The New Republic

Before the usual suspects start posting their predictable attacks, I would like to endorse most of what Marty said. Most not all, since the notion of self hating Jews is a conjecture at best not supported by the evidence. Antisemitic Jews hater other Jews and rarely themselves. They are usually full of self pity and are corrupted by moral self righteousness. They are, in short no different from other antisemites. None of this fits E. Rahm.

- jacksondyer

September 21, 2009 at 12:51pm

But who calls Rahm Emanuel a "self-hating Jew"? I thought it was attributed to Netanyahu but that he denied having made such a comment.

- noga1

September 21, 2009 at 1:39pm

"Still, disagreeing about a tactic--he and the president pressing Israel to forswear building on to settlements--is not one of these points of departure. I actually believe that Israel has done as much as it could and should on this question. So I disagree with Rahm on this issue." Great and sensible posting. We can disagree about this issue without being nasty. Even many Israelis are divided on this issue and that sure as hell doesn't mean they are against Israel. Even with myself as to the issue of the expansion of the settlements I am of two (hell, 3 or 4) minds. I have seen the pictures and they are building on empty hillsides so provided they aren't bulldozing out Palestinian residents, I think, why not? I own a home in China and Mexico, so why can't they live there. But then again, I don't claim my homes are American territory either, which is where my doubt comes in, yet again how else to get the Palestinians to the table, etc. As you can see, I do not have a clue what is the best policy, so I can't state that either Marty or Rahm is wrong because I have no idea, but I sure as hell believe that each came to their viewpoints honestly.

- blackton

September 21, 2009 at 2:03pm

jackson, just curious, what is your views on the expansion of the settlements? you too Noga.

- blackton

September 21, 2009 at 2:05pm

by the way, speaking of Leon, this is a great review: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/books/review/Wieseltier-t.html?sq=Leon%20Wieseltier%20&st=cse&scp=4&pagewanted=all Sometimes Leon is a flawless gem, for me that review was one such instance.

- blackton

September 21, 2009 at 2:21pm

Obama is calling for total freeze on all settlements. He takes the Palestinian line that sees the neighborhoods in Jerusalem and the settlements along the green line (on it, just west of it) and in the Jordan Valley as illegal "settlements", full stop. Bush differentiated among these three kinds of settlements, and correctly so. In my view, it is better that Israel withdraws to a more defensible borderline. And this can only happen if Jewish settlements enclaved deep inside Palestinian land are removed and moved into areas within Israel. As long as there is presence there, there will be growth. And this growth worries me because it does not seem to have a future commensurate with the wishes of most Israelis. Separation is an existential necessity for Israel. The ultra religious settlers who are there mostly because of their faith will simply have to accept that Israel's law will bind them, and that Israel's needs cannot be achieved in the Jewish heartland but somewhere nearby. However, Jewish presence in the WB is not illegal, no more than Arab presence in Israel is illegal. Jews have as much claim to settle in Hebron as some Palestinians have claims to settle in Ramla. But it is not realistic for either of these populations to realize these claims. so there will have to be a swapping of rights, at some point: Israelis will remove to inside Israel and Palestinians will renounce their claims to historic Palestine. It won't do, however, if Israel were to uproot its settlements before the Palestinians did their part, which is mainly ceremonial. Clinton, btw, offered Arafat 30+ billion dollars to compensate Palestinian "refugees" for the loss of their homes 60 years ago. Arafat refused. And anyway, the Jerusalem neigborhoods are not going anyway, ever, nor the settlements that were meant to "thicken" the green line. There the construction continues and should not be frozen.

- noga1

September 21, 2009 at 2:31pm

mp: Rahm was never touched by even the whiff of scandal. george: Marty apparently lives in a world where funneling enormous sums of money into Congress allows Wall Street to write the legislation itself. That Rahm embodied this in his own Congressional stint is not scandulous at all. Is it, Marty? You make exceptions for friends. Hell, we all do. That's the part where human psychology makes a mockery of all our attempts to be intellectually consistent....and honest. Thus: "Frankly, though, if I felt for a moment that we had morally parted on Israel it would have set up some barriers in our relationship." george: An early warning, perhaps? Now, I'm not calling Marty out on this. Merely pointing out just how convoluted our moral and political values can become when we step out of the clouds and come back down to earth. And though the Israeli settlements are a violation of international law, fuck that; that's part of the U.N.; and Israel, like the U.S., has always been rather cherry picky about the U.N. It's okay in 1948, but not okay now. Hypocrisy is what THEY do though. After all, it's obvious the settlements are not even on occupied land. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, paragraph 6, provides that: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." You just ratonalize this by insisting it is relevant only if the governmnet does this---forcefully. If the settlers steal the land and governmnet does nothing to stop them....well, obviously, that's different. Right. After all, what could the Israeli government do? They were probably outnumbered. But I certainly back Marty in calling out those who accuse Rahm of being a "self-hating Jew". In a sense they are the anti-Semites because they insist that all Semites must think exactly like they do. Or they are not TRUE Jews. And boy do I get clobbered in here for that!! george

- iambiguous

September 21, 2009 at 2:34pm

"Obama is calling for total freeze on all settlements. He takes the Palestinian line that sees the neighborhoods in Jerusalem and the settlements along the green line (on it, just west of it) and in the Jordan Valley as illegal "settlements", full stop." Yes, he is calling for a total freeze there's a cardinal rule of diplomacy: Always start by demanding what you really want, but then expect to make compromises. So, despite the administration's insistence on a total building freeze, the State Department has officials saying to reporters: "The settlements aren't the be-all, end-all" of American policy efforts. Israeli announcement of new West Bank construction "doesn't mean we're going to stop working toward setting the conditions for negotiations." Indeed, The Los Angeles Times reports, "U.S. officials said privately that they never had expected to win a total settlement freeze and noted that Mitchell had avoided stating this as an objective" — though that may be an after-the-fact excuse for an administration that seriously expected to win a total freeze but couldn't get it and decided to back down. By the way, can you provide me a link where he says all of these settlements are illegal? Noga, as to the rest of your posting, I have no objections.

- blackton

September 21, 2009 at 2:53pm

not bothering to read what he writes, I assume gw is up to his standard "assholiness" hey, don't be offended, maybe I am being ironic, or maybe tendentious, laying out some pearls for everyone to read. noga, previous administrations up through Carter called the settlements illegal, I am curious where Obama did.

- blackton

September 21, 2009 at 3:03pm

Obama, in his Cairo Speech: "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/04/barack-obama-speech-cairo-israel

- noga1

September 21, 2009 at 3:10pm

"... So Abbas will have to sit at a table for three at the U.N., something he said he would never do unless Israel had given up on construction in the settlements (even in the ones that everyone recognizes will never be surrendered), in east Jerusalem and in the areas of Jerusalem which since 1967 have housed 150,000 to 200,000 Jews..." As a negotiating tactic, the maximalist demand for a total settlement freeze seems to playing out worse than had Obama not said anything new in the first place. Unless I'm missing something, it seems to have only resulted in Obama losing the trust of and credibility among both the Palestinians and the Israelis. And how do the optics of the tripartite meeting under such circumstances not cause Abbas to lose face and thereby strengthen Hamas?

- malahat

September 21, 2009 at 4:10pm

blackton "jackson, just curious, what is your views on the expansion of the settlements? you too Noga." I believe that the building of settlements deep in the West Bank was a mistake. I don’t believe that Israel can or should unilaterally withdraw those settlements. They certainly shouldn’t build any more settlements or outposts and I have no problem with a freeze on enlarging them. I also don’t think that the settlements are the root of the problem with the Palestinians. They are rather a socio political and economic problem for Israelis. To maintain them the country has to use up a lot of resources better used elsewhere. There really is no justification for keeping them going, except for those areas immediately adjacent to Jerusalem, since at some point they will be dismantled. Now, having said this I do think that the Obama people have shot themselves in the foot by making the settlements, without clearly defining what they consider “a settlement,” if not the main issue at least the main focus of their attention. They have given the Palestinians another excuse for not resuming peace talks. The whole issue has been ineptly handled and has played into the hands of people on both sides who don’t want to see the peace process go forward. By making impossible demands of Israel, Obama has made it seem as if the conflict is between the US and Israel, rather than between the Arab world and the Palestinians and Israel.

- jacksondyer

September 21, 2009 at 4:37pm

Jackson, Great post!

- malahat

September 21, 2009 at 4:57pm

jackson, to be honest, I don't think anything will get the Palestinians to negotiate in good faith, I just think it is all kabuki theater. "I also don’t think that the settlements are the root of the problem with the Palestinians. They are rather a socio political and economic problem for Israelis. To maintain them the country has to use up a lot of resources better used elsewhere. There really is no justification for keeping them going, except for those areas immediately adjacent to Jerusalem, since at some point they will be dismantled." Sounds right to me.

- blackton

September 21, 2009 at 5:21pm

Obama is not just talking about turning somebody's back porch into a Florida room. He's talking about an estimated 3,500 new housing units in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Netanyahu is not backing down.

- MOLLYSIMON

September 21, 2009 at 5:44pm

Like Jack said, the administration shot themselves in the foot right from the get-go. And the consequence is they’ve managed to blow the little political capital they had with Israel, and may have nothing to show for it. With all the multiple channels - governmental and private - built up over the years between both nations, one would think the administration could have done a better job of communication and assurance……something that should have been top priority given the sense of unease and insecurity felt by Israelis over the election of Obama -- a president unknown to them, and who has no record they could check up on. W. Bush had no record either, but long before becoming president, he had established close ties and trust with Sharon. But I sometimes wonder why Bibi doesn’t call Abbas on his bluff and temporarily freeze the settlements as called for by the US (not permanently, mind you), then sit back and watch the PA do what they do best, nothing. Chances are their move would be boneheaded. In which case Bibi gets the high ground, the White House gets the pressure and challenge of making the PA yield something or else the Israelis go back to settlement expansion. So, why didn’t Bibi do that? It could be that he doesn’t ever want to give up his original dream of greater Israel (a freeze just might get the ball rolling in ways that could shatter that dream). Or maybe I’m wrong, he wants to freeze, but does not have enough political juice to survive the expected backlash from the Israeli Right. And so he exploits the White House missteps. I personally don’t see anything wrong with the demand to freeze settlement construction for just a little while. But anyhow, it doesn’t matter now, it’s obvious the president and his team mishandled it from the start. And it’s now a mess.

- scrubby

September 21, 2009 at 8:38pm

So Scrubby, just to get this straight. You think settlement expansion is a good thing?

- MOLLYSIMON

September 22, 2009 at 12:03am

Molly, no, the settlements are not a good thing. I know my earlier post didn't make that clear because I kept emphasizing temporary freeze rather than a permanent freeze. In my humble opinion, the settlements are bad for Israel for both strategic and moral reasons. But the reason it's better to start off with a *temporary* freeze is this: 1) It puts the onus on Abbas to make the next move. (though I wouldn't hold my breath). (2) the political crisis from the Israeli Right wouldn't be quite the earthquake a permanent freeze would unleash. (the nutty fringe within the religious Right, I'm sure, would still do something silly, but they are manageable.) In the end, if the temporary freeze leads to a tangible progress in the peace process (a big "if"), then I think the Israelis could easily make the freeze permanent, with little backlash from their rightwing. By the way, nice to see you come out of hibernation. Kinda missed ya!

- scrubby

September 22, 2009 at 7:39am

hey scrubby, outside of an errant and easily ignored single posting finally a good thread. here is hoping there is more of these.

- blackton

September 22, 2009 at 10:31am

Scrubby: "In my humble opinion, the settlements are bad for Israel for both strategic and moral reasons." I agree that for strategic purposes, Israelis should not be living among the Palestinian population. But where is the moral impediment?

- noga1

September 22, 2009 at 12:52pm

blackie, about the increasingly better thread since the temporary hijack of tnr 3.0 talkback by our resident comic, I hear you. I hope more talkbackers return. Even though I disagreed with some of their viewpoints, I still missed many of them and their pissing fights.

- scrubby

September 22, 2009 at 2:21pm

noga asks “But where is the moral impediment?” Simple, noga. It’s not Israeli land. Now, given the fact that the lands were captured in a defensive war, I have no qualms with Israel holding unto them until the terrorist crackpots, their supporters and the Arab/Palestinian governments and population in general come to a reasonable accord with Israel. But the cynical populating of those lands by Israel in an attempt to create what Menachem Begin described as “facts on the ground” is what I’m not in agreement with. Yeah, the Israelis say they’d give it up for a secure peace, and yet, see how difficult it has become to freeze building, even temporarily. If the Palestinians willingly sell or swap the lands, fine. But that’s not the case….yet.

- scrubby

September 22, 2009 at 2:34pm

Rahm Emanuel tomorrow, 23 September on Charlie Rose Tonight it's Salam Fayyad, Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority

- noga1

September 22, 2009 at 7:29pm

Why must I, an American citiaen, support via my tax dollars, and in violation of both the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and the equal treatment principle of the 14th Amendment, a foreign country that is both theocratic and racist? Worse, this is a nation whose armed services deliberately attacked the U.S.S. Liberty in June 1967, killing more than 30 American sailors. Why must we Americans be required to underwrite this ungrateful ersatz nation in violation of our Bill of Rights?

- Denman59

September 23, 2009 at 6:02pm

Denman59: Israel is a racist state? Or they have some citizens who are racist just like we do? Which is it? But regardless, on both counts, are we better than them? And what makes them ersatz, exactly? As to your assertion about the U.S.S Liberty incident, who says it was a deliberate attack? If I follow your logic correctly, you are saying that our best ally deliberately attacked us without provocation, without a motive, and with nothing to gain. Uh huh! Whatever you are smoking ain't very good.

- scrubby

September 23, 2009 at 6:33pm

To Scrubby: >Israel is a racist state? I would say so, given that the Knesset has declared Israel as a state that exists for the benefit of Jews and no other. >Or they have some citizens who are racist just like we do? Yes, but irrelevant. >But regardless, on both counts, are we better than them? Irrelevant. >And what makes them ersatz, exactly? I don't recognize Israel. >As to your assertion about the U.S.S Liberty incident, who says it was a deliberate attack? A friend of mine who was a seaman aboard the ship when it was attacked. >If I follow your logic correctly, you are saying that our best ally deliberately attacked us without provocation, without a motive, and with nothing to gain. I didn't say that. I said only that the attack was deliberate. The Israelis had motive, although no provocation. The Israelis were aware that the USS Liberty had intercepted cables that revealed that the Israelis were trying to provoke the 1967 war. Btw. I don't smoke. The point of my message is that it us unconstitutional for we Americans of non-dual loyalty to be forced to support Israel. Israel is often incorrectly referred to as an "ally" of the United States. I dispute that description. The correct description of the relationship between Israel and the United States is that of beneficiary and benefactor, Israel being the former and the United States being the latter. I've grown weary of being compelled to support Zionist aggression in Palestine..

- Denman59

September 23, 2009 at 7:42pm