestinians in that it has toned down Israeli retaliation. Now, I can accept that the Palestinians are better off if things are peaceful, but I understand why they might still reject peace if they feel it promotes an unfair arrangement. There are economic experiments in which say, $10 will be randomly awarded to one of two study participants (let's call thems participants 'A' and 'B'). 'A' then decides how much of the $10 to give to 'B', and 'B' can decide either to accept that amount or to scuttle the deal entirely, such that neither 'A' nor 'B' get money. Now, if 'A' gets $10 and offers 'B' $1, then it is in 'B''s interest to accept. After all, $1 is more that $0. But a lot of the time, 'B' will decide that "I'd rather get the satisfaction of punishing 'A' for his selfishness than get $1." People don't like getting screwed, and will act against their own self-interest to punish those who screw them over. Peace means the West Bank getting carved up and overrun with settlements while the Israelis enjoy first world standards of living and complete security. Yes, there are fewer checkpoints and fewer arrests and shootings of Palestinians, but overall this is Israel getting the $9 and Palestinians getting the $1. It's understandable that Palestinians might prefer that both factions get $0.

- WillPastor

October 18, 2009 at 2:50pm

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

That's an interesting take on it, WP, but in the real world things can change, people can work to find a fairer distribution of the $10 or to increase the sum to $15 or $20 and reach a fairer distribution that way. The Palestinian mindset -- and again, I'm not asssume all Palestinians have it -- is that there will never be any chance of a fairer distribution and never any chance of increasing the sum so let's deep-six the whole thing now. The morbid stasis of a political victimology refuses the dynamism of a potentially better future for all.

- ironyroad

October 18, 2009 at 4:32pm

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

Sorry, that would of course be 'I'm not assuming . . .'

- ironyroad

October 18, 2009 at 4:34pm

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

"The Palestinian mindset...." gw: Well, the Palestinians would fit right in here, wouldn't they? "Mindsets" are all the rage in The Spine. Minds set on, say, believing that how they view the world is...axiomatically...the way the world is. There are a few exceptions though. But I won't name names. God knows their plight in here is already tough enough. Or does God actually want it that way? Your own God, perhaps? gw

- iambiguous

October 18, 2009 at 9:04pm

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

I am surprised that Martin Peretz does not have more of Obama's ear. His and Alan Dershowitz's reassurance made me more easy with Obama and helped make me a supporter. I think it still remains to be seen how President Obama plays the American hand in the middle east. The Palestinian partner is still very elusive and has the least likelihood to have enough leadership ability despite what faith the President puts in it. Healthy diplomatic wrangling with Israeli leadership lead by the right wing in a national unity coalition could provide good results diplomatically and on the ground for Israel if negotiations do come to the fore. The chances for movement on a peace effort are definitely better with a US being perceived as an honest broker instead of living in the pocket of Israel's more neo-conservative interests. Regardless what a president's administration believes, it serves Israel poorly to flaunt a strong American/Israel relationship especially when the administration performs arrogantly in the world scene. President Obama has a lot on his plate. I would like to see him put his world political capital into improving perceptions of American power and his time into domestic issues that have been sorely ignored. He needs some wins, it seems ill fated for him to spend his time in the intransigence of the Palestinian problem.

- dnewman20

October 23, 2009 at 12:29pm

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close