Seven Egyptian Christians Murdered Outside a Church After Midnight Mass for Coptic Christmas. Who Done It? Maybe a Few Isolated Extremists.

Monsieur Peretz:

Indulge me a complete aside.

I'd be very interested in your thoughts, if you'd care to post them, on Evelyn Gordon's recent essay in Commentary, to wit: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/printarticle.cfm/the-deadly-price-of-p...

It has been, amongst some of my friends and me, the subject of some very lively and extended debate.

Thanks, basman, for the link. I'd also be interested in MP's take on Evelyn Gordon's essay. I think it could be the subject of some very lively and extended debate among us Spinesters.

sorry basman, but that article starts terribly. The poor woman sounds like she is hyperventilating as she is writing it. British academics are against Israel, the Norwegian government investment fund is divesting (never mind the fact that a sovereign fund's greatest obligation is return on investment), yada yada, and it is all because of Oslo! I mean, wow, talk about asserting the impossible to disprove since we can have no way of knowing Europeans attitudes if Oslo never happened. And then she goes onto all this nonsense that everyone views Israel as being a thief for having occupied the West Bank. Israel's claim on the West Bank was the exact same as the US, Russia, Britain, and France had on occupying Germany, and the US on Japan. No one claimed we were thieves or the occupation was illegal.

This woman, frankly, is a loon. Look at this passage: Reversing the devastating damage Israel’s international standing has suffered since 1993 will be difficult at best. But it will not be possible at all unless Israel and its friends overseas understand that the desperate pursuit of peace is not the solution but the problem. Only then can Israel and its supporters halt the destructive behavior of the past 16 years and start doing what is needed to reverse the decline.

First, Israel and its supporters must reiterate Israel’s own claim to the territories at every opportunity.

What desperate pursuit? That is just assertion. Desperate would be Israel laying down its arms, caving in on every Palestinian demand. I haven't seen that. The most I saw was Ehud Barak's generous and fair settlement, which Arafat rejected. And the notion that Israel claiming sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza will be the step forward for peace shows me this woman is brain damaged. Israel's only claim to the West Bank and Gaza is the same as the US over Germany, a temporary solution until peace can be obtained.

"Finally, Israel must stop projecting a sense of panic, through both words and deeds, which merely emboldens its enemies" This a a fucking lie. If she were a man I would punch her in the face for it. Nothing Israel has done has emboldened its enemies anymore than they would have found any excuse whatsoever to be emboldened. Hamas is fucking crazy, these people are deluded nutjobs. And Fatah is a bunch of corrupt goons who find the present situation to be the one that is most enriching. A Palestine would mean the end of their lucre.

Look, I don't want to say everything in it is bad. I agree with her that peace is impossible at present, but, I hate to say it, so freaking what? Israel is doing fine, its economy is prosperous, the security threat is low enough that most people go about their lives (thanks to the spanking Hamas got). As to the British academics, lady, grow some balls. I lived in Europe during the time Reagan installed the missiles, British academics and polls showed most Europeans viewed Reagan as a reckless cowboy and America a fascist state. NATO still installed the missiles.

Finally: Yet because this pariah status is largely due to its own actions, Israel has the power to reverse the trend.

Israel is not a pariah state. Its exports are growing, Israelis can travel everywhere worth traveling. The pariah status (such as it is) has very little to do with its actions, but everything to do with radical Islam asserting itself. During the Cold war the world had far bigger fish to fry. There were far less Muslims in Europe, etc.

The only change within the Muslim world has to come from within. We can offer an alternative by example but we can't make them change. The Soviets, the Chinese, the Vietnamese, etc. all abandoned Communism (in practice if not in word) of their own accord, so to must Muslims abandon radicalism.

Basman, also thanks for the link. Evelyn Gordon's essay is very lucid and well argued, although I don't agree with all her conclusions. In my opinion, the main flaw in her argument is that she doesn't really give much thought to the changing international context (both since the founding of the State of Israel and since the end of the Cold War) and consider whether a hard Israeli line against pursuing a "peace process" with Palestinian organizations would have left Israel in a better international situation than it would be in today. Although it's impossible to know for certain if her preferred position would have led to different outcomes, the general historical record since World War II is that Western societies have been unsuccessful in maintaining control over foreign populations without those populations' consent, even if such control goes back a long way. Second, there is a mixed record of democratic societies after the Cold War being able to effectively control restive and politically unrepresented or under-represented minorities without granting them very substantive political concessions. So it's not self-evident that Israel would have not have seen a deterioration in its international standing if it had stopped talking about the necessity of peace and made no concessions to the Palestinians until their leaders met the high bar that Evelyn Gordon sets for them.

The other big flaw is that she has little to say about Israel's actual political and territorial claims to any of the Palestinian-populated territories conquered in 1967, both before and after the Six Day War. If she gave more attention to that topic, her conclusion that Israel needs to be more strident in defending its political and national rights to the West Bank and Gaza would have been muddled. Despite strong theoretical national historical claims to all those territories, Israel did not claim territorial sovereignty over them after the conclusion of the War of Independence (even over East Jerusalem and other areas, such as Gush Etzion, from which Jews had been expelled by force in 1947-48). After taking back the territories, Israel did not annex any of them except East Jerusalem and utilized a haphazard framework of military law, former British Mandate and Turkish laws and political regulations to govern the non-annexed territories until the 1990s. Dealing with these facts head-on would have weakened Gordon's argument, but refusing to deal with them doesn't help it.

I dunno, blackton. The core of her argument seemed to me that Israel has been irrationally negotiating with itself for no benefit and much cost. I think she's got a point, though I don't think her three point plan can unscramble the omelette. One elephantine factor that Gordon' didn't seem to really factor into her analysis or recommendations is Obama's stance towards Israel. For example, the following passage seemed naive to me.

"...First, Israel and its supporters must reiterate Israel’s own claim to the territories at every opportunity. While many have grown accustomed to disavowing Israel’s right to this land, Israelis of all political stripes were outraged by President Barack Obama’s Cairo speech, in which the only justification for the existence of a Jewish state was assumed to be the Holocaust—while the Jews’ historical claim to the land of Israel was thrown down the memory hole. By taking this stand, Obama may have unwittingly provided the impetus for reviving a broad-based assertion of Jewish rights. For instance, on July 17, the left-wing Haaretz’s star columnist Yoel Marcus wrote that Obama’s “disregard of our historical connection to the land of Israel” was “extremely upsetting.” Marcus concluded that “as a leader who aspires to solve the problems of the world through dialogue, we expect him to come to Israel and declare here courageously, before the entire world, that our connection to this land began long before the Israeli-Arab conflict and the Holocaust, and that 4,000 years ago, Jews already stood on the ground where he now stands.” If even a hard-core Oslo supporter such as Marcus can be provoked into reasserting Israel’s claim to the land, then there is hope for reviving such sentiments across the Israeli political spectrum."

Very interested Bronner's report -The Egyptian forces also fired tear gas at demonstrators who waved Hamas and Turkish flags. So apparently some Turks were protesting Turky's treatment of the Kurds and demanded a Kurdish homeland or perhaps they were protesting Turkish refusal to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. But I guess I am being sarcastific or is it bitter!

bl, as an American I tend to shy away from using long time historical ties as being the greatest determinant of countryhood. I am not saying it doesn't have some validity, but of all the people in the world we have the least cause to bring it up. In point of fact, I am most interested in the here and now and not rehashing history. I support Israel not because jewish people lived there 4,000 years ago (by that logic alone, I suppose we own the moon since we got there first) but because Israel is a fully functioning Liberal Democracy that offers equal rights to all its inhabitants, Jew and Arab alike. Israelis, and most other countries, should realize that Americans can't justify others claims to Countryhood based on this factor primarily without invalidating our own justification for countryhood.

In the here and now Palestinians are the vast majority of the population in the West Bank and Gaza. Israel has 3 choices, expel them and take the land(which would be a monstrous crime against humanity), integrate the land and the population into Israel (which Israel can't, or is this woman claiming Israel can take the land and not offer the people who live there any rights? This is apartheid) or Israel can do exactly what it has done, occupy the land in self defense during war time (which is perfectly valid and legal) and leave during peace, without ever claiming sovereignty over the whole (yes, a few percentage points of the land is in dispute, are you aware we still have not defined the border between Canada and the US, in Puget sound there is still a debate).

Rereading that paragraph, I have to say this woman is a menace to Israel.

Good post, blackie. Re: "I support Israel not because jewish people lived there 4,000 years ago (by that logic alone, I suppose we own the moon since we got there first) but because Israel is a fully functioning Liberal Democracy that offers equal rights to all its inhabitants..."

Understand your point, and think that she's wrong on the practicality or desirability of re-asserting any claims to the West Bank - if that might have been a useful negotiating chip, it's been long since played away and I think it was a very dumb policy to start up with the settlements in the first place after the 1967 War. But the historical connection to the land is central to Judaism, to the Jewish people's claim to the right to a homeland, and, notwithstanding Obama's revisionist Cairo Speech narrative, central to the establishment of the State of Israel.

again, bl, I am not saying historical ties are not valid, most countries in the world subscribe to them, and I am perfectly happy with saying Ireland for the Irish, Germany for the Germans, Israel for the Jews, with part of the legitimacy that the people have gotten there first. Personally, I have reservations to the whole "I got here first, therefore it belongs to me and my kin forever" type of argument, but I also got to accept the reality that it is what it is. My point, again, is that Americans, Obama included, have no real legitimacy with invoking that reason. And for this woman to criticize Obama for not opening up himself to charges of rank hypocrisy (what, jews have that right, but Native Americans don't?). Now look, I don't think anyone would have done so, but whatever reasons Obama chose not to add that historical connection, he sure as hell has a valid reason not to have. And I saw noting wrong with reminding Arabs of the validity of the holocaust. And now this woman is using a reaction to his not doing so as reason to annex the West Bank and Gaza is just loopy.

I have zero problem with Israelis subscribing to the stories inherent in their history, but the simple fact is the state of Israel as originally founded looked nothing like the Israel of ancient times, it took into account the population as it stood on the ground. It was the Arabs themselves who left and abandoned the land, forgoing their prior claims. That was the price of their unjust war against Israel, as is the loss of Prussia the price Germany and Germans had to pay.

As to the connection to the land being central to Judaism. I find that an overstatement, you can still be a jew and not live in Israel.

"...Now look, I don't think anyone would have done so, but whatever reasons Obama chose not to add that historical connection, he sure as hell has a valid reason not to have. And I saw noting wrong with reminding Arabs of the validity of the holocaust."

Nothing wrong in reminding Arabs that there was a Holocaust; I think the problem was his narrative - associating "the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history" i.e., framing the State of Israel as kind of reparation for the Holocaust and historical persecution - with the omission of the historical and religious context and connection of the Jewish people with the land, or that Jews hadn't lived there for millennia.

As for the connection to the land being central to Judaism, I'm not talking about whether someone can be a Jew and not live in Israel, I'm talking about the Biblical connection between the land and the religion, i.e., that the Biblical Covenants are central to Judaism.

bl462, the problem with the last line is that there is a religious connection between the land and Christianity and Islam both. On my list of validations of state sovereignty, religion is way down there (unless the people of a particular religion are being persecuted for their faith by the state and have no other recourse to survival). Israel as a refuge and a homeland for the Jewish people, absolutely. Israel as laid out in the Bible, not so much, regardless of what people feel. Jews had been living there, in a continuous community, since forever. With the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the aspirations of the peoples who were living there to reclaim their cultural, ethnic, etc. heritage, I see zero reason why the Jews didn't have a right to form their own state, especially since they were not secure in the wider Arab world. I say the same thing about the Kurds, who were deprived of their own land by European fiat.

The Arabs claim Arabia must be Moslem because the Koran says so. I have no problem with Arabia being Arab because those were the people who lived there, but they use the Koran as justification to deny others (their own people) religious freedom. I don't say Israel does that, but I refuse to accept the Bible as being the authority of what Israel is, since that can easily lead to Arabian style chauvinism, when there is more than enough historical evidence to show that jews had lived there forever. Israel welcomes ethnic jews the world over, thank God they didn't set up a religious litmus test else many atheist or agnostic jews from Eastern Europe would never have been allowed in. This was the wisdom of the leaders setting up Israel as a secular state. Ireland for Irish, Germany for Germans, and Israel for Jews. Nothing about adhering to a religion to live there. To give primacy to the Bible as justification doesn't fly in the modern world. Why would people from China, India, Japan, etc. remotely care or pay credence to that? Why should jewish people claim divine right? We see the mess that causes in Arabia. Why would Obama reinforce that notion that there is such a divine right to Arabs, who are already beyond delusional about that concept (they still think Spain belongs to them).

Finally, to get wrapped up in a single speech by Obama gives him way too much influence. Lets not kid ourselves. Nothing Obama could have said would have changed the Arabs minds about Israel, and for reasons I just laid out, bringing in the Bible would have made a bigger mess of the speech. The speech was supposed to be about American rapproachment with Arabs anyhow, not a discourse on the history of Israel.

by the way, I am annoyed by basman, he drops that article here on us, then cuts out. wtf?

I think we're on the same page, blackie. 
I was not trying to suggest Jews should have a claim to the entire Land of Israel as laid out in the Bible (that would indeed be an chauvinist and irredentist hallucination - it would cover a large part of the Middle East) only that the land has a central connection to the religion.  

And yeah, where's my blues buddy basman

Re Obama's Cairo Speech, though, I think his narrative of Israel as reparations plays into the narrative of those who deny the legitimacy of a Jewish homeland in Israel.

bl, that is fine, I simply don't pay any heed to anyone that denies the legitimacy of Israel for whatever reason, but I can't say it isn't a valid criticism for its own sake.

Sorry for my absence.

And Blackton to make it up to you I'm going to send you a case of maple syrup, a Canadian flag, a beaver--the animal, to be sure-- and a Rosetta Stone DVD on speaking Canadian.

If you see the time I gave my opening post it was at a nutty hour in the morning. This is my first moment back on this site since my original posting.

I have been keeping off the wall hours and have been having incredibly busy days for an old fart lawyer trying to take it eeze. ("You try to get out, but they pull you back in.")

Also I have been up and down and through this essay back and forth with some pretty smart guys I know and am a little exhausted by it. I just wanted to see if I could fish out some thoughts on it from Peretz.

But out of respect for you guys let me take a look at what you all wrote here and then venture a comment or two when i have a better moment. Also: if anyone is interested in my back and forth with my friends--probably nobody is--I'll be happy to post it. One of my interlocutors is about the smartest guy I know.

Lemme’ know.

"And Blackton to make it up to you I'm going to send you a case of maple syrup, a Canadian flag, a beaver--the animal, to be sure-- and a Rosetta Stone DVD on speaking Canadian."

!!!

And all I get is a Jewish-guy-goes-to-his-shrink joke???

Not that I've anywhere in the apartment to put a beaver.

basman, "...Lemme’ know."

Would love to see 'em.

basman, I already can speak Canadian, just throw in a lot of ehs, and mispronounce about as aboot. As to the beaver, they go great as taco filler. As to the Canadian flag, I am going to bite my tongue on that one as I work with a bunch of Canadians and God forbid they read what I write.

And I second bl. if you have anything different to contribute I am game. bl and I have come to a pretty quick understanding and I got nothing more to add.

I'll post the exchange I had with my friends. I think it's pretty good. I'll have it up here still tonight.

Basman unfortunately changed the subject. What does all this chatter have to do with the murder of 7 Coptic Christians in Egypt!!!

It is appalling that American and European Christians, especially of the liberal-left persuasion, can't summon up any indignation about the ongoing persecution of Christians in Egypt and throughout the Muslim world. While they can wax eloquently about the relative rights of Jews and Arabs in the land of Israel and about the compromises that the Israelis need to make in order to appease Islam, they are speechless and indifferent to what has happened to the Copts, the Palestinian Christians, and the Assyrian/Chaldean Christians of Iraq. They don't draw any lessons from this, especially about how religious and ethnic minorities are treated under Islam.

Coptic, which mean "Egyptian", Christianity is truly indigenous to Egypt. They are subject to all manner of indignities and intimidation. Coptic girls are frequently kidnapped and forced to convert to Islam. Copts are frequently denied the right to repair or enhance their church buildings. Muslim bully them for all kinds of trumped up incidents of "insults to Islam". Egyptian Muslims who convert to Christianity must live in fear for their lives. The Egyptian government stands idly by and lets all this happen and frequently joins the parade. The US gives billions of $'s to Egypt annually and does nothing to intercede.

And what do you guys have to say about Iran? The clock is ticking. Only the Americans have the military power to set back nuclear Iran and humiliate the Ahmadinejad regime. The Israelis just have a few fly swatters.

amidut, please, as though you really believe any of us are ok with Coptic Christians being persecuted. As it happens my neighbors in Pa. are Coptic, the father having fled from Egypt to the states. He met his Egyptian-American wife in Jersey city and they married and now have 4 kids (oddly enough, living in the house I grew up in, which also had 4 kids), and when I go home my kids play with their kids (my kids live there all summer and Christmas break) so yeah, when I read this I thought of them. And yes, I absolutely support giving visas to Copts. Just because I latched onto basman's posting doesn't negate anything of how I feel. It kind of seemed obvious to me that no one here would be in any disagreement about them.

But yes, Marty is wrong about progressives worrying about them. I am a progressive and happily support giving them visas.

Rick:

Good article. While I agree with much of the despair over the current state of affairs, I think that articulating a new right as she suggests would be disastrous on multiple fronts. I agree with stating that peace may not be possible but for the real reasons - the inability/refusal to end violence. Also Israel's critics should be called out for the real driving force behind them which is the singling out of Israel for criticism on a standard not extended to the rest of the world.
____________________________________
Me:

Thanks for your brief comments.

I’d differ with a couple of your points.

It’s not, the argument goes, a new right. It’s a right that had been Israeli policy till 1993, if I’m remembering the article right. Oslo was the turning point. Why would it be disastrous for Israel to assert the legitimacy of its claims to the West Bank and East Jeruslam and not concede Judenrein in the West Bank? Why would it be disastrous for Israel to stop the unilateral withdrawals till there is a realistic prospect for peace?

Aren’t you begging the question when you say peace is impossible because of “the inability/refusal to end violence?” From where does that impossibility arise? Isn’t it because while Israel would make real peace yesterday, the Palestinians will not recognize it as a Jewish state, will not relinquish the right of return, will not renounce violence, and turn increasingly to an increasingly radicalized, irredentist Hamas? That’s what has to be said, isn’t it?

Moreover Gordon and other Israelis I hear from do not despair and if you read despair in her essay, you took something different from it than I did:

“...Finally, Israel must stop projecting a sense of panic, through both words and deeds, which merely emboldens its enemies. Israel has not only survived for 61 years despite the absence of peace; it has thrived. Its population has increased more than seven-fold; its per capita income has risen nine-fold; it has maintained a strong democracy in a region where democracy is otherwise unknown. And it can continue surviving and thriving without peace for as long as necessary....”

Look, Israel doing what it has done starting with Oslo, trying so hard for peace, making rejected offer after offer, unilaterally withdrawing, has led only to her facing a peak in world disapprobation, power vacuums which become grounds for terrorist action requiring taking the war to the asymmetric, civilian embedded fighters which begets Goldstone and even more censure. It cannot win to the course it is now on.

If I was an Israeli I’d have confidence in Netanyahu pragmatically threading his way these minefields.
___________________________________________
Ben:

Evelyn Gordon makes a number of interesting points in her article, but none that proves, or even advances, her stated hypothesis that Israel's international standing is worse because of Oslo.

To prove that point, one would expect Gordon to have identified some component of the international community that was pro Israel pre Oslo (and presumably because it liked Israel's claim to the West Bank and Gaza and its refusal to contemplate a Palestinian state) and is now anti-Israel. She points to none.

Her references to CUPE and British academic boycotts do not advance her argument because she does not contend (nor could she) that the sponsors of these vile intiatives were pro Israel pre Oslo and she concedes that even now they lack broad support.

She glosses over the advances in Israel's international standing in the wake of Israel's opening of peace initiaitves with the Palestinians --peace with and an exchange of ambassadors with Jordan, relations with China, Russia and Eastern European states, etc. She seems to give no attention at all to just how bad Israel's international standing was pre Oslo. And she seems to give her whole argument away when, after criticizing Oslo because it involved Israel conceding before the world that the Palestinians may have legitimate rights regarding the West Bank and Gaza, she states that "Granted, much of the world was disposed to accept the Palestinian claim even before Oslo".(Page 19)

I think many of Gordon's points support other conclusions that she suggests--that the Palestinians have not responded fairly to Israeli concessions and treat them as weakness, that enemies of Israel give her no credit for concessions, that certain policies are tactically unwise for Israel regardless of their PR effect in the Western media. I just don't think her arguments support what she says her article is about.
_______________________________________________________
Me:

I’d put It differently and ask, leaving Oslo to the side for a moment, whether Israel’s international standing has in fact suffered badly since Oslo. If that proposition is a predicate, then is the question: whether the relation between Oslo, itself also standing for Israel’s attempts at peace, and that decline is one of causality or coincidence?

If the posited answer is the former—and Gordon seems to assert it —“..Israel’s standing has declined so precipitously not despite Oslo but because of Oslo. It was Israel’s very willingness to make concessions for the sake of peace that has produced its near-pariah status.”—then your brief critique is to the point.

But I think despite what I quoted, the theme of her essay is broader than you give her credit for and broader than her own apparent framing. The theme has to do with the wrongheadedness, as she sees it, of Israel’s unnecessary concessions as incidental to her quest, sometimes desperate, for peace and then the anomaly that despite that quest—which Oslo typifies, inaugurated but does not exhaust—her stature has declined so dramatically since Oslo.

If her essay is looked at this way, rather than as a tight A caused B, people can note the anomaly, assess the reasons for it differently and all without disserving her overriding argument. Her suggestion, which makes sense to me, is that by relinquishing the legitimacy of its claims to the West Bank and Gaza—which claims can be conceded in bargaining—Israel has leached herself of her own narrative:

“,,,Oslo marked the moment when Israel stopped defending its own claim to the West Bank and Gaza and instead increasingly endorsed the Palestinian claim. And with no competing narrative to challenge it any longer, the view of Israel as a thief, with all its attendant consequences, has gained unprecedented traction…”

This observation is well argued for by the dynamism of the various peace concessions, such as withdrawals, begetting violence, begetting necessary counter measures spanning checkpoints, to a blockade, to a defensive barrier, to military incursions against terrorists who collapse virtually all distinction between civilian and fighter. Perversely, Israel bears increased ignominy every step of the way.

So you may think that Gordon has not advanced a particular thesis. But I think she raises the need to wrestle with the conundrum she describes and to ask, as she tries to, what, if any, corrective changes in policy or approach might be in order better to frame further negotiations with a more assertive claim of legitimacy and right.
_____________________________________

Ben:

I don't think your attempt to save Gordon's argument from the terms she puts it in works.

Rather than being her "apparent framing" as you put it, the effect of the peace process on Israel's international standing is the very point of her article, so central that Commentary decided to place her own statement of her thesis to this effect on the cover in oversized print. Further, the Editor's Page says that "Evelyn Gordon explores the catastrophic decline in Israel's global standing despite 16 years of taking risks for peace..." The Table of Contents says about the article that " Israel's efforts to resolve its conflict with the Palestinians have... harmed its image".

International or global standing or image are empirical matters and my complaint with Gordon is that she ignores the facts about international standing before and after. She speaks of Israel's standing having fallen to an "unprecedented low" and its standing having "fallen so precipitously...since 1993". But you can't do a before and after comparison without looking at before. You can't long for the good old days of international standing pre peace process without looking at whether the old days were in fact good. Gordon does not do so.

Israel's "narrative" that it and not the Palestinians had the rightful claim to the West Bank and Gaza never played well in terms of Israel's international standing. The international community never accepted Israel's nomenclature of Judea and Samaria in place of the occupied territories, nor did it accept Israel's
annexation of East Jerusalem. The UN Resolutions following the 6 day and Yom Kippur wars called for Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied as a result of the wars. In 1975 the UN General Assembly passed the obnoxious "Zionism is Racism" resolution which remained in effect through Likud led Greater Israel period, and was not revoked until 1991, in the aftermath of the Madrid Peace Conference which opened dialogue on issues such as Palestinian self rule, final status negotiations and the like and is seen by some (like Thomas Friedman) as the beginning of the peace process which continued through Oslo.

Gordon never compares Israel pre peace process-- with, for example, a Zionism is Racism international standing according to the General Assembly-- to Israel post peace process and never explains why she thinks Israel's international standing is worse after than before. So this is why I say that she doesn't begin to make the point she and her Editor and publisher advertise her article as proving.

There may be reasons of Israel's self interest for it not to pursue some of the policies she criticizes. But Gordon wants to argue that the Oslo process was bad PR, judged in terms of whether it worsened Israel's international standing. She doesn't show that at all.
_______________________________________________
Me:

According to Michael Oren, from the mid seventies on, Israel has been subject to concerted attempts to delegitimize her. In that, she has been portrayed as a racist, colonialist state. These charges in many quarters have become received wisdom. They have become daily conversation in the U.N. and in other international bodies. More recently, Oren says, Israel has been depicted as an apartheid state. Israel is now accused of war crimes and there is talk of international indictments against her political and military leaders. As Oren says,

“...Such calumny was, in past, dismissed as harmless rhetoric. But as the delegitimization of Israel gained prominence, the basis was laid for international measures to isolate Israel and punish it with sanctions similar to those which brought down the South African regime. The academic campaigns to boycott Israeli universities and intellectuals are adumbrations of the type of strictures that could destroy Israel economically and deny it the ability to defend itself against the existential threats posed by terrorism and Iran....”

These comments mesh with the sweep of Gordon’s introductory comments, and if you don't mind, I'll repeat them:

“…Not only is Israel’s standing no better than it was prior to the famous handshake between Yitzhak Rabin and Yasir Arafat on the White House Lawn in September 1993, it has fallen to an unprecedented low. Efforts to boycott and divest from Israel are gaining strength throughout the West, among groups as diverse as British academics, Canadian labor unions, the Norwegian government’s investment fund, and American churches. Israeli military operations routinely spark huge protests worldwide, often featuring anti-Semitic slogans. References to Israel as an apartheid state have become so commonplace that even a former president of Israel’s closest ally, the United States, had no qualms about using the term in the title of his 2007 book on Israel. European polls repeatedly deem Israel the greatest threat to world peace, greater even than such beacons of tranquility and democracy as Iran and North Korea. Courts in several European countries, including Belgium, Britain, and Spain, have seriously considered indicting Israeli officials for war crimes (though none has actually yet done so). And in October, when the United Nations Human Rights Council overwhelmingly endorsed a report that advocated hauling Israel before the International Criminal Court on war-crimes charges, even many of Jerusalem’s supposed allies refused to vote against the measure. In academic and media circles, it has even become acceptable to question Israel’s very right to exist—something never asked about any other state in the world. None of these developments was imaginable back in the days when Israel refused to talk to the Palestine Liberation Organization, had yet to withdraw from an inch of “Palestinian” land, and had not evacuated a single settlement….”

If you consider the Durban Conference, the pervasive media assault on Israel after the war in Lebanon, and then, a few years later, in Gaza, if you consider the unprecedented prominence anti Israeli sentiment finds in universities round the world, and all the other matters above cited, what is the answer to the "empirical question" of worse now or worse before? At a minimum, it’s not easily answered.

You say, “International or global standing or image are empirical matters and my complaint with Gordon is that she ignores the facts about international standing before and after”. But I persist in thinking that it is too narrow to criticize her essay on the likely unanswerable question of whether it’s worse now than it was before. And that’s because in these matters comparisons are odious: it’s plenty bad enough now. Her underlying point must be that whether or not things are worse now than before (which question ultimately is a distraction)—“Not only is Israel’s standing no better than it was prior to the famous handshake between Yitzhak Rabin and Yasir Arafat on the White House Lawn in September 1993, it has fallen to an unprecedented low”—the present badness coexists with a seventeen year history of a “deadly” pursuit of peace, the deadliness evident in the data she cites.

Her underlying point is that that coexistence spells out the failure of the policy. How Commentary’s editors choose to highlight her essay and the size of their lede print, I suggest, matter not at all. The driving point of her essay surpasses a debate over “worse now or worse before”.

Here’s Dan Ephron on the mood in Israel these days based on reports on some recent Israeli political science polling: (http://www.newsweek.com/id/228840)

“…By the standard logic of Middle East peacemaking, this should be the perfect time to negotiate a deal. Israelis, after all, have long argued that real talks about land for peace cannot proceed until terrorism stops and some level of security is achieved. But, as so often happens in the Middle East, the standard logic no longer holds. If security was a prerequisite for peacemaking, now it's a goal unto itself. And it's been achieved, Israelis can plausibly argue, through their own hard-nosed measures.

Consider the numbers. Over a six-year period starting in September 2000, about 140 suicide bombers crossed into Israel from the West Bank, killing around 500 Israelis, a huge number for a population of 7 million (though only about one 10th the number of Palestinians killed during the same period). Since mid-2006, the year Israel completed large sections of the new fence around the West Bank (and a wall around parts of Jerusalem), not a single suicide bomber has infiltrated from the area and staged a successful attack. Built in part on Palestinian land, the barrier has generated criticism at home and abroad. But if you set aside the controversy, at least in the short run, the conclusion is clear: the barrier is working.

Gaza has similarly been subdued. In 2008, Palestinians launched around 3,000 rockets at southern Israel, an average of about 250 a month, according to an official tally. (The rockets have caused few casualties but have exacted a psychological and economic toll.) Then, a year ago, Israel waged a controversial war in Gaza. Critics of the campaign have focused, justifiably, on the high number of civilian casualties and the disproportionate use of force. But the results are indisputable: since the war, the number of rocket attacks from Gaza has dropped by 90 percent.

The stability, in turn, has helped Israel's economy. While the global recession plunged other countries into crisis in the past year, nearly all of Israel's indicators have held steady. Tourism, a good gauge of overall welfare, hit a 10-year high in 2008. Astonishingly, the IMF projected recently that Israel's GDP will grow faster in 2010 than that of most other developed countries…"

Gordon herself says the same thing near the end of her essay:

"...Finally, Israel must stop projecting a sense of panic, through both words and deeds, which merely emboldens its enemies. Israel has not only survived for 61 years despite the absence of peace; it has thrived. Its population has increased more than seven-fold; its per capita income has risen nine-fold; it has maintained a strong democracy in a region where democracy is otherwise unknown. And it can continue surviving and thriving without peace for as long as necessary....”

Surely she is saying in contradistinction to, say, the last few years of hapless negotiating by Olmert and Livni, which reflected a defensive Israeli posture consistent with what she calls the “'peace process' culture”, Israel among other things must be clear as to why peace is now at an impasse. She endorses Netanyahu’s approach to these matters by, in part, lauding his speech both at Bar-Illan and to the U.N. General Assembly.

As I say, this ultimately is what her essay is about—a failed policy and the reasons why—and a new way forward.
_______________________________________________

Rick:

Stop. You're both wrong. I didn't think the issue was whether Oslo made things better or worse ( comparing actual to theoretical) but whether it was a tactical error to effectively renounce a claim to the West Bank and Gaza. While no one knows ( again theoretical) I doubt it as per Ben's comment on East Jerusalem and the fact that Israel never wanted Gaza.

The real issue is what would happen if Israel changed its policy today to assert a claim. This would be disastrous on every front. For all the reasons we're well aware of Israel has to continue to pursue some kind of separation - its only the how that is still subject to debate.
______________________________________________________
Ben:

Rick, the issue for Evelyn Gordon precisely was whether Oslo has made things worse than they had been in terms of world perception of Israel. She trumpets loudly that it has (Baz—the words Commentary put in enlarged print on the cover so stating were Gordon’s). I agree it is a silly place for her to stake her claim, and a shaky basis for her policy prescription. But it is the one she chose.

Baz, notwithstanding my general sympathy for exoteric analysis, I think that you are way too kind to Gordon by saying she did not really mean her stated thesis, but meant something else which you then conclude is a powerful or thought provoking analysis.

Can any conclusion be drawn other than that her stated thesis is flawed? Take for example the quote you reproduce which contains within it that Israel’s world standing has fallen to “an unprecedented low”, and which, after reviewing certain anti-Israel events, proclaims that they would have been unheard of when Israel was refusing to negotiate with the Palestinians or recognizing the legitimacy of their claims. This type of proclaiming without attention to facts is useless or worse.

You state that the comparison between whether Israel’s pre or post Oslo International standing is worse is probably “unasnswerable”. Then shouldn’t we be troubled that Gordon purports to answer it unequivocally and worse, purports to advocate a course of action on the basis of her “answer”?

Shouldn’t we be concerned that she proclaims her “answer “ from a list of anti Israel activities which she states would not have occurred or even be thought of pre Oslo while ignoring pre Oslo boycotts, literally dozens of UN condemnatory resolutions pre Oslo, resolutions of non-aligned states declaring Zionism a threat to world peace pre Oslo, and numerous other pre Oslo indicators of anti-Israel feeling on the world stage which cast considerable doubt on her conclusion that the events she points to are new, unprecedented and much worse than before.

Shouldn’t we be concerned that she blames all of the problems Israel has on the world stage on Oslo without considering some of the international benefits that the peace process brought Israel—a withdrawal of the odious “Zionism is Racism” resolution at the UN, diplomatic and trade relations with the two economic powerhouses India and China, peace with Jordan, etc, etc. and that she makes no attempt to weigh or balance them but just pronounces the peace process guilty?

Using her mode of analysis, since anti Israel initiatives on the international scene have taken place post Netanyahu’s election and his Bar Ilan and General Assembly speeches, he must be the problem.
____________________________________________________
Me:

Ben and Rick:

Gordon says that Oslo and what she calls its “’peace process’ culture” has worsened Israel’s world regard. She says the Oslo mentality ceded legitimacy to her claims to the West Bank and Gaza and found form in Israel’s own leaders referring to her “occupation.” I don’t think she thinks the pre and post Oslo international standing compares the actual to the theoretical. I think she’s explicit that things are worse now—“unprecedented low”. I’ve noted that Ben makes a good point in complaining that Gordon engages in no pre and post Oslo comparison but merely states her assertion as though it’s self evident. But I continue to think that her general argument—regardless of the weakness Ben points to—is better than that criticism.

Not to quibble over words, but I think, and I think Gordon would say, the Oslo ceding was more than “tactics”. It was a strategic decision to relinquish legitimacy as part of the then quest for peace. And its importance--the claim to legitmacy, transcending tactics--shows itself in the kind of arguments that Israel does, and will, advance in negotiations over East Jerusalem and the settlement communities adjacent to Jerusalem. It showed itself in, for example, Obama’s Cairo speech and the response to it by Netanyahu and in the call for total settlement freeze and the response to that call.

I think Gordon’s position is more subtle than simply asserting a claim to the West Bank and Gaza, though she’s not clear enough. She says:

“…First, Israel and its supporters must reiterate Israel’s own claim to the territories at every opportunity. While many have grown accustomed to disavowing Israel’s right to this land, Israelis of all political stripes were outraged by President Barack Obama’s Cairo speech, in which the only justification for the existence of a Jewish state was assumed to be the Holocaust—while the Jews’ historical claim to the land of Israel was thrown down the memory hole. By taking this stand, Obama may have unwittingly provided the impetus for reviving a broad-based assertion of Jewish rights. For instance, on July 17, the left-wing Haaretz’s star columnist Yoel Marcus wrote that Obama’s “disregard of our historical connection to the land of Israel” was “extremely upsetting.” Marcus concluded that “as a leader who aspires to solve the problems of the world through dialogue, we expect him to come to Israel and declare here courageously, before the entire world, that our connection to this land began long before the Israeli-Arab conflict and the Holocaust, and that 4,000 years ago, Jews already stood on the ground where he now stands.” If even a hard-core Oslo supporter such as Marcus can be provoked into reasserting Israel’s claim to the land, then there is hope for reviving such sentiments across the Israeli political spectrum…”

Her point is a continuum between ceding legitimacy to the “territories” and the right of Israel proper to exist. When Obama spoke of Israel as a consequence of the Holocaust he fueled the canard that she is but a colonial-like imposition on the Palestinians by the Western powers. If an important reason for Israel’s legitimacy is Jews’ deep and long historical connection to the lands, then that reason applies to the territories as well. Deny the latter, and then the former becomes more fragile. Assert the latter, then the former gains strength.

That is why Gordon cites Oslo-favoring Israeli journalist Yoel Marcus’s outcry against Obama’s eliding that connection. Marcus supports the Oslo ceding. So Gordon is guilty of running the territories and Israel together in enlisting his outcry as a support. But she does so, for all that running together, out of her point.

Also, she is not, as Rick suggests, simply calling for a reanimation of these claims and saying “that’s that”. She rather folds that call into her argument for a better approach by seeking to make peace at a better time, under better circumstances. Therefore, she says earlier in her essay, “None of this precludes an Israeli cession of these areas…”; and later she says, with a nod to her approach: “Second, Israel must cede no more land until the Palestinians prove they can and will keep it from becoming a base for anti-Israel terror.” So it’s not just a simple assertion of claims by her. And her notion of “how”--hardly easily answered-- seems evident in her confidence in Netanyahu.

Ben, having further considered Gordon’s essay in light of your criticisms, I’m inclined to concede you some ground. So, I’ll take your point “that her stated thesis is flawed”: I’m pulling out of Gaza unilaterally with an eye on the West Bank, though never to give up East Jerusalem. But think about her essay this way: say she had tamped down her thesis and say she had been more balanced about how bad things were before Oslo and about the goods that came from Oslo—all fair criticisms, what do you quarrel with in her subsequent analysis and in her prescriptions?

Your line of reasoning is that since she can’t/doesn’t make a case for “worse”, she can’t make a policy case based on “worse”. But I say she can, not based on "worse", but based on the coexistence of Israel’s bad world regard and the failures of the pre-Netanyahu pursuit of peace as she concretely argues.

That’s why it seems rigid to me and to miss some of what’s in her essay to say that it flows from her reasoning that Netanyahu would be to blame for further disregard since his election. That doesn’t necessarily follow. I read her to see in Netanyahu a different approach based on a claim of legitimacy and right, still wanting a two state solution but not willing to move to final status until there is a basis for doing so.
______________________________________________________

Rick:

Boys:

Two thoughts.

1. I understand the 4,000 year connection as an emotional matter but I'm uncomfortable using it as a basis for legal rights to land

2. Rights to land are settled by some of legal claims, agreements, might, facts on the ground over time etc. In the west, we prefer to settle our disputes by negotiation and reciprocal concessions. Just because the Palestinians won't play this way ( preferring a series of "lines in the sand " to preserve honour ) doesn't mean Israel shouldn't as well. And the best approach is what Gordon suggests- concessions as and when safety and security are not compromised.
______________________________________

Basman--

I saw your original post and read Gordon's article this morning, and then, like you, had to tend to business before returning to TNR. I don't have the background to evaluate the accuracy of Gordon's historical account of what has occurred since Oslo, but she does present a provocative thesis. I take it to be that Israel made a mistake at Oslo, perhaps in agreeing to any kind of peace settlement at all, but, at minimum, in ceding, rather than merely waiving, any legitimate claim to Gaza and the West Bank, and in recognizing any legimate claims or rights of the Palestinians. And her final conclusion is that peace is not achievable, and Israel should stop pretending that it is, and should just do what is necessary with regard to Gaza and the West Bank in order to protect Israel from Palestinian violence.

I can see why those propositions would be controversial. I am interested in precisely what you and your erudite friends are debating. What is not clear to me is whether Gordon believes that recognizing Palestinian rights was simply poor tactics -- it made Israeli "concessions" look likely merely grudgingly and incompletely giving Palestinians their due -- or whether she believes Israel does in fact have a legitimate claim to the land that trumps the Palestinians' claim.

And if peace is unachievable, then what? Gordon appears to believe that Israel could take the position that the Palestinians have no rights and could stop pursuing "peace," and that the status quo could then be maintained indefinitely, given that Israel has continued to proper dispute the ongoing dispute.

One other point, with regard to Obama's statement at Cairo that "the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history," I have never understood the inference that "tragic history" refers only to the Holocaust (though that certainly is plenty). I understood it to include the Jewish people's displacement and dispersement from the holy land many centuries ago. As Blackton points out, Obama could not realistically have been expected to claim, in a address to the Muslim world, that Israel has a superior claim to the land because the Jews were there first 4,000 years ago and/or because the Jews have a religious connection to the land.

Thanks basman. I'm too pooped to post; I got up wayyy too early today - but I thoroughly enjoyed reading your thoughtful and erudite discussion.

Amidut--

Though Peretz did make this snide and unfair comment -- "What 'progressives' worry about the survival of a Christian church or, for that matter, of pious Christian lives?" -- the thrust of his post was not the religious identity of the victims, but, as always, the religious identify of the perpetrators. Peretz says of Obama: "He really did believe that the world of Islam was a civilized order, and he simply can't believe it now." As always, Peretz' concern is not limited to Jihadist extremists, but extends to Islam itself.

And Basman's initial post was not really off the subject. After commenting on Obama's supposed foreign policy failures, Peretz says: "So what else is left? Oh, yes. Israel. In the clinch, you can always beat up on Israel and feel yourself virtuous." So Basman is merely asking Peretz to put some analysis behind the snark.

Basman--

I don't recall Peretz ever deigning to respond to the threads. Has he done so in the past? Do you think he will now? It does not appear so.

But isn't Islam the issue? Jihad is an essential component of Islam.

Islam is the issue for Peretz and many of his followers. But I think it is simply question-begging to say that Jihad is an essential component of Islam, if by that you mean terrorism is an essential component of Islam. If western leaders were to take the position that we are at war with Islam, rather than with a small but virulent minority of extremists, we would be at risk of fulfilling our own prophecy.

I would rather discredit the enemy's ideology and take advantage of political divisions within Islam than shed more blood. The "collateral damage" we create while going after a "virulent minority" is both morally repugnant and politically counterproductive.

You highlight a problem when discussing the Arab-Israel conflict. We can talk about how the Bible is a flawed human document which cannot be seriously cited as divine authority in a global community. I agree with that. But we cannot likewise talk about the questionable authority of the Koran, it's obsessive bigotry toward non-believers, and the moral failings of prophet Mohammed without "insulting Islam" and incurring the violent wrath of its adherents. Also, it is easier to wring yet more concessions out of the Israelis because it is impossible to obtain any concessions from the Arab states and wrap up this tiresome dispute over a territory no bigger than New Jersey or Belgium. They, including the "Palestinian" Arabs, will only discuss the Israeli terms of surrender.

I suspect that there are many people in the Muslim world who are Muslims for identification purposes only. It's safer that way. They chafe under Islam's arbitrary restrictions on personal behavior and freedom of thought, its oppression of women, and its Arabic cultural supremacism. Islam has been able to tighten its grip on the world because of vast Saudi and Iranian expenditures on Islamic proselytism abroad. Hence burqas in Malaysia where they scarcely appeared before. They are waging ideological (and oftentimes military) warfare on the liberal West. Should we pretend that it is not happening.

That seems like a false dichotomy Amidut. If you want to argue that "going after" the terrorists militarily is morally repugnant and counterproductive, you may be right. I am talking about the rhetoric, particularly the presidential rhetoric, regarding how we characterize the threat. Should we characterize the threat as being from a "virulent minority" or as being from Islam itself. It seems to me that the latter would be very ill-conceived and dangerous.

Yes, thanks basman, a lot of interesting points.

Amidut: But we cannot likewise talk about the questionable authority of the Koran, it's obsessive bigotry toward non-believers, and the moral failings of prophet Mohammed without "insulting Islam" and incurring the violent wrath of its adherents.

Please, you just did. People go on Fox all the time and do so.

I don't know anyone pretending that there isn't any radical Islam, the question is what to do about it. The only solution I know is to simply get off of Middle eastern oil by any means necessary, solar, wind, nuclear, etc. The collapse of the Middle eastern economy might create more radicals, but since they won't have any money who cares? They got to hit bottom before they can come to the realization like the Chinese, Vietnamese, etc. that the only hope is reform or oblivion because we can kill a hell of a lot more of them then they can kill of us.

Compare Gordon's article to this one today in Ha'aretz: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1141313.html. In it a Jerusalem official admits that the city can do and does nothing for the Arab citizens who are de jure citizens of Israel by virtue of their being within the confines of the city's official limits, but on the other side of the wall. He also admits that the wall made facts, i.e., Israel has no intention of holding onto anything east of it. It's not right, what we are doing to the families who live there: they can't get a cop or a utility crew, basic things a municipality has to provide. That's not their fault: it's Israel's. If you own it you take care of it.

Gordon's arguments pumps bullets into a dead horse. Israel more than any other country would benefit by not having responsibility for the civil administration of Arab territories largely populated by people who do not want them there. She does not answer the questions asked by Levi Eshkol and Ben Guiron in 1967: how does occupation of all of this land and rule over its people benefit the Jewish state? By way of analogy, it's like the United States taking over northern Mexico to deal with the crime problems its sending as far north as Juneau: it solves nothing.
There are those few areas of the West Bank which can never be returned, but overall, the rest is not going to be Israeli in 50 years, especially if the Arabs who live there learn how to fight like Gandhi instead of Ché. And that's without saying anything about the destructive religious Jewish extremism being fostered by mad rabbis and their Brooklyn born followers. Who needs all of this tzorres?

Dhurtado I appreciate the time you took to read through all my posted verbiage and your thoughtful comments and questions.

I think you put well part of the essence of Gordon’s argument:

“…Israel made a mistake at Oslo, perhaps in agreeing to any kind of peace settlement at all, but, at minimum, in ceding, rather than merely waiving, any legitimate claim to Gaza and the West Bank, (and in recognizing any legitimate claims or rights of the Palestinians)…”
But it’s not clear to me that she goes as far as the part of your comments that I bracketed, though she may. For it is not inconsistent with the notion of “disputed territories” for Israel to acknowledge that the Palestinians have arguments.

I’d also refine this comment: “And her final conclusion is that peace is not achievable, and Israel should stop pretending that it is, and should just do what is necessary with regard to Gaza and the West Bank in order to protect Israel from Palestinian violence.” My refinement is that she is not saying that peace will *never* be achieved, just that there is no prospect for that now and policy should be based on that reality including doing what is now necessary to protect Israel from violence.

I’m not so sure that my exchange turned on a narrowly defined issue. It was much more about whether Gordon herself had written a good or bad essay. I started off thinking it was very good and then got persuaded off some of that while still thinking her underlying argument—deeper than her assertion things have worsened since Oslo— made sense.

I think that Gordon argument is much more than about tactics. My guess is that she thinks Israel has superior claims to the territories than do the Palestinians but that she would favor cession in return for a real peace. I think her thinking about these issues tracks Netanyahu’s. Her explicit argument is that if peace is unachievable now “we wait”. As she says:

“Finally, Israel must stop projecting a sense of panic, through both words and deeds, which merely emboldens its enemies. Israel has not only survived for 61 years despite the absence of peace; it has thrived. Its population has increased more than seven-fold; its per capita income has risen nine-fold; it has maintained a strong democracy in a region where democracy is otherwise unknown. And it can continue surviving and thriving without peace for as long as necessary.”

Finally rather than torture what Obama meant in Cairo, suffice it to say that it was taken in Israel, even by Yoel Marcus, as Gordon points out, as the articulation of Israel’s existence on the ground of Holocaust.

Getting back to the murder of Egyptian Copts.

Here is an interesting post:

"Unpopular Contrarian, Probably Right"

"Decades from now, I expect reasonable historians will see Tony Blair as a mostly positive figure. He understands the fundamental dynamics of our age, and tries to do the best he can even though his voters disagree, and his former voters hate him for it. Haaretz has a long interview with him:

"People sometimes say to me, no, it's not really Iraq, it's Afghanistan," Blair says. "Someone else will say, no it's Pakistan, and someone else will say it's Iraq, and someone else will say it's Yemen. But actually it's all of these because in different ways, they represent different challenges that are unified by one single movement with a single ideology. And this is going to be resolved, in my view, over a long period of time. But what is important is that wherever it is fighting us, we're prepared to fight back. And actually if you take the situation, for example, in Iraq, what began as a fight to remove Saddam was over in two months but then what occupied us for the next six years was fighting external elements - Al-Qaida on one hand, Iranian-backed militias on the other, which are the same elements we're fighting everywhere. Now, ultimately we've got to understand that, unfortunately, we can't say: 'Look, let's concentrate it here, but not here, and here, and here,' because that's not the way this thing's working."

Blair's equation doesn't end there. "Actually there is a unifying theme, in my view, between what's happened in countries like our own country with terrorist activity, and what's happening in places like Yemen or Afghanistan or Somalia or, I'm afraid, other countries. The key to understanding this is [that] this is a global movement with a global ideology and it is one struggle. It's one struggle with many different arenas.""

http://yaacovlozowick.blogspot.com/2010/01/unpopular-contrarian-probably...

"Islam is the issue for Peretz and many of his followers. "

Peretz has followers? What is he, a leader, a prophet, a guru?

Which of the following follower meaning do you mean?

1. One who subscribes to the teachings or methods of another; an adherent:
2. A servant; a subordinate.
3. A fan; an enthusiast.
4. One that imitates or copies another:

Sometime, from the choice of words by which one chooses to express his view, it is possible to get some insight into the workings of one's mind.

hey basman,

I reread Gordon's article today with the benefit of the very interesting discussion you posted last night. fwiw, I came up with the same take on it as yesterday. Actually, Winston Churchill's possibly apocryphal comment came to mind - It is good and original, but the part that is good is not original (it's dumb for Israel to continue to negotiate with itself) and the part that is original is not good (reasserting Israeli claims on the West Bank). With respect to the latter, again, it strikes me as a "shoulda/coulda/woulda", rather than something that's either practical, desirable or even credible now.

On a completely unrelated topic, I've discovered the delights of Magic Slim.

Re: persecution of Christians, I found this National Post article interesting

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/holy-post/archive/2010/01/06/37...

Noga-

I was thinking more along the lines of Brush Lintball's dittoheads.

Basman, thanks. Sure, I would not hold Gordon to the proposition that peace is not possible EVER, or that the Palestinians have no argument at all regarding a claim to Gaza and the West Bank. But I am not sure those refinements have practical significance.

Moreover, I think it is not a new idea that there has continued to be international disapprobrium of Israel, and that there has continued to be Palestinian violence against Isreal, despite Israel's efforts to negotiate in good faith and to make repeated concessions. What is perhaps new is Gordon's explanation for why that is so: That once Israel conceded any legitimate claim to the land, any concession that was less than total was seen as withholding what rightfully belonged to the Palestinians. That is a plausible theory. But does it mean that Israel made a mistake at Oslo, or that Israel should now re-assert a claim to Gaza and the West Bank. Aside from the question of what the effect of that might be more than two decades later, the first question to be asked is whether the international community did or would recognize a legitimate claim to the land on the part of Israel.

...On a completely unrelated topic, I've discovered the delights of Magic Slim...

bl462

Magic Slim comes to Toronto every year and I used to go see him a lot. if you see a picture of him now you'll understand our running joke that his name should be Magic --I Used To Be --Slim.

Truth to tell Slim is, I find, a bit too generic for my taste.

But speaking of Magic, if you haven't yet, check out the great West Side Chicago Bluesmen when they were in their young primes, starting, in my book at least, with the incomparable Magic Sam but also guys like the younger Buddy Guy, Junior Wells, Otis Rush and others. That all be some urgent, fantastic music.

...With respect to the latter, again, it strikes me as a "shoulda/coulda/woulda", rather than something that's either practical, desirable or even credible now...

bl462

The point you make in this part of your incisive, brief comment, as is obvious from my discussion with my friends, I find troublesome; and I disagree with you. I found Gordon persuasive here. The issue goes to very deepest heart of her argument with implications for what should be, but tragically and maddeningly isn’t in too many quarters, the unquestionable legitimacy of Israel’s existence. But I shan’t repeat the arguments for that, which I have already made, as just recently posted by me here.

Dhurtado, not to make a big to-do over my slight “amendments” but isn’t there practical significance to a belief in, and a commitment to, final status negotiations when they're propitious? One of the reasons why is that that commitment has Netanyahu publicly favoring a two state solution and taking some incremental steps now such as dismantling some of the West Bank check points and pushing for and implementing Israeli and Palestinian economic cooperation in the West Bank.

And surely there is a world of practical difference between asserting a right that gives no credence to another point of view and asserting a right while understanding that there is another way of looking at the issue of that right. The former tends to foreclose resolution; the latter tends to facilitate it.

I was persuaded by my friend Ben that Gordon’s essay falters on the axis of her theses that post Olso world disregard is worse for Israel than it was pre Oslo and that Oslo is the cause of this worsening. One can conclude that on balance Oslo was a failure without citing it, as does Gordon, as a Pandora’s Box yielding all bad things she complains about. Finally, in Gordon’s essay at least as I read it, there is no exclusivity between thinking Oslo a mistake and taking the view, as she does, that Israel should re assert the legitimacy of its claims to what she call the “Territories", which view does not need to mean a refusal to compromise on those claims or even to forgo them or parts of them as a matter of practicality such as calculating costs against benefits.

Basman-

I agree that whether Israel's international reputation became worse and Palestinian violence increased post-Oslo is not critical to Gordon's thesis. But it would provide empirical evidence to support that thesis, which I take to be that it was a mistake for Israel to concede any claim to the land because: (1) it implied that, to extent Israel continues to hold any portion of that land, it does so illegitimately; and (2) it was interpreted as weakness by, and therefore emboldened, Israel's enemies. Therefore, even if matters did not worsen post-Oslo, they have, somewhat counterintuitively, remained intractable despite Israel's repeated concessions.

As I said, I think that theory is plausible, but, as someone on one of these threads suggested, it may be that much of the international community, and certainly the Palestinians, did not believe in the first place that Israel had a moral claim to the territories. Therefore, had Israel steadfastly maintained its claim, it is not at all clear which way that would have cut.

In any event, my reading of Gordon is that her proposed solution is for Israel to reassert its claim to the territories, to cease all negotiations and decline to make any further concessions, and to just hunker down with the status quo, which may, for security reasons, require occasional incursions into the territories, or may even require that Israel re-take the territories. (It's been a few days since I read her piece, so I am sure you will tell me if you think I am mis-reading her.) If that is her position, then I still have trouble seeing the practical significance of nevertheless acknowledging that peace is theoretically possible at some future time, or that the Palestinians have an “argument” that is nevertheless trumped by the Jewish people's historical right to the land.

basman, "..But speaking of Magic, if you haven't yet, check out the great West Side Chicago Bluesmen when they were in their young primes, starting, in my book at least, with the incomparable Magic Sam but also guys like the younger Buddy Guy, Junior Wells, Otis Rush and others. That all be some urgent, fantastic music."

Thanks for the tip! I have a lot of younger Muddy, John Lee, and Howlin' Wolf, but none of the younger blues giants above, including Magic Sam. I'm on the hunt.

I know what you mean about Magic Slim - Only in a magic mirror would Magic be slim.

.

Dhurtado, let’s basically leave Gordon to the side and get to an essential issue.

Here are some arguments, from an Israeli perspective, for Israel reanimating the legitimacy of its claims to the territories that I think is principled, practical and feasible.

1. There is case to be made for that legitimacy.

2. It changes the paradigm from “occupied” to “disputed “and the characterization of Israel from “occupier” and “thief” to embattled claimant seeking to vindicates its rights.

3. It clothes Israel’s positions towards the territories with legitimacy and right.

4. It attends, with that change in paradigm and greater moral foundation, and is essential to, the arguments that are going on, and will go on, about East Jerusalem and the settled communities adjacent and functionally connected to Jerusalem that Israel presumes it will keep in any final resolution.

5. I’ll repeat that there is a continuum between ceding legitimacy to the “territories” and the right of Israel proper to exist. If an important reason for Israel’s own legitimacy is Jews’ deep and long historical connection to the lands, then that reason applies to the territories as well. Deny the latter, and then the former becomes more fragile. Assert the latter, then the former gains strength.

6. None of the foregoing needs to mean Israel, say, wants Gaza back, or wants back the territories it may have effectively conceded, but it can embed all it has done by way of its ceding and withdrawals and so on in a perspective that it is high grounded.

7. None of the foregoing need be the assertion of rights that neither dismisses the other side’s arguments nor need the above be an obstacle to peace.

8. Finally, and perhaps in summary, Gordon—ok back to her for a second—rightly identifies a vicious and invidious dynamism whereby Israel as “occupier and thief” tends in world opinion to justify or vindicate Palestinian civil insurrection which can range from benign protest to outright acts of terrorism which then begets Israeli responses ranging from more policing to checkpoints to a defensive barrier to military incursion to wars themselves.

Each such response is tainted by, and in world regard is hobbled, by the premise of illegitimacy. And such is the nature of this escalating opprobrium—feeding and generating itself in its outward swelling—that the intense difficulty of fighting an asymmetric enemy which collapses defensively and offensively the distinctions between civilian and soldier gets lost in the maelstrom.

And the proof of it getting lost and the fact of this dynamism at work are things like the Goldstone Report, the findings of the U.N. Human Rights Council, the progress of Goldstone through the U.N. and other things like an arrest warrant—ultimately quashed, but no matter— being laid in England against Tzipi Livni for example on the theory of universal jurisdiction and causing her to cancel an attendance there.

This is a world gone quite mad. Whatever amelioration and assuaging and restoration can come from the assertion of legitimacy and right make that assertion practical and feasible. For as bad as things were before Oslo, and regardless of whether it was worse before or is worse now, it is hard to imagine Israel damaging itself further by placing its actions on the highest footing of legitimacy it can.

bl462

Catch a tune of Magic Sam and some of the others on YouTube. For example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S5DGqCfk8o

The West Side guys make up a discrete vein in the blues that is passionate, urgent, right at an amazing emotional edge and unbelievably compelling.

The sound quality on what I linked to is pretty good for YouTube and will give you a sense of what's you are lucklily in store for when you get the better audio quality of an actual c d or whatever.

basman, one final point re Oslo. While I find her proposition that Israel is worse of because of Oslo than it would have been if there was no Oslo to be utterly unprovable since history would have played out quite differently, as conjecture I also disagree with it. She claims that the reputation of Israel is worse because of it. In this, I can speak of for no one but myself, but I disagree. I am Irish RC, I grew up in an environment with at least some tacit approval of Irish Republicanism in Northern Ireland. The town I also grew up in has a nice sized Arab community (mostly Maronite), so I grew up with some underlying sympathies for the Palestinians (I also couldn't stand Begin), but Oslo began to change my views, and suffice it to say that the scales fell off my eyes utterly under Barak and Clinton and the more than generous settlement offer. Such events led me to rethink and relearn the history up to them. Suffice it to say, i think my own Pro-Israel stance is due from an objective viewpoint and no one can accuse me, rightly or wrongly, of having undue bias. I believe that Israel having gone the extra mile (and then some) for peace has only strengthened it among the people who matter most (Americans, sorry but no one cares about what any Canadian politicians view is on anything). If Israel had followed her advice, continuing to occupy the territories, laying claim to the land based on nothing more than 3000 year old Bible verses, denying Palestinians rights and opportunities for freedom (both of which, when given the Palestinians themselves rejected), if Israel had behaved in this way (which I find impossible to believe they would have) than I would have long ago washed my hands of them. The Oslo process taught me the truth of what Israel is, a Liberal Democracy that truly wants peace and freedom for itself and its neighbors.

I am with bl462's summation above. You seem to think things couldn't be worse as to the questions of Israel's legitimacy, I know they could be.

basman, "...The West Side guys make up a discrete vein in the blues that is passionate, urgent, right at an amazing emotional edge and unbelievably compelling."

I just listened to the Magic Sam Youtube clip. It is all of that. I can't wait for the cds to arrive. Thanks again, blues brother.

Hey bl462: it is my sheer delight.

Blackton, let me get back to you on your thoughtful and heartfelt post.

I just gotta' get back to watching the Jets beating the Bengals "like a stepchild".

I have to agree with Blackton. While Gordon's theory is plausible, it would make Oslo a mistake only if the world would have agreed, in 1993, with Israel taking the position that it has a superior historical/religious claim to the land and therefore would be morally justified in refusing to cede any of it to the Palestinians.

In any event, if Israel were to now assert a superior historical/religious claim to the land, it would, at best, be deemed not credible, and, at worst, evoke outrage both internationally and among the Palestinians. I cannot imagine it having the effect of improving Israel's international standing or of reducing Israeli/Palestinian tensions.