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 I’ve Never Seen Israel Like This

WILLIAM GALSTON JUNE 27, 2010

I’ve Never Seen Israel Like This

BY WILLIAM GALSTON

Jerusalem—I visit Israel at least once a year, so I have an opportunity to observe changes in the country's concerns. Never before have I sensed such a mood of foreboding, which has been triggered by two issues above all—the looming impasse in relations with the United States and a possible military confrontation with Iran.

In response to American pressure that began shortly after President Obama took office, the Netanyahu government agree last November to a temporary and partial freeze on construction in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, which averted an immediate crisis. The freeze expires in September, however, and it will not be renewed. As I write, the central committee of the Likud Party is meeting to consider a resolution supporting renewed construction in all parts of the country. Netanyahu has signaled that he will not oppose the resolution, which its proponents describe as a way of pinning him down and removing all ambiguity about Israel's future course. The Prime Minister is scheduled to visit the United States in early July and to meet with President Obama. In the face of an Israeli stance that will torpedo the current proximity talks in the fall, what will the president say to him? If Netanyahu leaves Washington without a clear sense of the U.S. stance, he and everyone else will interpret it as a signal that he can stay the course at minimal price.

There are persistent rumors here that the Obama administration hopes to bring down the current Israeli government and replace it with a more tractable coalition. Don't hold your breath. The potential new coalition member--the Kadima Party headed by Tsipi Livni—will not join unless Netanyahu fundamentally alters his stance in the negotiations with the Palestinian. Headed by Avigdor Lieberman, the hardline forces in the current coalition will not accept Kadima unless it accepts a tough government platform including the transfer of Israeli Arab villages to a new Palestinian state in return for the incorporation of major West Bank settlements into Israel. Netanyahu's stated position is that he will accept Kadima as an addition to the coalition but not as a replacement for Lieberman and Company. To bring about a new coalition without the hardliners, the Obama administration would have to threaten Israel with measures at least as tough as the ones George H. W. Bush and James Baker implemented two decades ago against the Shamir government, risking a huge domestic political backlash.

Looking farther east, most Israelis—including many who are very dovish vis-a-vis the Palestinians—believe that only military force can prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power in the near future, and they cannot understand why the United States resists this conclusion. According to Ha'aretz, eyewitnesses on the ground support a recent report from the Times of London that Saudi Arabia has agreed to open its airspace to Israeli aircraft "as part of preparations for a possible attack on Iran." (Israel refused to comment on this report, which the Saudis of course have denied.)

A few months ago I participated in a day-long exercise, organized by the Brookings Institution, simulating the aftermath of a surprise Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. The outcome wasn't pretty—a forceful Iranian attack on American allies throughout the region and a serious rift in relations between Israel and the United States. The Israeli team hoped that the United States would back them with military measures against Iran that the American team refused to initiate.

In both these areas, the Obama administration has been playing for time. But the sand in the hourglass is running down quickly. Some time this fall, an administration headed toward a midterm election with a faltering economy and negative developments in two war zones may confront a genuine Middle East crisis. We can only hope that its contingency plans are in place and that they're better than BP's.     

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 116 comments

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

116 comments

William Galston writes: -- As I write, the central committee of the Likud Party is meeting to consider a resolution supporting renewed construction in all parts of the country. (my emphasis) Israel is more than welcome to build anywhere it likes in Israel. The problem is, and always has been, an Israeli desire to build in the Occupied Palestinian Territories including East Jerusalem. The settlement of Israeli citizens in occupied territory is a violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and it is long past time when the Israeli Government was held accountable for these violations.

- ndmackenzie

June 28, 2010 at 2:17am

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

The Arabs have never agreed to any boundaries for Israel nor to a cessation of violence against Israel. So, what is Israeli and what is Arab? The pre-1967 "borders" were armistice lines from 1948. Also, the disputed territories in Judea and Samaria were taken by Israel in a war of self-defense, not conquest. Remember, Jordan, the then foreign ruler of Judea and Samaria, attacked Israel in 1967. So how can Mack talk about "occupied" territories? I suppose that, like Goebbels, he thinks that repetition of a lie will turn it into an accepted truth. Why is he so passionate about this international dispute and not others involving more people and greater injustices? What dog does he have in this dispute? It is another, but legitimate, question altogether for the Israelis whether all the Jewish settlements are strategically wise, whether they are viable, and whether they adequately respect the rights of other inhabitants of the area.

- amidut

June 28, 2010 at 9:11am

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

The territories are occupied because Israel holds them as occupied, under military occupation government. Hence, settlement of its own population there IS a violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The alternative would be for Israel to annex the territories and incorporate them as part of its own sovereign territory. Then it could settle there without being in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, although it would then have other legal issues under the applicable UN Security Council resolutions. However, if Israel did incorporate the territories, it would have to grant the inhabitants equal political rights or be guilty of the crime of apartheid. This is without doubt the very reason why Israel does not incorporate them as it did the territory that it occupied after the 1948 war; it cannot give the inhabitants political rights and survive as a majority Jewish state. It certainly has no obligation to incorporate the territories. It could legally remain in occupation as long as security so requires, which means until the Arabs make a viable peace. But, while occupying, it cannot settle. That violates the Geneva convention. It is not possible to have it both ways, both denying the inhabitants the rights of citizens and settling the territories as if they were Israeli territory.

- roidubouloi

June 28, 2010 at 1:07pm

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

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." This is the state of Israel, and why peace remains impossible. The 2 million or so liberal secular Jews that don't want the territories and don't like the settlers and believe in universal human values are gradually going to drift away from Israel. They are voting with their feet because the ballot box solves nothing. 500,000 have left already, there are large Israeli expat communities in the US, and these will continue to swell. Israel will become more a hardline rightwing state dominated by secular rightists, the Orthodox, and the Russians, a state that will hold little appeal to the average American Jew. That coalition now has an insurmountable electoral advantage, and with wacky cheerleaders like Marty Peretz they are going to drive Israel over a cliff. The danger of a nuclear Iran is not that they will seek to immediately exchange Tel Aviv for Teheran but that it will freeze Israel's military dominance and it will accelerate the departure of the non-hardcore Jews to the Anglo-Saxon nations.

- nayyer_ali

June 28, 2010 at 1:39pm

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

I'm sorry, is it the Despair for Israel day of the week AGAIN?

- egottlieb

June 28, 2010 at 3:09pm

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

amidut writes: -- So how can Mack talk about "occupied" territories? I suppose that, like Goebbels, he thinks that repetition of a lie will turn it into an accepted truth. Every responsible political and legal authority views the Palestinian Territories including East Jerusalem to be occupied. Those who support the Israeli "settlers" can "dispute" the facts all they want but the fact remains that Israel is the recognized occupying power of the Palestinian Territories. Predicated as it is on a falsehood their disputation is a lie. It is those who continue to deny the occupation who are locked in some fantasy about repetition of a lie creating a truth.

- ndmackenzie

June 28, 2010 at 4:46pm

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

My question, in different words, to Mack remains. Why is he so exercised about Israel's success? Nayyer Ali disingenuously invokes "universal human values". Most of his fellow Arabs and Muslims certainly don't share such values. And those Arabs/Iranians/Turks who won't submit to the Islamic order or can't find economic opportunity are fleeing to the West. Is he one of them?

- amidut

June 28, 2010 at 7:09pm

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

nayyer_ali “"The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." This is the state of Israel, and why peace remains impossible.” This is a joke, right? The passionate intensity of the Hamas, the al Aksa Brigade and other Palestinians and in fact most Arabs, are off the charts. Jews, in Israel, and elsewhere are pretty lackadaisical by comparison. Check this out: “Jewish dance group stoned in Hanover, Germany” “Youths reportedly shouted "Juden Raus" (Jews Out) as they attacked the dancers of the Chaverim ("Friends" in Hebrew) dance troupe last weekend. Police said several Muslim immigrant youths were among the attackers and two youths were being questioned.” This was from the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/europe/10406344.stm

- jdyer

June 28, 2010 at 7:30pm

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

amidut writes: -- Why is he so passionate about this international dispute and not others involving more people and greater injustices? What dog does he have in this dispute? and follows up with the non sequitur: -- Why is he so exercised about Israel's success? I suspect there were more than a few Americans in 1940 who asked similar questions of their fellow countrymen concerned about the German occupation of Europe. The World has a dim view of the colonization of one country by another. It is certainly a great betrayal that there are so many willing to condone the Israeli colonization of the Palestinian Territories BECAUSE Israel is a "Jewish State." The only question I would put to amidut is why he (or she) chooses to lie in support of this colonization.

- ndmackenzie

June 28, 2010 at 7:36pm

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

ndmackenzie "I suspect there were more than a few Americans in 1940 who asked similar questions of their fellow countrymen concerned about the German occupation of Europe." Muckenzie is showing his antisemitic colors again. The same people who asked "a similar question" where also asking why the Jews of Palestine (at that time they were called Palestinians were not being deported to Europe where they could be killed by Muckenzie's friends?

- jdyer

June 28, 2010 at 7:51pm

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

Yates nayyer_ali wrote his poem which you quoted about the Irish rebellion. Since the poem describes the coming of the anti-Christ it is reasonable to suppose that he was protesting that violent event. I doubt he would have approved of the PLO or Hamas' tactics murderous intense tactics.

- jdyer

June 28, 2010 at 7:59pm

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bassam_Tibi

- jdyer

June 28, 2010 at 8:09pm

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

Tibi just published a paper on the "Islamization of antisemitism" which I have been trying to post a link but withous sucess. For those interested it's at the Yale University website.

- jdyer

June 28, 2010 at 8:12pm

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

It's Yeats, not Yates, and his poem "The Second Coming" was not about an Irish rebellion but about his vision of a new, mechanistic, and totalitarian world order that would (in his vision or theory of the movement of history) displace the Christian-Hellenic era after 2000 years.

- ironyroad

June 28, 2010 at 8:17pm

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

Is Mack trying to minimize the crimes of Hitler by comparing Germany's occupation of Europe to Israel's "occupation" of Judea, Samaria, Gaza (kindly ceded by Israel to Hamas), and the Golan?

- amidut

June 28, 2010 at 8:22pm

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

OK, but the events of 1919 as well as the first World War were certaily on his mind when he wrote the poem. Bloom also sees references to the Russian revolution of 1917. My point is that the references to violent historical events figure prominantly in the poem.

- jdyer

June 28, 2010 at 8:27pm

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

amidut "Is Mack trying to minimize the crimes of Hitler by comparing Germany's occupation of Europe to Israel's "occupation" of Judea, Samaria, Gaza (kindly ceded by Israel to Hamas), and the Golan?" What Muck is doing is saying that Israel is like Nazi Germany. Subtle he is not and like all antisemites he can't control his passion for taunting Jews. By saying that the victims of the nazis are the "real nazis" he is doing just that.

- jdyer

June 28, 2010 at 8:30pm

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

Galston fails to note whether the Brookings Institution exercise included a number of scenarios that do not require Israel to strike first. Iranian support for Shi'a 'insurgencies' in Azerbaijan, Bahrain, and along Saudi Arabia's porous border with Yemen. Maybe an Iranian fighter plane buzzes the USS Truman the way one did the Eisenhower on April 21, with different consequences. Or, Iraqi Kurdistan decides to defend it's sovereignty and starts a mini-war with Iran. As to regime change? I think Obama has seen enough fractured coalitions emerging from recent elections to now understand Israel is no longer his biggest problem. Avigdor Lieberman comes to the UN to replace Shalev? :)

- K2K

June 28, 2010 at 9:49pm

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

Israel should withdraw from most of the West Bank but not from any of Jerusalem or its suburbs. Let the so-called Palestinians have their state. If that state is peaceful, fine. If it isn't, bomb it 24/7. That's what it took to civilize Germany and Japan in the 40's, and may be be what it will take to do the same for the Palestinian Arabs, who are not ashamed of their admiration for Adolf Hitler. Before making any major moves Israel should wait for the impending defeat of Barack Hussein Obama, for obvious reasons.

- bulbman1066

June 29, 2010 at 12:51am

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

JD: "My point is that the references to violent historical events figure prominantly in the poem." True enough, but for WBY those events were more related symptoms of a deeper cosmic-historical shift than discrete manifestations of political ideologies (= the Bosheviks thought they were drivers in charge of history, but they were just a vehicle). I don't think the poem is a "political" poem in any narrow sense. BTW do you think it would be possible to get 25 subscriber names on an email to TNR to protest this Repower America nuisance?

- ironyroad

June 29, 2010 at 10:48am

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

I'll sign the splatter petition:) Meanwhile with Yeats I think both assertions may have been true. He had a theory about cosmic shifts or spirals (gyres) but also had experienced violent political upheavals. Plus there was his dream woman, Maude Gonne and her revolutionary sentiments.

- Sophia

June 29, 2010 at 1:43pm

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

Israel should seriously begin considering the implications of a one-nation solution with all of the West Bank inclusive. According to David Shulman of NY Review Likud hard-liner Moshe Arens said that it is now too late to remove settlers without Jewish civil war. The settlers seem more attached to their fantasies of Biblical Land than a viable state. With a strict rule of law and minority protections it might even work. Otherwise the Palestinians could win without firing a single shot

- NR027810

June 29, 2010 at 1:58pm

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

"The settlers seem more attached to their fantasies of Biblical Land than a viable state" That depends whom you count under the term "settlers".

- noga1

June 29, 2010 at 2:09pm

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

Yeah, and like where do you count Netanyahu, Lieberman, Likud, etc.?

- roidubouloi

June 29, 2010 at 3:16pm

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

noga1 ""The settlers seem more attached to their fantasies of Biblical Land than a viable state" That depends whom you count under the term "settlers"." Whom do you count as "settlers," Noga?

- jdyer

June 29, 2010 at 3:19pm

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

noga1 ""The settlers seem more attached to their fantasies of Biblical Land than a viable state" That depends whom you count under the term "settlers"." Whom do you count as "settlers," Noga?

- jdyer

June 29, 2010 at 3:19pm

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

noga1 ""The settlers seem more attached to their fantasies of Biblical Land than a viable state" That depends whom you count under the term "settlers"." Whom do you count as "settlers," Noga?

- jdyer

June 29, 2010 at 3:19pm

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

I don’t agree with Arens and I would have to make sure he wasn’t quoted out of context. NY Review of books articles on Israel tend not to be reliable. From my perspective “it’s not too late” and I don’t think that even the settlers are stupid enough to start a “civil war” in which the only winner will be the Arabs. Most of them move if the Israel government demands it or if they are left without the protection of the Israeli army.

- jdyer

June 29, 2010 at 3:31pm

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

"Middle East Proximity Talks: Questions for Washington" by Khaled Abu Toameh June 29, 2010 at 5:00 am "Even if Israel and the Palestinian Authority were to reach a peace agreement sometime in the near future, it is certain that the Palestinian Authority would not be able to implement it or sell it to a majority of Palestinians. ... [conclusion] ...Also, why do the Americans and the Europeans continue to turn a blind eye to the fact that the Palestinians already have two states – one in the Gaza Strip under Hamas and the second in the West Bank under Fatah? It is becoming increasingly hard to tell what the Palestinians exactly want. While once a majority of them appeared to support the idea of a two-state solution, many seem to think that the one-state solution, where Jews and Arabs would live together and not apart from each other, is not a bad idea after all. Then there is a third group that continues to believe that the only solution lies in the elimination of the Jewish state. The only way to move forward with any peace process is by insisting that the Palestinians first get their act together and end the infighting between the two Palestinian states. Perhaps before we search for ways to make peace between Jews and Palestinians, we need first need to find a way to achieve peace between Palestinians and Palestinians." Toameh's complete essay at: hudson-ny.org/1391/middle-east-proximity-talks-questions-for and, for those looking for perspective on foreign policy and diplomatic history that has zero mention of Israel, a very thoughtful essay when considering Af-Pak and/or China, and/or America's place in 21st century: "A Time to Appease" 06.22.2010 by Paul Kennedy [Author of "the Rise and Fall of Great Powers] nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=23542 (anyone offended by that URL can find same essay at Turkey's WorldBulletin.net or a link from YaleAlumniMagazine) just add the http and www

- K2K

June 29, 2010 at 3:47pm

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

"Whom do you count as "settlers," Noga?" I'll tell whom I do not count as "settlers" (as the term has come to signify the lowest of the low Jews). Those who live in Jerusalem and environs, those who live along and just beyond the Green Line, those who live in Gush Etzion, those who live in the Jordan Valley (and if you like, those who live on Golan Heights). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Valley_%28Middle_East%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gush_Etzion All these are not "more attached to their fantasies of Biblical Land than a viable state". Many and possibly most of them do not even define themselves as "traditional" and are no different than most Israelis who live in Hertzelia, kfar Saba, Netanya or Beer Sheva. So a little discretion and responsibility are called for when someone seeks to show how liberal or how anti-settlements they are.

- noga1

June 29, 2010 at 4:59pm

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

"Yeah, and like where do you count Netanyahu, Lieberman, Likud, etc.?" Don't understand the question.

- noga1

June 29, 2010 at 5:01pm

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

President Obama's own words after his meeting with Saudi's King Abdullah: "...We talked about our joint interest and work together in combating violent extremism. And we talked about a range of strategic issues, including issues related to Afghanistan and Pakistan; Iran and its attempts to develop nuclear weapons capacity. We discussed the Middle East peace process and the importance of moving forward in a significant and bold way in securing a Palestinian homeland that can live side by side with a secure and prosperous Israeli state. ..." ... KING ABDULLAH: (As translated.) "Thank you very much, Mr. President. I believe you have covered everything and left nothing out in terms of our conversation. ... And I would like to say to the friendly American people that the American people are friends of Saudi Arabia and its people, and they are friends of the Arab and Muslim people, and they are also friends of humanity. ... And I also would like to thank our friends here in the media. May God spare us from all of the bad things they can do to us. (Laughter.) And may God bless us with all the positive things they can do for us and for humanity." PRESIDENT OBAMA: "Well, that is an excellent prayer. Thank you." END 2:42 P.M. EDT whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-obama-and-his-majesty-king-abdullah-saudi-arabia-meeting Just in case you have already read Haaretz's distorted coverage of the exact same press conference, without mentioning the language "Palestinian homeland...secure and prosperous Israeli state." I wonder how Israeli water desalination technology compares to Saudi Arabia's other options... btw, Obama and Abdullah had a working, private, lunch.

- K2K

June 29, 2010 at 5:19pm

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

Galston has definitely caught on to the mood in Israel. I have long said that the Iranian nukes issue is one that cuts across the political spectrum, producing a very broad consensus. Add to that now the marked distrust of Obama & the general worthlessness of international guaranties and other such nonsense. Indeed, in a closed meeting with senior Israeli Foreign Ministry personnel, Michael Oren reportedly warned of a tectonic shift or rift in the US-Israeli relationship (see here and / or (text inserted here to shift the next url away from the "view full comment" link .... ..... ...... .... ... ... ... ... .. .. .... .....) here). I'm actually surprised MP didn't pick up on this story. Too much cognitive dissonance I suspect. The broad perception of Israelis, including much of the ever shrinking left, is that the effect of Obama's policies vis a vis Israel (few are fooled by a "charm offensive" that mysteriously coincides with the run up to the big mid-term elections in November) as well as that of the EUniks should they succeed, will be to turn Israel into a Gulliver state having on the one hand a strong military but on the other hand prevented from using it effectively to defend itself. This makes the willingness to take "risks" for peace far less likely. Another Obama boomerang. For another, reasonably accurate report on the mood in Israel & why Israelis, including those on the moderate, thinking left, are skeptical about any peace deal with the Pals, see Jeff Goldberg's recent report of his recent visit to the Perfidious Zionist Entity (his black-humorous term) here. For the record I think Goldberg is excessively generous in his assessment of Fayad & Abu Mazen, but in the end that is a minor point. Forget the question of the willingness of the "settlers" to move (for the record I don't think there would be a civil war, although some segments **MAY** oppose an evacuation more forcefully than was the case in Gush Katif). Most Israelis INSIDE the Green Line are fearful of Israel pulling out of Judea & Samaria even with an agreement with the P.A. & all the international guaranties & UN promises you could pile on. The Lebanon & Gaza experiences have mugged Israelis and the last thing they want to see are rockets fired into the heart of the country -- in particular Israel's sole international airport, with the IDF's hands tied by the thoroughly hypocritical threat of lawfare (see demands for an "international investigation" of the flotilla incident). On the legality (as opposed to their advisability) of the Israeli communities over the green line (a.k.a. the "settlements") see here and / or here. Roid, I assume you accept Israeli retention of the Golan since it was annexed de facto and the Druse & Alawite residents there were granted permanent residency with the option (theirs) to become citizens. Many, though not all, did. Interestingly, in the last election the biggest vote-getter among the Golan Druze who voted (i.e. who took on citizenship) was Lieberman's Yisra'el Beiteinu party. I am not sure how the Alawites in Ghagar voted. They are all citizens. It's past my bedtime. Hershel Ginsburg Efrata / Jerusalem

- ginzy

June 29, 2010 at 5:44pm

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

ginzy “The Lebanon & Gaza experiences have mugged Israelis and the last thing they want to see are rockets fired into the heart of the country -- in particular Israel's sole international airport, with the IDF's hands tied by the thoroughly hypocritical threat of lawfare (see demands for an "international investigation" of the flotilla incident).” This isn’t surprising, ginzy, yet you left out one other alternative: Move the settlers deep in West Bank, (Hebron ,etc) but don’t relinquish the territory till a credible peace can be achieved. Sharon’s mistake wasn’t in moving the settlers out of Gaza; it was in pulling out of the territory without a real agreement with PA. Absence such an agreement they should have kept the military occupation in place. The Lebanon withdrawal was different: Barak should never have left while Hezbollah was on the offensive. I think that the same mistake was made by Netanyahu when he lifted the embargo of civilian goods on Hamas’ Gaza as a result of pressure. Israeli governments in recent years have acted only under pressure. This makes them seem weak and passive. They need to take the initiative and put into place policies that shows them willing to make peace but not under pressure. Moving the West Bank settlers but keeping the military is a step in that direction.

- jdyer

June 29, 2010 at 7:38pm

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

Thank you, Ginzy, for your illuminations, clarifications, and citations.

- amidut

June 29, 2010 at 9:06pm

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

First, two more links to related articles worth reading. Galston correctly (IMHO) points to two looming crises that inform much (but not all) of the foreboding he found here, the rift with the Obama administration and Iran. Lee Smith (who is not "another Abe Foxman" as Roid is always quick to label those whose views don't line up with the Obamanoid catechism) has a worrisome, but persuasive piece on Tablet in which he explains why Obama's mid-east policy is likely to shift away from the moderates in the region (such as they are) in favor of the more openly extremist (here). And guess who is going to be the payment-in-kind for the deal? And guess who will remain silent, fearful that they will be accused of dual-loyalty and / or because they BELIEVE in the Divine Mr. O and heaven forbid don't want to seem disloyal? Shades of the 1930's. Bret Stephens, one of the brighter & more informed journalists writing about foreign affairs these days, has an essay in the new Commentary (p'tooi, p'tooi) on why containment of a nuclear Iran seems to be the direction in which the Obamnoids are heading (see Smith above) and why the policy is misguided (to put it mildly). Stephens uses as a foil a recent Foreign Affairs article by James Lindsay and Ray Takeyh, that sang the praises of containment as a way to deal with Iran. I should note that even without having read the two articles many if not most Israelis from across the political spectrum would intuitively articulate more or less the main points of both pieces; I would also say that many Americans, especially within the center-left of the Democratic party, don't get it. Hence the foreboding that Galton found here and his surprise at finding it. Jackson, with all due respect (and you know I do respect) I'm afraid your suggestions are way off base. First of all, even without a civil war (and as I said, I think one is highly unlikely) an evacuation of most of the communities within Judea and Samaria would be extremely divisive and disrupting. Also note that resettlement of the expellees from Gush Katif has been a disaster and still has a way to go. It is viewed as such a inept failure that it was recently investigated by an independent judicial commission which placed most of the blame on poor planning, poorer execution, unrealistic expectations, and too compressed a schedule. And that was for under 10,000 residents of Gush Katif. Efrata (where I live – the designated city-to-be in the Gush Etzion bloc) alone has about that many people. Israelis will not undergo another such societal surgery (which the destruction of Gush Katif was) without absolute guaranties that it will be worth the trauma and dislocation. Hillel Halkin, who supported the evacuation came to this realization in the immediate aftermath the destruction of Gush Katif and has an article in the October 2005 issue of Commentary in which explains why the policy was a failure, but under what conditions it could be adapted for Judea and Samaria (here). Worth reading. But this is even before the question of security & buffers that the settlements provide (often ignored outside Israel but well appreciated by most Israelis that have their eyes open). Factor that in, and you'll see that there is no way that most Israelis will support the destruction of the communities in Judea & Samaria with out ironclad knowledge that the security issue is under control. By the IDF, not any "international force". Including NATO. Indeed they would only get in the way. Your example of Hebron is off base. First of all, it's not just the ancient <+2,000 years, at least) nearly continuous Jewish community of about 500, it's also the immediately adjacent community of Kiryat Arba of about 10,000 or so. Second of all, Hebron is not "deep in the West Bank". Indeed it's fairly close to the Green Line. Third of all, Kiryat Arba and some of the surrounding communities are situated in a strategic region, particularly if you want to want to make it more difficult to fire rockets over the Green Line. Having the IDF patrol is simply not sufficient. There aren't enough soldiers to cover all the areas that would be abandoned (the IDF standing army is actually comparatively small; hence the reliance on the much larger reserve force in time of all out war) especially for the "boots on the ground" type of anti-terrorism and counter-insurgency that would be required. Also the "settlements" & the local industry provide employment for the Palestinians and yes, even civil relationships between some of the villages and the Israelis. This is also an important source of intelligence. One of the most blatant negative consequences of the destruction of Gush Katif has been the much greater difficulty in obtaining intelligence (see, e.g., the kidnapping of Gil'ad Shalit). I would also add, that were Israel to evacuate most of the "settlements" the international pressure to pull the IDF as well would follow shortly (1-3 years) thereafter. See what's happening with the Gaza blockade. And since we mentioned Gaza, the facts simply don't fit your assessment of Sharon's error. First of all, the pull out was coordinated with the P.A. on the ground. There was no need for an agreement because there was nothing to agree to. Israel was pulling out lock, stock and barrel. The houses were destroyed at the Palestinians' request. The Pals were handed most of the Israeli commercial hothouse farming as "live businesses" (a delusional Shimon Peres' term), complete with waiting customers in Europe just salivating at the thought of eating genuine Palestinian Gaza cherry tomatoes (an Israeli invention, by the way). The P.A. government and their myriad security forces were in control of all the Palestinian areas of the Gaza Strip since the early '90s (remember the Oslo slogan of "Gaza & Jericho first"?). Why there even was the much vaunted (by the omniscient NY Times) Preventive Security Force of headed by the future Palestinian president (according to the omniscient NY Times) Mohammed Dahlan firmly in control of security in Gaza. So what did the Palestinians have to agree to? That they wouldn't shoot rockets at Israel? Let me tell you a secret. If what was missing was that Palestinians had to agree in writing that they wouldn't shoot rockets at Israel, they wouldn't have abided by the agreement. Least of all Hamas. And what brought Hamas the election victory and what would bring their victory were elections to be held in the "West Bank" under the P.A. (note: abu Mazen is in something like the 69th month of a 48 month term)? The deeply entrenched and long resented corruption of the P.A. For all its Islamist character, Hamas is (or was) rightly or wrongly perceived to be more honest or at least less corrupt than Fatah and the P.A. Brutal, for sure (especially if you are not sufficiently pious). But less corrupt. Again, even if Israel had inserted a "thou shall not be corrupt" clause in some putative agreement with the P.A., it would have not been observed, let alone enforceable (shades of Hillary!). That the P.A. security forces were less than gallant & brave & effective in the face of Hamas' coup is now known. I doubt that any sort of agreement would have had much effect there as well. You (and many well meaning others like you) may not recognize or understand the lesson of Gaza & Lebanon but the overwhelming majority of Israelis do. And I dare say that given our proximity to the areas in question, given that the story here is covered in far greater detail than it is elsewhere, given that we can and do say "been there, done that", our judgment of the situation is probably a bit more informed and hence astute. Even more than Obama's. Cheers, hg

- ginzy

June 30, 2010 at 9:44am

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

Oops. I forgot to include the link to the Bret Stephens article on containment of Iran. Here it is: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/iran-cannot-be-contained-15462 hg

- ginzy

June 30, 2010 at 9:48am

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

whenever the dialog focuses on Israeli settlements, my first thought remains what Khaled Abu Toameh says best: "...The only way to move forward with any peace process is by insisting that the Palestinians first get their act together and end the infighting between the two Palestinian states. Perhaps before we search for ways to make peace between Jews and Palestinians, we need first need to find a way to achieve peace between Palestinians and Palestinians." [and my second thought is why so little is done about textbooks and media from the PA, and Saudi Arabia (who distributes throughout the Sunni world), another key issue that the Hudson Institute focuses on] Toameh's complete essay at: hudson-ny.org/1391/middle-east-proximity-talks-questions-for

- K2K

June 30, 2010 at 10:49am

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

While I still believe in scenarios that do NOT involve an Israeli pre-emptive first strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, I assume Iran has already read "The anatomy of an attack on Iran" By David Moon posted today at www atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LG01Ak01.html giving a very detailed, technical answer to his question "...how might the Israeli Air Force (IAF) strike Iran undetected on approach and at the very least unacknowledged on return...?" [yes, I am still following the deployment of military and naval assets by everyone, from the Gulf of Aden to the Persian Gulf]

- K2K

June 30, 2010 at 11:46am

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

I read Stephens's article (cited by ginzy) on the containment policy and I think it is, broadly, a fair-minded piece that sets out some serious counterarguments before the Iran containment camp while not contempuously dismissing or simply ignoring theirs. There are a few fudges and curious turns in the piece, however, and one that struck me is that Stephens moves, within a couple of paragraphs, from seeing the Green Movement as having "fizzled" recently -- and therefore being a weak component of any containment strategy -- to a potentially revolutionary force that could be indeed a beneficiary of a military strike that suddenly reveals the regime to be weak and vulnerable (and thus making the nation so). This I doubt. It's not a serious approach to casually claim one moment that a movement has "fizzled" when it plays a role in the Obama administration f-p thinking and then to have the same fizzled force waiting in the wings a few sentences later, ready to take over Iran when a military strike happens.

- ironyroad

June 30, 2010 at 7:25pm

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

"Roid, I assume you accept Israeli retention of the Golan since it was annexed de facto and the Druse & Alawite residents there were granted permanent residency with the option (theirs) to become citizens. Many, though not all, did. Interestingly, in the last election the biggest vote-getter among the Golan Druze who voted (i.e. who took on citizenship) was Lieberman's Yisra'el Beiteinu party. I am not sure how the Alawites in Ghagar voted. They are all citizens." I personally have no problem with the annexation of the Golan. In my view, there is nothing there that violates the Fourth Geneva Convention because the territory is incorporated and the inhabitants have equal political rights (including the right to claim citizenship and otherwise permanent residency). Arguably, there is a violation of the Security Council resolutions adopted post the Six Day War although I think that that is far from clear in the case of formerly Syrian territory because that territory was not the subject of the UN Mandate and hence not subject to UN jurisdiction. Sort of a straightforward territorial dispute between nation-states. Given that Israel came into possession legally and Syria was an aggressor, I don't see how international law can be read to prohibit the annexation. With the armistice lines of 1948 and the lack of a recognized border west of the Jordan, it gets more complicated because there is a decent argument that the UN retains jurisdiction there. Hence, Res 242 may have special force. Beyond that, I don't know enough (have done no research) to have a general view about the authority of the Security Council regarding border disputes. It isn't obvious to me that it has any general authority to resolve them beyond ensuring the peace. As I said, with the portion of Mandatory Palestine west of the Jordan, less clear what the scope of the Security Counci authority is or is not, and we know what the International Court thinks. Leaving aside the peculiar impact of Security Council resolutions, I have always said, and have written here at TNR, that international law does not prohibit Israel from annexing the West Bank because it came into possession of the West Bank legally. It wouldn't be prudent given the goal of a Jewish-majority Israel, but it would in my view be perfectly justifiable -- so long as the inhabitants were accorded equal political and civil rights. The politics of annexation are an entirely different matter, but I have also thought, and written here, that if Israel had the ambition of keeping any of what it occupied in 1967, its over-reach, settling in the West Bank, was a tactically terrible decision. If it had annexed some proximate areas contiguous to the Green Line and then maintained the rest as occupied, without settlement, there would have been a much bigger chance of pulling the whole thing off (analogous to what occurred after 1948) because the human rights violations would not have become enmeshed with the occupation.

- roidubouloi

June 30, 2010 at 7:30pm

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

Ginzy, I don’t know if I am “well meaning” or not, (that is usually said of people whose arguments one dismisses out of hand). I do know that you didn’t answer my central point and none of the links you offered addressed that point (so much for arguments by links) why did Sharon have to withdraw the military from Gaza along with the settlers? I do agree, though, that the former settlers of northern Gaza have been treated shamefully by the government. I believe a recent Israeli fact finding commission came to a similar conclusion. Is that true? And of course, the treatment of these people will no encourage Israelis living on the west bank to agree to any promises provided it by their government. I have more to say, but I would like to clear this up, first.

- jdyer

June 30, 2010 at 8:19pm

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

My question about Netanyahu et al was how they weigh the settlements against the existence and security of the State of Israel.

- roidubouloi

June 30, 2010 at 8:36pm

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

"My question about Netanyahu et al was how they weigh the settlements against the existence and security of the State of Israel." Once again the question is which settlements you are talking about. If you go back long enough you can claim that many of Israel's villages and kibbutzim are "settlements". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_and_stockade

- noga1

June 30, 2010 at 8:50pm

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

I lived on Amir for a while a long time ago. Let me put it differently. Although it seems self-evident to Israelis that the settlement bloc, defined as the settlements roughly contiguous to the Green Line, will be annexed to Israel, the Palestinians have thrice turned this down. There is no serious argument that the proposed border resolution is a rectification of lines in the interest of defense as opposed to the legitimation of the settlements illegally undertaken. I don't believe that the Palestinians will ever accept Israeli sovereignty east of the Green Line. But they may get around to a proposal that unambiguously accepts Israel and its agreed borders with rational security measures along the Jordan and abandons refugee claims west of the Green Line in exchange for sovereignty everywhere east of the Green Line with some form of condominium in Jerusalem. Peace and finality. Would Netanyahu accept in the interest of the peace and security of a majority Jewish state or would he put the desire for territory, the settlements east of the Green Line before the peace that Israel has always says it wanted? What do you think?

- roidubouloi

June 30, 2010 at 9:10pm

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

"There is no serious argument that the proposed border resolution is a rectification of lines in the interest of defense" "We have openly said that the map will never again be the same as on June 4, 1967. For us, this is a matter of security and of principles. The June map is for us equivalent to insecurity and danger. I do not exaggerate when I say that it has for us something of a memory of Auschwitz. We shudder when we think of what would have awaited us in the circumstances of June, 1967, if we had been defeated; with Syrians on the mountain and we in the valley, with the Jordanian army in sight of the sea, with the Egyptians who hold our throat in their hands in Gaza. This is a situation which will never be repeated in history." - Abba Eban, Israeli Statesman, in Der Spiegel, November 5, 1969 (with thanks to Dr. Aaron Lerner and to Clarence Wagner for locating this item)

- noga1

June 30, 2010 at 9:20pm

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

noga1 “"My question about Netanyahu et al was how they weigh the settlements against the existence and security of the State of Israel." Once again the question is which settlements you are talking about. If you go back long enough you can claim that many of Israel's villages and kibbutzim are "settlements".” Some supporters of the settlements on the West Bank love to repeat this fallacious claim. This is the same claim made by those who want to destroy the Jewish make. Thankfully, the governments of the US and those of the Europeans do see a difference. I am sure, Noga, that you too know the difference between cities and towns set up within the green line and those established on the Wets Bank. If you believe that all of Israel is a “Jewish settlement” then you are arguing for the side of those who want to delegitimize the Jewish State.

- jdyer

June 30, 2010 at 11:10pm

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

What a condescending comment, jackson. I once worked for Raanan Weitz who wrote a famous article about the difference between Hanita and Kedumim. Believe me, there is nothing new or old that you can tell me about the subject. Do I take it that you now share roi's premise that Israel should withdraw its Jews from every settlement in east of the Green Line, including from Gilo, Ramot, Ramot Eshkol, Talpiot Mizrah, Gush Etzion? Those, too, are settlements, according to roi, and apparently, you.

- noga1

July 1, 2010 at 12:00am

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

It would take a lot to get me to disagree with Abba Eban, and I don't disagree in this case either. My point is not that border rectification for the sake of security would not make sense or should be off the table, but that the boundaries necessary to incorporate the major settlements don't have much relationship (some) to what one might do to achieve "defensible" borders. In that sense, the need to protect the settlements rather than focus on secure borders runs against security interests in yet another way. At the same time, it is hard to see what border rectification, other than control of the Jordan, would be relevant to defense without incorporating most of the West Bank. So, while Eban's statement makes sense in the abstract, given the actual geography it is nearly impossible to put into practice without adding a large Arab population to Israel. I try to separate what I want from what I think is going to happen and what I think is achievable. It would have been my preference to see Arafat accept the proposal made by Barak. I have often said that what I find particularly tragic about the settlement over-reach is that it has compromised Israel's hold on Jerusalem but making it impossible to put that past contention. When the borders are of necessity still open to discussion, one cannot be sure of the outcome. The settlements have made any de facto border, such as the 1948 armistice lines became, impossible. I have also expressed the wish to see Israel, in the face of continuing Palestinian intransigence, withdraw to what would be its own choice of border and make it one. But that would mean uprooting settlements unilaterally. What I want is not, however, what the world necessarily produces, in this as in so many things. It is not my wish to see the Palestinians gain sovereignty over the entire West Bank, but my observation that, at this point, that is by far the most likely outcome. I think that all the Palestinians need to do to achieve it is simply refuse to accept any other boundary. If they do not cede their claims, by and by I think they will achieve it, one way or another. Hence, I would prefer to see Israel bargain away something it likely cannot have in exchange for other things of value rather than keep trying to bargain for what it will not get and in effect bargaining with itself, conceding more and more to obtain the unobtainable and weakening its bargaining position (the awareness of which is what led Olmert to refuse to give Abbas his proposed map). The things of value are to control the Jordan and the armaments of Palestine, to maintain the settlement bloc in place, even if under Palestinian sovereignty, to keep Jerusalem open and united, and to have sovereignty in a portion of Hebron to balance whatever sovereignty is offered to the Palestinians in Jerusalem, so that the principle is established that Jewish religious claims are as cognizable as Moslem religious claims. And freedom of passage through to West Bank. I also think it is relevant to accept Palestinian refugees only in exchange for the maintenance of a Jewish population in Palestine. Thereby, the principle is also established that the acceptance of refugees is due to a current exchange, not due the recognition of a right of return that, if recognized as a just claim, will not disappear with a peace. It must be extinguished. If Netanyahu can negotiate a better deal, along the lines of what Israel wants and the Palestinians have repeatedly rejected, fine. But I don't think he can and I don't believe he thinks he can, which is why he doesn't want to negotiate. If, on the other hand, he could achieve final settlement and peace along the lines I described above, I think he would be a fool not to take it. It will be offered, he will likely not take it.

- roidubouloi

July 1, 2010 at 6:22am

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

a post-Marmara update, copied in full, on the stalemate between Hamas and Fatah, citing Egyptian and PA news, and UNRWA concerns about Hamas (begging the question as to whether Abbas can negotiate anything while this stalemate endures in the absence of any new PA elections): "Hamas Blockade-Busting Backfires" July 1, 2010 By David Pollock Washington Institute for Near East Policy: "One month after the Turkish flotilla incident, the Israeli-Palestinian peace camp has so far managed to thwart the opposing agenda of Hamas and its supporters. This article surveys the incident's political and practical consequences, revealing the grounds for such an unexpected and -- for the parties in the Middle East peace process -- fortunate finding. No New International Recognition of Hamas The initial aftermath of the May 31 flotilla interception witnessed a few abortive signals that Hamas might gain greater global acceptance. One Russian statement suggested negotiations with Hamas, disregarding the longstanding Quartet conditions to which Moscow is a party. A few former U.S. diplomats made similar appeals, and some Hamas spokesmen responded by seeming to welcome such dialogue. These tentative overtures proved fruitless, however. According to one U.S. official, various Hamas leaders appeared willing to play the political game, but not enough to make a difference. As Hamas representative Ahmed Bahr told Egyptian daily al-Masry al-Youm on June 20, the group wants a deal "that gives Palestinians their dignity back, which rules out the Quartet conditions and those stipulated by the U.S." Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan put it (perhaps unintentionally) well in a June 28 interview, claiming that he had personally convinced Hamas to adjust its rejectionist posture "to a certain extent" -- in other words, not far enough. As a result, Hamas has no more international legitimacy today than it did before the flotilla episode. Symptomatic of this is the statement issued by the G-8 countries, including Russia, in closing their Canadian summit this past weekend. The section on the peace process makes no mention of Hamas at all. Instead, it reaffirms the goal of Israel and a Palestinian state "living side by side in peace and security," welcomes Israel's decision to investigate the flotilla incident and adopt "a new policy" toward Gaza, balances "the needs of Gaza's population" with "the legitimate security concerns of Israel," and urges "the strengthening of Palestinian Authority institutions" -- all at the expense, at least implicitly, of Hamas. And on Monday, speaking in Jerusalem, Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov noted that Moscow would continue to "engage" with Hamas but did not call for the group's inclusion in any other diplomatic discussions. Egypt Maintains Political and Practical Containment Cairo remains very uncomfortable with Hamas on its border, yet ineffective so far in supporting any alternative arrangement. Its desultory attempt to dilute Hamas power in Gaza by mediating a new unity agreement with Fatah has failed. For a brief moment after the flotilla incident, Turkey seemed poised to assume the mediator's role, this time with a pro-Hamas tilt. Within a couple weeks, however, Egypt and the Palestinian Authority (PA) were able to deflect this impulse, partly by mobilizing an informal Arab consensus against it. Ironically, the capstone of this containment effort was Arab League secretary-general Amr Mousa's unprecedented June 13 visit to Hamas-ruled Gaza. While there, he repeatedly called on Hamas to sign the Egyptian reconciliation plan it had rejected last October. Yet, as Egypt's Foreign Ministry spokesman explained on June 26, Hamas leaders "insist on rejecting the Egyptian paper, because they do not want the legitimate Palestinian Authority to return to Gaza." Over the past few days, the exchange of public insults between Cairo and Hamas has grown ever more shrill and categorical. On June 28, the semi-official Egyptian daily al-Akhbar called Hamas a "suspicious secessionist movement," sarcastically thanking it for enabling Cairo to escape the "quagmire" of Palestinian unity negotiations. On the ground, security and political factors make Egypt loath to open its border with Gaza more than a crack. Remarkably, on the very same day of the flotilla incident, Palestinians killed an Egyptian soldier in a shootout over the new underground steel wall Cairo is constructing to block smuggling tunnels. Work on the barrier continues intermittently today. Moreover, Egyptian officials have surely noted recent developments in Israel, where three cabinet ministers have called for even greater disengagement from the process of supplying Gaza with water, fuel, electricity, and other imports. Any further Egyptian opening risks playing into that gambit, forcing Cairo to assume more responsibility for Gaza while potentially strengthening Hamas and exposing Egypt to its influence. Consequently, the renewed opening of Rafah, Gaza's lone border crossing with Egypt, is more rhetorical than real. On June 29, for example, Egypt prevented a Jordanian aid convoy from entering the territory -- the latest in a years-long line of such measures. And the Egyptian establishment publicly blames Hamas intransigence for this predicament. As leading commentator Abdel Moneim Said Aly wrote in al-Ahram last week, "Contrary to common accusations leveled at Egypt, Hamas is second after Israel in upholding the siege on Gaza." Effects of Easing the Embargo Publicly and privately, Israeli and U.S. officials have offered mixed assessments of how adjustments to the embargo would affect Hamas. One U.S. observer noted that if reconstruction proceeds, around 40,000 more Gazan children would attend schools run by the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNWRA) rather than Hamas. New UNRWA commissioner Filippo Grandi hinted at the difference this might make -- without mentioning Hamas, he called UNRWA "a vehicle" for promoting "the fundamental values...of tolerance for diversity, peaceful coexistence, non-violence, respect for human rights and human dignity of everyone without distinction." Another Western diplomat asserted privately that the blockade had unwittingly "helped Hamas but not Gazans"; in his view, easing the embargo would probably help reverse that situation. Even so, he cautioned, Hamas was already trying to bring new nongovernmental projects under its supervision. On June 28, the UNRWA director for Gaza condemned a "cowardly and despicable" attack by Islamist extremists on one of his organization's summer camps. Looking ahead, then, the key is not so much the quantity of additional resources provided to Gaza, but control over their local distribution. Fatah-Hamas Rivalry Intensifies Two things are clear regarding the post-flotilla twist in the internal Palestinian dispute: it is not just a media war, and neither side is about to give up. Both Hamas and Fatah continue to lob heated charges of betrayal. On June 24, senior Hamas official Mahmoud al-Zahar declared that there is "no need to launch rockets from Gaza as these must be launched from the West Bank -- but [PA president Mahmoud Abbas] won't let this happen." The same day, Fatah's Nabil Shaath bluntly claimed that "Hamas was responsible for the current deadlock." As for public approval ratings, Hamas registered no gains in the one published Palestinian poll taken since the flotilla incident (June 10-13), while Fatah still led 45 percent to 25 percent, the same spread as in March. This leaves a large remainder of "undecided" Palestinians, however, and Fatah showed little confidence in its popular appeal when it canceled local elections scheduled for this summer. On the ground, the PA continues to arrest and harass Hamas operatives in the West Bank. Hamas has done the same to Fatah operatives, in addition to raiding a Gaza bank branch to confiscate funds from an account frozen by the PA. The two sides are also embroiled in a payment dispute that has shut down Gaza's only power plant. "It's a Palestinian problem," said the UNRWA's Gaza director, "made by Palestinians, and causing Palestinian suffering." In this climate, any talk of Palestinian reconciliation takes a back seat to recriminations. The front page of al-Hayat al-Jadidah, the semi-official PA daily, reinforces this fact. Over the past two days, stories about unity discussions have been strictly at an unofficial level; the one official comment was from a Fatah Central Committee member blaming Hamas for spoiling Egypt's mediation efforts. Conclusion For once, a Hamas website has it exactly right: on June 24, the Palestinian Information Center predicted that "there will be no radical political changes after the attack on the Freedom Flotilla." Indeed, continued patience and steadfastness on the part of the United States, Egypt, PA, Israel, and others can help the people of Gaza without enriching, entrenching, or emboldening their Hamas rulers. This is hardly a sufficient condition for real progress toward Israeli-Palestinian peace, but it is a necessary condition." David Pollock is a senior fellow at The Washington Institute, focusing on the political dynamics of Middle Eastern countries. http://www realclearworld.com/articles/2010/07/01/hamas_blockade-busting_backfires_99040.html [also posted in The Spine's thread on Hamas]

- K2K

July 1, 2010 at 8:46am

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

noga1 “What a condescending comment, jackson.” Condescending, why condescending? Because I disagreed with you? “Do I take it that you now share roi's premise that Israel should withdraw its Jews from every settlement in east of the Green Line, including from Gilo, Ramot, Ramot Eshkol, Talpiot Mizrah, Gush Etzion? Those, too, are settlements, according to roi, and apparently, you.” Though I don’t think the 4th Geneva convention is applicable, here, I have argued for over two decades that building settlements deep in West Bank was a mistake. I haven’t changed my mind. “I once worked for Raanan Weitz who wrote a famous article about the difference between Hanita and Kedumim. Believe me, there is nothing new or old that you can tell me about the subject.” Well, one can be knowledgeable about a subject and draw the wrong conclusions. Look Noga, there is no way Israel can survive as a Jewish State and assimilate 5 to six million Arabs. This is exactly what the one staters are after. For Israel to remain a sovereign Jewish State it will have to give up the West Bank. No amount of fine logic chopping or quibbling over definitions is going to change that. That Arab terrorists don’t make distinctions between settlements on the West Bank and Israeli communities doesn’t mean these distinctions aren’t real. Moreover I don’t take my cue about reality from the enemies of the Jewish people. On the other hand, as I said above I am not for unilateral and precipitous Israeli withdrawal from the West bank. It will have to be done in stages and through negotiations which will include border rectification, including the exchange of territory in order to keep those settlements closest to Jerusalem, as Abba Eban foresaw. I also make a strong distinction between evacuating the settlers and evacuating the military: the military should stay until The PA can show that it will honor all treaties and not allow terrorists to use its territory to continue making war on Israel.

- jdyer

July 1, 2010 at 9:24am

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

K2K -- David Pollak was a high school classmate & friend of mine. I will definitely have to read his piece later. hg

- ginzy

July 1, 2010 at 9:28am

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

Irony, I am not qualified to engage in Stephens exegesis (his e-mail address is posted at the end of his regular WSJ columns & so you could ask him directly; it might be an interesting exercise) but I suspect what he may have meant (and I could be wrong) is that "fizzled" does not be mean "gone"; rather it should be understood as "moribund". He probably believes (rightly or wrongly) that a military strike that would weaken the Revolutionary Guard (their bases provide convenient targets) should help reinvigorate the otherwise moribund Green Movement to become a revolutionary force. Roid – If you look at the text of Resolution 242 you will see that it provides for Israel getting secure and recognized boundaries in exchange for relinquishing territory. The wording is critical because Israel did not have recognized borders (with the exception of the northern border with Lebanon, but France saw to it that even that would get messed up in the aftermath of the Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon in the spring of 2000). The only "de facto" recognition (assuming that it exists) evolved in the early to mid '80s as a clever tactic by the Arab states to support a face of innocence. Also, and arguably most critically, the definite article "the" or adjective "all" were omitted before the term "territories" as it was recognized that in order to obtain defensible borders, not all of the territory taken in 1967 would be relinquished. What are defensible borders in my opinion? The Golan and at least the central mountain range and their slopes. The latter is necessary to prevent rocket attacks to the west (read – the holy city of Tel Aviv & B-G Int'l Airport), as well as guard against invasion to the east. Throw in the Jordan Valley as well (I believe more Israelis live there than Pals, especially if you exclude Jericho), especially given the growing Salafi presence in Jordan. Did Israel goof by not formally annexing the defensively critical parts of Judea & Samaria like it did with J'lem & informally the Golan? Probably although given the non-acceptance of the other two annexations (with permanent residency & the citizenship option) I am not sure it would have made a difference. BTW, I like your reasoning for holding on to the Jewish section of Hebron, in the event Israel is forced to relinquish parts of J'lem. Recognition of Jewish religious / historical claims has never been a concern of the "International Community", let alone the Muslim states, let alone the Arab states, let alone the Pals. Formal recognition in this context is definitely a good idea. Olmert offered abu Mazen even more than Barak offered Arafat at Camp David and got nowhere. Later, abu Mazen told Jackson Diehl that the sides were too far apart to bridge. This is why some of the saner & intellectually honest denizens of the Israeli Zionist left, or at least what is left of it (good example, Prof Shlomo Avineri of Hebrew U.) do not believe anymore that a deal that Israel could live with is in the cards for the foreseeable future. I don't see abu Mazen turning around and offering Bibi a better deal & I can't see anyone from Labor (most of it) through Kadima to the far right offering the Pals more than Olmert offered. Tzippi Livni & Sha'ul Mofaz was horrified when they learned the details of Olmert's offer. So anyone who thinks that Livni would be more forthcoming than Olmert knows not of what they speaketh. This is also why Ehud Barak & Bibi can pair up; pragmatic realities increasingly trump ideology even in Israel. Also they are old army buddies. Barak was Bibi's C.O. in the super-elite Sayeret Matkal commando unit. I guess it's now Bibi's turn. Barak is beginning to make some noise about the need for future unilateral withdrawals. I don't think he is referring to Tel Aviv (although I know many Israelis who would strongly consider giving up Tel Aviv in exchange for peace… but only a real peace). I suppose if there was enough of a consensus to pull out of large chunks of Judea & Samaria it could be pulled off, particularly if it would generate a generally recognized (at least by the USA & the western bloc) border that met the criteria of defensible borders (read – no rockets on T.A. or the airport) but it would have to be preceded by extensive building in the retained "settlement blocs" regions so that those evacuated could immediately move into permanent housing. Of necessity this would require that Hillary and Rahm (and by extension Obama) un-renege on the USA's acceptance of the Bush-Sharon understanding. Israelis will not tolerate the empty promises like Sharon made to the country prior to the destruction of Gush Katif. Also, the process would have to stretch over an extended period of time; probably ~10 years or so. Hillel Halkin discusses this extensively in his October 2005 Commentary piece I linked to above. Jackson, believe me that when I labeled you "well meaning" I did not by any stretch intend it as any sort of put down. If anyone on the TNR coattail blogs deserves be nominated for the Rennert Guardian of Zion award it's you. But nonetheless I often find that those who did not live through the destruction of Gush Katif and more importantly the aftermath simply don't fully appreciate its impact on the thinking of the majority of Israelis, and the resultant policy. This was exacerbated by the aftermath of Cast Lead, in particular the Goldstone Hypocritical Travesty and now the Turkish Flottila. Some simple numbers will summarize it quite succinctly. In 1992, Labor + Meretz garnered ~53 seats (out of 120) in the Knesset. In the last election that combo won just 16 seats. Kadima which won 28 seats in the last election is now down to ~23-25 in the polls. Likud, which won 27 seats is now in the low to mid 30's. Galston's & Goldberg's epiphanous essays exemplify the extent to which well meaning genuine supporters of Israel (as opposed to J Street style "supporters") outside of Israel (at least of the center-left) didn't or don't get it. Please re-read my original posts. I did mention the investigative commission on the resettlement of the Gush Katif refugees. And as far as why Sharon didn't leave the IDF in Gaza, the short answer is that the Central Dogma of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was that if the Israelis would only get out of the Pals hair and the Pals had an opportunity to build their own economic well-being, peace would reign forever and ever. Also the idea was to totally "DISENGAGE" from Gaza so that Israel would graduall Don't play Monday morning quarterback. Go back and read the editorials and pooh-bahs of punditry, both inside and outside Israel, from before the destruction of Gush Katif. There were suggestions to retain the Philadelphi corridor on Gazas southern border with Egypt, to stem the smuggling. There were suggestions to retain the communities on the Northern end of Gaza which were built on pre-'67 no-man's land in order to establish a precedent or avoid a bad precedent. All these were ultimately rejected by Sharon in order to maximize the chance that Gaza would be quiet and most importantly truly disengage. Only two major public figures predicted that disengagement would be a disaster producing rockets from Gaza and the rise of Hamas – Bibi and former Chief of the General Staff Moshe Ya'alon. And they were laughed at by the pooh-bahs of punditry both here and abroad. Central Dogma's are quite strong. I should note that Ha'aretz columnist Aluf Benn (formerly of far left-wing leanings) argued in the aftermath of the Flotilla affair that Israel should complete the disengagement from Gaza, by on the one hand dropping the sea blockade altogether and on the other hand fully close the border crossings, stop supplying Gaza with currency, and announce a cut-off date after which Israel will stop supplying its share of Gaza's electricity and water. Gaza would have to fend for itself and / or work out some sort of arrangement with Egypt. This is Egypt's ultimate nightmare. Unfortunately it isn't going to happen any time soon. I really do have to get back to work. hg

- ginzy

July 1, 2010 at 9:29am

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

I have a question that I can't seem to find an answer to, in the places I've been looking at least. Nevertheless, it continues to bug me. There has been some discussion on these threads of an Israeli proposal -- currently on ice -- for territorial exchange that would, if I recall correctly, give Israel immediately adjacent land (close to Jerusalem?) on which Israeli communities already exist (whether defined as "settlements or not") in return for "Israeli Arab villages" in a different area. This proposal doesn't seem to have gone anywhere, but what troubles me is the implication of "Israeli Arab villages." The way that is phrased seems to suggest territory and inhabitants rather than just territory. So my question is, are the inhabitants of these villages Israeli citizens? And is/was the proposal that they should have their citizenship switched whether they like it or not, or would they -- in the event of an actual territorial exchange -- have the option of remaining Israeli and moving elsewhere?

- ironyroad

July 1, 2010 at 9:40am

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

Jackson: What I meant by condescending is please don't try to educate me about the basics of viable options. It appears that you have not paid any attention whatsoever to what I've been saying here ever since I joined the boards. Which is hardly surprising. I refuse to join the aleihum crowds which would succumb to the Palestinian perception of "settler" (=nazi), therefore I must be in favour of maintaining the settlements and deserving of any sort of garbage dumped on me. Nor do I feel obliged to provide the mandatory throat-clearing apologia (like "that building settlements deep in West Bank was a mistake.") before I express my objection to the demonizing at worst dismissive at best of any position about the settlers that American Jews do not find amenable, for their own reasons which have nothing to do with what it means to care about developing a healthy Israeli society.

- noga1

July 1, 2010 at 9:47am

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

It's a good question, ironyroad. Avigdor Lieberman outlined his own vision for a two-state solution, here: http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=179333 "With all the difficulties involved, this is the only solution that ensures long-term stability in the region. In most cases there is no physical population transfer or the demolition of houses, but creating a border where none existed, according to demographics. Those Arabs who were in Israel will now receive Palestinian citizenship. THERE ARE those who will claim that it is illegal to remove citizenship from individuals. However, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 55/153, written in 2001, explicitly states: “When part of the territory of a state is transferred by that state to another state, the successor state shall attribute its nationality to the persons concerned who have their habitual residence in the transferred territory and the predecessor state shall withdraw its nationality from such persons.” There are also those who claim that those Arabs who would become part of a future Palestinian state would reject this. Firstly, we need to beg the question: Why would Arabs who claim to support Palestinian national aspirations reject this plan? However, I believe that we can put this to a referendum to all of the citizens of Israel and let them decide."

- noga1

July 1, 2010 at 9:56am

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

"Why would Arabs who claim to support Palestinian national aspirations reject this plan?" There is no problem with the "support Palestinian national aspirations". Many Israeli Jews support them, too. The problem arises from support for Hamas-type "Palestinian national aspirations" which has only one translation: dissolution of Israel as a Jewish state for a bi-national state in which the Jews will rapidly become a minority and have little say about their fate. When you remember this then it is quite clear "Why would Arabs who claim to support Palestinian national aspirations reject this plan?". Because it means that their desired solution will be by-passed.

- noga1

July 1, 2010 at 10:04am

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

The situation of Anglos in Quebec can be somewhat compared to Arabs in Israel.

- noga1

July 1, 2010 at 10:23am

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

Noga & Irony, The Lieberman plan (of which he is NOT the original author) or variations of it was being kicked around as early as in the late '90s and definitely by the early days of the Oslo Accords war by others well in the center or center left of the Israeli political spectrum. It was never a formal Israeli proposal. The basic idea is to reset the calendar to pre-November 1947 and re-partition the land based on demographic concentrations and realities as the only way to achieve real peace. The November '47 borders were drawn largely based on demographic concentrations, the major exception of course being Jerusalem which had a Jewish majority but was assiduously ignored. I don't think the plan was ever fleshed out in enough detail to deal with the citizenship options. Israeli Arab antipathy to the plan was contemporaneous to its introduction into public discussion, well before Hamas rose as political ruling power (as opposed to being terrorist threat from the early '90s). When it was originally proposed Arafat was firmly in control of the P.A. Israeli Arab MKs (most notably Ahmed Tibi but others as well) have stridently stated all kinds of excuses why this must not be done and in recent years the Labor Party -- in reaction to the plan's adoption by Avigdor Lieberman -- has reflexively labeled it as "racist". The real reasons most observers think the plan is repeatedly rejected are: a) They don't want to lose their social benefits as Israeli citizens. None of the non-oil producing Arab states have anything close to what Israel rightly and wrongly hands out to its citizens and there is absolutely no reason to assume that a Palestinian state would be any different. b) Any future Palestinian state is presumed to be autocratic and / or corrupt & no Israeli Arab would want to live under such a regime. Arafat was popular as long as you didn't have to live under his thumb c) The more radical or Islamist of Israeli Arabs (including most of the Israeli Arab MKs) still haven't given up their dream of undoing Israel as a Jewish state and to do so they have to live here. d) What would they complain about? The truth is though, the plan works on paper but probably not in practice. Once it becomes clear which areas of the country were to become part of the nascent Palestinian state, those Israelis Arabs who didn't want to be part of that annexation would simply move to other parts of the country (like Tel Aviv!) that were to remain under Israeli sovereignty. You see this now on a small scale where Palestinians living in the post-'67 neighborhoods of J'lem (especially from those areas beyond the security fence) are quietly moving to the pre-'67 neighborhoods in case Clinton's Jerusalem plan (demographic division) is ever implemented. BTW, that is why I think Lieberman gets a raw deal on the way he is depicted in the media. I never voted form him and there are many things I don't like about him. But he is for a two state solution and he is not any more a racist than anyone else who speaks of demographic doom and gloom for Israel. hg

- ginzy

July 1, 2010 at 10:57am

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

Rory Stewart questioning the conventional wisdoms of America and the "West" on Afghanistan (and maybe a few other intractable foreign policy 'received wisdoms' like George Mitchell insisting on defining borders before reconciling Hamas with Fatah???): "...But counter-insurgency is an emotionally appealing theory for us today. Instead of only killing terrorists, it focuses on subjects close to the heart of a humanitarian or a journalist: tackling human rights' abusers, eliminating corruption, establishing the rule of law, building schools and clinics and, ultimately, creating a legitimate, stable state at peace with itself and its neighbors. Who could be against that? ...The cures for our predicament do not lie in increasingly detailed adjustments to our current strategy. The solution is to remind ourselves that politics cannot be reduced to a general scientific theory, that we must recognize the will of other peoples and acknowledge our own limits. Most importantly, we must remind our leaders that they always have a choice. ..." http://www spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,703408-2,00.html

- K2K

July 1, 2010 at 11:58am

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

I missed some of ginzy's earlier comments. He attributes to me comparison with Abe Foxman of anyone who doesn't share my views. I think he is confusing me with someone else as I both know and like Abe Foxman and hence wouldn't consider that pejorative. However, the comment finally illuminates for me the meaning of "Obamanoid," which is ginzy's term for people whose views he doesn't share. I think this should be understood to mean "any American who does not share the political views of right-wing extremist Zionists and Jewish messianic religious nuts (ptooi, ptooi)." I am well aware of the language arguments about 242 and accept that it was not intended to mean the return to the precise 1948 armistice lines. However, the purpose of the ambiguity was to allow for border rectification for security purposes, not to enfold Israeli settlements that were not yet in existence when 242 was adopted. For the same reason, in 1969 Abba Eban in reiterating the need for defensible borders could not have been referring to the vast bulk of settlements not then in existence and hence could not have "foreseen" the desire to annex them to Israel. I don't know the map well enough to comment on Ginzy's view of defensible borders, so I can just ask him? How much of the Palestinian Arab population gets included in your view of defensible borders and how many of the settlements and how much of the settler popluation are irrelevant to your view of the necessities of defense and therefore get excluded from Israel? I agree with jackson that ginzy has avoided the question about why the IDF was withdrawn from Gaza, other than that the people in charge thought it was the way to quiet. (In the past, ginzy has said that Condoleeza Rice made Sharon do it.) How does this square with ginzy's view that by virtue of their location in the Middle East Israelis have a virtual second-nature understanding of what each situation requires? How does the strategic blunder of settling throughout the West Bank square with this sanguine view of Israeli strategic and tactical genius? How about the last war in Lebanon? The Mavi Marmara affair? Why do we not see more evidence of this genius, at least since the right-wing took over in Israel? Maybe that's why. Ideological rigidity combined with religious dogmatism preclude clear insight into strategic and tactical questions.

- roidubouloi

July 1, 2010 at 1:00pm

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

I'm not exactly a Nicholas Kristof fan, as he is no Abe Foxman, but how about this column today. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/01/opinion/01kristof.html?ref=opinion Is Kristof lying, misinformed, or is this a reasonably accurate description of what occupation actually means? Apropos of which, perhaps ginzy will explain to us how settlements produce useful intelligence as he claims. Do the settlers just chat over lunch with their happy Arab neighbors?

- roidubouloi

July 1, 2010 at 1:04pm

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

It does not matter what jdyer, noga1, ginzy and their fellow hasbarbarians think of the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territories because the organization responsible for maintaining the Convention has decreed the Palestinian Teritoires including East Jerusalem to be occupied: -- The participating High Contracting Parties reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. Furthermore, they reiterated the need for full respect for the provisions of the said Convention in that Territory. Taking into consideration the improved atmosphere in the Middle East as a whole, the Conference was adjourned on the understanding that it will convene again in the light of consultations on the development of the humanitarian situation in the field. Furthermore, the International Court of Justice, sister body to the United Nations Security Council, declared the following in its advisory opinion on the so-called Separation Wall: -- 101. In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable in any occupied territory in the event of an armed conflict arising between two or more High Contracting Parties. Israel and Jordan were parties to that Convention when the 1967 armed conflict broke out. The Court accordingly finds that that Convention is applicable in the Pa.lestinian territories which before the conflict lay to the east of the Green Line and which, during that conflict, were occupied by Israel, there being no need for any enquiry into the precise prior status of those territories. These are sufficiently clear statements that I have publicized sufficiently often in this forum that attempts to deny them can only be a lie - another lie from the pathological liars. Of course, for the American-Israeli apparatchick living in the Occupied Palestinian Territories including East Jerusalem it is no more than the rote not guilty of the war criminal. Links: http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5FLDPJ http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf?PHPSESSID=c050fa014ad3b06f37c78a45cee8f23a

- ndmackenzie

July 1, 2010 at 2:43pm

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

Thanks, Noga and ginzy. I don't know enough about Lieberman to comment on whether his proposal is to be taken seriously or not, or whether it would in fact work on paper but not in practice. I do know however that on the morning of the division of Czechoslovakia into two separate countries a plebescite would almost certainly have revealed a majority of the population in both parts of the country to be against it (which was why Havel wanted one and why the nationalist parties in both sections blocked it). I do know that Yugoslavia is a bad analogy, for about 50 different reasons, not the least of which is the fact that without Milosevic and his hyper-nationalist policy of provocation and hostility (vis-a-vis the Kosovars in particular) there is no reason to believe that what happened there was inevitable, or at least that the wars and destruction were. If it's just Balkan destiny, why didn't Transylvania try to separate from Romania and reattach to Hungary? Why didn't Slovakia go looking to annex Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia? These are, indeed, unproductive and in some cases silly analogies for the case of I/P, but I didn't introduce them. As for Belgium, the less said the better. I feel depressed just thinking about the fact that a bunch of reasonably intelligent people can't take pride in having a nation with two languages.

- ironyroad

July 1, 2010 at 2:52pm

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

I'm not sure what your examples are meant to explain or illuminate, ironyroad. But I would urge against the kumbayic need to believe that Israelis and Palestinians, among whom many might be described as "reasonably intelligent people", can actually share a state without horrendous consequences for the putative Jewish partner. It's not the Arabs who are nearly extinct and who have a history of being liquidated. And it is extremely difficult to maintain any respect for and trust in "international law", when someone like ndmackenzie uses it to criminalize Jews, and only Jews. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/europe-will-never-forgive-israel-holocaust-gaza-israel-flotilla

- noga1

July 1, 2010 at 3:20pm

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

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/europe-will-never-forgive-israel-holocaust-gaza-israel-flotilla

- noga1

July 1, 2010 at 3:21pm

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

As I pointed out in my penultimate paragraph, Noga, they are not my examples, but Lieberman's: "We have seen that history is moving away from attempts to accommodate competing national aspirations in a single state. The former Yugoslavia was broken up into many separate states. Czechoslovakia was split into two, and even in Belgium there are strong voices who wish to see that nation broken into separate Walloon and Flemish territories. The precedent of creating new states based on ethnic, national and even religious boundaries has been established in the international community and is becoming the trend." I don't disagree with your basic point, but if that's what Lieberman is attempting to hammer home, someone should give him some better analogies to work with.

- ironyroad

July 1, 2010 at 3:30pm

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

noga1 writes: -- And it is extremely difficult to maintain any respect for and trust in "international law", when someone like ndmackenzie uses it to criminalize Jews, and only Jews. Bullshit. It is not ethnicity but citizenship that makes the Israeli settlement of the Occupied Palestinian Territory a violation of international law. It is ethnicity not citizenship that makes hasbarbarians like noga1 deny these war crimes.

- ndmackenzie

July 1, 2010 at 4:18pm

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

If you google the witty term "hasbarbarians" you might understand where N&D get their information and unique version of history.

- noga1

July 1, 2010 at 4:37pm

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

"...t if that's what Lieberman is attempting to hammer home, someone should give him some better analogies to work with." What he is trying to show is that the attempt to accommodate "competing national aspirations in a single state." are doomed to failure. And if there are Arabs (and there are) in Israel who have national aspirations for Arab statehood in Israel, then the reasonable thing to do is try to accommodate them by integrating them into an Arab Palestine. There seems to be a certain cognitive dissonance between what these Israeli citizens are aspiring to and actively promoting, and their insistence on continued citizenship in Israel when their coveted aspirations can be realized and an Arab citizenship in their own Arab state is available to them without their having to lift a finger or move an inch to attain it. Of course they can support the Palestinians without calling for the dissolution of Israel, something that may contribute to a lessening of suspicion and resentment against the Arab minority in Israel.

- noga1

July 1, 2010 at 5:17pm

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

I get his point, and I get yours. I just think that (let's leave Belgium aside) Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia are wildly misleading and almost surreal analogies to use. The separation of Czechoslovakia was -- very likely -- in contravention of majority opinion in both communities at that time; the split was pushed by nationalist politicians who had gamed the constitutional system and combined their push for separation with other political goals. The relationship of violence to separation in the case of Yugoslavia is complicated, but one can at least say that, in contrast to Israel and Palestine, the multinational state had existed peacefully for most of the previous 70 years and separation was followed by greater violence in several cases. Other than that, I agree that mandatory transfers of territory and people have occurred in modern history. However, I would hope that Israel would offer Israeli citizens the choice to retain their citizenship and move if such territorial exchanges happen. It's certainly possible that Arab Israelis might have covert objectives for staying there, but how much of a real risk would that be? If there's a Palestinian nation-state next door, then I doubt that demographic conspiracies to hollow out Israel will have much purchase.

- ironyroad

July 1, 2010 at 5:40pm

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

A. Lieberman duly notes the neo-nationalistic trend to devolution (he forgot Scotland). I just read Kristof's column, and all I could think of was Robert Caro's bio of Robert Moses "The Power Broker", especially the New York City stories of what became Park West Village (97-100th Streets) - the great 1950's scandal in the name of middle-class housing that displaced the original residents to even worse tenements with the use of Federal subsidies; and Moses' annihilation of multiple neighborhoods with the use of eminent domain in the building of the Cross-Bronx Expressway. Kristof has a bad habit of selective examples without accurate fact-checking, the benefit of being an opinion writer. I really wonder if Lebanese-Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim is now directly funding the NYT Op-Ed pages :)

- K2K

July 1, 2010 at 5:52pm

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

Can you spell "Czechoslovakia" from memory, IR? These names used to be a challenge but now I don't bother. For example, I can never spell Nietszche properly. Does the "z" come before or after the "ch"? Or Brzezinski. If you wonder why the sudden interest in spelling, it is this statement: "If there's a Palestinian nation-state next door, then I doubt that demographic conspiracies to hollow out Israel will have much purchase." Such great innocence and trust in the rationality of man is encapsulated in it. Yet there is nothing rational about the spelling of Brzesinki. And why is "Dalziel" pronounced Dee-el when it reads as something else. It's all got to do with tribes and honour/shame, and names and blood.

- noga1

July 1, 2010 at 6:23pm

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

Well, yes -- the difficult time was when I lived in Germany, and it was 'die Tschechoslowakei' or in conversation 'die Tschekei' for short. 'Nietzsche' (z before the sche) was just something I wanted to not have to keep looking up. Knowing German helps. The spelling of 'Brzhezinsky' (or whatever it is) is of course not arbitrary but entirely rational within the menu of lexical and orthographic choices offered by the Russian language. The language itself is, I'd agree, not "rational" in the sense of planned (no human language is, except for Esperanto) but that's a different issue. You could say, using Saussure, that while the langue is arbitrary the paroles are not -- they can't be, as they have to be coherent with each other and with the central linguistic rules that obtain for any given language. For example, there is nothing technically wrong with the word "plenk" in English. It violates no rules and is perfectly pronouncable. But there's no semantic place for it in the language so it would be irrational in terms of actual expression. Why 'innocent'? If one posits say 15-20% of the "exchange population" who might genuinely prefer to remain Israeli citizens for reasons of political freedom and the like, and let's say 50% who will not object to being transferred lock, stock, and citizenship to a new Palestinian state, that leaves 30-35% who would choose to remain Israeli for either pecuniary advantage alone (although I assume Israel would continue to pay pensions and other earned entitlements even if the individuals are now extra-nationals) or some desire to do the demographic "covert ops" thing. Would that 35% of a relatively small group of people to begin with be a real danger, over generations? Now, I may have the numbers wrong (it's all speculative), but is there any reason to exclude Arab Israelis from the community of people who make rational decisions? Now, it's true that one problem with tribes and blood and honor and shame are that the decisions made on those grounds can be rational even if the grounds are not, but not all decisions are (luckily for us) made on those grounds.

- ironyroad

July 1, 2010 at 7:12pm

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

the rationality of men is a Western concept born of the Enlightenment. Even in the West, we are learning how irrational is mankind, e.g., the economic theories based on the Chicago School "rational behavior" model have been proven wrong by the behavioral economists. I believe once one thinks in a given second language, one has a better view of how that 'tribe' sees the world. Since I have zero knowledge of Arabic, or Pashtun, I rely on the anthropologists who do, and, as noga wrote, it DOES have NOTHING to do with Western rationality, and everything to "do with tribes and honour/shame, and names and blood." especially the honor and blood part. [probably why George Mitchell is so obsessed with final borders - a very English concept]

- K2K

July 1, 2010 at 8:45pm

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

"I believe once one thinks in a given second language, one has a better view of how that 'tribe' sees the world." John McWhorter has only very recently posted an extended blog entry/column in which he takes issue with precisely that assumption (among other things). Click on "John McWhorter"

- ironyroad

July 1, 2010 at 8:54pm

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

irony: when I started dreaming in German, my only true second language, I saw the world very diffferently, and better understood German cultural 'stereotypes'. I saw the world differently after studying statistics. Another difference after studying design, with a focus on color fields. When I suddenly had to go to Indonesia to study the consumer culture by interviewing Indonesians in English, the single most helpful insight was in knowing that Javanese has nine levels of personal familiarity, compared to the two levels (formal and familiar) of Romance and Germanic languages, and the singular of English. I changed the way I spoke English when in Indonesia. With all due respect to the academic world, I really am not interested in an academic dissection of my personal observations. Much rather be discussing whether broadcasting Jane Austen mini-series and "Little House on the Prairie" re-runs in Afghanistan instead of Bollywood soap operas would make Afghans feel less threatened by modernity :)

- K2K

July 1, 2010 at 11:59pm

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

Thomas Jefferson on Amercian colonies and Great Britain, edited out of the final version of the Declaration of Independence: "We might have been a free and great people together." I wonder how a Palestinian 'Declaration of Statehood', as presented to the United Nations, would read, assuming the Arab League's threat of doing so comes to pass.

- K2K

July 2, 2010 at 12:31am

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

McWhorter dissected your personal observations? I'd contact the UNHRC! In any case, I don't understand as yet in what way, if at all, you agreed or disagreed with my comments that while languages themselves down to the lexical level are arbitrary, formalized expression is not. Hence Noga is on a bit of a wrong track there. On the other hand, Noga can't ever be wrong about anything, so I'm expecting Hurricane Andy to be visiting these parts by tomorrow morning. Incidentally, I too have German as my only true second language, and certainly there are structures in German that make certain types of expression easier/harder to enact than an equivalent in English (and vice versa) but nothing about the language by itself would offer a specific guide to how Germans would react in any given situation. Obviously communication is an embedded act, never free of culture, but no language is any more "rational" than another, but all languages need rules for written or verbal expression. Try explaining to someone from another European language why ship and sheep are pronounced differently.

- ironyroad

July 2, 2010 at 12:32am

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

irony: i just prefer to avoid what you enjoy in terms of academic-style discussion. different strokes. nothing personal. I certainly did not mean to confuse you by linking language with your belief in the rational behaviour of people. there is nothing rational about any tribes behaviour, east, west, north, or south. Rationality is an artificial construct, but could only have come from Germans or French or English (which is a blend of German and French). good night.

- K2K

July 2, 2010 at 1:34am

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

"...On the other hand, Noga can't ever be wrong about anything," Look who's talking.

- noga1

July 2, 2010 at 6:23am

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

Or, as the Arabs would put it: http://zangezur.tripod.com/aradz/camel2.jpg

- noga1

July 2, 2010 at 6:30am

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

Just a quick note.. its getting close to Shabbat & I don't have much time. To be honest I don't know the Pal population distributions in what would constitute defensible borders nor do have more than a general qualitative picture of what would constitute defensible borders. I do know that the central mountain range is of critical strategic importance (demographic questions aside), in large part because of the advent of low intensity warfare and the Qassam / Katyusha rocket. The entity that has worked the most on the question of defensible borders is Dore Gold's think-tank, the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. As I have said in the past, and obviously any proposed border in my opinion would have to be tempered by the demographic realities, Palestinians living on land annexed to Israel should be given the same deal as the the Pals living in the post-67 neighborhoods of J'lem & the Druse & Alawites on the Golan -- permanent residency with the option of citizenship. Irony, the "Lieberman plan" (for lack of a better term) was never an official Israeli plan and it was never fully fleshed out in terms of the citizenship options for those Israeli Arabs who's towns & villages became part of a Palestinian state, or for that matter exactly which heavily Israeli-Arab regions would be attached to a Palestinian state. I believe Lieberman scopes out many, if not most, of these points in his book but I have never read it so I can't say for sure. The few times I heard the plan discussed by various people along the political spectrum (well before it was adopted by Lieberman) there was a general vague acknowledgment that at least some of their cumulative rights acquired through National Insurance (the analog to Social Security) would be retained for those Israeli Arabs who became residents of the Palestinian state. I should note BTW, that Israelis living abroad lose their National Security rights if they don't continue to pay in to the system even when living abroad or make back payments (with a penalty) if they move back to Israel. Even if they make payments while living abroad I don't know if they can collect benefits abroad (unlike to Social Security retirement benefits which can be collected abroad). BTW, there is one demographic concern even if a Palestinian state is established that is kicked around quietly. The Arab countries which have been housing the Palestinian refugees in rather marginal conditions (Lebanon in particular comes to mind) will immediately force the refugees (actually their decedents) to "return" to the new Palestinian state which as a result will face a housing crisis & general overtaxing of resources. This in turn will be used to pressure Israel to allow the refugees to cross into Israel and live there. Promised "international guaranties" & other such fluff to prevent such a scenario are not believed and trusted to put it mildly. Shabbat Shalom, hg

- ginzy

July 2, 2010 at 6:50am

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

Noga, the link was active but the image itself -- whatever it is -- didn't come through (although the 'hosted by tripod' emblem did). BTW is anyone else having problems with TNR links or icons appearing over the text on the thread?

- ironyroad

July 2, 2010 at 9:34am

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

yes, irony, past two days, some TNR icons have migrated from the top to the left side, and I can not read noga's last two comments. Shabbat Shalom to all. highly recommend William Dalrymple explaining Afghanistan in today's Guardian. world peace for a few hours while Brazil plays Netherlands, followed by Uruguay v Ghana.

- K2K

July 2, 2010 at 10:51am

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

Ne-ther-lands!!!!!

- ironyroad

July 2, 2010 at 1:16pm

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

Only yesterday ironyroad waved away Lieberman's ideas as dismissable and lacking in real substance, mostly to do with the examples he chose to highlight his thesis ("wildly misleading and almost surreal analogies to use".) This one he will find more difficult to dismiss so easily. The author is a well known dove of the doviest kind: "The Israeli angle is clear as well: In light of the difficulties the idea of establishing a Palestinian state alongside Israel is encountering, here and there voices are calling for consideration of a binational solution, in which Jews and Palestinians will live together under a single regime. If we leave aside for the moment a number of troublesome questions (Under which flag? What will this state's national holidays be? What will be its national anthem? Will the mufti and David Ben-Gurion co-star in its textbooks? ), the European experience shows that binationalism is a story of failure, which in many cases (Cyprus, Yugoslavia ) has ended in violence. If Czechs and Slovaks, Flemings and Walloons, who never fought each other but have different cultures and different historical memories, can't live in one country, then one has to be blind, ignorant, thoroughly insensitive or all three to think that Jews and Palestinians, who have been clutching each other's throats for more than a century, will be able to solve their problems and maintain a democratic life after being thrown into a single political cauldron. What has happened in Belgium has implications reaching far beyond its borders. " http://www.haaretz.com/magazine/week-s-end/bye-to-the-binational-model-1.299660

- noga1

July 2, 2010 at 3:20pm

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

Now that's a far better way of putting it. If Lieberman had thought for a minute before signing off on the op-ed that his staffer wrote for him (yes, I'm speculating here), he might have deployed his analogical cases more effectively. I wasn't suggesting a one-nation solution, of course, as even a cursory reading of my posts would have shown. Or so I thought. Yugoslavia was a little more complicated that "binationalism," however, and I strongly believe that its collapse into war and destruction was not natural or inevitable, but was helped along by demagogues like Tudjman and Milosevic. ginzy, thanks for the clarification -- I was assuming earned entitlements would continue, but apprently it's not as simple as that. I find these little details of national bureaucratic cultures quite fascinating, for some odd reason. I wonder if a guy who was in the PLO and was also a double agent for Mossad would be able to pick up both pensions (if he were still alive). There was a case in Ireland after the War of Indepdendence that involved three pensions.

- ironyroad

July 2, 2010 at 4:29pm

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

"Ne-ther-lands!!!!!" YES! UR-U-GUAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

- K2K

July 2, 2010 at 5:21pm

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

ok, Netherlands was better, but I really wanted Uruguay in the semi-finals too. Muslera - goalie perfection! am very conflicted about Argentina v Germany.

- K2K

July 2, 2010 at 5:28pm

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

That's impossible to predict. It could go either way. I suspect Argentina might be feeling a touch of nervousness after looking at Brazil today, though.

- ironyroad

July 2, 2010 at 6:09pm

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

irony: "That's impossible to predict." yes, but I had been looking for an all-South American semi-final in the interest of symmetry and giving MERCOSUR the global stage, nothing about relative soccer merits. So, I was going to root for Argentina. Now, I am just going to enjoy the remaining games, and by halftime decide who gets my mental assist. Brazil, the country, must be in complete meltdown. that's all for me.

- K2K

July 2, 2010 at 6:41pm

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

And speaking of names, ironyroad, I just realized that I never asked you to explain this choice of an alias. Is it a personal thing or can you share it? Names are important. http://books.google.ca/books?id=jylSITT9ZNUC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=names+and+naming+pinker&source=bl&ots=LbV1K-sCzQ&sig=kD82Os2fLWoMWG9kSzx6mAyEn6I&hl=en&ei=zoQuTPToPMb_lgeXx9HhCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=names%20and%20naming%20pinker&f=false

- noga1

July 2, 2010 at 8:35pm

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

Like ginzy, I don't know where the population is concentrated in the West Bank, but I just looked at a topographic map and it is clear that it is would not be possible for Israel to have the Central Mountain range without annexing virtually all of the West Bank. On the east, the mountain range falls to the Jordan River valley. So, we would be talking about most of the West Bank other than the Jordan. But control of the boundary with Jordan is more important than the central highlands. This makes my point above that, while Eban's point about defensible borders makes sense in the abstract, as a practical matter this is a one-state solution. Virtually no one in Israel wants a one-state solution as this would be the end of the Jewish state. Given the impossibility of both a two-state solution and strategic depth west of the Jordan, what matters militarily is the ability to prevent weapons from flowing into Palestine from the east. Obviously, they would not be coming in from Israel in the north, south, and west.

- roidubouloi

July 2, 2010 at 9:02pm

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

rumor has it some Negev Bedouin engage in weapons smuggling into Gaza, which might be why there is a ring of settlements along the southern border of the West Bank... the devolution into tribalism keeps getting more complicated. was just reading Pakistan's Daily Times about the suicide bombings in the Lahore Pakistan Sufi shrine of Syed Abul Hassan Ali Hajvery aka Hazrat Data Ganj Bakhsh, only to read editorial #2 about the proposal to divide the Punjab in two, to accomodate the linguistic separation of the Sharif and the Khosa. Just when you thought it was only a schism between Sunni and Shi'a, welcome to Sufism (dominant in Pakistan, more so in India and Bangladesh): "...A sufi’s message is of love, tolerance, inclusiveness, acceptance, transcending the material world, and universal brotherhood. Sufis are the epitome of peace and tolerance and their beautiful message cuts across the grain of religious exclusiveness. In the words of the great sufi poet, Rumi, “The nation of love differs from all others, lovers bear allegiance to no nation or sect.” " http://www dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010%5C07%5C03%5Cstory_3-7-2010_pg3_1

- K2K

July 2, 2010 at 9:48pm

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

"Never lose hope, my heart miracles dwell in the invisible If the whole world turns against you keep your eyes on the Friend" (Rumi)

- noga1

July 2, 2010 at 10:44pm

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

Noga, I think I explained it once, but that was a long time ago anyhow. It's just that I've always been fascinated, since I was a kid, with the term "the iron road" for the railways in the 19th century in America, as they spread out across the country. And then one day around 2003 I realized that a 'y' could fit snugly in there and maybe do something creative to justify itself . . .

- ironyroad

July 2, 2010 at 11:29pm

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

thank you noga, for the beautiful poem by Rumi. More Sufi, less Sunni, and less Shi'a. Yemen's Shi'a Houthi expelled seventy of Yemen's remaining Jews from their homes at gunpoint. Lebanon's Daily Star reported today: "...“From the time of the Queen of Sheba,” says Rabbi Salem, “when the temple of King Solomon was destroyed, Jews left Jerusalem and came with the queen to Yemen. We are of the oldest Jews in the world. Jews in Yemen are the original Jews, not like … the Jews in America; they are not originally from America. And in Israel, they are not originally from Israel.” (Ethiopian Jews, known as falasha, also trace their lineage to the Queen of Sheba and King Solomon through their son, Menelik, who is said to have returned to Ethiopia accompanied by Jewish tribes and the Ark of the Covenant.) Jewish settlement in Saada could be as old as the Torah, where Saada and Sanaa, the rabbi says, are mentioned in their Judaic names, respectively “Diglo” and “Ozol,” or the Arabicized “Azal.” Currently, only 70 Jews from Saada remain. All were driven from their homes in the northern province at gunpoint by Zaidi Houthi rebels and told never to return. They sought refuge in the night with Sheikh Bakhtan – Jews have traditionally been protected by tribal sheikhs. It was Sheikh Bakhtan who drove the rabbi’s family to the capital, where the community of 70 remains under the president’s protection. “We can’t return to Saada at all,” says Rabbi Salem. “The Houthis looted and destroyed our houses completely. This is forbidden in all the religions. They stole my library; it was an invaluable library. I had historical books. I had a Torah that was the only Torah in Yemen. It was in our family for generations, because my father was the biggest rabbi in Yemen. “But our origin is Yemeni,” he continues. “And we will never abandon our country.” " http://www dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_ID=10&article_ID=116647&categ_id=4#axzz0saSYfslm [I guess Helen Thomas really meant to say Jews should go home to Yemen and Ethiopia, since they are the "original Jews" ]

- K2K

July 2, 2010 at 11:48pm

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

I get a wild visceral reaction every time someone mentions "original Jews" as I have great fondness for mongrelism.

- noga1

July 3, 2010 at 8:08am

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

Thanks for the explanation, ironyroad. I would have thought that the "irony" came first. It's funny how language works on sounds and not just meanings, something I always tend to forget. I once realized that whenever I saw "antichrist" I would read it "anarchist" and then the sentence wouldn't make much sense and I would go back and read it properly. But then I thought that with the second option the sentence could also make some sort of ironical sense...

- noga1

July 3, 2010 at 8:56am

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

" great fondness for mongrelism." working wonders for German soccer...watching born in Poland Miroslav Klose embracing half-Ghanan Jerome Boateng after Klose's goal was thrilling. http://www dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5678110,00.html 'Deutshcland uber Alles' takes on a whole new meaning in 2010.

- K2K

July 3, 2010 at 11:37am

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

Iron(y)road, My wife & I had Shabbat dinner Friday night with friends; the husband is a senior faculty member of the Bar Ilan U. School of Social Work, so he is an authority on entitlements (he and I argue a lot as he views himself as a social democrat whereas living in Israel has made me more of a capitalist / free marketeer than I was in the USA, but that is another story). Israeli citizens living abroad are **NOT** entitled to any National Insurance benefits even if they paid into the system their whole life. I guess that's how they can keep their reserves high enough to cover all the things they cover for Israelis living in Israel. A story about Yemeni Jews, which competes with the Iraqi community (assuming any Iraqi Jews are left in Iraq) for the title of the oldest Jewish community outside the land of Israel (if I may so bold as to use that term). A tradition among Yemeni Jews has them settling in Yemen (probably before it was called Yemen) around the time of the destruction of the first Temple (~586 BCE). Some 70 years later Ezra, one of the leaders of the exiled Jews living in Babylon received permission from Cyrus the Great to rebuild the Temple (which became the 2nd Temple). Ezra sent a missive to the Jews of Yemen inviting them to come with him to Jerusalem to participate in the sacred task of rebuilding Jerusalem and the Temple (somehow they snuck this past the NY Times editorial board). They responded thanks but no thanks, life was too good in Yemen. Ezra responded by cursing them that their community will always suffer from dispute and dissension. To this day, Yemeni Jews are known for their discord especially about Halachic & liturgical issues. And there is a tradition among Yemeni Jews not to name their boys Ezra because of his curse. Shavu'a Tov, hg

- ginzy

July 3, 2010 at 3:18pm

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

ginzy, that's a very interesting fact and could have some kind of influence upon Arab-Israeli decisions if and when exchanges of territory and population ever become concrete plans rather than just speculation. The joy of becoming Palestinian in a Palestinian state vs. continuing to be Israeli and receive benefits. I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that if such a configuration ever comes around in the context of peace talks, special provision will be made for paying pensions and the like even if the recipients are now living in a foreign country. I can imagine Ezra Pound being an even better reason not to name any child Ezra. :)

- ironyroad

July 3, 2010 at 3:56pm

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

Israelis of Yemenite extraction, btw, were able to integrate quite rapidly and successfully into Israel's society during the earlier days of the state. They whined the least about discrimination and bigotry and worked hard to get their children to have better education, better jobs, etc. They have a very strict work ethics and didn't turn up their nose at any work. They also introduced into the Israeli cuisine the Yemenite hot sauce known by the unpronounceable name of Skhug, made of hot peppers seasoned with coriander, garlic and various spices. Skhug Teymani recipe: * 1 bn Fresh coriander, leaves only * 1 sm Head of garlic (8 cloves), * 1 tb Salt * 6 oz Fresh hot green chili, * 1/4 ts Pepper * 2 tb Ground cumin seed * 4 Cardamon pods, seeds only, * 4 Whole cloves, broken up Preparation Process all the ingredients to a relatively smooth paste. It's extremely hot and needs to be savoured with great caution. Remember how Laura Esquivel warns in her novel: It's hard to eat chillies and no water nearby.

- noga1

July 3, 2010 at 5:10pm

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

sounds like Skhug may have saved Jewish cuisine from the depredations of Eastern Europe. I add tabasco sauce when I make chicken soup. btw, Claudia Roden calls it zhoug in her classic 1996 "The Book of Jewish Food": green Zhoug: 2 cups fresh coriander, or 1 cup each coriander and parsley (no stems) 1/2 lb fresh medium-hot chiles 6 garlic cloves, crushed 1 teaspoon caraway seeds, 4 Cardamon pods, seeds only, 1/2 tsp salt 1/2 tsp black pepper 5 tbspn cold water OR sunflower oil (which will preserve your Yemeni Chile Relish for weeks in the refrigerator)

- K2K

July 3, 2010 at 6:53pm

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

Green zchug is for wussies.

- noga1

July 3, 2010 at 7:09pm

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

And now, the great TNR Skhug cook-off, in the green corner K2K, in the red corner, Noga . . .

- ironyroad

July 3, 2010 at 7:31pm

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

actually irony, Claudia Roden includes how to make Red Zhoug, by using red chile peppers and adding six medium, unpeeled tomatoes. Yemeni Salsa. Roden's cookbook is a treasure because she weaves stories, history, and her travel memoir in search of more than 800 Jewish recipes on her "Odyssey from Samarkand to New York". 27% Ashkenazi, 73% Sephardi, including all of Asia. Gefilte fish meets couscous. Roden is originally from Cairo, university in Paris, and settled in London where she specializes in writing about Mediterranean cuisine, especially Italy.

- K2K

July 3, 2010 at 9:34pm

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

I actually was introduced into the joys of Skhug (red) iin of all places St. Louis Park MN (a close-in suburb of Minneapolis) where I lived for ~6 years. A member of the orthodox community in St. Louis Park who was born & grew up in the old city of Jerusalem (obviously prior to 1948) ate skhug as a kid which he either got from the local Yeminite Jews (the Silwan neighborhood just outside the Dung Gate prior to 1947 or so housed a large community of Yemenite Jews) or that his mother learned how to make from the Yemenites. I guess I should note that this fellow was about as Asheknazi as they come. In all events he used to make batches of the stuff and give out to members of our synagogue who could handle it. We often would put some on gefilte fish instead of the more traditional prepared horseradish. talk about cross-culturalism... hg

- ginzy

July 4, 2010 at 2:40am

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

Skhug post script.... Since moving to Efrata about 12 years ago, my wife learned how to make Matbucha also a tomato & peppers based hot sauce, I believe of Moroccan Jewish origin. We like eating it with our Shabbat meals, especially with houmous or pesto on Challah. The irony is that our son-in-law who is of Moroccan extraction doesn't like the stuff. Or houmous either for that matter. hg

- ginzy

July 4, 2010 at 2:44am

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

Any Ashkenazi American who grew up on spaghetti sauce made with Heinz ketchup (like me) would naturally succumb to the Temptations of the Garden of Real Tomatoes and Hot Peppers, and never look back. Alas, Roden has no mention of Matbucha, not even a hint. I would like to thank Israel's Dorot Foods for their excellent frozen cilantro leaf cubes, and Trader Joe's for selling it in the U.S.. The leaf of the coriander IS called cilantro.

- K2K

July 4, 2010 at 9:13am

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

What a refreshing, sweet conversation! Roden is great, but her transcriptions of names (e.g., her "Zhoug") leave something to be desired. It might have been better if she'd given versions of names in Hebrew and Arabic characters.

- yerubal

July 4, 2010 at 12:08pm

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

If it's any consolation, there is no one uniform authoritative spelling of the hot stuff in Hebrew as well. I have encountered at least 5 ways of spelling. Yet everyone knows how to find the small jar when they look for it in the supermarket.

- noga1

July 4, 2010 at 5:28pm

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

Warning: This confessional comment might be a bit pedantic and tedious, maybe even dumb. Thanks for the comment, Noga. Naturally there are variations in spelling. But if I'm curious about the food, and about words, and if I want to find look for the same recipe in other cookbooks, or even from a purely esthetic viewpoint, it's nicer to find things written well. One example is the "Zhoug". Once you know what it really is, and that the zh isn't the j sound at the end of garage, you can figure out that Roden didn't want to put s before h because people would pronounce the sh as in English (so either s'h with apostrophe, or a different way of transcribing the Het sound, or else changing the s to z, was called for. But the most interesting part of it for me was that the word is Yemenite Jewish Arabic for a word cognate to the Hebrew "shaHuq" (rubbed, or ground down / grated -- shin Het vav quf). I bet in Yemenite Jewish Arabic that quf is pronounced like a 'g'. So, in literary Arabic, masHuq means ground or powdered. And, even though there's a variation in spellings, Hebrew Wikipedia has sHug as simply samekh Het vav gimel, and matbukh, as you'd expect (with a word related to slaughter or cooking) as mem tet bet vav Het. And probably ma'amoul as מעמול, and all those words, though Arabic, are Hebrew-recognizable, and, for me, more fun on that account. So, I really appreciate the cookbook writer make the original word more accessible. I'm also sometimes frustrated when Haaretz online gives poetry without nikkud (ynet always uses nikkud in poems, haaretz almost never), and things like that.

- yerubal

July 4, 2010 at 7:02pm

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

"I have encountered at least 5 ways of spelling" Reminds me of the English transations of the street names on the signs in Tel Aviv.

- ironyroad

July 4, 2010 at 7:56pm

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

"The West Bank is occupied Palestinian territory" Really? First the name has been invented replacing Judea and Samaria. Check any map before the 60's as far in time as you want. The names have always been Judea and Samaria. Why the change? You could not have a Judea cleansed of any Jew. "Palestinian territory" Funny but the Palestinian nation is a recent invention created out of the Arab refugees Arab states that created them and refused to absorb them. "The green line" Is an armistice line with the land grabbers, mainly Egypt and Trans-Jordan (before it changed it's name,) not with The Palestinian nation years before it's invention. Jerusalem? The capital of the Jewish nation for 3 millennia never an Arab capital even when Arabs held it for centuries. Abbas a "moderate." My foot! He denies the Shoa and Jews connection to the land of Israel and even refuses to recognize the Jewish nation of Israel.

- Poupic

September 20, 2010 at 2:51pm

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close