Cohen on Annapolis

I'd stopped reading Roger Cohen, but Marty Peretz's denunciations of Cohen's latest column made it sound . . . insightful! And, indeed, it's really good:

His best hope in Annapolis may be the Texas connection. If Bush gets behind Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian prime minister who attended the University of Texas, things may move. But he has to stick with him. [...] Fayyad is right. A return to the 1967 lines, plus or minus agreed swaps, is the only basis for a two-state accord. An Israeli settlement freeze is the first step to a Palestinian buy-in. A timetable is the anchor all the talking needs.

Meanwhile, if I read him correctly, Peretz's view is that Israel shouldn't reach an accommodation with the Palestinians, because the Palestinians might break the agreement: "Does he really want Israel to give up the West Bank on the wager that rockets will not be aimed at Jerusalem and Tel Aviv as they are -- daily -- from Gaza onto Sderot?" A Palestinian who reads this kind of "pro-Israel" political commentary is going to have to reach the conclusion that there's no point in conducting talks with Israelis about a two-state solution. Their mentality is that the existence of any kind of Palestinian state is an intolerable threat, since such a state could be used as a launching pad for rockets. That Palestinian is going to reach the conclusion that the only possibility for his people to achieve their national aspirations is going to be through the destruction of Israel.

And through such logic, conflicts would never end. Among other things, Israel would still be threatened by a hostile Egypt at its door and vice-versa. But, really, no compromise and no diplomacy would ever be possible. In the real world, though, there's nobody to make peace with but your enemies. And there's nothing to be gained unless you're willing to at least not rule out in advance the possibility that negotiations might produce a mutually beneficial agreement.

Comments

That Palestinian is going to reach the conclusion that the only possibility for his people to achieve their national aspirations is going to be through the destruction of Israel.

More to the point, who the fuck cares? Didn't on the order of one person die in the rocket attacks on Sderot? Safer than Philadelphia!

There isn't some moment when we can be assured that all future events will be no worse than the one that just occurred. The risk of rockets to Tel Aviv increases. Rockets to Tel Aviv may even increase. That would suck, but one assumes that the Israelis would exact the eye+ as retribution, so there are disincentives available.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | November 28, 2007 9:41 AM

"Meanwhile, if I read him correctly, Peretz's view is that Israel shouldn't reach an accommodation with the Palestinians, because the Palestinians might break the agreement"

I think his point was that Salam Fayyad is not the man to be putting one's hopes on for a cease to Palestinian terrorism. He is a competent technocrat, but as far as controlling terrorist attacks by Hamas against Israeli civilians he has little power.

Posted by Dave | November 28, 2007 9:56 AM

That Palestinian is going to reach the conclusion that the only possibility for his people to achieve their national aspirations is going to be through the destruction of Israel.

Haven't they already reached that conclusion?

Posted by solarjetman | November 28, 2007 10:06 AM

Peretz is a loon, as always, but I don't see the point of bringing up a hypothetical Palestinian who decides that destroying Israel is the way to go just because he read Peretz. That doesn't seem too different from saying there's no peace because MEMRI can cite countless articles expressing virulent rejectionism by Palestinians.

Posted by Haggai | November 28, 2007 10:07 AM

More to the point, formerly staunch supporters of Israel in the US will be forced to conclude that the destruction of the state of Israel is necessary. As have I.

Posted by former Israel supporter | November 28, 2007 10:11 AM

And there's nothing to be gained unless you're willing to at least not rule out in advance the possibility that negotiations might produce a mutually beneficial agreement.

Israel's political leaders say they are not willing to agree to any negotiated peace with the Palestinians that does not provide the Israeli people with real security from terrorist threats. This is actually quite understandable. Unfortunately, these leaders haven't a clue as to how to obtain that real security at the negotiations table.

A negotiated settlement will give the Israeli people the real security they yearn for only if maybe 90% of all Palestinians were delighted with the tremendous victory that had been won at the negotiating table. That's right, the only way the Israelis are ever going to feel secure after signing a peace deal with the Palestinians is if the Palestinians all have smiles on their faces because they had been handsomely compensated for their willingness to grant Israel's Right-To-Exist.

Israel's leaders will finally be able to give their people True Peace only when they have come to realize that it is they who are going to want the Palestinians to feel as though they had won a face-saving victory. Israeli leaders like to think that they are all very savvy. Are they savvy enough to pull off a managed 'defeat' at the negotiations table in order to win a true victory for the Israeli people? Time will tell...

Posted by James Kroeger | November 28, 2007 10:28 AM

If Bush gets behind Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian prime minister who attended the University of Texas, things may move.

I don't know why Matthew thinks this is oh so very insightful.

Reality check: Salam Fayyad is an illegitimately installed viceroy whose "authority" derives not from the consent of the governed, but from an appointment by the Bush-installed Abu Mazen after Hamas thrashed his party at the polls.

The GOP, the Israelis and the Fatah kleptocrats decided that the actual winners of the election -- Hamas -- weren't to their liking, so they decided to pull a Scalia and make Fayyad the "prime minister".

No Palestinian in their right mind gives a sh*t what deal Salam Fayyad signs off on. His presence or absence at Annapolis is meaningless, except insofar it allows Bush the illusion that he will be able to impose some ruinous "settlement" on the Palestinians that reduces them to the status of permanent chattel slaves in a client state of Israel.

Posted by moron | November 28, 2007 10:38 AM

Setting aside the particular case of Peretz, I don't see why the possibility of rockets from the West Banks is so fanciful a fear, or just a transparent attempt to avoid any negotiation at all. It is a fact that no matter what deal might be struck, there will be a faction, however small, among the Palestinians that rejects anything that leaves Israel in existence. This faction will undoubtedly try to keep up violent attacks against Israel. So the real question is, will there be both the will and the capacity in the new Palestinian state to use force to stop them. On past form, the answer is no. No authority has been both willing and able to stop rocket attacks from Gaza for any lengthy period. If such attacks could be launched from the West Bank, they could easily hit major population centers.

So it is in fact a serious gamble to set up a new Palestinian state, particularly if rejectionist states like Iran are allowed to improve the weaponry of rejectionist groups among the Palestinians, as they have with Hezbollah. That's why serious proposals for peace often involve a Western peacekeeping mission in the Palestinian territories, but why Israel should believe this peacekeeping force would be any more willing than the Palestinian state to use force against Palestinian rejectionist groups is unclear.

Posted by rd | November 28, 2007 10:56 AM

Posters above have made most of the relevant points. The idea that a real state can be created from a loosely-defined mob that's never in history had a state of any kind, currently being led by an assortment of competing tribal mafias, is bonkers.

Talk about hubris. Shades of Woodrow Wilson.

Posted by Robert Powell | November 28, 2007 11:06 AM

An oped from the man who should be the Prime Minister of Israel, Uzi Landau.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3476200,00.html

Posted by SLC | November 28, 2007 11:22 AM

T"hat doesn't seem too different from saying there's no peace because MEMRI can cite countless articles expressing virulent rejectionism by Palestinians."

One nice thing about "countless articles expressing virulent rejectionism by Israelis and their friends" is that we do not have to rely on translations by MEMRI. We can read Marty Peretz, Israeli Insider, Jerusalem Post etc. And it is not like Isrealis never strifed Palestinians with rockets.

One should start a diplomatic effort from some package showing good intentions on both sides, including Hamas. I would suggests the following
concessions:

in favor of West Bank: return of land stolen after 2001;

in favor of both West Bank and Gaza: transfer control of the movement of cargo in and out to some third party, EU, the Swiss, anybody but Israel and USA, thus ending the economic blockade,

in favor of Hamas: end of "terrorist" status, free all persons accused of Hamas membership, like Hamas MPs kidnapped by Israel,

in favor of Israel by PLO: serious security measures in West Bank

in favor of Israel by Hamas: end of rocket fire and other actions out of Gaza.

Clearly, Palestinians would gain much more, Israel can reverse almost all of it, so it is a rather minor point. There is no "serious gamble" here, not militarily serious at the very least.

No Israeli government will agree to such initial gestures without visible pressure from outside, if only to deflect internal criticism. Bush Administration will not do it. End of story for the next 1.5 year.

Actually, enthusiastic Arab participation, "even Syria", is pretty much the function of expected Israeli intransingence and American duplicity/lack of efectiveness, so for more radical governments like Syria there is no danger of some concessions to be endorsed later. So such diplomatic calisthenic have some nminor positive value.

Posted by piotr | November 28, 2007 11:26 AM

Kroeger is right about what is necessary for peace, although Palestinian happiness must come about in a way that makes them believe that further violence will lead to a removal of that happiness not further expansion of it. After all no agreement is going to give the Palestinians everything they want, so they need to be happy with what they get, but not under the belief that their violence can get them still more.

But of course similar considerations are true on the Israeli side. They need to become convinced that what they gain is the best that they can get out of a deal as well.

That deals lead to a short term increase in violence is not special to Israel/Palestine. We saw it in Ireland and South Africa, but both decided to put up with the short term danger from opponents of peace and got through to the other side. Given how much of the final peace terms are fixed by necessity, the real question of peace is when both sides will be determined enough to get through that period of violence. With Oslo the Israelis blinked and elected Netenyahu. Otherwise I suspect Oslo could have worked. But now Hamas (which blew up Oslo) is much stronger.

Excluding Hamas though does seem to make this conference an exercise in futility. There was a time that the Hamas PM was suggesting that Hamas would let a peace deal go through by having Abbas negotiate it and then putting it up to referendum so Hamas did not have to directly endorse it. But if that kind of moderation existed in Hamas, the treatment of the Hamas government in Gaza has effectively squelched it. (And it may never have actually existed).

Posted by Lon | November 28, 2007 11:40 AM

'the destruction of the state of Israel is necessary. As have I.'

Lovely. We now have pompous self-righteous commenters who can advocate the deaths of millions of people as if killing them would be the height of virtue.

I understand that there are many people, like 'former israel supporter' (as if), who would like Israel to go away. It makes them happy to imagine that Israel will go away and they bloviate with pleasure about how they want Israel to go away.

But the fact is that Israel is not going to go away unless and until a great many Israelis are killed. And Israelis are not going to permit themselves to be killed without first killing a great many other people.

So anyone who says that 'the destruction of the State of Israel is necessary' is saying, 'I support a conflagration leading to the deaths of millions of people.'

Happy dreams.

Posted by Bloix | November 28, 2007 11:48 AM

The problem with the Peretz statement that even many around here also agree with is its natural conclusion. If Israel can't obtain real security by negotiating with the Palestinians how can they obtain it? Eliminating or relocating the Palestinian people. As it stands the people like Peretz aren't willing to follow their argument to its natural conclusion. Maybe it exceeds even their threshold for inhumanity, maybe they just don't think they could get away with saying it. But instead we get a stalemate where 'real Israeli security' is not obtained in the present nor will it be obtained in the future. The one thing I've never understood about this argument is that Palestine does not pose a military threat to Israel. They could always try pulling back to the 1967 borders and getting rid of the settlements and see how it works out. If after 10 years the terrorist attacks have still continued they could always reclaim the relinquished territory.

I think the reality here is that, collectively, Israel prefers the status quo to any plausible end-state.

Posted by mpowell | November 28, 2007 12:03 PM

Lon:

Palestinian happiness must come about in a way that makes them believe that further violence will lead to a removal of that happiness not further expansion of it.

Precisely.

One big reason why the Palestinians have felt little reluctance to use violence is because they have [almost] nothing to lose. Give them something precious (saved face, riches, peace, a future of hope) to lose and they will be willing to use the policing powers of the new Palestinian state to crush all the remaining militants, because those individuals will be seen as a threat to a wonderful future for the Palestinian people.

My understanding of the Oslo agreement is that it would not have been sufficiently generous to win over the Hamas faithful. Once you reduce the number of holdouts to less than 10%, you have won the peace. The occasional Palestinian Timothy McVeigh will surface, but the 'Arab Street' will no longer be supporting the militants. They will fade away as long as the Israelis are earnest in their efforts to make the Palestinians happy.

Posted by James Kroeger | November 28, 2007 12:23 PM

At some point, doesn't someone have to ask the question as to whether some of the more virulent anti-palestinian commentators and neocons actually aren't thinking about the peace process one way or the other at all, but simply believe that a purported deity "gave" the Jews the West Bank/Judea and Samaria and want Israel to keep it?

I mean, doesn't that explain the knee-jerk rejectionism towards any peace negotiations as well as anything does?

Posted by Dilan Esper | November 28, 2007 12:29 PM

Aren't the "rockets from Gaza" similar to what one can buy from Estes?

Isn't it dishonest of Marty Peretz to mislead his readers by suggesting the "rockets" are a fearsome threat to "Israel's security" --akin to our nuclear Tridents??

I'm shocked. Truly shocked.

Posted by Don Williams | November 28, 2007 12:34 PM

'They could always try pulling back to the 1967 borders and getting rid of the settlements and see how it works out. If after 10 years the terrorist attacks have still continued they could always reclaim the relinquished territory.'

This was Sharon's plan, as executed by the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. It has been a failure from the Israeli point of view, and has led to a civil war among the Palestinians. The withdrawal from southern Lebanon was also unilateral, and the result there from the Israeli point of view was the empowerment of Hezbollah. So there is no appetite among Israelis now for unilateral withdrawal, only for a negotiated solution. But that seems impossible as well.

The problem on the Israeli side is that a large majority want a 2-state solution, but the sentiment in favor is weak and uncertain due to (a legitimate) distrust of the ability of the Palestinian leadership to make peace. One the other hand, a militant minority (as Dilan Esper says) view the West Bank as a God-given integral part of Israel, and will fight and die (and kill, as in the assassination of Rabin) to keep it.

The majority does not have the political will to confront the militant minority and to force them to establish the necessary preconditions to serious peace negotiations - and it would take significant force, including the use of the army to disarm, detain, and remove many settlers. That is the intractable problem on the Israeli side.

The problem on the Palestinian side is similar: the majority of Palestinians want a 2-state solution, but a significant minority, represented by Hamas, want a unified theocratic Muslim state, and are willing to fight for it - and to kill other Palestinians, as we have recently seen.

So on both sides, uncertain moderate majorities who want peace are unable to overcome the resistance of theocratic, militant minorities.

Posted by Bloix | November 28, 2007 12:47 PM

"The problem on the Palestinian side is similar"

The difference is that Israel has shown it will give up large tracts of land with settlements for real peace. It gave up the entire Sinai just 5 years after Egypt invaded Israel and caused it siginificant damage in the Yom Kipur war.

The Palestinians have never shown any real willingness to clamp down on terrorism and the Palestinian people, by electing Hamas, have shown they approve of Hamas's terrorism.

Posted by Dave | November 28, 2007 1:03 PM

Isreal will not have security without the Palestinians. Unfortunately some significant portion of the Isreali polity (Netanyahu's portion of the Likud will stand as exemplar)contends that any Palestinian entity which can in any way threaten Isreal is unacceptable. Why is this unfortunate? It means that any Palestinian police force armed (and thats the rub, the arms) is unacceptable, hence any Palestinian entity capable of contributing to mutual security is unacceptable. Hence, reluctantly, I must agree mpowell.

Any Isreali contribution to any "plausible end state" would further require Isreal to deal with a subset of settlers on the West Bank who would be unwilling to live, given the proper residence or work visas, within an independent and sovereign Palestinian state. These folks form every bit as much a provocation to peace as Hamas or Fatah fighters. Begin's Likud made these folks possible and insisted upon the inclusion of Judea and Samaria within Isreal, hence the occupation aimed, by definition (see the relevant portions of the Geneva Conventions), at a civilian population.

Isreal will only have Palestinian cooperation if it leaves all Palestinian territory and cedes control of Palestine's borders, i.e. if Palestine is genuinely sovereign. Barak's proposal, with its pair of security corridors in the West Bank, did not do this.

While no one should underestimate the difficulties a Palestinian state would face in meeting its legitimate obligations towards Isreal, or the difficulties posed by Hamas and Fatah fighters and potential suicide bombers, Palestine is not going to pose a serious military threat to Isreal anytime soon, unless of course Isreal unilaterally disarms (and that isn't going to happen). Nonetheless, the greater problems to be confronted in acheiving any "plausible end state" are those which the Isrealis have to find solutions for.

Posted by djeri | November 28, 2007 1:04 PM

Why am I not surprised that the insightful op-ed from the man SLC wants to be Israeli PM is a bad article-length comparison of the peace process to the appeasement at Munich.

Whenever a nation is pursuing a stupid, belligerent, self-destructive foreign policy, anywhere in the world, you can be certain that a chorus of sycophants will defend the policy with brain-meltingly awful Munich analogies.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | November 28, 2007 1:07 PM

Re Lafollette Progressive

I'm quite sure that in 1938, the Neville Chamberlains of the world felt that Churchill was proposing a stupid, belligerent self-destructive foreign policy in suggesting that negotiations with Hitler were a waste of time. From that link to the Uzi oped, I am posting a comment from one of the readers.

Winston Churchil speaking in the House of Commons after Munich:

We have suffered a total and unmitigated defeat...you will find that in a period of time which may be measured by years, but may be measured by months, Czechoslovakia will be engulfed in the Nazi régime. We are in the presence of a disaster of the first magnitude...we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road...we have passed an awful milestone in our history, when the whole equilibrium of Europe has been deranged, and that the terrible words have for the time being been pronounced against the Western democracies: "Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting". And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.

The message doesn't change, only the stupidity of people like Mr. Winston Churchil speaking in the House of Commons after Munich:

We have suffered a total and unmitigated defeat...you will find that in a period of time which may be measured by years, but may be measured by months, Czechoslovakia will be engulfed in the Nazi régime. We are in the presence of a disaster of the first magnitude...we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road...we have passed an awful milestone in our history, when the whole equilibrium of Europe has been deranged, and that the terrible words have for the time being been pronounced against the Western democracies: "Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting". And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.

The focus of the message may change, the stupidity of appeasers like Mr. Lafollette Progressive never changes. Like creationist Kurt Wise, Mr. Lafollette Progressive is immune to the facts.

Posted by SLC | November 28, 2007 1:47 PM

As always, SLC quickly points out that any attempt to arrive at a peaceful settlement between the incredibly developed and nuclear-armed Israel and the occupants of the tiny slivers of land known as Palestine which doesn't result in them all being expelled to Lebanon and Jordan and Egypt (or the surface of the Sun, for that matter) is exactly equivalent to the West's support and appeasement with Adolf Hitler at the head of Nazi Germany.

Can't get anything past that guy.

Posted by El Cid | November 28, 2007 2:01 PM

Re El Cid

Poooooooor babies.

Posted by SLC | November 28, 2007 2:43 PM

I'm still not clear on one thing. Why do the (Arab, Christian, and Jewish) Palestinians object to a Jewish supremecist state anyway? Didn't God Himself say in The Bible that this land belongs to the eastern European Ashkenazim who converted to Judaism in the middle ages and have no genetic link the Biblical Judeans? Or maybe I just have a special Zionist copy of the Bible.

And as for the end of racist Jewish supremecist Israel, if the end of racist White supremecist South Africa is any indication, not a single Jew will survive, and wealthy and powerful Israeli Jews will most certainly lose their privileged status in society. Indeed if Jews must tolerate non-Jews as equals, the sun may not even come up tomorrow.

Posted by MM | November 28, 2007 2:45 PM

Chamberlain appeased Hitler by giving away the land and sovereignty of the Czechs against their wishes. The Israelis are negotiating with the Palestinian Arabs to give them their own land and sovereignty, but not as much as they wish.

These two situations are similar in much the same way that the privileges of the British royal family are analogous to those of the Mexican royal family.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | November 28, 2007 3:27 PM

Another way we can know that the Palestinians aren't really like the Nazis (besides all the objective factors such as their lack of a major industrial state and military) is that Republicans aren't flocking to support them.

That's also how we know that whatever they are, Islamo-Fascists aren't really "fascists", because all the right wingers who traditionally are drawn to fascists haven't been drawn to them -- at least, they haven't been drawn to the Islamo-Facists since they were The Freedom Fightin' Mujahedeen under St Ronnie Reagan a couple decades back.

Posted by El Cid | November 28, 2007 3:44 PM

Crikey, SLC - the Munich analogies don't work here. At all. There has been nothing resembling Palestinian aggression except for a few toy rockets and a bunch of guys blowing themselves up. If your going to use WWII analogies, the Palestinians have more in common with the Free French, a lot of bluster, but little substance. And the Nazi analogies are fucking retarded - to paraphrase Jon Stewart "they demean you, they demean your opponent, and frankly, they demean Hitler".

Posted by Sajid | November 28, 2007 3:55 PM

Bloix,

I think the suggestion was that Israel pull back to the 1967 lines and not subject the resulting territories to a crippling seige. It is true that pulling the settlements out of Gaza while leaving most Gazan products to rot at checkpoints did not take care of the Palestinian's anger. Are there any human beings who would have been satisfied with such a "gift".

Posted by Lon | November 28, 2007 4:19 PM

Dave,

The 7 years of Oslo were actually a time that the Palestinians did a good job of clamping down on terrorism. I remember looking at the casualty rates as recorded on an Israeli site, and it took Arafat about a year to begin to get things under control. After that there was a steady decline in terrorism to zero in 2000 until Sharon's march to the Dome. (The statisics page I saw ended there).

The one exception to this was a serious of bombings that Hamas was able to perpetrate for the purpose of getting Netanyahu elected. Unfortunately Hamas was well rewarded for these attacks. And this was during a time in which conditions in the West Bank and Gaza were being made worse by all the border closings, while Israel was prospering due to the decrease in terrorism.

Posted by Lon | November 28, 2007 4:25 PM

James Kroeger,

I would just make one modification to what you said. It was not that the Palestinians weren't promised enough in the end. Actually the final issues were put off so they had no idea what they were being promised. The problem was that there present was not improving while things were improving greatly on the Israeli side.

Hamas was not particularly strong at the time of Oslo. But as Arafat kept the peace while the Palestinian economic situation deterioriated, Hamas got much more popular. After Sharon's provocation, Arafat's continuing to keep the peace while the Palestinian situation declined was largely untenable for that reason. It would simply have led to a Hamas takeover sooner.

Posted by Lon | November 28, 2007 4:29 PM

Re Sajid

Gee, toy rockets. I have a suspicion that if some jackass was firing Quassems into his backyard, he would not be quite as sanguine about it. I suspect he would be down at the cop shop screaming for the gendarmes to do something about it.

Re Lon

What is the basis of Mr. Lons' claim that economic conditions were getting worse for the Palestinians during the 1990s? I recall reading several articles in the Jerusalem Post at the time talking about a building boom taking place in both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip which employed thousands of Palestinians. In addition, there were 10s of thousands of Palestinians employed in Israel at the time.

Re MM

Apparently, Mr. MM is convinced that the Government of Israel will not make use of their arsenal of 200+ nuclear weapons in the event of such a situation as he describes. South Africa didn't have such an arsenal and by the way, genocide was not committed against the white settlers therein, most of whom are still there. I can inform Mr. MM that the State of Israel will not go quietly but will do its best to take the rest of the world with it.

Posted by SLC | November 28, 2007 5:00 PM

What "former Israel supporter" said. It's gone too far, the experiment failed; too late, it can't be fixed. The "Jewish state" in Palestine has to go.

Posted by abb1 | November 28, 2007 5:21 PM

Re abb1

The Jewish state in Palestine will go when Mr. abb1 sees the back of his own ear.

Posted by SLC | November 28, 2007 5:32 PM

I see Mr. or Ms. SLC is all stick and no carrot today.

Either support racist Jewish supremecism and colonialism, or die a hot fiery nuclear death.

Man that's a tough one.

Gonna have to think about that one.

Posted by MM | November 28, 2007 5:40 PM

It's really hard being a Zionist apologist these days, and the pressure must be getting to dear SLC. He or she must have thought Israel was the only democracy in the Middle East, a country in a special category, as was no doubt taught at his Synagogue and in the Zionist propaganda passing for news in the American corporate media. Now he or she is dismayed to find out that this altruistic, courageous little nation is actually a discriminatory state and a lethal bully, the only nuclear rogue state in the Middle East! Israeli 16 year olds patrol Arab neighborhoods in Israel and the Occupied Territories with Uzis, occasionally spraying fire at the Arab children who dare to throw rocks. Now the world sees what Zionism means. It must be hard to be a Zionist these days. I hope, SLC, you have somebody to talk to.

Or failing that, just threaten nuclear holocaust on us all. Just as well.

Posted by MM | November 28, 2007 5:52 PM

the State of Israel will not go quietly

Nonsense, it'll go very quietly. With no US aid and perhaps with some economic sanctions most of its citizens will quietly move back to their Minsks, Pinsks and Brooklyns, and that'll be the end of it. Everything back to normal.

Posted by abb1 | November 28, 2007 6:09 PM

"Gee, toy rockets. I have a suspicion that if some jackass was firing Quassems into his backyard, he would not be quite as sanguine about it. I suspect he would be down at the cop shop screaming for the gendarmes to do something about it."

Do you see the ridiculousness of saying that a group of idiots who fire rockets who's maximum range is a couple of miles, i.e. they can't traverse the length of Flushing Meadows Park, is a threat to a state with nuclear weapons? You're basically waving a flag that says "Look at me, I'm an idiot!" The argument is non-sensical - if you seriously believe that Hamas can pose any substantial threat to Israel's existence in anything outside the long-term, you're deranged. The terrorists are nothing but bad-PR and a couple of hundred casualties a year. The argument's rubbish - saying "if it was in your backyard" is a complete misdirection, it doesn't change the fact that the rockets aren't a substantial threat to the STATE of Israel - they're little more than a nuisance, and are easily shot down.

Posted by Sajid | November 28, 2007 6:12 PM

Re abb1

"Nonsense, it'll go very quietly. With no US aid and perhaps with some economic sanctions most of its citizens will quietly move back to their Minsks, Pinsks and Brooklyns, and that'll be the end of it. Everything back to normal."

1. Mr abb1 is aparently unaware of the fact that half of the current Jewish population of Israel consists of Jews expelled from Arab countries or their descendants. They have no place to go back to.

2. Mr. abb1 has apparently been partaking of greater doses of the nose candy these days. The State of Israel will be around long after Mr. abb1 and his ex-con pal Richard Steven Hack have shuffled off this mortal coil.

3. By the way Mr. abb1, it's Dr. SLC (PhD in elementary particle physics) and I am male.

Re MM

1. It's certainly unfortunate that 16 year old boys and girls(actually, the draft age in Israel is 18 according to Alon Levy) have to carry around UZIs to dissuade even younger Palestinians that homicide bombing is a loser.

2. Mr. MM is obviously unable to tell the difference between a supporter of the State of Israel and a Zionist apologist, who by the way has nothing to apologize for. The fact that Mr. MM doesn't like the philosophy of a whole face for an eye is just tough bananas.

Re Sajid

Mr. Sajid apparently would not be at all inconvenienced if a group of assholes commenced firing qassems into his back yard. Only a minor inconvenience he would say. Not. Mr. Sajid, the Jewish people are not followers of Joshua of Nazareth with his turn the other cheek philosophy (most of his professed followers reject that advice also).

Posted by SLC | November 28, 2007 6:43 PM

SLC is a joke shop Zionist. Forget him. The idea that Israel's lousy little nuclear arsenal is going to threaten the world is truly a joke. Feel free to try threatening the US, Russia and China for forcing the Israeli state to dissolve - if you really want to see a Holocaust. Trust me, the US knows where every single one of those weapons is - with the possible exception of the ones on the Israeli subs - and has them targeted. The Pentagon is not quite that stupid. If Israel threatens anybody with nukes, Israel will cease to exist - just like Iran would if it did that.

"So anyone who says that 'the destruction of the State of Israel is necessary' is saying, 'I support a conflagration leading to the deaths of millions of people.'"

Well, no. Only if the Jews in Israel are stupid enough to fight to the death over a Zionist dream which was idiotic from day one is it likely that simply dissolving the Israeli state and substituting a Palestinian state is going to lead to a "Holocaust" or any major war. The whole thing could be done quite peacefully - except for a few Zionist settler freaks, of course.

And quite frankly, if the majority of Jews in Israel are that stupid, they deserve to die. Nature's way of eliminating the stupid. But I have confidence that, despite the polls showing most Israelis dislike Palestinians, if the UN and the international community dissolved the Israeli state, the average Israel citizen would knuckle under. That's what "average citizens" of every country do.

The real question, of course, is how one gets to the point of being able to dissolve the current Israeli state. This will require the UN to revisit its partition decision in 1947 (which was illegal in any event according to the UN commission set up to study the point). It will also require the international community to disarm Israel of it's nuclear arsenal. Then Israel must be required to abide by the UN decisions or face total economic boycott by the international community.

Of course, preceding all this would be the necessity to clearly and rationally analyze the Zionist notions - and actions - behind the existence of the state of Israel and debunk them publicly and thoroughly, so that everyone understands why Israel needs to be dissolved into a single Palestinian state.

After that, there would be a need to hammer out the specifics of the new Palestinian state in terms of guarantees for both Jews and Palestinians in terms of civil and religious rights, and security guarantees for the state itself with regards to its neighbors.

Issues such as the right of return for Palestinians would no longer be issues since the point of the Palestinian state would be to establish one state for all persons who reside in or can establish ownership of property in the area. The only issues would be establishing ownership, and transfer of or compensation for displaced persons on either side in a reasonably fair manner to avoid unnecessary hostilities.

It could be done.

Of course it will not be done. Which means, sooner or later, Israel will be destroyed. It's a historical certainty.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 28, 2007 7:01 PM

Re Richard Steven Hack

Mr. Hack is really getting to be an amusing fellow. One could almost consider him as comic relief on this blog, except that there is nothing funny about calling for the assassination of police officers, as Mr. Hack has done. However, I suspect that Mr. Hack has probably been somewhat chastened by his 8 year sojourn in the Leavenworth Federal slammer, bending over for the brothers every day. I suspect he is about as likely to carry out his assassination ideas as he is to win the Tour de France next June.

Posted by SLC | November 28, 2007 7:12 PM

SLC vomits: "there is nothing funny about calling for the assassination of police officers,"

But you don't mind calling for the extermination of Palestinians or nuking the world if the world decides Israel should be disarmed of its nukes or should be forced to stop committing ethnic cleansing on Palestinians.

As for bending over for brothers, I'd like to see the size of your butt after Netanyahu and Abe Foxman get through with it every day...

You're the asshole, SLC, not me. You're a cheap Zionist thug who has no intellectual honesty, no intellectual courage, in fact, no intelligence at all. All you can do is rant about how Palestinians are scum who should be forced to move to Jordan so your religious freaks can proclaim themselves masters of the ME.

Well, guess what? Your lousy little country is due for a comeuppance and it's only a very short matter of time before it happens. First, Hizballah will rip your IDF goons a new one (talk about bending over for the brothers, eh?) sometime in the next year. Then some smart terrorist will make Tel Aviv glow in the dark with one of Israel's own weapons. Then the international community will demand Israel be disarmed of its nukes because of the threat of terrorist nukes, and when Israel refuses to comply, it will be subjected to an economic boycott that will look like a pinata compared to South Africa's or Iran's or Iraq's sanctions. Once Israel's fanatical settlers are reduced to the economic level of Myanmar - or maybe, even Palestinians - they will be begging to give up the Zionist fantasy and be allowed back into the world - on condition, of course, that there is no longer a Zionist state, but only a Palestinian state.

Have a nice day, homes.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 29, 2007 12:45 AM

Mr abb1 is aparently unaware of the fact that half of the current Jewish population of Israel consists of Jews expelled from Arab countries or their descendants. They have no place to go back to.

Why, I'm aware, but that has little to do with the "Jewish state" disintegrating. Most of the Europeans will move back to the US and Eastern Europe, and the rest will become citizens in a new Palestinian state. That's not nuclear physics, not too complicated.

I haven't checked recently, but I got the impression that net immigration to Israel is already negative (or very low anyway); and I seem to remember reading that the government stats are now classified, quite typical for a totalitarian state.

Posted by abb1 | November 29, 2007 4:05 AM

Re Hack

1. Mr. Hack is a fucking lier. I have never called for the extermination of Palestinians or shoving them across the Jordan River to Jordan. I have called for sterner measures to be taken against them if terrorist activities continue.

2. Mr. Hacks' laughable overestimate of the military prowess of Hizbollah shows only that he has now migrated from cocaine to crack. In the next engagement, hopefully after Mr. Olmert has been indited and forced out of office and replaced with somebody competent, the gloves will come off and the full power of the IAF will be exploited. By the way, terrorists have as much chance of stealing a nuclear weapon from the IDF as Mr. Hack does of winning the Boston Marathon next spring.

Re abb1

Dream on abb1, dream on.

Posted by SLC | November 29, 2007 8:11 AM

At least here we can finally achieve "balance", where one can simply await at least two parties to wish jointly for gleefully bloody ends for the Israeli Jews and the Palestinian Arabs. Such humanity. Such nobility.

Hizbullah will kill yur doodz! / No man, the IDF will kill yur doodz! / Uh uh, the Hizz is gonna steal a nuke and make yur doodz glow! / Y'ur crazy dood, my super IDF is gonna melt yur doodz first!

Posted by El Cid | November 29, 2007 9:45 AM

"the eastern European Ashkenazim who converted to Judaism in the middle ages and have no genetic link the Biblical Judeans?"

As the old saying goes, you're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. " Y Chromosome Bears Witness to Story of the Jewish Diaspora":

"The study, reported in today's Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, was conducted by Dr. Michael F. Hammer of the University of Arizona with colleagues in the United States, Italy, Israel, England and South Africa. The results accord with Jewish history and tradition and refute theories like those holding that Jewish communities consist mostly of converts from other faiths, or that they are descended from the Khazars, a medieval Turkish tribe that adopted Judaism."

"Study Finds Jews Are Genetic Brothers of Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese":

"According to a new scientific study, Jews are the genetic brothers of Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese, and they all share a common genetic lineage that stretches back thousands of years. Michael Hammer of the University of Arizona department of ecology and evolutionary biology directed the research.

"Jews and Arabs are all really children of the House of Abraham," says Harry Ostrer, M.D., Director of the Human Genetics Program at New York University School of Medicine, an author of the new study by an international team of researchers in the United States and Israel. "And all have preserved their Middle Eastern genetic roots over 4000 years."

The researchers analyzed the Y chromosome, which is usually passed unchanged from father to son, of more than 1,000 men worldwide. Throughout human history, alterations have occurred in the sequence of chemical bases that make up the DNA in this so-called male chromosome, leaving variations that can be pinpointed with modern genetic techniques. Related populations carry the same specific variations. In this way, scientists can track descendants of large populations and determine their common ancestors."

Posted by Fred | November 29, 2007 10:25 AM

Yeah SLC, basically you're a Jewish Supremacist. Cool. I'm an anarchist I guess. Nice to converse with you about Israel.

You don't want me calling you a Zionist apologist, since after all Israel has nothing to apologize for, so I will refer to you instead as a Jewish Supremacist.

Israel has nothing to apologize for. Nothing at all.

Not the Naqba, not the decades of formalized descrimination against Arabs, not the settlers throwing rocks at Arab schoolgirls walking to school, not the clusterbombing of agricultural fields, not to stealing of Palestinian resources to construct a state from which Palestinians are excluded, severely oppressed, and even killed, not the bombing of the UN's observers in the past, not the bulldozering international activists and the leaving homeless of non-Jewish residents of the supposed holiest city in the world, not the demolitions of villages, the dividing of neighborhoods, that have been there for millennia, long before "Zionism" was even a gleam in Austro-Hungarian Teodor Herzl's German-nationalistm-inspired eye. Not torture, not imprisonment without trial, not kidnapping members of Palestinian Parliament because they belong to the Islamic party, not the summary assassinations, pre-emptive strikes, and nuclear sabotage.

All of this is actually, you'll be interested to know, the Palestinians' and/or Arabs' fault.

Jews can do whatever they and their official spokespersons say they need to do, and the Holocaust pro-actively and retroactively justifies any and everything.

Colonialism was awful and unjust, and White Supremacism in the South was unhuman. But Zionism can't be judged as such because the Jews have plenty of moral credit left to spend in the great big justice bank account, we are told.

As far as the Palestinians, our human brothers and sisters: Fuck 'em. They could've just accepted the agreement for Jewish Supremacism over their holy land at the very beginning and shut up and died.

So the "peace process" will continue a couple more decades until Israel has absolutely satisfied itself that there is not another available inch of land to grab.

That's how Jewish Supremacists roll. Some of them try to deny it, try to front like progressives, all concerned about suffering peoples, injustices. In fact the Jewish establishment of the US was instrumental in overturning the White Supremecy of the American south during the civil rights era. American Judaism does have a progressive spirit but Jewish Supremacists don't fall for that crap, not when it comes to Arabs. The Arabs don't possess human rights. The second you imply otherwise, you question Jewish Supremacism, and SLC comes out and flashes the Jewish piece--it's nuclear oooooooh--like this was some rap video and you just disrespected his ho. He lets you know, he ain't afraid to pop a nuclear cap in your goy ass. Israel uber alles.

...

Well SLC. That's cool of you to let us know. I prefer when the racism is out in the open.

I wouldn't want to live in an Islamic theocracy, but I'll tolerate the existance of such half way across the world WAY before I throw my lot in with the Jewish supremecist Zionists here in the U.S.

Posted by MM | November 29, 2007 10:58 AM

SLC,

My claims about the Palestinian economy were based on my memory of the time. I did a google search for articles on the subject, I won't link because I don't want to pick one as authoritative when what I am repeating is more the consensus.

But that consensus seems to be that the Palestinian economy tanked from 1993 to 1996 in terms of production and employment. That it had slight improvement in production (although less clear about employment) in 1998-9 but that it never got back to its pre-Oslo level.

A few articles or papers claim improvement during that period, but they seem to take total GDP without regard for either inflation or population size.

Posted by Lon | November 29, 2007 11:08 AM

Cool Fred, didn't realize you were a genetic ethnographer. Good to have one around, though I'm gonna insist on a non-Zionist one, as the American academic community has uncovered several conclusions less consistent with the facts than with convenient political mythologies, in this case, the one that says Ashkenazim come from the ancient Judeans. You could read http://eaazi.blogspot.com/ for some real facts on this, or prefer to believe what Israeli researchers have been able to concoct.

The overwhelming evidence is that no, Ashkenazi are not related to the ancient Judeans.

Since Zionism, different Jews, Sephardic (actual linkage to ancient Judeans/Palestinians possible) and Ashkenazi, have mixed, complicating the story a little. And providing plenty of material for those who would love to complicate it into their preferred political mythology of Biblical entitlement.

The facts as I understand it remain- Zionism is a predominately eastern European (white) colonialization of a semitic (eg non-white) land and installation of a Jewish Supremacism which discriminates against the majority of the actual, semitic descendants of Solomon (who are mostly, today, Islamic), and permits some Sephardic Jews to take part as citizens (Muslim semites, go fuck yourselves.)

First world living--if your relatives chose the right brand of God a thousand years ago.

Posted by MM | November 29, 2007 11:16 AM

Re MM

I won't bother to respond the the ravings about me which appear in a comment by Mr. MM as they are obviously a consequence of Mr. MMs' nose candy snorting activities. However, his response to the comment by Mr. Fred is interesting as it shows his contempt for scientific investigation. The Hammer study was published in a peer reviewed prestigious scientific journal, The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Mr. MM denigrates the study by providing a link to a nutcase web site. Mr. MM, provide a refutation to the Hammer article which was published in a peer reviewed scientific journal of equal prestige (e.g. Science, Nature, Proceedings of the Royal Society, etc.). If Mr. MM fails to provide such an article, it will be definitive proof that he is full of shit. By the way, I seem to recall that the findings in the article actually indicated that the Kurds and Jews are more closely related genetically to each other then either is to the Arabs, although this may have been another study.

Re Lon

The Jerusalem Post article which I referred to was published back in the late 1990s and is probably only available if one wants' to pay for it. It is my strong recollection that it described a building boom then taking place along the Gaza coast as the PA was enthusiastic about turning the area into a tourist attraction which would attract thousands of visitors from the Arab world. It also described a similar building boom in the Jericho area in connection with the casino which had opened there shortly before. It was the actions of the Islamist opponents of the Oslo Accords which eventually put the kibosh on these activities as Israel imposed severe travel restrictions on movement in order to prevent homicide bombing attacks.

Posted by SLC | November 29, 2007 12:16 PM

Here:

Prime minister Ehud Olmert today raised the spectre of the disintegration of the state of Israel unless a two-state solution with the Palestinians could be reached.

Drawing a parallel with the last days of the apartheid regime in South Africa he warned: "If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (with Palestinians) ... then, as soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2219066,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=12

So, even Ehud Olmert dreams of it, SLC.

And, of course, the two-state solution is not possible anymore, because of the settlements, general antagonism caused by 40 years (and going) of military occupation and ethnic cleansing, and the refugees issue. And that's all there is to it.

Posted by abb1 | November 29, 2007 12:35 PM

Re abb1

Both Mr. Olmert and Mr. abb1 are full of shit. The answer to the Israel/Palestinian issue is that the Gaza Strip revert to Egypt and the West Bank to Jordan; i.e. return the situation to the pre 1967 status quo ante The border between Israel and the Gaza Strip is already determined and agreed to be all sides. The only issue then remaining is the border between Israel and Jordan. This would be subject to negotiations between Israel and Jordan. If the Palestinians want a state, take over the Kingdom of Jordan which is already 2/3 Palestinian.

Posted by SLC | November 29, 2007 1:31 PM

SLC,

So the article you saw noted that one non-sustaining part of the economy was improving over where it had been a couple of years earlier. But since the economy had been in the toilet a couple of years earlier, that is not really inconsistent with the stories I saw.

A building boom made possible by money being donated from outside the territories does not really indicate that the unemployment explosion had ended.

At the end did you mean to say suicide bombings in Israel? It is possible to perpetrate homicide bombings by lobbing bombs over a fence. Closure would only seem to make sense if the point was to stop people from blowing themselves up within Israel.

Posted by Lon | November 29, 2007 1:41 PM

You're one extremely rude male nuclear physicist, SLC, I must tell you.

Though I did notice this in Israel, interesting phenomenon - mathematicians, biologists and nuclear physicists expressing ideas appropriate for a Georgian redneck/hillbilly. I though that was funny, and you remind me of it. Thanks, buddy.

Posted by abb1 | November 29, 2007 1:50 PM

Re abb1

1. Just a minor correction but there was a separation between physicists engaged in the study of nuclear physics and those engaged in the study of elementary particle physics some 65 years ago. My PhD was awarded in the latter. The two fields of study are now as separate from each other as each is from solid state physics.

2. Mr. abb1 thinks I'm rude. Hey, if one wants to dish it out, one must be prepared to take it.

Re Lon

Come on now Mr. Lon, who do you think was employed in those construction projects? By the way, there was also an industrial park that was constructed on the border between Israel and the Gaza Strip which is now deserted and is at least partially dismantled. Another victim of the homicide bombers. The fact is that the blame for the economic conditions of the Palestinian territories lies on the failure of the PA to enforce security. One can hardly expect the Israeli side to cooperate economically if their efforts are rewarded by qassems, homicide bombers, random shootings, etc.

By the way, attached ia a link to a news article concerning the latest demands of Hamas. Do Mr. abb1 and his compatriots (I exclude Mr. Hack in this regard as he is obviously under the influence of mind altering drugs) on this blog seriously expect the Government of Israel to negotiate with these whackjobs?

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1195546761008&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Posted by SLC | November 29, 2007 3:50 PM

SLC,
Constructions builds jobs. But is there actually a country in the world in which the construction industry by itself is large enough to solve the unemployment problem? Was that meant as a serious argument?

The Palestinian economy tanked in the early part of Oslo despite the fact that violence was going down. The idea that the Palestinians were trading freely and then they went and blew it with their bombings is not consistent with reality.

I find the people who try to present Israel as some special kind of evil tiresome. Israel's sins are similar to the US since with regard to the Indians. It also has many of the virtues that we did in terms of government.

But descriptions of the Palestians that ignore that they have lived under 40 years of Israeli occupation in which Israel has taken the best of their land for settlements and then boxed them in with roads to service those settlements, are equally tiresome. So is use of meaningless spin like homicide bombings in which the modifier does not capture what is distinctive about what is being modified. If you are going to use a term like that you might as well substitute the phrase "I have no interest in being taken seriously."

As it happens, during that time that the Palestinians were reducing violence, Israel was expanding its settlements at its fastest rate yet. Is it really shocking that the Palestinians got tired of watching the Israelis build on their land using the peace that their forces were providing?

Posted by Lon | November 29, 2007 4:45 PM

Patai, R. & Patai-Wing, J. (1975) The Myth of the Jewish Race (Scribner, New York).

Mourant, A. E., Kopec, A. C. & Domaniewska-Sobczak, K. (1978) The Genetics of the Jews
(Clarendon, Oxford).

Morton, N. E., Yee, S. & Lew, R. (1982) Curr. Anthropol. 23, 157–167.

Mobini, N., Yunis, E. J., Alper, C. A., Yunis, J. J., Delgado, J. C., Yunis, D. E., Firooz, A.,
Dowlati, Y., Bahar, K., Gregersen, P. K. & Ahmed, A. R. (1997) Hum. Immunol. 57, 62–67.

Posted by MM | November 29, 2007 6:08 PM

(Not to mention, there's nothing even to "refute" in the article referenced by Fred and SLC, which doesn't even come close to concluding that Ashkenazim are genetic descendants of Semitic tribes.)

The research I listed all but demolishes any possibility that they are.

Zionists who make it their task to lie to people about Israel and Jewish history will want to avoid those.

Meanwhile people interested in factual history will want to also consider this point for further reflection: Even if "the Jews" WERE all one people (they're not), the Bible is still not a fucking land deed!

Posted by MM | November 29, 2007 6:20 PM

6% (SIX PER CENT) of the surface of Israel was actually paid for. (Says historian & former Israeli FM Shlomo Ben Ami.)

How about Israel pay for the rest of the land it stole, at current market value, in a single payment to the new Palestinian social security account... Think that might to stop the suicide bombings for quite a few generations.

...

SLC: IDF's waiting for you to sign up buddy. Maybe they'll let you carress the nukes. They need more boots on the ground what with the crawling immigration and birth rates. I heard you even got some refuseniks now. Well. Somebody's gotta make sure those 80 year old goat herders get a good harrassing at the checkpoints they must now cross on their way to market. You seem to think 1 Jewish life is worth 1000 Palestinians--I think you got the right stuff for the job. Enlist. Go IDF today SLC. Defend your mythological tribal honor to the lovely shrieks of little Arab girls holding their bullet ridden big brothers, satisfy your egotistical need to be supreme to the wailing of mothers and grandmothers strewn across the rubble of their own homes. I think you need an adventure, pal, enough time at the computer.

Posted by MM | November 29, 2007 6:41 PM

Re MM

Mr. MM cites several references. Several notes should be made concerning those references.

1. All of them greatly predate the Hammer paper. Hammer et al used scientific techniques that were far more advanced then those available to the authors of the papers cited . Since they were written long before the Hammer paper, they can hardly serve as refutations. Rather, the Hammer paper serves as a refutation of them. How about citing a paper which actually cites and refutes the Hammer paper, was published in a peer reviewed journal, and hence must appear later in time. By Mr. MMs' argument, papers written in the 19th century on physics can be used to refute papers on quantum mechanics written in the 20th century. Not hardly

2. Just for the information of the 2 or 3 die hards who may still be following this thread, it is interesting to note that the same technique involving the Y chromosome was used to determine of any of the descendants of Sally Hemmings, who was one of Thomas Jeffersons' slaves and reputed mistress, were also descendants of somebody in the Jefferson family. It was determined that at least one of her descendants was indeed also a descendant of either Thomas Jefferson or somebody who shared a Y chromosome with him. Incidently, what are Mr. MMs qualifications to critique the Hammer paper. Has he ever had a paper on genetics published in a peer reviewed journal? Does he have any qualification to act as a reviewer of the Hammer article. Based on his comments he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to the science of genetics. My knowledge of the science of genetics is also rather fragmentary but the peer reviewers of the Hammer paper was most assuredly not.

3. Mr. MM suggest that the current residents of the State of Israel reimburse those Palestinians who lost property during and after the 1948 declaration of the State of Israel. He will be surprised to find out that I agree with him. However, I also think that the Jews that were expelled from the Arab countries at the same time who have since resettled in Israel and elsewhere are also entitled to reimbursement for their lost property. Somehow, those folks always seem to be ignored when the MMs of the world start blowing air out of their assholes. By the way, I hardly consider Shlomo Ben Ami a good source of information. I have seen other estimates that are much higher.

3. Mr. MM whines that 80 year old goat herders are being harassed at checkpoints. Obviously, Mr. MM wants the IDF to shut down the checkpoints so the homicide bombers can get through.

4. As to Mr. MMs' last point, pooooooooor babies.

Posted by SLC | November 29, 2007 8:21 PM

SLC, my only comments to you were: Why haven't you joined the IDF yet? So many poor Arab babies to orphan, so little time for the Jewish Supremacist state.

The rest of what I said was directed towards thinking, critical-minded people, ie not you.

Posted by MM | November 29, 2007 9:13 PM

I find the people who try to present Israel as some special kind of evil tiresome. Israel's sins are similar to the US since with regard to the Indians.

There is a huge difference here, Lon: 200 years have passed since George Washington was doing similar things to Indians. What was (regrettably) customary in those days is today absolutely unacceptable and thus, yes, a special kind of evil.

You can't crucify your enemies today saying that it's OK because the Romans did it. You can't eat your parents because cavemen did it. That is not a winning argument.

Posted by abb1 | November 30, 2007 3:11 AM