Either / Or

Zbigniew Brzezinski at the conference says the US and Israel should try to put their demands for Iranian disarmament in the context of support for a regional nuclear-free zone (i.e., Israeli nuclear disarmament). After all, he says, if we're supposed to believe that Israel's nuclear arsenal isn't a sufficient deterrent to ensure Israeli security in the face of Iran's nuclear program, then it obviously isn't a very valuable asset.

This sounds smart to me. The odds that nothing would come of such a proposal a pretty high, but even if nothing comes of it, calling the Iranian bluff in this regard would be valuable and it would help reframe the issue, regionally and globally, in a useful way.

Comments

Israel will have no interest in such a deal--the purpose of their nukes (like the proposed Iranian nukes) is to deter conventional attack . . .

Posted by rea | June 12, 2007 1:47 PM

"i.e., Israeli nuclear disarmament"

Oh, you're a mean little fucker, Matthew.

I can already see Marty Peretz lying on the floor-- foaming at the mouth, drumming his heels, chewing the carpet and urinating uncontrollably.

Posted by Don Williams | June 12, 2007 1:47 PM

So why don't you or anyone else quote Brzezinski when ever Peretz or any other supposed Israel loving neo-con spouts off about attacking Israel? People like Peretz can't seperate the wheat from the chaff. Is Mahmoud really mean for saying bad things about Israel and the Holocaust? Yes. Does that mean we should start a war over it? No.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | June 12, 2007 1:49 PM

Rea makes a good point, though perhaps its one that could be addressed by explicit NATO-like security guarantees (we are, after all, already bound by treaty to defend most of Eastern Europe now).

Another point worth asking Zbigniew is about the rivalry between Iran and leading Sunni Arab states such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. It's worth noting that Saudi Arabia and Egypt have not felt the need to have nukes in response to Israel, but they have intimated they may seek to acquire nukes if Iran gets them.

Why are these Arab countries more worried about a nuclear Iran than a nuclear Israel?

Posted by Fred | June 12, 2007 2:06 PM

Huh? I don't get this post. What "Iranian bluff"? If anyone were to propose such a thing, Israel and the US would immediately reject it, and Iran, knowing this to be the case, would immediately support it.

Yes, a nuclear-free Middle East SHOULD be the western position, and it would offer a very face-saving way for the Iranians to abandon their program and could maybe even lead to some real realignment with them, but it won't happen.

OK, so this is not a serious post, right? You are messing with Peretz, right? Good ...

Posted by TS | June 12, 2007 2:18 PM

"The odds that nothing would come of such a proposal a pretty high, but even if nothing comes of it, calling the Iranian bluff in this regard would be valuable and it would help reframe the issue, regionally and globally, in a useful way."

What would be useful about this? If you're just proposing it to find some faux-reasonable gesture which Israel wont follow through on but which the Iranians will reject, which can then be used to frame things so as to isolate/delegitimise Iran, what is the purpose of that? It might be more useful to think harder a deal which we can in fact deliver which the Iranians might in fact accept.

Posted by otto | June 12, 2007 2:22 PM

Must. Resist. Impulse. To Meddle. In Affairs. Of Others.

Posted by Miracle Max | June 12, 2007 2:31 PM

It's worth noting that Saudi Arabia and Egypt have not felt the need to have nukes in response to Israel, but they have intimated they may seek to acquire nukes if Iran gets them.

It's worth noting that's just not true as far as anyone knows. There are reports that have the same provenance that gave us Saddam's Cabinet of Horrors that pop up from the 60's on and the peak on speculation was actually the 80's. There is no one serious in the proliferation field that believes that SA or Egypt is going to build a bomb.

Posted by Ed Marshall | June 12, 2007 2:39 PM

It's not Iran's bluff - they appear serious about developing nuclear weapons. It would be the U.S.'s bluff. Or Israel's bluff. What would happen if Iran calls the bluff?

Anyway, how can you talk about a regional nuclear free zone when India, Pakistan, China, and Russia have the bomb?

Posted by blah | June 12, 2007 2:46 PM

I heard Brzezinski on the radio. What he said was that Iran has the right to enrich uranium under the NPT, so demanding and threatening them is distasteful, counterproductive and stupid. He said we may want to ask them to stop by offering something in return. Israeli nuclear disarmament was just a side 'for example' remark, as far as I remember.

Posted by abb1 | June 12, 2007 2:48 PM

Why are these Arab countries more worried about a nuclear Iran than a nuclear Israel?

Um, because our removal of Saddam and subsequent destabilization of Iraq has already made Iran a near hegemonic power in the Persian Gulf, and, therefore, the Middle East. No one thinks Iran is actually likely to invade or nuke Egypt.

Posted by AJ | June 12, 2007 2:49 PM

Huh? I don't understand why we are supposed to belive that if Israel' nukes can't deter Iran now, they aren't valuable for anything ever.

Posted by Al | June 12, 2007 2:53 PM

I don't get it. We already have Iran's signature on the NPT. The concept is that we offer Israel's never-gonna-happen disarmament in exchange for Iran's agreement to actually obey the NPT? Clearly, the great foreign policy minds are miles ahead of me on this one.

Posted by Steve | June 12, 2007 3:00 PM

Bomb! Now! Yes! Go!

Posted by Crazy Joe Lieberman | June 12, 2007 3:02 PM

Brzezinski's new book "Second Chance" details the failure of Bush I, Clinton, & W to make much progress on proliferation issues.

He argues the U.S. had tremendous credibility and the power to lead on this issue in the 90's and completely blew it.

I highly recommend the book. He makes a strong case that we have one more chance to correct the
the current path we're on (with the next administration), or we're going to be forced out of the Middle East as a great power and the Chinese will fill the vacuum we've left.

http://www.amazon.com/Second-Chance-Presidents-American-Superpower/dp/0465002528/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-3551850-0644701?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181675481&sr=8-1

Posted by Bill | June 12, 2007 3:06 PM

Anyway, how can you talk about a regional nuclear free zone when India, Pakistan, China, and Russia have the bomb?

None of those countries are in the Middle East. Pakistan is in South Asia.

Posted by David Tomlin | June 12, 2007 3:11 PM

Re: "...or we're going to be forced out of the Middle East as a great power and the Chinese will fill the vacuum we've left."

Oh no! If we're not a great power in the Middle East, how will I be able to maintain my self-esteem? Someone, please do something!

Posted by Jim W | June 12, 2007 3:11 PM

Jim,

I'd much rather a new U.S. administration retain influence in a region we are dependent on for a huge bulk of our energy, than to cede that influence to the Chinese.

Hugs & Kisses,

Bill

Posted by Bill | June 12, 2007 3:16 PM

Brzezinski has about as much credibility on Middle Eastern affairs as Norman Finkelstein. He has a long history of antagonism toward the State of Israel which was much in evidence at the Camp David meeting in 1979, as related by the Israeli representatives who were there. It is telling that the Israel bashers on this blog, like Mr. Bill, Mr. otto, Mr. abb1, Mr. Don Williams and Mr. Ed Marshall think he's the cats' meow.

Posted by SLC | June 12, 2007 3:33 PM

Perhaps you can explain how well that will work by looking at the 1924 naval disarmament, and explaining how well that worked.

disarmament simply does not work with parties that don't trust one another - and is unnecessary when the parties do trust one another (for instance - have you ever worried about the UK's nukes?).

You can't create peace through arms limitations. Arms limitations come about as a result of peace and trust.

Posted by James Robertson | June 12, 2007 3:37 PM

It's telling that you make up an enemies list, and that no one as far as I can tell seems to be huge Brzezinski fans. It's called clinical paranoia.

I gotta run, got a meeting in a graveyard set with him and David Duke and Finklestein and we are have some protocols to work out.

Posted by Ed Marshall | June 12, 2007 3:42 PM

It's telling that you make up an enemies list, and that no one as far as I can tell seems to be huge Brzezinski fans. It's called clinical paranoia.

I gotta run, got a meeting in a graveyard set with him and David Duke and Finklestein and we have some protocols to work through.

Posted by Ed Marshall | June 12, 2007 3:43 PM

Re James Robertson

Actually, the Navel Limitation Treaties of the 1920s were quite successful, at least in terms of saving money. They prevented the expenditure of vast sums of money on fleets of obsolete battleships. I particularly like naval historian Robert O'Connells' characterization of the battleship as a relatively harmless weapons system.

Posted by SLC | June 12, 2007 3:46 PM

SLC-

Glad to know you're just another crackpot who loves to call Jews who oppose Likud policies "Israel Bashers".

Why is it so hard for you to understand that those of us who oppose the occupation and expansion of settlements are concerned about Israel's long-term survival?

Posted by Bill | June 12, 2007 3:47 PM

James Robertson scores. Quite true.

Ed Marshall, no one's views should be dismissed out of hand because of their biases, but biases are useful to note. For example, I wouldn't expect entirely objective commentary about Russia from Brzezinski. Doesn't mean he's not worth reading, but I'm glad we didn't take his advice and risk war with Russia back then.

Posted by Fred | June 12, 2007 3:48 PM

Funny how guys like SLC will never, ever forgive the Carter administration for being the only modern US administration to actually make peace between Israel and its enemies.

Posted by Other Bill | June 12, 2007 4:03 PM

no one's views should be dismissed out of hand because of their biases

That may be true, but where's the view there? There's none, read his comment again. The SLC fella is just a troll and a boring one at that.

Posted by abb1 | June 12, 2007 4:05 PM

Yglesias:

After all, he says, if we're supposed to believe that Israel's nuclear arsenal isn't a sufficient deterrent to ensure Israeli security in the face of Iran's nuclear program, then it obviously isn't a very valuable asset.

If 'ensure' is to be taken literally, it's a pretty high bar. The nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and the Soviet Union turned out to be adequate for deterring one another throughout the Cold War, but did they really 'ensure' the security of either?

That said, I suspect many of the people ranting about how Iran will nuke Israel as soon as it is capable don't really believe any such thing.

Posted by David Tomlin | June 12, 2007 4:27 PM

Re Bill

I am delighted to read that Dr. Bill has only positive feelings about Israels' welfare in mind when he engages in Israel bashing. In other words, he's lambasting them for their own good. The only problem with that is that the Palestinians rejected the Clinton proposal in 2000 which would have eliminated most of the settlements, including all in the Gaza Strip. It would have given the Palestinians 100% of the Gaza Strip and 95% of the West Bank (including some land exchanges) to set up the independent Palestinian State. How about bashing the Palestinians once in a while, just to relieve the monotony.

Re abb1

I am delighted that Mr. abb1 (who I suspect is really Adam Shapiro) considers me a troll. Since his various posts on this blog and others indicate that he considers the State of Israel to be illigiment and is all in favor of putting it out of business, it is a great honor to be accorded the appellation troll by him.

Re the other bill

Mr. other bill gives James Earl Carter too much credit. He merely agreed to pay Israel and Egypt bribes of 3 billion and 2.2 billion respectively per year to get them to behave themselves, at least toward each other.

Re Ed Marshall

1. Unfortunately, Brzezinski, Duke and Finkelstein still walk the earth with decent people and do not yet stalk the graveyards with the undead Fuhrer.

2. Enemies list? Mr. Ed Marshall gives those listed too much credit. They don't even rise to the level of enemies.

Posted by SLC | June 12, 2007 4:32 PM

James Earl Carter

Has anyone ever figured out who instructed right-wingers to all start using Jimmy Carter's middle name, and why?

Posted by lemuel pitkin | June 12, 2007 4:42 PM

Sorry to disappoint, but you're a troll regardless of anyone's opinion of Israel's legitimacy. It appears that you simply have nothing enlightening, intelligent or otherwise interesting to say.

Posted by abb1 | June 12, 2007 4:43 PM

TS:

Huh? I don't get this post. What "Iranian bluff"?

The Iranians have been advocating a nuclear-free Middle East for over a year at least.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4756652.stm

Why Matt is so sure it's a bluff I don't know.

Posted by David Tomlin | June 12, 2007 4:43 PM

Doctor: Patient, you have a rash. Use this ointment.

SLC: You're anti-Semitic! You can't criticize me! Mommy! Hitler-lover!

Posted by Reality Man | June 12, 2007 4:46 PM

Look, SLC, if you're too busy reading blogs to step out to the pharmacy and refill your meds, you must have at least *one* friend in the world willing to do it for you.

Poor, poor SLC...

Posted by RKU | June 12, 2007 4:54 PM

"Actually, the Navel Limitation Treaties of the 1920s were quite successful, at least in terms of saving money. They prevented the expenditure of vast sums of money on fleets of obsolete battleships."

That was accidental. The point is, the limitations did nothing to prevent war from breaking out. The US followed the treaty; Japan skirted around it (as the Soviets skirted around the various ones we signed with them).

The main point holds: arms limitations treaties are pointless where there's no trust - and not needed when there is trust. They are "feel good" treaties for shallow thinkers.

Posted by James Robertson | June 12, 2007 4:58 PM

"The only problem with that is that the Palestinians rejected the Clinton proposal in 2000 which would have eliminated most of the settlements, including all in the Gaza Strip. It would have given the Palestinians 100% of the Gaza Strip and 95% of the West Bank (including some land exchanges) to set up the independent Palestinian State. "

Whoa. This is while the Barak government was floundering, and it was obvious that Sharon would become the next PM, and Sharon promising that he would not honor any agreements made by his predecessor. Leaving aside the fact that the proposed deal would have split the West Bank into 3 non-contiguous islands (and 95% was the long term target, the short term target was closer to 70%, and there were some choice poison pills in the agreement as well), the fact that Israel was unlikely to honor the deal made it pointless. What you're saying is revisionist history, nothing more.

Posted by SS | June 12, 2007 5:20 PM

"Actually, the Navel Limitation Treaties..."

SLC, did you research these treaties at The Navel Base?

Posted by Fred | June 12, 2007 5:22 PM

Re RKU

Mr. RKU is back and flailing away with both arms. He certainly does provide comic relief.

Re abb1

Mr. abb1 is the man from it and how it happened. The only thing he has to say on this blog and others which he haunts is Israel bad, Israel bad, Israel bad.

Re James Robertson

Actually, the Japanese (and later German) violations took place in the 1930s with the construction of the Yamato and Musashi. Further, according to British historian Eric Grove, the treaties quite possibly prevented a war over trade between the US and Great Britain.

Re Reality Man

Mr. Reality Man is back too. He also provides comic relief.

Posted by SLC | June 12, 2007 5:34 PM

"The point is, the limitations did nothing to prevent war from breaking out."

The point of nuclear disarmament is not to prevent war from breaking out. The point is to prevent it from breaking out with nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons are not battleships. Non-nuclear weapons can inflict horendous casualties--we've probably inflicted the equivalent of 10 Hiroshimas on Iraq--but nuclear weapons pose a special danger of global catastrophy, and therefore getting rid of them is a good thing, independently of whether we also bring about the end of war.

Posted by rea | June 12, 2007 5:44 PM

"James Earl Carter --Has anyone ever figured out who instructed right-wingers to all start using Jimmy Carter's middle name, and why?"
------

Because Mel Gibson [JERRY] told them to do so in his movie "Conspiracy Theory". It makes Carter out to be a dangerous lunatic. Remember??
***********
Jerry: David Berkowitz, Ted Bundy, Richard Speck...
Alice: What about them?
Jerry: Serial killers. Serial killers only have two names. You ever notice that? But lone gunmen assassins, they always have three names. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, Mark David Chapman...
Alice: John Hinckley. He shot Reagan. He only has two names.
Jerry: Yeah, but he only just shot Reagan. Reagan didn't die. If Reagan had died, I'm pretty sure we probably would all know what John Hinckley's middle name was.
...
Jerry: I just thought of another one: James Earl Ray, the guy who got Luther King. Then of course, there's Sirhan Sirhan. I still haven't figured that one out. Maybe it's Sirhan Sirhan Sirhan, I don't know.
*********

Cheers,

Donald Steven Williams

Posted by Don Williams | June 12, 2007 5:45 PM

The only thing he has to say on this blog and others which he haunts is Israel bad, Israel bad, Israel bad.

Yeah, right. So, if you still don't believe you're a troll (and a stalker, incidentally), scroll up this page and read what I said. And now read what you said. Satisfied? Now go crawl back under your rock.

Posted by abb1 | June 12, 2007 5:53 PM

Contrary to the suggestions of abb1 and several other commenters, I think our friend SLC is not at all a useless troll and actually provides some quite important insights into the current Mid East conflict.

Suppose, for example, that you're a Palestinian trying to live a quiet life on the West Bank, where your family has dwelled for around 600 years. It's easy to understand how this aspiration is made rather more difficult by the presence of 50,000 SLCs straight from Brooklyn, armed with machine-guns, the power of life-and-death, and their divine mission from G-d Himself.

The mysterious rise of suicide-bombers thereby becomes somewhat less mysterious.

Which is why I still suspect that SLC is actually a David Duke agent, sent here to provoke exactly these sentiments.

Posted by RKU | June 12, 2007 6:47 PM

I see from the comments when anything with the word Brezinski or Carter are mentioned the trolls come out. I see now is no exception. Yes Israel we know the Holocaust happened, we know how painful it was to you and Jewish ancestors-but it is wrong to keep creating boogymen for yourselves as a result. The way to show you are "God's chosen people" is to lead by example. In all various religions we have simililiar 7 deadly sins, Commandments and other laws to live by:
"Love thy neighbor as thyself".
Since 1947 Israel has been in this state of war or antagonism with it's neighbors-after this many years is it not time to try to give peace a chance?

Posted by bethincary | June 12, 2007 6:48 PM

"Since 1947 Israel has been in this state of war or antagonism with it's neighbors-after this many years is it not time to try to give peace a chance?"

Israel gave peace a chance in 1947, when it accepted the UN partition plan which the Arabs rejected.

Posted by Juan | June 12, 2007 7:05 PM

Interesting.

Quite aside from ratcheting up the international pressure on Iran, and offering a substantial carrot, TS correctly points out that it offers a mechanism by which Iran could save face while backing down in this confrontation.

I've been given the impression that the Iranian nuclear program is as much about domestic, nationalist politics as it is about international, security politics. Backing down in the face of western pressure would be risky for the regime's internal stability-- this could eliminate that as a potential obstacle.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | June 12, 2007 7:30 PM

Don Williams @ 5:45:

Actually Sirhan Sirhan's middle name is Bishara:
Sirhan Bishara Sirhan: but maybe since he has a duplicated moniker, he gets a pass on the assassins-middle-names rule,

Posted by Jay C | June 12, 2007 7:52 PM

Israel gave peace a chance in 1947, when it accepted the UN partition plan which the Arabs rejected.

Not to point out the obvious, but that's sixty years ago. My grandfather was younger than I am now. How is it relevant to peace-policy going forward to bicker over blame for events that happened when my father was in short pants?

Not, mind you, to disagree with the actual substance of what you're saying-- it's just that your statement struck me as comically typical for these types of endemic conflicts with deep ancestral roots. Both sides have screwed each-other over so many times, it doesn't matter who was the aggressor in 1947 or 1967 or 1987.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | June 12, 2007 7:56 PM

"Love thy neighbor as thyself".

I was looking at pictures of a settler rally/indignation party and their main theme was boycotting Arab business in Israel. About half of them had signs with that verse on it in Hebrew, I didn't understand how that fit in and an Israeli told me that the Christian version is a mistranslation, it's not "love thy neighbor", it's "love thy fellow" and the standard rabbinical exegesis is that it means "love your fellow Jew".

Posted by Ed Marshall | June 12, 2007 8:10 PM

Re RKU

Well, Mr. RKU repeats the big lie about Palestine being occupied by Arabs for many generations before the arrival of Jewish settlers from Europe. I merely refer to a visit to Palestine by American writer Mark Twain in 1867 in which he found the place to be practically depopulated. Tel Aviv did not exist and Jerusalem, which was the largest village therein, had a smaller population then his native St. Joseph, Mo., not known as a thriving urban metropolis. The fact is that virtually all the current occupants of Palestine, Arab and Jew, are descended from recent immigrants who began moving into the area during the late 19th century, when European interest was revived. Much of that interest, by the way, was due to the rivalry between Great Britain and Germany as the Kaiser seems to have had a particular fascination with Palestine. Since Mr. RKU seems to be in love with the big lie, he would appear to be a follower of the late and unlamented Joseph Goebbels, another big lie devote. Mr. RKU also neglects to mention the Jews who were expelled from Arab countries like Iraq (1/2 million from Iraq alone) and who, unlike the Arab inhabitants of Palestine, had actually lived there for hundreds of years. But of course, in the world of RKU and Don Williams, they don't count.

By the way, Mr. RKU is seriously in error concerning my place of origin, which is in fact some 3000 miles southwest of Brooklyn. In fact, I think I have visited Brooklyn exactly twice on sojourns lasting less then 1 day each.

Re abb1

I will pose the same question to Mr. abb1 that I once posed to columnist Robert Novak. Has he ever said anything positive about the State of Israel? Mr. Novak was unable to recall any such occurrence and I suspect that Mr. abb1 will likewise fail.

Re SS

Mr. SS also seems to be a devote of Joseph Goebbels. Apparently, the Israel bashers have an addiction to falsehoods. I would suggest that anyone who thinks that Mr. SS is anything but a liar refer to Dennis Ross' book and the map shown therein. He or she will find that the West Bank area to be part of the new Palestinian State would have been entirely contiguous, with only a small 5% area in the Jerusalem neighborhood which encompasses most of the West Bank settlements to be ceded to Israel. In recompense, Israel would cede some land to the Palestinian State. This, by the way, explains the antagonism of former MK Tibi toward the State of Israel, as his village was slated to be exchanged.

Re Fred

I assume that Mr. Fred was trying to be humorous, although I don't quite see the point.

Re lemuel pitkin

1. For the information of Mr. pitkin, I am a liberal Democrat who has never voted for a Rethuglican (yeah, I even voted twice for James Earl Carter; shame on me).

2. I use Carters' middle name to show my contempt for the f***ing a**hole.

Posted by SLC | June 12, 2007 8:20 PM

"The point of nuclear disarmament is not to prevent war from breaking out. The point is to prevent it from breaking out with nuclear weapons."

Sure, except that without basic trust, the limitations don't work. As I said - no one worries about the nukes the UK has; lots of people worry about the ones the Pakistanis have, and the ones the Iranians might get. No one worries about the Israeli nukes either, other than enemies who think that without nukes, their superior numbers might overwhelm Israel.

Imagine yourself surrounded by bullies with knives, while you have a gun. Are you going to volunteer to make the area a "gun free zone"? Apparently Matt would like to have Israel do the equivalent of that.

Posted by James Robertson | June 12, 2007 8:26 PM

Quite apart from the merits or demerits of their arguments, I always find it amusing how inveterate Israel-bashers claim to have Israel's 'best interests' at heart. It's a bit like the Democratic Party getting advice from Instapundit or even Rush Limbaugh.

Posted by Kevin | June 12, 2007 8:43 PM

And Wikipedia says:

"Barak offered to form a Palestinian State initially on 73% of the West Bank (that is 27% less than the Green Line borders) and 100% of the Gaza Strip. In 10 to 25 years the West Bank area would expand to 90-91% (94% excluding greater Jerusalem).[1][2][3] The West Bank would be separated by a road from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea, with free passage for Palestinians although Israel reserved the right to close the road for passage in case of emergency. The Palestinian position was that the annexations would block existing road networks between major Palestinian populations. In return, the Israelis would cede 1% of their territory in the Negev Desert to Palestine. The Palestinians rejected this proposal."

Again, there's no guarantee that Israel would have lived up to it's word - the man likely to be the next Prime Minister had explicitly said that HE WOULD NOT HONOR ANY AGREEMENT. And the immediate withdrawal would have been 73 percent of the West Bank, not 90+ percent, with the the remainder to be decided over a decade later.

Also, here are these little poison pills:

"The Israeli negotiators wanted the following requirements to be part of the agreement: Early warning stations inside the Palestinian state; Israeli control of Palestinian airspace; the right of Israel to deploy troops in the Palestinian state in the event of an emergency; the stationing of an international force in the Jordan Valley. Furthermore the Palestinian state was to be demilitarized.[8]"

This is all in wikipedia, funny what a little googling will do.

Posted by SS | June 12, 2007 9:46 PM

"I always find it amusing how inveterate Israel-bashers claim to have Israel's 'best interests' at heart."

Except "Israel-bashers" is a moniker you assign to anyone who questions Israeli actions as a way of stifling and controlling the debate. It's a bit like asking someone "are you still beating your wife?" If you actually talk to actual Israelis, you would find much more vitrolic talk. The debate on Israeli policy is much more stifled in the US than in Israel. SLC admits he's never been to Israel. Among the most hated people in Israel are the settlers, who are often seen as traitors and only dedicated to restoring the Biblical Greater Israel instead of loyalty to the rather secular, multiethnic Israeli nation-state people live in today. When Tom Delay visited a settlement and said, "some people see this and see occupation, while I just see Israel," he wasn't speaking for the majority of Israelis, but for the Christianist, "Left Behind"-reading minority in the US who see Israel as a tool to bring about the Second Coming, which, by the way, often involve all of the Jews in the world dying and/or being cast into hell. People like SLC have no actual love for the actual Israel, but for what Israel represents in their imaginations.

Posted by Reality Man | June 12, 2007 9:59 PM

Re SS

Here is a perfect example of how liars like Mr. SS like to obfuscate. I specifically was referring to the plan proposed by Clinton and Ross which is well described in Dennis Rosses' book. This plan was tentatively agreed to by Barak but was rejected by Arafat who abandoned the conference without proposing an alternative. This plan would have amounted to 100% of the Gaza strip and the equivalent of 95% of the West Bank. Period, end of story. The reason why Arafat rejected the plan has nothing to do with land or Jerusalem. It had to do with his having to give up on the long standing Palestinian demand that the Palestinians in refugee camps be allowed to resettle in Israel. As long as the Palestinians insist on this demand, there will be no peace. There is absolutely no possibility that any Israeli government, even one led by Yossi Beilin would agree to any such proposal. Now if the various Israel bashers on this board don't like it, tough noogies. Ain't going to happen.

Now, in fairness to Mr. SS, the possibility that Barak would lose an election to Sharon over this proposal, if Arafat had accepted it was certainly a possibility. However, I can't agree that Sharon would have rejected it, given that Clinton and later Bush probably would have put on a full court press. Although this may have had a small influence on Arafats' thinking, I suspect that he was far more concerned about his own survival, given the opposition in the Palestinian street to any plan not allowing resettlement of Palestinian in refugee camps in Israel.

Posted by SLC | June 12, 2007 11:41 PM

As always, it's quite something to watch SLC frothing at the mouth with hatred.

You can understand why he clings so tightly to his bigotry and fear. He's so consumed with it that if you took it away, there wouldn't be anything left inside him at all.

Posted by ArgleBargle | June 13, 2007 12:49 AM

I will pose the same question to Mr. abb1 that I once posed to columnist Robert Novak. Has he ever said anything positive about the State of Israel?

Good hummus. Could've been a good happy country if it dropped its odious ethnocentric ideology and militarism that goes with it.

Tell you what, old man, fight the obsession. It's not healthy. Get help. Avoid reading blogs for a while. Admit that you have a problem.

Remember what God told you (from wikipedia):

You shall not make for yourself an image, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me...

That's the first and the most important thing you shouldn't do and you're guilty as hell with your mindless worshiping of a stupid little country.

Think about it, old man; you can beat this, you can.

Posted by abb1 | June 13, 2007 3:03 AM

Re abb1

1. I think that Mr. abb1 has clearly stated that he hates the State of Israel and has nothing good to say about it.

2. Since I am an unbeliever, I am greatly underwhelmed by references to scripture.

Re arglebargle

Hey, argiebargie is back. I have certainly missed his insightful (not) comments lately. I can't recall his having contributed anything substantive to the discussion, other then name calling.

By the way, I wonder what the Israel bashers and haters think about the current activities in the Gaza Strip. I suppose they will blame it all on Israel. If only the Government of Israel would agree to go out of business, Fatah and Hamas would be able to get along with each other (not).

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1181570262104&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Posted by SLC | June 13, 2007 7:51 AM

Since I am an unbeliever, I am greatly underwhelmed by references to scripture.

Big mistake, my friend, big mistake. Maybe it's too late for you, but why condemn the next four generations?

Posted by abb1 | June 13, 2007 9:09 AM

SLC

I merely refer to a visit to Palestine by American writer Mark Twain in 1867 . . .

Mark Twain was a popular writer and humorist, not a demographer. I think Twain himself would laugh at the notion that his impressionistic ramblings were grounds for ignoring actual census data collected by the Ottoman government.

Posted by David Tomlin | June 13, 2007 9:21 AM

Hey SLC, what does it feel like knowing that in the actual Israel, wingnuts like you are considered racist jokes? Is that why you've admitted you've never gone there?

Posted by Reality Man | June 13, 2007 11:44 AM

While quoting Dennis Ross might be pertinent, it's important to note that he currently works for AIPAC, and as such, his impartiality in the matter is suspect. And as far as Palestinian resettlement went, Arafat was surprisingly flexible. For a more nuanced, non-AIPAC shill view of the situation, read the below:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14380

From there:

" While denouncing Israeli settlements as illegal, they accepted the principle that Israel would annex some of the West Bank settlements in exchange for an equivalent amount of Israeli land being transferred to the Palestinians. While insisting on the Palestinian refugees' right to return to homes lost in 1948, they were prepared to tie this right to a mechanism of implementation providing alternative choices for the refugees while limiting the numbers returning to Israel proper. Despite their insistence on Israel's withdrawal from all lands occupied in 1967, they were open to a division of East Jerusalem granting Israel sovereignty over its Jewish areas (the Jewish Quarter, the Wailing Wall, and the Jewish neighborhoods) in clear contravention of this principle. "

I'm not really obfuscating here, you clearly are.

Posted by SS | June 13, 2007 12:01 PM

I'm not really obfuscating here, you clearly are.

I don't think it's fair to SLC to say he's obfuscating, at least in any normal sense. It's not that he knows the facts of the matter and is lying about them -- it's that he literally cannot perceive what reality is. That's because he's a Bull Connor-level bigot. If there were a KKK focused on Palestinians, he'd join it. As he's said several times, his solution to the situation is to kill and kill and kill some more.

His hate and ignorance are such a core part of his personality that he just can't afford to let go of them. His entire sense of himself would collapse. Thus, he MUST believe genuinely crazy things. And he does.

Posted by ArgleBargle | June 13, 2007 12:16 PM

Re SS

1. Mr. SS apparently has a reading comprehension problem. I distinctly stated that Arafats' rejection of the Clinton/Ross plan was not based on land or Jerusalem. It was due to his having to give up the demand for resettlement of Palestinians in refugee camps in Israel.

2. Dennis Ross does not work for AIPAC, contrary to Mr. SSs' claim. He is a fellow of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard Un. and the Washington Institute. Mr. SSs' lies are really getting tiresome.

3. Dennis Ross, who is usually the subject of viscous attacks by the neocons, labored for some 12 years during the Bush 1 and Clinton administrations to achieve a Palestinian State. Thanks to the unwillingness of the Palestinian leadership to give up the demand for resettlement of Palestinian refugees in Israel, he failed. By he way, in fairness to Clinton and Arafat, they were dubious about the Camp David meeting from the get go. This meeting was the brainchild of Israeli PM Barak, who somehow got the idea in his head that he could solve the Israeli/Palestinian problem once and for all with a comprehensive proposal. For a very smart man (I believe he has a PhD in Mathematics), he screwed up big time.

Re Arglebargle

What can one say about Mr. argiebargie, the amateur psychiatrist who conducts his diagnoses from afar. Much like Carol Lieberman who diagnosed Michael Schiavo as a wife abuser from 3000 miles away, without ever having interviewed him or the physicians who were treating his wife.

Re David Tomlin

1. I would suggest that Mr. Tomlin provide a reference to the census data of the Ottoman Empire as of 1867. Most of the so-called census results reported on Arab web sites are phony.

2. Mark Twain merely reported on what he observed, which was that the area seemed depopulated. There is no question that British/German competition led to a substantial influx of both Arabs from Egypt and Iraq and Jews from Europe. The influx of Jews from the Arab countries didn't get significantly underway until after 1948 when they were expelled (the biggest influx being from Iraq).

Posted by SLC | June 13, 2007 1:24 PM

"Mr. SS apparently has a reading comprehension problem. I distinctly stated that Arafats' rejection of the Clinton/Ross plan was not based on land or Jerusalem. It was due to his having to give up the demand for resettlement of Palestinians in refugee camps in Israel."

Except that people involved with the negotiations said that they were willing to reach a compromise on this issue, as long as SOME Palestinians were allowed to resettle in Israel. Nevermind that Arafat did not have the right to negotiate that in first place, the right of return is something that can't be negotiated away as it's guaranteed to the individual refugees. He didn't have the legal standing to give away that right.

" Dennis Ross does not work for AIPAC, contrary to Mr. SSs' claim. He is a fellow of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard Un. and the Washington Institute"

Technically true - Dennis Ross does work for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), which was founded by former AIPAC director Martin Indyk. As such WINEP is technically not AIPAC, while it advocates almost identical policies.

"Thanks to the unwillingness of the Palestinian leadership to give up the demand for resettlement of Palestinian refugees in Israel, he failed. By he way, in fairness to Clinton and Arafat, they were dubious about the Camp David meeting from the get go. "

And that's where you're wrong - the meetings failed because:

1) They tried to do too much - there was too much bad blood between the sides to achieve the level of trust necessary to achieve a lasting agreement.

2) The proposed Palestinian state was unviable - the original proposed borders would have split the west bank down the middle with the little split belonging to Israel. Along with that, the Palestinian state would have been completely demilitarized, with Israel controlling airspace, EM, and water supply, plus having veto power over any treaties signed with other countries. That's not a viable state, that's a protectorate.

3) The individual sides were incompetent - no one was really prepared to make an agreement that would be lasting.

Posted by SS | June 13, 2007 1:41 PM

And that's where you're wrong

Again, I don't think it's right to call SLC "wrong" in any normal sense. He's like the lunatics who think Saddam Hussein gave his WMD to Syria -- they really do believe this, because they're nuts. There's no information you could give them to get them to change their mind. In fact, SLC often recommends a columnist who (in addition to her own frothing at the mouth about Arabs) endorses the insane WMD-in-Syria tale.

That's the level of crazy inside SLC. It's not something a sane human being can engage with, although I admire your attempt.

Posted by ArgleBargle | June 13, 2007 5:14 PM

SLC:

There is no question that British/German competition led to a substantial influx of both Arabs from Egypt and Iraq and Jews from Europe.

I've been reading about these matters for a long time, and this is the first time I've seen anyone attribute the First Aliyah to 'British/German competition'. It's usually attributed to pogroms in Russia, and to some Jewish intellectuals articulating an ideology of Jewish nationalism that would soon give rise to the Zionist movement.

In the opinion of Yehoshua Porath, an impeccably pro-Zionist scholar, European influence stimulated population growth in Ottoman Palestine mainly by reducing infant mortality. (The linked articles, particularly the second, include some discussion of Ottoman census data.)

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/5249

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/5172

Posted by David Tomlin | June 14, 2007 6:14 AM