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

Go Home The Iranian Calamity And The President’s Obsession With A...

THE SPINE APRIL 24, 2010

The Iranian Calamity And The President’s Obsession With A Little Street In Jerusalem

BY MARTIN PERETZ

Frankly, I do not think that Barack Obama ever really believed that an accommodation with Iran over its nuclear designs was possible. What follows is that he prevaricated about this promising turn in diplomacy and that one, all the while knowing he was going straight down a dead-end street. And going down that street in a quite cavalier fashion so as to keep his critics at bay. Some Americans were even persuaded by the seemingly confident president that he must have something up his sleeve. After all, we’d like to have faith in his strategic savvy, especially when a Hitlerian maniac has appeared on the world scene and appeared, as it were, with nukes. Alas, that confidence was a bad attribution.

The fact is that Dr. A’jad was correct. He was tilting against no hard American strategy at all. This is confirmed by the January intelligence document by the secretary of defense, Robert Gates, which was leaked a week ago. It concluded that we had never had a systematic approach to the challenge from Tehran and, given the fact that whatever planning we did operate from had failed, we had even less to go on now. Yes, Obama compelled his defense chief to re-remember things. But what Gates then said said nothing.

There was, of course, the ongoing Edgar Bergen-Charlie McCarthy ventriloquism act about sanctions. First, they would be “ferocious.” All the way down to, well, “we have to get Russia and China on board” and, of course, that would make the sanctions much less than punitive or, as the secretary of state promised, “biting.” It’s too bad Mrs. Clinton doesn’t still have presidential aspirations. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be parroting Obama deceits on Iran. Or, at least, she wouldn’t be.

It’s not as if the Iranians have ignored the opportunities provided them by Obama’s neutered diplomacy. Nobody still gives any credence to the fantasy speculation that Tehran’s atomic designs are peaceful. The only doubt is when an ample supply of bombs and other nuclear instruments will be ready. A year? Two? Maybe a month. The Obami are wishing that it will be sometime after 2016. No such luck.

So, after two decades of virtual disuse, the word “containment” is once again heard in the land. But the mullahs are not as rational as the members of the Politburo. Yet the liberal thinkers and politicians who always fretted that containment would not work and that we were doomed to a nuclear “holocaust” now have confidence in the rationality and commonsense of a government of Muslim madmen. Glenn Kessler has written a provocative analysis of the “containment” soporific in the Washington Post.

The Iranian bomb-in-the-making has already altered the geo-politics of the Middle East (and probably of the whole world, in fact.) Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Syrian dictatorship are now encouraged by the new balance of power in the region, a balance of power that is being reconfigured day after day by a mad Shi’a tyranny. The Saudis, believe me, won’t fight back, but they will retreat into their habitual lazy pusillanimity. In the meantime, Iran makes mischief in Latin America with and among the dictators who want both the theatrical and nuclear attention of America’s self-designated enemy in west Asia. President Karzai also plays the ayatollah’s game just as we put in troops and begin to pull them out at the same time. For a devastating analysis of the U.S. predicament in Afghanistan, read Fouad Ajami’s elegantly explosive essay, “Afghanistan and the Decline of American Power,” in the Wall Street Journal of April 9.

The position of the United States in world politics has become so low that one is almost nostalgic for George Bush. At least Bush did not think of himself as a great man—which he wasn’t—or as a visionary prophet, which he also wasn’t. But the present president does view himself as some kind of illuminating seer. The fact is, however, that Obama’s big take on international affairs is quite prosaic and antiquarian. It anchors America in a world that does not exist, a world structured on the equality of states and the essential justice of its institutions. He would think it an unsurpassable achievement if he could get every government beneath the vault of heaven to sign a treaty outlawing war. Like the Kellogg-Briand Pact which won each of its progenitors a Nobel Peace Prize. Obama has already gotten his Nobel. All he needs now to do is to deserve it. You know his plan. Kellogg-Briand preceded World War II by 11 years. Germany and Japan were among its initial signatories.

The president convened a swarm of heads-of-state and other lesser dignitaries two weeks ago in Washington to face the future of atomic weapons. In a way, he excels at such abstract spectaculars. Still, like his much-heralded new agreement with the Russians on nuclear missilery, it conveyed a sense of deja vu. Where was Iran? No, not in a personal appearance by some ayatollah. But as a burdening presence on the agenda. Of course, this is a subject to which, for Obama, the less attention paid the better. Still, the gathering did focus on the danger of nukes falling into the hands of terrorists. And, truth be told, these terrorists would likely be death-ecstasy Muslims. Which country might most likely find it in its interest to proliferate a dirty bomb to one or another army of God? Wow. Yes, of course, Iran.

There is a certain sophomoric charm (or maybe it is a certain sophomoric ease) with which he stabs at grand topics, especially as he is very inclined to look away from real blood. Obama can’t stand blood. He especially can’t stand looking at African blood. For which president in our time has done less in trying to stop the rivers and rivulets of African blood that flow continuously from Saharan and sub-Saharan Africa all the way down to Zimbabwe? And I don’t only mean Darfur.

As it happens, the very international system that Obama is so intent on maintaining (with band-aids and confab rhetoric) is the one that facilitates and protects genocides. Danny Goldhagen makes that point in his new book Worse Than War,which he digested for TNR. He is featured in a desolating film by the same title. You will see in the movie a longish self-exculpatory apologia by Mme. Albright as to why nothing was done or could have been done in Rwanda.

The president’s palsy over Iran is also motivated by his intellectual genuflections before and faith in the international system. No, I do not think we or, for that matter, Israel should rush to attack Qom. It is certainly a last option and, even then, not a certain one. But, since it is altogether evident that Obama has made no progress in putting together a sanctions regime, what does he propose now? Notice he no longer even talks about sanctions himself, leaving the empty verbiage to satraps like Clinton. So shouldn’t the U.S. be engaged in a campaign to undermine the Tehran regime? Not on Obama’s watch. But that’s the only watch we got. And why not? Because that would hurt the international community—what a community!— to which he is so attached.

Obama has one other passion, and it is Palestine. Actually, Palestine above all. Must I say this again? The Palestinians are a fissiparous fantasy, contemptuous of each other and especially hating of the Jews, hating of the Jews in a way that almost no Jews hate them, although some Jews do hate them. Obama now thinks the deus ex machina fixative to the entire problem is for the Israelis to cease building in East Jerusalem. Sheikh Jarrah is now the designated focus and locus. As it happens, Sheikh Jarrah is already a mixed neighborhood and the entry point to the Hebrew University and the Mount of Olives. Oh, yes, I forgot: Sheikh Jarrah is also where the Israel National Police Center has been located for decades. Now, I do not like the Jews heading for the old Shepherd’s Hotel. They also don’t like me. But that is not at all the point. The point is that what’s preventing a peace between Israel and the Palestinians is not an incursion or non-incursion of the Jews onto this piece of land claimed by the Arabs or that. What no one has ever shown is that a cohesive and coherent Palestinian authority is ready to live with Israel.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 156 comments

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

156 comments

“As it happens, the very international system that Obama is so intent on maintaining (with band-aids and confab rhetoric) is the one that facilitates and protects genocides. Danny Goldhagen makes that point in his new book Worse Than War,which he digested for TNR. He is featured in a desolating film by the same title. You will see in the movie a longish self-exculpatory apologia by Mme. Albright as to why nothing was done or could have been done in Rwanda.” This is well put, even if I didn’t care for your snide swipe at Hillary. She is a “satrap” but she is a part of his administration. Has there ever been a Secretary of State who resigned over policy differences?

- jdyer

April 24, 2010 at 9:53pm

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

Also, Marty, you endorsed Obama for President in 08, while some of us endorsed Hillary Clinton. You said you didn’t trust here and bizarrely you now expect her to follow the foreign policy you didn’t think she would follow had she been elected President. This doesn’t make a lot of sense. Your anger at Hillary is a sign of the remorse you feel for having endorsed her boss.

- jdyer

April 24, 2010 at 10:03pm

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

"Yes, Obama compelled his defense chief to re-remember things. But what Gates then said said nothing." ____________ "SecDef Gates just changed the conversation again," "All in all, it was a productive day for Robert Gates. Among his other discoveries: 1. Roses are red and violets are blue. 2. Pentagon building is called this way since it has 5 sides. 3. We sure like to know what them Russkies are doing in Guatemala. Or is it Kamchatka? And the day is not over yet. Update: Gates found the strategy. "I've looked in the wrong drawer", he explains. " http://simplyjews.blogspot.com/2010/04/robert-gates-us-lacks-strategy-on...

- noga1

April 24, 2010 at 10:09pm

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

Link to: Simply Jews - a gang of critically undermedicated. http://simplyjews.blogspot.com/2010/04/robert-gates-us-lacks-strategy-on-iran.html

- noga1

April 24, 2010 at 10:11pm

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

Marty: "...At least Bush did not think of himself as a great man—which he wasn’t—or as a visionary prophet, which he also wasn’t. But the present president does view himself as some kind of illuminating seer." I'm following your arguments (even if I don't always agree with them), but you'd do yourself a service to tighten up your prose. Didn't Bush feel as though he were on speaking terms with god? I wonder if it's possible that BHO views himself as an imperfect human being, who's on the top half of the intellect curve, who's trying his best to juggle in a world of moving, exploding parts. You might presume, Marty, to know the inner workings of the current President's psyche, but I'd bet he's closer the above version than the cynical version you are so sure of. Or would everything he does make sense if only he professed that god told him to do it?

- jmarshall

April 25, 2010 at 12:29am

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

Also just to be an ass, Would a man who does not think of himself as a great man, really need to fly 2 miles off his own coast, in bomber jacket, to shoot a publicly funded campaign commercial to let everyone know that "well, you know, mission accomplished bitches."

- jmarshall

April 25, 2010 at 12:33am

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

JD: "Has there ever been a Secretary of State who resigned over policy differences? " At least one -- William Jennings Bryan, who resigned from Woodrow Wilson's administration in 1916 because the thought the policy of verbally confronting Germany on their policy toward U.S.-UK shipping on the high seas (default presumption of belligerency) would lead to America entering the war. He was, in a certain sense, proven correct.

- ironyroad

April 25, 2010 at 2:15am

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

My opinion on Obama's true Israel policy is: The creation of the Jewish state of Israel was a mistake The state of Israel is expendable. Contrary to Obama's public committment to a two state solution, his real goal is a one state solution, a multi-ethnic Palestinian state Deception about these true goals must continue until it is too late for them to be stopped.

- dubrovnov

April 25, 2010 at 3:58am

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

I rarely read 'The Spine' because I not only tend to know what it will say well in advance ("Obama is an appeaser," "all Palestinians hate Jews," "Obama hates Israel"), but also because Marty Peretz has the unique ability to expand two ideas ("Obama is an appeaser" and "all Palestinians hate Jews") into eight never-ending paragraphs worth of vitriol, all under a blog post that sounds vaguely like an undergraduate title to a last-minute term paper. Still, given my renewed acquirement of a user name, I feel the fierce urgency of responding to the kind of radical and ill-considered generalizations espoused in this post (and likely in the subsequent thirty posts, though I probably won't read them). So far as I can tell, Peretz's main complaint is that Obama has resigned himself to an Iranian bomb a long time ago. And of course Obama has no plan to stop Iran. Never mind that our best deterrent to Iranian nukes was a preemptive strike eight years ago -- before Marty Peretz endorsed the invasion of Iraq, leaving 150,000 American troops on the border of Iran. Let's also put aside that people such as Bush CENTCOM commander John Abizaid have been speaking of 'containment' for the past four years. Still, Peretz provides absolutely no solution whatsoever Iran's drive for nukes. The best he offers us is that "the U.S. be engaged in a campaign to undermine the Tehran regime." It must be Mr. Peretz's unfettered access to the CIA that leads him to conclude the Obama administration is not doing enough. (Even though just about everyone who seems to know suggests the opposite.) This points to a more shocking failure on Peretz's part. The man seems utterly obsessed with gestures of all sorts -- bows, summits, Obama's religious greetings -- as a sign of weakness, as though this administration were incapable of pursuing diplomacy off-camera. Peretz has the temperament of a short-sighted blogger, and we are fortunate not to have him as our president. But then we get to the real crux of the issue, which President Obama's focus on Israeli building in Sheikh Jarrah. First, has Peretz ever been to East Jerusalem? Do we really need it? Second, as Leon Wieseltier has sharply pointed out, if we find the Palestinian right of return to be absurd on its face (as I do), how can we demand that Jews have a right of return to East Jerusalem? But most important of all, is Peretz's (and many others) absolute refusal to recognize the settlement issue as a barrier to an unsustainable situation in Israel. Of course, Peretz subtly avoids any outright rejections of Palestinian legitimacy by making largely true claims about Arab rejectionism and so forth. But how in any way does this make Israeli settlement in East Jerusalem legitimate? Yes, Arab states have not done enough. Yes, they could've gotten a state had they not started a war in 1948, almost started a war in '67, and rejected generous offers from Barak and Olmert. Since we can't rewrite history -- and since Peretz apparently expects a pass on his disastrous support of the Iraq war in the wake of our crisis with Iran -- I'd hope he's willing to afford the same 'let bygones be bygones' attitude toward the Arab rejectionists of the past. Alas, Israel must be the grown-ups and try again. And just as President Obama cannot explain away his own spending programs by blaming George Bush, so too, Israel cannot legitimize its settlements by pointing out the revolting Palestinian rejectionism of the past. This is not an answer and it is not an justification. (And worst of all, these building projects are being carried out mostly for the sake of Charedim who contribute absolutely NOTHING to the state of Israel.) There remains a lot more to dissect in this post, but let's leave it at that for now. Does Peretz believe in a two-state solution or not? Does he believe the current situation in Israel is sustainable? These questions remains unanswered under all his (ironically enough) "abstract spectaculars" and personal attacks against at our president.

- josh_y

April 25, 2010 at 4:02am

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

"The point is that what’s preventing a peace between Israel and the Palestinians is not an incursion or non-incursion of the Jews onto this piece of land claimed by the Arabs or that. What no one has ever shown is that a cohesive and coherent Palestinian authority is ready to live with Israel." Peretz closes with THE key point. At present, only Hamas in Gaza has elected legitimacy, and no one speaks of West Bank elections to establish legitamcy to Fayyad. The problem with Peretz is that he should have started his post with this conclusion, and chosen his defending arguments more rationally. Because he has yet to expand his reading sources, Peretz is missing a lot of efforts out of MSM coverage, though most of the efforts to squeeze Iran economically are NOT Obama-led. It seeems bad timing to have a reluctant Wilsonian in the White House who thinks Special Envoys Gration (Sudan) and Holbrooke (Af-Pak) are doing just fine. or, quoting Jane Kramer quoting friends of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the April 26 The New Yorker: "..."Obama syndrome”: the persistence of a commendable but not very realistic belief in the power of reason to turn your enemies into allies." If the East Jerusalem is really ONLY about Shepherd's Hotel, then that can be dealt with, because that is an interestingly provocative development being funded by American citizens. But even Shepherd's is a distraction when the President of the United States delares, and is then quoted, as Mahmoud Abbas said in a speech to leaders of his Fatah movement. ""But don't tell me it's a vital national strategic American interest ... and then not do anything,"

- K2K

April 25, 2010 at 7:09am

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

"Mahmoud Abbas said in a speech to leaders of his Fatah movement. ""But don't tell me it's a vital national strategic American interest ... and then not do anything," Abbas is a true American patriot.

- noga1

April 25, 2010 at 8:32am

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

"The creation of the Jewish state of Israel was a mistake. The state of Israel is expendable." I tend to agree with this speculation. Obama has been bosom friends with Rashid Khalidi and gets his education about the Middle East from him. Khalidi is all for the destruction of Israel and one-state solution. We know what "one state solution" means. Juan Cole (another Khalidi pal) on his blog is actively promoting the view that Obama is working towards a one-state solution. No one who got educated by Khalidi can be expected to have anything but loathing for the state of Israel. Not as sharp as Khalidi's I daresay, after all, Obama is not a Palestinian, but deep enough to pose a real danger for Jews in Israel. However, perhaps Obama's way of thinking about the world is needed. The only way people can learn from history is to see it happening.

- noga1

April 25, 2010 at 8:40am

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

noga: I went abck to sleep, woken from a dream where my Jewish primary care doctor (who dropped out of Medicare in 2007), left the waiting room, and was replaced by an Arab-immigrant doctor who immediately asked me where I was from. Even though my dream channeled your comment :), I do not believe Obama 'loathes the state of Israel' as much as he sees the Palestinians as 'suffering from the neo-colonialism of the West', and can NOT see the "global Zionist conspiracy" mythology that is the legacy of the Protocols separate from the Israel-Palestine quagmire. Obama would find enlightenment by reading "Documents captured from radicals and terrorists in Pakistan warn darkly about a new axis of evil in the world: a ‘Zionist Hindu Crusader‘ alliance bringing Israel, India, and the United States together in a war on Islam. They are wrong about the last part; all three countries want peaceful relations with Islamic countries based on mutual recognition and respect. The alliance isn’t a closed club, and Islamic countries are welcome to join. ..." from http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/04/22/the-zionist-hindu-crusader-alliance-marches-on/ If there were no Jews in Israel, or Palestine, Political Islam would continue to see Jews as the "puppetmaster of the Crusaders". Which is why Iran at least has to be watched through whatChina is doing on the ground, not in the Security Council. I here correct my earlier comment about the lackof U.S. actions against Iran. The U.S. is having increasing success with banking and shipping insurance sanctions, which pushes Iran closer to becoming an economic hostage of China. THAT must be freaking the Shi'a millenialists!

- K2K

April 25, 2010 at 10:32am

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

"...was replaced by an Arab-immigrant doctor who immediately asked me where I was from." A few years ago, just a day before my son's Bar-Mitzva, he was hit by a car and rushed to the hospital with a severely broken leg. The doctor who tended to him was an Arab immigrant. And he knew we were Jewish because we told him about the Bar-Mitzva. We spent the night at the hospital and the next morning we were in our son's room waiting for the doctor. I had a piece of paper on which I wrote down some phone numbers for my husband to call to inform people that the event was canceled. At that moment the doctor walked in and seeing me writing down numbers he immediately exclaimed: Even now, you are thinking about money! I confess I did not understand right away what he meant. You don't think about people thinking in that particular way. But I learned. And I learn every day.

- noga1

April 25, 2010 at 10:58am

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

"White House says Schumer attacks unfounded" April 25, 2010 "(JTA) -- The White House responded to Senator Chuck Schumer's criticism of the Obama administration for its attitude toward Israel. In a radio interview Thursday on The Nachum Segal Show, which originates in New Jersey, Schumer (D –N.Y.) called the administration's policy toward Israel and the Palestinians in an attempt to restart negotiations "counter-productive." "(W)hen you give the Palestinians hope that the United States will do its negotiating for them, they are not going to sit down and talk," Schumer continued. Schumer said Jewish members of Congress "will be meeting with the President next week or the week after, and we are saying that this has to stop." "Right now there is a battle going on inside the administration, one side agrees with us, one side doesn’t, and we’re pushing hard to make sure the right side wins and if not we’ll have to take it to the next step," Schumer said. In a press briefing Friday, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs took issue with Schumer's criticisms. "We have an unwavering commitment to the security of Israel and the Israeli people," Gibbs said. "We have said that from the beginning of this administration." "I don't think that it's a stretch to say we don't agree with what Sen. Schumer said in those remarks," Gibbs added. Schumer is up for re-election in the fall. He has been one of President Obama's closest allies among Jewish Democrats." http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/04/25/2394491/white-house-says-schumer-attacks-unfounded

- jdyer

April 25, 2010 at 11:08am

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

ironyroad "JD: "Has there ever been a Secretary of State who resigned over policy differences? " At least one -- William Jennings Bryan, who resigned from Woodrow Wilson's administration in 1916 because the thought the policy of verbally confronting Germany on their policy toward U.S.-UK shipping on the high seas (default presumption of belligerency) would lead to America entering the war." Thanks, Irony, I thought there was one, but couldn't remember the name. Interesting that it be William Jennings Bryan of "Scopes Monkey trial fame."

- jdyer

April 25, 2010 at 11:14am

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

"...Even now, you are thinking about money! ...You don't think about people thinking in that particular way...." In 2008, the NYT published primary results by precinct. I know my NYC geography, and made a comment to my then-closest friend of 20 years, a Drabble-liberal whose Welsh ancestry pre-dates the American Revolution. I noted that the most Orthodox neighborhoods in the Bronx and Brooklyn voted for Mitt Romney in the GOP primary. My friend's response was "Well, of course they did, all Jews care about is money". We have not discussed politics since, let alone Israel. BTW, the NYT never published the election results by precinct again. The outer boroughs of NYC are highly self-segregated by ethnicity. Outside of Manhattan, the Jewish, Irish, Italian, Hispanic, and Asian neighborhoods all voted strongly for Hillary or McCain in the March 2008 primary, except for the Orthodox Jews who were more for Romney than McCain. I have since learned the strength of Mormon support for the Jewish State of Israel.

- K2K

April 25, 2010 at 11:26am

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

"...As Secretary of State, Marshall strongly opposed recognizing the State of Israel, telling President Truman in May 1948, "If you (recognize the state of Israel) and if I were to vote in the election, I would vote against you." Marshall resigned from the State Department because of ill health on January 7, 1949, ... When the early months of the Korean War showed how poorly prepared the Defense Department was, Truman fired Secretary Louis A. Johnson and named Marshall as Secretary of Defense in September 1950. ... His main role was to restore confidence and rebuild the armed forces from the post-war state of demobilization. He served in that post for less than one year, retiring from public office for good in September 1951." from wiki. Note: Marshall received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1953 [for the Marshall Plan], and died on October 16, 1959. Unlike Britain, American cabinet secretaries are not obliged by custom to resign when they disagree with policy.

- K2K

April 25, 2010 at 11:37am

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

Obama cannot stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Only real way to do that would be an invasion and occupation. An air assault is of dubious value, and would destroy the internal opposition to the regime, which is the best long run hope for change there. Ahmedinejad is a figurehead, he does not control any real policy in Iran. Bush, who was as tough as possible on Iran and on Muslims in general, did not accomplish anything in 8 years, so what is it you expect from Obama? Ultimately, Iran will be deterred, it is not building a bomb to commit regime suicide. The clerics who run the country have no interest in dramatic foreign adventures. Sanctions are useless, the bordering states have no capacity or interest in enforcing a sanctions regime, and Russia and China will not agree to one. The only sanctions that would make any real impact is a ban on Iranian oil exports...and that is an absolute no-go. The issue is that an Iranian bomb freezes Israel militarily in the Middle East, not that it is actually going to be used. An Iranian bomb is of little or no strategic consequence to the US directly, certainly no more so than North Korea's, which was developed under Bush's watch.

- nayyer_ali

April 25, 2010 at 11:50am

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

nayyer_ali "Obama cannot stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons." Of course he can. Why is it the the enemies of the US always talk themselves into believing that the US will not be able to stop them. History is full of countries that believed the same nonsense. If we stopped Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union don't you think we'll be able to stop a third rate country like Iran? The issue isn't can we stop them, but how to go about stopping them.

- jdyer

April 25, 2010 at 12:24pm

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

Peretz should stop linking nuclear Iran solely with Israel. That is one thing Obama HAS accomplished since March. The "Iranian brand of Shiite apocalypticism” is directed far more against Sunni Islam than Israel, and the Sunnis know it. Saudi Arabia is far more threatened than Israel, which is one reason the Chinese blue water navy just showed up, to protect the much higher volume of Saudi oil now flowing to China. What will happen will not fit into any of the "learned think tank" scenarios. What will happen will not have any Israeli fingerprints. Seems the earthquake scenario is gripping Iran this week. This WashPo article sums it up rather nicely, and I am relieved no one seems to be blaming Mossad in advance.) copied entirely with apologies for any violation of Terms of Use, from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/21/AR2010042102998.html ""Iran's Shiite clerics predict deadly quake as punishment from God" By Thomas Erdbrink Washington Post Foreign Service Wednesday, April 21, 2010; 2:16 PM TEHRAN -- Iran's influential Shiite clerics have a warning: The country's sprawling capital is about to be hit by a killer earthquake. Millions will perish. The reason for the coming apocalypse, the clerics say, is simple: Vice has spread through Tehran, and God intends to punish the sinners. "Go on the streets and repent for your sins," Ayatollah Aziz Khoshvaqt, one of the country's highest clerics, told worshipers during a recent sermon in northern Tehran. "A holy torment is upon us. Leave town." Even among the many urbane inhabitants of this capital of 12 million, the warning of imminent doom has not been taken lightly. Tehran is one of the most earthquake-prone capitals in the world, built upon the intersection of two major tectonic plates. There are more than a hundred fault lines beneath the city. A quake in the city of Bam, in eastern Iran, killed tens of thousands in 2003. Fears about Tehran being hit by "the big one" are not new. But the increased seismic activity worldwide -- from earthquakes in remote China to Baja California, to say nothing of the volcanic eruption in Iceland -- has only heightened fears. Never mind that scientists say the exact timing of a quake is nearly impossible to predict. "If it is vice that causes earthquakes, there should be floods and volcano eruptions as well in Tehran, because all sins are committed in this huge city," said an unemployed resident who gave his name only as Maysam. Khoshvaqt has gone so far as to alert President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of the danger, according to a Web site related to Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard Corps. During a recent speech, Ahmadinejad noted that a cleric had informed him that an earthquake was unavoidable. Swift action has been taken. Ahmadinejad has announced that the government should start work on programs to help at least 5 million people relocate from Tehran in the coming years. Ministers have announced bonuses of up to 50 percent for government employees willing to depart for other regions. There are even discussions about moving the headquarters of state institutions; the Tehran-based National Museum of Iran has questioned when its collection of 300,000 artifacts can be taken to a safer locale. The earthquake warnings follow weeks of complaints by religious figures about the loosening of moral standards here, particularly about women who have doffed the traditional Islamic headscarf and long coat with the arrival of spring. "Women who do not dress modestly . . . lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which increases earthquakes," cleric Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi told worshipers in Tehran last week. The prophecies have set Tehran abuzz with rumors and conspiracy theories. People claim to have seen secret refugee camps on the edges of towns. Others are saying that certain politicians have moved their families to other cities. An e-mail making the rounds -- obviously written by opponents of the government -- asserts that the earthquake will be not the work of God but of Iran's leaders, who will trigger an earthquake with the help of the Revolutionary Guard Corps, the force that cracked down on anti-government protesters following Ahmadinejad's disputed election last year. "The quake would prevent an attack by the United States," the e-mail says. "Who would attack a country hit by a natural disaster?" Seismology experts are not pleased by the inexpert analysis. "Belief in God is very good, but we should not put all responsibility on his shoulders," Bahram Akasheh, a professor of geophysics, said in an interview. Akasheh is Iran's most senior expert on quakes. He has been studying the ground beneath Tehran for more than 35 years and foresees a bleak future for the capital. Tension has been building along the fault lines for years. There is, he says, a 70 percent chance of a magnitude-7 quake, eventually. He and other scientists have expected such a tremor to strike for the past decade based on previous seismic patterns in Iran. "Half of the population will die, there will be a complete breakdown of all infrastructure, nearby dams will break, large fires will erupt. Tehran will become completely uninhabitable," he said. "There is no way of really avoiding this. We can't save this city." "

- K2K

April 25, 2010 at 12:37pm

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

Mr. Peretz obsession with the administrations equivocations on Iran are appreciated by those of us who believe this is the most important foriegn policy decision for many years to come. American's containment strategy of communism over the last 60 years has held up well and had a few beliefs that held this up. The first beleif was the 'Domino Theory'. This held that if one country turns communist that it will encourage others to fall towards communism in a similar manner. We saw it it in eastern europe and asia. Iran's Atomic Bomb would certainly encourage other states to announce their weapons and develoment programs. Almost the same day Iran tests their weapon the Israeil's will openly test their own. I can't imagine Turkey not starting up their own program with Iran and Israel armed. The other pillar of containment was the NATO Alliance. Europe was a staunch ally in maintaining the embargo against Russia. Many countries shared common goals and sacrificed for this long stand-off. However, there is no alliance against Iran's weapon program. China and Russia, who both have a lot more to lose with an Iranian Bomb and not reliable and will not support the actions needed to stop this country. In addition the Muslim countries think Iran has a right to these weapons and the Christian West is out to destroy Islam. The paranoia of the Cheney wing of the Bush Administration was reassuring in that they understood what was going on and how it would effect things. The current optimism and misguided policy of the Obama Administration is freightening. If you thought Bank Bailouts were expensive, wait until Iran attacks Iraq.

- CRS9TNR

April 25, 2010 at 1:24pm

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

A distinction must be made between several things that are conflated (as they often are, not just here) in Marty's various lectures. You can't just talk about "the position of the United States" as if it were a place on an HR seniority form. That is because the following are all involved in connected ways: 1. Obama's personal popularity abroad; 2. the relative strength of the U.S.'s "soft power" as a presence that others want to gravitate toward rather than away from; 3. American political and economic authority to encourage/pressure/enforce particular global policy choices made by other nations or groupings of nations. In respect of #1, we are doing relatively ok. The president is popular among ordinary people across continents (with exceptions, of course) and that works in subtle ways to make the U.S. seem like a genuinely open democratic system that does not discriminate negatively on race/ethnicity when it comes to even the highest office (typically, of course, what makes us look attractive and dynamic overseas is exactly what the teabaggers and their ilk hate here at home). 2. As regards #2, it's a more difficult thing to assess. In many ways, Obama has worked hard to re-key the postures and attitudes -- the "for us or against us" bullying, for example -- that made the Bush administration practically more unpopular among allies and friends than among enemies (Bin Laden was terrified Kerry would be elected in 2004). The sense that we see enemies everywhere continually undermined our desire to show ourselves as reacting proportionally to terrorist threats. IMO closing Gitmo would have been the most useful move in that effort, but that was derailed. In respect of Iran, I think Obama has done, so far, a reasonable job in trying to change the perception from "American and Iranian intransigence" to "Iranian intransigence." Obama's role in the climate conference in Copenhagen was also good example of how making the effort can shift perceptions -- the old ideological fixation on the left to only blame the west is now breaking up, as people really see how China wants to deep-six a global ecological perspective even faster than Sarah Palin does. 3. This is the difficult one, and I'd tend to agree with Marty in principle that we're at a low point -- but no intelligent person can believe that this is Obama's fault. What the rest of the world sees is the U.S. still involved in two wars (one now re-ignited over the last two years) which have lasted years beyond the original loudmouthed boasts that we'd be in and out in a year or so, job done, and in which the enemy has been as low-tech as you can get. They also see a global financial sector whose excesses damaged not only our economy but also the global economy (this is to some degree unfair, as everyone else was involved too, but Wall St is the obvious powerhouse). Finally they sense that America is having problems finding the tools and the language for global leadership in the 21st century -- and perhaps because it's precisely that leadership that is under challenge by others who want a relationship with America -- and the vast majority want us to be there, including for the crisis moments -- that's not just a tacky replica of the Cold War world of 30-60 yeas ago. If we are the indispensable nation, it's indispensable that we understand what we're doing in the world as it is, not as we would like it to be.

- ironyroad

April 25, 2010 at 2:51pm

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

Dub AND Noga: "My opinion on Obama's true Israel policy is: The creation of the Jewish state of Israel was a mistake ... The state of Israel is expendable ... his real goal is a one state solution, a multi-ethnic Palestinian state." I love that none of these "opinions" require you to do anything more than draw primary conclusions based upon secondary decisions, and decide omnipotenly that everything that comes out of BHO's mouth is a lie. Boy that is comforting! And now I'm embarrassed that my narrative of BHO was only that he was a robot, manufactured in Kenya, who can shoot jihad rockets out of the portal in his arm, while he's flying like all Kenyan manufactured robots can do. For people who seem to insist that our President loves all our "enemies" more than he does us, and that all of us and our allies are expendable, couldn't someone just easily say that complete and total, total, TOTAL, lack of faith in your President makes you un-patriotic? I myself won't go that far, but if you were saying these kinds of things about the President 4 years ago, I'm pretty sure the WH would have labeled you "un-patriotic." I'd like to see either one of you with the responsibility of the WH (I'm joking). Criticism I can live with. But cynicism is the tool of those who know that they couldn't do any better.

- jmarshall

April 25, 2010 at 3:05pm

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

".. lack of faith in your President" He is not MY president.

- noga1

April 25, 2010 at 3:13pm

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

Irony: Well said, especially point #3.

- jmarshall

April 25, 2010 at 3:14pm

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

And you live where?

- jmarshall

April 25, 2010 at 3:16pm

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

jmarshall, Noga lives in Canada, as do a few regular posters here e.g. icarus and basman.

- ironyroad

April 25, 2010 at 3:33pm

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

I knew those two were Canadians - still, I find Noga's contempt for BHO to be all encompassing. I try to hold onto my contempt a little more tightly ...

- jmarshall

April 25, 2010 at 4:03pm

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

Really? You interpret my speculation about Khalidi's seminal influence upon Obama as contempt? Why? Do you think Khalidi deserves more respect from me? Or do you want to believe that he has no influence over Obama? You are so used to Obama adulation that anything less, like an expression of doubt and criticism is "contempt". I don't mind telling you that Obama has not succeeded in gaining my confidence in his abilities or intellect. I hope ironyroad's trust in him will prove to be true and I will gladly concede the point when this happens. But while we are waiting, I am free to criticize him as harshly as I please.

- noga1

April 25, 2010 at 4:13pm

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

jmarshall: I did not imagine that a mere statement of my opinions would strike anyone as "omnipotence" on my part, or possibly "unpatriotic". However, you did neglect to suggest that I must obviously be a "racist", so I should be greatful.

- dubrovnov

April 25, 2010 at 4:15pm

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

irony "...The president is popular among ordinary people across continents (with exceptions, of course)..." you can add 90,000 Okinawans who just protested U.S. military base relocation to that exception list. When can anyone remember 90,000 people in Japan protesting anything in public? at a certain point in time, President Obama becomes responsible for the outcomes of his policies and his decisions, during his presidency. amazing Obama has any time to even think about the Palestinians these days...

- K2K

April 25, 2010 at 4:52pm

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

Dub: "My opinion on Obama's true Israel policy is: The creation of the Jewish state of Israel was a mistake ... The state of Israel is expendable ... his real goal is a one state solution, a multi-ethnic Palestinian state." No offense, but that struck me as omnipotence. Israel is expendable? Your opinion, fine. But that's one hell of an opinion. Noga: "Do you think Khalidi deserves more respect from me? Or do you want to believe that he has no influence over Obama?" No, but I understand why he has more influence over BHO than you or I. "You are so used to Obama adulation that anything less, like an expression of doubt and criticism is "contempt". I smiled at this one. I'm glad you know what I'm used to. I'll be the first to tell you that he's just a man. Imperfect like the rest of us. And I will repeat what I said earlier: I can live with criticism. I lumped you in with Dub b/c you agreed with his opinion of BHO, that of -- I don't care what the man says, I KNOW what he's thinking -- Even I wouldn't do that. I mean I didn't even call you a racist. (Imagine how much self control that took!) Uh, you're not, are you? "I don't mind telling you that Obama has not succeeded in gaining my confidence in his abilities or intellect ... I am free to criticize him as harshly as I please." Fair enough, though I'd like to know just who in the world then meets your criteria for the ability and itellect to lead America? And yes, criticize at your will. I also am free to contest your criticism. Aren't I?

- jmarshall

April 25, 2010 at 4:52pm

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

Oh Dub, It was YOU I didn't call a racist. Sorry. You're not are you?

- jmarshall

April 25, 2010 at 4:54pm

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

"I'll be the first to tell you that he's just a man. Imperfect like the rest of us. " And that's the breadth and depth of your critical wits? "-- I don't care what the man says, I KNOW what he's thinking -" Now it was my turn to smile. Since I judge the man by what he says and does, and how he behaves, and am not being swayed by his admirers who keep reassuring me that he must have some secret plan very deep in his heart and mind which the time is not yet ripe to reveal to mere mortals. No doubt what seems like a lack of strategy is actually evidence that he must have a grand strategy.

- noga1

April 25, 2010 at 5:06pm

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

". I also am free to contest your criticism. Aren't I?" You are free to jump from the rooftop if you so please just don't pretend that statements like: "I'll be the first to tell you that he's just a man. Imperfect like the rest of us. " "I understand why he has more influence over BHO than you or I." "I mean I didn't even call you a racist. (Imagine how much self control that took!) Uh, you're not, are you?" constitute criticism. They are just pertulent and insolent comebacks with no discussion merit whatsoever. ___________ "I mean I didn't even call you a racist. (Imagine how much self control that took!) Uh, you're not, are you?" It seems you don't exercise much control over an inclination for name calling. But please don't let me keep you from ventilating. I have been called worse ("Goebbels, Nazi, antisemite) by posters much more intelligent than you (like roi) ...

- noga1

April 25, 2010 at 5:13pm

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

"No doubt what seems like a lack of strategy is actually evidence that he must have a grand strategy." I have certainly never said this. What I have said was that it seems to me -- and I've no special knowledge or qualifications or access -- that the strategy in relation to Iran consists of three elements: (a) restoration of American diplomatic influence where possible across the world; (b) an attempt to peel off those countries -- Syria being the obvious one -- that form a kind of protective armor for the Iranian regime, (c) an attempt to get a grip on the wider problem of nuclear proliferation by reinvigorating thinking about global control of nuclear weapons and materials. There is evidence for each of those elements -- if I've made that deduction, so can others. This doesn't say, of course, that all will be successful, with champagne corks popping. However, admitting that the world isn't just a script that one can rewrite for a more pleasant ending isn't the same as claiming that the lack of strategy is a grand strategy. Just as the fact that Obama has increased drone attacks against Al Qaeda and Taliban strongholds -- with some results, also -- is always ignored by those who impute to Obama some kind of lack of willpower to take the war to the enemy, the obvious intent of the steps the administration has taken in regard to Iran is obviously an uncomfortable fact that just gets in the way of other people's fairy tales.

- ironyroad

April 25, 2010 at 5:24pm

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

Check out http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/if-you-shoot-at-a-king-you-must-kill-him-15418 . Bottom line, forget the weapons, it's the regime. If other methods fail to stop the regime from getting the bomb, take out the Revolutionary Guards and the Basijis and then let the people do the rest to bring down the regime. As for the Palestinians, I agree Fatah has at best one foot in the revolutionary camp and one in the accommodation camp and that even if they were serious about making peace, that Hamas' influence would limit their effect. However, does that mean that Israel should not try to convince the Palestinian people that if there was an election tomorrow that they should vote for a party that is truly devoted to accommodation?

- sighthnd

April 25, 2010 at 5:27pm

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

ironyroad: Since my statement was made in the passive voice I wonder why you automatically assumed I was speaking about anything you said. I had not even read your comment (the best way for keeping myself from responding to you, since we seem to be at loggerheads whenever we talk about Obama).

- noga1

April 25, 2010 at 5:34pm

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

Noga: "And that's the breadth and depth of your critical wits?" My point was that if I simplify what I feel like BHO is trying to do, then you are just as much simplifying what he's failing to do. Damn man, criticize him all you want, but could you do a better job? You're not impressed with the man's intellect, and somehow I've alluded to him as some kind of messiah. Have I only shown breadth and depth if I agree with you? "I ... am not being swayed by his admirers who keep reassuring me that he must have some secret plan very deep in his heart and mind which the time is not yet ripe to reveal to mere mortals. No doubt what seems like a lack of strategy is actually evidence that he must have a grand strategy." We keep amusing each other then. The above is a tad hyperbolic. If that's your argument, does the converse not apply to those who insist that BHO has revealed his "true" purpose that "Israel is expendable"? (A ludicrous point, btw) My point here is not that he has some "grand strategy," but he's doing the best he can day to day. (I'm assuming there's not enough depth and breadth in that statement to rebut the fantastic depth and breadth of the statement that BHO has no "grand strategy.") But, you'll excuse me if I'm not swayed by those who are convinced that this man has no idea what he's doing. You can say that all you want, you can believe that all you want, but what would YOUR "grand strategy" be? Criticize. Criticize all you want. But isn't pure criticism just cynicism?

- jmarshall

April 25, 2010 at 5:40pm

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

FYI Noga: The "racist" comments were jokes, and mistakenly attributed to you, when I should have been (and did) respond to Dubs.

- jmarshall

April 25, 2010 at 5:43pm

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

no irony, I think noga was paraphrasing jmarshall with that strategy quote. I think you got the basics of Obama's strategy for Iran, although I do believe Obama's recent mix-it-up with Israel is a deliberate move to de-link nuclear Iran from the threat it poses to Israel. Not the only motivation for the mix-it-up. And Netanyahu had to play his part in protesting the de-linkage. Because, in the end, no one will care about a nuclear Iran if it mostly threatens Israel. Just like no one cares about a nuclear North Korea that only threatens South Korea. Russia and China fear chaos in North Korea far more, and Japan is to South Korea what Saudi Arabia is to Israel in terms of American interests and alliances. (except the Koreans will unite before they forgive Japan) All of Iran's neighbors fear a nuclear Iran, best to re-focus the issue away from Israel. hard to watch the decline of American power in super-super-super-slow-mo, not that I mind the day when America stops being the naval and military policeman for so much of the world. a shame someone still has to do it. if only all we had to worry about were pirates! My goodness, Obama managed to get both the Armenians and the Turks upset by saying Meds Yeghem (Great Catastrophe) instead of Aghet (genocide) yesterday. From Turkey's Hurriyet: "...The Turkish Coalition of America said Obama's statement did not address "the equally tragic loss of even more Muslim lives in that turbulent period of Ottoman history." “Where does the ethnic cleansing of Ottoman Turks from the Balkans, Eastern Turkey and the Caucasus – with 5 million lost and 5.5 million refugees – come on the president's list of 'worst atrocities of the 20th century?"' asked G. Lincoln McCurdy, chief of the coalition. ..."

- K2K

April 25, 2010 at 5:49pm

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

And to the 3 comments being petulant and insolent: "I'll be the first to tell you that he's just a man. Imperfect like the rest of us. " "I understand why he has more influence over BHO than you or I." "I mean I didn't even call you a racist. (Imagine how much self control that took!) Uh, you're not, are you?" #1 Was a response to the idea that I accept nothing but adulation. How else should I have said that? #2 I thought was pretty damned true. You and I can argue all we want, but again, there's a reason the WH doesn't call you or I. #3 A joke. Honestly. That's petulant and insolent?

- jmarshall

April 25, 2010 at 5:50pm

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

marshall to noga: "I mean I didn't even call you a racist. (Imagine how much self control that took!) Uh, you're not, are you?" "...mistakenly attributed to you, when I should have been (and did) respond to Dubs." marshall to Dub: It was YOU I didn't call a racist. Sorry. You're not are you?" _________________ I think you are a bit entangled in your own verbosity.

- noga1

April 25, 2010 at 5:55pm

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

jdmarshall: since the Iranian people are curently far more worried about a massive earthquake, it is a relief that the Ayotollahs in power think immodest women and lax morals will be to blame, while the opposition thinks the Revolutionary Guard will somehow activate the tectonic plates, (perhaps with the American bunker buster bombs currently at Diego Garcia?) BTW, I am an American voter who tends to agree with noga about Obama. his inexperience and naivete in foreign relations are still masking his secret powers to heal the world :) see you all some other time...

- K2K

April 25, 2010 at 5:56pm

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

CORRECTION: jdmarshall: since the Iranian people are currently far more worried about a massive earthquake, it is a relief that the Ayotollahs in power think immodest women and lax morals will be to blame, while the opposition thinks the Revolutionary Guard will somehow activate the tectonic plates, and everyone in Iran seems to think a massive earthquake will protect them from ANY military assault... the rest stands as saved.

- K2K

April 25, 2010 at 5:58pm

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

Noga: "I think you are a bit entangled in your own verbosity." And here I thought I was entangled in your verbosity ...

- jmarshall

April 25, 2010 at 6:06pm

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

K2K: I actually believe that BHO has secret powers that can heal the world :)

- jmarshall

April 25, 2010 at 6:09pm

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

Ok Noga, fair enough. I made the connection because I thought we'd had exactly that exchange in the past -- but maybe I was confusing things. I certainly agree you didn't reference me here. I don't think what I said was so confrontational, though -- was it? It doesn't read that way to me but one isn't always a good judge of one. I did want to point out where I think facts are ignored, however, as it's only been a few days since my point about the efficacy drone campaign seemed to be just passed over in silence on a different thread in which the wildest nonsense was being posted.

- ironyroad

April 25, 2010 at 6:09pm

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

. . . the efficacy OF THE drone campaign . . .

- ironyroad

April 25, 2010 at 6:10pm

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

I don't think the fracas over Jerusalem has anything to do with Iran. Far-fetched to say the least, and an idiotic way of conveying anything about Iran to the government of Israel. I believe that the point of Obama's position and public diplomacy on Jerusalem was not, as the shallow-minded like Martin Peretz think, that he believed Netanyahu would move. It was to put Netanyahu and Israel on public notice that, contrary to what have become long-standing Israeli assumptions about what will emerge in a peace treaty, Obama does not accept Israel's territorial goals and claims (including with regard to Jerusalem) as being of any particular importance and does not intend to use US power to defend them. Thus, if a peace plan were on the table that called for a final settlement of all claims, mutual recognition, and addressed the security issues (chiefly the Jordan river line and access to Gaza) and demographic issues (no or very limited Palestinian right of return), territory that Israel wants east of the Green Line is not a US concern or interest. If Netanyahu were not as stupid as he gives every evidence of being, he would realize that Obama has just set a clock running. He is giving Netanyahu and Israel time to get to the table and make a deal with the Palestinians that realizes some of their territorial objectives, if they can, before Obama starts pressing a US plan that could easily become a UN plan and then irresistible. Netanyahu should take the hint and get moving. Instead, he appears stuck in his own past and will likely do nothing useful. Israel, talking to itself, has grown accustomed to thinking that all these matters are within its control and that such policies as the long-standing US refusal to recognize Israeli claims in Jerusalem are merely rhetorical, that Israel's positions on such questions will ultimately prevail. Time to think again.

- roidubouloi

April 25, 2010 at 7:11pm

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

The whole notion of a military option in Iran is both fatuous and pernicious. Of course we have the power to force Iran to yield if we are willing to pay the price, but the price is very steep. On a total war footing, we can field an armed forces of 40 million. What fraction of that would we be prepared to build up to in order to invade and occupy Iran? Because the chance that an air campaign would do the job is quite low. And there will be no worse outcome than both attacking Iran and failing to frustrate its nuclear ambitions. There is, however, a much lower price than any plausible military burden that would succeed in forcing Iran to desist -- doing without its oil on world markets. Are we willing to pay that price? If the discussion were the least bit serious, that is where it would focus. We may not have the capacity to bomb Iran's nuclear program out of existence, but we do have the ability, with or without international cooperation, to interdict its oil. Again, the price of doing so without international cooperation would be enormous. Are we willing to bear that price? All the chatter about military options is but a distraction. Serious people would not bother with this.

- roidubouloi

April 25, 2010 at 7:32pm

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

irony: you try very hard to not be confrontational. so many valid points deserving of a reasoned debate are "passed over in silence on a different thread in which the wildest nonsense was being posted." curious phenom, eh? something about Peretz? jmarshall: "I actually believe that BHO has secret powers that can heal the world :)" Yes He Does, and they are activated by nicotine, so, I say, start smoking more cigarettes! Perhaps the raging partisan flamewars correlate with the advent of anti-smoking legislation and the disproportionate tax burden placed on the most persecuted minority in the U.S.A.: cigarette smokers. Syria just banned smoking in public places. Assad's days are numbered :)

- K2K

April 25, 2010 at 7:41pm

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

Roid, you say, " It was to put Netanyahu and Israel on public notice that, contrary to what have become long-standing Israeli assumptions about what will emerge in a peace treaty, Obama does not accept Israel's territorial goals and claims (including with regard to Jerusalem) as being of any particular importance and does not intend to use US power to defend . . . . " I just don't see that happening while Barack's in office. God knows when it will happen. You have Chuck Shcumer (a really nice man, according to my husband, who summer-interened with him in high school), basically giving the AIPAC party line. He is willing to take no chance for being re-elected, especially in an environment such as it is now (tea-partyers, etc.). There is no one in the house or senate who will go out on a limb. And we're not just talking Israel. Look at what McCain is willing to say to get re-elected. He's talking as if he has no history in the senate, as if his bipartisan immigration plan never happened. People are scared right now.

- MOLLYSIMON

April 25, 2010 at 7:51pm

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

...if a peace plan were on the table that called for a final settlement of all claims, mutual recognition, and addressed the security issues (chiefly the Jordan river line and access to Gaza) and demographic issues (no or very limited Palestinian right of return)... ...He is giving Netanyahu and Israel time to get to the table and make a deal with the Palestinians that realizes some of their territorial objectives... What I'm missing here is that even if Netanyahu sincerely pursued such a plan--some say he is willing to, some say he's just playing at it--how does he accomplish it? Olmert offered what's set out here and didn't get a reply from Abbas and he and Livni pursed negotiations for a more than a year towards these ends and got nowhere. It seem to me that of what peretz says at least this is the case: ".... What no one has ever shown is that a cohesive and coherent Palestinian authority is ready to live with Israel...." What's the argument or prescription the other way that takes into account Palestinian passivity, intransigeance and "fissiparous"ness?

- basman

April 25, 2010 at 8:27pm

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

basman, "What's the argument or prescription the other way that takes into account Palestinian passivity, intransigeance and "fissiparous"ness?" Abbas is going to consult the Arab League this week, before his visit to the White House. Which is meaningless as long as Abbas and Fayyad remain unelected by the West Bank Palestinians. And, who is calling for Palestinian elections? No one. The entire Obama 'peace in the Middle East in two years' initiative looks like a bad Broadway show in previews because one co-star has not yet been cast, and the director is otherwise engaged (Iraq and Af-Pak).

- K2K

April 25, 2010 at 8:41pm

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

Molly, You may well be right. However, the president does not need the consent of the Senate to conduct foreign policy. If, for example, he declared that US policy was a particular peace plan, other world forces might start to coalesce around that as the best achievable deal for the Palestinians, recognizing that any UN-sponsored plan has to get by the US. If it did become a consensus plan, then sooner or later it gets embodied in a Security Council resolution. Over time, I think Israel would be forced to accept unless it really did pose an existential threat. Possibly there would be some negotiation for Israel to avoid taking the plan "as is." This is less likely to happen before November 2012, but Obama, being a smart guy, knows he needs to start shaping expectations well in advance. There is, of course, absolutely no assurance that Netanyahu can successfully negotiate anything with the Palestinians. In my opinion, Obama is not saying that he expects that to happen. What he is telling Israel is that, if it wants a negotiated deal, it has to go get one, paying whatever price for that it is willing to pay. If it doesn't succeed, then eventually there will be a plan that is not negotiated but imposed, and that plan will not necessarily accept Israeli territorial claims, even in Jerusalem. Hence, it is up to the government of Israel to do what it can to get an outcome it prefers. Not Obama's problem. I find it very surprising that so many of the self-proclaimed "friends of Israel" find it hard to imagine that the Great Powers could impose a solution if they were in agreement about it. Of course they can (as with Iran). The trick is getting their agreement. The Great Powers created Israel over the objections of the Arabs. They drew the borders of Europe and much of the world. They had the power then, they have it now, institutionalized in the UN Security Council. That Israel, the very result of such Great Power politics, could doubt the ability of the Great Powers to impose their will is ironic to say the least.

- roidubouloi

April 25, 2010 at 9:42pm

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

". . . and the director is otherwise engaged (Iraq and Af-Pak)." Unfortunately those shows are not on in a distant city, but in theaters around the corner, and the audiences and casts often mingle after the curtain. Much as many people don't like it, reviewers often lump them together. Not to forget the Iran Circus either, drawing bigger crowds at times in a nearby park.

- ironyroad

April 25, 2010 at 10:07pm

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

MOLLYSIMON “I just don't see that happening while Barack's in office. God knows when it will happen. You have Chuck Shcumer (a really nice man, according to my husband, who summer-interened with him in high school), basically giving the AIPAC party line.” Party line? What party line. This is pretty funny. Schumer was always pro Israel even as a Congressman. He also a leading member of AIPAC, which drives antisemites crazy, and he has helped shape AIPAC’s “party line.” Obama’s Israel policy, on the other hand, has had the opposite consequences of what he intended. Aside from alienating many American pro Israel voters it hasn’t advanced the peace process. In fact it gave the PA another excuse not to restart the peace talks and above all it has strengthened Netanyahu’s position in Israel. Aside from a few Obamadnicks who have drunk the cool aid, very few leading Democrats outside his inner circle have signed on to his Israel policy.

- jdyer

April 25, 2010 at 10:10pm

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

This threads, btw, is about Iran and not Israel. Here is something to think about: "The Pentagon submitted a report to Congress containing the claim that Iran could develop an intercontinental ballistic missile by 2015. Ah, the dreaded could. Section 1245 of the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act required the Department of Defense to submit a report to Congress on Iran’s military power, similar to the annual Report on the Military Power of the People’s Republic of China. The report is rather plain — here is the full text. The report looks rather more like the initial editions of Chinese Military Power in 1998 and 1999, before CMP evolved into the giant full-color extravaganza that evokes the old Soviet Military Power in its heyday." .... read the rest here: http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/2707/iranian-icbm-by-2015

- jdyer

April 25, 2010 at 10:18pm

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

....Obama is not saying that he expects that to happen. What he is telling Israel is that, if it wants a negotiated deal, it has to go get one, paying whatever price for that it is willing to pay. If it doesn't succeed, then eventually there will be a plan that is not negotiated but imposed, and that plan will not necessarily accept Israeli territorial claims, even in Jerusalem. Hence, it is up to the government of Israel to do what it can to get an outcome it prefers. Not Obama's problem.... This can't be right. And it seems incoherent. What can it mean to say "pay any price that it is willing to pay"? There are some prices Israel will not, cannot, pay and those prices may be necessary conditions for any Arab agreement. If Israel in good faith pursues and is seen to pursue a just peace and can't close it or even get cose to it due to Arab passivity, intransigeance and "fissiparous"ness, where they are obvious, I can't see any American leader, including Obama, allowing or being allowed to allow, an unjust peace being imposed on Israel (stipulating for the sake of argument that such a thing could be done) either as a matter of principle or practical politics. (I in fact have read Obama to have said recently that no peace is possible unless the immediate parties want it.) Moreover, if such an outcome-an inevitably posed peace-- is foreseeably likely, even if I can't foresee it, peace will never happen because the Arab calculation will be their interests reside in waiting for the inevitable imposed peace to be imposed.

- basman

April 25, 2010 at 10:30pm

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

"This threads, btw, is about Iran and not Israel." Oh, this one? The one entitled, "The Iranian Calamity And The President’s Obsession With A Little Street In Jerusalem?" * * * "And it seems incoherent. What can it mean to say "pay any price that it is willing to pay"? There are some prices Israel will not, cannot, pay and those prices may be necessary conditions for any Arab agreement." The point is not that Obama expects Israel to pay any price. The point is that Obama does not know, and cannot know, how far Israel is willing to go to achieve a negotiated settlement. The only way to find out is to give Israel as much incentive as possible to pay as a high price as Israel is willing to pay. Israel can continue to gamble that it can wait indefinitely with "no peace, no war." Or it can start doing whatever it can figure out to do that achieves a settlement it is willing to live with. In the absence of an agreement, the US may decide that it wants to impose a settlement, and it likely has the power to do so because other powers probably want even more for the Palestinians. If they are convinced that they cannot get more than the US will accept and they can live with it, they have the incentive to go along. The Palestinians can also gamble that an imposed solution will be more to their liking than what they can get from the Israelis, but the cannot be sure about that either. And they have to be concerned that if they are the ones who frustrate negotiations that that will be taken into account. Fortunately for the Palestinians, Netanyahu doesn't have the brains to put them on the spot by cooperating with the US. In the end, the Palestinians may not be that concerned about an imposed solution on the theory that it can't be worse than what Israel has offered. If it is imposed, then they don't have to bear the political responsibility for conceding Palestinian claims. But that also isn't Obama's problem. He is simply saying to Netanyahu that a negotiated deal ought to be more important to Netanyahu than it is to the US and that a deal imposed by the UN may very well not accept Israeli territorial claims, including Jerusalem, particularly since the world at large, including the US, has never accpeted Israeli claims in Jerusalem. Obama is saying that Netanyahu had better take that standing policy seriously when contemplating what he wants to do or not. * * * Beyond this, Obama is a very good politician. I think he understands that he has to be the protagonist and keep pressure up on all of those around him. If he doesn't keep moving and keep moving the agenda, he becomes a sitting duck. He had a sharp reminder of the vulnerability of stasis during the drawn-out healthcare debate. Politics, well played, is a dance between leading, following, and trying to channel public opinion. Some things are done just as probes, to gauge whether and how opinion, nationally and internationally, can be moved. When things are in motion, you can see possibilities that were not evident when nothing was moving.

- roidubouloi

April 25, 2010 at 10:56pm

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

What would constitute an "unjust peace" is ultimately about public opinion. Most important in this regard is America public opinion, followed by world public opinion. The opinions of Israelis and Arabs are of the least importance -- other than a calculation of what they will in the end live with -- because it is a given that neither will think that an imposed settlement is just. It is important to understand who is the audience. The "friends of Israel" carry on about how Obama has alienated Israeli public opinion. If he weren't, then he would for sure be getting nowhere. Of course, the converse is not necessarily the case.

- roidubouloi

April 25, 2010 at 11:03pm

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

basman: another, better written, answer to Peretz's point "What no one has ever shown is that a cohesive and coherent Palestinian authority is ready to live with Israel." is indirectly found in that subversive publication, The New Yorker. Nicholas Lemann tackles "Terrorism Studies" by synthesizing seven post-2001 books. His conclusion emphasizes the importance of a state in control of it's territory, which the Palestinians do not yet have because of their own internal divisions. Lemann's sources are very interesting, including the "Management of Barbarism" available at Al Qaeda's online library (I wonder if it is in English?). BTW, Egypt tried to broker national elections for the Palestinians for June, but Hamas refused. Local council elections for the West Bank were announced today for July, which looks like Fayyad's move to further improve his legitmacy as a pragmatic Palestinian leader. in Lemann's words: "...Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan all have pro-American governments that are weak. They don’t have firm control over the area within their borders, and they lack the sort of legitimacy that would make terrorism untempting. Now that General Petraeus is the head of the Central Command and has authority over American troops in the region, our forces could practice all that he has preached, achieve positive results, and still be unable to leave, because there is no national authority that can be effective against terrorism. ... States still matter most. ..." I am a subscriber so am not sure it is available online to all, but Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2010/04/26/100426crbo_books_lemann?currentPage=all#ixzz0mAhSNQ7M

- K2K

April 25, 2010 at 11:21pm

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

jackson: I think your concept of one international law for great powers and one for small ones needs to be expanded to more categories, e.g., The Pariahs: Zimbabwe, Burma, North Korea. Almost Ungoverned States: Somalia, Yemen, Montenegro. Really Bad British Mapmaking States: Sudan, Iraq, Pakistan, Kashmir. Going Underwater and Really Angry states: Maldives, Bangladesh, bits of Micronesia, maybe Florida in time for 2012. Israel gets it's own category: Democratic advanced economy with too many Jews.

- K2K

April 25, 2010 at 11:41pm

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

K2K "jackson: I think your concept of one international law for great powers and one for small ones needs to be expanded to more categories, e.g., The Pariahs: Zimbabwe, Burma, North Korea." Most of the countries you mentioned have natural allies and protectors. Besides none of these countries are in danger of being eliminated from the world map. The worst thing that could happen to them (or best) is to have regime change. There will always be a Burma or a Yemen even if the leaders and their regimes fall from power. Israel is.

- jdyer

April 26, 2010 at 1:25am

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

"Fayyad wants us to give him more territory, seemingly one needed for “independence.” He also wants us to continue serving as his excuse for not investing the funds at his disposal in development – each report he submits to the World Bank is replete with excuses as to why the development funds had not been fully used. Would you like to guess who he blames? " http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3879870,00.html

- noga1

April 26, 2010 at 8:22am

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

jackson: the only reason China and Russia "protect" North Korea is because of their fear of the alternative to the present 'government'. The idea of an U.S. imposed peace and borders on Israel eventually being validated by the UN Security Council is so preposterous that satire is the only cure. as to Fayyad? I assume his announcement of council elections on Sunday was Mitchell's idea over the weekend.

- K2K

April 26, 2010 at 8:41am

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

From the same article linked above: "Salam Fayyad has been stating time and again that he is working towards declaring independence across all “occupied territories” in August 2011. He says that although he is willing to engage in negotiations with Israel, he does not view this as a requirement for Palestine’s establishment. The Palestinians demand the application of international laws on self-determination, he says, adding that Israel is not the only player in this game. Fayyad has also threatened to act unilaterally: 'We are not relinquishing negotiations as a method to establish a state, but in case this doesn't work we are preparing for a second possibility – to turn our dream into a reality.'" * * * A Palestinian state is coming, and it is going to change the game. Israel and friends seem unable even to think about what the world reaction is going to be and how this will likely evolve very much not within Israel's control. They seem to think some apartments for haredim in East Jerusalem are the most important question facing Israel in its relations with the Palestinians and the world. Someday, when the history is written, we will read about the monumental hubris and stupidity with which Israel squandered its time and opportunity.

- roidubouloi

April 26, 2010 at 9:01am

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

The idea of Israel's borders within the area that was Mandatory Palestine being set by the Security Council with the approval of the General Assembly is not only not "preposterous," but likely. The people who think this outcome preposterous know nothing of history, certainly not the history of Israel, which is itself a creation of the UN. Whatever history they may read, they plainly understand nothing. The area outside the Jewish partition is in effect still a UN protectorate which is why Jerusalem has never been recognized as Israel's possession or capital. That is not the provision of the Partition Plan. The UN did not poof out of existence after partitioning Palestine or lose interest. If Israel does not negotiate its borders, they will be set by other powers, as they were at the inception. It is only a matter of time, and the time is approaching.

- roidubouloi

April 26, 2010 at 9:07am

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

When did implementation of decisions become a core competency of the United Nations?

- K2K

April 26, 2010 at 9:46am

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

Those who imagine that the UN is primarily some type of corporation with "competencies" and "incompetencies" miss the forest and the trees. The UN does have corporate bodies affiliated with it and, as to those, it can be appropriate to consider their competency. However, the main bodies of the UN are political structures, not organizations. They exist to confer legitimacy on acts of power that would be taken with or without the UN, withhold legitimacy from acts that are taken without the UN, and to create in part the illusion and in part the reality that power is being exercised lawfully. Because the Great Powers exist with or without the UN and have power with or without the UN, they, particularly the US, insisted at the outset that no action of the key body, the Security Council, the could be taken over the objection of any permanent member. So, of course, when the permanent members do not agree, nothing can happen, as the US learned again to its frustration in the run-up to the Iraq war. However, if the permanent members do agree, then it is a perfect storm for anyone in the way. All the power, structural, military, and economic, is then aligned in the same direction, with no Great Power patron to stand in the way. The question is simply the extent of the will of the permanent members should they encounter defiance. In Israel's case, it would be completely unthinkable, and unnecessary, to threaten the use of force. Israel cannot endure and would not risk economic sanctions. It is too small and too lacking in the elements for a complete economy, i.e., much too dependent for its existence upon its commerce with the world. It doesn't require that much in the way of competence to impose sanctions on a nation as small as Israel with its geography.

- roidubouloi

April 26, 2010 at 10:10am

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

Masada. The Israeli population is increasingly non-Western. Not hard to see a complete militarization in the face of U.N. idiocy, not that Russia in particular, or China would go along with any such U.N. idiocy. The U.N. would fracture, and the Democratic Party in the U.S. would disappear faster than the Whigs did. Masada. too many BSDs here.

- K2K

April 26, 2010 at 10:20am

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

"... Israel, which is itself a creation of the UN." That's way of viewing the Zionist Project. The Obama way. Roi has completely given in to historical revisionism and small wonder. His future relies on convincing fellow-traveling Americans (like NDMackenzie) that he can hate Israel as much as anyone and is willing to break its will to withstand terrorism and threats of annihilation. He is willing to do his part in turning Israel into a Warsaw Ghetto. The wonder is how he can delude himself to imagine that he is doing it out of love for Israel. What Israel does he love? Which Israel does he love? No Israeli is afraid of a Palestinian State. So I find roi's menacing tone in "A Palestinian state is coming, and it is going to change the game" a bit puzzling. It sounds as menacing as Yeats's monstrous beast, "A shape with lion body and the head of a man, A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun, Is moving its slow thighs... And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?" Woe to such state that its creation is the stuff of such nightmares. With all due respect to roi's nephew whom he often cites as the source for his "insider information" or whatever, there are other Israelis with clear, sober and creative minds to hear, read and interpret events and facts. And they have a lot more at stake than roi, who seems to think this is just a game of joust, shove and slander. Here is what I think about your legalistic mind, roi and your way of applying "International Law". According to Nazi laws, Jews were not allowed to take public transportation, or sit on public benches. Any Jew caught in the act was brought before a judge who being a judge enforced the law. The fact that there was such a law does not render the judgement and its enforcer any less egregious, immoral, anti-human. If "International Law" will be applied in such a way as to endanger or debase, the life of 6 million Israeli Jews, then "International Law" cannot be any more moral than a Nazi law. And I find it extremely hard to believe that the world powers will cooperate in such a travesty of justice, no matter how much they may crave Arab oil.

- noga1

April 26, 2010 at 10:55am

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

April 25, 2010 Pro-Israel "Obama - Stop Pressuring Israel" rally in New York City: "...A formidable contingent of Hindu and Sikh supporters of Israel was also present at the rally. "We understand all to well that a policy of appeasement towards Islamic radicalism will never bring peace to Israel or the civilized world, declared Satya Dosapati of the Hindu Human Rights Watch. "As Hindus, we have been massacred by Muslims for thousands of years. If President Obama really believes that isolating and demonizing Israel and publicly humiliating Israel's prime minister is not emboldening our Islamic enemies, then something is really wrong. Israel is a peace seeking nation and we unequivocally support their right to their homeland. The world must realize that if Israel falls then the entire world will come under the domination of a blood thirsty Islamic caliphate", he continued. ... Rabbi Yaakov Spivak of Monsey, NY, a longtime Jewish activist, radio talk show host and a Daily News columnist intoned, "President Obama, we're here today to tell you something. In Warsaw, they told Jews where we could build, in Lodz they told Jews where we could build, in Paris they told Jews where we could build. You will never tell us where to build in Jerusalem. We are home and Israel is our country. You are not our landlord and we are neither a vassal state nor a banana republic. Our mandate to be here today is none other than our holy Tanach, our bible which says, 'For the sake of Zion I will not be silent and for the sake of Jerusalem I will not be quiet." "The Jewish people are G-d's chosen people" said Rev. Michael Faulkner, an African American minister representing the New Horizon Church. "I remind those in the Obama administration that those who bless the Jewish people will be blessed and those who curse the Jewish people will be cursed. Israel is the only stable, democratic ally in the Middle East and this relationship must be preserved and protected. The strength of the land of Israel and the Jewish people lies with their G-d and I call upon all Jews to return to the mandate of the Almighty G-d of Israel and His holy Torah" he said ..." copied from journalist Fran Sidman's coverage of the event, putting the New York Times to shame: http://www.5tjt.com/international-news/6946-thousands-rally-for-israel-in-nyc.html

- K2K

April 26, 2010 at 11:07am

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

K2K: Masada is no longer an option for Jews. You may want to browse this long forgotten book by Yehoshafat Harkabi. He was the historian who translated the Palestinian Charter and brought it into Israel's public awareness. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yehoshafat_Harkabi http://books.google.ca/books?id=rb00WGipKCIC&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=Yehoshafat+Harkabi+the+masada&source=bl&ots=fBbNvY1HQL&sig=2lD6QkP9CKzduiWdsK0thvQrR1A&hl=en&ei=MqvVS7vNC8L58AaE55CzDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

- noga1

April 26, 2010 at 11:10am

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

I was wondering if my reading of roi's Jeremiads might be perverted through my own nogaish lenses so I decided to check up on myself. I copied and pasted roi's comments here and sent them to a person who is a scientist with a cool, realistic and analytical mind. I asked him to tell me how he assesses the person who wrote these excerpts. A man of few words, my scientist friend told me: Full of hot air, an Obama aficionado, America the great and overflowing with contempt for Israel. A Jew? I asked him if he can discern any love for Israel among the words, somewhere. - No, only contempt.

- noga1

April 26, 2010 at 11:24am

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

Correction: K2K: Masada is no longer an option for Jews. If it ever was. You may want to browse this long forgotten book by Yehoshafat Harkabi. He was the historian who translated the Palestinian Charter and brought it into Israel's public awareness. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yehoshafat_Harkabi The book: The Bar Kochva Syndrome: Risk and Realism in International Politics http://books.google.ca/books?id=rb00WGipKCIC&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=Yehoshafat+Harkabi+the+masada&source=bl&ots=fBbNvY1HQL&sig=2lD6QkP9CKzduiWdsK0thvQrR1A&hl=en&ei=MqvVS7vNC8L58AaE55CzDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false It's an online book.

- noga1

April 26, 2010 at 11:27am

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

There are those here who are completely incapable of distinguishing between positive and normative statements. Indeed, I rather doubt that the even know what the difference is. Thus, any positive statement about the world that is invariably taken as a statement about what the world should be. If the world that is is not to the liking of the confused reader, then any description of it is taken as an expression of hatred or malign purpose. This confusion would be but a curious affectation so long as it is confined to those who have no responsibility for any real-world outcome. For anyone who does have such responsibility or the ability to influence an outcome, the affectation becomes a disastrous flaw. It would appear that many in Israel are similarly confused. A Palestinian state is coming soon, with or without Israel's consent. The existence of such a state is going to limit, and then eliminate, Israel's unilateral ability to maintain the status quo. Thoughtful people who care about the outcome will want to think about the implications of that. The rest just want to indulge themselves and their self-righteousness. Such people are useless in a battle, be it a real one, a political one, or one that partakes of both. Plus, they are boring to listen to because they can never speak to the problem, only to the state of their own emotions.

- roidubouloi

April 26, 2010 at 11:27am

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

As linked above: "Yehoshafat Harkabi (Hebrew: יהושפט הרכבי, born 1921; died 1994) was chief of Israeli military intelligence from 1955 until 1959. He is known primarily for his gradual development from uncompromising hardliner to supporter of a Palestinian state and of recognising the PLO as a negotiations partner. . . . In what is perhaps his most well-known work, Israel's Fateful Hour, Harkabi described himself as a "Machiavellian dove" intent on searching "for a policy by which Israel can get the best possible settlement of the conflict in the Middle East" (1988, p. xxv) - a policy that would include a Zionism "of quality and not of acreage" (p. 225)." I confess that I have until now been completely unaware of Harkabi, but, based on the above description, I am sure that I will like what he has to say. I wish there were about a million of him in Israel.

- roidubouloi

April 26, 2010 at 11:35am

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

Ha, ha, ha, remote diagnosis by a friend of noga. Any friend of noga could only be as demented as she, scientist or not. No remotely sane person could possibly put up with such craziness.

- roidubouloi

April 26, 2010 at 11:37am

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

It is the self-declared "friends of Israel" who are bound and determined to turn it into the Warsaw Ghetto and then see it destroyed. They claim to do this out of love, and I believe in their love. Unfortunately, their understanding of the world is so limited and so distorted by their ghetto mentality -- characterized principally by fatalism and a lack of self-regard and sense of agency -- that they are bringing upon Israel the very outcome that they of course view with horror.

- roidubouloi

April 26, 2010 at 11:42am

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

"I confess that I have until now been completely unaware of Harkabi," Yes, like you were not aware that Israel won the Six-day-war with French made fighterjets, not American ones. Since Harkabi was so important in influencing change in Israeli awareness I wonder what else you don't know that anyone as confident and loudmouthed as you are should know before speaking like some rabid dog about Israel and Israelis.

- noga1

April 26, 2010 at 11:47am

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

No matter, it appears that the Sikhs and the fundamentalist Christians will save us.

- roidubouloi

April 26, 2010 at 11:50am

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

Oh my god! I did fail to recall when deliveries of Phantoms began. My recollection of them put to good use was of 1973, not 1967. Mea culpa. I am unaware of many things, but have a pretty good grasp of what I do and don't know (despite at times confusing dates, unlike most people who have eidetic memory of same). Then there are those who cannot even understand the words on the page before them, let alone keep track of what they do and do not know. Mostly they don't care what they know. They care how they feel and how everyone else feels. They live in a delusional state in which they imagine that outcomes will be determined by their feelings. This is a form of madness.

- roidubouloi

April 26, 2010 at 11:56am

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

"Ha, ha, ha, remote diagnosis by a friend of noga. Any friend of noga could only be as demented as she, scientist or not. No remotely sane person could possibly put up with such craziness." If you really thought so, you would not have responded in this manner, roi. When you do, you reveal that you have no respect for other readers' judgement. Clearly, you do not trust them to conclude, from the available material, that I am demented and no friend of mine could possible be sane and clear-minded.

- noga1

April 26, 2010 at 11:59am

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

"No matter, it appears that the Sikhs and the fundamentalist Christians will save us." sorry, the Roid Crew is already assigned to latrine duty in Gaza under article 666 of the Zionist-Hindu-Crusader charter, for as long as Hamas is the government of the Palestinian State of Hamastan.

- K2K

April 26, 2010 at 12:01pm

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

"If "International Law" will be applied in such a way as to endanger or debase, the life of 6 million Israeli Jews, then "International Law" cannot be any more moral than a Nazi law. And I find it extremely hard to believe that the world powers will cooperate in such a travesty of justice, no matter how much they may crave Arab oil." To date, the world powers have declined to recognize Israel's claim to Jerusalem. Whether they have done so out of craving for Arab oil or for other reasons, I would not venture to say. But they haven't. Smart people want to think about what this may imply for the future and what should be done in that light. Bathetic people want bathos. They can invariably create a large enough supply for themselves and a small army, and do. It gives them a feeling, if not of happiness, at least of being a part of something of great, if tragic, importance.

- roidubouloi

April 26, 2010 at 12:02pm

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

No, no friend of yours could possibly be sane or clear-minded.

- roidubouloi

April 26, 2010 at 12:03pm

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

Meet Hamas: http://simplyjews.blogspot.com/2010/04/world-meet-hamas-gilad-shalit-clip.html I wonder what the UN experts on "International Law" and Geneva Convention have to say about this.

- noga1

April 26, 2010 at 12:05pm

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

"Bathetic people want bathos." No original term in your mind. It's all copies of copies. I suggest to you that your repeated, non-stop attempts to persuade readers that you are motivated by sheer logic and cold realism is rather undercut by your tortuous fulminations that bespeak of frightened emotionalism. A clear logical mind has no need for such piles of words, such a desperate need to convince others of the worthiness of the speaking subject.

- noga1

April 26, 2010 at 12:12pm

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

Obviously, if Hamas is a vicious terrorist organization bent on the destruction of Israel, then Israel is no longer subject to international law, including the Geneva Conventions to which it is a High Contracting Party. What else could one possibly say?

- roidubouloi

April 26, 2010 at 12:13pm

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

So right. In the future I shall quote Jane Austen, copiously. That is very persuasive. Bespeaks a clear mind. After all, what about the present shape of world affairs cannot be best understood through the lens of the manners and mores of English gentry of the late 18th century?

- roidubouloi

April 26, 2010 at 12:18pm

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

Beware the armies of the Republic of Pemberley.

- K2K

April 26, 2010 at 12:32pm

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

roid, I think the issue of Jane Austen is not the eighteenth century, but rather the ambition and ability of Austen to map the landscape of social interaction, involving as it does a complicated mix of emotional and intellectual needs, more finely and effectively than anyone before her. Noga has always used her Austen references (which I have to say I often don't get, as I haven't read her in a long time) in a controlled and succinct manner, with enough irony to make it clear that she (Noga) isn't claiming -- unlike the present-day teabaggers, I note in passing -- that eighteenth- or early nineteenth-century texts have in and of themselves all the answers to today's problems. What she (Noga) is suggesting, I think, is that Austen readers tend to find real-world dialogues and interactions (e.g. on TNR) strikingly reminiscent of passages in the novels, and go on to draw the reasonable conclusion that Austen's achievement is not just a portrayal of local manners but a more universal rendering of human behavior, its needs, desires, tricks, and self-delusions.

- ironyroad

April 26, 2010 at 1:16pm

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

"Obviously, if Hamas is a vicious terrorist organization bent on the destruction of Israel, then Israel is no longer subject to international law, including the Geneva Conventions to which it is a High Contracting Party. " If Hamas is a vicious terrorist organization bent on the destruction of Israel, then Israel cannot afford the luxury of obeying the strict letter of International law (which is controled by the very players who have great sympathy for Hamas, asin the UNHR Commission and the UNGA) as it is interpreted by the likes of roi and mini-roi. In Jane Austen's times, one could get capital punishment for stealing a loaf of bread for his hungry family. The fact that there is a law that forbids stealing does not mean that its strict application is moral or even rational. There are other interpretations for international law whose application can serve justice to both warring parties. But roi would have none of it. It is only the most draconian reading that is to be allowed in Israel's case while Palestinians are excused from any obligations under International Law (like declaring and following up on a commitment to peace).

- noga1

April 26, 2010 at 1:35pm

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

What's with this "she (Noga)" formulation?

- noga1

April 26, 2010 at 1:37pm

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

I thought there were too many "she's" in the sentence, so it was a rhetorical mechanism to distinguish between you and Jane Austen.

- ironyroad

April 26, 2010 at 1:57pm

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

Oh -- I see now that the second one was probably overkill. The first one seemed the best way to smooth out the sentence, however.

- ironyroad

April 26, 2010 at 1:59pm

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

"It is a truth universally acknowledged, [that] Austen readers tend to find real-world dialogues and interactions (e.g. on TNR) strikingly reminiscent of passages in the novels, and go on to draw the reasonable conclusion that Austen's achievement is not just a portrayal of local manners but a more universal rendering of human behavior, its needs, desires, tricks, and self-delusions." Irony gets Austen, whose novel renderings of human behaviour were the invention of the serious modern novel, all written between 1811 and 1817 (19h century), and live on in today's popular culture, e.g. "Bridget Jones' Diary" is to "Pride and Prejudice" as "Clueless" is to "Emma"

- K2K

April 26, 2010 at 1:59pm

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

Well, roi, tell us something we don't know about you. Normblog has a Friday feature profiling a variety of bloggers. Among other questions he asks: Who are your intellectual heroes? What are you reading at the moment? Who are your cultural heroes? What is the best novel you've ever read? What is your favourite poem? Would you oblige us by answering these questions and show us that there is a dimension to you other than the megaphonic bully?

- noga1

April 26, 2010 at 2:26pm

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

All very nice, irony, but in most instances besides the point. This is either the mentality that claims that nothing can be understood without a constant exploration of first principles, "It is not possible to understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or what can and should be done about those people over there firing rockets at us without first examining its history and rhetoric, and the symbolism of rockets, in light of Jungian archetypes," or someone who does not understand politics, power, history, war, law, international institutions, risk, uncertainty, game theory, negotiations, and anything else relevant that you might mention, struggling to interpret events in terms that are familiar, comforting, and seemingly understandable. In other words . . . Chauncey Gardner. The motivations at work are not that obscure and, if anything, the constant analogizing of states to people obscures far more than it illuminates. States are not people. They don't behave like people. The whole is more than the sum of its parts, or less. * * * "If Hamas is a vicious terrorist organization bent on the destruction of Israel, then Israel cannot afford the luxury of obeying the strict letter of International law (which is controlled by the very players who have great sympathy for Hamas, as in the UNHR Commission and the UNGA) as it is interpreted by the likes of roi and mini-roi." Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, the bona fide security needs of the Occupying Power pretty much trump everything else, within some boundaries. (You cannot for example line up non-combatants and shoot them on the theory that terrifying the local population will enhance security.) There are any number of places where the prohibitions about what can be done to the protected population are made explicitly subject to caveats in favor of security. Thus, if the settlements could plausibly be claimed to be for the purpose, and have the effect, of enhancing Israel's security, they would not be a violation. Thus, there is no conflict between Israel's bona fide security needs and the strict letter of international law. In fact, there is no plausible claim to be made that the settlements enhance security, that a bunch of mommies with eight children a piece living in the West Bank decrease the burdens of the Occupying Power or render it more secure. Just the reverse. The need to protect the vulnerable settlers planted in the West Bank increases the burdens of security for both Israel and for the Palestinians. The claim of a conflict between the requirements of international law and security is a false one. Likewise, the fact that Israel is subjected to violations of international law does not give it license to violate international law. The Palestinians are not excused, but their crimes do not justify Israel in violating international law. That indeed is exactly the argument the Palestinians and the ndmackenzies make, that Israeli violations of international law justify Palestininian violence. That is not the case either. The response to terrorist attacks is not, "Okay, then we can colonize the West Bank and keep on doing it until the terrorists desist." It would be if that were a way of fighting terrorism, but it isn't.

- roidubouloi

April 26, 2010 at 2:46pm

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

That Normblog feature is a hoot. If a Martian based a knowledge of humanity on it he would think Jane Austen to be the only novelist, George Orwell to be the only cultural hero - and that everyone used to be a Marxist but had finally seen the light and become a neo-conservative. Norm Geras really needs to increase the breadth of his reading. More importantly, he needs to ponder why we should trust someone who appears to be as wrong when he sits with the right as he was when he sat with the left.

- ndmackenzie

April 26, 2010 at 2:47pm

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

"That Normblog feature is a hoot." The Fox and the Grapes "One hot summer's day a Fox was strolling through an orchard till he came to a bunch of Grapes just ripening on a vine which had been trained over a lofty branch. "Just the thing to quench my thirst," quoth he. Drawing back a few paces, he took a run and a jump, and just missed the bunch. Turning round again with a One, Two, Three, he jumped up, but with no greater success. Again and again he tried after the tempting morsel, but at last had to give it up, and walked away with his nose in the air, saying: "I am sure they are sour. It is easy to despise what you cannot get... "

- noga1

April 26, 2010 at 2:54pm

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

roidubouloi writes: -- That indeed is exactly the argument the Palestinians and the ndmackenzies make, that Israeli violations of international law justify Palestininian violence. That is not the case either. This is a flat-out lie because I have never attempted to justify violence by either Israel or the Palestinians. The civilian colonization of the Occupied Palestinian Territories is explicitly a war crime that can not be justified by a state of war. The intent of the Fourth Geneva Convention is to specify the rights of civilians while under occupation. These rights are independent of whether or not there is an active war going on. As the internationally-recognized occupying power Israel has a right to militarily occupy the Palestinian Territories during a conflict but has absolutely no right to transfer civilians into the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The Israeli settlement policy is a state-sponsored war crime.

- ndmackenzie

April 26, 2010 at 2:56pm

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

noga1 flatters herself with the following: -- It is easy to despise what you cannot get...

- ndmackenzie

April 26, 2010 at 2:58pm

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

Einstein, Jefferson, Piero Sraffa "Caesar" and a lot macroeconomics textbooks and journals FDR, Churchill, Washington, Balanchine, Gershwin, Monet, Velasquez, Rodin, Arthur Miller, Nabokov, Marquez "Catch-22" Ecclesiastes 3:1 and The Walrus and the Carpenter That was fun! Like the SATs.

- roidubouloi

April 26, 2010 at 3:11pm

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

"The response to terrorist attacks is not, "Okay, then we can colonize the West Bank and keep on doing it until the terrorists desist." It would be if that were a way of fighting terrorism, but it isn't." This is what is called a straw man fallacy, You "create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1]". No one here has put up the argument that the settlements in Hebron or deeply embedded in the WB enhance Israel's security. As you say, it is very easy to knock down such an argument. The fact that you are repeatedly trying to force a point of view by clinging to an argument that is never made, even acknowledged a-priori, to be absurd, proves that you are not really dealing with the issues and interests that concern Israelis. You are only interested in creating a miasma of chronic contempt towards any Israeli position.

- noga1

April 26, 2010 at 3:13pm

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

In that case, ndmackenzie, you are badly misunderstood. Yet, the settlements are not life-threatening, and if the Palestinians would desist from their war crimes, desist from violence in the pursuit of their political goals, they could achieve most of them in pretty short order. That seems to be of no importance or concern to you. On one thread, you declared that the settlements are the worst crime committed by any Western nation since the German conquest of Europe. Algeria, Vietnam, Iraq, and the Arab efforts to exterminate Israel do not seem to trouble you, although they have caused the deaths of thousands. According to you, only these houses in the West Bank are a "horror." One has to wonder why the obsession with Israeli settlements to the exclusion of all else, including the end of this very conflict by the abandonment of violence.

- roidubouloi

April 26, 2010 at 3:18pm

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

"the invention of the serious modern novel, all written between 1811 and 1817" Nitpicking goes with the territory, K2K, so don't take it personally, but the above is wrong in one important aspect. Austen's novels were indeed published between 1811 and 1817, but some were based on substantial earlier manusscripts and a draft of Sense and Sensibility was probably ready by 1798. Finding a publisher was the problem. Interestingly enough, by 1798 Hannah W. Foster had published The Coquette, a very deft epistolary novel, here in the United States. The author was given as "A Lady of Massachusetts," mainly because the story (ending with an adulterous relationship, pregnancy outside marriage, and death) was seen as sensational and inappropriate for reading matter in respectable circles. Although the novel is more plainly moralistic than Austen's work, Foster gets a lot of mileage (and humor) out of the New York/New England upper class social scene of the time.

- ironyroad

April 26, 2010 at 3:20pm

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

As with everything else you write, roi, your response comes so rapidly that it does not suggest an agile and furtive mind but rather the activation of an answering machine. I am so impressed that Einstein is your intellectual hero. Can you explain why, aside the fact that he had a very high IQ?

- noga1

April 26, 2010 at 3:20pm

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

You just cannot understand a conditional hypothetical, can you? "No one here has put up the argument that the settlements in Hebron or deeply embedded in the WB enhance Israel's security." That is exactly right, and the same could be said of the settlement bloc. They have no plausible security purpose which is the VERY REASON why they are illegal under international law. Therefore, your claim that Israel is unfairly burdened by the duty to comply with international law is without foundation. Israel can address its security needs within the boundaries of international law. If the settlements have no security purpose, then how can they be justified? Jewish claim to the land? Fine. But the modern world does not permit a claim to the land without political rights for the inhabitants. That would be apartheid.

- roidubouloi

April 26, 2010 at 3:24pm

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

"But the modern world does not permit a claim to the land without political rights for the inhabitants. That would be apartheid." Israel offered to evacuate these settlements. The offer was refused. Does that mean that Palestinians are interested in living under apartheid? Otherwise, why did they refuse the offer?

- noga1

April 26, 2010 at 3:28pm

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

Einstein did something that is without precedent in the history of the world. He thought up an example, a question really, that was not suggested by any sort of experiment or unexplained phenomena and, by allowing himself to follow the question where it took him, managed to discover something that was completely and radically original -- general relativity. His special theory, in contrast, was an effort to explain experimental results that had no accepted explanation and that were already much discussed. It is clear that, had Einstein not made the discovery of special relativity, someone else would have soon. Indeed, others were close, if not as clear-sighted as he. But there is no particular reason to believe that general relativity would have been discovered even for hundreds of years had Einstein not come along. What I admire was his extraordinary willingness to explore a question fully, to see what possibilities lay there, and not be straightened by received ideas. I don't know about his IQ. I don' t think his IQ as we conceive it was the foundation of his genius. P.A.M. Dirac was, arguably, smarter than Einstein in that sense, but Einstein was without peer. * * * The question that Einstein asked himself was, in effect, this: "If I were in a closed spaceship, accelerating upward, with no ability to look outside or see or measure anything outside, how could I tell that I was in an accelerating spaceship and not simply standing in a gravitational field?" He concluded that there was no way to tell the difference. But his genius was to think that, if there was no way to tell the difference, then the phenomena must be the same. Following that radical conclusion led him to the bizarre discovery that space and time are curved by gravity, subsequently verified by experiment.

- roidubouloi

April 26, 2010 at 3:36pm

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

Jackson -- I seem to recall that President Carter's Secretary of State Cyrus Vance resigned in protest after his opposition to the failed attempt to free the hostages in Iran was not heeded. But exceptions like this prove the rule.

- JackR

April 26, 2010 at 3:36pm

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

It doesn't matter whether the Palestinians refused. The settlements are illegal from the gitgo and they do not become legal because the Palestinians refused to barter over them. They certainly have never consented to them. Just the reverse. As well, there has never been, to my knowledge, an offer completely to evacuate the West Bank and turn it back to the Palestinians for a state. If there were, it is likely that a peace agreement, with some piece of East Jerusalem thrown in, could be achieved rather quickly.

- roidubouloi

April 26, 2010 at 3:39pm

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

Roi claimed that my post about Hamas was meant to convey the argument that: ""Okay, then we can colonize the West Bank and keep on doing it until the terrorists desist." I responded by reminding him that neither I nor anyone else suggested that this was a valid argument and therefore by claiming it roi is committing a rhetorical fallacy (known in less polite circles as a lie). Roi comes back, and in his usual sprightly manner tries to change his initial claim. He never really made that argument. It was just a "a conditional hypothetical"! That's what Orwell would call Doublespeak. Or it is just that poor roi is so badly misunderstood.

- noga1

April 26, 2010 at 3:47pm

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

Sorry, but you do not understand logical argument -- at all. You made this claim: "If Hamas is a vicious terrorist organization bent on the destruction of Israel, then Israel cannot afford the luxury of obeying the strict letter of International law (which is controled by the very players who have great sympathy for Hamas, asin the UNHR Commission and the UNGA) as it is interpreted by the likes of roi and mini-roi." By showing that it does not refer to any sensible case, I showed that your claim cannot be sustained. That requires considering where your argument leads and showing that we cannot accept those outcomes. "Okay, then we can colonize the West Bank and keep on doing it until the terrorists desist." is entailed by your claim. You yourself acknowledge that this is an unacceptable conclusion. The other case is that some bona fide security need cannot be addressed in compliance with international law. That is not the case as international law allows for this. Therefore your claim fails, certainly as applied to the settlements.

- roidubouloi

April 26, 2010 at 4:02pm

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

And you always evade the point whether you think the settlements are or not legitimate and whether violations of international law by the Palestinians justify them even if they would not otherwise be justifiable. All very circular. Don't blame me.

- roidubouloi

April 26, 2010 at 4:04pm

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

roidubouloi writes: -- Yet, the settlements are not life-threatening, and if the Palestinians would desist from their war crimes, desist from violence in the pursuit of their political goals, they could achieve most of them in pretty short order. That seems to be of no importance or concern to you. The settlements are life-threatening as evidenced by the many Palestinians who have died as a consequence of Israel security forces enforcing the apartheid system caused by the settlement project. And it is not only Palestinians who die - a number of foreign peace activists protesting the occupation have been killed by Israeli security forces. I believe that the Palestinians have almost no power over their fate. As a people whose land is occupied their fate is in the hands of the occupiers. From a practical perspective it does not matter whether their protest is peaceful or violent, Israel will never abandon its colonization program until forced to do so by the outside world. People suggest that the Palestinians need a Gandhi or a King but in doing so they show a complete misunderstanding of how the situation in which Gandhi and King succeeded differes from that of the Palestinians. Gandhi succeeded because Britain was 5,000 miles from India and following WW2 had no deep-seated committment to ensuring its continued control over India. King succeeded because the majority of the American people outside the South recognized the virtue of his position. The Palestinian people do not have those advantages. Instead Israel has a deep-seated committment to ensure its continued control over the Occupied Palestinian Territories as evidenced by its transfer of more than 5% of its population into the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Furthermore, rather than condemning and holding Israel accountable for these war crimes the outside world has appeased them for decades. The civil rights movement would have failed had Americans outside the South appeased the South in the manner the Western World has appeased Israel. It is not that the Palestinians need a Gandhi or a King it is that Israel does. No Israeli leader has made any effort to end the settlement project. Israel could have developed a political and economic society in the Occupied Palestinian Territories but chose instead to focus on developing settlements and the security apparatus necessary to their continued existence. An Israeli Gandhi will not arise from the generation of Martin Peretz, blind as it is to its own bigotry, and it is unlikely to come from the generation of Russian immigrants who learned their politics and their bigotry from the playbook of Stalin - they certainly have no innate concept of liberty. The Palestinians would benefit from much wiser leadership - but so would the Israelis. This conflict demonstrates that democracy is not sufficient to generate wise leadership.

- ndmackenzie

April 26, 2010 at 4:09pm

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

Noga: "No one here has put up the argument that the settlements in Hebron or deeply embedded in the WB enhance Israel's security" Me: there are strawmen here aplenty on all sides. No one here has said that Palestinian violence is justify or called for the destruction of the state of israel. (or, for that matter, attributed divinity to Obama).

- miceelf

April 26, 2010 at 4:25pm

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

Sorry mackenzie, but that is an invented history. The PLO and anti-Israeli terrorism ante-date both the settlements and the Six Day War. In the period between Oslo and the Second Intifada, there was calm. It came to an end only because Arafat left the bargaining table and returned to violence as his preferred political tool. So, either you are indeed making the argument that the fact of settlements alone justifies violent resistance or you are failing to acknowledge the history that Palestinian deaths have been due to the Israeli response to violence, violence that proceeded before settlement, after settlement, before Oslo, and, from 2000 certainly, after Oslo. The violence is by far the worse crime and it has cost many more lives no matter how you cut it than any losses that can plausible be attributed to the settlements. Had the civil rights movement in America been a violent movement, it would have failed. And it was derailed to a significant degree and for quite some time when it developed a violent strain. The fact remains that, if the Palestinians desisted from violence, no one would pursue them violently. They could have been self-governing along time ago, with military occupation, and the occupation would have ended a long time ago. They have the means to pursue their political goals without violence, including the support of a large portion of the world, and are obliged by international law and by their own agreement at Oslo to do so. Despite their undertaking at Oslo, they will not forswear violence, the occupation continues, and gives cover to the settlements.

- roidubouloi

April 26, 2010 at 4:39pm

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

The bigger question is whether Palestinian society is capable of building and sustaining a nation-state. One of the biggest problems they face is that a maximalist/territorial political vision -- Israelis into the Mediterreanean! -- has rendered a pragmatic future -- building a state that people will want to live in -- the equivalent of treason to the cause. No change in Israeli politics, no application of international law, no deals or arrangements or treaties, will enable a Palestinian state unless Palestinians (a majority at least) want to build it with reasonably functional and non-corrupt institutions. In a paradoxical sense, Palestinians have to become "Israelis" (democratic, modern, western) in order to not be under Israeli occupation or pressure. It seems as if, once upon a time, long ago, it looked like that would be exactly what would happen. Palestinians would become more like Israelis than like other Arabs, and that this would permit a breakthrough (maybe that was Oslo?). Now, with Hamas, a religious sensibility locked into a pre-modern political vision has trumped a viable modern nationalism. Think what Israel would be like (or whether it would even have come into existence) if the dominant mentality had been that of the most theologically uncompromising, anti-modern, anti-national strain of Judaism.

- ironyroad

April 26, 2010 at 4:54pm

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

irony: your comment reminds me of my professor of British history, who taught two courses: 19th and 20th century. Yet he started the 19th century in 1763 due to the emergence of Britain as a global colonial power at the end of the Seven Years War. Once you include social, economic/technology, and intellectual histories, it would make the late 1780's as the real start of the "19th century". He was fuzzier about the start of the 20th century. Did it start in 1870 with the rise of a unified Germany upsetting the balance of power established with the Congress of Vienna? Or, did the 20th century start in 1919 with the Treaty of Versailles, or sometime in between 1870 and 1919? Whatever. The main change in my thinking was that I no longer distinguish between WWI and WWII and the Cold War, seeing them as the same war with different kinds of cease-fires in between. And, he was an exceptional professor until I audited his undergraduate course in the History of Colonialism. Harvard had taught him the North Vietnam and the Palestinian narratives. My first encounter with an otherwise inquisitive intellect who was trapped in the quicksand of history in those two specific places. Very much like the Hindu Nationalists who had India's history textbooks edited so that Gandhi was whittled down to one paragraph. assuming I am entitled to have my own opinion, here amongst the ideologues and literati, and anyone in between :) interesting questions noga. 1) none that I can think of, 2) John Buchan, "The Four Adventures of Richard Hannay" and Ken Auletta on Publishing, the I-Pad, and the Kindle [40% of Americans read one book or less per year!] 3) Clint Eastwood; Herman Wouk; George Orwell for "The Road to Wigan Pier"; William Morris for inventing the genre of heroic fantasy; Degas, Monet, Vasarely, Hockney; Mozart, Benny Goodman, The Grateful Dead; whoever figured out HOW to build the Parthenon and the cathedral of Notre Dame, 4) "And Ladies of the Club" by Helen Hooven Santmyer (terrific social and political history as a novel), and 5) Rudyard Kipling's "The Young British Soldier" for the ending: "...When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, And the women come out to cut up what remains, Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains An' go to your Gawd like a soldier. Go, go, go like a soldier, Go, go, go like a soldier, Go, go, go like a soldier, So-oldier of the Queen! "

- K2K

April 26, 2010 at 4:59pm

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

roidubouloi builds a pretty large straw man: -- So, either you are indeed making the argument that the fact of settlements alone justifies violent resistance or you are failing to acknowledge the history that Palestinian deaths have been due to the Israeli response to violence, violence that proceeded before settlement, after settlement, before Oslo, and, from 2000 certainly, after Oslo. The Israeli settlements are a war crime the continued appeasement of which has led unfortunately to Palestinian violence and a far larger quantity of Israeli violence. All that violence is a direct consequence of the settlements. I have little doubt that had the United Nations created the State of Israel in Manhattan and Israel had proceded to occupy the entire eastern seaboard we would have seen a far more violent reaction from Americans than the Palestinians have ever dared muster.

- ndmackenzie

April 26, 2010 at 5:03pm

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

JackR "Jackson -- I seem to recall that President Carter's Secretary of State Cyrus Vance resigned in protest after his opposition to the failed attempt to free the hostages in Iran was not heeded. But exceptions like this prove the rule." Thanks for this, JackR. I had forgotten about Vance. Vance also locked horns with Brzezinski who was much more hawkish where Russia was concerned. This was because he was on the side of Poland. Now that Poland is no longer in danger he has decided to become more mawkishly dovish. Here too he is indulging his old world passions where the Jewish State is concerned since he seems to hate it almost as much as he hated the Russian Empire.

- jdyer

April 26, 2010 at 5:04pm

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

irony: terrific pivot back to the real question that almost everyone else keeps avoiding because Peretz only touched on it in his closing. hope you caught the link to Nicholas Lemann's "Terrorism Studies" I left yesterday. Is it not enough for America to be concerned with the fragile nation-states of Iraq and Afghanistan without adding a Palestinian state without elected leadership to the volatility of the region and the world?

- K2K

April 26, 2010 at 5:06pm

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

"(maybe that was Oslo?)." Yes. That was the great hope of Oslo. At the signing of the Wye accords, I watched Arafat make a speech in which he promised Israeli mothers that never again would they have to mourn for their children because of a Palestinian bomb. I almost believed him.

- noga1

April 26, 2010 at 5:07pm

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

I can’t see anyone taking that Jew hater mackenzie seriously enough to exchange views with him. One might as well exchange views on Israel with David Duke who is at least honest enough to admit his Jew hatred. Mackenzie is a thorough going Arafatnick who has never failed to condone any suicide bombing and the murder of Jewish civilians.

- jdyer

April 26, 2010 at 5:10pm

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

ironyroad writes: -- No change in Israeli politics, no application of international law, no deals or arrangements or treaties, will enable a Palestinian state unless Palestinians (a majority at least) want to build it with reasonably functional and non-corrupt institutions. In a paradoxical sense, Palestinians have to become "Israelis" (democratic, modern, western) in order to not be under Israeli occupation or pressure. This is pretty much bullshit. I find it hypocritical to attack the theory of Greater Palestine even as we witness the reality of Greater Israel. Israel has had more than four decades of control to create an effective polity in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. But rather than doing that it sought the creation of a Greater Israel through the settlement of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It is not as if Israel is immune from corruption since pretty much every mayor of Jerusalem seems to be on the way to jail. Israel can never negotiate in good faith without committing to abandoning the settlements. I suspect, however, that the time when that faith mattered is running out because of the increasing likelihood that a settlement will be imposed. The Western World birthed this mess and before much longer it will seek its end.

- ndmackenzie

April 26, 2010 at 5:13pm

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

Apparently not a straw man at all, mackenzie. You do in fact claim that the settlements justify the violence. You did so right above. You also ignore that the violence long antedates the settlements, had fallen to a very low level after Oslo, and resumed because Arafat left Taba and started the Second Intifada. You also ignore that the occupation of the West Bank came 19 years after the founding of Israel in the course of a war of aggression brought by the Arab states with the explicit intention of destroying Israel, a war that continued without cease through the Six Day War and beyond with the Arab states at no point until the very recent past abandoning their stated goal of destroying Israel. Israel did not launch a war of aggression against the Arabs. In light of the history, the settlements can hardly be said to be the cause of the violence. They are but one event, and far from the most significant event, in a war of aggression against Israel that has been going on for 40 years. The United States is occupied, including the entire Eastern seaboard. The Native American population does not pursue its claims violently. By encouraging the Palestinians to continue to pursue their claims violently, as you plainly do, you share the moral responsibility for the outcome, including many Palestinian deaths and injuries that need not have occurred. As Israel cannot justify the settlements based on the violence, you cannot justify your advocacy of violence based on the settlements.

- roidubouloi

April 26, 2010 at 5:21pm

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

roidubouloi writes: -- You do in fact claim that the settlements justify the violence. You did so right above. I wrote: -- The Israeli settlements are a war crime the continued appeasement of which has led unfortunately to Palestinian violence and a far larger quantity of Israeli violence. I certainly did not write that the "settlements justify the violence." I regard the continued attempts to lie about what I write to be a consequence of poverty of responses to my statements. roidubouoloi continues: -- They are but one event, and far from the most significant event, in a war of aggression against Israel that has been going on for 40 years. The settlements are the big issue because they are the visual demonstration that Israel seeks to complete its Greater Israel project. I realise that die-hard "supporters" of Israel seek to deny their significance but this requires the resort to disemblance and dissimulation that seems to be the lifeblood of the so-called "friend" of Israel these days. And roidubouloi cannot refrain from ending with the same old lie: -- As Israel cannot justify the settlements based on the violence, you cannot justify your advocacy of violence based on the settlements. Liar, liar, pants on fire. As I point out routinely about the lies of jackass and noga you cannot argue with a liar because the liar can prove anything from the lie.

- ndmackenzie

April 26, 2010 at 5:38pm

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

This from muckenzie: “It is not as if Israel is immune from corruption since pretty much every mayor of Jerusalem seems to be on the way to jail.” He doesn’t even get the self evident irony of his comment: how many Palestinian officials have been put in jail by the PA or even charged with corruption? Previously he had declared: “I find it hypocritical to attack the theory of Greater Palestine even as we witness the reality of Greater Israel. Israel has had more than four decades of control to create an effective polity in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. But rather than doing that it sought the creation of a Greater Israel through the settlement of the Occupied Palestinian Territories.” The irony is the use of the term “greater Israel” of a country the size of a postage stamp. But there is more. The greater irony, not to say hypocrisy, is for Muckenzie to blame Israel for not creating “an effective polity in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.” Had Israel created any kind of polity, it would have been rejected by the Arfatniks, as a collaborationist enterprise. As it is the PLO and Hamas go around shooting anyone on the West Bank who even talks to an Israeli. There have thousands of such executions and the muckenzies of this world have never condemned them. Does the Geneva convention condemn summary executions? It seems that those deemed “under occupation” are exempt from any laws. They can kill with impunity anyone, babes in arms, and even their own people. So much for international law.

- jdyer

April 26, 2010 at 5:54pm

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

Brilliant counter-argument from muckenzie mackass: "Liar, liar, pants on fire."

- jdyer

April 26, 2010 at 5:55pm

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

On Monday, Netanyahu has frozen all building-related activity in "East Jerusalem" according to AP. on Sunday, DEBKA said it would be temporary for four weeks to get the proximity talks re-started. let the media spin... although I am curious as to what will eventually happen with Shepherd's Hotel. in my imagination, it becomes the U.S. embassy to Israel. ha.

- K2K

April 26, 2010 at 6:01pm

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

Andrew Barton Paterson - Why the Jackass Laughs The Boastful Crow and the Laughing Jack
Were telling tales of the outer back:
"I've just been travelling far and wide,
At the back of Bourke and the Queensland side;
There isn't a bird in the bush can go
As far as me," said the old black crow.
"There isn't a bird in the bush can fly
A course as straight or a course as high.
Higher than human eyesight goes.
There's sometimes clouds -- but there's always crows,
Drifting along for a scent of blood
Or a smell of smoke or a sign of flood.
For never a bird or a beast has been
With a sight as strong or a scent as keen.
At fires and floods I'm the first about,
For then the lizards and mice run out:
And I make my swoop -- and that's all they know --
I'm a whale on mice," said the Boastful Crow.
The Bee-birds over the homestead flew
And told each other the long day through
"The cold has come, we must take the track."
"Now, I'll make you a bet," said the Laughing Jack,
"Of a hundred mice, that you dare not go
With the little Bee-birds, by Boastful Crow."
Said the Boastful Crow, "I could take my ease
And fly with little green birds like these.
If they went flat out and they did their best
I could have a smoke and could take a rest."
And he asked of the Bee-birds circling round:
"Now, where do you spike-tails think you're bound?"
"We leave tonight, and out present plan
is to go straight on till we reach Japan.
"Every year, on the self-same day,
We call our children and start away,
Twittering, travelling day and night,
Over the ocean we take our flight;
And we rest a day on some lonely isles
Or we beg a ride for a hundred miles
On a steamer's deck,* and away we go:
We hope you'll come with us, Mister Crow."
But the old black crow was extremely sad.
Said he: "I reckon you're raving mad
To talk of travelling night and day,
And how in the world do you find your way?"
And the Bee-birds answered him, "If you please,
That's one of our own great mysteries".
Now these things chanced in the long ago
And explain the fact, which no doubt you know,
That every jackass high and low
Will always laugh when he sees a crow.

- jdyer

April 26, 2010 at 6:14pm

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

I find the thing that is troubling me the most is that Marty Peretz's post title keeps making me want to hum Manhattan Transfer's '80s version of "A Little Steet in Singapore." On other matters: "Bullshit." Whatever. Think of me as you like, ndmack, but I would suggest that even a superficial reading of the literature on nations and nationalism reveals that not every entity makes it though history (Yugoslavia as item #1 on the evidence sheet) and none gets a free pass to screw up as they like. K2K's comment on history and chronology -- that reminds of the Ernest Gellner's way of describing 1915-1945 as the "Nacht-und-Nebel" passage in modern political history. He didn't mean it in the reactionary sense that Mommsen meant his theory of (if I recall correctly) the "European Civil War" in which Hitler and the Nazis become a kind of "Asiatic" interpolation in Western history, but more that it was an era in which borders and populations were often moved with speed and violence and no matter at what cost to the ordinary man or woman or child in the street. And -- "ideologues and literati" are at opposite ends of a spectrum? Who knew!

- ironyroad

April 26, 2010 at 6:31pm

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

ironyroad writes: -- I would suggest that even a superficial reading of the literature on nations and nationalism reveals that not every entity makes it though history (Yugoslavia as item #1 on the evidence sheet) and none gets a free pass to screw up as they like. Israel seems to have done pretty well out of its free pass for the last four decades.

- ndmackenzie

April 26, 2010 at 6:36pm

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

irony: "And -- "ideologues and literati" are at opposite ends of a spectrum? Who knew!" good catch. must work on my linear metaphors. thanks for reading. I meant that the literati here are not rigid ideologues. and then there are a few who are neither. and so difficult to keep the thread in a civil dialog about the actual topic. I come here to take a break from the rest of the world, which seems to have a new failing government or state, or defrosting conflict every day. I miss the global auto meltdown! Plus, the view from this window is so very, very beautiful, especially at sunset.

- K2K

April 26, 2010 at 7:13pm

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

Irony why do you bother to respond to lying muckenzie? "Israel seems to have done pretty well out of its free pass for the last four decades." “Free pass?” Israel is the only country who upon its joining the UN was attacked by five or six Arab countries that intended to drive the Jews into the sea. Israel in the last four decades was attacked by Egypt and Syria in 1973, has been constantly attacked by the PLO which killed hundreds of civilians since the mid 1960’s. Israel has been at the receiving end of the Soviet Union and its allies since the 50’s, who armed its enemies and launched vicious antisemitic propaganda all over the Arab world. Israel has been attacked from Lebanon in the 70’s and 80’s a country with which it had not been at war. Since it withdrew from Lebanon it has been attacked by HIzbollah and later by Hamas after it had withdrawn from Gaza. It has been the target of boycotts (even before the so called occupation) and thousands of antisemitic resolutions at the UN and the conferences sponsored by the UN. In that time millions of people had been killed in genocides from Cambodia to Africa to the Arab world with nary a comment by the Israel haters like muckenzie. The idea that Israel has gotten a free pass is akin to saying that Jews benefited from the Holocaust which antisemites regularly do say. Muckenzie is an obscene posters and it’s a waste of time responding to his anti-Jewish diatribes.

- jdyer

April 26, 2010 at 7:23pm

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

Well mackenzie, while I found your "liar, liar pants on fire" argument persuasive, one would have to say that you have an idiosyncratic definition of causation. Although you seem to claim that the settlements are the moral cause of the violence -- the justification -- you don't want to be caught doing so. So, let's give you the benefit of the doubt on that. We can agree that the settlements do not justify the Palestinian violence. At the minimum, causation requires antecedence. The violence antedates the settlements. So they certainly cannot be the exclusive cause. The violence not only antedates the settlements, but continued from Gaza after Israel pulled up its settlements there and indicated that it wanted to start doing the same in the West Bank. So the settlements are not a necessary cause. There is violence with them and without them. The violence also abated during the period from Oslo to the Second Intifada. So the settlements are not a sufficient cause. That pretty much rules out causation. If there is violence with and without the settlements, and a violence can abate with the settlements and only resumed when it looked like there would be a peace agreement, the settlements cannot be the cause of the violence. It is indeed the prospect of peace that fuels the violence. The most likely explanation is that the Palestinians are unwilling to surrender their claims upon Israel with finality and so engage in violence in order to keep the conflict intractable while using the settlements as the claimed justification. Anyone who participates in and encourages this subterfuge, including you, bears moral responsibility for the death, injury, and loss that ensue.

- roidubouloi

April 26, 2010 at 7:36pm

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

ndmac: Arafat trained Iranian terrorists in the 70s; he came to Iran right after the revolution, got about $100 m. to launch new attacks from Lebanon, and, while in Tehran, spread his message of hate and violence. The terrorists he and his army had trained then launched a seven year long campaign of terror, civil war and violence in Iran that ended with the hanging of over 5000 young men and women - without trial. Even assuming your causes and consequences argument, could you please tell me what in the name of God the people of Iran had done to Palestinians, and to Arafat, to deserve this demon kiss? Let us assume that you are right - that Israel has committed war crimes in settling the West Bank (a tall assumption, because settlements, even if illegal, do not amount to crimes, and certainly not war crimes, but still) - does this absolve the Palestinians of all responsibility in having, and maintaining as their head a murderous kleptocrat who spread violence with abandon everywhere he stepped, and who, upon his death, was one of the richest men in the Middle East heading one of its poorest societies? Roid said above that states are not individuals; but sometimes, in my view, they are. States can become manic and they can become depressive; they can also become suicidal. Part of it is the fault of external factors, to be sure; but part of it is also the fault of the poison within. I've lived through the Iranian revolution and have lost relatives to it: you cannot describe what happened there using normal causes and consequences arguments about the Shah or the US or whatever. Something snapped and the country was plunged into a nightmare. I sugget to you that long ago, something inside Palestinian superstructures also snapped; the Arab people of Palestine simply refuse to fix it and prefer to wallow and attack. How are we helping by being intellectual enablers of their tragedy?

- icarusr

April 26, 2010 at 7:44pm

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

"Israel seems to have done pretty well out of its free pass for the last four decades." Well, if I reconfigure your question slightly to remove the polemical noise, it's true. Israel has done a fairly good job creating the kind of internal cohesiveness and bonding that a new-ish nation-state needs -- indeed with a fairly combative political culture into the bargain. If one takes Ernest Renan's comment that every nation involves a daily plebiscite on belonging, then they have indeed done well.

- ironyroad

April 26, 2010 at 7:47pm

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

Icaruser, Roid, Irony, Jackson, I love this Mack thread and all of your posts. When you throw truth at ND, she melts--just like the wicked witch of Oz. It'll be interesting to see how soon she slinks back in here. And if she does, she'll be hissing the same evasive and ridiculous jargon--so much so that her computer screen must be covered in spittle by now.

- MOLLYSIMON

April 26, 2010 at 7:56pm

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

nice try irony :) so much cheer here, time to go visit the messianic settlers who still have a sense of humor...and see what they are saying about how the WH is threatening loss of access to anyone publicly criticizing Obama on Israel. the aftermath of Sunday's pro-Israel rally in Manhattan yesterday, where one speaker specifically laid the threat on Rahm Emmanuel. the good news is that sanctions against Iran are being worked on every day, and it is quite an interesting array of sanctions.

- K2K

April 26, 2010 at 8:16pm

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

icarusr writes: -- Let us assume that you are right - that Israel has committed war crimes in settling the West Bank (a tall assumption, because settlements, even if illegal, do not amount to crimes, and certainly not war crimes, but still) It does not matter what icarusr believes, nor indeed what the State of Israel claims, since the international community has declared in the Rome Status of the ICC that setlements are war crimes. Article 8(2)(b) of the Rome Statue specifies the following to be a war crime: -- (viii) The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory; Furthermore, in Article 7(1) the Rome Statue declares the following, which is an intrinsic part of the settlement process,m to be a crime against humanity: -- (j) The crime of apartheid; http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm There will only be an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict when we recognize the reality of the situation instead of perpetuating the fantasy that Israel has not committed very serious war crimes as a national project.

- ndmackenzie

April 26, 2010 at 8:21pm

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

MollySimon writes: -- When you throw truth at ND, she melts--just like the wicked witch of Oz. Houston, we have a literacy problem.

- ndmackenzie

April 26, 2010 at 8:24pm

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

TO ND-- somebody has a Jewish problem.

- MOLLYSIMON

April 26, 2010 at 8:33pm

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

@MollySimon - I do have a problem - with Nazis and those who support them.

- ndmackenzie

April 26, 2010 at 8:49pm

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

“Houston, we have a literacy problem.” Muckenzie loves his “Houston” shtick. He used it before to similar useless effect. With all his anger and Jew hatred he can’t see straight or think right and keeps missing the target. And even if he were to hit something by mistake, not to worry, he loaded with blanks. Hence his impotent rage. His quip was funny coming from a Brit. I love it when Brits try to talk American; it’s like a cat trying to bark.

- jdyer

April 26, 2010 at 9:00pm

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

It's so nice to know exactly where you stand. You had some trouble coming out with it, but I'm glad you finally felt safe with us.

- MOLLYSIMON

April 26, 2010 at 9:01pm

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

ndmackenzie “@MollySimon - I do have a problem - with Nazis and those who support them.” LOL, he has a problem with Nazis because David Duke rejected his membership application to their party. He was too bizarre even for them.

- jdyer

April 26, 2010 at 9:02pm

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

Awesome: "I love it when Brits try to talk American; it’s like a cat trying to bark."

- MOLLYSIMON

April 26, 2010 at 9:04pm

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

The claim by mackenzie that the settlements are a "war crime" is not supported, even though they are violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Criminal liability only attaches to "grave breaches," and that does not including building houses: "Art. 146. The High Contracting Parties undertake to enact any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the grave breaches of the present Convention defined in the following Article. Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts. It may also, if it prefers, and in accordance with the provisions of its own legislation, hand such persons over for trial to another High Contracting Party concerned, provided such High Contracting Party has made out a prima facie case. Each High Contracting Party shall take measures necessary for the suppression of all acts contrary to the provisions of the present Convention other than the grave breaches defined in the following Article. In all circumstances, the accused persons shall benefit by safeguards ofproper trial and defence, which shall not be less favourable than those provided by Article 105 and those following of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949. Art. 147. Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the present Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly." It is also worth noting that these "grave breaches" are also prohibited regardless of whether the conflict is otherwise subject to the Convention or the persons involved fit the definition of "protected persons" under the Convention, because these matters are explicitly the definition of the minimum level of decency always required. The settlements, in my opinion, do violate the prohibition of the Convention. The cannot legitimately be characterized as war crimes.

- roidubouloi

April 26, 2010 at 9:13pm

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

On the other hand, the Arabs most definitely have committed war crimes: "A crime against peace, in international law, refers to "planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of wars of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing" [1]. This definition of crimes against peace was first incorporated into the Nuremberg Principles and later included in the United Nations Charter. This definition would play a part in defining aggression as a crime against peace." "This definition of the crime of aggression belongs to jus cogens, which is supreme in the hierarchy of international law and, therefore, it cannot be modified by, or give way to, any rule of international law but one of the same rank. An arguable example is any rule imposing a conflicting obligation to prevent, interdict or vindicate crimes which also belong to jus cogens, namely aggression itself, crimes against humanity, genocide, war crimes, slavery, torture and piracy, so that a war waged consistent with the aim of repressing any of these crimes might not be illegal where the crime comes within the limit of proportionality relative to war and its characteristic effects."

- roidubouloi

April 26, 2010 at 9:18pm

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

Speaking of those who supported and support the Nazis: "Hitler and the grand mufti of Jerusalem" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi7GdviIsjQ And Arafat a student of that brand Mufti also supported Saddam; and they both modeled themselves after Stalin. muckenzie loves those who love Nazis and Stalinists.

- jdyer

April 26, 2010 at 9:21pm

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close