So Very Clever

I wonder who wrote TNR's unsigned editorial on Hamas and what was going through his head when he wrote this:

A great debate has already begun on the subject of who lost Gaza. Increasingly, one hears that the Israelis did, or the Americans did; that the disaster is the consequence of Israeli policies or American policies, of Israeli harshness and American indifference. It is necessary to insist, therefore, that the primary responsibility for Palestinian actions falls on Palestinians. To believe the opposite is to hold a condescending imperialist view of the Palestinians as the passive objects of others; as nothing but the wretched playthings of power, of circumstances over which they have no control; as people in some way unqualified for history.

Could the author of those lines seriously expect a single person on the planet to regard TNR as the authentic voice of anti-imperialism west of the Jordan River? Obviously not. But so what's the point? It reflects, I think, a dangerous self-deception. The piece much more appropriately on a rancid note of smug condescension:

For many decades, the world has clamored for Palestinian self-determination. Well, the clamor can now cease. Palestinian self-determination is here for all the world to see. So is self-determination good news or bad news? It all depends on what is determined.

What the argument here is supposed to be, I couldn't quite say? Is a decades-long program of illegal settlement-construction really given retroactive legitimacy by the outcome of an armed struggle in June 2007? Would it really be "imperialist" of me to note that the self-fulfilling prophecies of the Israeli right have been the Palestinian rejectionists' best friend for a long time? Meanwhile, I don't want to say anything untoward, but the editorial has a remarkable way of not grappling at all with US policy, either forward- or backward-looking; of saying what, if any, American interests are in play here and how they might best be advanced.

Comments

Is a decades-long program of illegal settlement-construction really given retroactive legitimacy by the outcome of an armed struggle in June 2007?

Yes.

This has been another edition of Simple Answers, h/t Atrios, yada yada.

See, for other examples, "It was OK to trash Grenada because none of our guys got hurt," "It was great to invade Panama 'cuz Noriega did drugs and 'r guys play loud tunes an' they roxx", "It was great to blow up 50,000 people in Iraq as long as everyone was seeing kewl pix on the teevee," etc. etc. ad nauseam.

Shorter Cap'n: 'our' guys are never wrong, even when they've been rilly fucking careless and stupid, as long as we can stick our fingers in our ears and avoid hearing about how they've been rilly fucking careless and stupid.

Posted by Captain Goto | June 28, 2007 1:11 PM

Matt,

It would really (really really) behoove you to actually go to the Middle East -- learn a thing or two instead of putting out such pablum as this

"Is a decades-long program of illegal settlement-construction really given retroactive legitimacy by the outcome of an armed struggle in June 2007?"

which so easily elides in "arab speak" to this
"Is a decades-long program of Zionism really given retroactive legitimacy by the outcome of armed struggles in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982, 1987 and 2000?"

Facts on the ground. learn about them. Get out of your pajamas.

Posted by ILP | June 28, 2007 1:13 PM

ILP, just a clue:

If you are really sincere about 'facts on the ground', you aren't likely to pretend that your correspondent is just itching to have his words 'elided into Arab-speak' or some such tendentious bullcrap.

Strawmen. Stop relying on them. Get out of your own ass.

Posted by Captain Goto | June 28, 2007 1:24 PM

"For many decades, the world has clamored for Palestinian self-determination. Well, the clamor can now cease."

Can anyone even begin to fathom the amount of racism of this statement. Unlike every person in the world, the Palestinians just do not, and should no, have the right to self-determination.

It is unbelievable that a magazine could print this rubbish. The right to self-determination is an inalienable right that no one can abdicate even if they wanted to. Whatever the Palestinians do, and regardless whose fault it is, they do not lose thir right to self-determination!

According to the pigs at TNR then, colonialism should be instituted in most of Africa, because decolonization has brought about civil wars, genocides, and misgovernance. If someone said that about any African country they would rightly be derided as a racist pig and not given a platform anywhere.

Say that about Palestinians, however, and you get an editorial in one of the most influtential American newspapers around. The racism in this country towards Palestinians is just amazing.

Posted by saifedean | June 28, 2007 1:29 PM

A great debate has already begun on the subject of who lost the Bantustans. Increasingly, one hears that the the South African whites did, or the Americans and British did; that the disaster is the consequence of white South African policies or American policies, of white South African harshness and American indifference. It is necessary to insist, therefore, that the primary responsibility for actions in Transkei - the corruption, the brutality, the lack of democracy, the seizing of power through the barrel of a gun - falls on the blacks of Transkei. To believe the opposite is to hold a condescending imperialist view of black Africans as the passive objects of others; as nothing but the wretched playthings of power, of circumstances over which they have no control; as people in some way unqualified for history. ... African self-determination is here for all to see.

Posted by otto | June 28, 2007 1:32 PM

"Is a decades-long program of illegal settlement-construction really given retroactive legitimacy by the outcome of an armed struggle in June 2007?"

which so easily elides in "arab speak" to this
"Is a decades-long program of Zionism really given retroactive legitimacy by the outcome of armed struggles in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982, 1987 and 2000?"

There's this subtle distinction between "legitimacy" and "status quo" that seems to elude many people.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | June 28, 2007 1:35 PM

“It’s very hard to put your finger on the magazine’s ideological pulse, and that drives people up the wall, especially in this day and age,” Mr. Foer said

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/24/books/24repu.html?ex=1183176000&en=df3fe014b0d75d2e&ei=5070

Posted by otto | June 28, 2007 1:38 PM

The racism in this country towards Palestinians is just amazing.

Posted by saifedean | June 28, 2007 1:29 PM

>>>>>>>>>>

I must agree, except that the racism is coming from the right wing cult of Israeli centric Jews in this country, not your mainstream American.

I have watched the Isr-Pal conflict for 6 years, long enough to see the "game' Israel plays. From what I hear and observe on the net and in the public more Americans are catching on to what that conflict is about.

Our part in supporting Israel in their actions ranks right up there with our Iraq invasion.

If we wern't the US we would have been charged as an accomplice in war crimes and slowmo genocide a long time ago.

Posted by Carroll | June 28, 2007 1:49 PM

"Meanwhile, I don't want to say anything untoward, but the editorial has a remarkable way of not grappling at all"

This is just the universally-recognized "I can't argue with the point so let's complain about stuff they didn't discuss" tactic.

Obviously this editorial is pushback against the sort of one-sided tripe M.J. Rosenberg wrote at TPM Cafe the other day. Clearly the events in Gaza are something of a blow to the ideology of most of the commenters above, and instead of acknowledging that while arguing the incontrovertible fact that there's plenty of fault on all sides, they want to stick to blaming only Israel. TNR gets to react directly to that reaction. You can complain that the magazine as a whole doesn't take what you consider a balanced view of the conflict, but not individual articles that don't purport to be general.

Posted by rilkefan | June 28, 2007 2:10 PM

I don't see any reason to be coy about the writer of this unsigned editorial. It was clearly written by Marty Peretz - its pomposity and tendentiousness and chest-thumping anti-Palestinian animus are among the tipoffs (I say as a supporter of Israel). Peretz's minion James Kirchick could have made the same substantive points, but Kirchick is actually a much better writer.

When Peretz gave up control of TNR to new owners a few months ago, some reports noted that the new owners shared his views of Isr-Pal, and I'd say letting him write editorials like this is the proof.

Posted by Richard Riley | June 28, 2007 2:11 PM

Well, Mr. Yglesias and the Israel bashers are having a field day with the TNR opinion piece. Apparently, the fact that all settlements in Gaza were abandoned is a fact that should be ignored, because, after all, the Government of Israel had the temerity to decline to go out of business and leave Palestine altogether. That's the only action they could take which would meed the approval of Mr. otto, Mr. Captain Gato, Mr. Saifedean, Mr. Carroll, not to mention the yet to be heard from Mr. Reality Man or Mr. argiebargie. I would like to single out Mr. Saifedean, after having visited his website where his hatred for Jews in general and Israelis in particular if obvious. I have a flash for Mr. Saifedean. His claim that the Palestinians currently living in refugee camps will be resettled in Israel ain't going to happen. I suggest that he stop smoking those lefty luckies.

Posted by SLC | June 28, 2007 2:50 PM

"Could the author of those lines seriously expect a single person on the planet to regard TNR as the authentic voice of anti-imperialism west of the Jordan River? Obviously not. But so what's the point? It reflects, I think, a dangerous self-deception."

The point is that one must treat Palestinians as adults and not infants. Adults take SOME responsibility for their own lives.

"What the argument here is supposed to be, I couldn't quite say? Is a decades-long program of illegal settlement-construction really given retroactive legitimacy by the outcome of an armed struggle in June 2007?"

The only way to describe that comment is non sequetur. There are no settlements in Gaza and we see the results of Palestinian self determination there. That was the point. I believe in a separate state for Palestinians, but the Palestinians have made one iota of internal progress toward being responsible enough for such a state.

This again leads to my first point that Palestinians need to stop being infantalized by the west and acting as if they have no responsibility for their own actions.

Posted by Dave | June 28, 2007 3:12 PM

Rilkefan,

We can argue about responsibility for the events in Gaza & beyond, but “the incontrovertible fact that there's plenty of fault on all sides” is something the The New Republic would never acknowledge. I’ve been reading TNR on-and-off since the early 1990’s, and I don’t recall reading a single editorial that found fault with Israel.

Posted by Peter H | June 28, 2007 3:39 PM

'"the incontrovertible fact that there's plenty of fault on all sides” is something the The New Republic would never acknowledge'

Then that's what MY should have posted about, instead of knocking a paragraph that makes the (to me entirely reasonable) point that the Palestinians are grownups and focussing all blame on Israel does them (and the truth) a disservice.

Posted by rilkefan | June 28, 2007 3:46 PM

rilkefan, your logic applies equally well to Iraq. You can follow the argument where it leads, to LGF, or you can stay here and be demure.

Posted by sniflheim | June 28, 2007 4:18 PM

Unlike every person in the world, the Palestinians just do not, and should no, have the right to self-determination.

Tell that to the Basque and the Quebecois.

Heck, Indonesia has over 700 different ethnic groups.

Posted by David | June 28, 2007 5:03 PM

sniflheim: "rilkefan, your logic applies equally well to Iraq."

Cheney/Bush were idiots and Iraq wasn't a polity ready to convert to democracy following years of Saddam and sanctions. It's pretty easy to recognize those two obvious facts at the same time. The actual LGF model is to say things are simple and my side is 100% correct, or anyway everything's the other guy's fault. That's what you're doing here - congratulations on adopting the Bush mindset.

Posted by rilkefan | June 28, 2007 5:15 PM

Tell that to the Basque and the Quebecois.

Heck, Indonesia has over 700 different ethnic groups.

While it may be true that every single identifiable ethnic group does not get its own country, that doesn't undermine the point about self determination. Since when are the Basque and Quebecois denied the right to vote or move freely in their respective countries. Were Israel to grant these rights to all Palestinians in the occupied territories I think that might well count as self determination too. Though I admit that the concept of self determination can be overplayed and lead to tragic results.

However, the issue in Gaza is not self determination. The Palestinians clearly are not completely free to determine their own destiny. Hamas won elections, to be sure. And then wrested power away from another faction in a short civil war. But this can almost be seen as a battle over which gang controls the prison. Grant Gaza full control over its international borders and withdraw all Israeli military and then we can begin to talk about whether or not the Palestinians have failed in their ambition to run their own lives.

Posted by Rob Mac | June 28, 2007 5:29 PM

Re Rob Mac

That's right, give the terrorists in Gaza control over their own borders so they can import all the weapons they want, paid for by Iran.

Posted by SLC | June 28, 2007 5:40 PM

SLC, whether giving Palestinians control over their own borders is or is not a good idea is actually beside the point in the current discussion. I had hoped that was obvious enough. The point I'm making is that it's disingenuous to argue that self-determination has failed in Gaza when it fact it has never been tried!

Posted by Rob Mac | June 28, 2007 5:52 PM

Rob Mac,

This is the beauty of the absurd position of disgusting scum like SLC. The Palestinians never had any real sovereignty over anything, and yet what happens has to justify that they should never get soveriegnty, nationhood or independence, or freedom of movement or any basic human rights.

According to this moron and his disgusting likes, Africa should be colonized again since its leaders have not done a great job. The irony is, of course, that all African governments have had much more soveriegnty, authority, monopoly of power and rights than the Palestinians could dream of.

Posted by saifedean | June 28, 2007 6:02 PM

"Would it really be "imperialist" of me to note that the self-fulfilling prophecies of the Israeli right have been the Palestinian rejectionists' best friend for a long time?"

It would not. But it would be correct for you to note that the Palestinian rejectionists have been the best friend of the Israeli right for decades.

Posted by kishnevi | June 28, 2007 10:14 PM

Posted by saifedean | June 28, 2007 1:29 PM:"Unlike every person in the world, the Palestinians just do not, and should no, have the right to self-determination."

The natural state for any ethnic group is a lack of self-determination. There are only 180 or so countries in the world. There are more ethnic groups than that in Nigeria.

Posted by saifedean | June 28, 2007 1:29 PM:"According to the pigs at TNR then, colonialism should be instituted in most of Africa, because decolonization has brought about civil wars, genocides, and misgovernance. If someone said that about any African country they would rightly be derided as a racist pig and not given a platform anywhere."

Actually people have made that argument without being derided too much and are still given a platform. Britain's Paul Johnson for instance.

Posted by saifedean | June 28, 2007 6:02 PM :"This is the beauty of the absurd position of disgusting scum like SLC. The Palestinians never had any real sovereignty over anything, and yet what happens has to justify that they should never get soveriegnty, nationhood or independence, or freedom of movement or any basic human rights."

Every Palestinian with a gun in his hand has total sovereignty over what he does with that gun. No one forces anyone to shoot anyone else. They choose to. They did not have absolute control over Gaza, but they had pretty much all the control they wanted. So they could not import weapons from Iran? Big deal. They ran their own schools, their own police force and so on. They chose to keep firing rockets into Israel and they chose to murder each other. No one made them.

Posted by Rob Mac | June 28, 2007 5:29 PM:"Grant Gaza full control over its international borders and withdraw all Israeli military and then we can begin to talk about whether or not the Palestinians have failed in their ambition to run their own lives."

I see your point, but you see the obvious sense in the Oslo process - the idea was through a series of small steps to build confidence in long term peace. Now Israel has not been entirely compliant but the Palestinians have not done a thing towards reassuring Israel the terror is going to end. Now you can claim that the sensible policy is total surrender to the Palestinian demands and then hope that they will change (see Robert Mugabe). Or perhaps the Oslo process has some sense to it? What have the Palestinians been able to control and given the limitations of their control, what have they been able to do? Well they have been able to control a lot and they have done nothing whatsoever to move towards peace. In my opinion. It is absurd to expect Israel to surrender its security while it is still living next door to terrorists. I would not sleep at night next door to unrepentant cannibals. Why would anyone demand that I should? Let Hamas take a few baby steps. Recognise Israel for instance.

Posted by HeiGou | June 29, 2007 4:27 AM

I like this violence. It means other Palestinians are resisting Hamas.

Posted by David Welch | June 29, 2007 7:43 AM

Gaza is just a small slum, crowded with tenements and incredible poverty. After the election of Hamas Israel cut off outside funding and support to the PA. The U.S. and Israel sold arms to various gang leaders in there as well.

This would be like taking a housing project in inner city Chicago, cutting off all outside funding, and then when gangs shoot at each other saying that we can now see blacks aren't ready for the vote.

Anyone who doesn't see how Gaza was set up to fail is either stone racist or hasn't kept up on the actual situation there. It goes back a long way too -- Israel has been encouraging Palestinian extremism as a way to avoid direct negotiations for years now.

Posted by mq | June 29, 2007 3:12 PM

Posted by mq | June 29, 2007 3:12 PM :"Gaza is just a small slum, crowded with tenements and incredible poverty. After the election of Hamas Israel cut off outside funding and support to the PA. The U.S. and Israel sold arms to various gang leaders in there as well."

Israel did no such thing. Hamas members have been boasting about bringing Iranian cash into Gaza. They ceased to give it aid and ceased transferring money to the Hamas government. Why should Israel fund terrorists attacks on Jews? Europe also cut aid and so did America. The US and Israel tried to strengthen the Palestinian *government*. They did not sell weapons to gang leaders. They provided training and money to the PA's police force. A slight difference.

Posted by mq | June 29, 2007 3:12 PM:"This would be like taking a housing project in inner city Chicago, cutting off all outside funding, and then when gangs shoot at each other saying that we can now see blacks aren't ready for the vote."

And so no one was shooting at anyone else before on that housing estate? It is all down to the cut in funding? It is nothing remotely like this at all. The Palestinians elected a bunch of Islamic terrorists to replace the less effective Arab nationalist terrorists in the PA and sensible people refused to deal with them until they make some effort towards peace. The ball is still in their court.

Posted by mq | June 29, 2007 3:12 PM:"Anyone who doesn't see how Gaza was set up to fail is either stone racist or hasn't kept up on the actual situation there."

Pot. Kettle. etc etc.

Posted by mq | June 29, 2007 3:12 PM:"It goes back a long way too -- Israel has been encouraging Palestinian extremism as a way to avoid direct negotiations for years now."

Sure it is all the Jews' fault. Clearly they want Jews to die.

Posted by HeiGou | June 30, 2007 6:39 AM

Posted by SLC | June 28, 2007 2:50 PM
>>>>>>>>>

You know buddy, I see your kind of stuff all over the net every time the Israel subject comes up.
The most striking thing about the fanatics among the Israeli camp is their dishonesty and total lack of logic in arguing their point and their falling back on the eternal whine "everyone wants to kill the jews" claptrap. Hell, if you were occupying and decimating my land I guarentee you I would be doing a lot worse to you than the Palestines are doing.

I am an American , not a Jew or a Muslim and I call it like I see it on both sides. And Israel is in the wrong in this deal.

You are occupying their land, you are practicing collective punishment on an entire population. and the "security" excuse is long exposed for what it is...a land grab, pure and simple.

Consider yourself lucky your promised land didn't turn out to be some part of the US...if you had practiced the same thing here as Israel did in settling Palestine you would be extinct and nothing but a footnote in history. You still may be because as far as I and a lot of other Americans are concerned supporting this Israeli occupation is a blot on the reputation of this country and needs to end. I suggest you expend your energy on changing Israel if you want it to survive.

Posted by Carroll | June 30, 2007 12:18 PM