It's sort of amusing for Martin Peretz to go around acting as if maybe he was a huge supporter of the Palestinian people's national aspirations until just a couple of weeks ago and now he reluctantly needs to proclaim the end of Palestine.
« 1,000 Is a Very Big Number | Main | Serve the Servants »
The End of Palestine
25 Jun 2007 09:34 am
Comments (26)
Amusing or infuriating?
As far as Peretz is concerned, he'd first send Hillary to Palestine and then get rid of them both.
A twofer!
Does anybody take this man seriously, anymore?
Does anybody take this man seriously, anymore?
please don't talk about Matt's future employer in such sarcastic terms. The Raving Racist thinks Bantustans for Palestine are just fine. Give it time, Matt will eventually come around to that, too.
it's just a short 18 months until Indyk and Ross are again running our Israel policy, and maybe Matt will have a full-time gig at The New Reichstag by then, and we can all celebrate how most excellent our New Bantustans For Palestine policy really is.
In 1982 Ha'aretz interview, Peretz explained to a reporter that Israel needed to turn the Palestinians "into just another crushed nation, like the Kurds or the Afghans" and thereby make their problem "boring."
That is all you need to know about MP's views on the Palestinians.
otto, do you have a link for that? That would be useful to have around for shutting up any of the weird Marty Pisshead worshipers out there.
the palestinians wounds are self inflicted. they could have had their state by now, and a rather prosperous one at that. all they had to do was this: not explode in the streets and buses in israel. and any references to apatheid are absolutely preposterous.
Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | June 25, 2007 10:49 AM:"The Raving Racist thinks Bantustans for Palestine are just fine."
They may not be fine, but they are a start. They could have been a place to begin further talks once trust had been built up. It is absurd to think all the hatred is going to end tomorrow. If the Palestinians want a state small steps towards that end are sensible. Of course they never miss a chance to miss a chance.
Posted by otto | June 25, 2007 11:51 AM:"In 1982 Ha'aretz interview, Peretz explained to a reporter that Israel needed to turn the Palestinians "into just another crushed nation, like the Kurds or the Afghans" and thereby make their problem "boring.""
Apart from Chomsky, I can find no source for this claim at all. Usually Chomsky is careful to misrepresent real quotes, but in this case it is highly suspect. Before I point out it is a lie, may I ask where you got this source from? Do you have a copy of Haaretz for that date?
Posted by otto | June 25, 2007 11:51 AM:"That is all you need to know about MP's views on the Palestinians."
Or Chomsky's on honest reporting of evidence.
I rely on Eric Alterman who, by chance, refers to the 1982 Peretz interview in today's Altercation:
http://mediamatters.org/altercation/
The people who come here and portray the Palestinians as helpless victims are highly amusing.
The dog won't hunt no more.
Re mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari
The attached link describes an excellent approach to attacking the Gaza problem. The time is long past for the IDF to stop playing pattycake with the Hamas terrorists and impose Hama rules.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1182409609548&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Re Yglesias
Actually, the concept of total victory over the Palestinian terrorists and requiring their unconditional surrender is not a bad idea. Certainly no argument can be made that the Germans and Japanese are far better off having lost the Second World War.
Posted by otto | June 25, 2007 2:52 PM:"I rely on Eric Alterman who, by chance, refers to the 1982 Peretz interview in today's Altercation"
That was hardly by chance. It is not evidence either. So we're still down to no credible source for that quote at all, right?
"the palestinians wounds are self inflicted. they could have had their state by now, and a rather prosperous one at that. all they had to do was this: not explode in the streets and buses in israel. and any references to apatheid are absolutely preposterous."
During our own Revolution, many innocent Tory civilians were killed for their beliefs. Some radical communists killed innocent people in South Africa, which is the type of thing conservatives used to paint the ANC as communists and blacks as needing apartheid. Many innocent Brits were killed in India's path to independence. The bombing of the King David Hotel did not invalidate the idea of a Zionist homeland for the Jews. Croatians killed innocent Serbians in the early days of post-Cold War independence. Today the US is leaning towards recognizing Kosovo's independence despite the fact that over a thousand innocent minority Serbian civilians (as of 2003) have been killed by the KLA and over 100,000 have been ethnically displaced (which probably counts as ethnic cleansing) since our intervention there. During the Pakistani Civil War, Naxalite terrorists operated in Bangladesh. Riots in East Timor saw the deaths of innocent people who leaned towards Indonesia. Do the actions of the few invalidate the right to autonomy of the many for these countries? Should Kashmir, Chechnya, Tamil Ilaam, Western Sahara, Northern Ireland, Xinjiang, Tibet, Kurdistan and other places be forced to live under communism just because some people opted for terrorism? Until the day that all peoples of a certain chosen ethnicity are centrally mentally controlled by their leaders, shit will happen and it will be bad, but to take it to mean that an entire nation must live under imperialism is stupid. Every moment that a country enjoys imperial or colonial rule over another people, they commit an injustice. Terrorism, while never defensible, in our day and age, sadly is a byproduct of the most extreme elements of any population which beliefs it suffers an injustice. Imperialism and colonialism are damaging to the moral center and soul of any nation, as has been shown by the experiences of Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, Indonesia, Turkey, Italy, Spain, Portugal, South Africa, Ethiopia, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and other nations. It scars the people's sense of themselves and divides societies. Israel is simply the most recent victim, and like all others who have undergone this, is experiencing wounds that were both thrust upon it (by the threat of invasion in 1967) and by its own hand (by the stupid dream of Greater Israel).
I put it up before Alterman did today, I'm pretty sure, and certainly independently. The motivation for both was Peretz's "End of Palestine" article, so in that sense it's not 'by chance'.
If you think an academic who's well published on US media politics, making a subject-relevant quote, backed by the date of the easily-checkable periodical in question, doesn't constitute a credible source, you clearly don't believe anything you read at all, 99.99% of which is much less sourced than that. I look forward to your "where's the credible source?" questions when someone denies the moon is made of green cheese. I also look forward to your "where's the credible source?" questions appended to every MP post on the Spine.
So get off your ass and find a Ha'aretz archive. The English and Hebrew versions don't vary too much (although they can especially on controversial subjects). You'll be a hero among your peers, you could even get a bunch of center-left bloggers to help you burn Chomsky in effigy for his vile slander of Marty Peretz. Until then though, you don't get to play Calvinball and make up a rule that an attribution by Chomsky is automatically suspect, especially a quote by Peretz saying very typical Peretz things.
Now that Palestine's ended, I assume Peretz will be moving on to other topics. Or does he not really believe what he's saying?
... Israel needed to turn the Palestinians "into just another crushed nation, like the Kurds or the Afghans" ...
The current renaissance, or whatever you call it, of both these crushed, boring nations under US sponsorship imparts an almost suspiciously pointed bit of irony to the (alleged) statement's barbarism. (Even if the quote isn't authentic, does anyone doubt that Peretz has said many similar things?)
Peretz has been the same for at least 30 years. What defect of US political culture prevented most people from acknowledging his extremism until the failure of the Iraq war forced them to?
The current renaissance, or whatever you call it, of both these crushed, boring nations under US sponsorship imparts an almost suspiciously pointed bit of irony to the (alleged) statement's barbarism.
I'm looking at it in a copy of Fateful Triangle published in 1983.
MI: "It's sort of amusing for Martin Peretz to go around acting as if maybe he was a huge supporter of the Palestinian people's national aspirations until just a couple of weeks ago."
"MP: "I was never taken in by the dream of Palestine, although I realized that Israeli dominion over so many Arabs did somewhat dim the incandescence of the Zionist reality, a free Jewish people, free in politics and in spirit, in arts and in science and above all in literature, in law, and in the press, free from the religious coercion of the rabbis, a nation speaking its own language at home at last."
Martin Peretz's only claim in this regard is that he has always been a huge supporter of the Jewish people's national aspirations.
June 4, 1982?
"Peretz has been the same for at least 30 years. What defect of US political culture prevented most people from acknowledging his extremism until the failure of the Iraq war forced them to?"
(blantantaly stealing from Alterman) Ezra Klein pointed out a little while ago that he is widely seen as a cartoon character and thus treated like the old man in the nursing home who has gone off his meds and is allowed to wander around rambling about how the Kaiser stole his cheese. He has never been granted a full professorship at Harvard despite being there for over three decades, which is rather hard to do. It's like find a way to walk off the edge of the Grand Canyon and instead of falling down to one's death, instead falling up through the sky into the vacuum of space, whereupon one's head explodes. His only two paths to securing any type of legacy and accomplishments have been 1) the Evita Peron path of marriage to a wealthy and powerful person and whoring oneself out to them for using that person's influence to gain access to more rich and powerful people and 2) having once taught Al Gore (and here he couldn't even get Gore to choose his speech about the Holocaust). He will be more remembered for the portrayal of him in Shattered Glass and for his blatant anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bigotry.
Posted by otto | June 25, 2007 3:33 PM:"I put it up before Alterman did today, I'm pretty sure, and certainly independently."
Maybe he read you and felt like borrowing it?
Posted by otto | June 25, 2007 3:33 PM:"If you think an academic who's well published on US media politics, making a subject-relevant quote, backed by the date of the easily-checkable periodical in question, doesn't constitute a credible source, you clearly don't believe anything you read at all"
Well obviously. I've read Chomsky you know. Besides, being well published on media politics is not the same as being an expert of Peretz or on the Middle East. We've seen an example of the Leftist "echo chamber" where article after article has come out based on something that someone heard Fisk say that he heard people say. This is not necessary evidence is it?
Posted by Ed Marshall | June 25, 2007 3:37 PM:"So get off your ass and find a Ha'aretz archive."
I didn't make the claim, why should I prove it?
Posted by Ed Marshall | June 25, 2007 3:37 PM:"you could even get a bunch of center-left bloggers to help you burn Chomsky in effigy for his vile slander of Marty Peretz."
What's the point? Everyone knows what Chomsky is like. It is just some of you all love him for it.
Posted by Ed Marshall | June 25, 2007 3:37 PM:"and make up a rule that an attribution by Chomsky is automatically suspect, especially a quote by Peretz saying very typical Peretz things."
I think I said he was usually careful to get the quote right. He rarely quotes incorrectly. He simply misinterprets what he quotes. This looks odd. Typical Peretz things? No doubt you'll be able to find dozens of similar quotes. Look at that "Afghan" thing. Peretz is not that sloppy.
Posted by K | June 25, 2007 3:44 PM:"(Even if the quote isn't authentic, does anyone doubt that Peretz has said many similar things?)"
So it is typical of, you know, that sort of person even if he didn't say it? Prejudice is a wonderful thing you know.
Posted by Ed Marshall | June 25, 2007 3:48 PM:"I'm looking at it in a copy of Fateful Triangle published in 1983."
Yes we all know Chomsky claimed it. So?
I didn't make the claim, why should I prove it?
You claimed Chomsky made it up, so yeah, it's on you. Then you are backing away saying..well, no, it's probably there and just out of context, which means you probably have read Chomsky and knew better in the first place.
"Peretz is not that sloppy."
Have you read his blog? Did you read the article? Have you read any of Timothy Noah's articles on him in which he cites crazy Peretz quotes? The guy is the definition of sloppy. He's a loon. Most proud bigots are. That doesn't mean he necessarily said this particular quote in question, but if you have a guy who likes to punch random people in the street in the face and it turns out a single person lied about getting punched in the face, he is still a random face-puncher.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: What an absolute moron this Peretz idiot is.
Seriously, reading this article and going through his warped history of Palestine was really amusing. He recycles the nonsensical propaganda that used to mascarade as history in nonsensical history books that where shown to be complete fabrications (Joan Peters!) as fact. He completely ignores decades of research (as well as facts on the ground) by hundreds of historians that by and large destroy all of his claims.
It's really fascinating that someone like him would get a place to publish this. Had it been submitted to a freshman history class, he would've failed for this paper. It's so magnificently factually wrong and analytically flawed that one doesn't even need to bother with its despicable racism to critique it.
What an absolute twat.
So it is typical of, you know, that sort of person even if he didn't say it? Prejudice is a wonderful thing you know.
This is silly. Did I refer to some "sort of person," or to one specific individual? Do you deny that he's made many very similar comments? To note that he has isn't to diminish the gravity of falsely attributing something to him, if there were the slightest evidence that that were the case. Nor is it "prejudice" to note the general tenor of his public statements, which is well known.
I don't know if the quotation is authentic, but have seen no reason to think it isn't. We have the specific citation: an interview with Beth Landau in Ha'aretz of June 4, 1982. If you have evidence that the quote doesn't appear in that place, say so. Otherwise, drop it.
Posted by Ed Marshall | June 25, 2007 4:09 PM:"You claimed Chomsky made it up, so yeah, it's on you. Then you are backing away saying..well, no, it's probably there and just out of context, which means you probably have read Chomsky and knew better in the first place."
I made no such claim. At least I have no clear recollection of doing so. Perhaps you would be so kind as to quote what I did say?
Posted by K | June 25, 2007 4:43 PM:"Do you deny that he's made many very similar comments?"
I'd be delighted to see evidence of it.
Posted by K | June 25, 2007 4:43 PM:"I don't know if the quotation is authentic, but have seen no reason to think it isn't. We have the specific citation: an interview with Beth Landau in Ha'aretz of June 4, 1982. If you have evidence that the quote doesn't appear in that place, say so. Otherwise, drop it."
Well Chomsky says it so that's reason to be cautious in and of itself. It does not appear in any reputable source I know of. It seems confined to the hard Islamist-appeasing Left. That is more of a reason to be cautious. We have a specific claim, not exactly a reference. I have no evidence of anything. I am asking for evidence. No one has yet bothered.
Comments closed July 09, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
What an absolute moron this Peretz is.
He continues to harp on about Ariel Sharon's great "idea" of giving the Palestinians a state. Anyone with any knowledge of the conflict will know that what Sharon was doing was precisely to end any option of a Palestinian state, by locking up Palestinians in non-sovereign non-contigious non-viable cantons with Israeli watchtowers around them. In the best case scenario, Palestinians wouldn't have even gotten half of the West Bank. How anyone could form a state there is beyond me.
If this was a great step towards giving the Palestinians a state, then surely, the apartheid regime in South Africa was doing blacks a favour when it "gave" them the Bantustans. This may sound strange, but in its worst incarnations, the Bantustan system of South Africa was much, much better than anything the Israelis ever offered the Palestinians.
The real question is: Why did the world stand up with Mandela when he said he won't accept these Bantustans, but stands with Sharon when he says the Palestinians only deserve these Bantustans.
The answer to this question lies in large parts because scum like Peretz (and Indyk, Dennis Ross, and most American journalists and politicians) somehow view it as legitimate for black South Africans to have human rights, but not for Palestinians.
Posted by saifedean | June 25, 2007 9:52 AM