The New Republic

American politicians still claim to be committed to Israel's security, but the fact is that many Americans who used to support Israel are no longer so committed. People like Marty need to understand that it is in America's interest to find a path to peace in the region, and that Israeli leaders who seem to be working at cross purposes to US policy and strategy will be corrosive to that commitment. I am sure that Israeli leaders already understand that America is an unsteady ally, but they act as if they enjoy the thrill of shaking us. Makes no sense to me, but go ahead and complain about Hillary's speech. Personally, I think it is counter-productive. Neil

- purcellneil

March 24, 2010 at 8:49am

Hillary Clinton's speech to AIPAC was transparent, disingenuous, and insulting. Bad guy politicians talk like that in the movies. The Obami are using this crisis to avoid public discussion of their failed Iran policy. They have no intention of stopping a nuclear-armed Iran. In General David Patreaus, they've found a general-politician to supply some thin plausibility. The Jews in the Obama crowd (Axelrod, Emanuel, Indyk) bring to mind the commissars from the Soviet Communist Party's Jewish Bureau (Yevsektsia), sent out to beat the tribe into submission. They're inebriated by the temporary power they have. Another court Jew of the Obami crowd, Robert Malley, is the son of Simon Malley, a founder of the Egyptian Communist Party and anti-Israel magazine Afrique-Asie in Paris (see http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=8&x_nameinnews=88&x_article=1437). Such entrepreneurial verve, to say the least! Britain's "Jewish" foreign secretary David Miliband, of course, has a deep Communist past. His father, Ralph Miliband, was a well-known Marxist intellectual in Europe. Is it any wonder why the Foreign Office has just found some pretext in the Dubai passports hoopla to expel an Israeli diplomat?

- amidut

March 24, 2010 at 9:02am

Correction to my previous post with respect to David Miliband. Substitute "New Left roots" for "Communist past". Sorry.

- amidut

March 24, 2010 at 9:23am

Reading marty and his merry band is a fascinating example of skewed thinking. Yes, the US and Israel are allies and will continue to be so. The fact of the matter is that what has been missing in this relationship, especially over the last administration, are shared expectations for that alliance and a US pursuit in that alliance dedicated to our foreign policy interests, in which the resumption of the peace process is a key ingredient. Because Americans like peretz and others on this thread conflate US expectations that Israel actually share the interests of the US and contribute positive progress towards goals that meet our interest with accusations of "beating up" Israel, and "Soviet Commissars" this has led Israeli leaders, especially a right wing belligerent like Netanyahu to never truly believe that their actions, towards the US and within the peace process equation, will ever result in any criticism, mainly because for his American supporters like peretz, Israel the country is never wrong, never makes a mistake, and is always justified in what they do (even publicly embarrassing the US Vice President during a State visit). If Israel can never do wrong, then certainly he as the Israeli Prime Minister representing a hard right political perspective within his own country, can always count on Americans like peretz and his ideological brethren to hold onto that conflation. Netanyahu is Israel, therefore, because he is Israel, he can do no wrong, it is wrong for the US to expect anything of him, there is never a situation that would ever require that he show his good intentions within the alliance or that he even need to bring anything other than his mere presence, to the relationship. Netanyahu be required to show his "bona fides", heavens no! There are so many other bad people in the world and is Obama requiring that they show their bona fides! For people like peretz, the US should never expect anything from Netanyahu because from their perspective, rather than prove that the US and Israel is an alliance of equals and like all alliances, weave a balance between national interests and shared interests, that equation never applies to the US-Israel alliance. The US must never expect the natural give and take of interests with Israel. Why? Because they say so and if we do, we'll it is the US in the wrong, not Netanyahu. This is a bizarre way of perceiving what is in America's best national interest.

- MrCookie1

March 24, 2010 at 9:31am

It is an even more bizarre way of perceiving how states behave in the real world. The more I read the views of the Likud-nuts and their babble, the more convinced I am that they are actively courting the martyrdom of Israel. Central to their latest delusion is the very notion that the behavior of the United States, or of any nation, over an extended period of time is purely the result of the attitudes of a particular leader, that the course the United States is on is simply a matter of Barack Obama's attitudes. Even the Bushie's demanded that Israel stop building in the West Bank as part of the Road Map, although they then turned a blind eye to Israel's subterfuge. Yet, the Likud-nuts decline to see that there is a basic conflict between Israel's settlement policies and US interests as understood by the US itself. Who is going to lose that tug-of-war in the end? That answer is obvious. But the Likud-nuts, sinking in their delusions and dragging Israel down with them, are determined not merely to lose, but to cause Israel as much harm from the loss as possible. A pathetic spectacle. * * * Livni was absolutely right not to join Netanyahu's coalition. It would only have given him cover. Better to let Israelis get a bellyful of his bumbling and Likud delusions (again) and spit him out (again). And no, it is not an accident that the UK is punching Israel around at the same time as the US. Quite obviously. And no, it doesn't matter whether the occasion for the punching is justified on the merits or not (the invariable position of the Likud-nuts is completely to miss the point and fall back to their Talmudic arguments about what is or is not fair in international affairs, as if fair mattered at all). The US and UK are both just sending a message that Netanyahu and his admirers, to no surprise of mine, are too stupid to understand: You are thwarting our interests. You cannot expect to do so and have our support at the same time. Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Instead of hearing what is being said and at least considering what that implies for Israel, the Likud-nuts prefer to ignore the message and take issue with the medium: "You can't give us a hard time about building in this neighborhood because (pick as many as you like) we built there before, it is north, not east, we annexed it fair and square, Jerusalem is not Tel Aviv, Jerusalem is not a settlement, the guy we assassinated deserved it, etc., etc., etc.)."

- roidubouloi

March 24, 2010 at 10:05am

One last thing... peretz' continued in your face use of the slur "jewboy" is, as most of us said, despicable. I could tolerate one in-the-heat-of-the moment slip as he showed a few days ago. Everyone is human and makes mistakes, especially when our hackles are up. I do not approve of slurs but can understand how anyone can slip into this reptilian brain mindset, especially given how peretz feels about the issues at hand. But even after hearing from his dwindling band of readers that this was wrong, he continues with this reprehensible slur. What this tells me is that Martin H. Peretz is many things but, on this key personal characteristic, he is blind and obstinate. Let us put aside our disagreements on the issues. This second use of "jewboy" offers all of us a portal into this man's lack of character and decency. If I ever have the [dis]pleasure of meeting this character, I will tell him one thing: You my friend, are a classic asshole. And, as I have told many an adversary, if that offends you, then you are welcome to do something about it and I am always willing to participate in that process with you.

- MrCookie1

March 24, 2010 at 11:34am

Thanks Ginzy, for exposing Hillary's too-little, too-late, too-confusing 'condemnation' of the terrorits-named square in Ramallah. The public anti-diplomacy of the Obama administration is not a surprise to those of us who saw behind the Oz-curtain (in my case, May, 2008). alas, not a chance that Obama is playing bad cop to expose the eternal intransigence of the palestinians. What is of interest is the current strength of congressional opposition to the executive branch when it comes to Israel. am still counting on nature to deal with Iran, the most earthquake-prone country on earth. Teheran is way overdue for a massively destructive earthquake. could turn all those Shi'a back into Zoroasterians. .. now also waiting for the reactions to the building permit approval on Tuesday for former Grand Muft residence, former Sheperd's Hotel in Jerusalem, which will surely make the 1,600 future apartments in Ramat Shlomo irrelevant to the Israel-bashing crowd.

- K2K

March 24, 2010 at 11:45am

cookie, I know, he utterly undercuts every point he makes. Obviously Marty doesn't give a shit whom he offends but to the posters here no more terms like Jewboy, or Court Jew, or self loathing Jew, or anything whatsoever that has been used as a derogatory term against Jews in the past (except if it is used self referentially jokingly as in "I am a fecking Irish drunken Mick") Judge people by their stated policies, leave out their religion or ethnicity. Amidut: Court Jew? Really? I am not in a position to judge people in the past who clung precariously to mere existence. Yes, we can criticize Jews who collaborated with the Nazis in the Warsaw ghetto by informing, or acting as those cops, but the criticism is only on their character, not their religion or ethnicity. The same with people at Stalins time or in the middle ages. I am sure there were Court Catholics in England after Henry VIII or Court Catholics in Eastern Europe, just as there are Court Catholics in China (going by the name of Patriotic Catholics) but why is it that you would never hear such a word? And as to slurs against Catholics, I have never heard one Catholic refer to another as a Papist. I have no desire to read TNR if it has anti-semitic slurs, I don't care if the excuse is that the slurs are done by fellow Jews. You want to call David Milliband an asshole, go right ahead, no arguments from me, just leave it at that and save the psycho analysis for home

- blackton

March 24, 2010 at 11:56am

The MSM here has generally viewed the Milliband move as a crude attempt to ingratiate himself to left wing of his party, the left wing media, and in particular the Muslim vote in Merrye Olde Englande (and Scotland & Wales) in the run up to the elections coming a few weeks time. The expelled Israeli diplomat reportedly is the Mossad rep in London, and not surprisingly many in British intelligence are reported to have been against Milliband's move, as they well understand that that is how espionage is carried out, and saw the move as damaging to counterterrorism efforts. They ain't naive or stupid. Only a fool (and some have posted on this topic here in the past) would believe that an undercover agent for an intelligence agency, any intelligence agency, would NOT use a falsified passport to gain entry to a hostile country. Reportedly, a new Mossad representative is on his way to London. hg

- ginzy

March 24, 2010 at 12:33pm

Blackton, I agree with you that J-boy is an unacceptable slur. It's time that Peretz cut it out!!! I'll be more careful with C-Jew. I always thought it was simply an accurate description and not a slur. There have been all kinds of C-Jews, some who were only out for themselves and others who honestly tried to negotiate harsh situations. I'm being fair, however, when I single out the Obama administration Jews who are undermining Israel to dangerous effect. They and others of their ilk lend legitimacy to efforts to defame and delegitimize Israel and the Jewish people. They assure non-Jews that Israel-bashing "tough love" in a time of great danger is OK. They lull other Jews into thinking that they have heart-felt friends in the Obama administration. They deserve no sympathy. Unlike Jews in Islam or medieval Christendom, they have other choices in democratic America.

- amidut

March 24, 2010 at 2:18pm

The great tragedy in Obama's latest performance is the degree to which it contributes to the ongoing delegitimization of all that Israel is and does. Only a knave or a fool really believes that Israel has no "right" to build housing in Jerusalem. By any standards of fairness the Israelis have more right to build there than do the Americans in Texas or the French in Alsace-Lorraine. The real issue is not fairness. It's the fact that the Palestinians and their allies have succeeded in convincing the weak-minded that the new planned apartment houses in the suburbs of Jerusalem are "colonies" being established by "settlers". Let's face it: the Pals have always been much sharper in selling their distorted and fabricated versions of reality than the Israelis have been at setting forth the facts. The fact that East Jerusalem had a majority Jewish population for centuries, and that the Jews were driven out of East Jerusalem by the Jordanians during the war of independence are arcane facts for historians, whereas every yahoo knows that the Jews came and stole the land from the Palestinians. Our President has become convinced that Israeli intransigence is the true obstacle to a peaceful settlement. Why, even the Saudis have pointed this out--so it must be true! If only a building freeze were truly the key to peace in the Middle East, wouldn't that be grand? Obama's squeeze play is not going to bring peace, but it will certainly add to the moral confusion. It's simple, misguided appeasement that mistakes itself for realpolitik.

- willjames77

March 24, 2010 at 2:37pm

K2K (on an earlier thread) on the Secretary of State's speech to AIPAC: "Hillary actually was vehement in denouncing the Pal dedication of the square to the female terrorist. Very vehement." K2K here: "Thanks Ginzy, for exposing Hillary's too-little, too-late, too-confusing 'condemnation' of the terrorits-named square in Ramallah." So within the space of ca. 48 hours, "vehement . . . Very vehement" becomes -- for the same observer, we should note -- "too-little, too-late, too-confusing." Reminds me of that scene in the movie Catch-22 when Yossarian is standing in line, but naked, when General Dreedle is awarding medals to the squadron. The dialog goes like this (from memory): General Dreedle (taken aback): Col Cathcart, this man is naked! Col: I'll have him put on charge right away, General. Gen. Dreedle: You know, if this man wants to received his medal naked, what is that to us? Col: My sentiments exactly, sir!

- ironyroad

March 24, 2010 at 3:12pm

...David Axelrod, yes, the man I called a "Jewboy," the Jewboy who seemed to relish beating up on his cousins... What a disreputable putz you can be Peretz! Think of it though: how intellectually disreputable you have become, rationalized by you as being "over the top", as if that were some acceptable, benign idiosyncracy. You are in Jennifer Rubin territory here but worse as I have never read her to write ethnic slurs. Think of it: you are exactly what Wieseltier complained of in his well taken shots at Andrew Sullivan. And speaking of Wieseltier, you are not kind, not kind at all, not decent, not decent at all. Your are a version of the Jew in the upper balcony who pissed on the Arabs below. Your attempt at bold candour simply makes candid what a shmuck you can be, are. You should apologize: redemption is possible.

- basman

March 24, 2010 at 4:16pm

Not to put too fine a point on it: …In the course of their bacchanal, some of the settlers at Beit Hadassah, the formerly Jewish house in the center of town that they were claiming for themselves, had opened their windows and urinated on Palestinians in the street below…. ...It makes no sense to show contempt for the people with whom you are destined to live. It is not only cruel, it is stupid. So the dispossession of the El Ghawis is a disgrace. And a Jewish disgrace, because it was Simon the Just, the legendary leader buried in an ancient cave not far from the El Ghawis’ house, who famously taught that one of the things which supports the world in existence is the practice of kindness...

- basman

March 24, 2010 at 4:27pm

Guys while I agree about terms like "Jewboy" and "court Jew" you are missing the point behind the point, which is this: the anti-Israel movement, from whichever direction it emanates, is sowing virulent and explicitly antisemitic commentary and reinforcing slanders and canards, some of which are medieval, religious bias and some of which sound exactly like Nazi Germany. This includes conspiracy theories that were regarded as outlandish and therefore meaningless a few years ago but which are gaining traction and becoming increasingly respectable and widespread. Worse, the minute Jews and/or Israel or supporters of Israel are blamed for causing danger to American soldiers and/or American interests by powerful, really powerful people, which has in fact happened recently or at least said to have happened - one can assume that the formerly ridiculous has acquired real momentum. Take a good look at some of the cartoons not only from the Middle East but also, on occasion, from Britain. Add that to outright lies and slanders that are becoming more and more open not only in Middle Eastern media but in the West. The UN itself reflects appalling bias. In fact, some truly vile antisemitism is coming even from places where there are no Jews, such as Malaysia. It's becoming common to see boilerplate (and fake) quotes from the Talmud and various Jewish and/or Israeli leaders spammed all over MSM comment threads. For example any story about Israel posted on Yahoo will include such fake quotes + outright lies about how "Zionists" steal body parts, caused 9/11, are traitors to America, etc. The anti-Israel movement is not just proPalestinian. It is often explicitly anti-Jewish. And when history is reinvented and lies are told by high ranking American officials we have a problem. Yet, the Mearscheimer/Walt paradigm continues to insist that this is merely "criticism of Israel" which of course The Lobby won't permit. As if! That's why the part about Hamas getting the blame for the Mughrabi veneration is so serious and casts doubts on the whole situation. In fact I missed that at first when I read Hillary's speech. This is bad news. It means there's no real integrity to what she said. It reflects a kind of doublespeak. I was so impressed that she mentioned incitement at all I wrote favorably about her speech to the White House. Then, when others pointed out the Hamas canard I became very worried. This isn't a mistake. It's a lie. If we can't be honest about our Peace Partners and also their "moderation" the whole situation is a sham and we are in trouble. And, so much for equally condemning Israeli houses in Jerusalem and incitement by the Palestinians. This is also a joke. Meanwhile, Marty, please stop with the slurs. Maybe it strikes you as "edgy" like African-Americans using the "n" word but it's upsetting and it's detracting from your message. Nobody is even thinking about what you are saying because they are so upset about the "j" word, which isn't funny.

- Sophia

March 24, 2010 at 4:34pm

"This isn't a mistake. It's a lie. " It seems Hillary is vulnerable that way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suha_Arafat#November_1999_speech_and_embrace_of_Hillary_Clinton

- noga1

March 24, 2010 at 5:41pm

amidut, I have no argument with your thesis (I do, but that it is beside the point) I just have to imagine there is a better term than Court Jew, that is an all purpose word to describe people of a particular religion or ethnicity that (you believe) work against them while using their religion or ethnicity for cover (I disagree that is true in this case, but again is beside the point).

- blackton

March 24, 2010 at 5:47pm

"So within the space of ca. 48 hours, "vehement . . . Very vehement" becomes -- for the same observer, we should note -- "too-little, too-late, too-confusing." I have to wonder, ironyroad, if the denouement had gone from ""too-little, too-late, too-confusing." to ""vehement . . . Very vehement" would you have still been interested in pointing out the discrepancy? Somehow I don't think so. You would have attributed the difference to a very welcome and commendable learning curve modification of K2K's opinion. I don't recall you pointing out many contradictions like this when they favour your narratives. I will try to pay better attention, though. I believe however that I debunked the myth of the "very vehement" denunciation in my own comments on that thread. BTW, when you quote from another thread it would be the cordial thing to provide a link. It's not as if you were quoting from memory, is it?

- noga1

March 24, 2010 at 5:51pm

I could have this entirely wrong, but I see Obama playing a bigger game than the Israeli - Palestinian conflict. Having determined that Bush's hard tilt towards Israel had alienated Muslims everywhere and was an important piece (along with the Iraq war and various other unilateralisms) of undermining our standing in the world, Obama set out to reverse our decline and restore good relations, especially with the Muslim world. His speech at Cairo announced this strategy. His visit to Turkey reinforced it. And various moves, particularly his strictures on Israel, can be seen as tactics to advance this strategy. So, for example, a third level bureaucrat, commits the gaffe of announcing a plan to build apartments in East Jerusalem while Joe Biden is making an official visit. The proposed building was in accord with previous agreement with the Obama Administration that Israel would halt building in the West Bank but NOT in Jerusalem. But the timing of the announcement was unfortunate. An apology was proffered, and Biden accepted. That should have been the end of it. But I believe Obama saw an opportunity to leverage this gaffe into worldwide publicity for his tough stance toward Israel. I can easily imagine Obama thinking: "Heck, since the Palestinians who erect monuments to terrorists are probably never going to accept the existence of Israel anyway, rather than get bashed along with Israel, the US would be better off putting some distance between us and our heretofore closest ally. Like health reform, it will upset some folks, but the strategy would be worth it." We'll still be staunch defenders of Israel. Our military and foreign aid package will be as generous as ever. But to regain our standing in the world, Israel will get thrown under the bus verbally and tactically but not strategically. Plus, maybe Bibi will lose his coalition and have to run for reelection. That's the most sense I can make of Obama's policy of sticking it to Israel and giving the Palestinian P.A. a total pass, asking nothing of them. Not a great design to achieve peace, but what would be?

- JackR

March 24, 2010 at 6:45pm

JackR, exactly, but no one has any designs to achieve peace. To be honest, instead of bashing Israel I think Obama would have been far more effective if he just walked away, bring Biden back, tell Hillary to be quiet and give Bibi the cold shoulder. The US can then cite other pressing concerns; health care, banking reform, the economy, the two wars, etc. for all complete lack of involvement in that non existent peace process. If Arabs complain, we can say take it up with Israel...oh, you don't recognize them? Well, then that is your problem, not ours. If Israel were to ask where are we and why are we giving Bibi the cold shoulder, we can say no, we are not, we are really busy and are only interested in getting involved in issues where our involvement might make the slightest difference. We won't be throwing anyone under any bus, because we would not even be anywhere near.

- blackton

March 24, 2010 at 7:08pm

"I will try to pay better attention, though." That is much appreciated, Noga. The rest of your post, however, not so much, as it speculates about what I might or might not do in a way that seems to cheerfully do without a lot of (or any) evidence in support. As happens now and then, I don't really see me in the me you see. But perhaps we might both leave it to K2K to fight his own battles? I'd be interested to hear from him about what changed his mind (as I would have been in the opposite case too).

- ironyroad

March 24, 2010 at 7:55pm

blackton - your alternative of benign neglect has a certain visceral appeal, but I suspect the charade of our involvement would be part of Obama's strategy of winning over the Muslim world.

- JackR

March 24, 2010 at 9:45pm

ironyroad, I watched Hillary at AIPAC live on cable TV, and had not previously been following the naming of the square in Ramallah closely enough to catch Hillary blaming it on Hamas in orderto deflect any responsibility from PA/Fatah/Abbas. So, I noticed her vehemence via body language and tone of voice, without the benefit of fact-checking. I find it a bit odd (not that there is anything wrong with that:)) that you took the time to single out my "contradiction", and truly appreciate noga1's insight that it was perhaps a "learning curve modification". since then, I have been following the news on Israel/U.S. this to the exclusion of much else. Hardly worth spending any more time on Hillary, who has only been a source of interest to me because of her acting ability. She was a terrible senator, only interested in raising money, doing only what would help her get re-elected, with no visible constituent support. I noticed she went directly to Mexico from her AIPAC speech, and did wonder if Mexico's drug wars make her relax in comparison to being in a room with thousands of Jews. Now that the 20 apartments to be developed at Shepherd's Hotel are the new news, I am following that. Why? Because the funding is coming not just from bingo-Mr. Moskowitz, but also Ira Rennert, owner of Renco, which co-owns the company that manufactures military Humvees. How does the U.S. cope with American citizens funding these apartments? Admittedly, this housing IS a touchy subject, not just because Shepherd's was once the residence of the Grand Mufti (Hitler's BFF), but it is in the mostly Arab neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah. A very different situation from Ramat Shlomo, which even the BBC noted was built on previously empty (unoccupied) land. I do hope the NYT has created this map of Jerusalem (published March 23)with careful accuracy, as I am finding it very helpful: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/03/23/world/middleeast/jerusalem-map.html?ref=middleeast the news tonight does make Ramat Shlomo housing a non-issue, thanks to the Shepherd's Hotel announcement, with imminent start to the construction. Personally, I think a better use of this site would be as a center for religious tolerance in the heart of Jerusalem, or a church for displaced Iraqi Christians.

- K2K

March 24, 2010 at 9:47pm

"The rest of your post, however, not so much, as it speculates about what I might or might not do in a way that seems to cheerfully do without a lot of (or any) evidence in support." I was just wondering if your acute observational abilities were really acute or just politically affected. I couldn't help but note how sensitized you have become to the slightest criticism on Obama's fleet of helpers. Especially when it comes to Israel. Do I take it that you consider Clinton's speech to AIPAC satisfactory, despite her lies and lopsidedness?

- noga1

March 24, 2010 at 10:02pm

Hah! Well, I don't have that good a memory, K2K, but it stuck with me because the question you raised originally on the other thread was why the "vehement" condemnation wasn't more widely reported, and I posted a comment/question on that. I have every respect for learning curve modifications. For example, I assumed you knew that the Secretary of State knew what she was talking about -- so now I find that she declared a Fatah-dominated municipality to be a Hamas-dominated one. So in an ironic moment we're back -- in Washington -- at something not unlike the cosmically ill-timed Jerusalem housing construction declaration. Accident, or perfidy?

- ironyroad

March 24, 2010 at 11:28pm

Noga -- acute (I like to think), but also politically affected, like with most people.

- ironyroad

March 24, 2010 at 11:29pm

The apparently epiphanied Jackson Diehl at the Washington Post blasts Obama's handling of Israel, Netanyahu & the Pals (here). Again, Diehl is no closet Likdudnik (p'tooi, p'tooi), not by a long shot. His last paragraph, in particular his last sentence is striking from a paper that gave Obama al Ahram-like coverage during the campaign (and pretty-well admitted as such). To wit: A new administration can be excused for making such a mistake in the treacherous and complex theater of Middle East diplomacy. That’s why Obama was given a pass by many when he made exactly the same mistake last year. The second time around, the president doesn’t look naive. He appears ideological -- and vindictive. [emphasis added]. The Orthodox Union (O-U) in time for Passover, asks a fifth question (with sub-parts) for the Seder: The traditional ending of the Haggada is to declare "Next Year in Jerusalem". Will we be condemned by the Obamanoids & their media familiars if the proper politically correcticist caveats are not appended to the ancient (it even predates the NY Times and NPR!!) declaration? Indeed what will they say at the White House Seder!?!?! See here for the rest of the brief Talmudic analysis. hg

- ginzy

March 25, 2010 at 8:25am

Something is screwed up with the TNR HTML interpreter. The last paragraph is my post above should not have been itaclicized as it is not part of the quote from the Jackson Diehl piece. hg

- ginzy

March 25, 2010 at 8:29am

It's going to stay italicized now, I wager. In any case, I am not clear on how this latest Peretzian tic differs in any substantial way from Al Sharpton's, say, calling Clarence Thomas or our own John McWhorter "house ni**ers" Oh, yeah, Peretz is "right" and Sharpton is "wrong." We like one but not the other. Whatever. It's ugly no matter who does it.

- miceelf

March 25, 2010 at 9:51am

"... the cosmically ill-timed Jerusalem housing construction declaration." I find it very hard to accept that cosmology had anything to do with this declaration and especially its aftermath. As Martin Amis phrased it with his usual acumen for such events ( in this case, vanishing friendships): "It was said that I turned away. It was said that I took a friendship lightly- that I took friendship lightly... Still years earlier my father, too, had broken with Pat's agency, and no friendships had been lost. That professional rupture had gone unremarked, though, and mine was far more painfully public, maginifying everything, distorting everything... "…the sacrifice of a friendship is a terrible affront to the Sauls and Jonathans of the media (each to each an Achilles, a Patroclus). The slant they’ll always give it is that the sacrifice was, at once, utterly calculating and utterly blithe. And never regretted. Whereas in the real world, the world of experience, a vanished friendship leaves you with many doubts and question; it is an amorphous absence that haunts your present, your future and, most unwelcomely, your past." Martin Amis' surprise at the sharpness with which that friendship (with Julian Barnes)was severed leads him to surmise that it cannot have been one isolated incident that brokered it. The grudge must have gone back a long time. Meaning, of course, that true friendships are not easily intimidated by one act of incompatible interests, that the asperity had been there for much longer, rendering what appeared to be a solid friendship merely a sort of a pretense at friendship.

- noga1

March 25, 2010 at 9:54am

States do not have "friends," although we all commonly use the term in anthropomorphic application to something that is a human institution but does not have sentiments in the manner of people. Taking the term too literally, and forgetting the underlying reality, constantly leads to error of judgment. Among other things, the spat over building in Jerusalem is a signal to Israel from the United States that Jerusalem will not remain undivided under a single sovereign when the time comes. I don't know that both a peace treaty (different thing than peace) and and undivided Jerusalem were ever achievable. But I have no doubt that Israel's neo-colonial adventure in the West Bank (oh, sorry Ginzy, I refer to Judea and Samaria of course, symbolism being always important) put that possibility out of reach. If Israel wanted the world to accept a distinction between Jerusalem, in which it claims sovereignty, and the rest of the territory captured in 1967, it needed to observe the distinction until it came to be accepted. By settling where it claimed sovereignty and settling where it didn't claim sovereignty (because it couldn't without absorbing the Arab population of the West Bank and according political rights), Israel obliterated the distinction a long time ago. It will not succeed in re-establishing it at this late date. Pity the poor messianic Likud (ptoi, ptoi), perpetually unable to see that actions in the world have consequences, oft times predictable consequences if one but takes an interest in how this world (not the next one) works. Even this mini-debacle might have been avoided if the bumbling Netanyahu had seen a building freeze in the West Bank as not only a useful gesture toward the resumption of negotiations but an opportunity, noisily and publicly, to express Israel's awareness of, and respect for, the interests of its patron, the United States. Instead, he did his best to give the US the finger assuring that when they were done squeezing his beytzim and he finally surrendered, he earned no good will and failed to express his understanding of the relationship. Hence, another lesson was necessary. Bumblers, fools, messianic nuts. Likud (ptoi, ptoi), the gift that keeps on giving.

- roidubouloi

March 25, 2010 at 10:35am

You spelled "p'tooi" wrong. h.

- ginzy

March 25, 2010 at 11:01am

Thank you for that correction. I will get it right the next time.

- roidubouloi

March 25, 2010 at 11:03am

Noga: "I find it very hard to accept that cosmology had anything to do with this [Jerusalem] declaration and especially its aftermath." Perhaps it was indeed something more earthbound. But major political crises have been unleashed by the most banal things, and one of the jobs of political leaders who are neither evil nor stupid is to prevent their fringe engaging in provocative and tone-deaf actions that embarrass said leaders. It does seem as if the current Israeli government is hobbled by coalition partners with a propensity to do exactly that.

- ironyroad

March 25, 2010 at 11:47am

ginzy -- yes, the HTML operation has been defective for months. I emailed TNR about it but got no response.

- ironyroad

March 25, 2010 at 11:49am

Irony, Check a few threads back. These zoning decisions are made all the time and have been for decades, even during state visits of all types and stripes. The Obamoids chose to make an issue of it. Indeed there is some evidence strongly suggesting that the Obamoids engineered the whole incident, possibly in cooperation with some Kadima bigwigs, notably, ex-Justice Minister & ex-MK Hayim Ramon (a.k.a., "The Kisser"). hg

- ginzy

March 25, 2010 at 12:08pm

Ah, yes. The bumbling and incompetence of the Israeli government is actually the secret work of Obama, when it isn't the fault of Tzipi Livni, that is. This sort of thinking is indistinguishable from that which finds a cunning Jewish plot behind every error of one's own. I expect any day now to be reading about the publication of the "Protocols of the Elders of Obama."

- roidubouloi

March 25, 2010 at 12:40pm

And isn't Mary Robinson on the Trilateral Commission . . . ?

- ironyroad

March 25, 2010 at 1:04pm

Oh, come on, irony. You don't think they tell you who is REALLY on the Trilateral Commission, do you? Anyone you think is on it, isn't really. Just a beard.

- roidubouloi

March 25, 2010 at 1:20pm

Like my favorite television character Gibbs, I do not believe in coincidences. Even so, there is NO justification for the Obama administration to have deliberately made the original 1,600 apartments in Ramat Shlomo such a public dispute. I think Obama really did need a trigger in his astonishing attempt to try "regime change" in Israel.

- K2K

March 25, 2010 at 2:46pm

Noga, the quote from Martin Amis is priceless. It provides one of those little insights into character and behavior that take us beyond the superficialities of the public spectacle. I see Obama's performance to be just as un-spontaneous and indicative of true antipathy as Erdogan's outburst at Peres at Davos.

- willjames77

March 25, 2010 at 3:24pm

K2K, if you don't believe in coincidences, then you have to believe that a conservative-populist party with a strong Orthodox slant, a coalition partner in the government of Israel, would conspire with the U.S. administration to embarrass both the American and the Israeli prime minister in a way that draws international attention to the very issue that that party believes is entirely an Israeli domestic matter. As roid said, believing that everything is conspiratorially planned is exactly what markes the paranoid vision of Israel that dominates in the Arab world ("the Mossad has caused the earthquake!")

- ironyroad

March 25, 2010 at 4:28pm

Sorry -- that should read "the American VP and the Israeli prime minister" of course -- too much speedy deleting is bad!

- ironyroad

March 25, 2010 at 5:14pm

"K2K, if you don't believe in coincidences, then you have to believe that a conservative-populist party with a strong Orthodox slant, a coalition partner in the government of Israel, would conspire with the U.S. administration to embarrass both the American and the Israeli prime minister in a way that draws international attention to the very issue that that party believes is entirely an Israeli domestic matter." I hope K2K understands this question. Perhaps I could figure out from the answer what ironyroad means to ask.

- noga1

March 25, 2010 at 5:52pm

Noga, relax! It's ok -- it's not a question.

- ironyroad

March 25, 2010 at 6:32pm

A couple of points Herschel. First, you mention Jeremiah Wright...unsaory, yes. Unfortunately, many supporters of Israel have cuddled up to and used theocrats like Pat Robertson (who supports Israel only because they are a key player in his nutty vision of armageddon) to advance their political aims. They have no problem with inflicting the fundamentalist wackos on the U.S., as long as they agree with their position on Israel. Second, Israel absolutely, positively disrespected our U.S. envoy in that last visit. I've heard nothing but alibis and excuses. But no apologies. Third, Obama is president of the U.S., not Israel...as such, he should act in the best interests of the U.S. first and always. If that happens to coincide with what you believe are Israel's best interests, then fine. But I can tell you what IS in the U.S. best interests: peace. Fourth, this scolding of U.S. Jews for voting for Obama because he was less solid on Israel is curious: Are you actually saying that U.S. citizens should put Israel above the U.S.?

- OscarPeck

March 25, 2010 at 6:45pm

ok, ironyroad. I believe the Interior Minister from Shas (what you call "a conservative-populist party with a strong Orthodox slant"; what I might add is "mostly representing Israeli Jews from - and descended from - Arab countries) most likely WAS making a point by timing his announcement during VP Biden's visit. Why? probably because announcing new future construction in an all-Jewish neighborhood built on formerly undeveloped land in a part of Jerusalem that is assumed (by every Israeli citizen and anyone who can read a map) will always be part of the capital of Israel, and therefore NOT controversial, yet re-affirming the distinction made by the ten-month moratorium elsewhere on the West Bank. I also think same Shas minister was as surprised as many of us at the over-reaction by the Obama administration, especially the State department's Crowley making sure everyone on earth who cares knew about Hillary's 43-minute phone rant with Netanyahu. The announcement of the 20 apartments to replace Shepherd's Hotel was most certainly timed to coincide with Netanyahu's arrival at the White House, because that re-development is as provocative as it can get short of announcing a [fictional example follows] ritual mikvah in the basement of the Dome of the Rock [fictional example ended]. I also believe the Shepherd's announcement was leaked by someone NOT representing Shas or any other part of Bibi's coalition. And, I also believe Israel WILL be blamed if an earthquake devastates Teheran or any other place in Iran. I also believe Mossad will be extremely careful to hide their fingerprint on any earthquake in Iran. (I am a big fan of the now-cancelled tv series, The Unit, so my imagination for covert ops is blossoming, and I keep hoping for something more imaginative than airplanes with bombs) as to OscarPeck: you fail to see that supporting a democratic ally in the Middle East is what is in America's interest, so your questions are based on a faulty premise. How anyone can believe peace will come only with Israel's concessions has failed to learn from history. There is no logical reason for Syria or Lebanon to still be at war with Israel. Yet they refuse to negotiate. The Palestinians would not be so intransigent if any Muslim-majority country had offered them full citizenship instead of endless war. well, I am looking forward to Marty's next post, assuming he has not had a stroke after reading the latest news about the Saturday deadline from a very stubborn Obama who must truly enjoy beating up Netanyahu. Good thing Netanyahu is more than tough enough. Oh for the days when men still duelled...

- K2K

March 25, 2010 at 8:22pm

But if that's your take on it, i.e. that it was intentional, what was the point that Shas was making, K2K? I'm still not sure why one would choose the visit of the VP of the United States -- a country that is not only an ally but one that is putting some time and assets into finding a solution to the conflict in the Middle East alongside a string of other global responsibilities -- to make a public declaration of policy that would do nothing but embarrass that ally and make us seem like we can be bounced by any Israeli minority party with a mission and Netanyahu out to be a guy who doesn't know what's happening in his backyard. If it was intentional, then as Tom Friedman wrote, Biden's best option would have been to step back on Air Force 2 and leave a handwritten note: "Call us when you're serious."

- ironyroad

March 25, 2010 at 9:04pm

ironyroad, I assume Shas still believed what was reported in JPost June 6, 2008 by Obama, and clarified by then-congressman "Robert Wexler, a Democrat from Florida with ties to the Jewish community and a long-time supporter of Obama, rejected the idea that the Illinois senator had been misleading with his comments. "Everyone knows that Jerusalem is a final status issue. That is not a secret to anyone. Senator Obama says emphatically that should the Israelis and the Palestinians negotiate [an agreement], he will respect their conclusions and that he will not dictate a particular resolution." source: http://peacenow.org/entries/archive4993 Ironyroad, I am embarrassed to have an American President bully ANY ally in public. And I am incensed that this public bullying is being done to Israel. I honestly wish the United States would focus on something really important in foreign relations instead of micro-managing building permits anywhere. Obama is beating up Israel as his best chance for a reason for his undeserved Nobel Prize . Because he can. (remember when he mentioned putting Kashmir on the table? THAT lasted for about two seconds). no more bait, ironyroad. some of us know that the world's default is always to blame the Jews. If there were no Jews, I assume the Armenians would fill the void, only because there are too many Chinese to be so vulnerable.

- K2K

March 25, 2010 at 11:05pm

Ok . . . so if Jerusalem is a "final status issue" and everyone who honestly believes in a negotiated peace also believes that a two-state solution will involve Israel with Jerusalem as a capital and Palestinian state with a capital in East Jerusalem (or am I way wrong here?) then it's a good idea, if you don't want to sabotage things, not to build stuff that looks like an attempt to shift the demographics prior to such a final status negotiation, and certainly not to announce you're doing so when the American Vice-President is in town, who represents an ally but also a country committed to finding a negotiated solution. Or am I totally off-target about all of this? But if you do want to sabotage things . . .

- ironyroad

March 26, 2010 at 12:01am

I wonder how the timeline of this crisis unfolds. I got the impression that Biden was quite oblivious to the grievous insult he suffered from the Israelis until Obama got on the phone with him. And why was that conversation so long? How long does it take to notify someone that his honour has been so severely impeached? How did Obama find out about this "insult"? I mean, wouldn't the announcement be made in Hebrew? I wonder to whose kind services is Obama indebted for rescuing the lost honour of America? ironyroad's continued insistence on Israel's perfidy, btw, reminds me of a story I once read about a husband who regularly beats his wife. He has all sort of legitimate complaints about her: she looks like a frump, she has an annoying querulous voice, she forgets to iron his shirts just the way he likes, she can't control the children whose noise he can't stand. Their friends and neighbors know all about it. They notice the occasional black eye, the bruises on her arm. They cluck their tongues but ... the husband's complaints are not baseless. After all, she should try to make herself look better, she is rather incompetent, her voice is indeed annoyingly whiny and displeasing to the ear, and those children are really out of control. When someone points out that all these reasons hardly justify the husband's violence, they nod in agreement but... nevertheless... you know...

- noga1

March 26, 2010 at 8:38am

noga, you got that timeline right, you could tell from Biden's reactions that he was on script from the WH. now it seems WH will have to wait for answers from Israel until Wednesday, after thirteen million Jews have their "Next Year in Jerusalem!" moments, missing Obama's Saturday deadline. FWIW, my learning curve continues: Walter Russell Mead http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/03/25/settling-zion/ and Benjamin Schwartz (and others) offer insights in the March-April issue of The American Interest.

- K2K

March 26, 2010 at 11:44am

That's a learning curve? That argument has been discredited for years. Any sign that the settlements are moving the Palestinians toward peace? Any sign that they are achieving anything other than undermining Israel's legitimacy and rendering it inflexible in its policies and diplomacy? Or is it fine if it works in theory but reality shows no sign of responding? You are going to have to read a lot faster K2K in order to have some idea of what is going on. And here we have noga, desperately trying to prove that the controversy over Ramat Shlomo is not in fact about the personal insult to Vice President Biden but a studied expression of American policy and policy interests. Duhhhhhhhhhhh! Gee, noga, why don't you take on something more difficult like proving that when the sun comes up it's morning. OF COURSE this is about American policy interests. Just as the timing of the announcement was not due to some low-level bureaucrat who forgot to watch the TV news, but rather a studied effort by the Israeli government to convey its policy intentions -- that just happen to conflict with those of the United States. Perfidy? No, just the Israeli government pursuing what it thinks is in Israel's interest in a bumbling manner, typical for Netanyahu, that fails to take note that other powers exist in the world and they too have interests.

- roidubouloi

March 26, 2010 at 12:30pm

I would appreciate all present taking note of the fact that I have only used the term "perfidy" in one single connection on this thread, and that was in relation to Hillary Clinton's flipping of a Fatah- to a Hamas-run municipality (Ramallah) in her AIPAC speech! Other than that, K2K, my unanswered question at the top remains.

- ironyroad

March 26, 2010 at 2:27pm

ironyroad: my crystal ball can not foresee where the location of a capital of a Palestinian state would be at the end of final status negotiations. (I personally think Gaza City would be a nice choice, with Mediterranean frontage and some offshore natural gas, but then I have never been a fan of shared cities between countries) It is impossible for me to understand why building 1,600 apartments in Ramat Shlomo, an entirely Jewish development that at worst displaced some goats or sheep after 1967, "looks like an attempt to shift the demographics prior to such a final status negotiation" nor was that announcement meant to be a "personal insult to Vice President Biden". I would think the timing had more to do with calming down a constituency, because Jerusalem was not part of the ten month moratorium on settlements. Jerusalem is not a settlement.

- K2K

March 26, 2010 at 6:39pm

Fair 'nuff. But that does speak to a certain political cluelessness on the part of Shas -- I mean, it's a bit of a hobson's choice between cock-up or conspiracy, as they say. Either they just didn't get it, or they wanted to face down the U.S. administration while Biden was in-country. If it's the former -- which is, I think, what you're saying, and sounds convincing -- then it seems to me a little ominous to have people making serious government decisions who either don't know about, or don't care about, their wider and potentially destructive implications. I'm not by any remote standard familiar with Jerusalem, so I defer to your assessment; but I have been reading about the Middle East and the I/P conflict for decades, and it's my feeling that when it comes down to the wire, negotiations won't about technical rights to bits of territory but about the capacity to do exactly that sharing you are unenthusiastic about. Which is, I think, exactly why the administration has responded the way it did.

- ironyroad

March 26, 2010 at 7:05pm

In order to understand Israel, one must understand the voters. hard to believe for the chattering class, but most of Israeli politics is NOT about how to reach final status. Shas represents (paraphrasing from IsraelNationalNews though there are other sources) the Haredi and Sephardic Jews who were forced to flee Arab and Muslim lands. About 900,000, and with their descendants now almost half the population. Shas added to their platform in late 2008 "financial restitution for Jewish property left behind and confiscated by Muslim authorities". Ramat Shlomo is a Shas neighborhood. So, I assume Shas "gets it", but I do not think they thought Obama would go livid (the word I keep reading) over that announcement. Ironic that a huge issue during that election was Yisrael Beitenu's fight for legal marriage between a man and a woman regardless of whether they can prove matrilineal Jewish descent. Most of the immigrants from the former Soviet Union can not prove this, nor can many second generation secular Jews from other settler immigrant countries like America and Australia. BTW, Shas was part of Kadima's coalition under Sharon and Olmert. No one can ignore Shas. And no one should think Jerusalem neighborhoods like Ramat Shlomo, built on previously undeveloped land, will ever be part of any final status negotiations. Which is why I doubt anyone in Israel thought Obama would go livid over that announcement. Obama is bullying Israel because he can, because he can NOT bully anyone else.

- K2K

March 26, 2010 at 7:45pm

You know more about it than I do -- but there seem to be some conflicting assessments of exactly the issue you portray as unproblematic: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/against-pro-israel/?ref=opinion

- ironyroad

March 26, 2010 at 7:57pm

K2K's summary of SHAS is right on. They tend rightwards when it comes to negotiations with the Arabs but they are also very pragmatic. They mostly care about battling the poverty levels among their constituency. Foreign Policies with the USA are not their suit. They are important because they have numbers and they know how to talk to their voters, who mostly come from the disgruntled Mizrahim someone around here mentioned earlier. Those voters, second and third generation of the refugees from Arab lands which were treated with contempt by the Ashkenazi establishment at the time of Ben Gurion and later. The pejorative name for them was "chach-chachim", something not as malevolent but somewhat akin in purpose to "white trash" or "niggers". They are the ones who voted for Begin, for which one Israeli comedian (who has come to a bad end recently) called them "Begin's chach-chachim". They are the bulk of population which, should Israel lose its deterrent capabilities, will not have anywhere to go, being the poorest and least qualified to immigration agencies. I believe I remember ironyroad once expressing nostalgia for the earlier Israel. Maybe I misremember? Anyway, they are not impressed by anything President Obama may have to say about the greatness of Muslims and Arabs as they have direct experience of that greatness. I know a few Right-wingers who take that experience as a very valid, first hand, authentic knowledge by which to measure their politics. I fail to understand how posters at this blog arrogantly assume that they know and understand Israel and what matters to Israelis, or that assume that just because a political party is "clueless" about Obama's so very obvious and self-evident greatness, they should not be in position of power in a democratically elected government.

- noga1

March 26, 2010 at 8:58pm

Nostalgia for the idea, I think, rather than nostalgia for some actual experience -- which I never had. You also chastized me for it, Noga, so if you want a second bite at the cherry now . . . ? The "clueless" note was more to do with ignoring the larger context for apparently routine local decisions rather than any theory of Obama's greatness -- which today stands a little higher than it did last week, of course, but in the U.S. and only for a domestic policy issue. A [expletive deleted] big one, true, but success at home doesn't often translate into success in foreign policy.

- ironyroad

March 27, 2010 at 2:00am

"Obama's greatness -- which today stands a little higher than it did last week, of course, but in the U.S. and only for a domestic policy issue. A [expletive deleted] big one" This judgment is also "Nostalgia for the idea, I think, rather than nostalgia for some actual experience" :)

- noga1

March 27, 2010 at 8:33am

Thanks Noga. I still do not think the Shas announcement during Biden's visit was a coincidence, but perhaps an attempt to get some media attention on the Mizrahi and their descendants. Must be incredibility frustrating that the expulsion of Jews from Moslem countries is so rarely mentioned, while disproportionate attention and foreign aid money, and official United Nations energy and money is lavished on the Palestinian Muslims unto all the generations. Israeli absorption of Jews from Arab/Muslim countries is a fact of history that the media can NOT reconcile with the Palestinian narrative. The persecution and displacement of Arab Christians is even less noted in the media. It really is unconscionable that Obama has made housing for Mizrahi in Ramat Shlomo the public wedge Obama thinks will appease the Arab League and Palestinians. My tip of the hat to Shas for exposing the hypocrisy of the Obama administration.

- K2K

March 27, 2010 at 11:00am

anyone interested in some of that nostalgia (1950 exodus from Iraq) can read "My Father's Paradise A Son's Search for his Jewish Past in Kurdish Iraq" by Ariel Sabar

- K2K

March 27, 2010 at 11:07am

K2K: You may find this discussion on a British blog of interest. Especially the latter half of the comment thread: http://brockley.blogspot.com/2010/02/urgent-action-support-new-israel-fund.html

- noga1

March 27, 2010 at 11:57am

Thanks Noga. alas, that kind of blog thread is way too micro for me. and am wary of extreme left or right in any online forum. I deflect a lot of bad memories by reading history and biography, and only since being cyber-bullied in Obama's official campaign website in 2008 have I let my inner Zionist re-emerge. TNR is the only place I comment online about Israel. my personal nostalgia is for America when I was a little kid, before the Cuban missile crisis. I grew up in Miami, and only recently realized how I am still haunted by the absurdity of being told crouching under a wooden desk would save me from nuclear bombs.

- K2K

March 27, 2010 at 12:27pm

I'm not sure I understand your response, Noga, but I can't help noting how you edit my quote to delete the remark about taking a second bite at the cherry while taking a second bite at the cherry. As we've both spent some time in academia, we both know that the one thing to be avoided, above all, is to quote selectively in a way that distorts the cited author's intention. But, leaving all that aside, in the light of today's news on U.S.-Russian disarmament talks I'd adjust the last sentence in my post to read: "A [expletive deleted] big one, true, but success at home doesn't often translate into success in foreign policy -- even if the Russians have now, it appears, joined the ranks of those who misread Obama's conciliatory style as weakness and have come to regret it somewhat."

- ironyroad

March 27, 2010 at 2:43pm

ironyroad, I see you did not appreciate my playing around with what you wrote to make an ironic comment about your adulation of Obama... Sorry about that. I guess we have a wildly disparate sense of humour.

- noga1

March 27, 2010 at 5:12pm

K2K: Towards the conclusion of in the thread I linked to there was some discussion about the Jewish refugees from Arab lands. I thought you would find it interesting.

- noga1

March 27, 2010 at 5:14pm

Ah -- I don't think of that. The problem was, I didn't fully grasp the referent of "judgement" -- it could have been my comment or it could have been Biden's now infamous evaluation. To complicate things, I couldn't understand either how you were tweaking "nostalgia" to mean something else (my "nostalgia" in the original remark was, as you probably knew, for the real but also -- without doubt -- romanticized idea of Israel I had when I was much younger). It didn't seem to quite make sense. Maybe it's not so much a different sense of humor as . . . our converging problems with syntax?

- ironyroad

March 27, 2010 at 5:26pm

OK. "I didn't think of that" was what I meant to write.

- ironyroad

March 27, 2010 at 5:53pm

noga, yes, I did find the discussion you reference of interest. just hard to read so much else to get the context of the people posting. getting back to the original issue (beating up an ally), it is certainly puzzling to find the Arab League meeting so consumed with Jerusalem instead of say, the disintegration of Yemen...

- K2K

March 28, 2010 at 6:49am

Puzzlement, puzzlement. This inability to deal with friends, enemies, and opponents as they are rather than as one imagines they ought to be if they were not so puzzling will surely be the rock upon which Israel breaks itself. One not need to know a single thing about what Israelis think, nor care, to observe that its position in the world is growing more and more precarious because its right-wing decided some time ago that the world at large, including the interests of the United States, could safely be ignored. How the right managed so to delude itself, and drag Israel with it, is a puzzlement.

- roidubouloi

March 28, 2010 at 6:26pm