What Are Friends For?

I'm not in 100 percent agreement with Jeffrey Goldberg's op-ed yesterday on "Israel's 'America Problem'", but I think it's pretty darn good. Especially as he says that "what Israel needs is an American president who not only helps defend it against the existential threat posed by Iran and Islamic fundamentalism, but helps it to come to grips with the existential threat from within" -- the threat posed by the West Bank settlements.

I think that gets it exactly right. A good friend doesn't just back his buddies up in whatever they happen to be doing at the moment, a good friend helps a friend pull back from mistakes and make difficult choices and that's what's needed. He concludes that "this won’t happen until Aipac and the leadership of the American Jewish community allow it to happen." Perhaps so, but if not I'd recommend J Street as an antidote.

Comments

Existential threat?
Man, nuclear weapons aren't quite as useful as they used to be.

Posted by WillieStyle | May 19, 2008 11:31 AM

Mr. Goldberg, like Mr. Yglesia is a Pollyanna in thinking that settlements are the problem. Settlements are only a symptom of the problem which is the Palestinian refusal to recognize the existence of a Jewish state called Israel. Until such time as the Palestinians recognize this reality, there will be no peace in Palestine. Period, end of discussion.

Posted by SLC | May 19, 2008 11:35 AM

Settlements are only a symptom of the problem which is the Palestinian refusal to recognize the existence of a Jewish state called Israel.

How, exactly? I don't understand how maintaining the occupation changes that, and I can imagine how ending it could. I simply don't understand how a country of Israel's power can supposedly be threatened by the Palestinians, a dispossessed, impoverished people with nothing resembling a functioning government, let alone a military capable of mounting anything like a challenge to the IDF.

Posted by Freddie | May 19, 2008 11:42 AM

SLC- Are the Palestinians supposed to recognized the right of Israel to exist in the West Bank? They shouldn't have to under UN resolutions. And what about Israel? Shouldn't they recognize the right of Palestine to exist? They haven't, as their construction projects in Palestine make clear. Why the double standard?

Posted by fostert | May 19, 2008 11:47 AM

Existential threat?

Posted by Halfdan | May 19, 2008 11:47 AM

A good friend doesn't just back his buddies up in whatever they happen to be doing at the moment, a good friend helps a friend pull back from mistakes and make difficult choices and that's what's needed.

Which shows the absurdity of those who were bashing Jimmy Carter last month.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | May 19, 2008 11:47 AM

How, exactly? I don't understand how maintaining the occupation changes that, and I can imagine how ending it could.

You have to squint *just right*, and tilt your head a little to the right. Oh, and an undying illogical hatred of damn near everybody doesn't hurt, either.

Posted by justinb | May 19, 2008 11:49 AM

Matt,

This is off topic, but since you are continuously pushing your book on your blog, I wonder if you could help a fellow author? Can you or one of the other commenters here tell me how I can find out how many copies of my book has sold at Amazon.com? It lists the book's rank as far a best sellers is concerned, but it doesn't say how many copies have actually been purchased. Last week, for instance, the book went from something 6 millionth most popular (hey, the book aint out yet!) to 2 millionth most popular. Unless they dumped 4 million other books last week, this must mean that a copy was sold. How can I find out?

Thanks for any help.

Posted by Cap and Gown | May 19, 2008 11:55 AM

Now you're buying the line that Iran and Islamic fundamentalism pose an "existential threat" to Israel?

Posted by ogged | May 19, 2008 11:55 AM

When Israel withdrew from Gaza, those who warned that the result would be unending attacks on Israeli civilians were dismissed as unhelpful haters. Today, missiles fall on Jewish civilians daily, and you folks, frankly, either applaud or show massive disinterest, waking up only to scream at the IDF whenever it attempts to make the missiles stop.

Pray tell, why do you believe West Bank withdrawal will turn out differently from the Gaza withdrawal? When the missiles start flying, and they will, what will be your justification then? Will you claim that the missiles fly because Israel won't open its borders? Or will you claim that the missiles fly because the Jews won't provide the Palestinians free health care?

Or could it be that you actually want missiles flying from the West Bank as well, to more effectively kill the evil Zionist neo-con Jooooos? If so, at least be honest about your desires and intentions.

Posted by Eagle613 | May 19, 2008 12:06 PM

Re Freddie

The Government of Israel ended the occupation of the Gaza Strip and removed all settlements there in 2005. The result has been an unending rain of qassems on Sderot. Therefore, what makes Mr. Freddie think that a similar action on the West Bank will have a more positive result?

Posted by SLC | May 19, 2008 12:08 PM

Existential threat?
Man, nuclear weapons aren't quite as useful as they used to be.

Posted by WillieStyle | May 19, 2008 11:31 AM

*************************************************

They really aren't. The Israelis having nukes didn't stop the 1967 or 1973 wars.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/farr.htm

The book Critical Mass asserts that Israel had two bombs in 1967, and that Prime Minister Eshkol ordered them armed in Israel's first nuclear alert during the Six-Day War.[54] Avner Cohen in his recent book, Israel and the Bomb, agrees that Israel had a deliverable nuclear capability in the 1967 war. He quotes Munya Mardor, leader of Rafael, the Armament Development Authority, and other unnamed sources, that Israel “cobbled together” two deliverable devices.[55]

Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, obviously not at his best at a press briefing, was, according to Time magazine, rattled enough to later tell the prime minister that “this is the end of the third temple,” referring to an impending collapse of the state of Israel. “Temple” was also the code word for nuclear weapons. Prime Minister Golda Meir and her “kitchen cabinet” made the decision on the night of 8 October. The Israelis assembled 13 twenty-kiloton atomic bombs. The number and in fact the entire story was later leaked by the Israelis as a great psychological warfare tool. Although most probably plutonium devices, one source reports they were enriched uranium bombs. The Jericho missiles at Hirbat Zachariah and the nuclear strike F-4s at Tel Nof were armed and prepared for action against Syrian and Egyptian targets. They also targeted Damascus with nuclear capable long-range artillery although it is not certain they had nuclear artillery shells.[62]

Posted by Campesino | May 19, 2008 12:14 PM

The comments from SLC and Freddie show how easy it is for both warm friends of Israel and skeptical critics of Israel to slide from talk of the occupation to talk of the settlements, as though they were the same thing.

Yes, one problem in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that Israel engages in an on again/off again military occupation of various parts of the territories seized during the 1967 war. But the other much larger problem, which has nothing to do with military and security outposts of any kind, is that Israel has been "settling" the West Bank for decades. That is, Israeli has for decades been colonizing the West Bank, stealing pieces of it, and incorporating those pieces into an Israel which still has no declared border, creating facts on the ground which continually move the starting point of a final status negotiation - or so Israel continually argues.

The settlements require the occupation for their security support, but they are not part of the occupation. They are an additional thing. A military occupation of foreign territory can, sometimes, be justified by defense needs. But the settlements aren't military outposts that can be easily dismantled with a word from the military command. They are large communities whose often fanatical residents regard themselves as living in Israel, and they are communities that create additional defensive vulnerabilities, rather than of make existing holdings more secure. The settlement movement is logically and strategically distinct from the occupation.

That many Palestinians will not acquiesce in the existence of Israel is a problem. But the notion that this problem is somehow the cause of the Israeli strategic plan of many, many, many decades of continuing to incorporate as much of the old Palestine Mandate into Israel as possible, until someone makes them stop, is absurd. Israel is taking Palestinian land just as it has always taken Palestinian land, because it covets it. If the Palestinians resist, they will take the land. If the Palestinians cease resisting, they will also take the land - as we saw during the Oslo Accords period. That's just what Israel does, and has always done since Jews began moving to the region almost a century ago. They will keep going until they have it all, unless someone stops them.

Goldberg and Yglesias are attracted to a perverse, ass-backward position on why this should be opposed. The idea that the US should oppose plain stealing and the acquisition of territory by force simply because that policy of theft poses a long term "existential threat" to the thieves should be deeply offensive to anyone who cares about the moral integrity of US foreign policy. We should oppose the settlements because taking what does not belong to you is a violation of every moral and legal code known to man. The proscription of theft, especially theft by force, is one of the most primitive and easily understood elements of a civilized form of life. Standing in opposition to land-grabbing is just standing up for civilized norms of behavior.

Posted by Dan Kervick | May 19, 2008 12:16 PM

could it be that you actually want--

Could it be that you fuck goats? Because throwing round rhetorical bullshit like that is a habit generally associated with goatfuckers.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 19, 2008 12:17 PM

The Israelis having nukes didn't stop the 1967 or 1973 wars.

Wars which were fought with conventional weapons, at a time when Israel had far fewer nukes, and were provoked by Israeli actions.

Posted by strasmangelo jones | May 19, 2008 12:19 PM

Existential threat?
Man, nuclear weapons aren't quite as useful as they used to be.

Posted by WillieStyle | May 19, 2008 11:31 AM

*************************************************

They really aren't. The Israelis having nukes didn't stop the 1967 or 1973 wars.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/farr.htm

The book Critical Mass asserts that Israel had two bombs in 1967, and that Prime Minister Eshkol ordered them armed in Israel's first nuclear alert during the Six-Day War.[54] Avner Cohen in his recent book, Israel and the Bomb, agrees that Israel had a deliverable nuclear capability in the 1967 war. He quotes Munya Mardor, leader of Rafael, the Armament Development Authority, and other unnamed sources, that Israel “cobbled together” two deliverable devices.[55]

Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, obviously not at his best at a press briefing, was, according to Time magazine, rattled enough to later tell the prime minister that “this is the end of the third temple,” referring to an impending collapse of the state of Israel. “Temple” was also the code word for nuclear weapons. Prime Minister Golda Meir and her “kitchen cabinet” made the decision on the night of 8 October. The Israelis assembled 13 twenty-kiloton atomic bombs. The number and in fact the entire story was later leaked by the Israelis as a great psychological warfare tool. Although most probably plutonium devices, one source reports they were enriched uranium bombs. The Jericho missiles at Hirbat Zachariah and the nuclear strike F-4s at Tel Nof were armed and prepared for action against Syrian and Egyptian targets. They also targeted Damascus with nuclear capable long-range artillery although it is not certain they had nuclear artillery shells.[62]

Posted by Campesino | May 19, 2008 12:34 PM

Matt you refer to the "existential threat posed by Iran and Islamic fundamentalism" to Israel. What existential threat does this second-strike-nuclear-armed regional super power with the backing of the entire industrial world, and to tell the truth nearl all of its Arab neighbours face? OK don't take my word for it.

Scott Ritter:

The propaganda war being waged by the Bush administration in this regard has been as intense and relentless as any in recent memory. Either directly or through proxy, the administration has painted a one-sided portrait of Iran which is inaccurate and misleading in the extreme. To have a nation of nearly 80 million people, possessing a history and culture several thousands of years old, suddenly personified in the image of a single individual, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a gross misrepresentation. Imagine if one tried to characterize the entire American people in the form of George W. Bush. Iran is a diverse nation, with numerous political and social constituencies which compete across a broad spectrum of forums, governmental and nongovernmental alike. To take the words and deeds of one man, out of context in some cases and inaccurately in others, and use them to paint a picture of national policy is as wrong as it is deceitful.
.
Iran today poses no threat to the American nation, its allies (including Israel) or American troops in the region.

Gershom Gorenberg:

Myth 4: "Israel's existence is in danger."
.
Not anymore. [...]
.
Today, there is no conventional military threat that remotely compares with the alliance led by Egypt. Left isolated by the Israeli-Egyptian peace, Syria has carefully observed a cease-fire since 1974. Afraid to risk full confrontation, Damascus has supported substate forces such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories. They employ terrorist tactics and rocket fire.
.
Those methods have claimed many Israeli civilians' lives. But on a national level, they're equivalent to a chronic illness, not a fatal disease.
.
Myth 5: "A nuclear Iran would destroy Israel."
.
No. If conventional armies don't endanger Israel's very existence, then what of an Iranian bomb? Benjamin Netanyahu, now leader of Israel's right-wing opposition, said in a typical speech, "It's 1938, and Iran is Germany." Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has made similar comments. The 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate's assertion that Iran has stopped its nuclear weapons program has done little to reassure Israeli leaders or citizens.

This is the prime myth that McCain is going to try to use to win the election and then start a war with Iran. Do you really believe it?

I have written more on this at rogue-nation.peaceandwisdom.info.

[I see that Paul Krugman is blogging on how Europe may provide a good transit model for the US. Maybe you could go on fact-finding tour (you could blog on the Belgian beer too) and sell some books. Amazon might even place a stash in Europe so that we don't have to wait 2-3 weeks to ship them from the States (which foiled me buying it on your birthday--I am about to do some traveling).]

Posted by Chris Dornan | May 19, 2008 12:34 PM

Shorter Dan Kervick: Jews living somewhere equals theft and conquest.

Posted by Gator90 | May 19, 2008 12:42 PM

Re Dan Kervick

In between 1949 and 1967, the State of Israel had exactly 0 settlements on the West Bank. That didn't stop the Palestinian terrorists from attempting to infiltrate and murder Israeli citizens. This is proof positive that it isn't the settlements that are the problem. It's the Palestinian refusal to accept the State of Israel. Now Mr. Kervick says that the Government of Israel is stealing Palestinian land. Very good, how about the European settlers who stole the entire North and South American continents from the Native Americans? Israel should return the so-called stolen land to the Palestinians when the Mr. Kervick agrees to return the land on which his dwelling stands to its rightful owners, Native Americans. I suspect that we will see the back of our own ears before that happens (old Arab saying).

Re strasmangelo jones

The actions that fucktard strasmangelo jones claims provoked the 1967 and 1973 Arab/Israeli wars was the refusal of the Government of Israel to agree to go out of business.

Posted by SLC | May 19, 2008 12:43 PM

Also, Israel likely lacked even the capability of setting up a second-strike capability in '67 and '73. However, they have subs capable of being outfitted with nukes for such a purpose.

Dan Kervick brings up a good point. After all, we currently occupy Iraq, but we aren't building settlements there. Settlements just add insult to injury, but the injury is still there without settlements.

Also, something like half of Israelis who live in settlements do so because that housing is subsidized and they can't afford to live anywhere else (even Rabin refused to subsidize housing in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and their suburbs to make incentives for these settlers to move back). The other half is more loyal to the fundamentalist abstract idea of Greater Israel than the modern nation-state of Israel (and have even threatened the IDF and the government with violence), which is why the vast majority of Israelis hate those kooks. Basically there are practically no loyal, patriotic Israelis who willingly choose to live in the settlements. Living there is either one's last choice or a sign of insanity.

Posted by Reality Man | May 19, 2008 12:46 PM

First of all, Dan, you are absolutely right, and I apologize for the error. These discussions require clarity above all, and the kind of lapse you've identified doesn't help anyone. You're also right that we shouldn't have to prove that withdrawal would benefit Israel, if one contends (as I do) that there is an adequate moral case for Israel withdrawal to the 1967 borders. (And, by the way, the continued occupation also violates the Geneva Convention, to which Israel is a high-contracting signatory, I believe.)

I argue from the perspective of Israel's interest as well, though, both because I believe that it really is the case that Israel is hurt by the occupation, and because it's simply strategically necessary; in American discourse on the conflict, Palestinian needs are simply considered immaterial.

Eagle613, what can I tell you? If you're convinced that I'm a Jew-hater, I don't see what point there is in talking at all. The sudden escalation of rocket attacks from Gaza, as it's popularly conceived, has been severely exaggerated, which would make sense, considering how much of the media concerning it comes from sources dead-set against ending the occupation. I don't believe that Palestinians are these crazed loons who will continue to lob rockets for no reason, and I'm quite sure that if I made similar assumptions about Jewish aggression or irrationality, I'd be labeled an anti-Semite faster than you can say "Abe Foxman."

On another level, look-- Israel is a advanced, robust liberal democratic state, though one whose conduct I often find deplorable. Israel is capable of Democratic reforms, in a way that Palestine currently is not. I would argue that the reason Palestine is not isn't because, as Marty Peretz would tell you, Palestinians are just inherently deficient, but because they live in a quasi-state that is prevented from maturing thanks to it's bizarre legal and political limbo. To me, one of the greatest reasons to support true Palestinian independence is so that Palestine can become a functioning state, one with a real internal mechanism for reform, and one which could be pressured to behave the way any other country is, through international pressure and sanction. An actual Palestinian state with an actual government would be an absolute good for the future security of Israel.

Posted by Freddie | May 19, 2008 12:50 PM

"In between 1949 and 1967, the State of Israel had exactly 0 settlements on the West Bank. That didn't stop the Palestinian terrorists from attempting to infiltrate and murder Israeli citizens. This is proof positive that it isn't the settlements that are the problem. It's the Palestinian refusal to accept the State of Israel."

Except that Palestinians, who you don't even recognize as a legitimate ethnic group and nation, aren't a monolithic force. They didn't even have anything as close to today's Palestinian Authority, which is a bit of a joke, to a functioning government back then. The Palestinians committing terrorism in 1949 are not the same Palestinians that are politically active, violently and non-violently, today.

"Now Mr. Kervick says that the Government of Israel is stealing Palestinian land. Very good, how about the European settlers who stole the entire North and South American continents from the Native Americans? Israel should return the so-called stolen land to the Palestinians when the Mr. Kervick agrees to return the land on which his dwelling stands to its rightful owners, Native Americans. I suspect that we will see the back of our own ears before that happens (old Arab saying)."

You bring up this point all the time and you get beaten down on why it's stupid every time. The Palestinians have two pieces of land right now, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, which they consider theirs and on which they are the majority. Israel refuses to annex this land or give it up, so it has resorted to the types of population transfers which are illegal, classified as ethnic cleansing, under international law and are analogous to what Mao did in Tibet. Native Americans are not the majority in Manhattan right now, but Palestinians are the majority in the Palestinian Territories at this very moment. In addition, values change over time. If we stuck with the values of the time of European settlement and genocide in the Americas that were hegemonic in the West, the average Westerner would agree that there is nothing wrong with anti-Semitic pogroms. It is good that we have evolved past the point that pogroms are acceptable and it is good that we have evolved to the point that imperialism and ethnic cleansing are not acceptable.

Posted by Reality Man | May 19, 2008 12:57 PM

Jeffrey Goldberg is an anti-Semitic Israel hater. Why else would he criticize AIPAC?

Posted by bobbo | May 19, 2008 1:27 PM

Why I stopped reading MY's blog: it became apparent he is merely Jeffery Goldberg-lite.

This country is doomed.

Posted by idf | May 19, 2008 1:38 PM

Shorter Goldberg:

I don't like the settlements, so I think my government should twist the arm of another democratically-elected government - to get my desired outcome.

Quite imperialistic.

Posted by Dan | May 19, 2008 1:40 PM

"It's the Palestinian refusal to accept the State of Israel."

You still haven't explained why it acceptable Israel doesn't accept the State of Palestine, but EVERY SINGLE PERSON in Palestine must accept the state of Israel. The current Fatah leadership in the West Bank accepts Israel's right to exist, but not all of its citizens agree. Yet Israel refuses to return the favor by accepting even the West Bank's right to exist. Apparently, the Palestinians are supposed to say "we will agree to die so that Israel can exist on our land."

Posted by fostert | May 19, 2008 1:44 PM

Freddie,

How have the rocket attacks from Gaza against Israel been "severely exaggerated," and by whom exactly? Are you suggesting that a pro-Zionist media fabricates rocket attacks that did not really happen? Is someone reporting that deaths or injuries occurred when none actually did? Help me out here.

Posted by Gator90 | May 19, 2008 1:45 PM

No, it is not exactly right. A recent poll in Israel showed that 75% were in favor of expelling the Palestinian population from Israel.

Another poll last fall, showed that 80% of Israelis supported the Jewish National Funds rules that it can only sell "its" land to Jews.

There is nothing to be gained by supporting Israel whose people seem to have the same attitudes as American Southerners fifty or a hundred years ago.

The U.S. can handle the problem easily. It just says to Israelis: evacuate all of the settlers and troops from the West Bank. Period. If you don't, we will take trade sanctions.

Problem solved.

Posted by bernarda | May 19, 2008 2:06 PM

Goldberg recognizes that a 2 state solution legitimized by Palestinian agreement is Israel's only hope of maintaining a Zionist state, since the only alternative is a multinational state. But it will never happen. Israel won't be ready to give up East Jerusalem and the religious sites until it's too late; but one billion+ Muslims will never give them up. There will be a multinational state. I hope its birth pangs won't be too painful.

Posted by Gary Sugar | May 19, 2008 3:19 PM

Jews in America were at the forefront of the progressive causes; abortion, integration, 1965 Immigration Act, civil rights for blacks, anti-apartheid demonstrations.

Yet their brethren in Israel brutalize the Palestinians and steal their land and build settlements paid with American tax dollars. Where is the outrage? Where is the call for the Holy Grail of DIVERSITY in Israel?

If Diversity is so good for America, it must be good for Israel?

Joe Lieberman and Diane Feinstein believe diversity is great for America while they reside in gated communes and send their children to private schools. But diversity is a no-no for Israel. Israelis don't want to live next door to a Palestinian goat herders or olive farmers. They must be walled off or transported.

To atone for their lack of diversity, Israel should accept 50,000 Iraqi refugees and at least 1 million Palestinians forced to leave Palestine at the barrel of a gun.

Posted by del | May 19, 2008 3:35 PM

Israel should also drop the national language of Hebrew, abolish the immigration law of Return, allow the arabs of the occupied territories representation in the Knesset, force bussing of Arab school children to Jewish neighborhoods, and encourage inter-marriage between arabs and Israelis.

Diversity is great here in America. Diversity would be great for Israel!

SMASH APARTHEID!

Posted by del | May 19, 2008 3:55 PM

"I simply don't understand how a country of Israel's power can supposedly be threatened by the Palestinians, a dispossessed, impoverished people..."

Now, Nepal is a weakling state, so they cannot afford luxury of feeling threats, say, from China or India, or even homegrown guerilla force. It takes a mighty country to do it. (Weakling Nepal allowed terrists to run in elections after a ceasefire, and the terrist won. Luckily, no oil in the vicinity.)

IDF was remodeled from a fighting Army to an oversized police force with some heavy weapons added as an afterthought. To me, it bespokes the total lack of external threats. Officially, Israel does not laugh at Hezbollah and Hamas, but in actions, they care ten times more about some arcane points of internal politics.

Where the settlements belong.

Posted by piotr | May 19, 2008 4:54 PM

"The real issue is not Palestine. Unless they are neutralized, Israel lobbying groups, Israel advocates, Zionists, Neoconservatives, and Friedmanites will steal America and effectively abolish the Constitution in all but name to create a society of servitude for all Americans except for those belonging to the hyper-wealthy transnational Zionist political elite" (Joachim Martillo)

Does anybody think it's a coincidence that the only other post-industrialized society wherein people are sleeping in elevators and the rich are getting richer/poor are getting sicker syndrome is getting worse all the time is...Israel?

The first "self-hating jew" Jesus Christ said it best: "The love of money is the root of all evil."

Posted by Trevor | May 19, 2008 5:07 PM

"I simply don't understand how a country of Israel's power can supposedly be threatened by the Palestinians, a dispossessed, impoverished people..."

Now, Nepal is a weakling state, so they cannot afford luxury of feeling threats, say, from China or India, or even homegrown guerilla force. It takes a mighty country to do it. (Weakling Nepal allowed terrists to run in elections after a ceasefire, and the terrist won. Luckily, no oil in the vicinity.)

IDF was remodeled from a fighting Army to an oversized police force with some heavy weapons added as an afterthought. To me, it bespokes the total lack of external threats. Officially, Israel does not laugh at Hezbollah and Hamas, but in actions, they care ten times more about some arcane points of internal politics.

Where the settlements belong.

Posted by piotr | May 19, 2008 5:13 PM

Let's see the Arabs manage to achieve a democracy, or anything that comes close, anywhere in their world first.

My guess is there will another major war at some point - and a repeat of 1948 population exchanges.

Posted by spacegoat | May 19, 2008 5:13 PM

Israel's a "democracy" the way feces is an appetizer. The way Heinrich Himmler was a "humanitarian". The way John Wayne Gacy was a "father figure". The way Judith Krantz is a "great American writer". Israel is a racist, Terrorist State shithole.

Posted by Trevor | May 19, 2008 5:41 PM

The hate on this thread borders on the psychopathic. The anti-Israel/anti-Jewish posts here are (aside from being factually challenged at every level) pathetic, mindless, and sad. Matt, with this kind of an amen corner, you might find it a good idea to re-examine the underlying empirical soundness of your positions.

Posted by Eagle613 | May 19, 2008 5:46 PM

Re del

"To atone for their lack of diversity, Israel should accept 50,000 Iraqi refugees and at least 1 million Palestinians forced to leave Palestine at the barrel of a gun."

As usual, andisemitic fucktards like Mr. del totally ignore the equal number of Jews who were expelled from Arab countries after the 1948/1949 war. The State of Israel has already accepted several hundred thousand Jews who were forced to leave Iraq after that war.

Re Trevor

Mr. Trevor and his Nixon appointed federal judge father (probably a Carswell clone) can go fuck themselves.

Re Reality Man

The Palestinians have no interest in an independent Palestinian state. They have laid claim to all of Palestine and until they agree to relinquish this claim, they will continue to live in misery. Of course, the Hamas terrorist government in Gaza couldn't care less about the welfare of their constituents, knowing that an improvement in the living standards there would lead to a reduction in their support.

Re bernarda

Mr. bernarda can also join the Trevors, pere and fis in fucking himself.

Re Freddie

I suspect that if a terrorist group was firing rockets into Mr. Freddies' back yard, he would be down at his local cop shop demanding action to stop the bombardment.

Posted by SLC | May 19, 2008 6:01 PM

The hate on this thread borders on the psychopathic. The anti-Israel/anti-Jewish posts here are (aside from being factually challenged at every level) pathetic, mindless, and sad.

The conflation of Israel with the Jews is offensive and distinctly unhelpful to the dialogue.

Posted by Freddie | May 19, 2008 6:20 PM

Matt still bumbles around about Iran, making statements like "existential threat" (even though he's actually quoting Goldberg) because he can't afford to talk about Iran in any substantive way.

This is because he really believes Iran has a nuclear weapons program and that a unilateral US attack on Iran would be justified.

But he can't say that here because 1) it will make him look as stupid as he was on Iraq, and 2) it blows his cover as a "liberal internationalist" when he is really STILL a "liberal interventionist", i.e., "liberal hawk."

Which also makes him a hypocrite and an intellectual coward like his mentor, Josh Marshall.

Meanwhile, observe SLC closely. This is the sort of person who started the nation of Israel and who currently runs it. If you think Israel has any "right to exist" after examining SLC closely, I don't know what to tell you. This guy is a fucking Nazi, pure and simple.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 19, 2008 6:51 PM

"The conflation of Israel with the Jews is offensive and distinctly unhelpful to the dialogue." (Freddie)

Tell me this is a joke. ISRAEL itself a.k.a. "The Jewish Homeland" SAYS attacks on it ARE ATTACKS ON "THE JEWISH PEOPLE."

Re the other schmuck (Eagle Turd 104?) whining about "hate" - everything we (The Civilized World, B'Teselem, Human Rights Watch, The Palestinians themselves) know about hate - we learned from the Jews. A sample of on-the-record quotes from Israeli Leaders:

"Put these cockroaches in a bottle and shake them up"..."Filthy shvatz goyim would be better off gasping for air in gas chambers" "Frankly, we'd be doing the vermin a favor if we bayonetted them in their mama's bellies."...

Now, those are just the words. The actual atrocities are um, eerily reminiscent of um, THE NAZIS. I guess if it's "hate" to take issue with behavior like that, well, what the world needs is hate, sweet hate.

Posted by Trevor | May 19, 2008 7:23 PM

The hate on this thread borders on the psychopathic. The anti-Israel/anti-Jewish posts

Well yes, these people are fools. But they don't disapprove of Israel's crimes against the Palestinians becase they're antisemites. They're instead turning into antisemites because they disapprove of Israel's crimes. The perfect analogy is idiots who hated Protestants or hated Catholics because of the problems in Ulster - but it's close enough to compare dumb Americans who hated Russians because the USSR was our enemy or dumb Americans who now hate Muslims because al Qaeda is our enemy. There is a problem in the Middle East that needs resolution. Fools like Trevor and SLC are part of that problem.

Posted by Gary Sugar | May 19, 2008 7:30 PM

If my name were "Gary Sugar" I wouldn't be calling anyone a "fool." Maybe, sweets, - you oughta change it to "Todd Saccharine" given its sterile fatuity. And, I'll even venture to say that even my good chum SLC would agree that sweetie-pie's post is the kind of callow sophistry you usually get from someone who's been a little too obedient to mom and dad.

Little Sugar: "I hate the Russians! I just hate them soooo much!"

Big Sugar: "Son, you must never Hate them. That's fool's talk. You can oppose them. O-p-p-o-s-e - do you know what that means?"

Little Sugar: "No, dad. I'm sorry. Explain it again."

Daddy Sugar: (sotto voce) "Oh, Christ, this kid's an idiot."

Posted by Trevor | May 19, 2008 8:51 PM

Matt, how much did Haim Saban (or perhaps your Atlantic overloards) pay you to endorse Goldberg?

Posted by Client #11 | May 19, 2008 10:35 PM

Re del
"To atone for their lack of diversity, Israel should accept 50,000 Iraqi refugees and at least 1 million Palestinians forced to leave Palestine at the barrel of a gun."
As usual, andisemitic fucktards like Mr. del totally ignore the equal number of Jews who were expelled from Arab countries after the 1948/1949 war. The State of Israel has already accepted several hundred thousand Jews who were forced to leave Iraq after that war.

I think that del was being sarcastic, suggesting that Israel repeat the reforms that were forced on Americans.

Posted by Glaivester | May 19, 2008 10:44 PM

I was being somewhat sarcastic b/c Israel would never adopt the liberal policies that Jewish-Americans have pushed for here in the USA.

Bussing is good for South Boston and open borders are fine in America... so say Joe Lieberman, yet no such liberal policies are forced upon Israel. Jewish-Americans scream bloody murder over a Christmas creche in a town park, but they stand fast for the aparthied policies of their brothers in Israel.

Posted by del | May 20, 2008 12:29 AM

Dan:

Shorter Goldberg:

I don't like the settlements, so I think my government should twist the arm of another democratically-elected government - to get my desired outcome.

Quite imperialistic.

Dan defies logic quite boldly, I must say.

First, settlements are not an internal issue of Israel. The whole point is that they are not in Israel. So a putative arm twisting does not concern internal matters and thus would not be "imperialistic".

Second, US government actually has something called "official positions". And the official position is that we oppose the settlements. so Except that we oppose without really opposing. Ms. Rice, or whoever has the sad function of the Secretary of State may utter something to that effect, and the current role of the Secretary of State is to say things we do not really want, but someone should say them --- as they are our official position.

So this is the preposterous stand of Jeffery Goldberg: that because it so happens that this official position of US government is good for Israel, US government should treat that position seriously, e.g. like .... hard to tell of top of my head. Democracy in Arab countries? Scratch that. Bilateral agreement to exempt American nationals from war crime investigations and proceedings? Ah, yes, we were actually pretty energetic on that. So there is a template.

Apart from the morality of settlements or the lack of it, the political reality in Israel is that they have some amount of adamant supporters, and in their multiparty system there is immediate penalty for not providing them with support and tolerance (including tolerance of unlawful acts), and rather diffuse long distance gain. Among "serious politicians" there is basically consensus that they will do nothing of the kind unless they can show "external pressure", which means, some show of arm twisting.

However, American politicians are caught in the same trap of immediate loss and diffuse gain, so the consensus among the serious politicians is to do nothing without some clear green light from Israel.

Perhaps we should dispense with this stupid idea of having official positions. They trap you into attempts of being consistent. To wit, our opposition to Cuban government is largely justified by the gross violations of property rights, uncompensated nationalizations. And our companies do possess plantations, mines, oil fields in diverse countries, so there is some "national interest" in "being serious". However, it kind of sounds nicer (beware: a trap!) if we had an official position in favor of property rights EVEN if those rights belongs neither to American nationals nor American companies. We were also afraid that if diverse nations started to attack each other and remove the opponents from their land, it would lead to unpleasant mayhem, so we signed some misbegotten agreements that frown upon this practice. Actually, we even INTERVENE on occasion, say, in Kosovo, on that principle. So the principle has some uses. But we should seriously re-examine the matter.

Posted by piotr | May 20, 2008 6:05 AM

Just in case it hasn't been clear, let me make it clear.

I've got zip - nada - nothing - against Jews (other than the fact that they're human, which is another story.)

I don't like racist, fascist, imperialist, statist creeps no matter what their specific ideology is about in other respects. And Zionists have an ideology which is in almost all respects indistinguishable from the underlying concepts of National Socialism.

Zionism = Nazism in basic content. Call it a Jewish mirror image of Nazism if you like - except it insults Jews by saying so.

In fact, one should go as far as to say that any of these scumbag Zionists (as opposed to the more harmless "classical Zionists" like MJ Rosenberg, who are just naive) shouldn't be considered "Jewish" at all, except of course in technical terms of ethnicity. And quite a few anti-Zionist Jews would agree with that, because they equate Zionism with violations of Jewish philosophy and religion going back thousands of years.

So despising the actions of Israel and its Zionist freak leaders and supporters there and in the US does not at all equate with anti-Semitism, nor does it inevitably lead to anti-Semitism (although I agree that it can.)

Bottom line: Zionist scum like SLC have no business talking about Jews at all any more than the "self-hating Jews" who joined the American Nazi parties do.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 20, 2008 6:10 AM

The hate on this thread borders on the psychopathic.

How dare you suggest that this blog's comments merely border on the psychopathic? Calumny. Although, yes, there are more complete sentences and historical analogies than in the typical right wing blogs' sound barks of death wishes, we here manage to accomplish the psycho- and the sociopathic on regular occasions. So there.

Posted by El Cid | May 20, 2008 6:29 AM

A convivial truism. El Cid is clearly an Eton boy, schooled in the ruling class graces.

and, lastly, the bloodless, dull-witted perception that a fraternity of hate-drenched cyber-psychopaths root here like abortive hogs is a stupid comment from undoubtedly a stupid man. I mean to overstate the obvious- - ask Colin Powell if in his lifetime of service to the thermonuclear imperium - if he'd ever come into contact with a more insidious, burping, scratching, neurotic little nerd goon squad than that of Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Doug Feith, Elliot Abrams, Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, and their goy stealth untalented h.s. footballer Fuhrer Dick Cheney (Wyoming, R).

Greed, Dominance, the obliteration/extermination/mass murder of all Muslims (young, and old) unwilling to be enslaved by their free market, neoliberal, Starbucks and Bed, Bath, and Beyond consumerist Hell. Sacrificing 4,380 and counting young American lives, the thousands more maimed and traumatized (the vast majority dumb goyim from poor-middle class families) for a cause and a War built upon an edifice of cooked intel and Goebbelsian Lies) and killing untold innocent Iraqis, blowing off the limbs of untold thousands of Iraqi children, making orphans of thousands more Iraqi infants and small children...Let alone what countervailing forces they've let loose in the world

and this stupid, effete, ziocon wannabe moonbat coward has the nerve to suggest that Valiant American Patriots and Moral, Responsible Men and Women of the World who are righteously angry about what these people who've hijacked our government have done and yet threaten to do are somehow "hateful psychopaths"?

Why, it's a gross enough insult to warrant cutting he and his wife Miriam's skin off with a pair of shearing scissors , eco-process them at a cannery and wear the leathery husks as pajamas.

Posted by Trevor | May 20, 2008 7:39 AM

Trevor, for once, is most correct in a rather obvious and perfunctory sense: the psycho- or sociopathy exhibited in comments upon this very blog have not actually (in and of themselves) killed people, as opposed to the decisions of many governing officials whose public discourse avoids the rude eructations of our humble exchanges.

One might wish for a million "Hama Rules!" eruptions from an SLC or lurid revenge fantasies upon the mere biological humans from the soon-to-exceed-us-all / once-they-laughed-at-me Richard Steven Cyber Hack 2000 versus one single session of Colin Powell repeating his My Lai coverup bones-making expertise by playing the propaganda game at the UN and helping Bush Jr. to launch an actually deadly war.

Posted by El Cid | May 20, 2008 8:54 AM

Re Richard Steven Hack

I really find Mr. Hacks' habit of calling other people scum rather amusing. This from a man who stuck a loaded gun in a bank tellers' face and demanded that the latter turn over all the cash in his cash drawer under the threat of termination with extreme prejudice. A man who blithely advocates the assassination of police officers. A man who was claimed to be perfectly willing to engage in a shootout with police officers who were about to arrest him as he attempted to board a bus after his most recent bank robbing adventure. A man who has made threats against fascist talk show host Michael Savage. Scum is far too kind a word to describe such a degenerate.

Posted by SLC | May 20, 2008 10:55 AM

"Trevor, for once, is most correct in a rather obvious and perfunctory sense." (El Cid)

EC, you're too kind.

And to my benighted Macedonian antipode SLC - you're beating a dead teller with the R.S. Hack is a dangerous felon tale. Who gives a fuck? Two years ago, I did 4 days in the infamous downtown L.A. Twin Towers (O.J., Paris Hilton)for smashing a beer bottle over an annoying grocery store clerk's head. A felony battery charge later reduced to a misdemeanor "disturbing the peace" charge, later expurgated from my record after 18 months of clean as a whistle probation. Not much to my surprise - my fellow D-blockers were almost to a man amiable gents.

Recalling Robert Mitchum's great line when asked what it was like behind bars after doing 3 months for that '48 dope bust:

"Just like Palm Springs, except without the riff-raff"

Posted by Trevor | May 20, 2008 3:50 PM

Re Trevor

"And to my benighted Macedonian antipode SLC - you're beating a dead teller with the R.S. Hack is a dangerous felon tale. Who gives a fuck? Two years ago, I did 4 days in the infamous downtown L.A. Twin Towers (O.J., Paris Hilton)for smashing a beer bottle over an annoying grocery store clerk's head."

I suspect that if Mr. Trevor had been at the wrong end of Mr. Hacks' gun, he would not be so blase'. By the way, what did Mr. Trevors' father, the federal judge, think of his transgression?

By the way, if Mr. Trevor were to do time in the federal birdcage where Mr. Hack spent 9 years, he would find his fellow inmates rather less then amiable, particularly as they were reaming his ass.

Posted by SLC | May 20, 2008 4:15 PM

Once again, SLC proves that he is ignorant as hell.

Federal time is considerably less stressful than either county or state time. I haven't done either, but I was housed in the Alameda County Jail for nine months before sentencing, as the Federal Detention Center across the street was loaded. And I've talked to inmates who have done state time. Both are clearly worse than Federal time in terms of living conditions.

The exception is that the Feds tend to be more bureaucratic about their rules and regulations, which tends to annoy "professional" inmates more. Actually it annoys all inmates. It just that professional criminals tend to prefer jails that the inmates more or less run.

And the amount of prison sex that goes on appeared to me to be much less in the Federal system than what appears to be the case in state joints. Other than one black-white couple at Leavenworth, I never saw anything going on in the Federal system.

So once again SLC is just blowing it out his ass, like all Zionist freaks.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 20, 2008 9:39 PM

As I awaited my bail being reduced from 50K to 7K, my fellow Twin Tower inmates all told me that time in a Federal pen was heaven. And SLC, as far as pops - didn't you hear- - I put the poltroon in a shallow grave outside of Kenilworth Memorial (N.J.)in '85 tho' last I heard he was still on the bench at 80. Ruben "Hurricane" Carter caught a break when the docket pulled up The Honorable Lee Sarokin (played by Rod Steiger in the movie) rather than "Jabba" (a nickname a friend of mine gave him. Around the time of the Dylan song in '75 - Jabba used to claim law enforcement had a legally inadmissable tape wherein Hurricane confessed to the murder. "Let's hear it!" I used to say. Nada.

Posted by Trevor | May 20, 2008 10:12 PM