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 Times Watch, World Watch, Mideast Watch

THE SPINE MAY 17, 2009

Times Watch, World Watch, Mideast Watch

BY MARTIN PERETZ

Well, we'll know soon enough what the chemistry is between Barack Obama
and Bibi Netanyahu, like sometime on Monday.  But in the New York Times
of Sunday Helene Cooper gives you her expectations in an article titled "World Watches to See if New Perspective in Washington Brings
Shift on Mideast."

Of course, it's not exactly what everybody thinks. But Ms. Cooper has
loaded the dice, which is exactly which is exactly with what we are
playing. The better part of her article is devoted to the views of a
shamefully discredited bigot, Charles Freeman, someone of whom you'd
never heard three months ago. And,  by the way, never had reason to
hear of until then.

He was summarily dispatched back to his post-foreign service career
activities (detailed in my many spines on him) which was shilling
for the at once rapaciously capitalist and stubbornly communist regime
in Beijing and, of course, the Saudis. A man needs to make a living.
On the other hand, Freeman is probably on the lush international oil
speaking circuit. So no need to worry.

Then there is Aaron David Miller who has been opining on
Israel/Palestine ever since he worked for James Baker with whom he
still seems to agree. Apparently Miller is the only one of Bill
Clinton's peace processors not to have realized the enormous errors
made by pushing Ehud Barak to concede more and more to Yassir Arafat
who rejected everything. Miller then worked for Seeds of Peace, a
children's camp for Palestinian and Israeli children. I don't know
whether "Kumbaya" or "We Shall Live in Peace" was the camp song. In any
case, no harm done. Today he is back in the prognostication and advice
business. The same shibboleths about Israeli compromises.

But what after the compromises? Who will guarantee that the West Bank
will not turn into Gaza from which rockets and missiles will rain on
Tel Aviv and Jerusalem? Yes, I am for a two-state solution. When I was
a little boy I also was for a two-state solution. It was called the
Partition Plan for Palestine, one "Jewish" state, one "Arab" (not, by
the way, "Palestinian") state.

In any event, we will see how Obama turns and whether he, in fact, does turn.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 50 comments

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

50 comments

"Simply Jews ", a blog which defines itself as "a gang of critically undermedicated Elders (of Zion)" suggests we look at the evidence:

"Obama declares May 'Jewish American Heritage Month'

Cool. So why do I get a feeling that the shaft being prepared for Bibi in the White House us growing all the time?"

simplyjews.blogspot.com/.../obama-declares-may-jewish-american.html

It's simple. Obama is going to demarcate a boundary between American Jews and Israel.  He will do so gracefully and affectionately, but the message will be unmistakable. It's the love with the Muslims he is after,  and Israel is the coin with which he intends to buy that love.

Brace yourself, Marty.

- noga1

May 17, 2009 at 11:36pm

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

BTW, the last time Chas Freeman was heard of, before now, he appeared on Press TV, saying to the Iranian audience:

"The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth,"

www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx

Press TV offers regular spots to such luminaries as George Galloway, Yvonne Ridley, Tariq Ramadan, Lauren Booth. It published an article by the British science historian Nicholas Kollerstrom, a Holocaust denier.

- noga1

May 17, 2009 at 11:41pm

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

Wouldn't it be intriguing if Obama struck down the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on the same day he annouced that he and Bibi were getting married?

Wow. I don't think the second coming of Christ would top it in the ratings.

gw

- iambiguous

May 18, 2009 at 12:42am

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

Mission Impossible Mrach 2009:

"Marty Peretz, your mission...if you choose to accept it...is to slime Chas Freeman until he steps down as Obamo's the NIC appointee"

Mission Impossible May 2009:

"Marty Peretz, your mission...if you choose to accept it....is to slime Helene Cooper until she resigns from the New York Times"

gw

- iambiguous

May 18, 2009 at 1:01am

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

Marty, are you sitting down? Is the pacemaker set to stunned?

Today the Times published yet another scandalous op-ed from Roger Cohen.

Not only that, they have an embedded ad for something called "muslima.com". It's from "The International Muslim Matrimonials Site"

Hardly a coincidence, right?

There are dozens of photos [for both men and women]. Each one more beautiful than the next. Some with no head covering, some in burkas.

I didn't go in any further than that, though. Too chicken. For all I know joining may result in my laptop blowing up. I'd appreciate it yoiu'd send Jackon in on a reconnoitering mission to find any trip wires or IEDs.

As for Cohen's column, it is rather innocuos. It focus mostly on intra Islamic squabbles.

But this might piss you off:

“We’re aware of this, Mr. Prime Minister, which is why we sent Defense Secretary Robert Gates and others to reassure Arab allies. But the U.S. interest is not served by the Mideast status quo. Our interest lies in new region-wide security arrangements that promote a two-state peace, end 30 years of non-communication with Iran, and ultimately afford Israel a brighter future. You can’t build settlements and expect Iran’s influence to diminish.”

When Netanyahu demurs, Obama should add: “And you know what the Arabs tell me in private? That Israeli use of force against Iran would be a disaster. And that it’s impossible to tell Iran it can’t have nukes when Israel has them. They say that’s a double standard. And you know what? They may have a point.”

george:

It even upset me a bit. I thought Roger and I had an understanding. We agreed that before putting anything in writing, we would ask orselves, "What Would Marty Think?"

I'll work on it, okay?

george

- iambiguous

May 18, 2009 at 3:55am

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

...In any event, we will see how Obama turns and whether he, in fact, does turn...

And how B.N. turns and whether he, in fact, does turn, as recent reporting suggests he is inclined to.

- basman

May 18, 2009 at 9:53am

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

It is interesting that Abbas a few weeks ago restated his view that he would never recognize a "Jewish State" - Israel yes but not a Jewish state. No pressure as been exterted on him to accept the principle of two states for two people, Jewish and Palestinian - none from Israel, whose head seems to be stuck in the sand when it comes to its love affair with Abbas, and the Obama administration.

- jneuberg

May 18, 2009 at 10:06am

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

"Israel, whose head seems to be stuck in the sand when it comes to its love affair with Abbas, and the Obama administration."

I don't think anybody's head is stuck in the sand. But Israel's spectrum of choices seems to shrink by the minute. What's its leverage to induce Obama or the Europeans to put pressure on the Palestinians to change their paradigm and actually decare that they are ready for the real two-state solution?

- noga1

May 18, 2009 at 10:24am

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

As for head in the sand - when I suggested to the former Israeli NY conselor that while Jerusalem was a sexy issue, the Palestinian right of return demand was more dangerous he dismissed this as mere posturing meant for Arab consumption. Well it seems that the PA is quite serious about this and have stressed this at every occasion, including its refusal to recognize a Jewish state.

Israel does have a choice, it can insist on core principles, red lines, that it will not cross. If they don't have any, then their is no reason to assume that Obama or the European. This is a position that Michael Oren, the new US Ambassor also takes.

- jneuberg

May 18, 2009 at 11:59am

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

noga, I really don't know in what way Marty needs brace himself. There are no policy changes that Obama can do that will make the slightest bit of difference in lessening Palestinian recalcitrance. 4 years from now the only thing that will happen are a bunch of words. Simply put, Obama doesn't own the Israeli coin, Israel does so Obama can't spend it.

- blackton

May 18, 2009 at 12:55pm

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

"noga, I really don't know in what way Marty needs brace himself."

Marty loves Israel and is in love with Obama. There is nothing he wants more than to see his two friends get along together. So he is bound to be heart broken since I get a distinct feeling that Obama does not have the same feelings for Israel that, Bush or Clinton had.

"Obama doesn't own the Israeli coin, Israel does so Obama can't spend it."

Israel does not have many friends in the world to day. The Arab world wants to see it get the cold shoulder from its most powerful ally. Putting pressure on Israel to make more impossible concessions to the Palestinians, blaming Israel for any failure of "peace talks" can go a long way in conciliating the  famous Arab street. To me it appears that Obama is  prepared to do all this, which is what I meant by the "Israeli coin". He  will sell Israel short, if it gets him Arab love. It's a cold calculation, M&W style.

I agree with you that  "There are no policy changes that Obama can do that will make the slightest bit of difference in lessening Palestinian recalcitrance." towards Israel.  But I'm not sure this figures in his calculations.

- noga1

May 18, 2009 at 5:44pm

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

www.haaretz.com/.../1086339.html

A small but significant "Go fuck yourself" to Obama, isn't it?

- The Ignorant Populist

May 18, 2009 at 5:55pm

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

I'm not an expert, by any standards, but it seems to me that Obama wants an end to a morbid stalemate because the presence of such a stalemate damages the U.S.'s ability to get a coalition together on Iran.

1.  It provides the Sunni Arab nations with either a get-out clause or a knotty problem they can't shuck off.

2.  It provides allies and other big powers, esp. Russia, with too much wiggle room.

If the U.S. is seen as actively working toward an agreement, and Israel is conducting talks with Syria, for example, that have real outcomes, then Iran begins to feel the pinch quite sharply and other countries have more motivation to get on board.

I'm not privy to anything other than what I read, but it seems to be that this is a reasonable strategy.  It will test whether Iran seriously wants to put itself in danger or whether it rather wants to invest in its potential role as a respected regional stabilizer.

- ironyroad

May 18, 2009 at 7:27pm

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

"A small but significant "Go fuck yourself" to Obama, isn't it?"

More like a small but significant "Go fuck yourself" to Mahmoud Abbas, I should think. Who fully deserves it. After waiving away Olmert's peace proposal, which cannot possibly get any better, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas emphatically declared his refusal to acknowledge Israel's Jewish identity.

Some Americans cannot imagine any movement in the world that isn't an intended gesture against or for them.

- noga1

May 18, 2009 at 7:38pm

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

Yes Ironyroad, I understand that truly believe this is a sound strategy produced by a brilliant mind. But you are not answering my unasked but obvious question: Why does Obama's rapprochement with the Arab world have to come at Israel's expense? What are those "real outcomes" that are expected? If he wants to set an example of goodwill, why doesn't he start with US troops in Iraq? Aren't they closer to Iran and pose a greater danger to it than Israel?

- noga1

May 18, 2009 at 7:48pm

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

"But you are not answering my unasked but obvious question: Why does Obama's rapprochement with the Arab world have to come at Israel's expense?"

I think that's because there's an assumption built into your question that I don't share.  Or at least, I don't understand how an agreement with Syria that reduces its threat potential and frees up Israeli assets for other challenges, followed by a process that at least has the promise of thinning out the support that Iran gives to Hizbollah and Hamas, is "at Israel's expense."  On the face ot it, such outcomes would benefit Israel.

- ironyroad

May 18, 2009 at 8:41pm

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

"On the face ot it, ",

That's just about right.

- noga1

May 18, 2009 at 8:49pm

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

Meaning . . .?

- ironyroad

May 18, 2009 at 9:12pm

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

noga1 said:  "Some Americans cannot imagine any movement in the world that isn't an intended gesture against or for them."

Noga,  "The Ignorant Populist" is Irish, and is obsessed with Jews,  he is not an American.

- jacksondyer

May 18, 2009 at 10:12pm

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

"I get a distinct feeling that Obama does not have the same feelings for Israel that, Bush or Clinton had."

noga: If by "the same feelings for Israel" you mean he won't acquiesce to everything that suit Bibi's fancy, or won't let the Israelis practically dictate what the American policy would be, then yes, he doesn't, and shouldn't, have the same feelings for Israel like Bush, who gave Sharon a blank check of an American support. Not once did Bush register a disapproval of any Israeli act.

Obama's foreign policy team is filled with pro-Israel people led by Clinton, his White House chief of staff is unabashedly pro-Israel. And, just like previous presidents before him, everything he has said and done on the Middle East has tilted towards Israel.  You couldn't have missed all that. The only way he could be more pro-Israel is if he got in lockstep with Bibi, which I would not expect. You wouldn't expect the Israeli prime minister to agree with the Americans all the time, do you?

"On the face of it," "That's just about right"

Meaning: it's a ruse. Obama, on the face of it, is cleverly playing like he wants to help Israel, but underneath it all, it's his love for those Islamic enemies of Israel that drives him. This plan to, potentially, remove Syria from the war equation, ala Egypt, would sow the seeds for Israel's destruction, never mind that many in Israel approve, or that the former Israeli government initiated the talk with Syria.

Come to think of it, the other American president (Carter) that , alongside Menachem Begin, helped remove Egypt from the battlefield equation has been continuously denounced as a Jew-hater.

- scrubbyoak

May 18, 2009 at 11:14pm

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

"Come to think of it, the other American president (Carter) that , alongside Menachem Begin, helped remove Egypt from the battlefield equation has been continuously denounced as a Jew-hater." scrubbyoak

Yu are being disingenuous.  Carter wasn’t criticized for helping to cement a peace deal with Egypt.

He is criticized for his recent one sided and often antisemitic comments which blame Israel for the conflict with the Palestinians.

- jacksondyer

May 18, 2009 at 11:35pm

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

I beg to differ, JD.  I think we had that argument (and with Noga and ginzy and others) earlier in which Carter was pilloried for everything.  Nothing he ever did was right.  Not even trying the special op to rescue the embassy hostages which, if it had worked, would have guaranteed Carter's second term and would have consigned the term "the Reagan Era" to the world of counterfactual history.

- ironyroad

May 19, 2009 at 12:12am

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

ironyroad said:  I beg to differ, JD.  I think we had that argument (and with Noga and ginzy and others) earlier in which Carter was pilloried for everything.  Nothing he ever did was right.  Not even trying the special op to rescue the embassy hostages which, if it had worked, would have guaranteed Carter's second term and would have consigned the term "the Reagan Era" to the world of counterfactual history.”

So instead Irony has decided to create his own counterfactual history with Carter succeeding and succeeding and …..

I am no fan of Reagan but Carter lost for more reasons than the hostage crises. He was a disaster as President; his economic policy alone const lots of votes.

Then he decided to blame Jewish voters for his loss.

- jacksondyer

May 19, 2009 at 12:35am

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

I wasn't trying to create a counterfactual anything, and I accept there can be many different perceptions.  But I do see a little discrepancy between "Carter wasn’t criticized for helping to cement a peace deal with Egypt' and "He was a disaster as President."

I mean, it's not impossible to merge the two comments, and they are not mutually exclusive.  But Carter has often been criticized in this part of the woods not as economically inept but as weak and appeasing in f-p, and I don't think that is true.  Provably not true, in fact.

- ironyroad

May 19, 2009 at 1:07am

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

ironyroad  said: "Meaning . . .?"

Your reading of the possible benefits from talks with Syria betrays a certain lack of deeper engagement and knowledge of the regime you are speaking about. Experts have already pronounced that no deal with Israel will be enough to draw the Syrians away from their Iranian cohorts. If you want to understand how Syria thinks, try reading some Lebanese papers.

_______________

"Carter was pilloried for everything."

Careter is given too much credit for brokering the Israel/Egypt peace. Had he done a better job (or a real brokering job at all) , that peace might have been a little more normal, and Israel might have been more capable to do more to stem the flow of arms into Gaza that's responsible for much of the problems today. It is no secret that Carter favoured Sadat and pressured Begin to make more and more concessions. It is always easier to pressure Israel than the Arabs; Israel is genuinely interested in making peace.  Perhaps that lopesidedness is responsible for much of the suspicion Carter enjoys today in Israel.

I understand you see Carter in Obama which is why you say things like "But Carter has often been criticized in this part of the woods not as economically inept but as weak and appeasing in f-p, and I don't think that is true.  Provably not true, in fact."

And, btw, it is no surprise due to bad luck, that Carter's  rescue mission failed, considering the kind of manager he was. The lower echelons always reflect the ineptitude and disorganization reigning at the top.

It is a bit puzzling, don't you think, how coldly Begin reacted to Carter when they met after that event? Or was it just an Israeli  whim,  you think?

Of course Carter is an antisemite. He thinks he knows a good Jew from a bad Jew. And a good Jew, for him, is someone who is religious and understand the correct hierarchy of beings in this world. Not so far from TS Eliot's view of a "desirable Jew" in fact.

- noga1

May 19, 2009 at 8:06am

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

"The Ignorant Populist" is Irish, and is obsessed with Jews,  he is not an American."

Jackson, I'm sorry for succumbing to a Michael Moore moment there. I should have considered the possibility that IgPo was not  an American. From his comment I assumed he cared a great deal about American honour and such like, therefore must be an American.

Irish-- now that makes some sense, as I expect  even they can find something worthwhile about America if it provides an opportunity to bash Israel. I'd like to be able to say that some of my friends are Irish, so as to remove any doubt that I have any particular prejudice against the Irish, but I can't. My one and only Irish friend was actually an American, who spent some time in Ireland as an NGO activist. He was actually a virtual friend but a great friend nonetheless. He was the one who once intimated to me that Carter was not absent from Camp David II as I naively thought and that it was he who had urged Arafat to reject Israel's and Clinton's proposals. Such is the type of peace making he indulges in. No doubt ironyroad will find something good to say about that intervention as well.

BTW, my Irish friend used to co-author Blog Irish, which alas no longer exists. Here is another blogger commenting about something they wrote back in 2004:

www.samizdata.net/.../006038.html

- noga1

May 19, 2009 at 12:00pm

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

Good to see you still here, jacksondyer. I have been on blogging vacation. I can't get much of anything read if I am out here too much. You are exactly right about James Earl Carter. He was a preposterous president. His high-handed approach toward Congress put a lot of members of his own party off. I don't recall the particular congressman's name now but one Democratic House member said he saw more of Ronald Reagan in his first year in office than he did of J. Carter in four. Carter summarily fired much of his cabinet during his ill-fated one-and-only term. The replacements didn't improve his presidency.Jimmy Carter and "incompetence" are yoked together rather the way Neville Chamberlain and "appeasement" have forever been. Carter's anti-Israel bias is simply pathetic. Carter is an inveterate globe-trotter who has not infrequently made things worse, rather than better.

- liberal reformer

May 19, 2009 at 12:45pm

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

Noga, I take your point about Syria but I already said that I don't pretend to be an expert.  I leave that to others.  I do make reasonable attempts to think about issues in the context of limited knowledge, and view other perspectives.  I think that if your argument is that, more or less, no Syrian deal with Israel is possible, and therefore my superficial analysis is flawed (very possible), then I find that a compelling counter-argument -- but I still wonder why Prime Minister Olmert opened up the road to such a deal.  After all, wouldn't he have had someone to read the Lebanese papers for him?

But an odd thing happened when I lived in Berlin in 1989-90.  After the "Wende" and the Wall coming down, most people I knew (both expat and native), along with educated opinion in the papers, maintained that German unification was not an inevitable consequence, that there were too many factors against it ect.  Every friend and relative that called from abroad, however, curious about how things were on the ground, would make some comment like, "well I suppose unification is the next thing, right?"  Whereupon we would smugly inform them that that was not on the cards, that they didn't understand the German situation, that we were on the ground here and knew stuff they didn't etc etc.

Within the year, of course, German reunification had happened.  The clueless from abroad were right, the smart people on-site were wrong.  Why?  It's always nagged me, somewhat.

In re Carter, we've been around this one before and once again won't change anything.  I would simply note once again that JD's comment that Carter has not been criticized here for Camp David seems a little inaccurate.

And I certainly don't see Carter in Obama, to the extent that one can guage personality types.  And their situations are not parallel -- Carter had the fairly institutionalized Cold War to manage, while Obama has two shooting wars on his plate.

Your remark on the rescue attempt is just plain silly.  You deny your own intelliegence and judgment when you resort to snide "oh and something else!" digs.

- ironyroad

May 19, 2009 at 1:33pm

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

I wish to note that Professor William Quandt, who helped negotiate the Camp David Accords, has said that Jimmy Carter almost blew up the process with his bias.

- liberal reformer

May 19, 2009 at 2:02pm

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

I would suggest, ironyroad, that the distance in terms of culture, language, knowledge, and understanding between Americans and Germans is much much shorter than it is between Americans and Syrians. There has always been great curiosity and engagement  in the West about the two Germanies. Just consider the number of movies and books written about it!

Not the best analogy.

____________

Obama/Carter: I was not implying a similarity in the world problems they had to engage with. I'm talking about a similarity in inclination. Though one great redemptive quality about Obama is that he does not seem to have much of a religious sensibility. Nor is he a hypocrite. If only I could be reassured that he is a genuine friend of Israel and that he cares deeply for its security!

________________

"Your remark on the rescue attempt is just plain silly.  You deny your own intelliegence and judgment when you resort to snide "oh and something else!" digs."

Actually you are denigrating not my intelligence here but  that of my better half, a physicist with many years  of actual experience in the real world of the high-tech industries (by which I mean he actually has to solve problems, not just talk about them), and he was saying that about Israel's war in Lebanon which  was ill-managed and considered to have been at least a partial failure. Having read the way the Israeli chief of stuff managed things, and Olmert's hesitancy, it was no great surprise that the ground troops could not succeed in their mission. The Vinograd panel's final Report proved his assessment was correct. The fish, as we say in Israeli, stinks from the head.

- noga1

May 19, 2009 at 2:13pm

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

OK, so why did all the people living in Germany (admittedly, within a certain circle) think reunification was a non-starter and all those outside/abroad get it right?  Being close to the heart of the issue can sometimes mean you don't see it properly, was my point.

I meant you were denying your own intelligence, not that I was denigrating it (I would not do such a thing) -- I don't dispute at all that there can be a kind of structural failure of command that rolls outward and down (e.g. Katrina) but at the same time I don't hold Ronald Reagan responsible for the Challenger disaster even though it occurred on his watch and I opposed him.  Sometimes reality is recalcitrant and randomness rules.

"Israeli chief of stuff" is a wonderful typo!  Sounds like Moshe Dayan or one of those figures who could take charge of everything and cut through the bs.

I still think Olmert could have had someone read the Lebanese papers for him.  But maybe your point is that he didn't want to because the result might undermine his predetermined ideas.  Where have I seen that before?  Hm . . .

- ironyroad

May 19, 2009 at 2:42pm

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

"..so why did all the people living in Germany (admittedly, within a certain circle)"

I just don't get this sentence. Was it  "all the people" or "all the people within a certain circle"?

- noga1

May 19, 2009 at 3:23pm

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

I meant all the people within a certain circle (e.g. educated Germans, journalists who expounded in various media, us American/Brit/Irish/French expats in Berlin, and the like).

- ironyroad

May 19, 2009 at 3:26pm

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

"I meant you were denying your own intelligence,"

Whenever one's "intelligence' shows up in a conversation, it is not well intended, ironyroad, no matter how you may re-phrase your comments. If you want to denigrate my point of view, my information, my argument, my behaviour,  fine. Do not pretend however that you were not trying to scorn me when you suddenly introduced my intelligence into a discussion that had nothing to do with it. I have to wonder why talking about Carter induces this kind of nearly ferocious lashing out in you.  I'm genuinely curious. It's not the first time this has happened.

- noga1

May 19, 2009 at 4:47pm

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

BTW, ironyroad, relating to a different conversation we had a couple of weeks ago I think, this article may resonate with the feelings you described:

www.guardian.co.uk/.../israel-middle-east-max-hastings

And here is a response:

blog.z-word.com/.../max-hastings-falls-out-of-love

- noga1

May 19, 2009 at 4:56pm

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

Nogal: Your point is an extremely good one - Syria is not Germany. And Northern Ireland is not Palestine, either.

- liberal reformer

May 19, 2009 at 5:12pm

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

Nevertheless, I still think that arguing that there is a causal connection between the failed rescue operation and Carter's presidency is just plain silly, and is as unconvincing as me accusing Reagan of somehow being responsible (other than in an obvious institutional way) for the Challenger explosion.

I am sometimes ferocious, but rarely in conversation with you, Noga, and I don't understand why you can't resist hyperbole when there's no call for it.

All I originally wanted to do btw was to suggest that if Israel, at the highest levels of government, opts for talks with Syria, far be it from me to dismiss that decision out of hand.  And I found some of the comments here and on other threads about Obama, Israel, and negotiations somewhat conveniently left out that part of the story, implying that the current administration was somehow responsible for Israeli-Syrian talks.  Not so.

If others with more knowledge do in fact dismlss them as bound to fail, that's fine.  I'll take that into acount also.

- ironyroad

May 19, 2009 at 5:34pm

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

I read the Hastings piece, and the responses.  I wonder, what do you think of the quote from Amoz Oz about Israel becoming less of a European and more of a Middle Eastern society (assuming Hastings isn't taking him out of context)?

- ironyroad

May 19, 2009 at 6:16pm

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

"Nevertheless, I still think that arguing that there is a causal connection between the failed rescue operation and Carter's presidency is just plain silly, and is as unconvincing as me accusing Reagan of somehow being responsible (other than in an obvious institutional way) for the Challenger explosion."

There is a great deal more direct causal connection between the failed rescue operation and Carter's presidency (wasn't he the commander in chief? Was he not the one to give the order for action?  ) than there was between a collapsed bridge and Bush'es presidency yet I heard that argument being made repeatedly when it happened (by "your kind of people").  As for the Reagan/Challenger equivalence you seem so determined to impose, I really don't know. Was Reagan considered an incompetent and weak president? Was NASA's decision his responsibility?  

If Israel decides to attack the nuclear sites in Iran, and the mission will be a catastrophic failure, whom would you blame?  The IAF or Netanyahu?

I said "nearly ferocious". Why can't you resist hyperbole when there's no call for it?

- noga1

May 19, 2009 at 6:21pm

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

"Nogal: Your point is an extremely good one - Syria is not Germany. And Northern Ireland is not Palestine, either."

liberal reformer : Thank you. My point was slightly different (was talking about the relationship between Americans and Germans as a factor in their understanding of each other) . But of course it was Shimon Peres who  once said that unfortunately for Israel, its enemies are not the Swedes or the Finns. And this fact was not about to change any time soon.

- noga1

May 19, 2009 at 6:31pm

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

OK, "nearly" it is.  I can live with that.

I think that, in your scenario, Netanyahu would carry the political responsibility, and the IAF might well bear functional responsibllity if e.g. the chief of staff assured the PM that everything was in place for a success when he knew that navigation issues hadn't been worked out, but hid that information.

What I would not do is accuse Netanyahu of being "weak."  I think that's a somewhat fraudulent trope about Carter that's worked its way to the center of common wisdom, as such things will.

Again, I'm talking about his presidency, not stuff since then.

- ironyroad

May 19, 2009 at 6:40pm

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

liberal reformer said:  "Good to see you still here, jacksondyer. I have been on blogging vacation. I can't get much of anything read if I am out here too much."

Same here as far as reading goes which is why while still here I have been spending more time on my own work than posting.

My post have also been more abbreviated  than I like.

- jacksondyer

May 19, 2009 at 6:49pm

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

"Amoz Oz, who said something of the same kind, but from a different perspective: "People like you," he said to me, "are going to become very disappointed in Israel in the years ahead. You want it to behave like a European society. Instead, it is becoming a Middle Eastern society. I hope that it will not behave worse than other Middle Eastern societies. But you should not delude yourself that it is likely to behave much better."

Not a great fan of Amos Oz I am. I prefer AB Yehoshua.  In this quote, Oz expresses a typical  Ashkenazi elitist perspective, which has become quite politically incorrect as Israeli society has become more diverse and more egalitarian. Read the following two links for a different perspective, from an anti-Zionist who thinks Israel SHOULD become more Middle Eastern in order to co-exist with the Arab neighbors.

blog.z-word.com/.../a-divisive-book

And here:

brockley.blogspot.com/.../red-green-black.html

Today's Israel is a far greater and more dynamic democracy that it was when it aspired to seem more European. In this it is even more European than the Europeans. The ethos is Jewish and democratic, it cannot be anything else. Fighting an implacable, brutal and hateful enemy, Israelis have not responded in kind.  I would say that Oz's prediction simply did not materialize except in a mind like Hastings' who caught the European disease of rhinocerocis.

- noga1

May 19, 2009 at 7:01pm

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

"Netanyahu would carry the political responsibility, and the IAF might well bear functional responsibllity if e.g. the chief of staff assured the PM that everything was in place for a success when he knew that navigation issues hadn't been worked out, but hid that information."

Ironyroad, your answer here with all due respect, reveals the most forgiving attitude towards the duties and obligations of leadership. Israel went through something like that, after the Yom Kippur War, when the Agranat commission  "caused a stir in the country by placing the onus of responsibility on Chief of Staff David Elazar, the Chief of Military Intelligence General Eli Zeira, and the Chief of the Southern Command General Shmuel Gonen. Six people were held particularly responsible for Israel's failings:".

"Rather than quieting public discontent, the report—which "had stressed that it was judging the ministers' responsibility for security failings, not their parliamentary responsibility, which fell outside its mandate"—inflamed it. Although it had cleared Prime Minister Golda Meir and Defense Minister Moshe Dayan of all responsibility, public calls for their resignation (especially Dayan's) became more vociferous (Rabinovich, 502).

In response to these findings, Elazar resigned as Chief of Staff, and Zeira and Gonen were removed from active duty. Although she was vindicated by the report, Golda Meir herself resigned one month later in response to public pressure." (Wiki)

- noga1

May 19, 2009 at 7:16pm

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

Nogal: Amos Oz is a great talent but is not always a reliable guide to Middle Eastern politics. Your metapoint that Israel has not responded in kind is generally a valid one but I was disturbed by the disproportionate Israeli firepower in Gaza. By that, I do not mean "any response", as many anti-Israeli critics mean by that phrase.

- liberal reformer

May 19, 2009 at 7:22pm

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

"Although she was vindicated by the report, Golda Meir herself resigned one month later in response to public pressure." (Wiki)

Indeed, and Carter paid for, among other things, the Iran debacle (embassy and failed rescue) by going down to defeat a few months later in November 1980.

- ironyroad

May 20, 2009 at 12:14am

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

Does this mean that you finally got around to the actual consideration that Carter was indeed responsible for the failed rescue?

- noga1

May 20, 2009 at 12:32am

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

I reached that consideration decades ago.  That wasn't the issue here -- what bothers me is this trope about Carter's "weakness" that never takes note of the rescue attempts, and when someone brings it up the answer is always "oh well it failed."

To make myself clear:

1.  I don't think Carter was weak.

2.  I think his authorizing the rescue op is an item of evidence in his favor in that respect.

3.  It failed and he indeed bore political (and electoral) responsibility for that.

4.  It didn't fail because of Carter's particular style of leadership, however, it failed because in real life these things happen.

- ironyroad

May 20, 2009 at 12:31pm

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

Let's not have this argument again. It's like grinding water.

- noga1

May 20, 2009 at 3:15pm

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

OK -- I'm going to be out of the loop for a couple of weeks anyhow (a loud cheer rises from the discussion board, beginning in California and ending somewhere in Canada)

- ironyroad

May 20, 2009 at 4:03pm

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close