Palestine would be a strange-looking state, considering its fragmentation. Look at ‘The Archipelago of Eastern Palestine’. http://bigthink.com/ideas/21423

God, what a bunch of empty blather by Levy. Sometimes that guy just seems to write for the sake of writing, even when he has nothing important to say. His essay sounds like the trite and worthless contents of a fortune cookie.

The gap between reality and diplomatic theater in this conflict has never been so wide as it is now. You could sail three aircraft carriers through that gap, side by side.

Levy say, "The tantalizing thing that Obama will have to deliver here is an Israeli political yes."

No US government or US President is capable of delivering an Israeli "yes". No US government or US President is truly interested in delivering an Israeli "yes". They couldn't do it even if they wanted to, and they don't want to do it anyway.

Andrew Lebovich says a solution, "will require serious leadership in Jerusalem, Ramallah, and Washington." Why Washington? Why would anyone think the United States can "lead" anyone out of this conflict?

Do people seriously think it's still 1956? Or 1973? Or 1978? Are people so dazzled by ridiculous photo ops like the one heading this post that they still imagine a world in which Israeli and Palestinian leaders square off against under the watchful and powerful eye of that sober honest broker, the United States government? The United States is *one of the parties to the conflict*. Why are they posing *between* the Israelis and the Palestinians as though they were some third party? How much reality has to pour over this particular levee before people accept that it broke *decades ago*.

Through a combination of Palestinian civil war and an Israeli quarantine and divide-and-conquer tactics, there are now two Palestines, not one. The US administration obviously has not the foggiest notion of a deliverable solution that takes this reality into account.

Mahmoud Abbas is not the leader of the Palestinian people. He's just not. Why is he standing there? He cannot deliver a solution. Binyamin Netanyahu is a fascist thug just biding his time beyond his ever-present Mussolini smirk with a weak and stupid President whom he has already rolled over twice. Obama still has the tire tracks on his ass.

You can't just dress three guys up in monkey suits and say, "Behold, the peace negotiations!" Get real. No politically feasible and implementable solution of any kind can be achieved through face to face negotiations at this time, nor any foreseeable time, and certainly not if these negotiations are guided by the United States.

If there are people out there in the wider world who sincerely desire a resolution to this conflict, and sincerely think that achieving a solution is a vitally important matter, they had better act promptly to wrest the diplomatic initiative, such as it is, away from the United States government, and push us Americans to the sidelines. When it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict we are just too weak, corrupt and stupid to be counted on. We are part of the problem. Our race-to-the bottom political system throws up pathetic and slavish morons who can't even look after the interests of the American people. They trade away mountains of middle-class wealth for tiny piles of corporate campaign cash every day. So they certainly can't be expected to deliver a grand diplomatic solution to an extraterritorial conflict. The current US government couldn't deliver a rocking chair to the national mall with a moving van.

I hate to mock my own government in this way, but enough is enough with all this play-acting. Several generations of US politicians have reduced the United States to the inept and ridiculous fraud it is today, and people around the world need to stop pretending and face up to that fact.

I wish i could find a translation but it appears that Fidel believes
it is imperative to persuade Pres Obama to avoid nuking iran...or
maybe he believes that an attack on Iran may draw in other
countries.

there is a great picture of Castro sitting in front of a painting of
Marti hung on the wall behind him.

it just shouldnt be that the u.s would be willing to nuke a nation
( Iran) just because poor little Israel thinks it is the right thing to
do, israel acts like like their rabbid settler community from which
they spawned.

ENTREVISTA CON FIDEL CASTRO (I PARTE)
“Hay que persuadir a Obama de que evite la guerra nuclear”

(Tomado de CubaDebate)

Fidel responde preguntas de la directora del diario La Jornada,
de México, Carmen Lira Saade

http://www.granma.cu/espanol/cuba/31agosto-entrevista.html

‘How to kill goyim and influence people’
by MAX BLUMENTHAL on AUGUST 31, 2010 · 17 COMMENTS
Like 11 2 Retweet
Weiss: Earlier today I complained that Americans are not getting
the news about what Israel is becoming. My endless complaint.
Here is someone who can cut the corridor, as they say: Max
Blumenthal, whose message from Jerusalem a year ago was
killed and killed and killed but still it lived, and who is now
exploring the violent underbelly of Israeli settler
fundamentalism, which is completely supported by the
government. Here he's writing about the origins of a tract that
encourages the murder of goyim, and tying it into the genocidal
speech toward Palestinians by leading Orthodox rabbi Ovadia
Yosef the other day (not part of this excerpt). Terrorism, in front
of our eyes:

As soon as it was published late last year, Torat Ha’Melech
sparked a national uproar. The controversy began when an
Israeli tabloid panned the book’s contents as “230 pages on the
laws concerning the killing of non-Jews, a kind of guidebook for
anyone who ponders the question of if and when it is
permissible to take the life of a non-Jew.” According to the
book’s author, Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira... “If we kill a gentile who
has has violated one of the seven commandments… there is
nothing wrong with the murder.”... Citing Jewish law as his
source (or at least a very selective interpretation of it) he
declared: “There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that
they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be
harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults.”

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/08/how-to-kill-goyim-and-
influence-people.html

Despite his earnest and presumably well-intentioned views, Daniel Levy is one of the least credible and least interesting commentators to be found anywhere on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Levy does an excellent job editing "The Middle East Channel" over at the Foreign Policy blog site, but when it comes to his own insights, he rarely has anything original or even provocative to say. Unfortunately his colleague Amjad Atallah is even worse; has he ever seen a platitude he couldn't spout? I'm sure that Levy and Atallah are very fine people but their commentary provides no insight and they simply don't add anything at all to an already very tired debate.

Lebovich sites this remark by Levy from the Huffington Post,

"At the same time, the very real asymmetries between representatives of an occupying power and representatives of an occupied people should be built in to the structure of peacemaking--substituting for unreasonable or unreachable demands on Palestinian capacity where this is needed to advance a two-state outcome. And all of this would be helped not hindered by taking a broader, comprehensive approach to peacemaking and advancing a plan that incorporates Israeli-Syrian, Israeli-Lebanese, and overall Israeli-Arab peace."

While rhetoric about "the occupation" causes rumblings in the loins of "faux" progressives and has even crept into the language of left of center Israelis, the "occupation" is a myth and the fact that a majority of the world recklessly uses that language does absolutely nothing to enhance the prospects of the Palestinians for a nation of their own.

While the Palestinians can achieve a contiguous nation, their State is going to end up being significantly smaller than the territory won by the Israelis in 1967. That's what happens when you lose a war. If the world doesn't help the Palestinians acquiesce to this reality and instead encourages them to think they can get more territory for their nation than they will ever achieve (which is what talk about "the occupation" encourages) this only hurts Palestinian prospects.

Despite the fondest dreams of some, the United States will never force the Israelis to relinquish territory that they don't want to relinquish. The feckless Europeans are powerless to force the Israelis (or anyone else) to do anything. The Indians, the Chinese and the Russians just don't care that much about the Palestinians one way or the other. They never will.

Talking trash about "the occupation" may encourage the Palestinians to expand their expectations but it does absolutely nothing to get the Palestinians a nation of their own. What would really help the Palestinians is for the West to force them to realize that their new nation will be smaller (perhaps by as much as 15 percent) than the entire West Bank; that they will never form a country that includes both the West Bank and Gaza; that the best they can hope for is a sliver of Jerusalem; and that their nation will be demilitarized and their borders will be surrounded by Israelis.

If this prospect isn't good enough for the Palestinians (it seems to be good enough for the citizens of Monaco), then they will end up with nothing.

Getting back to the idiocy of Daniel Levy, he insists that as the stronger power holding most of the cards, the Israelis need to be forced to relent so that the Palestinians and Israelis can come to the negotiating table as equals. Maybe the preternaturally naive Mr. Levy can tell us when a nation that has won territory as a result of a war had acquiesced to approach the losing side to that battle as an equal in discussions about how to divide territory.

Did the Americans, Soviets, British and French treat the defeated Germans as equals during the discussions about how to divide up Europe after World War I or World War II?

Did the Ottoman Turks treat the defeated Byzantines as equals in deciding what to do with Constantinople after they won it in battle?

Did the British acquiesce to the territorial demands of Argentina after the war for the Falklands?

Did the United States pay any attention to Russia whatsoever before it incorporated Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary into NATO after defeating the Soviets in the Cold War?

It's time for some reality; the Palestinians, if they are to get anything at all, are going to end up with dramatically less than they want. Encouraging them to have grander illusions is both cruel and unrealistic.

If Mr. Levy wants to say something interesting, why doesn't he think outside of the box? Here are a few ideas he could consider:

1) Encourage the Europeans to accept up to 50 percent of the Palestinian refugees. Most would surely prefer to go to Europe instead of either Israel or the new Palestinian nation. The Europeans, especially the British and the French, caused many of the problems in the Middle East; let them (along with the Germans) pay the price for fixing them.

2) Place the Old City under the joint control of the Israelis, the Jordanians and the Americans with the Jordanians serving as the interlocutors for the Palestinians.

3) Start encouraging the Palestinians to think of their tiny, demilitarized nation like Andorra, Liechtenstein, Malta, Monaco, Nauru, San Marino, or the Seychelles. The citizens of these countries don’t think they live in “Bantustans.” Being that the Palestinian nation will be more akin to these independent countries than to the other Sunni Arab states, isn’t it time to stop inciting the Palestinians by agreeing with them about how bad they have it and instead start helping them deal with the prospects that they can realistically achieve?

4) Spell out in advance what type of Israeli military action the world would accept as legitimate if rockets are fired from civilian locations in the new Palestinian nation into Israel.

5) Offer both Israel and one Sunni Arab nation a permanent seat on the UN Security Council with veto power.

Daniel Levy and Amjad Atallah are as guilty of feeding their readers pabulum as all of the other commentators they love to criticize.

The "realists" who work at the New America Foundation (if that's what Levy and Atallah are) are so divorced from reality that they do little more than fantasize about what they wished the world looked like.

Not only does it get boring after a while, it's less than useless.

How about some genuinely original ideas from Levy, Atallah, Lebovich and Clemons?

Um, Daniel Levy, have you noticed how desperate Mahmoud Abbas is to get out of these negotiations? Hillary Clinton tricked him into attending. He's just waiting until the end of the 10 month settlement freeze to use it as an excuse and bolt.

Barry Rubin has a few real-world predictions, which you would do far better to read than anything Daniel Levy ever wrote:

"It is noteworthy that making a deal is always deemed never to pose any greater problems in the future. To set as the two choices: continuation of a long, bloody conflict or its solution bringing about total peace and happiness obviously signals which is the preferred option. In this case, both leaders would love to make a deal, right?

Of course, this is not the real world. Netanyahu has to worry not so much about domestic reaction (a real but overstated factor) but about making such concessions that Israel would be in a worse, more dangerous situation, faced round two, escalated Arab demands, and a lack of Western support no matter how much he listened to Western advice. Netanyahu has to deal also with the details of borders, most notably pertaining to east Jerusalem, and retaining a limited number of settlements near the frontier.

Abbas has an even worse problem. First, he himself doesn’t want to give up certain demands, including the “right” of return for all Palestinian refugees and their descendants to live in Israel, which would consequently (as Abbas and Netanyahu both know) would not remain Israel for more than a few months.

Second, Abbas lacks the political power to offer any solution that would conceivably be acceptable to any Israeli leader since his colleagues almost unanimously oppose such an outcome.

Third, he has not prepared his own people for such a compromise deal. On the contrary, he and the PA have been telling them daily for 16 years that Israel is illegitimate and by waiting they will get everything.

Fourth, he has no control over Hamas which will do everything possible to destroy any such agreement and overthrow the PA.

Fifth, he cannot depend on real Arab support, even if the dying Egyptian president and weak Jordanian king are present.

Sixth, he can depend on the violent opposition of Iran, Syria, Hizballah, Muslim Brotherhoods, and huge portions of the Arab world’s population.

Seventh, he and his colleagues reject almost all the Israeli conditions: that a treaty end the conflict forever, that they recognize Israel as a Jewish state, that the Palestinian state have limits on its military and cannot invite in foreign troops, and that all Palestinian refugees be resettled in Palestine. He might be able to agree to minor border changes but even that is in question.

Finally, he has an alternative strategy: ensure the talks fail, blame Israel, and seek Western support for a unilateral declaration of independence without making any compromises or concessions to Israel."

http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2010/09/flash-us-government-briefing-what-will.html

The peace process has begun to claim its usual spike in casualties:

"RAMALLAH, West Bank—Hamas militants claimed responsibility for the killing of four Jewish settlers in the West Bank Tuesday, an attack that seemed aimed at torpedoing a new round of peace talks in Washington this week between Israel and the Palestinians."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704421104575463781359214128.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopStories

Happens regularly as clockwork. But what do the goo-goos care? they know what's best for the Middle East.

Thinking outside the box, why don't Israelis and Palestinians simply agree to a settlement called "what is good for the goose is good for the gander."

If Israel kicks a Palestinian family out of their home, then Palestinians are entitled to kick an Israeli family out of their home.

If Palestinians fire a rocket against Israel, Israel is entitled to fire a missile with similar capabilities into Palestinian territory.

If an IDF soldier shoot a Palestinian child in the knee while harvesting tomatoes, then Palestinians are entitled to shoot an Israeli Jewish child in the knee...

It's a very simple and effective perversion of the golden rule: do unto others what they did to you. Pretty soon, I think, both sides would learn to finally honor the real golden rule.

Despite the fondest dreams of some, the United States will never force the Israelis to relinquish territory that they don't want to relinquish. The feckless Europeans are powerless to force the Israelis (or anyone else) to do anything. The Indians, the Chinese and the Russians just don't care that much about the Palestinians one way or the other. They never will.

I think this is all probably true, WigWag. The only possibility for a change in that dynamic is the the Indians, Chinese and Russians, joined perhaps by others like the Brazilians and Turks, and possibly even the Brits, will see in the current situation a golden opportunity to elevate their global position and fill a leadership vacuum that has grown yawning from decades of US shirking.

These other powers surely don't care about Israelis and Palestinians for their own sake. But they presumably do care about who is going to play a major role in writing the rules of the 21st century Middle East security and petroleum-delivery system. If countries have pretensions of global leadership, they need to be willing to take risks to act in ways that are seen as advancing global interests along with their own interests. That's how they build trust, and acceptance of a more expanded leadership role in future situations and crises.

All this talk about what the Israelis and Palestinians "can't" be forced to do shows a lack of imagination, and a lack of appreciation of the capabilities of concerted global action coordinated by powerful countries who are willing to move on to a no-nonsense stage.

The Israelis are a fascist and eternally belligerent polity lead by popularly elected goons and dangerous religious flakes. The Israeli state is proof positive that democratic institutions are no bulwark against fascism if the population is itself gripped by fascist ideologies. Israel is also a nuclear rogue state that refuses to join the NPT system. The Palestinians are also a terrorist-ridden and deeply dysfunctional political community. They're both punks, and the world needs to start treating them like the punks they are instead of like mature and reliable political communities.

When I consider the nature of the US diplomatic role in the Middle East, and our domestic debate over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I am thoroughly embarrassed. We are a laughing-stock. And our politicians are lowly and brain-curdled weaklings who are incapable of looking out for the interests of their own constituents' bank accounts, much less global interests.

If the Democrats lose as badly in the upcoming election as is expected, Obama will be extremely and dangerously weakened. So that might be a time for others in the world to harness some initiative and step up to the plate to deliver.

The first paragraph in the previous comment was a post from WigWag. Damn, I can never remember that Steve does not have html enabled.

What a crock of shit all this heavy breathing is. Four Jewish Israeli's, including a pregnant woman, were just slaughtered in a drive by near one of the settlements. Of course, this is horrible. But it is no more horrible than the steady chain of Palestinians that are slaughtered by the Israeli Jews, with far less fanfare than the deaths of these Jews will garner.

You can bet the American media will go into overdrive on these deaths, far more so than they do when Israel shoots Americans in the head with tear gas cannisters. And who knows, is Israel REALLY beyond killing a few troublesome Jewish settlers, blaming it on the Palestinians, and once again casting themselves as the reasonable ones? False flag attacks are a known Israeli tactic. So how the hell do you trust ANY terrorist event that sways things in Israel's favor, as these deaths surely will, at least from a propaganda standpoint?

These talks will go nowhere, if they even get off the ground. Either the Palestinians will be blamed for derailing the talks before they even begin, or, if the talks proceed to any "conclusion", that "conclusion" will be false concessions from Israel, a publically aired orgasm of adoration from the embarrasment Hillary Clinton, and silence from Obama when Netanyahu fucks the Palestinians out of anything and everything he may promise them.

"I think this is all probably true, WigWag. The only possibility for a change in that dynamic is the the Indians, Chinese and Russians, joined perhaps by others like the Brazilians and Turks, and possibly even the Brits, will see in the current situation a golden opportunity to elevate their global position and fill a leadership vacuum that has grown yawning from decades of US shirking." (Dan Kervick)

I'm afraid you are engaging in wishful thinking, Dan. The Chinese and the Indians are competitors; the liklihood that they will be cooperating on foreign policy or anything else will be getting dimmer and dimmer as time progresses. If things develop as many expect, China and India in the late 21st century and early 22nd century are likely to be akin to the United States and the Soviet Union in the 20th century.

Moreover, security cooperation between the Israelis and Indians is growing dramatically stronger every day. The Indians hate Islamic terrorism as much or more as the Israelis do and the both countries are cooperating on security matters. Israel provides more military hardware to India than any nation in the world and the Indians have permitted the Israelis to test long range missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons off their coast in the Indian ocean. It's not just Israel that hasn't signed the NPT; India hasn't either. One other thing to remember is that both India and China have stakes in the Kashmir issue with China occupying parts of Kashmir that India considers Indian territory.

I am glad that you mentioned the Turks though. In my last comment I mentioned that because the Europeans (especially the British and French) did so much to screw up the Middle East that they could help enormously by accepting hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees. In fairness to the British and French, no one did more to screw things up in the Middle East than the Ottoman Turks. In light of their horrendous behavior, their enslavement of the Arabs and their dominion over much of the Middle East for centuries, maybe the Turks would like to accept several hundred thousand Palestinian refugees. My guess is that right after Europe, many of these refugees would just love a free pass to settle in Turkey.

Instead or pretending to help the Palestinians, the Turks could make a real contribution to the creation of a Palestinian state by accepting hundreds of thousands of Palestinians refugees. Along with the British and French, the Turks screwed up the Middle East; let them fix it.

"The Chinese and the Indians are competitors; the likelihood that they will be cooperating on foreign policy or anything else will be getting dimmer and dimmer as time progresses."

True enough. But sometimes competitors cooperate for a time when they see a common interest in displacing the old guard. The Soviets and the Americans, after all, cooperated in the Second World War, defeating the Nazis and displacing the British Empire in one fell swoop, thus clearing the way for their own bipolar global rivalry in the second part of the century.

The question is how long the world can afford to tolerate American weakness and stupidity in the Middle East. Chasing madly and extravagantly after a smattering of jihadist ragamuffins all over the region; working to turn the oil-providing Gulf into a fraught cold war battle line instead of a stable balance of power arrangement; betting the farm on aging dynasts and despots - these are not the actions of an intelligent superpower with the chief responsibility for global security and prosperity.

"In my last comment I mentioned that because the Europeans (especially the British and French) did so much to screw up the Middle East that they could help enormously by accepting hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees."

Attempting to export the European "Jewish problem" to the Middle East a century ago was a crackpot idea whose fatal wrongheadedness has been amply demonstrated by a hundred years of war and disruption. Attempting to export the Palestinian problem from the Middle East to Europe would be even worse, and we can predict its likely results. But maybe finding more ways to screw up Europe is just Israel's Final Revenge.

"The Chinese and the Indians are competitors; the likelihood that they will be cooperating on foreign policy or anything else will be getting dimmer and dimmer as time progresses."

True enough. But sometimes competitors cooperate for a time when they see a common interest in displacing the old guard. The Soviets and the Americans, after all, cooperated in the Second World War, defeating the Nazis and displacing the British Empire in one fell swoop, thus clearing the way for their own bipolar global rivalry in the second part of the century.

The question is how long the world can afford to tolerate American weakness and stupidity in the Middle East. Chasing madly and extravagantly after a smattering of jihadist ragamuffins all over the region; working to turn the oil-providing Gulf into a fraught cold war battle line instead of a stable balance of power arrangement; betting the farm on aging dynasts and despots - these are not the actions of an intelligent superpower with the chief responsibility for global security and prosperity.

"In my last comment I mentioned that because the Europeans (especially the British and French) did so much to screw up the Middle East that they could help enormously by accepting hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees."

Attempting to export the European "Jewish problem" to the Middle East a century ago was a crackpot idea whose fatal wrongheadedness has been amply demonstrated by a hundred years of war and disruption. Attempting to export the Palestinian problem from the Middle East to Europe would be even worse, and we can predict its likely results. But maybe finding more ways to screw up Europe is just Israel's Final Revenge?

Wigwag assails the "idiocy" of Levy for his call for strategic restraint, falsely claiming that there is no history of it succeeding. Yet Afrikaners gave in to blacks, LBJ accorded blacks civil rights, earlier generations accorded women the right to vote, Britain reached out to America and conceded its claims under the Monroe Doctrine. And America helped rebuild Europe after WWII instead of pursuing the traditional "punish the loser" approach that had led to the war in the first place.

History shows that wise powers often make concessions to the weaker party. In the interest of its long term security, Israel could do the same.

But Wigwag advocates for Israel stick to its failed strategies of the past, which are fast leading it into a strategic dead-end with no accommodation for Palestinians. Either Israel will become a full apartheid state and full international pariah, or it will provoke the final cataclysm, probably with Hezbollah, leading to a substantial destruction of the Jewish state.

Israel's choice is clear--continue the wog bashing
that generates immediate gratification, or make some significant concessions for peace, long term security, and economic integration with the region, leading to long term prosperity.

Unfortunately, Israeli paranoia has been so well cultivated and its inferiority complex so deeply rooted that I doubt that they can find it within themselves to abandon wog bashing in favor of peace and prosperity.

"...The only possibility for a change in that dynamic is the the Indians, Chinese and Russians, joined perhaps by others like the Brazilians and Turks, and possibly even the Brits, will see in the current situation a golden opportunity to elevate their global position and fill a leadership vacuum that has grown yawning from decades of US shirking..."

But watch for the US/Israeli push-back -- e.g. the BP/Libyan blame-game farce.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/01/nation/la-na-oil-spill-investigation-20100501

"Attempting to export the European "Jewish problem" to the Middle East a century ago was a crackpot idea whose fatal wrongheadedness has been amply demonstrated by a hundred years of war and disruption" (Dan Kervick)

Well, excuse us for living! Doubtless it was a crackpot idea for my ancestors to ever move to Europe in the first place. That's what your logic says.

What's really noticeable is your habit of speaking of Arab extremism and violence as if it were some unavoidable and automatic reaction which the Arabs could not possibly have controlled and therefore cannot be held responsible for.

Naturally, this pattern of thinking does not hold for Jews or Europeans. They do what they have decided to do. But not Arabs. Or other Muslims.

It's a curious turn of the dialectic, this blanket absolution of the entire Oriental world from any responsibility for its own behavior (using 'Oriental' in the old sense which includes the Mideast). In practice, it's remarkably racist -- what could be more demeaning than telling entire regions of the planets that they are helpless children or victims not responsible for themselves? It's very like the old colonialist attitude. Worse in a way, because the old colonialist types at least thought the natives were capable of improvement if brought under proper management. Whereas the modern liberal answer is to let them stew in victimhood and conspiracy theories forever.

BTW, the Chinese have their own problems with the rise of Islamism, in the form of the Uigers. I would bet a large sum that the Chinese don't regard that problem as "a few ragamuffins," but a serious security issue.

"...It's very like the old colonialist attitude. Worse in a way, because the old colonialist types at least thought the natives were capable of improvement if brought under proper management. Whereas the modern liberal answer is to let them stew in victimhood and conspiracy theories forever..."

Ever watched the film "Zulu"?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058777/

At the end of the day if the new colonial 'jewish' outpost decides not to conform many in the US 'will' have to question the "sacrifice" of their own blood and treasure for your cause. It won't be pretty.

Wasn't "Zulu" a great movie? Who can forget that song contest?

Um, you do remember that the British won the Battle of Rorke's Drift, don't you? 150 British against 4,500 Zulu?

Barry Rubin talks about his many fans in the Arab and Persian worlds, who know that the Islamists are their enemies too:

"During my last speaking trip, which usually focused on the battle between Islamists and nationalists, there were Arabs or Iranians present at each event who enthusiastically endorsed what I said. In one case, a Palestinian wearing a very large kafiyah sat in the front row nodding at my main points. Afterward, he explained that he was a Palestinian Authority supporter who hated Hamas and thought that group was ruining his people's chance for ever getting their own independent state.

And don't even get me started on Iran, where a large majority opposes the current regime, and Turkey, where an even larger majority opposes the current regime. These people, almost all of them Muslims, are anti-Islamist and prefer a democratic state. They may not be "moderate Muslims," that is religious reformers, but they are Muslims who are moderates. They don't respect Westerners smug in their "virtues" of being so Islamophilic, tolerant, and "pro-Arab" as to saddle the poor victimized Middle Easterners with horrible, repressive regimes and permanent violence.

Most of the people who hate and oppose revolutionary Islamism can be most accurately called conservative traditionalists. They prefer Islam as it was practiced before the age of Iran's revolution and Usama bin Ladin. They don't like Israel and have plenty of complaints about the West (though there are also things they like about both) but they don't want to go to war or spend the next century seeking revenge either.

A minority of them are real democrats, courageous people who know what their countries need to do in order to get out of their current morass. The majority is just fed up with terrorism, ideology, dictatorship, economic impoverishment, social stagnation, and using Zionism or imperialism as excuses for all of the above. The Western "sympathizers" who endorse every reactionary cultural and political tendency as "authentic" do them no favors."
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2010/08/muslim-who-is-moderate-writes-help-us.html

Endorsing every reactionary cultural and political tendency as "authentic" is a spot-on description of Dan Kervick's attitude (Paul Norheim's too). It's why I call both of them functionally pro-Hamas. Because that's what they are. It's the net result of their attitude and the policies they favor.

Insightful description of Palestinian refugee camps as "Potemkin villages in reverse" by Prof. Abraham H. Miller:

"Depending upon whose estimate you read, there are some twenty or thirty thousand “refugees” in the Balata refugee camp outside of Nablus. Balata is simultaneously the most populous and smallest of the Palestinian refugee camps — its growing population is confined to one square kilometer, making it one of the most densely populated and miserable places on the planet.

Any regime with an ounce of compassion would have shut Balata down and integrated its people into the surrounding community. Balata is a place without hope, a quagmire of despair, where the day-to-day misery of its inhabitants is partially ameliorated by Western charities and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNWRA), while inadvertently building a culture of dependence.

Balata’s creation could ostensibly be laid at Israel’s doorstep, but its perpetuation cannot. The current residents of Balata are only refugees by a crude reworking of the meaning of the term. They themselves have fled from nothing, and sought refuge from nothing. They are the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren of the people who fled or were expelled during the 1948 war.

If you want to use the term “apartheid” to characterize some aspect of Middle East politics, then Balata is a good place to apply it. It is the Palestinian Authority’s answer to Soweto.

The PA does not permit the children of Balata to go to local schools. It does not permit the people of Balata to build outside the one square kilometer. The people of Balata are prevented from voting in local elections, and the PA provides none of the funds for the necessary infrastructure of the camp — including sewers and roads.

Balata and the other refugee camps are showcases of contrived misery. They are Potemkin villages in reverse. Naïve peace activists and unsophisticated Western clergy are led through such camps to witness the refugee drama, with Israel conveniently and prominently cast in the role of villain."

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/enforced-misery-the-pa-and-the-balata-refugee-camp/?singlepage=true

I agree with the pessimists with regard to the direct talks -
and yes, the US is part of the problem.

To follow up the discussion between Dan Kervick and
WigWag on who could possible replace America as a
mediator in the conflict after decades of failure and a sad
spectacle of political theater - my suggestion would an
initiative from Istanbul in cooperation with New Delhi.

There are many reasons why Turkey would be the most
appropriate mediator, if they manage to repair or improve
their relations to Israel. Turkey has a historic alliance with
Israel, and would also be seen as a credible mediator by
the Palestinians. Istanbul has been involved in attempts to
solve the conflict between Syria and Israel as well (just
before Operation Cast Lead) - an issue that should not be
ignored, because it is a crucial part of the whole complex,
involving Lebanon, Hizbullah, and Iran; thus also Hamas.

No, it won't happen now. But If the upcoming direct talks
fail (and they will); and if Istanbul plays it's cards wisely,
managing to improve the relationship with Jerusalem after
the flotilla event; and - finally - if we within a foreseeable
future see a more center-right (or center-left) government
in Israel - this could be an option worth considering.

China has been mentioned above. I have my doubts. I
believe China will be reluctant to announce itself as a
conflict solver on the world stage - and prefer to increase
its power in a non-conspicious way in the foreseeable
future.

India is probably more interesting. India is not perceived
as a potential threat to the West, and would have much to
gain by being seen as a trustworthy mediator.

Since we're thinking out of the box here, give it a thought:
A joint effort by the Israel-friendly India and the
Palestinian-friendly Turkey (with strong ties to Israel and
with stakes in the region) as mediators?

It would -finally - certainly be in America's and Europe's
interest to substantially back up a more credible mediating
initiative that could help decreasing the tensions in the
region.

Mediators aren't altruists, Paul. The US keeps doing it because the diplomatic situation pressures them to keep doing it. The US knows (or at least did under more skillful administrations) that the issue is a loser, a black hole of perpetual thankless diplomacy.

So what's in it for Turkey or India? Turkey, under the Erdogan government, would leap at the chance to go to bat for its fellow Islamists in Hamas -- which is why Israel wouldn't accept it, and Fatah would find it even less acceptable than Israel. A more moderate, more democratic Turkish government wouldn't have such an interest in trying to lead Arab affairs, unless they saw some advantage for themselves, which would be what, exactly? And that goes double for India. India has plenty of intractable problems at home with Pakistan, they don't need to fish for more abroad. So what's the risk/reward calculation for them?

This is the kind of thankless task superpowers get stuck with, usually by lesser powers who want to keep them distracted and occupied. Smart countries don't take on such problems voluntarily.

"So what's in it for Turkey or India?"

For emerging powers like India, it would be in it's interest to be
seen as a responsible stakeholder in global affairs. For Turkey
this is even more obvious. They openly declare that they want
to take advantage of their position as a "bridge" - i.e. mediator
- between east and west. People like Huntington regard nations
like Russia and Istanbul as "schizophrenic" in this regard (if I
remember correctly). But Istanbul has stated that this
"schizophrenia" could be turned to an advantage.

They have recently proven that they are eager to be mediators
both in the Syrian-Israeli conflict, and with regard to Iran's
nuclear program (the joint effort with Brazil). It is in Turkey's
economic interest to help building the commercial
infrastructure and improving the relations to it's neighbors -
similar to the efforts within EU in it's early stages. To help
solving the I/P conflict - and even the related
Syria/Lebanon/Israel/Iran complex of problems - would not
only increase Turkey's prestige in the region and beyond, but
also help stabilizing the region - which will encourage more
trade.

So yes, it is in the national interest of Turkey as they
themselves define them to mediate in this conflict. I think
Turkey would be more than willing if the tensions in connection
with Operation Cast Lead and the flotilla event calm down and
the Israelis allow them - which would of course not happen as
long as Netanyahu and Lieberman are in charge, but perhaps
with a different government coalition in Israel.

I realize that you want to label Turkey under Erdogan as a
belligerent, fanatical, not to say lunatic Islamist partisan; and I
don't want to get bogged down in that discussion again. But I
think their ambitions go beyond taking a partisan position in
the Middle East context, and that their rational strategy - to
take advantage of their "schizophrenic" status or position as a
"bridge" - could be an asset also for the international
community, not to mention Turkey's immediate neighbors.

If there are any possible losers in this scenario- it could be the
Arabian autocracies and Iran - who would both lose the
Palestinian issue as a "cause" and an excuse for domestic
consumption. And Iran could lose some of it's influence in Syria
and Lebanon, which would be a good thing.

nobody trusts the israelis as a partner for peace nor the
americans as the arbiter.

this is from phil weiss. mondoweiss.net

"Meshal: Most Palestinians, from elites to regular people, reject
the talks
by PHILIP WEISS on AUGUST 31, 2010 · 7 COMMENTS
Like 1 0 Retweet
From Huffpo, a piece saying that the peace process under
Obama is risking greater violence. Interview by Shamine Narwani
of Hamas leader Khaled Meshal in Damascus:

KM: These negotiations are taking place for American and Israeli
considerations, calculations and interests only. There are no
interests at all for us as Palestinians or Arabs. That's why the
negotiations can only be conducted under American orders,
threats and pressure exerted on the PA and some Arab
countries.

The negotiations are neither supported nationally nor are they
perceived as legitimate by the authoritative Palestinian
institutions. They are rejected by most of the Palestinian factions,
powers, personalities, elites, and regular people -- that is why
these "peace talks" are destined for failure."

Code Pink aims to stage barbed-wire Gaza outside White House
tomorrow
by PHILIP WEISS on AUGUST 31, 2010 · 1 COMMENT
Like 3 0 Retweet

From CodePink's press release on a street theater action planned
for the front of the White House tomorrow: A Peace Charade - A
Theatre Parody of the Peace Talks:

Led by CODEPINK, activists will come together to put on a short
performance, with the White House as their backdrop, to parody
the farce masquerading as peace talks. The performers will
include “President Abbas,” “Prime Minister Netanyahu,” and
“Secretary Clinton”. There will be people from Gaza, behind
barbed wire, complaining that they are not included, and settlers
and IDF soldiers busily building more settlements while the talks
are going on. The activists will employ large props, witty
dialogue, and the White House background to put on an
engaging and funny performance that delivers an important
message: these talks are little more than a farce meant for
producing photo opportunities for the U.S. while allowing a
continuation of Israeli settlement expansion, land annexation
and the siege of Gaza.

“While we are making fun of a process that will go nowhere, we
will also be making a serious point that real negotiations can
only happen if the people of Gaza are represented through their
elected government, Hamas"

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/08/code-pink-aims-to-stage-
barbed-wire-gaza-outside-white-house-tomorrow.html

"Well, excuse us for living! Doubtless it was a crackpot idea for my ancestors to ever move to Europe in the first place. That's what your logic says."

Again, no it doesn't. The Zionist movement to create an entire Jewish state in Palestine, and the decision of some European powers to back and promote this project, wasn't just some case of ordinary emigration.

The response of the people native to the Europe-chosen location for the Jewish national home was both predictable and natural. The immigration was authorized and stupidly promoted by colonial authorities and the League of Nations who should not have been authorized to do anything other than transition the population *who already lived in Palestine* to self-rule. Instead, Balfour's Folly was written into the mandate. But nowhere in the world are people going to sit still for a mass immigration movement engineered by a foreign power supervising their homeland as a consequence of war, with the express intention of establishing an entire state for the newcomers on their territory - especially such a small territory.

If Europe had a "Jewish problem", they should have solved their Jewish problem, and not foisted it upon others. Instead the Europeans - both non-Jewish and Jewish Europeans - promoted among themselves the message that the best way to deal with cultural strife between a majority and a minority is to export the minority somewhere else, and make it someone else's problem. It's not surprising that the next generation of Europeans were increasingly captivated by this nifty new idea of exporting Jews.

"Endorsing every reactionary cultural and political tendency
as "authentic" is a spot-on description of Dan Kervick's
attitude (Paul Norheim's too). It's why I call both of them
functionally pro-Hamas. Because that's what they are."

Spot on, huh?

Nadine, please stop this bullshit. Where did I, or Dan for
that sake, "endorse" ANY cultural or political tendency as
"authentic" - as opposed to "in-authentic" tendencies? I
rarely use words like Authentic or Real, as opposed to
"unreal" or "in-authentic", because I am, generally
speaking, skeptical towards these kinds of dichotomies.

So no, you'll never find statements documenting that. It is
empty speculation, pure fiction, contradicted by what I
actually write here every day. Can't say for sure, but it
looks like the logical process in your paranoid braincells
goes approximately like this when you read something I
write:

1) Paul says he doesn't like Rush Limbaugh. But hey, that
means that Paul must be a leftie!

2) Paul is a leftie from the fjords. Aha! That implies that
Paul is multi-culti!

3) Paul is multi-culti, thus Paul loves and excuses The
Other all the time, because that's what multi-culti lefties
from the fjords do, don't they? Barry says so, too.

4) Paul criticize Israel more often than he criticizes Hamas.
Who is Hamas? Hamas is - The Other! Aha!

5) The Other wants to exterminate the Jews, and Paul loves
the Other. This means -ooops! --- that Paul actually loves
Hamas and is in bed with the terrorists and the Salafists
and Achmedinejad and the Jew haters. AHA! This confirms
my weird gut feeling of being existentially threatened
every time I read Paul's comments. Got you, goy!

Something like that...And who on earth learned you this
nonsense method of reasoning - was it Barry Rubin, or
Glenn Beck? In any case, it's crap, it's a pure product of
your own imagination, and it goes against my actual
statements and positions. So please stop this useless and
distracting distortion of my positions - I've had enough of
it.

And the next time I write a post, Nadine, stating, say that
the Arabs were worse then the Westerners in the slave
traffic business, and that the so called "Other"s have their
own agendas and are capable of being just as murderous
and evil as Westerners ----- statements I've already made
several times ----- well, the next time I say things like
this - and you don't trust what you read but reason a la
Glenn or Barry that Paul is a leftie, ergo a multi-culti, ergo
he loves the other....etc, and end up concluding that my
comment was intended as a not-admitted support for, say
the Salafist faction in Gaza and the SA faction in the
internal fight within the Nazi Party in 1934 - well then
shut the hell up and don't embarrass yourself and distract
us by publishing them here.

"Nadine, please stop this bullshit. Where did I, or Dan for that sake, "endorse" ANY cultural or political tendency as "authentic" - as opposed to "in-authentic" tendencies?"

Precisely, Paul. But I have encountered this kind of weirdness before from Nadine and others I know. I ascribe it to the fact that there is a steady publishing diet in this country of right-wing amateur social science, always with some new diagnosis-of-the-month of the wayward mental derangements of "liberals" or whatnot. I'm guessing Nadine has been reading Andrew Potter's *The Authenticity Hoax,* or at least its reviews.

Personally, I have been on something of a campaign lately - which I'm sure many people have noticed - against the predominance of libertarian thought on the left and right, and against libertarianism's anti-social ethos of self-gratification, self-actualization and permanent rebellion against energetic and effective government. I am also a frequent critic of romantic and identity-based approaches to political problems, and have no truck with "natural rights" and argue for political outcomes on the basis of overall consequences, such as I see them. This business of identifying and finding one's "true self", or "authentic" ways of life to achieve some kind of deep freedom doesn't seem to be any part of my political outlook, or even my approach to everyday life.

why dialogue with ziozombies?

we know that all they do is propagate lies interspersed with
minor truths...they are a nation within a nation, they are here to
defend israel.

america wastes too much energy hating illegal aliens and
muslims.

just spread the word as best you can, converting a ziozombie is
like trying to pull a tick off a dog.

phil giraldi and ray mcgovern speak.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-SszJkjy60

Ok, Nadine, I guess this is the time to admit my little
secret. I actually adore the Arabs, every single one of
them!

Yes, Dan is correct, both the Israelis and the Palestinians
are "punks", but the Israelis are rootless backpackers and
wannabe's compared to the authentic Desert Punks -
especially the hardliners on the Gaza strip.

I have done some genetical research in the last couple of
decades, and my conclusion from the DNA analysis so far,
is that the Palestinians are descendants of the Ur-Punks,
just like the Vikings and the Hashashins in Persia and Syria
- in the good old days before this effete, caffe-latte
phenomenon called Western Civilization came, along with
the rootless, arty-farty Jewish cosmopolitism, and
destroyed Real Life.

And now these Israelis are tired of modern, urban café life
and iPods and Cinema in Tel Aviv, and try to go native like
the authentic Punks... But it's all just decadent
postmodernism and an irresponsible play with identities. I
prefer the Real Stuff, the sandniggers.

Ah, it was good to confess...

Satisfied, Nadine? Is this parody in line with what Andrew
Potter describes? Or Rubin?

BTW: Have you ever read Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno's
"The Jargon of Authentisity", written in the early 60s? I
hereby recommend it.

A paper published in 2001, 'The Origin of Palestinians and their Genetic Relatedness with other Mediterranean Populations', involved studying genetic variations in immune system genes among people in the Middle East.

In common with earlier studies, the team found no data to support the idea that Jewish people were genetically distinct from other people in the region. In doing so, the team's research challenges claims that Jews are a special, chosen people and that Judaism can only be inherited.

Jews and Palestinians in the Middle East share a very similar gene pool and must be considered closely related and not genetically separate, the authors state. Rivalry between the two races is therefore based 'in cultural and religious, but not in genetic differences', they concluded.

O.K....every time Andrew showcases another spin-mister Israeli spokeperson I am going to replace it with a American spokesperson like Freeman.

America’s Faltering Search for Peace in the Middle East: Openings for Others?

Remarks to staff of the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and, separately, to members of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs

Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr. (USFS, Ret.)

1 September 2010, Oslo, Norway

You have asked me to speak to current American policies in the Middle East, with an emphasis on the prospects for peace in the Holy Land. You have further suggested that I touch on the relationship of the Gulf Arabs, especially Saudi Arabia, to this. It is both an honor and a challenge to address this subject in this capital / at this ministry.

The declaration of principles worked out in Oslo seventeen years ago was the last direct negotiation between Israelis and Palestinian Arabs to reach consequential, positive results. The Oslo accords were a real step toward peace, not another deceptive pseudo-event in an endlessly unproductive, so-called “peace process.” And if that one step forward in Oslo in 1993 was followed by several steps backwards, there is a great deal to be learned from how and why that happened.

There can be no doubt about the importance of today’s topic. The ongoing conflict in the Holy Land increasingly disturbs the world’s conscience as well as its tranquility. The Israel-Palestine issue began as a struggle in the context of European colonialism. In the post-colonial era, tension between Israelis and the Palestinians they dispossessed became, by degrees, the principal source of radicalization and instability in the Arab East and then the Arab world as a whole. It stimulated escalating terrorism against Israelis at home and their allies abroad. Since the end of the Cold War, the interaction between Israel and its captive Palestinian population has emerged as the fountainhead of global strife. It is increasingly difficult to distinguish this strife from a war of religions or a conflict of civilizations.

For better or ill, my own country, the United States has played and continues to play the key international part in this contest. American policies, more than those of any other external actor, have the capacity to stoke or stifle the hatreds in the Middle East and to spread or reverse their infection of the wider world. American policies and actions in the Middle East thus affect much more than that region.

Yet, as I will argue, the United States has been obsessed with process rather than substance. It has failed to involve parties who are essential to peace. It has acted on Israel’s behalf to preempt rather than enlist international and regional support for peace. It has defined the issues in ways that preclude rather than promote progress. Its concept of a “peace process” has therefore become the handmaiden of Israeli expansionism rather than a driver for peace. There are alternatives to tomorrow’s diplomatic peace pageant on the Potomac. And, as Norway has shown, there is a role for powers other than America in crafting peace in the Holy Land.

Over thirty years ago, at Camp David, Jimmy Carter pushed Israel through the door to peace that Egypt’s Anwar Sadat had opened. Twenty years ago, the first Bush administration pressed Israel to the negotiating table with Palestinian leaders, setting the stage for their clandestine meetings in Oslo. The capacity of the United States to rally other governments behind a cause that it espouses may have atrophied, but American power remains far greater than that of any other nation. Nowhere is this more evident than in the Middle East.

For more than four decades, Israel has been able to rely on aid from the United States to dominate its region militarily and to sustain its economic prosperity. It has counted on its leverage in American politics to block the application of international law and to protect itself from the political repercussions of its policies and actions. Unquestioning American support has enabled Israel to put the seizure of ever more land ahead of the achievement of a modus vivendi with the Palestinians or other Arabs. Neither violent resistance from the dispossessed nor objections from abroad have brought successive Israeli governments to question, let alone alter the priority they assign to land over peace.

Ironically, Palestinians too have developed a dependency relationship with America. This has locked them into a political framework over which Israel exercises decisive influence. They have been powerless to end occupation, pogroms, ethnic cleansing, and other humiliations by Jewish soldiers and settlers. Nor have they been able to prevent their progressive confinement in checkpoint-encircled ghettos on the West Bank and the great open-air prison of Gaza.

Despite this appalling record of failure, the American monopoly on the management of the search for peace in Palestine remains unchallenged. Since the end of the Cold War, Russia – once a contender for countervailing influence in the region – has lapsed into impotence. The former colonial powers of the European Union, having earlier laid the basis for conflict in the region, have largely sat on their hands while ringing them, content to let America take the lead. China, India, and other Asian powers have prudently kept their political and military distance. In the region itself, Iran has postured and exploited the Palestinian cause without doing anything to advance it. Until recently, Turkey remained aloof.

On rare occasions, as in the case of the 1973 Arab oil embargo, the Arabs have backed their verbal opposition to Israel with action. Egypt and Jordan have settled into an unpopular coexistence with Israel that is now sustained only by U.S. subventions. Saudi Arabia has twice taken the initiative to offer Israel diplomatic concessions if it were to conclude arrangements for peaceful coexistence with the Palestinians. But, overall, Arab governments have earned the contempt of the Palestinians and their own people for their lack of serious engagement. For the most part, Arab leaders have timorously demanded that America solve the Israel-Palestine problem for them, while obsequiously courting American protection against Israel, each other, Iran, and – in some cases – their own increasingly frustrated and angry subjects and citizens.

Islam charges rulers with the duty to defend the faithful and to uphold justice. It demands that they embody righteousness. The resentment of mostly Muslim Arabs at their governing elites’ failure to meet these standards generates sympathy for terrorism directed not just at Israel but at both the United States and Arab governments associated with it.

The perpetrators of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the United States saw it in part as reprisal for American complicity in Israeli cruelties to Palestinians and other Arabs. They justified it as a strike against Washington’s protection of Arab governments willing to overlook American contributions to Muslim suffering. Washington’s response to the attack included suspending its efforts to make peace in the Holy Land as well as invading and occupying Afghanistan and Iraq. All three actions inadvertently strengthened the terrorist case for further attacks on America and its allies. The armed struggle between Americans and Muslim radicals has already spilled over to Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and other countries. Authoritative voices in Israel now call for adding Iran to the list of countries at war with America. They are echoed by Zionist and neo-conservative spokesmen in the United States,

The widening involvement of Americans in combat in Muslim lands has inflamed anti-American passions and catalyzed a metastasis of terrorism. It has caused a growing majority of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims to see the United States as a menace to their faith, their way of life, their homelands, and their personal security. American populists and European xenophobes have meanwhile undercut liberal and centrist Muslim arguments against the intolerance that empowers terrorism by equating terrorism and its extremist advocates with Islam and its followers. The current outburst of bigoted demagoguery over the construction of an Islamic cultural center and mosque in New York is merely the most recent illustration of this. It suggests that the blatant racism and Islamophobia of contemporary Israeli politics is contagious. It rules out the global alliances against religious extremists that are essential to encompass their political defeat.

President Obama’s inability to break this pattern must be an enormous personal disappointment to him. He came into office committed to crafting a new relationship with the Arab and Muslim worlds. His first interview with the international media was with Arab satellite television. He reached out publicly and privately to Iran. He addressed the Turkish parliament with persuasive empathy. He traveled to a great center of Islamic learning in Cairo to deliver a remarkably eloquent message of conciliation to Muslims everywhere. He made it clear that he understood the centrality of injustices in the Holy Land to Muslim estrangement from the West. He promised a responsible withdrawal from Iraq and a judicious recrafting of strategy in Afghanistan. Few doubt Mr. Obama’s sincerity. Yet none of his initiatives has led to policy change anyone can detect, let alone believe in

It is not for me to analyze or explain the wide gaps between rhetoric and achievement in the Obama Administration’s stewardship of so many aspects of my country’s affairs. American voters will render their first formal verdict on this two months from tomorrow, on the 2nd of November. The situation in the Holy Land, Iraq, Afghanistan, and adjacent areas is only part of what they will consider as they do so. But I do think it worthwhile briefly to examine some of the changes in the situation that ensure that many policies that once helped us to get by in the Middle East will no longer do this.

Le me begin with the “peace process,” a hardy perennial of America’s diplomatic repertoire that the Obama Administration will put back on public display tomorrow. In the Cold War, the appearance of an earnest and “even-handed” American search for peace in the Holy Land was the price of U.S. access and influence in the Middle East. It provided political cover for conservative Arab governments to set aside their anger at American backing of Israel so as to stand with America and the Western bloc against Soviet Communism. It kept American relations with Israel and the Arabs from becoming a zero-sum game. It mobilized domestic Jewish support for incumbent presidents. Of course, there hasn’t been an American-led “peace process” in the Middle East for at least a decade. Still the conceit of a “peace process” became an essential political convenience for all concerned. No one could bear to admit that the “peace process” had expired. It therefore lived on in phantom form.

Even when there was no “peace process,” the possibility of resurrecting one provided hope to the gullible, cover to the guileful, beguilement for the press, an excuse for doing nothing to those gaining from the status quo, and – last but far from least – lifetime employment for career “peace processors.” The perpetual processing of peace without the requirement to produce it has been especially appreciated by Israeli leaders. It has enabled them to behave like magicians, riveting foreign attention on meaningless distractions as they systematically removed Palestinians from their homes, settled half a million or more Jews in newly vacated areas of the occupied territories, and annexed a widening swath of land to a Jerusalem they insist belongs only to Israel.

Palestinian leaders with legitimacy problems have also had reason to collaborate in the search for a “peace process.” It’s not just that there has been no obviously better way to end their people’s suffering. Playing “peace process” charades justifies the international patronage and Israeli backing these leaders need to retain their status in the occupied territories. It ensures that they have media access and high-level visiting rights in Washington. Meanwhile, for American leaders, engagement in some sort of Middle East “peace process” has been essential to credibility in the Arab and Islamic worlds, as well as with the ever-generous American Jewish community. Polls show that most American Jews are impatient for peace. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, they are eager to believe in the willingness of the government of Israel to trade land for it.

Previous “peace processes” have exploited all these impulses. In practice, however, these diplomatic distractions have served to obscure Israeli actions and evasions that were more often prejudicial to peace than helpful in achieving it. Behind all the blather, the rumble of bulldozers has never stopped. Given this history, it has taken a year and a half of relentless effort by U.S. Special Envoy George Mitchell to persuade the parties even to meet directly to talk about talks as they first did here in Oslo, seventeen years ago. When the curtain goes up on the diplomatic show in Washington tomorrow, will the players put on a different skit? There are many reasons to doubt that they will.

One is that the Obama administration has engaged the same aging impresarios who staged all the previously failed “peace processes” to produce and direct this one with no agreed script. The last time these guys staged such an ill-prepared meeting, at Camp David in 2000, it cost both heads of delegation, Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat, their political authority. It led not to peace but to escalating violence. The parties are showing up this time to minimize President Obama’s political embarrassment in advance of midterm elections in the United States, not to address his agenda – still less to address each other’s agendas. These are indeed difficulties. But the problems with this latest – and possibly final – iteration of the perpetually ineffectual “peace process” are more fundamental.

The Likud Party charter flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan River and stipulates that: “The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state.” This Israeli government is committed to that charter as well as to the Jewish holy war for land in Palestine. It has no interest in trading land it covets for a peace that might thwart further territorial expansion. It considers itself unbound by the applicable UN resolutions, agreements from past peace talks, the “Roadmap,” or the premise of the “two-state solution.”

The Palestinians are desperate for the dignity and security that only the end of the Israeli occupation can provide. But the authority of Palestinian negotiators to negotiate rests on their recognition by Israel and the United States, not on their standing in the occupied territories, Gaza, or the Palestinian diaspora. Fatah is the ruling faction in part of Palestine. Its authority to govern was repudiated by voters in the last Palestinian elections. The Mahmoud Abbas administration retains power by grace of the Israeli occupation authorities and the United States, which prefer it to the government empowered by the Palestinian people at the polls. Mr. Abbas’s constitutional term of office has long since expired. He presides over a parliament whose most influential members are locked up in Israeli jails. It is not clear for whom he, his faction, or his administration can now speak.

So the talks that begin tomorrow promise to be a case of the disinterested going through the motions of negotiating with the mandate-less. The parties to these talks seek to mollify an America that has severely lessened international credibility. The United States government had to borrow the modest reputations for objectivity of others – the EU, Russia, and the UN – to be able to convene this discussion. It will be held under the auspices of an American president who was publicly humiliated by Israel’s prime minister on the issue that is at the center of the Israel-Palestine dispute – Israel’s continuing seizure and colonization of Arab land.

Vague promises of a Palestinian state within a year now waft through the air. But the “peace process” has always sneered at deadlines, even much, much firmer ones. A more definitive promise of an independent Palestine within a year was made at Annapolis three years ago. Analogous promises of Palestinian self-determination have preceded or resulted from previous meetings over the decades, beginning with the Camp David accords of 1979. Many in this audience will recall the five-year deadline fixed at Oslo. The talks about talks that begin tomorrow can yield concrete results only if the international community is prepared this time to insist on the one-year deadline put forward for recognizing a Palestinian state. Even then there will be no peace unless long-neglected issues are addressed.

Peace is a pattern of stability acceptable to those with the capacity to disturb it by violence. It is almost impossible to impose. It cannot become a reality, still less be sustained, if those who must accept it are excluded from it. This reality directs our attention to who is not at this gathering in Washington and what must be done to remedy the problems these absences create.

Obviously, the party that won the democratically expressed mandate of the Palestinian people to represent them – Hamas – is not there. Yet there can be no peace without its buy-in. Egypt and Jordan have been invited as observers. Yet they have nothing to add to the separate peace agreements each long ago made with Israel. (Both these agreements were explicitly premised on grudging Israeli undertakings to accept Palestinian self-determination. The Jewish state quickly finessed both.) Activists from the Jewish diaspora disproportionately staff the American delegation. A failure to reconcile either American Jews or the Palestine diaspora to peace would doom any accord. But the Palestinian diaspora will be represented in Washington only in tenuous theory, not in fact.

Other Arabs, including the Arab League and the author of its peace initiative, Saudi Arabia, will not be at the talks tomorrow. The reasons for this are both simple and complex. At one level they reflect both a conviction that this latest installment of the “peace process” is just another in a long series of public entertainments for the American electorate and also a lack of confidence in the authenticity of the Palestinian delegation. At another level, they result from the way the United States has defined the problems to be solved and the indifference to Arab interests and views this definition evidences. Then too, they reflect disconnects in political culture and negotiating style between Israelis, Arabs, and Americans.

To begin with, neither Israel nor the conveners of this proposed new “peace process” have officially acknowledged or responded to the Arab peace initiative of 2002. This offered normalization of relations with the Jewish state, should Israel make peace with the Palestinians. Instead, the United States and the Quartet have seemed to pocket the Arab offer, ignore its precondition that Israelis come to terms with Palestinians, and gone on to levy new demands.

In this connection, making Arab recognition of Israel’s “right to exist” the central purpose of the “peace process” offends Arabs on many levels. In framing the issue this way, Israel and the United States appear to be asking for something well beyond pragmatic accommodation of the reality of a Jewish state in the Middle East. To the Arabs, Americans now seem to be insisting on Arab endorsement of the idea of the state of Israel, the means by which that state was established, and the manner in which it has comported itself. Must Arabs really embrace Zionism before Israel can cease expansion and accept peace?

Arabs and Muslims familiar with European history can accept that European anti-Semitism justified the establishment of a homeland for traumatized European Jews. But asking them even implicitly to agree that the forcible eviction of Palestinian Arabs was a morally appropriate means to this end is both a nonstarter and seriously off-putting. So is asking them to affirm that resistance to such displacement was and is sinful. Similarly, the Arabs see the demand that they recognize a Jewish state with no fixed borders as a clever attempt to extract their endorsement of Israel’s unilateral expansion at Palestinian expense.

The lack of appeal in this approach has been compounded by a longstanding American habit of treating Arab concerns about Israel as a form of anti-Semitism and tuning them out. Instead of hearing out and addressing Arab views, U.S. peace processors have repeatedly focused on soliciting Arab acts of kindness toward Israel. They argue that gestures of acceptance can help Israelis overcome their Holocaust-inspired political neuroses and take risks for peace.

Each time this notion of Arab diplomacy as psychotherapy for Israelis has been trotted out, it has been met with incredulity. To most in the region, it encapsulates the contrast between Washington’s sympathy and solicitude for Israelis and its condescendingly exploitative view of Arabs. Some see it as a barely disguised appeal for a policy of appeasement of Israel. Still others suspect an attempt to construct a “peace process” in which Arabs begin to supply Israel with gifts of carrots so that Americans can continue to avoid applying sticks to it.

The effort to encourage Arab generosity as an offset to American political pusillanimity vis-à-vis Israel is ludicrously unpersuasive. It has failed so many times that it should be obvious that it will not work. Yet it was a central element of George Mitchell’s mandate for “peace process” diplomacy. And it appears to have resurfaced as part of the proposed follow-up to tomorrow’s meeting between the parties in Washington. It should be no puzzle why the Saudis and other Arabs could not be persuaded to join this gathering.

As a last thought before turning to what must be done, let me make a quick comment on a relevant cultural factor. Arabic has two quite different words that are both translated as “negotiation,” making a distinction that doesn’t exist in either English or Hebrew. One word, “musaawama,” refers to the no-holds-barred bargaining process that takes place in bazaars between strangers who may never see each other again and who therefore feel no obligation not to scam each other. Another, “mufaawadhat,” describes the dignified formal discussions about matters of honor and high principle that take place on a basis of mutual respect and equality between statesmen who seek a continuing relationship.

Egyptian President Anwar Sadat’s travel to Jerusalem was a grand act of statesmanship to initiate a process of mufaawadhat – relationship-building between leaders and their polities. So was the Arab peace initiative of 2002. It called for a response in kind. The West muttered approvingly but did not act. After a while, Israel responded with intermittent, somewhat oblique suggestions of willingness to haggle over terms. But an offer to bicker over the terms on which a grand gesture has been granted is, not surprisingly, seen as insultingly unresponsive.

I cite this not to suggest that non-Arabs should adopt Arabic canons of thought, but to make a point about diplomatic effectiveness. To move a negotiating partner in a desired direction, one must understand how that partner understands things and help him to see a way forward that will bring him to an end he has been persuaded to want. One of the reasons we can't seem to move things as we desire in the Middle East is that we don’t make much effort to understand how others reason and how they rank their interests. In the case of the Israel-Palestine conundrum, we Americans are long on empathy and expertise about Israel and very, very short on these for the various Arab parties. The essential militarism of U.S. policies in the Middle East adds to our difficulties. We have become skilled at killing Arabs. We have forgotten how to listen to them or persuade them.

I am not myself an “Arabist,” but I am old enough to remember when there were more than a few such people in the American diplomatic service. These were officers who had devoted themselves to the cultivation of understanding and empathy with Arab leaders so as to be able to convince these leaders that it was in their own interest to do things we saw as in our interest. If we still have such people, we are hiding them well; we are certainly not applying their skills in our Middle East diplomacy.

This brings me to a few thoughts about the Western and Arab interests at stake in the Holy Land and their implications for what must be done.

In foreign affairs, interests are the measure of all things. My assumption is that Americans and Norwegians, indeed Europeans in general, share common interests that require peace in the Holy Land. To my mind, these interests include – but are, of course, not limited to – gaining security and acceptance for a democratic state of Israel; eliminating the gross injustices and daily humiliations that foster Arab terrorism against Israel and its foreign allies and supporters, as well as friendly Arab regimes; and reversing the global spread of religious strife and prejudice, including, very likely, a revival of anti-Semitism in the West if current trends are not arrested. None of these aspirations can be fulfilled without an end to the Israeli occupation and freedom for Palestinians.

Arab states, like Saudi Arabia, also have compelling reasons to want relief from occupation as well as self-determination for Palestinians. They may not be concerned to preserve Israel’s democracy, as we are, but they share an urgent interest in ending the radicalization of their own populations, curbing the spread of Islamist terrorism, and eliminating the tensions with the West that the conflict in the Holy Land fuels. These are the concerns that have driven them to propose peace, as they very clearly did eight years ago. For related reasons, Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah has made inter-faith dialogue and the promotion of religious tolerance a main focus of his domestic and international policy.

As the custodian of two of Islam’s three sacred places of pilgrimage – Mecca and Medina – Saudi Arabia has long transcended its own notorious religious narrow-mindedness to hold the holy places in its charge open to Muslims of all sects and persuasions. This experience, joined with Islamic piety, reinforces a Saudi insistence on the exemption of religious pilgrimage to Jerusalem from political interference or manipulation. The Ottoman Turks were careful to ensure freedom of access for worship to adherents of the three Abrahamic faiths when they administered the city. It is an interest that Jews, Christians, and Muslims share.

There is, in short, far greater congruity between Western and Arab interests affecting the Israel-Palestine dispute than is generally recognized. This can be the basis for creative diplomacy. The fact that this has not occurred reflects pathologies of political life in the United States that paralyze the American diplomatic imagination. Tomorrow’s meeting may well demonstrate that, the election of Barack Obama notwithstanding, the United States is still unfit to manage the achievement of peace between Israel and the Arabs. If so, it is in the American interest as well as everyone else’s that others become the path-breakers, enlisting the United States as best they can in support of what they achieve, but not expecting America to overcome its incapacity to lead.

Here, I think, there is a lesson to be drawn from the Norwegian experience in the 1990s. The Clinton Administration was happy to organize the public relations for the Oslo accords but did not take ownership of them. It did little to protect them from subversion and overthrow, and nothing to insist on their implementation. Only a peace process that is protected from Israel’s ability to manipulate American politics can succeed.

This brings me to how Europeans and Arabs might work together to realize the objectives both share with most Americans: establishing internationally recognized borders for Israel, securing freedom for the Palestinians, and ending the stimulus to terrorism in the region and beyond it that strife in the Holy Land entails. I have only four suggestions to present today. I expect that more ideas will emerge from the discussion period. A serious effort to cooperate with the Arabs of the sort that Norway is uniquely capable of contriving could lead to the development of still more options for joint or parallel action on behalf of peace.

Now to my suggestions, presented in ascending order of difficulty, from the least to the most controversial.

First, get behind the Arab peace initiative. Saudi Arab culture frowns on self-promotion and the Kingdom is less gifted than most at public diplomacy. Political factors inhibit official Arab access to the Israeli press. The Israeli media have published some – mostly dismissive – commentary on the Arab peace initiative but left most Israelis ignorant of its contents and unfamiliar with its text. Why not buy space in the Israeli media to give Israelis a chance to read the Arab League declaration and consider the opportunities it presents? I suspect the Saudis, as well as other members of the Arab League, would consider it constructive for an outside party to do this. It might facilitate other sorts of cooperation with them in which European capabilities can also compensate for Arab reticence. The Turks and other non-Arab Muslims should be brought in as full participants in any such efforts. This wouldn’t be bad for Europe’s relations with both. By the way, given the U.S. media’s notorious one-sidedness and American ignorance about the Arab peace plan, a well-targeted advertising campaign in the United States might not be a bad idea either.

Second, help create a Palestinian partner for peace. There can be no peace with Israel unless there are officials who are empowered by the Palestinian people to negotiate and ratify it. Israel has worked hard to divide the Palestinians so as to consolidate its conquest of their homeland. Saudi Arabia has several times sought to create a Palestinian peace partner for Israel by bringing Fatah, Hamas, and other factions together. On each occasion, Israel, with U.S. support, has acted to preclude this. Active organization of non-American Western support for diplomacy aimed at restoring a unity government to the Palestinian Authority could make a big difference. The Obama Administration would be under strong domestic political pressure to join Israel in blocking a joint European-Arab effort to accomplish this. Under some circumstances, however, it might welcome being put to this test.

Third, reaffirm and enforce international law. The UN Security Council is charged with enforcing the rule of law internationally. In the case of the Middle East, however, the Council’s position at the apex of the international system has served to erode and subvert the ideal of a rule-bound international order. Almost forty American vetoes have prevented the application to the Israeli occupying authorities of the Geneva Conventions, the Nuremberg precedents, human rights conventions, and relevant Security Council directives. American diplomacy on behalf of the Jewish state has silenced the collective voice of the international community as Israel has illegally colonized and annexed broad swaths of occupied territory, administered collective punishment to a captive people, assassinated their political leaders, massacred civilians, barred UN investigators, defied mandatory Security Council resolutions, and otherwise engaged in scofflaw behavior, usually with only the flimsiest of legally irrelevant excuses.

If ethnic cleansing, settlement activity, and the like are not just “unhelpful” but illegal, the international community should find a way to say so, even if the UN Security Council cannot. Otherwise, the most valuable legacy of Atlantic civilization – its vision of the rule of law – will be lost. When one side to a dispute is routinely exempted from principles, all exempt themselves, and the law of the jungle prevails. The international community needs collectively to affirm that Israel, both as occupier and as regional military hegemon, is legally accountable internationally for its actions. If the UN General Assembly cannot “unite for peace” to do what an incapacitated Security Council cannot, member states should not shrink from working in conference outside the UN framework. All sides in the murder and mayhem in the Holy Land and beyond need to understand that they are not above the law. If this message is firmly delivered and enforced, there will be a better chance for peace.

Fourth, set a deadline linked to an ultimatum. Accept that the United States will frustrate any attempt by the UN Security Council to address the continuing impasse between Israel and the Palestinians. Organize a global conference outside the UN system to coordinate a decision to inform the parties to the dispute that if they cannot reach agreement in a year, one of two solutions will be imposed. Schedule a follow-up conference for a year later. The second conference would consider whether to recommend universal recognition of a Palestinian state in the area beyond Israel’s 1967 borders or recognition of Israel’s achievement of de jure as well as de facto sovereignty throughout Palestine (requiring Israel to grant all governed by it citizenship and equal rights at pain of international sanctions, boycott, and disinvestment). Either formula would force the parties to make a serious effort to strike a deal or to face the consequences of their recalcitrance. Either formula could be implemented directly by the states members of the international community. Admittedly, any serious deadline would provoke a political crisis in Israel and lead to diplomatic confrontation with the United States as well as Israel, despite the Obama Administration itself having proclaimed a one-year deadline in order to entice the Palestinians to tomorrow’s talks. Yet both Israel and the United States would benefit immensely from peace with the Palestinians.

Time is running out. The two-state solution may already have been overtaken by Israeli land grabs and settlement activity. Another cycle of violence is likely in the offing. If so, it will not be local or regional, but global in its reach. Israel’s actions are delegitimizing and isolating it even as they multiply the numbers of those in the region and beyond who are determined to destroy it. Palestinian suffering is a reproach to all humanity that posturing alone cannot begin to alleviate. It has become a cancer on the Islamic body politic. It is infecting every extremity of the globe with the rage against injustice that incites terrorism.

It is time to try new approaches. That is why the question of whether there is a basis for expanded diplomatic cooperation between Europeans and Arabs is such a timely one. And it is why I was pleased as well as honored to have been asked to set the stage for a discussion of this issue.

"Despite this appalling record of failure, the American monopoly
on the management of the search for peace in Palestine remains
unchallenged. (...) China, India, and other Asian powers have
prudently kept their political and military distance. In the region
itself, Iran has postured and exploited the Palestinian cause
without doing anything to advance it. Until recently, Turkey
remained aloof."

As I suggested above, if there is a new government in place in
Israel a couple of years from now, and Turkey manages to
improve it's relations with Israel, Turkey should be encouraged to
make a serious effort as a mediator - perhaps in cooperation
with India, Brazil, or another country with a fresh approach - a
country that doesn't have it's hands tied the way the US has.

Sorry, forgot to mention that the quote in my last comment was
from Chas Freeman's remarks in Oslo today, provided by Carroll.

Dan Kervick,

1. Europe did not chose the location for the Zionist project -- the Zionists did, because the land of Israel is the Jewish homeland. The Zionists merely lobbied for support from every source they could think of, first the Ottomans, later the British. At a time when the old political structures of the Levant had dissolved, it was natural to apply to the new powers in control.

2. Europe did not use the Zionist project to 'solve their Jewish problem' -- Europe exterminated 90% of its Jews. They didn't have much 'problem' left.

Every time you & Paul refer to the Arabs' political choices for the last 90 years as a kind of automatic response for which they have no responsibility, you are promulgating the 'authentic cultural response' nonsense of today's academia, in which Westerners make choices, but non-Westerners react automatically in ways they are not responsible for.

Functionally, this is deadly for Arab moderates, whom you refuse to recognize, let alone support. Functionally, it is pro-extremist, pro-Hamas, pro-Hizbullah.

Had the Left condemned Hamas for shelling Israel after its coup of 2007, Israel might have been able to destroy the Hamas command and return Gaza to the control of Fatah, which would greatly improve the real chances for peace.

But nooooo, the Left thinks Hamas's legitimacy is not dependent on its behavior; far from it, they continually agitate for their official recognition. Hamas took over in a coup, and executed hundreds of Fatah operatives; yet the Left keeps calling them legitimate. What's legitimate about that? It's not democracy, that's for sure.

The reason people keep saying the Left believes that Hamas is a 'legitimate cultural expression' is because of the support the Left gives to Hamas as an authentic cultural expression, and the free pass the Left gives Hamas on their rockets to Israel and internal mass executions and oppression.

"I am not myself an “Arabist,” but I am old enough to remember when there were more than a few such people in the American diplomatic service." (Chas Freeman)

Too funny. No, he's not subtle enough to be an "Arabist", he's just a tool.

"The Palestinians are desperate for the dignity and security that only the end of the Israeli occupation can provide."

So why are they desperate to avoid the negotiations that would end the occupation?

"But the authority of Palestinian negotiators to negotiate rests on their recognition by Israel and the United States, not on their standing in the occupied territories, Gaza, or the Palestinian diaspora."

Wrap your head around the absurdity of this statement. Freeman is actually claiming that the authority of the Palestinians negotiators does not depend on the legitimacy of the Palestinian government (it has practically none) or its ability to keep its commitments (Palestinians keep commitments? Is that a joke?), but only on support by foreign powers.

This statement is so absurd that it gives the game away. This isn't about the Palestinians at all, despite all the sympathy thrown their way; it is purely about bashing Israel for the viewing pleasure the radicals in the Islamic world.

Freeman's recipe would hand the WB to Hamas, which Freeman wouldn't mind a bit, as he calls them the legitimately elected party (never mind that 2007 coup. Will there be future elections, ever?). If Freeman has any plan, it feeding Israel to the crocodile in the hope it will thereby be satisfied.

Can I call Chas Freeman pro-Hamas, Paul? Will you admit that adjective is well deserved?

Nadine, I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to "authenticity", "legitimate cultural expressions", "automatic responses" and whatnot. Please sell your latest fixed ideas elsewhere.

On the other hand, I believe I did say something about "natural responses". Far from suggesting that Arabs should be treated or regarded differently, or that they are not responsible for their response to the challenge of the Zionist colonization of Palestine, I suggested that the Arab response was both natural and predictable. I think Arabs responded in pretty much the way you or I would respond if foreigners began immigrating to our homeland, contrary to the wishes of our people, and if foreign powers assisted them in setting up an independent state on our territory. The responses would include outrage, defiance and resistance.

"So why are they desperate to avoid the negotiations that would end the occupation?"

I haven't read a single commentator so far who expects these negotiations to succeed in ending the occupation, getting Israeli settlers out of the West Bank, or establishing a genuine Palestinian state. Why should the Palestinians walk into this setup. The only offer they are going to get from Israel and the Americans is an offer of a non-state autonomous region or homeland on the territory that the settlers haven't taken yet.

"I think Arabs responded in pretty much the way you or I would respond if foreigners began immigrating to our homeland, contrary to the wishes of our people, and if foreign powers assisted them in setting up an independent state on our territory. The responses would include outrage, defiance and resistance."

Yeah, like the suicide bombers are motivated by desperation, because that's the only reason you can think of. Because everybody in the world thinks just like Dan Kervick.

Who is "our"? If there is one thing manifest from the contemporary accounts of 1948, it is that the Zionists wanted to make a country out of Palestine, but this political idea was entirely missing from the heads of the local Arab masses, who had just moved there for jobs. That's why their only concern was to get out of the way. A few Arab autocrats had the idea, but not the people.

Public service announcement.

To those interested.
I looked long ago for a translation of Solzhenitsyn's book that was banned here in the US and then gave up finding one, but viola!...today I saw on another site a poster's link to a site that is providing a translation.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 200 Years Together.

http://www.ethnopoliticsonline.com/archives/ais/ais%20main.html

Not all chapters are finished yet but I read part of Chapter 18 below about the Jews in Russia....the reason his book provoked such an uproar among the zionist.
Very interesting.

http://www.ethnopoliticsonline.com/archives/ais/ais%20chapter18.html

What Solzhenitsyn explains in this chapter is how the communist movement in Russia made possible the unshackling of lower class rural jews who then migrated to the cities to take advantage of the new communist ideology and created a "Jewish nepotism" that took over, among other things, the publishing industry in Russia.

Some might think we have the same problem here....seeing as how his book couldn't be published in English in the US
But once again....the net to the rescue.
Yet another of my "neo nazi forgeries" postings for nadine. LOL

One thing Solzhenitsyn writes...

"David Azbel remembers the Nakhamkins, a family of Hasidic Jews from Gomel. (Azbel himself was imprisoned because of snitching by the younger family member, Lev.)

"The revolution threw the Nakhamkins onto the crest of a wave.
They thirsted for the revenge on everyone - aristocrats, the wealthy,Russians, few were left out. This was their path to self-realization"...

..really reminds me off the atitude of revenge and hatred for the non jewish others we see here from wig and nadine and marcus types....their path to 'self realization" doesn't seem to have changed over the century.

Another Israeli civilian car was shot up today...more peace process casualties. Internally, Fatah competes with Hamas in praising terrorism...the Left ritually proclaims the terrorism "senseless"...au contraire, the terrorists know exactly what they are doing. They are preventing a settlement.

"Can I call Chas Freeman pro-Hamas, Paul? Will you admit that
adjective is well deserved?" (Nadine)

Go ahead, Nadine. With your nasty praxis of routinely inventing
statements, and randomly attributing them to people who
never uttered them, never wanted to utter them, never even
thought in those terms before you formulated them, you'll
attribute any adjective to anyone you disagree with anyhow.

Personally, I consider starting a verbal vendetta against you,
insisting that you are using the Somalian hawala system to
finance the Basque separatist group ETA and US survivalist
militias fighting Big Government. The more I think about it, the
more I realize that yes, that's actually what you've been doing
for a long time now.

But why, Nadine? Why are you so fond of ETA and militant
survivalist groups?

More Palestinian civilian casualties...more Israeli land grab casualties. Internally, Shas competes with Yisrael Beiteinu in praising settler maximalism...the Right ritually condemns terrorism...au contraire, the settlers know exactly what they are doing. They are preventing a settlement so that the settlers can get ALL the land.
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=186012

The fact that Nadine keeps insisting that the Palestinians must
speak in Hebrew or Yiddish during the direct talks, is clear and
shocking evidence that she agrees with Rabbi Ovadia Yosef in his
calling for the annihilation of Arabs.

Carroll,

Thank you for posting Chas Freeman's speech.

Dan, nobody expects the talks to go anywhere because they recognize that Abbas is far too weak to agree to anything even if he wanted to. They generally blame Netanyahu for this.

Let's try a little thought experiment. Suppose Abbas decided to show that the lack of progress is not due to Palestinian intransigence. Suppose he boldy laid out his conditions for a two state solution: the borders and land swaps of Taba, 80% of Jewish settlements destroyed as in Taba, symbolic "right of return" with limited numbers of returnees, 50,000 a year, full independence, no demiliterization, capital in East Jerusalem, but in return he would recognize Israel as a Jewish state (with full protection for minorities), and declare an end of conflict.

In short something that would sound fair to most of the world. What would happen next, do you think?

Nadine, as long as you keep demanding that the Vatican should
represent the Palestinian side, you know that these direct talks
will go nowhere!

Hey Nadine, stop telling us that Hamas put Aung San Suu Kyi in
jail - it was the Burmese generals who did that!

"In short something that would sound fair to most of the world. What would happen next, do you think?"

Nadine - If Abbas were to make the fair offer you outlined, Netanyahu would reject it. How do I know? Because Netanyahu could make that offer himself, but he doesn't. Bibi could almost permanently dig Israel out it's negative world image if he publicly declared such an offer.

Israel has people like Benny Begin and Boogie Ya'alon running around telling everyone that the Gang of 7 has only authorized Bibi to give up Area B - nothing more. We'll see but I think that it is Israel's primary responsibility as the occupying force to step forward with the kind of offer that will put an end to this conflict. Dragging out negotiations to to retain a few extra dunams of land is "penny wise and pound foolish".

Nadine, why should Abbas lay out a proposal when Bibi refuses to? Besides, the Arabs have already laid out broad parameters in the peace initiative, something that Bibi won't even deign to acknowledge.

What we are seeing here is the age old Likud policy of "appearing reasonable, conceding nothing." To give these negotiations any credibility at all, Bibi must concede something. After all, the PA has already recognized the state of Israel. Time for Israel to concede something in return.

Candidate Obama's pledge on I/P has been proven false: "I will take an active role, and make a personal commitment to do all I can to advance the cause of [I/P] peace from the start of my administration."

Of course there was a caveat which has been honored: "We must never force Israel to the negotiating table, but neither should we ever block negotiations when Israel's leaders decide that they may serve Israeli interests."

Obama's blatant partisanship towards Israel makes him a less than an honest broker: "The bond between Israel and the United States is rooted in more than our shared national interests — it's rooted in the shared values and shared stories of our people. And as president, I will work with you [AIPAC] to ensure that this bond is strengthened. . .I have been proud to be a part of a strong, bipartisan consensus that has stood by Israel in the face of all threats. . .They offer the false promise that abandoning a stalwart ally is somehow the path to strength. It is not, it never has been, and it never will be. . .Those who threaten Israel threaten us."

quotes are from Obama's speech to AIPAC, June 2008

"Because Netanyahu could make that offer himself, but he doesn't."

And Netanyahu is presumably bound politically by the Likud Charter, which flatly rejects a Palestinian state in Palestine.

Israel's posture in this matter is similar to Iran's in theirs -- why negotiate away something that is in no danger if you don't? Or as another example, the USA negotiating with Vietnam to end its disastrous involvement there.

Now negotiating a surrender (Vietnam again) is different.

Dan, jd, But if Netanyahu is sure to refuse the offer as you say, wouldn't it be a brilliant move for Abbas to put it forward? He would demonstrate to the whole international community that he was the brave peacemaker, and that the lack of progress was Israel's fault. Pressure on Israel would skyrocket! It would be great for him! No?

So why has he never done it? Why did Arafat never do it?

debka is reporting that Tehran wants Hizbullah to attack Israel directly after the start of direct peace talks on Sept 2nd. To send their signal. They don't want to leave the shooting to Hamas.

Peace talks are not benign. They kill a lot of people.

"debka is reporting...blablahblah...sputter....spew...burp....lie...."

Who gives a shit what debka reports???

Debka. Give me a break. Is your whole world view founded in propaganda?

You're gonna drown in your own bullshit Nadine.

Wow. debka. No partisan point of view there...

Nadine is so full of shit that it has actually become surreal reading the excrement she secretes with every stroke of the key. She must be nuts to be peddling this crap. God help the Jews if the crazy wretched bigot is indicative of Israeli Jewish society.

Well, I'd sure like to get into that kitchen with a few lbs. of strong laxative. By Golly, if any of these guys had the runs, a few trips to the head would render them invisible. I think after they shitted themselves out, all that would be left is a bevy of flappin' lips flopping around on the floor. And a good pair of workboots, a broom, and a dustpan would make short work of them.

Stomp.

-- Legal Challenge to Iraqi Oil Contracts

"The Supreme Court of Iraq is currently considering the legality of the Rumaila oilfield contract awarded by the Iraqi Ministry of Oil to BP and China National Oil Petroleum Co (SINOPEC) in the first bidding round for oil and gas field development contracts in 2009.

The lawsuit has been filed by a former Iraqi MP, who argues that the BP contract violates the Iraqi constitution. The outcome of this case is likely to have significant implications concerning the legality of the contracts that were awarded to international oil companies (IOCs) by the Ministry of Oil in 2008-09..."

http://www.iraq-businessnews.com/2010/08/07/legal-challenge-to-iraqi-oil-contracts/

Wonder where this is going -- if anywhere? What leverage is being used and by whom.