Now that George Mitchell is Negotiating Between Israel and the Palestinians, Hillary Has Been Assigned the Irish. I Thought the Irish Question Had Been Solved ... by George Mitchell!
President Obama designated George Mitchell his special envoy to the Jews and the Arabs because he had experience with them. Of course, Mitchell's familiarity with the Middle East was the familiarity of utter failure. No matter. Obama couldn't have sent George Tenet again ... or, God forbid, Anthony Zinni. And he wouldn't dispatch Dennis Ross, who knows far too much that wouldn't have fit with the president's own delusions.
Another reason, perhaps the decisive reason, for dispatching Mitchell was that he had resolved the "Irish question," dating back all the way to the mid-19th century, or "the troubles," which it has been called since the twenties.
An intriguing article in the New York Times by Mark Landler, whom I slighted unfairly last month, is headlined, "Clinton Has Warm Words for Ireland and Britain." I will get to Hillary's warm words for Ireland below. But what struck me was her "assuring the British that they still had a special relationship with the United States." The U.S. has had a "special relationship" with Great Britain since the War of 1812, save for a few hostile but feeble interventions by London on behalf of the Confederacy during the Civil War.
For one, Prime Minister Gordon Brown couldn't get a one-on-one meeting with Obama either during the General Assembly in New York or at the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh. But that's just a slight. To be sure, Washington was offended by the sneaky arrangements made by the Labour government with Scotland and the tyrannical Gadhafi regime for the release of the Libyan security official who was responsible for the Lockerbie murder of 270 people, 189 of them Americans.
Maybe Mrs. Clinton is exaggerating the distance between Washington and London by magnifying her own centrality in the truly permanent ties between the two countries.
Or, as Landler put it…
"Giving Mr.Brown a warm hug before a meeting at Chequers, his country retreat, Mrs. Clinton said, 'I have a special personal relationship with the prime minister, and of course, I don't think it can be said often enough, we have a special relationship between our two countries.'"
As almost everyone recalls--if you are old enough to remember back ten years--Hillary also hugged and kissed Suha Arafat, with whom she had no relationship at all, after an especially foul speech for which Mrs. Clinton had a simultaneous English translation.
There was bad news for the U.S. in her meeting with David Miliband, Brown's foreign secretary. Mrs. Clinton briefed the foreign secretary ... about the Obama administration debate over Afghanistan policy. He said that, for all the discussion over sending additional troops--both there and in the United States--the civilian rebuilding effort needed just as much focus.
This is not good news ... and it is more than a bit off the central topic. Civilian rebuilding is a dead letter without more troops.
The Mickey Finn in the Landler dispatch is the news that the Northern Ireland arrangements may be unraveling. Secretary Clinton made much of the threat of renewed violence in "telling the Irish that she would help them keep Northern Ireland's peace process on track."
I thought that George Mitchell had succeeded in bringing the war between Ultra-Protestants and Ultra-Catholics to a close. No, actually, I didn't. And Mitchell hadn't succeeded.
Northern Ireland seems once again on edge: "Last March, two British soldiers were shot to death in their barracks in Antrim; a few days later, a Northern Ireland police constable was killed while on duty in Craigavon, in County Armagh."
And, of course, there was more. So what does Hillary have to say about this?
"Clearly there are questions and some apprehensions" is what she said. Then she went into her reassuring mode--empty but reassuring…
"But I believe that due to the concerted effort of the British government, the Irish government, the support of friends like us in the United States, that the parties understand that this is a step they must take together."
George Mitchell did not receive the Nobel Peace Prize. Not even the Oslo benefactors thought that he had settled the Irish problem. It is not yet settled, not by a long shot. Still, maybe he should go back to Northern Ireland, where all of his experience may put him in good stead. Or maybe not.
An Associated Press report in Ha'aretz carries this headline: "U.S. envoy: Obama won't stop until Mideast peace achieved." This was Mitchell speaking, and it is not clear whether the statement is the president's threat or his promise. In any event, as an article in the Jerusalem Post by Herb Keinon reports, "Mitchell visit brings no visible success." Mitchell’s diplomacy also brought no success, visible or invisible. I more than suspect that the president's determination will also achieve nothing.
The brutal fact is that the Palestinians have not made peace with each other. And another fact is that they can't. The president wants a contiguous Palestine encompassing Gaza and the West Bank. Gaza is under the deadly control of Hamas. Who knows which of the Palestinian rumps would win an election in the West Bank? Maybe Fatah, maybe Hamas. I know that some folks are talking about a truce with the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But Israel is neither Afghanistan nor Pakistan, two permanently miserable societies. Let no one think of analogies.
Or, if not, is there at least a respectable anti-point?
Is there a point to this post?
Or, if not, is there at least a respectable anti-point?
10/12/2009 - 3:25am EDT | iambiguous
MP:
Of course, Mitchell's familiarity with the Middle East was the familiarity of utter failure.
george:
Again, Marty sets this up as though success and failure come with objective criteria rather than the usual subjunctive predilections all such conflicts evolve in and out of. If possession of the land is 100% of what really matters in the end, Israel's policies have been a smashing success since 1948. Indeed, for some Israelis failure revolves only around not seizing even more of it.
At the same time, the fanatic Islamists have also been smashingly successful in keeping the conflict going. In refusing to accept the historical reality of Israel's deeply embedded existence as a state they contin ... view full comment
MP:
Of course, Mitchell's familiarity with the Middle East was the familiarity of utter failure.
george:
Again, Marty sets this up as though success and failure come with objective criteria rather than the usual subjunctive predilections all such conflicts evolve in and out of. If possession of the land is 100% of what really matters in the end, Israel's policies have been a smashing success since 1948. Indeed, for some Israelis failure revolves only around not seizing even more of it.
At the same time, the fanatic Islamists have also been smashingly successful in keeping the conflict going. In refusing to accept the historical reality of Israel's deeply embedded existence as a state they continue to pursue Allah and the Caliphate as the corpses and despair pile higher and higher.
Only the millions of folks...on both sides of the conflagration...who truly want peace and prosperity in the region have failed to achieve anything much at all.
But in one crucial respect, let's scrape the word "peace" though. It's one of those bullshit words invented in diplomatic circles to squeeze justice out of the picture altogether. Peace can be merely the absense of conflict. But that says little about the presense of justice. And while we will ever argue over the relationship between peace and justice in places like Northern Ireland and the Middle East, we will never achieve either one of them as long as those who profit from war [monetarily and otherwise] continue to hack out the narratives and pull the strings of all the players.
george walton
10/12/2009 - 5:30am EDT | jacksondyer
Here we have another anti-Zionist post by the ignorant George Walton who confuses “subjunctive” with “subjective.”
“Again, Marty sets this up as though success and failure come with objective criteria rather than the usual subjunctive predilections all such conflicts evolve in and out of. If possession of the land is 100% of what really matters in the end, Israel's policies have been a smashing success since 1948. Indeed, for some Israelis failure revolves only around not seizing even more of it.”
No evidence, not facts, no data, just another hateful post by a Jew hater.
“Subjunctive predilections” indeed!
But then he posted this at 4 AM which means he got up in the middle of ... view full comment
Here we have another anti-Zionist post by the ignorant George Walton who confuses “subjunctive” with “subjective.”
“Again, Marty sets this up as though success and failure come with objective criteria rather than the usual subjunctive predilections all such conflicts evolve in and out of. If possession of the land is 100% of what really matters in the end, Israel's policies have been a smashing success since 1948. Indeed, for some Israelis failure revolves only around not seizing even more of it.”
No evidence, not facts, no data, just another hateful post by a Jew hater.
“Subjunctive predilections” indeed!
But then he posted this at 4 AM which means he got up in the middle of the night in order to post a verbal attack on Jews.
A specter is haunting George Walton: the specter the specter of Jews fighting back. It troubles his go going to sleep and his waking up; it troubles his dreams and his daily ruminations.
Poor pitiful an pathetic George.
10/12/2009 - 8:24am EDT | noga1
"And he wouldn't dispatch Dennis Ross, who knows far too much that wouldn't have fit with the president's own delusions."
The point of this post is this:
Dennis Ross who could produce some progress was not sent because he is a Jew.
Mitchel, who cannot produce any progress, is sent because he is the closest thing to be Ross's ethnic counterpart in the Arab mind.
Now the Israelis have no problem working with Mitchel. They are concerned with his proposals, not his ethnicities. But the Arabs cannot work with Ross whom they had labelled "Shylock" when he was Clinton's emissary.
So, if you are in the business of currying favour with the Arabs, who will you send?
"And he wouldn't dispatch Dennis Ross, who knows far too much that wouldn't have fit with the president's own delusions."
The point of this post is this:
Dennis Ross who could produce some progress was not sent because he is a Jew.
Mitchel, who cannot produce any progress, is sent because he is the closest thing to be Ross's ethnic counterpart in the Arab mind.
Now the Israelis have no problem working with Mitchel. They are concerned with his proposals, not his ethnicities. But the Arabs cannot work with Ross whom they had labelled "Shylock" when he was Clinton's emissary.
So, if you are in the business of currying favour with the Arabs, who will you send?
I don't understand why Marty is so exercised these days about Obama. It's as if he did not make every efforts imaginable to get the guy elected in the first place.
10/12/2009 - 10:49am EDT | rhubarbs
When Marty ranges onto the Irish question, his statements are riddled with error, distortion, and falsehood. I mean, simple matters of fact, like Marty's implication that by not giving Mitchell the Peace Prize, "not even the Oslo benefactors thought that he had settled the Irish problem." When in point of fact "the Oslo benefactors" did award the 1998 Peace Prize to John Hume and David Trimble for the Good Friday Accords. The Nobel Committee singled out Mitchell by name when awarding the Peace Prize to Hume and Trimble: "United States Senator George Mitchell, who made such a significant contribution as a mediator, gave an accurate description ..."
When Marty ranges onto the Irish question, his statements are riddled with error, distortion, and falsehood. I mean, simple matters of fact, like Marty's implication that by not giving Mitchell the Peace Prize, "not even the Oslo benefactors thought that he had settled the Irish problem." When in point of fact "the Oslo benefactors" did award the 1998 Peace Prize to John Hume and David Trimble for the Good Friday Accords. The Nobel Committee singled out Mitchell by name when awarding the Peace Prize to Hume and Trimble: "United States Senator George Mitchell, who made such a significant contribution as a mediator, gave an accurate description ..."
Almost every falsifiable assertion of fact in this post is easily falsified. Since Northern Ireland is obviously of no inherent interest to Marty beyond its tangential connection to persons involved in current events in Israel, Marty should avoid further writing on Irish issues.
10/12/2009 - 1:33pm EDT | ironyroad
Hear hear! And anyone who believes that the situation involved a "war between the Ultra-Catholics and the Ultra-Protestants" knows as much about Northern Ireland as (if I may translate my favorite phrase from the now-deceased conservative Bavarian leader Franz-Josef Strauss) the dog knows about the moon that it's barking at.
Hear hear! And anyone who believes that the situation involved a "war between the Ultra-Catholics and the Ultra-Protestants" knows as much about Northern Ireland as (if I may translate my favorite phrase from the now-deceased conservative Bavarian leader Franz-Josef Strauss) the dog knows about the moon that it's barking at.
10/12/2009 - 2:28pm EDT | scrubby
"Almost every falsifiable assertion of fact in this post is easily falsified."
But, Rhubs, that's how it's been with Marty when it comes to the president ever since Cairo. You haven't noticed?
"Almost every falsifiable assertion of fact in this post is easily falsified."
But, Rhubs, that's how it's been with Marty when it comes to the president ever since Cairo. You haven't noticed?
10/12/2009 - 2:56pm EDT | ironyroad
Reading Marty Peretz's original post above, I have to say that it's the best evidence I've seen in a long time in support of the principle that even an editor needs an editor.
Reading Marty Peretz's original post above, I have to say that it's the best evidence I've seen in a long time in support of the principle that even an editor needs an editor.
10/12/2009 - 3:47pm EDT | jacksondyer
An interesting article in Harry's Place about peace prospects:
"Far Left and Far Right Fanatics: Listen to the Palestinian People"
it IS rather ironic that Hillary is in Ireland while Mitchell is in the Middle East.
which made me wonder why no one except the Irish complain about the British 'settlements' in Northern Ireland.
Punjab back to the Sikhs! Erase Gertrude Bell from history! Redraw the maps all over Africa! California back to Mexico! Everything back to the Mongols! Ireland back to the Vikings! Normandy back to the French!
Karelia back to the Finns! (Is Karelia why Hillary is on her way to Russia?)
sorry, the total absurdity of the world has gotten to me.
I am back to reading WW2 because I prefer Hitler in my nightmares to most of the clowns running around Europe today.
it IS rather ironic that Hillary is in Ireland while Mitchell is in the Middle East.
which made me wonder why no one except the Irish complain about the British 'settlements' in Northern Ireland.
Punjab back to the Sikhs! Erase Gertrude Bell from history! Redraw the maps all over Africa! California back to Mexico! Everything back to the Mongols! Ireland back to the Vikings! Normandy back to the French!
Karelia back to the Finns! (Is Karelia why Hillary is on her way to Russia?)
sorry, the total absurdity of the world has gotten to me.
I am back to reading WW2 because I prefer Hitler in my nightmares to most of the clowns running around Europe today.
is there a statute of both time and geographical limitations in considering when land is illegally occupied (30 mile circumference of Jerusalem is all that counts?)
10/12/2009 - 6:39pm EDT | noga1
..(is there a statute of both time and geographical limitations in considering when land is illegally occupied (30 mile circumference of Jerusalem is all that counts?..
Never mind that. What about the premise that
"rather than promoting the rule of law in a future Palestine, the Obama administration essentially urges us to accept that, because Palestinians will kill unprotected Jews, Jews cannot be permitted in a Palestinian state.
This is what the late New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan called "defining deviancy down." Will it provide the basis for peace in the Middle East for us to define deviancy for Palestinians in such a way that essentially accepts Fatah's goal of a Jew-free Palest ... view full comment
..(is there a statute of both time and geographical limitations in considering when land is illegally occupied (30 mile circumference of Jerusalem is all that counts?..
Never mind that. What about the premise that
"rather than promoting the rule of law in a future Palestine, the Obama administration essentially urges us to accept that, because Palestinians will kill unprotected Jews, Jews cannot be permitted in a Palestinian state.
This is what the late New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan called "defining deviancy down." Will it provide the basis for peace in the Middle East for us to define deviancy for Palestinians in such a way that essentially accepts Fatah's goal of a Jew-free Palestine?"
"Punjab back to the Sikhs! Erase Gertrude Bell from history! Redraw the maps all over Africa! California back to Mexico! Everything back to the Mongols! Ireland back to the Vikings! Normandy back to the French!"
And this would be just the beginning, k2k.
Wait till the Sudaten Germans reclaim parts of the Czech Republic and other formetly displaced person reclaim parts of Poland and other East European countries.
It seems that the "peace loving world" has one set of standards for Jews and another for the rest of the humanity.
"Punjab back to the Sikhs! Erase Gertrude Bell from history! Redraw the maps all over Africa! California back to Mexico! Everything back to the Mongols! Ireland back to the Vikings! Normandy back to the French!"
And this would be just the beginning, k2k.
Wait till the Sudaten Germans reclaim parts of the Czech Republic and other formetly displaced person reclaim parts of Poland and other East European countries.
It seems that the "peace loving world" has one set of standards for Jews and another for the rest of the humanity.
10/13/2009 - 8:35am EDT | jacksondyer
"rather than promoting the rule of law in a future Palestine, the Obama administration essentially urges us to accept that, because Palestinians will kill unprotected Jews, Jews cannot be permitted in a Palestinian state."
The reality is, Noga, that Israel will have to spend millions, not to mention the loss of life, to defend these settlers. Do you think it's worth it and for the sake of a principle?
"rather than promoting the rule of law in a future Palestine, the Obama administration essentially urges us to accept that, because Palestinians will kill unprotected Jews, Jews cannot be permitted in a Palestinian state."
The reality is, Noga, that Israel will have to spend millions, not to mention the loss of life, to defend these settlers. Do you think it's worth it and for the sake of a principle?
10/13/2009 - 9:10am EDT | I Majorajam
That rodent's still knocking around up there, hey Marty? Keep up the good work here. Maybe you can get the whole post into the headline next time round.
That rodent's still knocking around up there, hey Marty? Keep up the good work here. Maybe you can get the whole post into the headline next time round.
10/13/2009 - 4:01pm EDT | noga1
"Do you think it's worth it and for the sake of a principle?"
No. And I stated my position repeatedly. But I don't think Israel ought to repeat the Gaza fiasco and certainly not uproot any settlements before Palestinians give up their RoR claim. A very real tit for a very abstract tat. In the meantime Israel should remind the world of exactly how the legalities and moralities of this situation are constructed. As Woolsey does.
Israelis are willing to deal with any challenge even if it comes with a steep price, but they want to know there is something to work for.
"Do you think it's worth it and for the sake of a principle?"
No. And I stated my position repeatedly. But I don't think Israel ought to repeat the Gaza fiasco and certainly not uproot any settlements before Palestinians give up their RoR claim. A very real tit for a very abstract tat. In the meantime Israel should remind the world of exactly how the legalities and moralities of this situation are constructed. As Woolsey does.
Israelis are willing to deal with any challenge even if it comes with a steep price, but they want to know there is something to work for.
10/13/2009 - 6:19pm EDT | K2K
if every Jew left Israel, the eternal conflict would only move with them. now that we have established the Law of Double Standards where the Jews are denied all rights to self-defense which includes defensible borders, it would seem that Hitler lives on in more of the world than he actually conquered while he was alive.
How does Israel "remind the world of exactly how the legalities and moralities of this situation are constructed"? Too few Woolseys, too many believers-in-fiction. If the truth mattered, the 1967 borders would have been redrawn in 1948.
What would the world do without the Jews? Are there enough Armenians to be next on the global hit list? What would happen if the Hindus ... view full comment
if every Jew left Israel, the eternal conflict would only move with them. now that we have established the Law of Double Standards where the Jews are denied all rights to self-defense which includes defensible borders, it would seem that Hitler lives on in more of the world than he actually conquered while he was alive.
How does Israel "remind the world of exactly how the legalities and moralities of this situation are constructed"? Too few Woolseys, too many believers-in-fiction. If the truth mattered, the 1967 borders would have been redrawn in 1948.
What would the world do without the Jews? Are there enough Armenians to be next on the global hit list? What would happen if the Hindus were next?
Noga1: acknowledging the existence of Israel as a Jewish State is the first step, even if it means a billion Muslims suffer post-traumatic stress disorder from such an announcement by anyone.
I stopped believing Obama cared about Israel on May 9, 2008. He is already too weak to force Israel to make any more concessions. Five Norwegians made him weaker than he already was.
jacksondyer: devolution for every tribe on earth, right?
Looks like Hillary should have spent her day in Russia on Karelia, if only to confuse the headline writers.
10/13/2009 - 7:00pm EDT | jacksondyer
noga1
"No. And I stated my position repeatedly. But I don't think Israel ought to repeat the Gaza fiasco and certainly not uproot any settlements before Palestinians give up their RoR claim. A very real tit for a very abstract tat. In the meantime Israel should remind the world of exactly how the legalities and moralities of this situation are constructed. As Woolsey does."
That's a plausible scenario.
Do you think Netanyahu will propose it?
noga1
"No. And I stated my position repeatedly. But I don't think Israel ought to repeat the Gaza fiasco and certainly not uproot any settlements before Palestinians give up their RoR claim. A very real tit for a very abstract tat. In the meantime Israel should remind the world of exactly how the legalities and moralities of this situation are constructed. As Woolsey does."
That's a plausible scenario.
Do you think Netanyahu will propose it?
10/13/2009 - 7:03pm EDT | jacksondyer
K2K
"if every Jew left Israel, the eternal conflict would only move with them. now that we have established the Law of Double Standards where the Jews are denied all rights to self-defense which includes defensible borders, it would seem that Hitler lives on in more of the world than he actually conquered while he was alive."
I agree, k2k.
As for Hitler he was always popular in the Arab world and other third world countries, especially in Latin America.
K2K
"if every Jew left Israel, the eternal conflict would only move with them. now that we have established the Law of Double Standards where the Jews are denied all rights to self-defense which includes defensible borders, it would seem that Hitler lives on in more of the world than he actually conquered while he was alive."
I agree, k2k.
As for Hitler he was always popular in the Arab world and other third world countries, especially in Latin America.
10/13/2009 - 7:15pm EDT | noga1
I think he may be looking that way. That's the impression I got from his interview with Charlie Rose on the day he addressed the UN. You can find it on Charlie rose's website.
I think he may be looking that way. That's the impression I got from his interview with Charlie Rose on the day he addressed the UN. You can find it on Charlie rose's website.
noga1
"I think he may be looking that way. That's the impression I got from his interview with Charlie Rose on the day he addressed the UN. You can find it on Charlie rose's website."
I hope you are right, Noga.
noga1
"I think he may be looking that way. That's the impression I got from his interview with Charlie Rose on the day he addressed the UN. You can find it on Charlie rose's website."
Intellectual rigor. Honest reporting. Influential analysis.
Don't miss another issue of the magazine considered "required
reading" by the world's top decision-makers. Subscribe today.
.jpg)
Print
COMMENTS (20)
Is there a point to this post?
Or, if not, is there at least a respectable anti-point?
Is there a point to this post?
Or, if not, is there at least a respectable anti-point?
MP:
Of course, Mitchell's familiarity with the Middle East was the familiarity of utter failure.
george:
Again, Marty sets this up as though success and failure come with objective criteria rather than the usual subjunctive predilections all such conflicts evolve in and out of. If possession of the land is 100% of what really matters in the end, Israel's policies have been a smashing success since 1948. Indeed, for some Israelis failure revolves only around not seizing even more of it.
At the same time, the fanatic Islamists have also been smashingly successful in keeping the conflict going. In refusing to accept the historical reality of Israel's deeply embedded existence as a state they contin ... view full comment
MP:
Of course, Mitchell's familiarity with the Middle East was the familiarity of utter failure.
george:
Again, Marty sets this up as though success and failure come with objective criteria rather than the usual subjunctive predilections all such conflicts evolve in and out of. If possession of the land is 100% of what really matters in the end, Israel's policies have been a smashing success since 1948. Indeed, for some Israelis failure revolves only around not seizing even more of it.
At the same time, the fanatic Islamists have also been smashingly successful in keeping the conflict going. In refusing to accept the historical reality of Israel's deeply embedded existence as a state they continue to pursue Allah and the Caliphate as the corpses and despair pile higher and higher.
Only the millions of folks...on both sides of the conflagration...who truly want peace and prosperity in the region have failed to achieve anything much at all.
But in one crucial respect, let's scrape the word "peace" though. It's one of those bullshit words invented in diplomatic circles to squeeze justice out of the picture altogether. Peace can be merely the absense of conflict. But that says little about the presense of justice. And while we will ever argue over the relationship between peace and justice in places like Northern Ireland and the Middle East, we will never achieve either one of them as long as those who profit from war [monetarily and otherwise] continue to hack out the narratives and pull the strings of all the players.
george walton
Here we have another anti-Zionist post by the ignorant George Walton who confuses “subjunctive” with “subjective.”
“Again, Marty sets this up as though success and failure come with objective criteria rather than the usual subjunctive predilections all such conflicts evolve in and out of. If possession of the land is 100% of what really matters in the end, Israel's policies have been a smashing success since 1948. Indeed, for some Israelis failure revolves only around not seizing even more of it.”
No evidence, not facts, no data, just another hateful post by a Jew hater.
“Subjunctive predilections” indeed!
But then he posted this at 4 AM which means he got up in the middle of ... view full comment
Here we have another anti-Zionist post by the ignorant George Walton who confuses “subjunctive” with “subjective.”
“Again, Marty sets this up as though success and failure come with objective criteria rather than the usual subjunctive predilections all such conflicts evolve in and out of. If possession of the land is 100% of what really matters in the end, Israel's policies have been a smashing success since 1948. Indeed, for some Israelis failure revolves only around not seizing even more of it.”
No evidence, not facts, no data, just another hateful post by a Jew hater.
“Subjunctive predilections” indeed!
But then he posted this at 4 AM which means he got up in the middle of the night in order to post a verbal attack on Jews.
A specter is haunting George Walton: the specter the specter of Jews fighting back. It troubles his go going to sleep and his waking up; it troubles his dreams and his daily ruminations.
Poor pitiful an pathetic George.
"And he wouldn't dispatch Dennis Ross, who knows far too much that wouldn't have fit with the president's own delusions."
The point of this post is this:
Dennis Ross who could produce some progress was not sent because he is a Jew.
Mitchel, who cannot produce any progress, is sent because he is the closest thing to be Ross's ethnic counterpart in the Arab mind.
Now the Israelis have no problem working with Mitchel. They are concerned with his proposals, not his ethnicities. But the Arabs cannot work with Ross whom they had labelled "Shylock" when he was Clinton's emissary.
So, if you are in the business of currying favour with the Arabs, who will you send?
I don't understand why Marty is so exer ... view full comment
"And he wouldn't dispatch Dennis Ross, who knows far too much that wouldn't have fit with the president's own delusions."
The point of this post is this:
Dennis Ross who could produce some progress was not sent because he is a Jew.
Mitchel, who cannot produce any progress, is sent because he is the closest thing to be Ross's ethnic counterpart in the Arab mind.
Now the Israelis have no problem working with Mitchel. They are concerned with his proposals, not his ethnicities. But the Arabs cannot work with Ross whom they had labelled "Shylock" when he was Clinton's emissary.
So, if you are in the business of currying favour with the Arabs, who will you send?
I don't understand why Marty is so exercised these days about Obama. It's as if he did not make every efforts imaginable to get the guy elected in the first place.
When Marty ranges onto the Irish question, his statements are riddled with error, distortion, and falsehood. I mean, simple matters of fact, like Marty's implication that by not giving Mitchell the Peace Prize, "not even the Oslo benefactors thought that he had settled the Irish problem." When in point of fact "the Oslo benefactors" did award the 1998 Peace Prize to John Hume and David Trimble for the Good Friday Accords. The Nobel Committee singled out Mitchell by name when awarding the Peace Prize to Hume and Trimble: "United States Senator George Mitchell, who made such a significant contribution as a mediator, gave an accurate description ..."
Almost every falsifiable assertion of fact in ... view full comment
When Marty ranges onto the Irish question, his statements are riddled with error, distortion, and falsehood. I mean, simple matters of fact, like Marty's implication that by not giving Mitchell the Peace Prize, "not even the Oslo benefactors thought that he had settled the Irish problem." When in point of fact "the Oslo benefactors" did award the 1998 Peace Prize to John Hume and David Trimble for the Good Friday Accords. The Nobel Committee singled out Mitchell by name when awarding the Peace Prize to Hume and Trimble: "United States Senator George Mitchell, who made such a significant contribution as a mediator, gave an accurate description ..."
Almost every falsifiable assertion of fact in this post is easily falsified. Since Northern Ireland is obviously of no inherent interest to Marty beyond its tangential connection to persons involved in current events in Israel, Marty should avoid further writing on Irish issues.
Hear hear! And anyone who believes that the situation involved a "war between the Ultra-Catholics and the Ultra-Protestants" knows as much about Northern Ireland as (if I may translate my favorite phrase from the now-deceased conservative Bavarian leader Franz-Josef Strauss) the dog knows about the moon that it's barking at.
Hear hear! And anyone who believes that the situation involved a "war between the Ultra-Catholics and the Ultra-Protestants" knows as much about Northern Ireland as (if I may translate my favorite phrase from the now-deceased conservative Bavarian leader Franz-Josef Strauss) the dog knows about the moon that it's barking at.
"Almost every falsifiable assertion of fact in this post is easily falsified."
But, Rhubs, that's how it's been with Marty when it comes to the president ever since Cairo. You haven't noticed?
"Almost every falsifiable assertion of fact in this post is easily falsified."
But, Rhubs, that's how it's been with Marty when it comes to the president ever since Cairo. You haven't noticed?
Reading Marty Peretz's original post above, I have to say that it's the best evidence I've seen in a long time in support of the principle that even an editor needs an editor.
Reading Marty Peretz's original post above, I have to say that it's the best evidence I've seen in a long time in support of the principle that even an editor needs an editor.
An interesting article in Harry's Place about peace prospects:
"Far Left and Far Right Fanatics: Listen to the Palestinian People"
David T, October 12th 2009, 2:43 pm
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/10/12/far-left-and-far-right-fanatics-l...
An interesting article in Harry's Place about peace prospects:
"Far Left and Far Right Fanatics: Listen to the Palestinian People"
David T, October 12th 2009, 2:43 pm
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/10/12/far-left-and-far-right-fanatics-l...
it IS rather ironic that Hillary is in Ireland while Mitchell is in the Middle East.
which made me wonder why no one except the Irish complain about the British 'settlements' in Northern Ireland.
Punjab back to the Sikhs! Erase Gertrude Bell from history! Redraw the maps all over Africa! California back to Mexico! Everything back to the Mongols! Ireland back to the Vikings! Normandy back to the French!
Karelia back to the Finns! (Is Karelia why Hillary is on her way to Russia?)
sorry, the total absurdity of the world has gotten to me.
I am back to reading WW2 because I prefer Hitler in my nightmares to most of the clowns running around Europe today.
is there a statute of both time and g ... view full comment
it IS rather ironic that Hillary is in Ireland while Mitchell is in the Middle East.
which made me wonder why no one except the Irish complain about the British 'settlements' in Northern Ireland.
Punjab back to the Sikhs! Erase Gertrude Bell from history! Redraw the maps all over Africa! California back to Mexico! Everything back to the Mongols! Ireland back to the Vikings! Normandy back to the French!
Karelia back to the Finns! (Is Karelia why Hillary is on her way to Russia?)
sorry, the total absurdity of the world has gotten to me.
I am back to reading WW2 because I prefer Hitler in my nightmares to most of the clowns running around Europe today.
is there a statute of both time and geographical limitations in considering when land is illegally occupied (30 mile circumference of Jerusalem is all that counts?)
..(is there a statute of both time and geographical limitations in considering when land is illegally occupied (30 mile circumference of Jerusalem is all that counts?..
Never mind that. What about the premise that
"rather than promoting the rule of law in a future Palestine, the Obama administration essentially urges us to accept that, because Palestinians will kill unprotected Jews, Jews cannot be permitted in a Palestinian state.
This is what the late New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan called "defining deviancy down." Will it provide the basis for peace in the Middle East for us to define deviancy for Palestinians in such a way that essentially accepts Fatah's goal of a Jew-free Palest ... view full comment
..(is there a statute of both time and geographical limitations in considering when land is illegally occupied (30 mile circumference of Jerusalem is all that counts?..
Never mind that. What about the premise that
"rather than promoting the rule of law in a future Palestine, the Obama administration essentially urges us to accept that, because Palestinians will kill unprotected Jews, Jews cannot be permitted in a Palestinian state.
This is what the late New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan called "defining deviancy down." Will it provide the basis for peace in the Middle East for us to define deviancy for Palestinians in such a way that essentially accepts Fatah's goal of a Jew-free Palestine?"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870447150457444693102715479...
"Punjab back to the Sikhs! Erase Gertrude Bell from history! Redraw the maps all over Africa! California back to Mexico! Everything back to the Mongols! Ireland back to the Vikings! Normandy back to the French!"
And this would be just the beginning, k2k.
Wait till the Sudaten Germans reclaim parts of the Czech Republic and other formetly displaced person reclaim parts of Poland and other East European countries.
It seems that the "peace loving world" has one set of standards for Jews and another for the rest of the humanity.
"Punjab back to the Sikhs! Erase Gertrude Bell from history! Redraw the maps all over Africa! California back to Mexico! Everything back to the Mongols! Ireland back to the Vikings! Normandy back to the French!"
And this would be just the beginning, k2k.
Wait till the Sudaten Germans reclaim parts of the Czech Republic and other formetly displaced person reclaim parts of Poland and other East European countries.
It seems that the "peace loving world" has one set of standards for Jews and another for the rest of the humanity.
"rather than promoting the rule of law in a future Palestine, the Obama administration essentially urges us to accept that, because Palestinians will kill unprotected Jews, Jews cannot be permitted in a Palestinian state."
The reality is, Noga, that Israel will have to spend millions, not to mention the loss of life, to defend these settlers. Do you think it's worth it and for the sake of a principle?
"rather than promoting the rule of law in a future Palestine, the Obama administration essentially urges us to accept that, because Palestinians will kill unprotected Jews, Jews cannot be permitted in a Palestinian state."
The reality is, Noga, that Israel will have to spend millions, not to mention the loss of life, to defend these settlers. Do you think it's worth it and for the sake of a principle?
That rodent's still knocking around up there, hey Marty? Keep up the good work here. Maybe you can get the whole post into the headline next time round.
That rodent's still knocking around up there, hey Marty? Keep up the good work here. Maybe you can get the whole post into the headline next time round.
"Do you think it's worth it and for the sake of a principle?"
No. And I stated my position repeatedly. But I don't think Israel ought to repeat the Gaza fiasco and certainly not uproot any settlements before Palestinians give up their RoR claim. A very real tit for a very abstract tat. In the meantime Israel should remind the world of exactly how the legalities and moralities of this situation are constructed. As Woolsey does.
Israelis are willing to deal with any challenge even if it comes with a steep price, but they want to know there is something to work for.
"Do you think it's worth it and for the sake of a principle?"
No. And I stated my position repeatedly. But I don't think Israel ought to repeat the Gaza fiasco and certainly not uproot any settlements before Palestinians give up their RoR claim. A very real tit for a very abstract tat. In the meantime Israel should remind the world of exactly how the legalities and moralities of this situation are constructed. As Woolsey does.
Israelis are willing to deal with any challenge even if it comes with a steep price, but they want to know there is something to work for.
if every Jew left Israel, the eternal conflict would only move with them. now that we have established the Law of Double Standards where the Jews are denied all rights to self-defense which includes defensible borders, it would seem that Hitler lives on in more of the world than he actually conquered while he was alive.
How does Israel "remind the world of exactly how the legalities and moralities of this situation are constructed"? Too few Woolseys, too many believers-in-fiction. If the truth mattered, the 1967 borders would have been redrawn in 1948.
What would the world do without the Jews? Are there enough Armenians to be next on the global hit list? What would happen if the Hindus ... view full comment
if every Jew left Israel, the eternal conflict would only move with them. now that we have established the Law of Double Standards where the Jews are denied all rights to self-defense which includes defensible borders, it would seem that Hitler lives on in more of the world than he actually conquered while he was alive.
How does Israel "remind the world of exactly how the legalities and moralities of this situation are constructed"? Too few Woolseys, too many believers-in-fiction. If the truth mattered, the 1967 borders would have been redrawn in 1948.
What would the world do without the Jews? Are there enough Armenians to be next on the global hit list? What would happen if the Hindus were next?
Noga1: acknowledging the existence of Israel as a Jewish State is the first step, even if it means a billion Muslims suffer post-traumatic stress disorder from such an announcement by anyone.
I stopped believing Obama cared about Israel on May 9, 2008. He is already too weak to force Israel to make any more concessions. Five Norwegians made him weaker than he already was.
jacksondyer: devolution for every tribe on earth, right?
Looks like Hillary should have spent her day in Russia on Karelia, if only to confuse the headline writers.
noga1
"No. And I stated my position repeatedly. But I don't think Israel ought to repeat the Gaza fiasco and certainly not uproot any settlements before Palestinians give up their RoR claim. A very real tit for a very abstract tat. In the meantime Israel should remind the world of exactly how the legalities and moralities of this situation are constructed. As Woolsey does."
That's a plausible scenario.
Do you think Netanyahu will propose it?
noga1
"No. And I stated my position repeatedly. But I don't think Israel ought to repeat the Gaza fiasco and certainly not uproot any settlements before Palestinians give up their RoR claim. A very real tit for a very abstract tat. In the meantime Israel should remind the world of exactly how the legalities and moralities of this situation are constructed. As Woolsey does."
That's a plausible scenario.
Do you think Netanyahu will propose it?
K2K
"if every Jew left Israel, the eternal conflict would only move with them. now that we have established the Law of Double Standards where the Jews are denied all rights to self-defense which includes defensible borders, it would seem that Hitler lives on in more of the world than he actually conquered while he was alive."
I agree, k2k.
As for Hitler he was always popular in the Arab world and other third world countries, especially in Latin America.
K2K
"if every Jew left Israel, the eternal conflict would only move with them. now that we have established the Law of Double Standards where the Jews are denied all rights to self-defense which includes defensible borders, it would seem that Hitler lives on in more of the world than he actually conquered while he was alive."
I agree, k2k.
As for Hitler he was always popular in the Arab world and other third world countries, especially in Latin America.
I think he may be looking that way. That's the impression I got from his interview with Charlie Rose on the day he addressed the UN. You can find it on Charlie rose's website.
Have you read Noah Pollak's latest, btw?
http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=17431
I think he may be looking that way. That's the impression I got from his interview with Charlie Rose on the day he addressed the UN. You can find it on Charlie rose's website.
Have you read Noah Pollak's latest, btw?
http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=17431
noga1
"I think he may be looking that way. That's the impression I got from his interview with Charlie Rose on the day he addressed the UN. You can find it on Charlie rose's website."
I hope you are right, Noga.
noga1
"I think he may be looking that way. That's the impression I got from his interview with Charlie Rose on the day he addressed the UN. You can find it on Charlie rose's website."
I hope you are right, Noga.