Good, thorough job. I enjoy your columns.

Thank you both.

It is nice to see the Imus must go crowd plough right back into support of policies that will result in dead Jews.

Israel is a great scapegoat for the Arabs. That does not prove that there is a great sympathy for the Palestinian, who have trouble working in the Gulf since Arafat supported Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Jewish success in Israel is a slap in the face of every Arab, every Muslim and Israel, a tiny country, makes a good excuse for dictators and their failures in their own countries.

My cousin, who has been mentioned before, has spoken to myriad of Islamists in Arabic, they do not want Jews in the Middle East. Rosenberg can recreate history all he wants but that is a reality. Dayan might have sympathized with the loss of Arab villages to Jews. However, had the Palestinians not attacked Israel in 1947 how many of those villages would have been lost? If Jordan, which was begged to stay out of the war in 1967, had not tried to exterminate Israel and lost the West Bank how many villages would not be lost.

Actually how many Palestian Villages were lost to Jordan in 1948 and to Egypt? If it is a hole it the heart it is one they put there themselves. If there is a hole the continuing support for eliminating Israel and Jews from the Middle East has put it there. If there is a hole in the heart the American far left and right, there is so little difference, with their sanctimony and Imus like bigotry has put it there. Allowing fanatasies helps no one but yourselves.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

This seems just a tad bit millitant Daniel.

Certainly you can't make peace with a rabid dog. But if we want pacific attitudes and postures from others, shouldn't we try adopting them for ourselves as well?

If you constantly accuse Arabs of false motives and treachery, what right do you have to voice 'outrage' when Arabs accuse Jews of the same thing?

I realize this is a tough nut to crack, but a little good will - from both sides - could do wonders - maybe even prove the age of miracles hasn't passed.

Which part of Daniel's piece in particular offends you? I'm not seeing it (although I'm very busy, so I may be missing it).

Aren't Arabs also "semitic"?

If that is the case, accusing Arabs of being losers, unsuccessful in economics and liars with false motives who say they want peaceful settlements but only want to stab you in the back - I'd call that anti Semitic.

For the love of Hashem/Allah, please stop with this semantic nitpick. Yes, Arabs are Semites. But the term anti-Semitism has been used for more than 100 years to refer specifically to prejudice and hatred against Jews.

To Andrew:

Greenbaum: "It is nice to see the Imus must go crowd plough right back into support of policies that will result in dead Jews."

I don't think TPM folks support "policies that will result in dead Jews...."

Plus, he continues to personally insult MJ who is one of our most responsive regular posters. Am I wrong? Did you not warn him to cut it out. We cannot discuss this issue at all if people are going to be denounced as would-be Jew-killers.

Doesn't every side of any debate about war think their opponent's position will result in more death? Those, after all, are the stakes of the debate.

If Daniel had assigned that as the intent of M.J.'s argument, I would have a problem. But I think it's completely up to debate which policy will actually lead toward peace, less war, and less death.

David Brooks is so likeable. He's one of the only decent 'conservatives' I could name.

I think this is Brooks's shtick -- he subtly appears "civil" while offending liberals and Democrats time and time again. He has a real disingenuousness about him, but I'll admit, it's real sneaky.

Take his column from yesterday, praising John McCain. He wrote:

The problem with [McCain's] approach [to Iraq] is he doesn't grapple with the psychology and culture of the Iraqis, upon which all else depends. His focus is largely military. But no one can doubt the substance and seriousness of his views.

OK, so on the first two sentences, replace McCain with Bush -- is there any difference? McCain's "problem" is that, like Bush and the neocons, he's completely ignoring the dynamics and details of the Iraqis, and just assuming we can easily steamroll through, and be hailed with flowers and chocolates.

And then, the good stuff -- "no one can doubt the substance and seriousness" of McCain. Well, *of course* we can doubt it -- we've just been told by Brooks that McCain's approach is completely ignoring the most important part of any approach in Iraq: "upon which all else depends."

At the same time, the fact that "no one can doubt" McCain is also a slight to the Democrats, people like Russ Feingold, who, for over two years now, had a "plan," and that was withdrawing from Iraq.

Of course, what the Democrats have isn't "serious," even though it makes the most sense. We need to stop giving the Bush Administration a blank check. We need a timetable. We need to withdraw responsibly, and protect our troops in the process. We need to stop adding fuel to the fire there, and, more importantly, once we're gone, the Iraqis can spend less time on their occupiers, and more time on things like getting al Qaeda out of their country.

Of course, that's not a plan. That's not serious.

The only "serious" people on Iraq for Brooks are people like McCain and Lieberman and Bush, people who for the last six years have shown time and time again they are completely wrong about Iraq and foreign policy.

And this, too, is subtle. In McCain's speech, he referred to Congressional Democrats "smiling and celebrating" as they pass the out-of-Iraq bill. Brooks, in that column, said McCain was "offended by Democrats who laughed and celebrated during the passage of withdrawal legislation."

Subtle difference, but Brooks's version makes Democrats seem much more crass. (And what's wrong with celebrating you got a bill through Congress, especially one that puts limits on this train wreck of a President?)

So I really don't see Brooks as "civil" at all. It takes a close reading to see what Brooks is really saying, and, when you do, it's pretty offensive and disrespectful.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

I DB is likeable too. I mean, he shares almost the identical worldview of, say, Alan Dershowitz or Martin Peretz but he is no fanatic. The fact that he's 30 years younger helps. He does not exude paranoia.

I'd love to see MJ respond to this serious critique.

Let me first repeat: "The Palestinians material suffering can and should be ended through a combination of settlement in a Palestinian state in the West Bank and absoption by neighboring countries (funded by Israel, the West and Arabs)."

The Palestinians _are_ suffering, and have been suffering, and ignoring that is criminal. However, I'm not sure how important the genuine sympathy (to whatever extent it exists) of (non-Palestinian) Arabs and Muslims to the Palestinian plight really matters.

Parts of the American right genuinely feel threatened by immigration. Maybe I feel for them, but I don't want the government to allow their feelings to dictate policy. Even if I _agreed_ with them, I wouldn't want their feeling to determine federal policy.

So even if the I/P issue is central to Arab anger, which it may be, that doesn't -necessarily- mean it's an issue we must address in a way they'd prefer, any more than the right-wing hatred of taxes means we must lower them.

Also, the fact that the I/P issue is central doesn't mean we're all defining it the same way. Is the problem the suffering of Palestinians? The existence of Israel? A historic defeat? A contemporary (more-or-less) secular and Western-ish state in the ME?

Saying that feelings about the I/P conflict are central doesn't say much.

If there was a functional independent Palestinian state tomorrow, alongside Israel, does anyone think Arab and Muslim anger toward Israel would disappear? I doubt it'd even decrease.

So we've gotta do the right thing, and encourage the right thing, in the I/P conflict not because we expect that doing so will win hearts and minds--it won't--but simply because it's right.

I would add that 'intepretation' of people's comments only goes so far.

We all expect to be taken at our word, so it is, I think, disrespectful and dirty pool to take something like "Palestine State" and then put "=dead Jews" in front of it, then say "Hey, that's what you want! You want dead Jews!"

It's particularly gauling in a debate because it allows your opponent to ignore everything you've just said and say "You just hate America" or whatever. My opponent becomes a mind reader and 'knows' my motives better than I do myself. Nothing is more contemptuous about the right wing than their mind reading abilities.

I don't argue that the fact of the I-P conflict's centrality means it has to be settled to the exclusive satisfaction of one side.
I support the two-state solution with its modalities worked out in negotiations.
I stress the need to recognize its centrality because the neocons have worked long and hard to convince the USG that the I-P is not central and that therefore there is no need to follow the Carter/Clinton model and engage in resolving it.
Those who argue that the I-P conflict is not central are almost always satisfied with the status quo i.e. they have little or no problem with the occupation.
But, in general, I agree with your points.
Last point. I think the two-state solution will pretty much the fixation on Israel.
Remember, it was under Oslo and Arafat that Israel achieved three of its most secure years of its history. Why? Because the PLO and the IDF worked together against terrorists (PM Netanyahu personally thanked Arafat for battling the terrorists). If a peace agreement was signed, with security guarantees for both sides, it would stick.
Between 1997 and 2000, it was hard getting into the West Bank because so many thousands of Israelis were driving there to shop. Shabbat in Ramallah and Jericho was what people did.
Israelis and Palestinians are both desperate to see the return of those days.
If Rabin had not been murdered, we'd have peace already.

Of course Muslims in general are sympathetic with the Palestinians, but that is not the entire reason for Islamic resentment of Israel. Most Muslims consider all of the pre-1948 Palestine to be Arab land; that is, part of the land that has been in Arab hands for over a thousand years. The various rulings establishing a Jewish Homeland, from 1920 to 1948 were not and are not accepted in the Islamic world. Hence three major wars in addition to intifadas and all the rest.
One can only say that recognition of Israel by Jordan and Egypt is sullen at best, not representing any depth of popular feeling of even more than the most superficial accommodation by the leaderships. Arab historical memory is a long, long one.

I'll type this slowly.

Arabs are Semitic. Nobody said they weren't. And yet--follow me closely--'anti-Semitism' means 'hatred of Jews.'

Words sometimes have meanings that aren't completely literal. This may shock you, but while 'male' is a sex, the word 'sexism' currently means prejudice against women.

Is that because women deny that men are gendered? First they claim ownership of the world 'sexism', and now they have the Vagina Monologues! Coincidence ... or a Plan for World Domination???

The facts of historic identity, genetic markers, and membership in the 'Semitic peoples,' whatever else they are, are utterly irrelevant for the discussion of what 'anti-Semitism' means in English as used today. Simply doesn't matter. Antisemitism means prejudice against Jews.

And, to the contrary, the 'ownership' of the term 'anti-Semitism'--which is hardly a glorious victory--was I'm almost certain in response to Jew-hating writings in Germany in the 18th or 19th century. The Germans, or Prussians, or whatever, wrote about the inferior 'semitic races,' by which they meant Jews, not Arabs. (And, finally, how many points do you think anyone gets for being a 'semite'? This is such a wonderful thing that Jews wanna deprive Arabs of it? For all the '30% Off For Semites' sales, and 'Kiss a Semite!' bumperstickers?) So blame the Germans.

This is an attempt to de-particularlize racism against Jews. Everyone evil's a Nazi, all massacres are the Holocaust, and antisemitism means hatred of Assyrians, too.

Sheesh. Only the Arabs and Jews could fight over what to call people who hate them. There's plenty of bad feeling to go around, but this one is just beating a dead semite. The word means what it means. Pretending it means something else is, at best, odd.

"no iron in this fire, so it's easy to say pox on both houses or whatever."

No iron in the fire? If you are also speaking as an American, not only do you have an iron in the fire, but there is already a pox on your own house.

Nudnik,

It was also as a result of Oslo that Israel had thrust onto it one of the longest and most damaging wars in its history....

No, it was the failure of the process following up the Oslo Accords.  We can argue about the reasons for that failure, but it seems impractical at best to deny the necessity of the Accords and the process that came from it.

On April 13, 2007 - 2:44pm KingElvis said:

Nothing is more contemptuous about the right wing than their mind reading abilities.

Truly, its one of their tactics when they run out of things to say. I once told a right wingnut he should go in business using his mind reading talents. Buy a storefront building, have the word "READINGS" printed on the big window and you're all set.

But Wigmari, I wish I could count the number of times when I try to weigh in on this issue, and am then reminded that "You don't know how it feels" to be part of a hated group or to be part of 'race' that went through the Holocaust.

I guess I should amend it to say "I PERSONALLY don't have an iron in the fire."

But it seems like from the Zionist perspective, I as an 'American' have the right and duty to take an interest in this Israel business - as long as I'm not critical of Israel. If I start asking too many questions, then I'm told to butt out and mind my own gentile business.

Zionista, I would completely disagree with you. It was not "the failure of the process following up the Oslo Accords", it was the process itself. Throughout the process, Arafat reneged on the key premise of the process: getting his people ready for a peace. Through his violations of every single aspect of the Accords, from day one, through his incendiary rhetoric, through the absolute refusal to even teach children about the possibility of peace as opposed to teaching jihad, the process was a failure. It could not have ended any other way than it did. What followed was merely the result of 8 years of ignoring Palestinian intransigence and revanchism.

King Elvis,

But it seems like from the Zionist perspective, I as an 'American' have the right and duty to take an interest in this Israel business - as long as I'm not critical of Israel. If I start asking too many questions, then I'm told to butt out and mind my own gentile business.

If you have an opinion, say it.  It's hardly news that some will flame you over it and others will argue with you.  We all have a right to our opinions, but it comes with a responsibility to support it with arguments.

hmmm...

"...The very existence of Israel is shameful to much of the Arab world as a patent reminder of their weakness..."

Is the existence of Israel still really a front and center issue, or is their renewed interest in the I/P issue a reaction to their growing shame and weakness not being prepared for the millions of Iraqi refugees fleeing their homes, due to the West's intervention (history repeating itself)?

The Palestinian issue seen as a 'constant' reminder to the Arabs that the US still has a colonial hold on the region. Could the Arabs finally be waking up to the fact that the Palestinian issue could be them one day?

Those who have a knowledge of the history and the politics, what do you think is going through the minds of those arab states when they listen to the likes of Cheney and Olmert and the plans of PNAC and Clean Break?

Is interest in the Palestinian issue an indication of a growing Arab alliance with a broader agenda?

Brooks is extremely likeable. Until he opens his mouth. Then it becomes all to apparant that a stream of right wing talking points is spewing forth with total disregard for the truth, all to often delivered with a chummy, snickering and condescending little giggle. I remember that he literally laughed at the idea that the curent US Attorney scandal had any subtance to it, or that there possibly could be, you know, crimes involved.

But if you turn off the sound, then he seems like such a nice, moderate fellow.

I'll waste some time again. The Middle east id full of problems. A partial enumeration provides: Palestinians issues, Sunni/Shia splits, dictatorships galore, fundamentalism (e.g. Saudis), and poverty. Of the 20 some states there, every one but one want to talk about Israel; it's easy, traditional (last 1000 years), hides local issues and despite what most think, the easiest to solve.

It's clearly a very localized problem with no implication to any other issue in the enumeration above. Have a ball and Imus on.

Sorry. This was supposed to have appeared under Genghis's comment but I messed up somehow.

This is a great resource on Oslo. It is a list of the terror-inflicted deaths in Israel from the Oslo signing on. Note the immediate spike after Oslo was signed when Hamas set out to destroy the peace process. Note the precipitous drop after the United States in the fall of 1997 began meeting daily with the IDF and PLO in the same room on combatting terror. From the fall of 1997 until after Sharon's stroll on the Temple Mount in the fall of 2000 there were hardly any killings of Israelis inside Israel. The terror was being thwarted by security cooperation. I was in Israel in 1999. The place felt as safe as Woostock, NY. And it was. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+since+2000/Suicide+and+Other+Bombing+Attacks+in+Israel+Since.htm

You gotta take your shots to play with the big boys. You better be making sense. Check. I'm totally all for that. Fair enough.

But is 'rationality' ever going to have a place for Zionists unless harnessed to their preferred cause?

Is it really an argument just to say "It's a Jew thing, and you'll never understand?" How far do we take that? Should only soldiers be allowed to discuss wars?

I know I'm likely wasting my time with this, but everytime I post on an MJ thread re: Israel, I'm always struck by these 'tropes.' (These are observations, not arguments, and not personal attacks)

1. Posters defending Israel usually don't seem able to separate the idea of the state from its citizens, and by extension even American Jews. Hence the "anti-Israel = anti Semitic" line.

2. Posters defending Israel ignore the forest for the trees. It all comes down to a few words in UN resolution blablabla. The giant facts of military occupation - an apartheid state - lets ignore that to bicker about language, which leads us to...

3. Tit for tat. Why does the IDF knock over houses? THEY STARTED IT! You know what? The Hatfields and McCoys had their grievances and mutual reasons for feuding too.

4. Abstract Arabs. Are there Palestinian or Arab posters on this site? I know there are Jewish ones. So when we talk about Israel we're talking about Jews and there's a friendly face connected to the entire nation of Israel. With Arabs it's always "The Arab street" or "Typical Arabs" or "Most Arab leaders" or "Of course Arab leaders are cynical" - not cynical like Bush?

The more I spin my wheels talking about this stuff, the more I take it in the shorts on Karma (Some people rate you 1 just for disagreeing - can you believe that?) and the more I'm convinced rational arguments have absolutely NADA to do with it.

But even to suggest that, hey, maybe, just maybe, Jews are (understandably) emotional about this topic and (sometimes) immune to reason and rational argument about Israel - that's not an observation, not an argument -it's an obvious case of overt racism of the anti-semitic variety.

Amen brother.

We never talk about "typical Jews" or "the Jewish 'street'"

And these "Centrist Arab reformers" are so obsessed with hiding their completely cynical disinterest in the Palestinian issue, it's all they talk about at big policy gatherings.

Damn those clever, lying Arabs - they do and say the exact opposite of what they REALLY feel just to throw us off the trail. Tricky. Veeery tricky.

If Arabs are violence addicts - what is the US?

I had a friend who remembers,as a 6 year old, the day the Zionists came to take his home. His mother and father were killed and both his arms were broken. He was told that that was to remind him to never return to that place. He said that he still retains the ownership documents to the family home.

How will the thousands like him ever find justice?

That's not quite apples to apples. Brooks didn't say that his problem with the Arabs at the conference was that they wouldn't acknowledge Israeli grievances; it was that they would only discuss one issue. If Brooks only wanted to discuss one issue, say Iraq, then your criticism would fair. But he described himself as wanting to discuss a number of issues (and yes, of course, we only hear his side).

But he wasn't really talking about the conference members themselves anyway. He was using the conference as an example to suggest that in general Arab discourse with the West is too exclusively focused on the Palestinian issue. You can argue that he's wrong, but claiming, as Rosenberg does, that "the Arabs" are sincere in their concern for the Palestinians misses the point.

"David Brooks is so likeable."
Either this is sarcasm or there's some other David Brooks wondering around. The guy I see on McNeil Lehr is a smarmy, insincere jackass. Please don't tell me you'd like to have a beer with GBubya Bush as well.

Thank you for this thoughtful and reasoned statement. It needs to be heard.

I find few columnists to be less likeable than David Brooks. My contempt for him increased when I found out he was simply inventing small-town America out of whole cloth, and pretending to be reporting from his personal experiences. I don't have much respect for people who are professional liars.

As least with Bob Novak, everybody has known this about him for the past thirty-five years. With David Brooks, there are still people who buy into his shtick.

Thank you!

And Daniel in particular has taken to recently invading every thread involving MJ, regardless of what the topic is, and calling him anti-Semitic.

I didn't find this particular comment by Daniel's to be of that ilk, though.

(While we're indulging in masturbatory linguistic nonsense, perhaps I should point out that black people aren't really black, but only dark brown? And almost no white people are, technically speaking, actually white? Except for a few albinos here and there.)

(No, that kind of thing really isn't worth saying, is it?)

Violence exporters.

It's kind of like the difference between cigarette smokers and tobacco companies.

The rabid dog is a theoretical construct.

Amazing, here is the approx breakdown by year - what happened in 2000/1? and 2005/6 - the wall?

1994 - 4
1995 - 4
1996 - 4
1997 - 3
1998 - 1
1999 - 0
2000 - 4
2001 - 36
2002 - 45
2003 - 23
2004 - 18
2005 - 10
2006 - 3
2007 - 1

"They (Palestinians) people who suffered a terrible tragedy"

Who said "A lie, repeated often enough, will end up as truth." ?

Palestinians suffered self-inflicted minor inconvenience not a terrible tragedy.

They had to move 5, 10, 50, or 100 miles from their home.
They ended up as MJ explained, among people with whom they had "a greater connection to their fellow Arabs" They live in the same region. They speak the same language.For Jordanians, Egyptians, Syrians, Lebanese, Saudis and Iraqis, Palestinians are either the people next door.."
"Sunnis and Shiites may not agree about much" but they share their love for Palestinians.

There was extremely low number of Palestinian civilian casualties during war of 1948.

What happened to Chechen, Crimean Tatars in USSR, Hindu and Muslim in
India, Kurds in Iraq and so many other examples were
terrible tragedies, what happened in Palestine was not even if they think so.

If your son didn't get into Harvard but was only accepted into Cornell it's not a terrible tragedy even if you think so.
If you lived all your life in a small village and government came and used imminent domain to build military base or a highway and you had to moved 100 miles from your home it's not a terrible tragedy even if you think so.

If God forbid, your child died young from cancer, it's is a terrible tragedy.

Oh, no, MJ! Don't respond to -me-! Repond to mhpine! I'm just the idiot who glommed onto the original, more-intelligent post.

OK. More likable than Ann Coulter.

I agree.

:-) 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

MH Pine,
I'm sorry I haven't responded to you. I do not think you are a ZOA agent or anything like that.
My apologies.
MJ

"As to policies that lead to dead Jews, how about trying to start a country in the middle of a hostile population?"

All world was hostile to Jews when they started the country.
BTW, they never completly left that country, and most of Palestinians in 1948 were children or grand-children of immigrants from other Arab places outside Palestine.

"f you constantly accuse Arabs of false motives and treachery,"
There are no false motives or treachery,
Arab leader don't hide anything, they tell theit plans and desires in direct language.

Lucky davai!

He gets the coveted 5 rating by Nudnik.

SeeDee

Oh, wait!! I forgot the obligatory little ":-)" at the end...

SeeDee

Think you've come close to the right balance in THIS case, but, from looking back on Daniel's commentaries, it is only a matter of time before the 'line' you drew is brushed against to the point that it is over-stepped.

To be candid, I find Daniel's paranoia a bit of leavening in some discussions...utterly dismaying, but leavening.

SeeDee

I've become involved elsewhere in a little evenly-balanced politics (and other topics) 'discussion group'...and, you hit the proverbial nail on the head, JohnW1141.

Their usual ploy of putting words in your mouth begins with, "So you're saying so-and-so", and then proceeding to say precisely the opposite of the point one has made. Your explanation of this being their methodology when they have run out of things to say is SO TRUE.

"repectfully disagree, they continue to live in a hell-hole. It wasn't like that for them before Israel."

You must be kidding.

Of course not. They would never kill mother.

Please. How many families, including mothers, have been driven off their land, terrorized, starved, shot or bombed. When you have a history of atrocities dating from the very "founding" of Israel and hard-line IDF soldiers (patriotic Israelis), today, rebelling against the violence on civilians they are routinely ordered to commit, you cannot feign innocence and purity of heart. How many mothers were bombed in Lebanon last year? How many children?

It is always hard to assign a level of reliability to personal anecdotes, more so when they arrive second hand.

But davai, somehow you transcend all that with your remark that you doubt the mother was killed. It's almost a comic-book world you seem to live in, where humble, purposeful, handsome but personally modest, and invariably righteous Israelis are free to break the arms of a six-YO, and kill his father, but they are scrupled not to kill his mother.

Is that boasting, or just praise?

"How many families, including mothers, have been driven off their land..."

Around 100K Palestinian families were driven inside Palestine (moved few miles) in 1948
Around 170K Arab Jewish families were driven from Arab countries.

"How many mothers were bombed in Lebanon last year? How many children?"

Several millions.

How many mother and children were killed in Lebanon last year?

Do you know the answer?

BTW, How many Palestinian mother and children
were killed in war of 1948.
Let stop propoganda and inflamotory language.

Ze'ev? Ehud? Is that you? Ariel? Avigdor?

I cannot know if RandyR’s story was completely true or not (nor do you), but I take people at face value until shown otherwise. My questions were not inflammatory. Your response is. How many mothers and babies were bombed in Lebanon? You answer, "Millions." Ha-ha.

You say down thread: Palestinians suffered self-inflicted minor inconvenience not a terrible tragedy.

If that is what you wish to believe, then by all means, cling to your rationalizations. But don’t try to tell someone, face to face, so to speak, that they have not been touched by or heard of real suffering when they have. Ask yourself who is really engaging in propaganda.

A fairly common, if profoundly dishonest, rhetorical technique is to caricature your opponent's words in such a way as to make it seem like they are inherently ridiculous, then easily knock them down.  The people who are already predisposed to agree with you will shout, "Amen!" and very few people will stop to say, "Wait a minute, that's not what he said!"

So it is with this MJ Roseberg hatchet job on David Brooks.  Now I can't say I'm a Brooks fan.  I find his "reasonable conservative" schtick a bit tiresome.  But really.  A more dishonest pile of nonsense than this Rosenberg post would be hard to find.

Let's start with the premise of the post, which is that David Brooks is:

surprised that Arabs want to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian issue with Americans.

Even a cursory glance at Brooks's words would reveal that this is bullshit.  It is quite clear that what surprised Brooks is not that they wanted to talk about Israel.  No, what was remarkable was that they wanted to talk ONLY about Israel.  Here's Brooks:

The problems between America and the Arab world have nothing to do with religious fundamentalism or ideological extremism, several Arab speakers argued. They have to do with American policies toward Israel, and the forces controlling those policies.

As for problems in the Middle East itself, these speakers added, they have a common source, Israel. One elderly statesman noted that the four most pressing issues in the Middle East are the Arab-Israeli dispute, instability in Lebanon, chaos in Iraq and the confrontation with Iran. They are all interconnected, he said, and Israel is at the root of each of them.

We Americans tried to press our Arab friends to talk more about the Sunni-Shiite split, the Iraqi civil war and the rise of Iran, but they seemed uninterested. They mimicked a speech King Abdullah of Jordan recently delivered before Congress, in which he scarcely mentioned the Iraqi chaos on his border. It was all Israel, all the time.

Now who knows what actually went on at this conference or whether Brooks's description is accurate?  I wasn't there, and neither was anyone else here, including MJ Rosenberg.  But it's safe to say that no one could possibly go to a conference with Arabs and be surprised that Arabs are concerned with the fate of the Palestinians, as Rosenberg says Brooks is.  However, given the myriad problems in the Arab world - from economic stagnation, to political tyranny, to continual instability, to the increasing power of Islamic radicalism, to war and terrorism, to the threat from Iran - to talk about NOTHING EXCEPT Israel is dysfunctional in the extreme.

Then, to compound the dishonesty, Rosenberg "imagines" that:

the reason Brooks was surprised is that, like so many Americans, he does not take Arab and Muslim concern for the Palestinians seriously.

This again is totally dishonest.  Rosenberg would have you believe that Brooks thinks Arabs are being disingenuous when they express concern for the plight of Palestinians.  But how can he draw such a conclusion when nothing remotely like that appears in Brooks's column?  Interestingly, Brooks doesn't even make the argument - a common and altogether true argument - that Arab "concern" for Palestinians has rarely resulted in them actually trying to improve their lives, rather than use them as political pawns. (Ever wonder why there are still Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon and Syria 60 years after Israel was established?)  Instead, Brooks simply argues that the singular focus on Israeli villainy and American complicity with it has caused them to lose any sense of introspection.  For a group that purports to be "reformers", this is a tad shortsighted.  Here's Brooks again,

There seemed to be a time, after 9/11, when it was generally accepted that terror and extremism were symptoms of a deeper Arab malaise. There seemed to be a general recognition that the Arab world had fallen behind, and that it needed economic, political and religious modernization.

But there was nothing defensive or introspective about the Arab speakers here. In response to Bernard Lewis’s question, “What Went Wrong?” their answer seemed to be: Nothing’s wrong with us. What’s wrong with you?

The events of the past three years have shifted their diagnosis of where the cancer is — from dysfunction in the Arab world to malevolence in Jerusalem and in Aipac. Furthermore, the Walt and Mearsheimer paper on the Israel lobby has had a profound effect on Arab elites. It has encouraged them not to be introspective, not to think about their own problems, but to blame everything on the villainous Israeli network.

The bit about AIPAC is particularly interesting - and disgusting.  There are few people who have done more to encourage the view of AIPAC as a sinister, villainous force than MJ Rosenberg.  With his frequent and almost completely dishonest AIPAC-bashing, he can now claim to be not only the pied piper of anti-Israel conspiracy theorists in the blogosphere, but also a fellow-traveller of Arabs who wouldn't bat an eyelash if the entire Zionist project were undone.

However, given the myriad problems in the Arab world - from economic stagnation, to political tyranny, to continual instability, to the increasing power of Islamic radicalism, to war and terrorism, to the threat from Iran - to talk about NOTHING EXCEPT Israel is dysfunctional in the extreme.

As for problems in the Middle East itself, these speakers added, they have a common source, Israel. One elderly statesman noted that the four most pressing issues in the Middle East are the Arab-Israeli dispute, instability in Lebanon, chaos in Iraq and the confrontation with Iran. They are all interconnected, he said, and Israel is at the root of each of them.

"How many mothers and babies were bombed in Lebanon? You answer, "Millions." Ha-ha."

I was not trying to be funny I guess your question was ambiguous.
Israel bombed all over Lebanon, but very few mothers and babies were killed AFAIK.
Do you have a number mothers and babies killed in Lebanon?

"heard of real suffering when they have"

There are plenty of examples in 20, 21 centuries and before of People who experienced terrible tragedies. Often there was no escape or better choice that could lead to avoiding such terrible tragedies.

I know that Palestinians suffered too but they suffering were not terrible tragedies.
Also, they could make better choices to avoid or lessen suffering.

God, I love Bradley The Daddy. You would think MJ had written "Mein Kampf" reading Bradley's hysterical reactions to the criticism of his fellow neoconservative.
I like Bradley. He is a pretty decent writer. But he is the best example we have at TPM of the American born Jewish guy who has never questioned a single lie put out by Aipac (he is a proud member).
Some of the other neoconservatives and Likud party guys here are not American born. So their paranoia comes perhaps from having experienced bad times in other parts of the world.
But Bradley who has been to Israel once or twice (the last time 10 years ago), who speaks and reads no Hebrew or Arabic, who simply believes in all his heart that the Jews are always right and the Arabs always wrong has the chutzpa to put out his Aipac factoids to Rosenberg who travels continuously to Israel and the Arab countries, reads the daily newspapers in Hebrew and Arabic and knows most of the players on both sides. (Bradley has never met a Palestinian).
But the main reason Bradley is pretty damn nervy to challenge an expert about a subject about which he is a novice is that MJ is Jewish, a proud Jew to boot, but one whose trademark here is his empathy not only for his fellow Jews but for Arabs and all kinds of people.
He may not always be right. But he is not trapped in some ghetto of the mind where ethnic chauvinists like Bradley live. I doubt MJ cares what this nobody says. But I do. Because Jews like Bradley (small-minded, parochial, insensitive to non-Jews) represent the antithesis of my tradition, the Jewish tradition.
And because every time a Jew like Bradley pipes up, it makes us all look like really closeminded rightwing bigots.
Let him stick to his accounting business and let the people who know the Middle East (seemingly most of the people who post here) hold this debate without his "the Jews rule" brilliance.
The worst thing of all is that when Americans finally figure out that people like Bradley (Abrams, Feith, Wolfowitz, Wurmser, Lieberman, Perle etc) have hijacked our foreign policy and seriously endangered our security, they may not be able to distinguish between the Israel Firsters and the American Jews like the rest of us who, although we care about Israel, are loyal only to America.
Am I calling Bradley disloyal? I am. If MJ wrote a piece denouncing US policy anywhere else on the globe, Bradley would be silent. If MJ called Bush a dunce and a nitwit, Bradley would be silent. If MJ said that we should give America back to the Indians, Bradley would be silent.
But let any aspect of Israel be criticized and Bradley rushes to the fray.
Bradley is utterly indifferent to the country in which he lives and raises his children. For him, home is somewhere else. Bradley's Fantasyland: not Israel, but AipacIsrael, a place few Israelis would even recognize.

I am not sure if addressing BradtheDad makes any sense, insofar it is not clear to me that he comprehends English.

He cites MR and Brooks at length, showing what are the statements that MR rather accurately summarized, and then he suddenly concludes that MR is "totally dishonest". That leads me to belief that BradtheDad is very skillful at cutting and pasting, and he is conversant with the use of blockquote, but his reading comprehension level is abysmal.

PS. English is my second language, but at least I try to use dictionary when I am not certain.

Zionism and partition remain the poison of false prophecy. Succumbing to ethnic or religious exceptionalism and the much-desired separatist tendencies (Jewish State, Muslim State etc.) are steps backwards that no amount of excuse mongering will remedy. No M.J., just like with Solomon we find that those who would cut the child in half are not the real mothers of truth or of peace.

Dear Petya,
"The myth that Palestinians are Arabs from other places who insists that they are "Palestinians" just of sheer hatred of the Jews "

Your argument is a straw man argument.

There is no question that a lot of of Arabs immigrated to Palestine in late 19th century and later. The exact number "has been a matter of some controversy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine
Look for "The question of late Arab immigration to Palestine"

MJ says:
"will continue to decline until we help end the conflict that spawned it."

The other Alan clearly explains that it's very hard or impossible to end this confict because there are many people inside and outside Middle East who are unable to accept Jewish state of Israel.

SeeDee

Seems to me Brad the Dad employs the same technique that he deplores in his opening sentence.

To selectively alter actual quotes (as is the case with some of the references to MJR's commentary) is dis-honest and an un-worthy tactic for one so obviously un-biased and brilliant as B the D.

I guess that given the way a person like Brooks think the interest of Arab elites in the Palestinian problem is quite perplexing.

One could think that his interlocutors were equally perplexed in the interest that Brooks showed to talk about the Sunni-Shiite split, the Iraqi civil war and the rise of Iran.

By the way, "rise of Iran"? To paraphrase Andy Rooney, "Iran is not a new country?!", Similarly, Sunni-Shia split dates ca. 1500 years after the "rise of Iran", but it is not exactly hot news either.

Even so, conventional explanations fail to explain the phenomenon. I would propose the following:

1. USA seems to exercise enormous influence in the region, with a long string of military bases, very close relationship with most of the regime, intense diplomatic effort affecting the remaining regimes, close cooperation with secret services in many countries in the region and a big military engagement.

2. Therefore it is important for Arabs to decide" do Americans care about Arabs? Is the American presence and engagement a reflection of some idealistic friendship, or is it more accurate to assume that Americans could not care less about the welfare of the Arabs.

3. The evidence from the rhetoric of American officials and intelectuals is mixed.

4. The attitude of USA to Palestinian-Israeli conflict can be used as a test case. And the results are not mixed at all.

5. Thus when an Arab talks with Mr. Brooks, he would be interested why America fails this test abjectly and expects any kind of good will in the region. And given scant interest in the welfare of the Arabs, what sincerity there can be in professed interest in rise of Iran (other that its impact on Israel and the oil supplies), Sunni-Shia split (other than its implications on Israel and the oil supplies), building democracy in the region (other than etc.)

I defy you to point out ANYTHING that I wrote that misquoted or misinterpreted anything MJ Rosenberg wrote. I think you'll find I quoted him verbatim.

Instead of throwing out lame insults, why not try to actually make a counterargument?

You were born too late. You coulds make a good living writing for Pravda in 1950s and later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rootless_cosmopolitan
"Every Jewish nationalist is the agent of American intelligence service. Jewish nationalists think that their nation was saved by USA (there you can become rich, bourgeois, etc.). They think they're indebted to the Americans. Among doctors there are many Jewish nationalists."[7]

"unbridled, evil-minded cosmopolitans, profiteers with no roots and no conscience… Grown on rotten yeast of bourgeois cosmopolitanism, decadence and formalism… non-indigenous nationals without a motherland, who poison with stench… our proletarian culture."… "What can A. Gurvich possibly understand about the national character of a Russian Soviet man?"

On April 1, 1983, the CPSU official newspaper Pravda ran full front page article titled From the Soviet leadership:

"...By its nature, Zionism concentrates ultra-nationalism, chauvinism and racial intolerance, excuse for territorial occupation and annexation, military opportunism, cult of political promiscuousness and irresponsibility, demagogy and ideological diversion, dirty tactics and perfidy... Absurd are attempts of Zionist ideologists to present criticizing them, or condemning the aggressive politics of the Israel's ruling circles, as antisemitic... We call on all Soviet citizens: workers, peasants, representatives of intelligentsia: take active part in exposing Zionism, strongly rebuke its endeavors; social scientists: activate scientific research to criticize reactionary core of that ideology and aggressive character of its political practice; writers, artists, journalists: fuller expose anti-populace and anti-humane diversionary character of propaganda and politics of Zionism..." (highlights preserved)

"I do not have a number. I would guess that thousands more mothers and children were bombed than should have been."
You didn't want to answer my question, beacause you know thast very few mothers and children
were killed.

"Here, again, you seem to say that the Palestinians have not suffered"

I'm not saying this at all.
I'm saying that "I know that Palestinians suffered too"

I'm just saying that their suffering in the war of 1948 were not a terrible tragedy. I don't think you dispute this.
I'm also saying that they were presented with choices. Their leaders could make a diffrent choices that could make life of Palestinians much much better.
I don't think you dispute this.

I could find this and quote it exactly from 1991 if we'd had the internet available for news articles back then, but we didn't so its from memory. There was a column in the Daily News by the late Lars Erik Nelson at the time of the first Gulf War where he said that the politicians had always known that when Americans started dying for Israel, the game would be up. We're there now. No one with an iota of integrity can say that the Israel lobby didn't push us into this disaster (though I see some wiggling out of it effort occasionally). Why did those Democrats who voted against the first Gulf War go along with this one, with a less credible president and no credible reason for the war? Money, campaign money for their ambitions. And American deaths be damned.