The New Republic

Jewboy???? I can not believe you actually wrote a column with the word JEWBOY in it. That is vile and detestable. I stopped reading it when I read this because that was literally sickening. Disagree with what you believe to be his policy as you like, but a vile anti-Semitic slur is way too much. You are becoming unhinged in your old age. I make it a point to not give a rats ass as to someones religion or ethnicity when talking about FP, paying attention instead to the argument they advance (unless the argument itself is bigoted or racist). Would you really use that term if you were an Irish Catholic supporter of Israel? Fuck, you would blow a gasket, or you should. Unbelievable. Just unbelievable. Axelrod strikes me as a decent man who is working his ass off for the American people. He is not a JEWBOY. You, on the other hand, are a Jackass.

- blackton

March 18, 2010 at 4:13pm

One wag put it this way: Fuck the Jews, they vote Democratic anyway.

- nhrds@earthlink.net

March 18, 2010 at 4:29pm

Perhaps Marty can list for us the previous instances when Israel and the PLO/PA were scheduled to restart peace talks and the dominant Palestinian factions didn't engage in preemptive street violence. This is what the Palestinians do. The "moderates" in the PLO/PA camp do so to shore up their street cred and create a false card to be bargained away. The extremists of Hamas et al do so in hopes of sabotaging negotiations entirely. (Something Netanyahu was all too happy to let them do last time he was PM.) In order to establish "linkage" or to accuse the president of "incitement" - both cretinous accusations in the absence of very strong evidence - Marty must first establish that this week's outbreak of Palestinian violence is not exactly like all previous pre-negotiation outbreaks of Palestinian violence.

- rhubarbs

March 18, 2010 at 4:54pm

Liberal friends of Israel face a dilemma, how to support a progressive domestic agenda while dealing with an anti-Israel Democratic administration that is needed to advance that domestic agenda. We took a hopeful chance with Obama. His inclinations are now pretty clear. He now has zero personal support from me and many others. I agree with Blackton. Watch that "J" word! It is unacceptable, no matter who uses it.

- amidut

March 18, 2010 at 5:04pm

On the most important point here, I agree, but yeah blackton, the apparent "I'm Jewish so it's ok to say it" slur on Axelrod stopped me cold too. But then I continued: Here's the key part of Marty's post: "The notion that what happens between Israel and the Palestinians will affect the lives of American fighting men and women in Kabul is nearly a blood libel." Amazingly, since I support Obama's anti-settlement position, I somewhat agree with this: the argument that many (possibly Patreaus, definitely Andrew Sullivan) is making is sickening. Israel-as-Jewish-state-within-Arab/Muslim-territory has MORE negative effect on our troops than nearly anything to do with the settlements. Heck, if helping the troops out is the standard, let's just abandon Israel altogether and get behind a one-state solution with right of return or resettling the Jews somewhere else (maybe Mexico, they once had an invite) -- the Arab "street" might not love us, but it'll suck some of the energy out of them, right? Not to rehash this here but I believe the settlements are wrong just because they violate the Geneva Convention, which says you can occupy but not unilaterally settle (they're not AS wrong as Palestinian terrorism, the wars that were launched, etc. etc.) But that should be decided on its own merits, not by polls on Afghans and Iraqis. Also, by this same twisted logic we were wrong to intervene in Bosnia, Haitti, and were right to permit the Rwandan genocide without lifting a finger -- as that really was putting our troops in danger!

- Lymon1

March 18, 2010 at 5:13pm

"David Axelrod, (who in 2004 was behind John Edwards, "Bill Clinton without the sex") who knows nothing about foreign policy, but maybe being a Jewboy thinks he is more than credentialed to chastise the Jewish state." I agree with blackton. "Jewboy"? There are a thousand ways of mocking Axelrod without resorting to this ugliness. It's not a sign of fine authorship to give vent to this kind of venomous animus. It's no different than Reverend Wright's "them Jews". Axelrod is Obama's nanny. He holds his hand when he is hurting and he makes sure he does not come across a certain way. He also makes Obama correct his errors when Obama has been swayed too much in a direction that makes Americans edgy. Axelrod understands Obama and understands America. These are the two entities he works for, and wants to harmonize. These are his priorities. You cannot insult a person because he has different priorities to yours, Marty. You want to be very careful when you decide to insult a fellow-Jew by referencing his Jewishness. There be dragons there.

- noga1

March 18, 2010 at 5:16pm

I don't agree that Petraeus's comments, such as they are, are "very nearly blood libel." It seems to me that in an assessment of the global security situation in which the country finds itself, it's completely legitimate to say that a particular and long-unresolved foreign policy issue (which is NOT the status of Israel as a major ally) is having a definable negative effect within the totality of our aims and actions. To know that that is the case, and to not say so, would be dereliction of duty. Nothing in Petraeus's contribution, however, suggests that the security relationship between the U.S. and Israel is at issue. Rather, what is at issue is whether moves to resolve the unresolved issue are receiving the attention they should from all parties involved, after this country has devoted a lot of its own attention to it.

- ironyroad

March 18, 2010 at 5:42pm

Amidut says it well, we're really in a spot here. We shouldn't have to choose between a progressive domestic agenda and potential harm to Israel. It's maddening and in view of history and shared values it makes no sense. It really doesn't make sense coming from a political party which theoretically understands the meaning of the term "persecution of a minority." And I don't like hearing that I am a "disloyal" because I'm Jewish and support the continuing existence of Israel. But, post-modern history has turned everything upside down so facts no longer seem to matter if they're even studied in the first place. So I agree with Marty too about the blood libel. It's a strong term but I'm not sure what else to call it. It is certainly provocative in the extreme and it bears overtones of past slanders and scapegoating. Speaking of the Taliban though - there's something underlying modern antisemitism in the East and that's a surprisingly strong admiration of Hitler - in Pakistan and India no less: http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,683966,00.html The links between extremist Middle Eastern parties and the Nazis are pretty clear but this story explains a great deal of the animus toward Jews in Central Asia, where actually we'd been at home for centuries - but whence some of the most extreme Islamist parties emanate. Many have taken up headquarters in Britain now. This in itself has grave implications, especially considering the fact that British politicians are trolling for votes and the media - like the Guardian - don't seem to realize that giving platforms to extremists cannot work out well for the West, and similarly, they don't seem to distinguish between Muslims in general and extremists. The latest casualty appears to be Amnesty International no less - check out the case of Moazzem Begg and the suspension of rights worker Gita Sahgal who spoke her conscience in defense of human rights: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7026143.ece I wrote to the President last night (no doubt he'll read my letter:) about this supposed linkage between Israel and our woes in the ME/Central Asia, among other things; and protested, obviously. It's common for Middle Eastern leaders to blame Israel for all their problems, as if Israel had retroactively created all the preconditions for trouble there - imperial powers and their wars and ultimate destruction; vast disparities in wealth, internecine violence, oppressive governments, commercial interests - for example the oil industry - and intolerance. I don't think Jews - or Israel - should be blamed for the intolerance of others. Period - let alone internecine Muslim and tribal violence or wars against the West let alone Western and Russian imperial meddling in the East. Regardless just in the past few days there have been a spate of ugly articles and they have spawned a predictable and depressing stream of antisemitic invective on the blogs and some has even crawled across the TV screen on CNN - Politico had a piece about that. It's a shame. And it is dangerous. Meanwhile a Thai greenhouse worker in Israel has just been killed by a rocket from Gaza.

- Sophia

March 18, 2010 at 5:43pm

Sorry -- I used "issue" in two different ways and didn't notice. Try this: "Rather, the area of disagreement is whether moves to resolve the unresolved issue etc etc"

- ironyroad

March 18, 2010 at 5:44pm

...I agree with Blackton. Watch that "J" word! It is unacceptable, no matter who uses it.... Agreed.

- basman

March 18, 2010 at 5:53pm

The 11th Commandment for Jews, "Thou shalt always vote Democratic regardless of the policies adopted by the Democratic pol in question". From some knowledgeable sources here I have learned that David Axelrod's nickname is "The Axe" for a reason and not merely because of the first three letters of his last name. He is also quite friendly with the NY Times' Roger Cohen and is thought to be the source for many of Cohen's columns, including (and perhaps especially) his anti-Israel rants. I wouldn't call anyone a jewboy but that doesn't mean I would put The Axe on any pedestal of probity. From all sources here, its quite clear that Obama's well orchestrated attack on Israel was a major factor in the Pals' "Day of Rage. While there were some problems, the vast majority of the Pals seemed to ignore the calls of their leadership, especially those Pals living in J'lem. I wonder why. But that doesn't mean there weren't creative manifestations of rage: The "Palestinian Center for Human Rights", an NGO funded by George Soros & the Ford Foundation (among others) issued a press release stating that the dedication of the Hurva Synagogue in the heart of the Old City's Jewish quarter should be considered a War Crime (see here; I am not making this up. I couldn't even if I tried). BTW, the "topography" problem as delicately & incompletely reported by Isabelle Kirshner (not exactly the best of reporters on Palestinian affairs) stems from the Islamic principle that in keeping the second class status of Jews as dhimmi, a synagogue may not be (or apparently even appear to be) higher than a mosque. An interesting story: Also in the heart of the Jewish Quarter is the Ramban Synagogue, a small modest structure that goes back at least to the middle ages is largely below street level in keeping with its dhimmi status. But that was not enough. in the 15th or 16th century, an apostate Jew who had converted to Islam built a small mosque with a towering minaret next to the synagogue just so that Jews understand who is boss. If I recall correctly he and / or his family members died shortly after the mosque was completed. I don't know if the mosque was ever used as such but the minaret still stands. Right next to the re-built Hurva synagogue. On Petreus' supposed statements. It seems that the story is a deliberate distortion by one Mark Perry (a "terrorist groupie") on the Foreign Policy web site. More details (and updates) and all the relevant links can be found here. Last but not least, at least for now, there is some evidence that the Obama anti-Israel onslaught WAS planned well in advance. About a week BEFORE Biden's visit, well connected & Livni loyalist Kadima MK Yoel Hasson was interviewed on Israel Radio by ace political journalist Ayala Hasson (no relation), where he said point blank that during the following weeks, i.e., during Biden's visit, it WILL become clear how bad Netanyahu's relations are with important world leaders in Europe, the Middle East, and the USA. At the time A.Hasson (who leans leftward towards Labor-Meretz herself) was a tad skeptical. Fast forward to this week's show and A.Hasson plays the relevant excerpt from the Y.Hasson interview. She then says she ran into Y.Hasson in the Knesset this week and asked him how he knew that all hell was going to break loose. Y.Hasson responded with a sheepish smile that he has connections with Jews in the USA and "he knew" what was going to happen. A.Hasson's co-host confirmed that he had a similar exchange with Y.Hasson. J Street? They sure jumped on the bandwagon, the only major Jewish (ostensibly) national organization to do so. I should note that these zoning committees meet very very regularly and issue their rulings very very regularly. They are so regular that no one pays much attention to them. Their agendas I believe are public or at least not secret and so with a little effort a rookie intelligence officer at an embassy or consulate could easily get the info. Obama & Axelrod & probably Hillary all seemed to be ready and rehearsed. It will be interesting to see if someone in the US MSM follows up on this... Nah. Rescue Bibi & Eli Yishai at the expense of some egg on O's face? It won't happen. No guts. No intellectual honesty. Hershel Ginsburg Efrata / Jerusalem P.S. If you understand Hebrew, you can hear the recording of the A.Hasson's Hakol Dibburim radio show from today (18 March) where she relates the story & plays the excerpt from the interview with Y.Hasson on the IBA web site for the next week here.

- ginzy

March 18, 2010 at 5:54pm

Check this out: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/03/17/bacevich_on_petraeus_israel

- Sophia

March 18, 2010 at 5:59pm

Bacevich is a respected commentator and retired colonel and has long held that view of American-Israeli relations. Petraeus may share it. I don't know if that represents an overall sea change in how important American military officers think about this issue. But if it does, that's another challenge. Also disturbing to those of us accustomed to American-Israeli comity in recent years, Israel may be re-assessing its relationship with Obama’s Washington. It has developed military supplier relationships with other countries, including Russia, China, and India, some of which Washington dislikes. Also, Israel may share with Russia, China, and India a concern with Islamic extremism not held by Obama’s Washington. The prominence of Avigdor Lieberman as foreign minister, although no Russian patsy, suggests that cultural/linguistic fluency in dealing with Moscow is more credential for an Israeli foreign minister today. Sharon was also a Russian-speaker.

- amidut

March 18, 2010 at 6:49pm

Rescue bibi from bibi? Ha. Only the supernatural could do that.

- roidubouloi

March 18, 2010 at 7:08pm

I suppose the United States ought to start worrying that Israel may be reassessing its relations with us.

- roidubouloi

March 18, 2010 at 7:09pm

ironyroad “I don't agree that Petraeus's comments, such as they are, are "very nearly blood libel." It seems to me that in an assessment of the global security situation in which the country finds itself, it's completely legitimate to say that a particular and long-unresolved foreign policy issue (which is NOT the status of Israel as a major ally) is having a definable negative effect within the totality of our aims and actions.” Well, if you don’t agree that Petraeus’s comment is an assault on Israel’s right to defend itself against attacks by Muslims, irony, (which according to him lead to attacks on US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan) how about this: supposed he had said “the Jews’ desire for having their own State in their historic homeland is responsible, in part, for the rise of Muslim terrorism against the US which (supported) and supports that project? What is the difference between these comments? Isn’t the General really saying that the Jewish State is an obstacle to the US winning the war against Muslims extremists? His comments are much more dangerous than anything Obama said or did. From now on I expect that every time an American soldier is killed or wounded overseas, some antisemite will blame the Jews for that fatality. This is what makes his comments a kind of blood libel. From an objective point of view I find his conclusion very shallow: of course Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan “read the papers” and get angry when they read about violence in Jerusalem. But that means that Muslims all over the world see themselves as part of a larger civilization and belief system which opposes itself to people who are not Muslims. They don’t get any angrier at Americans (or Jews) because Jews defend themselves (btw: they are already angry at Jews for not acting like dhimmis). They use the Arab (Muslim) Israeli (Jewish) conflict as an excuse to justify their hatred The reason the Muslim Brotherhood exists (and it was founded in the 1920’s) is to drive the infidel from “Muslim lands” and Israel is not the only country they see as “Muslim lands.” Had Petraeus' placed his remarks in a larger context it wouldn’t have been seen as “almost a blood libel.” As it is he seems to be peddling, albeit in a mealy mouthed way, the old canard about Jews being the cause of “our casualties” in the war on terror. Remember the old saying “the Jews are our misfortune?” Well the General’s comments came very close to endorsing that evil minded view. I wonder how Jewish soldiers in the field are being affected by his comments. It seems to me that he is creating a dangerous environment for Jewish American soldiers.

- jdyer

March 18, 2010 at 7:59pm

Marty too is setting a dangeorus example by calling someone a "Jewboy." He is aping the right wing in Israel which loves to call liberal Jews יְהוּדוֹן (which is to say) "Jewboys" or "kikes." What Marty has forgotten is that once he start using that term other will throw it at him. The term "kike" btw seems to have been first used by American Jews who came from Germany a few generations earlier. It was later picked up antisemites who used to defame all Jews and not just the Oestjuden.

- jdyer

March 18, 2010 at 8:05pm

jackson, yesterday ginzy posted this which might be helpful: But here is a link that explains what the bit is or was about the Israeli threat to US soldiers. It's a distortion of something that Petreus said -- http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/boot/258946 Also just to show what kind of Pandora's box Obama's exaggerated reaction opened, the Pals are now calling the dedication of the rebuilt Hurva synagogue a war crime. If there ever was an example of how ridiculous the whole international law & human rights industry has become, this is it: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/pollak/259906 hg After reading the commentary article, I am not really sure about the Petraeus remark since I am hearing conflicting information. I am with ginzy on this though

- blackton

March 18, 2010 at 9:16pm

...Liberal friends of Israel face a dilemma, how to support a progressive domestic agenda while dealing with an anti-Israel Democratic administration that is needed to advance that domestic agenda.... Agree with this too.

- basman

March 18, 2010 at 9:21pm

Excellent program on NPR this morning involving David Sanger, Martin Indyk and Mark Perry. It allows for some homing in and penetration of some of the broad thinking being bandied about generally--http://www.onpointradio.org/media-player?url=http://www.onpointradio.org/2010/03/the-u-s-israel-and-mideast-impasse&title=The+U.S.-Israel+Blowup&pubdate=2010-03-18&segment=1 Hope the link works.

- basman

March 18, 2010 at 9:27pm

try again but if it doesn't work just paste the link into google and you'll get it. http://www.onpointradio.org/media-player?url=http://www.onpointradio.org/2010/03/the-u-s-israel-and-mideast-impasse&title=The+U.S.-Israel+Blowup&pubdate=2010-03-18&segment=1

- basman

March 18, 2010 at 9:29pm

That's got it.

- basman

March 18, 2010 at 9:29pm

blackton "jackson, yesterday ginzy posted this which might be helpful" I'll read the article, blackton. Thanks for the link. Have been busy reading lots of contemporary Chinese novelists ( I am binge reading) and don't have time for getting deep into this conversation, right now.

- jdyer

March 18, 2010 at 9:39pm

jackson, who are you reading? Are they Taiwanese, American Chinese, Mainlanders, or from Hong Kong? If you have any recommendations from the list please let me know.

- blackton

March 18, 2010 at 9:47pm

"...Liberal friends of Israel face a dilemma, how to support a progressive domestic agenda while dealing with an anti-Israel Democratic administration that is needed to advance that domestic agenda...." Bullshit. I don't see any dilemma at all because I don't see the Obama administration as anti-Israel. The right-wing definition of anti-Israel -- an epithet thrown out for propaganda effect -- is any failure to see the world as Israel sees it or to see US interests as identical to those of Israel's. There would be as or more justification for calling Israel anti-American because, for a rather long time, it has pursued the agenda of its right-wing with regard to Palestine in a bubble, under the illusion that the tax this agenda imposes on the US would be paid indefinitely with nary a complaint. The Israeli right has been courting disaster for yours by supposing, quite in contrast to reality, that time was its ally, allowing it to cement its hold on the West Bank. In fact, it has merely succeeded in drawing Israel into an unsustainable position, the very definition of strategic overreach. That the US is increasingly unwilling to be caught in the position of passively and/or financially supporting this overreach is not anti-Israel. Rather, it was inevitable, as true friends of Israel have been saying for years. A tremendous amount of time and opportunity has been wasted. Instead of racing to try and take the greatest advantage of the slender diplomatic opportunity created by its own belated and begrudging agreement to freeze settlements, the first thing Israel's government does is more or less declare to the world with its blundering that it places little importance on any peace negotiations. The dilemma, if any, is on the right, including such as Peretz. Have for years aided and abetted Israel's march toward the cliff, and with the cliff now clearly in sight even for many on the right as much as the try to deny it, how does it now help Israel step away? So far, the best the right can do is urge Israel to keep doing what it has been doing and to accuse anyone who sees the behavior of the Netanyahu government as a disaster of being anti-Israel. With friends like these . . .

- roidubouloi

March 18, 2010 at 10:05pm

"The Israeli right has been courting disaster for years . . ."

- roidubouloi

March 18, 2010 at 10:07pm

"Well, if you don’t agree that Petraeus’s comment is an assault on Israel’s right to defend itself against attacks by Muslims, irony, (which according to him lead to attacks on US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan) how about this: supposed he had said “the Jews’ desire for having their own State in their historic homeland is responsible, in part, for the rise of Muslim terrorism against the US which (supported) and supports that project? What is the difference between these comments?" There's not much difference between these two comments, JD. But as Petraeus to the best of my knowledge didn't express either of them, what's their relevance? I'd also add that Petraeus is not only entitled but constitutionally obligated to give the best evalation possible to Congress and the president, when assessing our global security interests. He doesn't make policy, any more than Gen. Shinseki did when he told us that 500,000 troops would be the requirement to maintain order in Iraq after an invasion, for which entirely correct assessment he was dissed by the administration and forced to retire. If Petraeus did anything other than discharge his responsibility, e.g. if he stated or clearly implied that Israel isn't entitled to defend itself, where do you see it?

- ironyroad

March 18, 2010 at 10:20pm

This post is almost incoherent. Comparing Obama to Charles Lindbergh is truly nuts and the slur against Axelrod is despicable. Why all the vitriol? Because the Obama administration had this week the temerity to challenge, no wait, incite the Israeli's on their bad behavior.

- MrCookie1

March 18, 2010 at 11:09pm

A respectful dissent, roidubouloi: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1157500.html Yoel Marcus points out that Bibi made the statement, "two states, two peoples" and here we are, arguing over ever escalating details and concessions that must be met by Israel before talks can even begin. Proximity talks - not even face to face talks and that represents a step backwards, not a step forwards. So I think there is more to this story than "the Israeli right" which in itself is pretty complex. And also, I wouldn't characterize Peretz as a right winger, despite his unfortunate attack on Mr. Axelrod; and I for one certainly am not right wing in any sense. I'm sure most of the posters here are not on the right for that matter. Indeed it's become a canard that support for Israel is a right wing cause. That is baloney although it's a myth the so-called "new" left would like to advance. In fact it's kind of wierd how many "progressives" support reactionary regimes and hate the Israelis but that's another story. Regardless, even anti-settlement Israelis and supporters of Israel consider Jerusalem to be a separate issue especially the Old City, so this has to be handled with great sensitivity and it isn't. Instead there is no mention in the press of "Arab" east Jerusalem's history, including the eviction of all the Jews from the West Bank and "east" Jerusalem by the Arab Legion, led by the Brits no less. Indeed this part of the city is just described as "Arab East Jerusalem" when in fact the largest quarter in the Old City was the Jewish Quarter and Jerusalem as a whole has been majority Jewish since the 19th century. AP and other news services just have a description for which they probably have a macro so they don't have to keep typing it: "Arab East Jerusalem The Third Holiest Site In Islam which the Palestinians Want For Their State," as in "The Jews Are Building Housing On It Again And/Or Digging Up Stuff and Creating Sewers, Roads and Light Rails And/Or Reconstructing A Synagogue There Which Constitutes A War Crime Despite The Fact That It Is Very Very Old And Was Destroyed Twice By The Arabs Already." So sheese.

- Sophia

March 19, 2010 at 12:31am

Well, Sophia, I am not sure what if anything we disagree about. I don't consider support for Israel at all to be the exclusive preserve of the right. But support for the settlement policies of Likud has certainly been primarily on the right. The right has long attempted, scurrilously, to claim Israel as its own. It is a sad reality with a long history that the right insists that one cannot oppose particular policies of Israel with regard to the Palestinians without forfeiting the right to consider oneself a friend. The post above to which I objected is more of the same. I do think the history is important, and I do agree that there is a great deal of hypocrisy with regard to Israel. But I do not think it reasonable to expect that the historical distinctions and arguments would continue to be taken seriously in the face of an occupation that has now gone on for 40 years. What great importance should people attach to the fact that the Hurva synagogue was there since who knows when? No one cares, and no one should care because it does nothing to solve the problem at hand, the problem in the present that affects millions of people. The entire response of bringing the entire history to bear on every present question has exhausted itself. How does Israel solve this problem, or at least demonstrate that it has done all that it can reasonably be expected to do to solve it? How about this: "The State of Israel declares today that it is its affirmative policy, not merely a concession to be made in the course of negotiations, that there should come into being at the earliest opportunity an independent State of Palestine in territory occupied by Israel in the course of the 1967 war. Questions of the permanent borders of this new state and of the State of Israel and of the treatment of refugees and settlers that have remained unsettled since 1948 must be and will be resolved by peaceful negotiations between the affected parties. We commit ourselves to such negotiations wherever and whenever they may be conducted and to achieving a successful outcome. However, we have come to believe that the coming into being of a State of Palestine should not be held hostage to the eventual resolution of these questions. As well, we believe that the existence of two states and an undertaking by them to cooperate on as many matters of mutual concern as possible can over time create a climate for resolution of old and difficult questions, and bring into view new solutions, that are difficult for us to imagine while we all remain mired in a bitter history. We wish to make history by changing history. To that end, we announce our willingness to move forward immediately with practical steps by which the Palestinian people can achieve the physical and human infrastructure necessary for the successful functioning of an independent state. These include our assistance in the creation of a vibrant economy and state institutions. Specifically, we declare that we are ending our policy of blockade against the government of Gaza consistent, however, with the reasonable requirements of our own security. We do not require any rhetorical commitment from that government in exchange. We do require that Gaza not be the source of attacks against Israel or a base for military build-up or threats. Our opening is open-handed, but conditioned on the maintenance of non-violence. Whether or not Gaza is ultimately to be a part of a single Palestinian state is not for us to decide. That is a matter for the Palestinian people. But we pledge our support, our assistance, and our friendship in a spirit of brotherhood, asking in return only that disagreements, both historical and such as may arise in the future, be settled peacefully. We also declare that, pending the assumption of sovereignty by the State of Palestine, we will not permit further settlement or new construction by Israelis in any territory that has not heretofore been incorporated into the sovereign territory of the State of Israel. We expect that all people, throughout the land to the west of the Jordan River, will live in security while questions of permanent status are being resolved. We wish to emphasize that we do not condition the resolution of any matter, large or small, on the resolution of any other matter. We are willing to move forward on any matters that are capable of resolution and cooperation even as other matters remain unresolved and as we work together to bring them to rest. Our only condition for the fullest possible cooperation is peace and security. Within a peaceful context, we pledge to achieve with our neighbors great deeds that will be a blessing to all of our children for generations to come."

- roidubouloi

March 19, 2010 at 1:36am

"Perhaps only one thing is certain about the course of the Obama administration’s ham-fisted foreign policy – there is no depth to which it will not stoop to kick America’s allies in the teeth while cuddling up to her enemies. In the past month we’ve seen ample evidence of this with the State Department’s appalling decision to openly side with Argentina against Great Britain over the Falklands, and the White House’s bullying of Israel. Meanwhile, the Obama team swiftly issued a groveling apology to terrorist sponsor Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, for earlier casting aspersions over the Butcher of Tripoli’s call for a jihad against Switzerland. A barbaric Islamist tyrant with American blood on his hands is, incredibly, treated better than the leaders of both Britain and Israel." http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100030542/barack-obama-treats-israel-and-britain-with-sneering-contempt/

- noga1

March 19, 2010 at 7:12pm

This insistence on "fairness" in international diplomacy is absurdly juvenile. And the right is legend for engaging in such juvenilia. The confusion on the right is why we get disasters like Iraq. They thing it is all a game of cowboys and Indians on one day and tea party etiquette the next day. Nations are not people, they are states with interests. Israel goes about its business to advance its own interests. So does that United States. So does ever other nation on earth. What that demands or permits on any given day changes. The basic reality is that Israel is a US client. If it steps on US toes, it should expect to be kicked, whether it is an ally or not. I recall that President Eisenhower bluntly told the French, the British, and the Israelis to withdraw from Sinai in 1956 because he thought it urgently in the US interest that they do so and had the leverage to insist. So it goes. In another universe, Israel can be a super-power. In this one, it had best show a decent respect for US interests, as the US defines them, not as Israel defines them or would like the US to see them. It is not a relationship based on equality.

- roidubouloi

March 19, 2010 at 10:02pm

The bluster and role-playing on the right reminds me of nothing so much as the Lost Boys of Peter Pan. One minute they are playing cowboys and Indians, "Bring 'em on." The next it is knights chivalrous with a punctilious concern for good manners and the demands of honour. The world is far too dangerous a place for such naïfs. We just cannot afford to have these children in charge, and when at last they are not, they are to be ignored. Seen and not heard, like good little boys and girls.

- roidubouloi

March 19, 2010 at 10:07pm

Oh, and for any supporter of Bibi, the gallumphing clod, to be referring to Obama as "ham-fisted" is high comedy indeed. People with half-wits for leaders should not throw stones.

- roidubouloi

March 19, 2010 at 10:09pm

So, I guess Andrew Sullivan isn't the only one that divides the world into good Jews and bad Jews? I assume a Wieseltier takedown of Peretz is in the works?

- miceelf

March 20, 2010 at 3:59pm

Why do roidubouloi's comments remind me of the Roman Empire vs those stiff necked residents of Judea. I'm not saying these observations are innaccurate but they sure as heck are depressing. By the way roi I hardly think Bibi is a half-wit. I am not exactly a Likudnid - far from it - but he's gone further than could have been expected in declaring his support for the two-state solution, the freeze on settlements (except Jerusalem) Hillary referred to as "unprecedented," and Israel along with the US is actively involved in helping build the West Bank economy. Checkpoints have been removed and travel there is easier. Of course now we have riots. We have rockets. People have been injured and killed. I think "ham fisted" isn't a bad description actually; I hate to say it. Unless it is deliberate. Either way I'm disappointed. But, I was afraid of this when the hard-line position on settlements was made a precondition. I had hoped that there would be some common sense regarding Jerusalem. I had hope the overarching need to get people face-to-face, communicating and working together would have trumped ideology. Alas. As to the comment about Andrew Sullivan. Please. There's no explaining the direction he's taken recently. Or maybe there is but I don't want to be wearing a tinfoil hat. Or at least admit the one I might be wearing is giving off some strong signals. What better way to turn America against Israel than by planting some agitprop on the 'net? Actually it's been going on for years but not in the MSM, not on respectable blogs and media outlets until recently. It's grown and grown and grown until absurd lies are now mainstream received wisdom. This isn't "debate" about Israel it is slandering Israel and it's also targeting Americans who support Israel. This stuff used to be seen only in the dungeons of the 'net, far right/far left - but now I'm seeing comment after comment on MSM comment threads about disloyal Americans, repeating blood libels about our soldiers, Jewish control of America; I've even seen stuff claiming AIPAC is holding up the health care bill. Anyway with Andrew Sullivan I was more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt but lately I can't even stand to look at his blog. He's channeling Alison Weir for G*d's sake, and Juan Cole, and publishing outright inaccuracies, and shame on The Atlantic for publishing stuff like that which isn't even factual. I don't blame Jeffrey Goldberg for "disengaging." This kind of propaganda you can't engage. That doesn't make it any less damaging. In fact that's what makes it so bad. This whole thing with The Great Apartment flap has opened the floodgates and I don't think the genie is going back in. This isn't "anti-Zionism" either. It's the real deal. "Electronic Intifada" anybody?

- Sophia

March 20, 2010 at 5:54pm

Sophia, what do you think of "jewboy" - appropriate way of describing someone one disagrees with, or not? My Andrew Sullivan comment was focused specifically on the criticism that he divides the world into good Jews and bad. I am hard pressed to see how Peretz isn't doing the same thing, and in an even uglier way.

- miceelf

March 20, 2010 at 6:12pm

No - the choice of language by Mr. Peretz in re Mr. Axelrod was dreadful. In his defense I think he meant it sarcastically - as in that is what people think of us. Or something. Still it was dreadful. At a minimum it is subject to being misinterpreted and it's hurtful. So ok where is Mr. Weiseltier?

- Sophia

March 20, 2010 at 7:57pm

You can never go wrong with a clear understanding of reality, Sophia. Whether or not it is a reality to our liking, basing one's actions on fantasy can only lead to disaster. The world must be faced as it is.

- roidubouloi

March 20, 2010 at 11:10pm

Sophia, The fact that you think publicly supporting a two-state solution and freezing construction as a goodwill gesture to advance negotiations is further than one could expect Netanyahu to go is as convincing a demonstration as any that he is a half-wit, stuck in the messianic delusions of the Likud along with the religious nuts with whom he keeps company. He may not himself be a religious nut, but it hardly matters as he behaves that way. I find the very notion of supporters of Bibi questioning the ability of Obama completely risible. As I have said before, it would be funny if it weren't tragic. Would I trade Obama for Netanyahu? Not unless I shared the death-wish that seems to be the lot of far too many Israelis. Realism is one thing, fatalism is another. I have heard far too many Israelis tell me -- face to face -- that it doesn't matter what they do, they will still be pilloried, so they might as well do what they want. I don't buy that for an instant. It is a form of passivity unworthy of Zionism.

- roidubouloi

March 21, 2010 at 12:03am

"I have heard far too many Israelis tell me -- face to face --" I'm very curious to know in what circumstances you met all these Israelis face to face and heard them actually say what you say you heard them say. I don't recall you ever mentioning visiting Israel though you did repeatedly mention that you have nephews living there and that you sometimes have conversations with one of your relatives who is a senior officer in the IDF or something. So I have to wonder, who those "too many Israelis" are, what do you mean by "too many", where did you have the chance to meet so many Israelis and why would they say these things to you.

- noga1

March 22, 2010 at 7:46am

I am there all the time. My younger sister and I went together to a kibbutz ulpan together, Kibbutz Amir, when we were teenagers. She liked the life, I didn't. After college, she made aliyah together with her husband. They were among the founders of a kibbutz in the Arava. That is more than 30 years ago. I have a niece who was decorated by the president of the country for her military service and now has two children. She and her husband both served in an elite unit where they met. Two paratrooper nephews, one still on active duty. The garin for the kibbutz was American so I knew many of them from youth group together before they left for the desert. I know Israelis here, there, everywhere, even in Goa. It is difficult not to end up discussing political affairs at some point. So, there is lots of opportunity. I have heard the refrain in one form or another, paraphrasing, more times than I can count that, "Everyone in the world is going to be against us no matter what we do so what does it matter? We might as well do what we want." From Israelis on opposite sides of the political spectrum no less. Of course, I don't take public opinion samples, but it seems like a fairly common held and not particularly partisan view. Often the close to a discussion.

- roidubouloi

March 23, 2010 at 12:27am

Well roi, I'm glad you provided these details that would seem to confirm what I thought about your statement. That when you say too many Israelis telling you face to face you mean members of your immediate family and a few others you may meet now and then. "I am there all the time." When was the last time you were in Israel? Just curious. This song is representative of the mindset you describe with such repugnance. It was made sometime during the 70's. I think as a response to the universally just Zionism=Racism UN resolution. Gee, I wonder why Israelis would think that, eh? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilN5ope8qeU&feature=player_embedded And this is what Israelis are asking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeWnShrEGk4&NR=1 Let us have rain in winter And a few flowers in the spring and let us live to see another winter and another spring More than this we do not need.

- noga1

March 23, 2010 at 8:48am

And this is what Israelis are asking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeWnShrEGk4&NR=1 We have no more tears to cry What more will you ask from us which we have not given? Let us just have rain in winter And flowers when spring comes and let us live to see another winter and another spring More than this we do not need.

- noga1

March 23, 2010 at 8:50am

December and January. Amazing, noga, that you have managed to count all of my Israeli acquaintances, in Israel, on my sister's kibbutz, here in New York, in India, in Paris (there are lots of them in Paris these days -- bought my apartment there from a Tel Aviv art dealer). And, by the way, contrary to your assumption, no one in my family takes the view that the antipathy of the world justifies anything. They are for the most part appalled by the history of settlement. My brother-in-law who works as merkaz meshek at a kibbutz east of the Green Line tells me that they expect that the whole thing will eventually have to be evacuated. He, of course, is a realist, not a Likud fantasist. What a waste. If you paid attention, which you pretty much don't, you would notice any number of posters here in the last several days making variations on the same argument: "There is no point in doing anything about [the settlements] because the world is against us anyway. In fact, because the world is against us, Jews shouldn't criticize us." You can substitute what you want in the bracket for settlements and I know perfectly well that you have heard variations on this theme hundreds of times yourself. Just as I thought. Spin whatever fantasies you want, elaborate your justifications for colonizing the West Bank to the end of time, but, in the modern world, a colonial regime is not going to stand. It is too much of an anachronism. Had Israel limited its reach in the West Bank either to the requirements of security or to land it was at least willing to incorporate, you would have had a shot. But under the government of your religious nuts, you over-reached. The world doesn't buy the story that the settlements are due to the lack of peace or have any purpose other than Israeli aggrandizement at the expense of the Arabs. It is only a matter of time until you have to pay the piper. You think that you are going to get the chance to trade your colonial regime for something else. You won't. In fact, the colonial regime is going to make it harder to hold onto a security presence in the West Bank and to the parts of Jerusalem and vicinity that Israel has incorporated, both objectives that should have been considered of much more value -- but for the religious nuts, that is. They are a plague, both here and there. Indeed, everywhere. Too bad. That's what happens when you address the world on the basis of your fantasies.

- roidubouloi

March 23, 2010 at 10:08pm