Today's Israel Post

UDPATE: Eh, I'm taking this down . . . not only did it have a bunch of typos, but they were significantly obscuring my meaning on a subject where it's worth being clear. What I wanted to do was link to Nicholas Kristof's observation that "Democrats are railing at just about everything President Bush does, with one prominent exception: Mr. Bush’s crushing embrace of Israel."

Then I wanted to draw a distinction between two kinds of Democrats. One are Democrats who aren't railing at Bush's Israel policy because they agree with Bush's Israel policy. The other kind are Democrats who do disagree with Bush's Israel policy but who are trying to signal that fact quietly, rather than railing about it, because they think it's too politically risky to rail.

Comments

I thought this post was really hard to read.

Someone funny than the downright pandering of those inclined to pander, is the effort to say-it-and-hope-nobody-hears from the timid.

Did you mean to write "somewhat funnier" instead of "someone funny"? I think that's the easiest way to turn this into an actual sentence that, like, makes sense. Speaking of "like," I was really confused by this. I don't read Timesselect columnists and don't share all of your political convictions and annoyances, so I don't understand why Kristof's claim is funny on the face of it, which you seem to imply. That may be my fault. The oddness of that sentence isn't, though.

Barack Obama seems to be trying to like send secret messages to folks inclined toward my way of thinking...

You're, like, trying to be whimsical with that "like," right? It's easier to tell if the word is offset by commas, methinks. Otherwise, it makes for a really weird looking sentence, especially with that hotlink blue there. I prefer my links smaller, but that's just a stylistic thing. I'd have just made the offset-by-commas "like" or else "secret messages" blue and hot. I think it's more dramatic and effective that way, but that's just me.

messages sufficiently clear that one can plausibly deny they've been sent.

These too-clear messages are ones that the Obama campaign cann't plausibly deny, right? I'm pretty confused by this point, but I'm pretty sure I'm right. Scary messages that are so clear that I can pretend they meant something else, that doesn't make sense, right?

Posted by Tyler Simons | March 18, 2007 12:06 PM

Ah, instant karma. I shouldn't be such a snark. The sentence I wrote -- "Speaking of "like,"..." should be at the end of the paragraph in which it appears and end with a colon instead of a period. Glass houses and all that.

Posted by Tyler Simons | March 18, 2007 12:09 PM

If you look at the word "like" for long enough, it begins to appear quite strange.

Posted by Tyler Simons | March 18, 2007 12:11 PM

M. J. Rosenberg is an idiot. The notion that the Palestinians will accept a two state solution has been proven to be a chimera; it should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that the only solution they will accept is an agreement that the State of Israel agrees to go out of business. I have read his crap on several Israeli newspaper and web sites and it is amazing how any of them can publish his drivel. The fact is that the only possible solution is to recognize that the Palestinian State is in Amman. The attached link sums it up nicely and is absolutely correct and accurate.

http://web.israelinsider.com/views/10942.htm

Posted by SLC | March 18, 2007 12:13 PM

Aside from some almost incomprehensible word choice, is MY confusing "discrete" with "discreet"? The Third Way writers are talking about "discrete areas," i.e. "individually distinct areas." I don't see how that's relevant to MY's post unless he thought they were talking about "discreet areas" of policy, i.e. quiet things that wouldn't call attention to themselves, but...that's not what they meant.

Posted by Haggai | March 18, 2007 12:17 PM

Haggai, that was my take also. So, this one was a bit garbled and based on a confused premise. Can we blame last night??

Posted by Nat | March 18, 2007 12:27 PM

Lots of people, good writers among them, write the way MY does. If you're tired or in a hurry, you unconsciously substitute a word that merely sounds like the one you intend to type, e.g. "know" for "no," or "someone" for "somewhat," even if there's no semantic connection between the words. It's a different kind of mistake from putting "discrete" for "discreet," though, which I think is usually a case of writers simply not knowing that the two words are spelled differently.

Posted by SqueakyRat | March 18, 2007 12:43 PM

: Eh, I'm taking this down . . . not only did it have a bunch of typos, but they were significantly obscuring my meaning on a subject where it's worth being clear.

Oh. My. Gawd. What have you people done?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 18, 2007 12:44 PM

Post taken down? The lobby got to Matt!

Posted by AP | March 18, 2007 1:16 PM

Indeed, AP. My unnamed AIPAC/Shabak handlers are very pleased with the results of this comment thread.

Posted by Haggai | March 18, 2007 1:31 PM

Obama tested the waters with "No one's suffering more than the Palestinians" and he didn't get frozen out. Hillary's too locked in to deviate from the hip-hip-hooray for Apartheid Israel norm and Edwards isn't savvy enough to know which way to go. Then, you've got Biden who used to brag about Bibi Netanyahu being his friend. Richardson strives to be the Dick Cheney of the Dems: obscurantist sentence fragments to mislead people- so forget him. On the other side- only the wil he or won't he? Hagel has any principles.

Posted by Trevor | March 18, 2007 2:47 PM

"Shabak" is an excellent name for an agency. Sounds very "Security of the First World."

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 18, 2007 2:56 PM

Mr. Bush’s crushing embrace of Israel.

Wow. With that phrase, Kristof (of all people) really hits the nail on the head. Crushing is right.

So why do certain people think it's ok to crush Israel as long you're doing it by way of embracing but if you dare criticize anything the state of Israel does you're an anti-Semite even if you are active in your shul, etc.?

I guess some people just don't mind getting screwed as long as they get kissed first, nu?

Posted by DAS | March 18, 2007 3:04 PM

Is there a way around the "Times Select" bullshit?

Posted by Trevor | March 18, 2007 3:08 PM

The fact is that the only possible solution is to recognize that the Palestinian State is in Amman.

Wow, that takes me back. Almost everyone dropped the 'Jordan is Palestine' thing after Israel and Jordan signed a peace treaty. I don't think I've heard it in years.

Posted by David Tomlin | March 18, 2007 6:52 PM

The Mossad put something In Matt's drink to make him write in a sloppy fashion.

Posted by Eric864 | March 18, 2007 7:45 PM

David Tomlin:

"Wow, that takes me back. Almost everyone dropped the 'Jordan is Palestine' thing after Israel and Jordan signed a peace treaty. I don't think I've heard it in years."

Maybe it's worth reconsidering Jordan as Palestine? After all:

1) Jordan was Palestine; specifically, it was the Eastern 80% of Britain's League of Nations Palestine Mandate. Britain carved it off and gave to the Hashemite tribe, after the Hashemites were beaten by the Saudi tribe in Arabia.

2) 70% of Jordan's population is Palestinian, ruled by a non-Palestinian, Hashemite king.

3) There doesn't seem to be room for two nations between the Med and the Jordan River. Meanwhile, Jordan is four times the size of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza combined.

Posted by Fred | March 19, 2007 8:39 AM

I am curious to hear MY's take on the relative merits of giving the West Bank back to Jordan versus creating an Islamist Palestinian state. I believe he's voiced a pretty clear critique of neocon utopianism in Iraq and has argued that a stable, autocratic Iraq is preferable to an anarchic, theocratic Iraq with quasi-democratic institutions. There is absolutely no reason to believe that nation-buiding in Palestine is going to be more successful than it is in Iraq. So why should neo-realist progressive views on Palestine be so different than Iraq - especially if the most important goal is ending Arab and Islamic "rage" over Israeli occupation?

Posted by mhp | March 19, 2007 1:26 PM