Many supporters of Israel are skeptical of anyone who is not sufficiently cynical about the prospects of peace; the idea is that it's only realistic to be cynical. There was, reportedly, much murmuring about Obama's attack on cynicism and what it portends for Israel, particularly when coupled with his earlier recognition of Palestinian suffering.

Interesting that Obama's audience would assume he was talking about Israeli cynicism. Why not Palestinian cynicism? Cynicism on both sides is the enemy of peace.

Brad - There you go again. It's all the Palestinians fault. If the Palestinians were not cynical, the Israelis would be happy and dancing and everything would be magically better.

I believe your assessment of the Palestinians is widely off the mark. I believe 80% of them just want the yoke of Israeli occupation off their necks. The Palestinians were quiet and submissive from 1967 to 1987 - what did they gain from that? Nothing! So in 1987 we had the first Infitada that eventually led to Oslo. This agreement was built with peaceful intentions but was flawed from the start because of it's incremental implementation. When the Wye River accords were signed establishing Areas A, B, and C, the settlement activity exploded. I know - I was there. The Palestinians I knew back then could see the handwriting on the wall - Oslo was nothing more than a gambit for reservations.

We can argue all day long about the relative merits of each sides activities but one thing is clear - Israel for its own good MUST solve this problem soon as it is corroding it's very soul. As time passes and the occupation is not ended, Israel's standing in the world, economically, politically, religiously, militarily and socially will continue to erode. It's Israels responsibility to take the lead since they have the most to lose.

To MJ - never give up your optomism and your fight. My depression and cynicism will never solve this conflict. Our only hope is people like
YOU!

I hope this isn't a cynical ploy to give the perception that the Palestinians are cynical and only the Israelis are earnest.

According to the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research:

85% of Palestinians support the Gaza ceasefire and support extending the agreement to the West Bank.

62% believe the Hamas government should conduct peace negotiations with the Israelis.

58% support mutual recognition - both Israel and Palestine would recognize each other's right to exist.

66% of Palestinians favoured a political settlement resulting in two states.

81% favoured negotiated agreements between the Palestinians and the Israelis. (71% of Hamas supporters favoured negotiations.)

Perhaps your conclusions are based on your own cynical perception of Palestinians because they don't reflect reality.

Brad: From whose research did you obtain your data? Do you have a link to the poll?

Your figures are in stark contrast to those found by a recent (December 2006) opinion survey of Israelis and Palestinians, conducted jointly by the Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR) in Ramallah.

The joint poll examined a range of optional tracks for the resumption of the Israeli-Palestinian political process including the Roadmap, the Arab League (Saudi) plan, and an interim plan postponing the settlement of the refugees issue to the future. We also examined the Israeli leadership's degrees of freedom to begin negotiations with various configurations of a Palestinian government.

The findings indicate strong preference in both publics for the comprehensive settlement option with 58% of the Israelis and 81% of the Palestinians supporting this track compared to only 30% of the Israelis and 16% of the Palestinians supporting an interim track.

...End of Conflict

In the Palestinian public 62% support and 34% oppose a compromise on ending the conflict that would state that when the permanent status agreement is fully implemented, it will mean the end of the conflict and no further claims will be made by either side. The parties will recognize Palestine and Israel as the homelands of their respective peoples. An identical question received in June the support of 58% and the opposition of 40%.

In the Israeli public 68% support and 30% oppose this component in the final status framework. In June 2006, 70% of the Israelis supported it while 27% opposed it.

The poll was quite extensive, and is part of a ongoing project to sample Israeli/Palestinian opinion on matters of peace. There have been a number of polls conducted jointly by these two organizations, which are published, along with additional polls, in an index of polls on the PCPSR website. There is polling data dating as far back as 1993. They also offer information about their methodology, and in general appear to be quite transparent.

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

How about that Hamas is still calling for the destruction of Israel rather than complay with these poll numbers?

As for the rest of the Arabs they ar so scared of their own people and of Iran they dare not say that Israel is never going to take back all of the Palestinian refugees, especially as defined by the Palestinians.

The Arab use of Israel and Jews as a scapegoat has been 50 years of cynicism.

Not to see this realism is to live in a faith based reality such as Bush and to leave reality behind.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

That is really nice, Scott. Thanks.

On March 17, 2007 - 12:02pm LEL66 said:

"Estrich says that the pro-Israel Right was offended when Obama said that cynicism about the chances of achieving peace is dangerous"
------------------
I would say that the danger lies in making concessions and withdrawing from territory that then is used to launch rockets at Israel.

Can't they launch rockets and hit Israelis from where they are now?

Estrich says that the pro-Israel Right was offended when Obama said that cynicism about the chances of achieving peace is dangerous.

The pro-Bush Right is offended because I said the chances of achieving a peaceful Democracy in Iraq are almost nil.

This brings to mind that book they talked about on Maher last friday, "The Secret."

Like if you just believe in something, or can visualize it, it'll happen.

While it's true being 100% convinced something won't happen ensures that it won't happen, there's a certain arrogance in the conceit. For instance, as it was brought up on the real time show, it lets the people responsible for economic disparity off the hook for poverty. People are poor cause they just can't believe they'll ever be rich.

Apparently, Obama believes the conflict exists because people just can't imagine anything different.

If his goal is peace, that's not good problem solving skills and will only offend both of the parties involved.

If his goal is to impress wide eyed optimists, mission accomplished.

Israel is calling for the destruction of Hamas, so it doesn't surprise me that Hamas is returning the sentiment in kind.

The U.S. machinations in the area are the height of cynicism - they encouraged and facilitated Hamas participation in the electoral process and then refused to recognize them as a legitimate representative of the people. One author claimed that Olmert and Bush did so to give cover to Israel to abandon the peace process
in order that Israel could impose borders unilaterally and annex big sections of the West Bank.

The fact that Israel indeed will refuse the right of return of the Palestinian refugees is rather cynical - it also completely undermines their claim of the only democracy in the Mid East, but that is the subject for another thread.

The problem of the Mid East isn't one of cynicism, it is the notion that one side suffered more than the other, that neither side will recognize the suffering of the other, and neither side will ever forgive the other side.

It isn't that we forget history that condemns us to repeat it, it's that we cannot forgive history that condemns us to its endless repetition.

What the Mid East is, is an old married couple who hate each other, but won't divorce because they can't decide how to divide the property, and the fact that tormenting each other is their raison d'etre for living.

I see this through an analogy;

Supposed I had a home, maybe on a little piece of ground, 2 or 3 acres with a few fruit trees and a vegetable patch. And lets say I lived there for 25/30 years, and its where I raised my family, maybe I have one or two children still at home.

Then one day a stranger comes along and forces me out of my home and off my land, forces me to to take my family and go off and rebuild all that it took us all those years to build. All the while that stranger takes over my house and land as his own.

Is this what happened in Israel/Palestine?

"I am so uncynical it hurts."

MJ: oheb shalom

It's a good kind of hurt.

What could be more cynical, when all the piety and half-understood metaphysics are stripped away, than "supporting" Israel because the triumph and subsequent destruction of the Jews are necessary in order for Jeebus to come back and carry me off to heaven?
A good chunk of the "pro-Israel" right is quite literally opposed to peace because it's an impediment to "Rapture". If you think I'm exaggerating, just remember all the postings on Xian websites when the war flared up in southern Lebanon last year. Were I a more talented google monkey, I'd post links.

The neocons worked the fear spin after 911 to conflate every threat (real or imagined) to Israel as a threat to the US.

I'd like to see a candidate reframe the discussion by persistently turning the discussion back to what is good for Americans, what keeps us safe, what helps our economy, what minimizes our commitment of military and financial resources.

That may well be strong support for Israel and more involvement in the Mideast than I'd like to see, but I believe Americans can't make rational decisions without a relentless focus on what is good for us.

I have a hunch that if we focus on what is good for the American people, we'd be a lot more likely to follow a policy that is good for the Canadian people and in the long run it would be best for the Israeli people because no government can pursue policies counter to its own interests for long. The neocon zealots are already generating a backlash and cynicism can just as easily turn against Israel. After all, most Americans have supported Israel for idealistic reasons. Take away the idealism and most of us have no reason to support Israel at all.

Sometimes conflict does exist because people can't imagine living any other way. I can think of numerous historical anecdotes that would make this true. Everytime civilization undergoes a paradigm shift, there is conflict - the shift from agricultural to industrial economies created huge conflict in the world, just as one example. This kind of conflict is very evident in the Middle East where a yearning for a return to fundamentalism is manifest. Those who traditionally exercised control over society and families are losing that control, of course unrest will grow.

Obama is following a great tradition in creating a vision and articulating that vision, like JFK inaugural speech, or Lincoln's Gettysburg Address or Roosevelt's fireside chats, he's hoping he can change people's vision of the future as a cynical, sucking eddy of despair to one of hope and challenge. If only Bush had seized that opportunity after 9.11 - he might have been able to unite the world in acheiving some measure of justice and happiness for all people.

(And no, I don't believe just wishing for something makes it appear.)

As part of Slacktivist's series on Left Behind, just yesterday Fred was talking about the fear of peacemakers. The fundies that read and believe Left Behind fear any leader that talks about peace. Why? Because they've been told that the antichrist will appear as a peacemaker. If you follow somebody who's upfront about wanting war, you don't have to be worried about being tricked into following the antichrist.

So sad that deluded people allow fairy tales to control their lives. Reading Slacktivist's series is eye-opening.

Why AIPAC's cynicism? Because that's how they hide their dirty little secret, which is that, in their view, sooner or later Palestinians will have to go. (Not entirely sure how you do that, but some of us were once expelled from Spain, so I know it's been done before.)

AIPAC might be stupid but they're not *that* stupid. They know that a two-state solution will soon become unfeasible. (Too many settlers to unsettle and too many holes in the Swiss cheese.) A binational state is a nice topic for blogs but it's DOA. Gideon Levy had a nice piece recently explaining how everyone, from Bibi to Kadima, is working hard on a binational solution. He was not being cynical: only ironic.

So it'll be Botha's South Africa or Isabella's Spain. AIPAC is backing Isabella.

Of course the Likudnik jerks prefer cynicism. That's their whole argument. "You can't negotiate with those people." As if there were more than one kind of people.

Re: AIPAC might be stupid but they're not *that* stupid.

Ever heard of group think? Yes, a group of intelligent people can be very, very stupid. To wit, how it will eventuate that "Palestinians will have to go"?

Tell what you want about Isabela, but she had the means to expell Jews and Moors. Israel does not.

J. McCutchen

Much respect due Estrich for a stand-up article which reinforces my decision to support Obama. Now off the rally in Oakland...4 pm

Deutcher's analogy is excellent for the people involved in general, his recognizing a debt to the Arabs was a positive addition. I tried to take it down to the individual; Imagine my analogy happening to you.

Either way shows how some people can be pissed off for ages.

"...a two-state solution will soon become unfeasible. (Too many settlers to unsettle and too many holes in the Swiss cheese.)"

I recently asked Uri Avnery about this. This was his response (e-mail):

Settlements can be removed, territories can be exchanged. If there is a will, there is more than one way. It's the will that counts.

He also said, "Despair is the enemy." Message: don't try to tell that old bird it's time to give up! It's gut check time.

Agreed.

They're not that stupid that they can't see that their logic dictates an Isabella solution.

But they're too stupid to realize this can't work.

I agree on both points. But when he says "It's the will that counts," I think he is talking about the popular will on both sides. At some point, it may be hoped, the will of the people will overrun their politicians and make peace happen.

And don't forget the wall. That will have to be torn down if a viable state is to be created.
How many hours, no, make that minutes, would an Israeli prime minister survive your (1,2) + taking down the wall (oops, sorry, fence, ur, tennis net.. . whatever that is)?

Exactly, which is why anything she writes about should be questioned.

Of course, the wall has already been ordered taken down by the International Court of Justice in the Hague. It's past discussing. Peace will mean that all parties must comply with international law, and that would have to include the issue of the wall.

Will the Palestinians ever agree that Israel has the right to exist wherever it claims it has the right to exist...

I think that's an important point. Some authors think that the Jews brought on their suffering during WWII because of their need to dominate.

And, was Israel founded by leaders who were full of anxiety and mistrust because of what happened to a society identified by a religion?

Estrich is the one that put Dukakis in the tank.

I wonder how she got to become a FOX regular. Her judgement may be suspect.

J. McCutchen

The United States has given Israel $51.3 billion in military grants since 1949, most of it after 1974 – more than any other country in the post-1945 era. Israel has also received $11.2 billion in loans for military equipment, plus $31 billion in economic grants, not to mention loan guarantees or joint military projects. But major conditions on these military grants have meant that 74 percent of it has remained in the U.S. to purchase American arms. Since it creates jobs and profits in many districts, Congress is more than ready to respond to the cajoling of the Israel lobby. This vast sum has both enabled and forced Israel to prepare to fight an American-style war. But the US since 1950 has failed to win any of its big wars. In early 2005 the new chief of staff of the Israel Defense Force, Dan Halutz, embarked on the most extensive reorganization in the history of IDF. Halutz is an Air Force general and enamored with the doctrines that justify the ultra-modern equipment the Americans showered upon the Israelis. Attack helicopters, unmanned aircraft, advanced long-range intelligence and communications, and the like were at the top of his agenda. His was merely a variation of Donald Rumsfeld’s "shock and awe" concepts. The 34-day war in Lebanon, starting July 12 last year, was a disastrous turning point for Israel

Israel's Last Chance
Act Like a Normal Nation or Else

Kolko's article discusses another War Clouds Gather Over the Golan Martin van Creveld

I'm curious: What percentage of American Jews know that the Palestinians are victims of this grave injustices? Do 90% of them know it or are they like the poll of US soldiers in Iraq that my daughter showed me this afternoon where 90% think they're in Iraq because of Saddam's "role" in 9/11?

I agree that Estrich is what specialists call "imperfect narrator", but here she managed to make a good observation.

Undeniable fact is that Cheney got the biggest ovation and that Clinton is preferred over Obama by AIPAC crowd. And what is the difference between Clinton and Obama (who is not on record of kissing a Palestinian)? Estrich's explanation seem to be on the spot.

I'm not trying to "flyspeck Estrich or Rosenberg". What I am pointing out here, is Estrich proclaims a growing rightwing group of Jews, who have turned against Obama because of his plea for hope instead of cynicism and offers an anecdote - a father and a son who supports Clinton being "offended" at a candidate who asks them to reject cynicism as that "growing trend".

Out of 6000 delegates, two people "are offended" and now it is a "growing rightwing group who have turned away from Obama." (I have to say that in the four articles I found on this topic, three had quoted the Silvers which doesn't seem to be the growing wing of a party as much as two big mouthers with an urge to self-aggrandizement.)

Of course this story will grow exponentially with every retelling by some lazy oped writer until one morning just before the election, an article will appear and say "Sen Obama at his last appearance at AIPAC conference was attacked by an immense group of AIPAC reps and forced to flee for his own safety." Calling himself the leader of the rather disorganized mob, Jesse Silver stated, "all Jews become unhinged at the use of the word "cynic, a more mature man would have used phrases such as 'you know who I mean' or 'those other guys' or even just winked in their direction, but no, this guy just had to say it - the c-word." "It just goes to show you how immature Obama is,' said Silver, 'that he continues to believe he can say anything he wants even if it is the truth. Here at AIPAC we believe that people can say anything he wants as long as it is what we want to hear."

The analogy is untrue. Zionism predates WWII.

"Some authors think that the Jews brought on their suffering during WWII because of their need to dominate."--mcs

Somewhere in whatever hell they are lying Hitler, Goebbels abd Eichmann are smiling. The Big Lie has come to the internet age.

mcs, if you believe those authors or are unwilling to condemn them, then please go to the Holocaust Museum website, http://www.ushmm.org/ or even better go to the museum, and learn the real reasons for the Jews' sufferring betwen 1939 (actuually 1933) and 1945.

Mr. Rosenberg, since I am not at all confident that the Times will print my reply letter to the Editor responding to your latest press release today--one that took the form of Nicholas Kristof's column-- I will set forth my reply here. In my letter I asked if Kristof knows the name, address and phone number of the Palestinian Sadat--the bold leader who will recognize Israel's right to live in peace and security and who, unlike the feckless Abbas, has the power to make a peace agreement endure. Do you or Prof. Estrich have that contact information? If so, please share that with us so I can forward it immediately to Prime Minister Olmert, Deputy Prime Minister Peres, and Foreign Minister Livni. I have no doubt that they will invite the Palestinian Sadat to Jerusalem as quickly as Prime Minister Begin did the Egyptian Sadat in 1977.

Every day or two you wage rhetorical war against some posters here like me, AIPAC, and various "rightwing types" (I'm sure Sen. Obama, Sen. Dodd, John Edwards, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Nita Lowey and me will be amused to be considered "rightwing types"--we, and millions more, are all passionate Democrats who share basic agreement with AIPAC's principal positions, even if we somtimes disagree about particular tactics of the Israel's government). I and the people who share my views want to see a lasting two-state solution but do not habitually blame Israel first.

Just once I would like to see you write a blog addressed to those who think Hamas is doing the right thing by not putting an end to the shelling of Sderot, and not releasing Cp. Shalit, and refusing to forthrightly and openly recognize Israel and refusing to unequivocally and explicitly agree to the previous accords. If you really think Israel will competely vacate the West Bank before those things happen, you are deluded.

MJ can answer for himself but, on Obama, both MJ and Kristof make it clear that they consider Obama to be the one national politician who does not buy into the Aipac line.
That is why Aipac is directing its donors to give to Clinton. As to why MJ should "write a blog addressed to those who think Hamas is doing the right thing by not putting an end to the shelling of Sderot, and not releasing Cp. Shalit, and refusing to forthrightly and openly recognize Israel and refusing to unequivocally and explicitly agree to the previous accords." Why should he? MJ speaks for those of us who want negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian government to end all acts of violence by both sides, to exchange all prisoners, and achieve full mutual recognition and normalization between Israel and the Palestinians,"
The burden of proof is on the Aipac crowd which wants the violence to continue. They are the ones who had their convention keynoted by Pastor Hagee and VP Cheney and Boner who said Israel must fight to the death.
They are the ones who gave these thugs standing ovations.
If you are a Democrat, you should quit Aipac, a GOP organization that cheers Cheney and heckles Pelosi.

I like the anaolgy by Isaac Deutscher who compared Jewish immigrants to Israel to people jumping out of a burning building

I do not like this analogy because it is false. There was no building burning that Jews needed to jump, they simply jumped. There were no Arabs passing by even the non-burning building. They were at home living peacefully  with their families far from any building that Jewish immigrants to Israel willfully  abandoned.

What Jewish immigrants did was analogous to simply walking into  Arab homes and forcefully evicting  the current occupants of a home with the government of the USA acting as sheriff. And now offering them one room in the 30 room home they owned for peace?

Jewish immigrants lives were not imperiled. As Deutsher's analogy suggests. Jewish immigration  to Israel was totally and willfully voluntary. No life-threatening circumstance existed at the time.

More importantly,to continue the analogy,  there were unoccupied homes in America that those Jewish immigrants could have moved to after abandoning the building.. Instead they chose to confiscate someone else's property and imperil Arab families. Based on the false premise of a 'right to exist' that fundamentally denied other human beings the 'right to exist' in their own homes.

That burning building analogy is an outrageous denial and excuse for destroying other lives and  stealing others property due to a NON-EXISTENT life threatening circumstance at the time of immigration.

Is there a link for the Kristof article or is it behind the wall?

A fantasy? Who knows. I dont' blame them for this visualization or the desire to escape what they experienced, it matters not that the war was over, the anti semiticism they experienced pre Nazi was still there, and the idea of a homeland looked grand.

Get real. O it matters that the war was over Just as it mattered that slavery ended. And it mattered that the holocaust  ended and lynching abated in America. Those ends are not insignificant. However, If blacks could live next to KKK members right here in America, and Indians on federal plantations , oops reservations...then Jews could have learned to 'live with' anti-semiticism, real or imagined in Europe or America. Please. You best believe it is a fantasy and total denial of the facts.

Irish wanted to escape the hate of the English, blacks want to escape the hate of the whites, Iraqis want to escape the hate of insurgents, no doubt Jews wanted to escape the hate they experienced.

Yeah? And where are all the country's at that were specifically created for them to escape the hatred? Based on some specious ideal of a 'right to exist'? Where did the Irish and Jews immigrate to and the blacks remain?

AMERICA!!!! 

Or maybe this is just a case of the blacks and Irish simply being the only folks unable to make the US government give them reparations and land for the hatred they had to endure? 

Let's all get a piece of the fantasy and start visualizing that. Real amends for hundreds of years of hatred sanctioned by the US government and institutionalized by law and a failure of due process.

To hell with the ME, let's start building this grand idea of a homeland by re-directing Israel foreign  aid to American citizens. Billions and billions of dollars in aid for all that hatred.

I agree, everyone  deserves that type of grand idea right here in the homeland of America. Americans richly  deserve that peacefulness right here in the good 'ol USA.

I think you are on to something John, let's visualize building a better homeland right here in  America for a change. Let's turn our focus to America and what is best for her.

thanks