MJ, you have lost it! Dennis Ross was always part of the Aipac crowd. He isn't just chairing this meeting. He is head of this whole Aipac front organization. But he has no reason to think this will disqualify him from mediation. He thinks that being blatantly pro-Israel is the neutral position.
He hasn't opted out of anything. But I am glad that you put this out. The netroots need to know who this guy is before the next President comes in.
I thought you read Swisher's book. He totally shows Ross and Indyk to be Israeli cutouts.

Pro-Israel means understanding that Israel's security can only be guaranteed by an end to the occupation and a peace treaty (including mutual security guarantees) with the Palestinians.
Malley lied about nothing. Read Swisher's book. He was there.

According to MJ "Pro-Israel means" agree with M.J 100%. It's that simple.

Being Pro-Israel means respect people of Israel and don't think that people of Israel are stupid children and MJ must tell them what to do or they will not survive.

It's interesting in this context to quote Ross's own new book. (I haven't read it, but this is quoted in last Sunday's review.) "Ultimately, statecraft done well never guarantees success but certainly creates the best chance for it." He is referring to Iraq, but surely the same lesson applies at other times when fear, patriotism, and violence might seem auotmatically to justify a muscular but ultimately damaging response. The reviewer, Jacob Heilbrun, adds that "Ross's most censorious remarks are reserved for the administration's disengagement from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." 

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

Thanks to all the 5's I got recently I can troll-rate... for the first time!
I won't indulge. I don't think I'm ever going to rate a comment again. The logic is foul.
---

"Given that Mally lied about Bill Clinton's proposals"
Give us details Daniel.

Answer the question Davai.

Davai, how happy were you when Rabin was assassinated?

You all see that I have gotten another convert! Ross is another intelligent person who realizes that no Arab-Israeli "peace agreement" is in the cards and that everyone is just going to have to make the best of this "no-peace" situation.
Note how MJ automatically casts out anyone who even associates briefly with the enemy (i.e. anyone who takes an active interest in Jewish/Israeli affairs).

BTW-I just read Arthur Koestler's "Darkness at Noon" - it really clarifies things I have been seeing around here.

Arafat and his terrorist cohorts must have gotten a big kick out of the fact that his greatest advocates, apologising for his murder, mayhem and theft, were Jews. Just like Lenin's famous dictum that the last capitalist would sell the Bolshevik's the rope with which they would hang him. You all see how successful all these Jews helping Arafat murder their fellow Jews were in the end. There is nothing new in this, there have always been Jews like this, starting with Datan and Aviram in the Bible (played by Edward G Robinson in "The Ten Commandments"). Fortunately, at least some of them, as MJ has pointed out here, have realized the folly of their ways.

Bar Kochba, how are things going at the Yigal Amir fan club? Any new members?

MJ publicly recanted. Over and over again. Ross is Aipac and proud.

Why not simply skip the questions and bind him in chains and drop him in a trough of water. If he sinks and drowns he's innocent. If he floats and lives, he's guilty.

Just curious, has Bar Kochba actually expressed pleasure at the assassination of Rabin? Or do you just like bringing it up?

There seems to be a running current on these discussions that anyone biased towards rightest pro-Israeli thinking is somehow glad that Rabin was killed.

I can't speak for them, being a leftist pro-Israeli who was quite in favor of Oslo and quite devastated when Rabin was killed. However, I have never met a Jew who was actually happy about that tragedy. I realize that some of the cyber-phantoms on internet discussions express glee, but, really, there's just no telling who those folks are and what their intentions are. Down to the last person, every Jew I've ever discussed it with face to face considers Yigal Amir to be a disgraceful monster whose crime is an embarrassment to the whole of Judaism.

So, back to my question, has Bar Kochba really ever voiced such notions?

Just once I would like to see a discussion of the specifics of a possible peace deal between the Israelis and Palestinians instead of a bunch of name calling and baiting.

The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a serious issue in world affairs and TPM is suppossed to be a serious site. Unfortunately, we seem to have evolved into a pro and anti MJ site with regard to this issue. MJ floats his thoughts and we are free to respond to what he writes - not whether he and his ideas are anti-semetic or the ramblings of a self hating Jew.

MJ specifically stated he thought Dennis Ross would no longer be a viable mediator in this conflict. Do we agree or disagree and why - that is the issue. I agree and for more reasons than Ross's current position. First he was associated with the failure in 2000 and second I believe we are beyond the point where either a Jew or a Muslim can have credibility as the lead mediator.

Now - for the rest of you - it's your turn.

pkafin.

"There seems to be a running current on these discussions that anyone biased towards rightest pro-Israeli thinking is somehow glad that Rabin was killed."

? Please do provide some examples of this assertion because I seem to have missed the posts contributing to your curent.

Thanks.

BTW, Jews you haven't talked to managed to insure that Amir could "marry" and personally impregnate his lovely spouse. Nice perk for the assasin of a nation's leader. The happy couple is expecting a son.

On this day when I was accused on MJ's prior thread by one hater of Israel of not caring about dead Palestinians (which hurt really badly I admit), permit me to offer this little anecdote about Yitzhak Rabin, who is now the apparent darling of so many.

I am blessed with three beautiful children from my first marriage, two in college and one a senior in high school. As many of us know all too well, sometimes life takes funny turns and the woman I married at the ripe old age of 22 is now my ex-wife. What we share are memories and mutual pride in the children that we brought into this world.

As luck would have it, I met someone else, and we married in 2005. This past December we had our first child, a baby girl, and we named her Noa Sarah.

Now, why did we name her Noa? There are two reasons. First, Noa in the Bible is one of several daughters of a deceased father, and she petitions Moses while in the desert to give her and her sisters the right of inheritance. Moses, in his infinite wisdom, relents. And so my Noa is named in part after one of the first recorded proponents of equal rights for women.

But the second reason for naming our daughter Noa is far more significant to this thread and in real life. Those who loved what Rabin stood for even before his assasination will undoubtedly recall his funeral. It was a solemn event, a state funeral, with all the trimmings and the dignitaries and the like. But what really brought me to tears on that day was when Rabin's granddaughter, with the name of Noa, stood before the throngs and the millions on TV, and spoke with unmatched eloquence and sincerity of the love she felt for her grandfather. It is something I will never forget.

And, several years later, when my current wife and I were thinking of names, we jointly thought of Noa, and my wife spoke of that moment I just discussed, when Noa, the granddaughter of that great man of peace, brought her to tears. After that, the choice of names was easy.

And now time marches on, and the memory of a great man, who I am reminded of as I type this with my own blessed daughter Noa on my lap, lives on every day in my household.

And for others, Rabin's memory becomes a prop for taunting people with different views on the chaos that is the Middle East.

My prayer this evening, a non-denominational one, is that the memory of Prime Minister Rabin, the warrior turned peacemaker, shall inspire us all to work for peace in Israel, and for peace in Palestine. And when I look in the eyes of my young daughter Noa, as I am doing now, I offer a little supplemental prayer, that when she is my age sometime in the middle of this century, she will know of the turmoil in the Middle East only from history books, and she will wonder how it could have ever been this way.

May we rise above our petty differences and break bread together, and may we all be well and know peace.

Addendum: I hope it's ok if I just cut and paste the eulogy I address above because it is truly beautiful:

http://www.eulogywriters.com/rabin.htm

Noa Ben-Artzi Filosof for Her Grandfather

You will forgive me, for I do not want to talk about peace. I want to talk about my grandfather. One always wakes up from a nightmare. But since yesterday, I have only awakened to a nightmare -- the nightmare of life without you, and this I cannot bear. The television does not stop showing your picture; you are so alive and tangible that I can almost touch you, but it is only "almost" because already I cannot.

Grandfather, you were the pillar of fire before the camp and now we are left as only the camp, alone, in the dark, and it is so cold and sad for us. I know we are talking in terms of a national tragedy, but how can you try to comfort an entire people or include it in your personal pain, when grandmother does not stop crying, and we are mute, feeling the enormous void that is left only by your absence.

Few truly knew you. They can still talk alot about you, but I feel that they know nothing about the depth of the pain, the disaster and, yes, this holocaust, for -- at least for us, the family and the friends, who are left only as the camp, without you -- our pillar of fire.

Grandfather, you were, and still are our, hero. I want you to know that in all I have ever done, I have always seen you before my eyes. Your esteem and love accompanied us in every step and on every path, and we lived in the light of your values. You never abandoned us, and now they have abandoned you -- you, my eternal hero -- cold and lonely, and I can do nothing to save you, you who are so wonderful.

People greater than I have already eulogized you, but none of them was fortunate like myself [to feel] the caress of your warm, soft hands and the warm embrace that was just for us, or your half-smiles which will always say so much, the same smile that is no more, and froze with you. I have no feelings of revenge because my pain and loss are so big, too big. The ground has slipped away from under our feet, and we are trying, somehow, to sit in this empty space that has been left behind, in the meantime, without any particular success. I am incapable of finishing, but it appears that a strange hand, a miserable person, has already finished for me. Having no choice, I part from you, a hero, and ask that you rest in peace, that you think about us and miss us, because we here -- down below -- love you so much. To the angels of heaven that are accompanying you now, I ask that they watch over you, that they guard you well, because you deserve such a guard. We will love you grandfather, always

bslev - Absolutely wonderful thoughts - both yours and Noa's. I remember her speech and at the time the tears flowed as they did reading it tonight.

I echo yours and Rabin's fervent and almost holy desire for peace. My own Grandfather taught me how to be truely Jewish. Everything important to my faith, I learned from him. He too, went from being an ardent Zionist and an Irgun member from 1944 to early 1948 to praying daily for compromise and peace. I carry on that practice every day.

30-50% of Israelis support a pardon for Rabin assassin. (If Oswald had lived, ya think even 2% would favor a pardon?)

From Yediot Achronoth

Poll: 30 percent of Israelis support pardon for Yigal Amir On eve of 11th anniversary of Rabin's murder – about third of Israeli public believes that his killer should be pardoned. Figures jump to over 50 percent among right-wingers and religious public. Yuval Rabin: 'Only if there's another political assassination people will start wondering what mistakes were made regarding my father's murderer'

Ynet Published: 10.27.06, 10:24 / Israel News One in every three Israelis supports a future pardoning of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin's murderer Yigal Amir – says a survey conducted by the Dahaf institute for Yedioth Ahronoth. The poll was published Friday morning in the newspaper's weekend edition. According to the poll data – five percent of the Israeli public supports pardoning the killer already at this point in time, while 25 percent believes that he should be pardoned in 25 years from now. Some 69 percent of respondents replied that they oppose a future pardoning.

This marks a significant change compared to a similar poll conducted last year by the newspaper. Figures in 2005 showed that 76 percent of Israelis opposed any pardoning, while 18 percent believed the killer should be set free. Among respondents defining themselves as right-wing, 54 percent support a pardoning, with 47 percent setting the pardon in 25 years. Among respondents defining themselves as religious the numbers jump again – 64 percent support a pardoning: 50 percent in 25 years and 14 percent today.

On the left only one percent of those polled believes that a pardon should be granted today. 12 percent support a pardoning in 25 years. Participants were also polled about vacations for the Prime Minister's killer. Twenty percent of the public believes that Amir should be granted vacations from prison, while 78 percent opposed.

Questions were also put in the field regarding the hotly debated issue of conjugal visits – 38 percent of respondents agreed that Amir should be allowed conjugal visits with his wife, Larissa Trimbobler, 56 percent oppose such visits.

'This vile man's road to freedom has been paved' Rabin's son Yuval granted an interview to the newspaper in the week leading up to the 11th anniversary of his father's assassination. "On the inside I'm furious," he said when asked about the conjugal visit granted to Amir. Then why did you remain silent when your father's murder was allowed by the state to bring Larissa into his cell? "Why am I silent? I'll tell you why. I have no intention to address the killer or the conduct of the authorities. It is a national issue, not me and my family against the killer. It would be a mistake to face off one family against the other, it's a matter for the authorities. I'm not young anymore, it took me many years to get to where I am, but these days I try not to get angry over things that I am powerless over. I don't see a situation where if I say or do something it will change the outcome of things."

"If someone were to tell me 10 years ago that this is that would happen," Rabin says, "I wouldn't have been able to believe it. I worry that only if there is another political assassination people will start wondering what mistakes were made regarding my father's murderer." Advertisement

Rabin sees Amir's pardoning as almost unavoidable. "It's not that I don't know where the killers' story is expected to go from here. It's been spoken of in the media. It started with a conjugal visit, from there it will move on to the Briss for the child and his Bar Mitzvah and his wedding, and more children… and this is how this vile man's road to freedom will be paved.

On the other hand, if I had spoken up there would be offensive comments asking: 'Is their family's blood redder?', this cannot be an argument between us and them, the state should deal with it, and here, it has. I don't see how an announcement made by myself or Dalia (Rabin's daughter) would have changed the atmosphere, certainly it wouldn't have changed the reality of the situation."

Rabin was murdered for his views. Netanyahu and Sharon incited his murder. The assassin was schooled by rightwing orthodox opponents of peace. You make it sound as if Rabin died of cancer. He was killed by the right for seeking peace. I'll bet that Bar Kochba, Davai, and the other rightwingers here cheered his death. Most Israeli rightwingers did.

What does it say about Don, if he uses straw man argument?
There were a lot of critics including Ross who didn't call Carter racist.

" not whether he and his ideas are anti-semetic "
Who called him anti-semetic?

"According to the poll data – five percent of the Israeli public supports pardoning the killer already at this point in time, while 25 percent believes that he should be pardoned in 25 years from now."

Look, Israel doesn't have death sentence. Israel is much more liberal country compare to US.

Anyway, what's your point? What are you trying to prove?

"being a leftist pro-Israeli "
We all were.
Are you guy "who believes the same thing Wednesday that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday. Events can change, this man's beliefs never will".
M.J is such type of guy.
How about you?
After Tuesday (2000, Second Intifada and so on)
did your thinking change?

One of the reasons the comments to MJ posts tend to deteriorate into cockfights is the unrespectful, dismissive tones the posts themselves. You may not agree with the people participating the the conference mentioned, but you don't have to marginalize or criminalize them. Doing so causes commenters to respond in kind. AIPAC is a lobbying group. You may have different ideas than most of its members (which I am totally ignorant of), they clearly are not a four letter word.

My reply was ironic. Anyone who can demonize a Jimmy Carter is a serious propagandist. Of course, there are critics of Carter who don't call him racist. I have criticized Carter without calling him racist. So?

I was asking what it says about critics who do call Carter racist. Carter's critics, who would never have someone like him as a mediator between I-P (perhaps because he is not biased to their side), insinuate he is racist for even suggesting that Israel practices Apartheid.

Who's building the straw man here? If you ever have something substantial to add to the debate, Davai, feel free to contribute.

If you read the Shamgar Commission report on the murder, you will see that the "person closest to the assassin, Yigal Amir in the months before the murder" was SHABAK provocateur Avishai Raviv who on repeated occasions, in front of numerous witnesses, exhorted Amir to kill Rabin. Sort of makes you wonder, doesn't it? Also I suggest you read Leah Rabin's autobiography for an interesting perspective on what happened in the period after Rabin was shot and bundled off in the limo.

Right after this was publicized, Yossi Sarid wrote in Ha'aretz that "his eyeballs were burning in their sockets" when he read about this poll. Just a week or two later, he wrote another piece advocating releasing terrorist Marwan Barghouti "because he can unify the Palestinians (supposedly)". He then went on and said "so what if he was convicted of murder?... there aren't any saints around here".
Let me understand this....for Yossi (and other "progressives", I assume), murder is a terrible unforgivable crime, IF THE VICTIM IS A FRIEND OF YOURS and he is a "progressive", otherwise, it isn't so bad, particularly if it is Arabs killing Jews (one of whom had attended my synagogue), in which it is not only forgiveable, but even "understandable".

I was asking, why you such a jerk by suggesting that I was happy about Rabin's murder.
Is this clear?

You say that Netanyahu and Sharon "incited" Rabin's murder because they criticized his policies (you of course admit none of them ever called for violence). Now, on this "progressive" site, there is very harsh criticism of Bush, the Neo-Cons, the "Right" and various other opponents of the "progressives". So therefore I conclude that the "progressives" here are also "inciting" to murder, since, according to your logic, strongly disagreeing with someone is tantamount to calling for his murder, right?

Davai,

Yes, my thinking did change quite a bit following the breakup of Camp David 2000 and the ensuing violence that followed.

However, I think that what was outlined there (and perhaps more clearly at Taba Jan 2001) is/was the only workable solution. It seemed that the Israelis had pulled themselves together and were ready to go for it. It also seemed like the Palestinian leadership hadn't prepared its people for the kind of compromise that was required.

I'm not basing that on any post assessment of the situation. I'm basing that on the reports, which I was following quite closely, at the time. Arafat went into Camp David saying that he wasn't ready. Arafat toured Arab capitals in Aug. of 2000 and didn't get the kind of encouragement he should have. If the Saudis had made their offer in Aug. or Sept. of 2000 (through Arafat or on their own) it would be a whole different situation right now. There appeared to be no counter-offer and even more surprisingly no acknowledgment from Arafat that what was on the table was a significant.

Nevertheless, I'm a strong supported of a two state solution. I see no problem with Israel annexing 5-10% of the West Bank (in which lie the vast majority of the settlers) in exchange for a similar sized chunk added on to Gaza.

I also think Israel has shown, in it's withdrawal from Gaza that they can and will move folks who fall outside whatever border the political establishment agrees upon. In short, the settlers (even as their numbers have grown) serve more as pressure to drive the Palestinians to the table than immovable impediments to a solution.

The Green line is no magical border. While it is a sensible division and an appropriate guideline, it was originally an armistice line that was never considered a border by those on the Eastern side of it.

When I look at the route of the separation fence, it mostly follows the Green line. The Ariel settlement block (and those surrounding it) appears to be the only part that is wildly inappropriate. Still, I see possible solutions; like a 99 year lease (Israelis leasing it from Palestine).

I suppose I'm a "leftist" because I think a two state solution is workable regardless of missed opportunities of the past. That and because I knew Bush was an idiot (and a danger to the region) long before he was elected. I suppose I'm "pro-Israeli" because I think the idea that Israel is entirely stolen land born of a crime against Palestinians is total rubbish.

My own identity in those labels is, sadly, drawn by the positions that others have staked. Basically, I think that solutions are out there and that G-d willing some time will arrive when all involved parties will embrace them within the same time frame. I thought that 2000 was such a time. I wish it had been. There is no doubt in my mind that the people of the region would be better off today (the Palestinians much better off) if they had went with the framework that was there for the taking.

I don't know; Labels aren't always so clear cut. What would you call someone that holds these opinions?

"What would you call someone that holds these opinions?"
I guess you are not original thinker :-)
Huge majority Of Israeli, American Jews as well as American People in general share your point of view. I also share such views.

" I think a two state solution is workable regardless of missed opportunities of the past"
I'm not sure there is a way to get there at the moment, but Israel must preserve this option for the future.

And that's why you're a troll.

I see. Good reasoning. Thank you for explanation.

Ross is a Zionist with strong emotional and personal ties to Israel. He lacks those ties to Palestine or to Arabs in general.

The fact is, there are almost as many flavors of Zionism as there are Zionists, so saying the mere fact that someone is a Zionist makes them unfit to be a mediator is nonsensical.  What the left has done is equate "Zionism" with "intransigent right-wing fanatic", a development that would surely make the early Zionists, most of whom were socialists, spin in their graves. 

Furthermore, it is clear you understand nothing about the mentality of Israel.  As a tiny sliver of land with only 6 million people, with virtually the entire Islamic world (and a good chunk of the rest) arrayed against it, Israelis feel existential vulnerability every day of the week.  That's true across the political spectrum.  There is simply no way a mediator who was not sympathetic to Israel's desire to be a Jewish state could make any progress at all.  There is no way that Israel would make ANY concessions at all to a mediator that they didn't think understood what Zionism is about.  This is something that Europeans still don't understand.

The art of mediating a conflict like this one involves not extreme "neutrality".  Rather, it involves convincing both sides that their their desires, needs and interests are understood.  It is only when both sides feel their interests will be considered that they can consider a mediator's request for the concessions needed to reach a deal.

Lest you forget, Ross, Miller and others were the architects of the Oslo peace process, so beloved of leftists everywhere, including MJ Rosenberg.  I think that they more than proved their ability to be mediators and Zionists at the same time.

I won't even comment on the sheer idiocy of believing that a Zionist can be a mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Brad and Zionista do not have politics. They have ethnicity. Nice. Leave it in shul.

MJ's point on Ross does not go far enough. The Clinton peace team was a disaster. They forced Arafat to go to Camp David when he said he was not ready. They coordinated all the American negotiating positions with the Israelis and the Palestinians knew it. And, when a deal could not be reached, Dennis Ross convinced Clinton to go out and blame Arafat for the failure, even though (1) it wasn't true and (2) Clinton had convinced Arafat to attend by PROMISING that if the summit failed, Clinton would not assign blame.

If it had not been for Ross, negotiations would have continued immediately following Camp David, which is what Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben Ami expected would happen. But Ross, Barak's proxy, wanted to help Barak defeat Sharon so he pressured Clinton to blame Arafat (Clinton is furious about this, by the way).

Ross has spent 10 years doing "peace" with zero record of success although he can be credited, along with Barak, Arafat, and Sharon for the start of the second intifada. (Had negotiations continued, had Arafat not been blamed, there would have been no intifada 2).

MJ doesn't mention any of this although I suspect he agrees with all of it. Why else would he recommend Clayton Swisher's book as the best volume on Camp David since it is Swisher who make these points most persuasively.

I hope MJ is right that Ross is done. But I don't count him out. In Washington, failure is rewarded.

I'm linking to this Washington Post column by Malley and Miller, both of whom MJ refers to in his post as veteran negotiators who could make a positive contribution to peace efforts in a future Democratic administration.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/18/AR2007061801365.html [Dang. I am and shall forever remain a luddite. I am advised that this link doesn't work. The column is in the June 19 edition of the Post and can be googled by just entereing "Aaron Miller Israel".]

Their analysis, as reflected in the excerpt below, warns of the folly of perpetuating a strategy based on dividing Palestinians, geographically and otherwise:

Since Hamas's election in early 2006, the United States and its allies have behaved as though isolating the Islamist movement could undo its victory and that supporting Fatah politically and militarily would hasten that outcome. The wreckage of that policy is clear. Yet, having witnessed the consequences of those myths, they are hastening to adopt others. Efforts to deepen the split between Hamas and Fatah or between Gaza and the West Bank will compound the disaster, for there can be no security, let alone a peace process, without minimal Palestinian unity and consensus.

The United States and others should support Abbas and encourage progress in the West Bank, but smartly. Sticks for Gaza coupled with carrots for the West Bank will divide Palestinians, radicalize Gazans, provoke violence by those who are left out and discredit those the United States embraces. Dividing Palestine geographically is no more a recipe for success than dividing Palestinians politically.

"(Had negotiations continued, had Arafat not been blamed, there would have been no intifada 2)."
Well, second intifada started while negotiations continued.
Good try, Mark.

See, people like you or MJ can't face reality,
something did change on Tuesday, so you have tomanufacture facts so that you can continue
believes Wednesday what you guys believed Monday, despite what happened Tuesday."

The Camp David negotiations ended in July. The intifada began on Sept. 27

Mark:

Notwithstanding your back-handed compliment (I think), I really think you are now, and often are, out of line. Yes, you are Jewish, and yes you have strong views about what you apparently think to be inappropriate "Jew think". Still, I do think you take license in saying things that, I submit, a non-Jew exercising appropriate discretion would take care not to say.

I think your reference in your post to "keeping it in shul" or whatever is a perfect example of what has no place on a progressive website.

I also think your repeated criticism of davai for his "broken" english is baffling to the extent you consider yourself a left-leaning person. Shit, my grandmother of blessed memory spoke broken english in about seven languages; she was no dummy.

I think you are a very bright guy with lots of things to say. But I also think you are unnecessarily and inappropriately abusive sometimes.

FWIW,

Bruce

"Furthermore, it is clear you understand nothing about the mentality of Israel. As a tiny sliver of land with only 6 million people, with virtually the entire Islamic world (and a good chunk of the rest) arrayed against it, Israelis feel existential vulnerability every day of the week."

Brad - You hit the nail on the head except, as follows. Furthermore, it is clear you understand nothing about the mentality of Palestinians. As a tiny sliver of land with only 5 million people, with virtually the entire Western world arrayed against it, Palestinians feel an existential vulnerability every day of the week.

 There is no question both sides feel vulnerability and that is a significant impediment to peace negotiations. There is a legitmate question as to who should feel the most vulnerable. Israel with the United States at it's side or Palestinians with those "mighty" arab armies at her side.

The biggest problem is both sides claim victim status and that colors their perspective of every gesture and incident. Until both sides recognize both sides are victims, negotiations will go nowhere. Brad, you seem to feel that Israel is the most vulnerable and the most victimized. Clinging to that attitude will never yield the kind of compromise to settle this conflict. I can say the same thing about those who feel the Palestinians are the primary victims and the Israelis are the primary bad guys.

"The biggest problem is both sides claim victim status and that colors their perspective of every gesture and incident"

It sounds so politically correct, but I doubt that your diagnosis of the problem is meaningful at all.
It's just feel good white noise.

To Bruce,
What can I tell you? I consider Jews like Davai, Brad, Barkochba, Daniel etc to be literally a shonde fur de goyim. (I think that's the phrase).
As for mocking Davai's bad English, I don't think your grandma or my great-grandmother would post here.
So no apologies. Call me a self-hater. But, as Woody Allen said, "it's not me I hate, it's them."
You, Bruce, are too sentimental about Jews, all Jews. It's cringe-worthy.
I despise all people on the right but I reserve a special place for Jews, gays, and African-Americans who side with the forces that oppressed them for so long.
That's it for today. You'll miss me but I'm out of here. Going to, of all places, Israel. Hopefully I won't see BarK although if I see anyone dancing at Rabin Memorial Square, I'll know it's him.

You're pathetic.

I state my position and more than adquately back it up with references and cites and links.

See, if you don't like someone's views and claim that they're being "disruptive". that doesn't make them a troll - you moron.

Mediators need to be disinterested.

That's just absurd. Mediators need to be supremely interested in the subject matter. What they shouldn't be is partisan. There is a huge difference. Your example about the UAW and GM is a good example of this. While you don't want someone who is beholden to the specific parties, you also don't want someone who is ignorant of the issues. You wouldn't have a someone who is clueless or "disinterested" in labor issues, corporate governance, or automobiles being the mediator of a UAW v. GM dispute.

Parties to a conflict will never relax enough to compromise unless they feel that the process, and those involved in mediation, understand both their interests and their fears; both their bluffs and their red lines.

When it comes to the Middle East, there has been a constant campaign to delegitimized the very basis of nationhood of both Israelis and Palestinians. Any single mediator will need to have the internal duplicity of Bill Clinton (and I mean that in a good way -- "I feel you pain").

The Israelis will need a "Zionist" at the table. The Palestinians will need someone who can, with a straight face, refer to "Palestine" as an actual historic entity.

That leaves plenty of room for Jews and Muslims to be part of the negotiating teams.

I wondering, you referred to "Irish Catholics" and "Irish Protestants" being unacceptable mediators for Northern Ireland. But you didn't refer to "Jewish Israelis", "Muslim Israelis" or "Muslims Palestinians". Just Jews and Muslims. Could you say a bit more about that?

ouch

And I was honestly looking forward to an answer to my question why, for example, you would disqualify Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to US Congress, and with the strong support of the Jewish voters in his district, from serving as a mediator to the peace process.  But, Happy Trails.  Give my regards to Bat Galim.

What most Israelis want them to do.  Namely, dismantle illegal outposts and prosecute those who maintain them, and at least freeze settlement activity during serious and sustained negotiations with Palestinian leadership.

Nice attempt at LYING. Allow me to yet again De-Code the Zionist speak: "Two-state solution is best to protect the rights of inhabitants" REALLY means:

"Israel becomes a state in which people of one particular religion/identity created artificially get to lord over all the non-Jews who were living there long long before the ZIonists arrived, while the remaining Palestinians that were driven out of their homes and lands have to live in Bantu-stans."

Oh, and "tarnishing the memory of war victims" REALLY means "pointing out that Zionists committed mass murder in places like Deir Yassin".

You claimed that a country based on the Superiority of the Jews is justified because the Saudis didn't allow Jews into Mecca, and I pointed out what a two-faced murder-backing liar you are, since the Zionists' mass murder of Palestinians at places like Deir Yassin had nothing to do with how jews were treated in Muslim countries.

Thanks for the link so anyone who wants can go back and read the full exchange.

LOL!

I think it's is being done to some degree.

pkafin,

Class?  It's pretty obvious that abdul-hass is often passionately frustrated with Jews that don't fit abdul-hass' thesis that Jewish interests are necessarily and naturally nefarious interests and abdul hass' charicature of Jews as fundamentally evil.  Class?  Fat chance.

But I best be moving on before MJ and his amen corner find us talking and accuses me once again of sticking up for right wing neocon Likudniks like you (since, y'know, that's what we all are anyway -- nothing personal).

Don't get used to it! :-)

No, abdul, that is the definition of a troll. The fact that you end your comment calling me a moron just proves my point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

As a tiny sliver of land with only 5 million people, with virtually the entire Western world arrayed against it, Palestinians feel an existential vulnerability every day of the week.

Good grief, how can you write such nonsense?  The entire Western world is arrayed against the Palestinians?  In what universe?  Europeans have bent over backwards accomodating the Palestinians.  The UN is virtually an outpost of the Palestinian Authority.

There is simply no comparison between the realities for Israel and the realities for the Palestinians.  To put it in the crudest terms, Palestinians simply don't face annihilation.  The Western world isn't angling for the destruction of the Palestinians.  Virtually the entire world has endorsed the idea of a Palestinian state.  On the contrary, the vast majority of the Islamic world not only doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, they wouldn't bat an eyelash if Jews in Israel were massacred tomorrow. 

That is not to say that Palestinians' sense of victimization isn't a barrier to peace.  It is.  And you're right that there will never be progress unless both sides overcome their sense of victimhood.  But let's acknowledge reality: only one side of this conflict faces the possibility of actually ceasing to exist.  Whether Palestinians eventually get their own state or are absorbed into existing states, there will always be Palestinians.  More to the point, there will always be Arabs.  Without Israel, by contrast, there is no other place in the world that is dedicated to the idea of Jewish security and continuity.   There is simply no equivalence there.

there is no other place in the world that is dedicated to the idea of Jewish security and continuity.

I don't know what that means. The problem is that "not dedicated" is not necessarily the opposite of "dedicated." You say here that there is no where else that is dedicated, so does that mean that everywhere else is wavering on the idea of Jewish security?

It could be the same as someone saying, "I'm not dedicated to voting for Barack Obama," which means, "I could very well vote for someone else." Putting it into our context, saying no where else is dedicated to Jewish security is like saying that every other country could potentially threaten Jewish security.

That's what's confusing me.

Now who says you can't learn something new everyday?

Now now, flattery will get you everywhere. Put that tongue back in your cheek!

Put it this way: is there any place on earth that is uniquely capable of defending the interests of Jews other than Israel?  No.  That's not to say that the US, France, the UK and other countries with large Jewish populations aren't interested in Jewish security.  It's just that Jewish security is not why they exist.

We tend to think that because we live in a tolerant, multicultural, law-abiding Western society, that there is no need to worry about things like Jewish survival.  The idea of annihilation is so far removed from our consciousness that it strikes us as absurd.  But we are only two generations removed from an attempt to do exactly that to the Jews.  We have nuclear-seeking certified nutcases threatening Israel with extinction.  We have the rankest sort of anti-Semitism permeating the airwaves throughout the Arab world.  From the vantage point of Israel, it is not so absurd to think that at some point in the future, someone will try again to annihilate the Jews.

But let's leave aside the thought of annihilation.  What about more day-to-day Jewish security?  A few years ago there was a spike in attacks against Jews in France, mostly by French Muslims angered by what they saw on the news about Israel.  For a while, it seemed that the French authorities didn't take this problem seriously.  As a result there was a surge in the number of French Jews who decided to immigrate to Israel.  For Jews all around the world, even the seemingly most secure, Israel is there as a guarantor that, in the event of a serious increase in anti-Semitism, there is at least one place where Jews can go and not feel like their fate is in the hands of others.

Europeans have bent over backwards accomodating the Palestinians. The UN is virtually an outpost of the Palestinian Authority. There is simply no comparison between the realities for Israel and the realities for the Palestinians. To put it in the crudest terms, Palestinians simply don't face annihilation.

Yeah, right. Israel has been oppressed by the Palestinians all of these years. Bizarro world.

It's just that Jewish security is not why they exist. From the vantage point of Israel, it is not so absurd to think that at some point in the future, someone will try again to annihilate the Jews.

Wow, what an argument. No, the U.S. doesn't exist solely to secure its Jewish population or its Christian or Muslim population. It protects all of its citizens. Jews may be the chosen people in their religion, as Christians are in theirs, but they have no right to state that grants them that exception.

Carving out a Jewish state in Palestine, creating a refugee Arab population in the Arab Middle East, has for some reason, created enemies who want to see that Jewish state removed. So, you argue a Jewish state must be secured right there where it is threatened by those Arab states. The threats from its illegitimate existence (as seen by those it expelled) somehow legitimize its existence? Jews in France facing elimination (a bogus story, anyway) must move to Israel where they can be safe by eliminating the Palestinians who lived there? This is ridiculous on its face.

So, if I convert to Judaism, I have no right to return to my Jewish homeland?

If you would agree to include certain components within an overall objective national identity -- ie, common language; deliberate and organic system of laws, customs and ethics; a shared history marked by a peculiar calendar and a geo-political point of ancestral origin -- then exactly what disqualifies the Jewish people from aspiring and sustaining their national self-determination in Israel?

Yeah,

that's bizarre. The word "disinterested" appears nowhere in M.J.'s column. I was responding to Mark Weinberg's statement, where the the word does, in fact, appear.

M.J. isn't it then a bit strange that you told me to "get a dictionary"?

If your going to be that specific about words and their meanings, I'd think you'd know which ones you yourself used in a column that you wrote in your professional capacity.

Seriously, have you been drinking or something? Not that I begrudge you a drink or a toke or whatever. But, if your going to mention me by name, I would appreciate it if you were also accurate in your characterization of my statements and the context in which they were offered.

A Palestinian in Israel, who may have lived there for generations, is a second class citizen. There is no denying this because he is not afforded complete and equal rights with Jewish Israelis. He is not a second class citizen because he does not speak Hebrew or prefers falafel to bagel or views infidelity as a more serious crime. He is a second class citizen because he is not Jewish.

Pkafin,
My apologies. I picked up on Mark's word in an e-mail exchange I had off-line with a friend. But I didn't post it here. So I criticized you for something you wrote that was not directed at me.
I still think it's a good word.

MJ,

I don't stack these by thread but I should.

Neither does Mark Weinberg -- I'm just saying.

Come to think of it, you and Mark Weinberg seem to have the same problem about how I stick up for alleged right-wing Likudnik neocons, too.

So anyway, as long as you are sharing Mark Weinberg's sentiments, maybe you could address the question I had asked of him about his disqualification of Jews and Muslims from mediation.  For example, would such required disinterest disqualify Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to US Congress, also with the strong support of the Jewish voters in his district, from serving as a mediator to the peace process? 

MJ,

Actually, right now I'm optimistic about Tony Blair.

Me too.  You may want to drop in over by JoAnn Mort's post and help beef up the comments.

I was in a class a couple years ago about social science methodologies, and the professor had gone out of her way to pick interesting studies in order to demonstrate methodology. We were one day talking about a study that was tending to show that black college students have test anxieties that do not occur in white college students, and that those anxieties actually account for some lower test scores.

Now, the merit of the study aside, there was a blond haired, blue eyed, white girl in the class who proceeded to discourse at length about how black students feel and how they ought to feel. It was one of those things where you just have to wonder what the hell she was thinking.

As we left the class, a friend of mine said, "I just love it when white people tell black people how to feel."

I don't know how palestinians feel. Maybe they don't have existential worries. But it's probably not your place to decide what they feel.

Reece, where do I go to get the threaded list? I guess that makes more sense.

NEVER MIND. Found it. Thanks

BTW, I know many many Palestinians. They would give anything to have the worries Israelis have. Only someone who has never been hungry can imagine that hurting people worry more about the physical existence of the nation than about the health and well-being of their own children.

I know even more Israelis than Palestinians. While many Palestinians would happily trade places with Israelis, no Israelis would trade places with them.

I hope TPM is the only place where there actually are people who believe or claim to believe that it's easier to be a Palestinian than an Israeli.

Did the threaded list help out? I think most of us use it, and consequently, we don't tend to address each other when we start a comment. On older forums where everything was flat, there seemed to be different expectations about how to respond to people.

Why there is so much hate in you?
What's your problem?
Poor your parents to have such unhappy child.

Hey M.J.,

Thanks for the reply. I'm now on board with the proper definitions of the words.

from http://wsu.edu/~brians/errors/
A bored person is uninterested. Do not confuse this word with the much rarer disinterested, which means “objective, neutral.”

It appears to be my mistake on the finer points of the definitions. My head has always been more about math and music than about the finer points of semantics... see, I'm not even sure I'm using "semantics" properly.

It seems, once the definitions are sorted out, that we have a similar point.

Yes, we want disinterested mediators, not uninterested ones.

Thanks again for the follow up. I was trying hard not to be obnoxious about it earlier. But I'm not sure I was entirely successful.

As Howard would say, you are anti-semantic...

Huh?

added after a moment:

Oh, I am an idiot.

lol.

Yes anti-semantic; As if I needed further proof.

Guilty