The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    jollyroger's picture

    Israel--Too expensive to keep as a pet...not housebroken.

    By jollyroger on Sat, 09/17/2011 - 4:44pm |

    Next week at the UN, Susan Rice will show the world our true values--she will provide international "cover" for an ongoing apartheid regime, when, acting as Israel's patron, we veto yet another Security Council resolution seen as contrary to her interests.

    Genghis has elsewhere deconstructed the underlying fallacy of this approach, and I am on record with my objections to Israel's birth as a "Jewish State", and its subsequent perpetrations of atrocities (sorry, there is no other word) in the vain hope of maintaining hegemony over lands acquired through what we today call "ethnic cleansing".

    I would here focus on the price we as a nation pay for our continuing condescension. (in the Jane Austen sense of the word) .

    There was a time when our strong arm would have sufficed to produce a majority pro Israel vote on the Council, obviating the necessity of our standing forth as the defender of the indefensible.

    That day having passed, and the overwhelming sense of the world body as represented in the General Assembly favoring Palestinian statehood, we are forced to "out" ourselves as the frank enablers of oppression.

    This is a high price to pay for the maintenance of a British colonial excrescence.

    One might also look at the hideous images of people jumping to their death from the WTC on 9/11 for another entry in the tally of costs.

    When your puppy craps on your kitchen floor, it's a drag.  When she craps on your rug it pisses you off.  When you slip your foot into your shoe only to encounter the warm, steamy pile she left, you may rage in frustration.

    When the puppy grows up to be a full grown Staffordshire Terrier and starts mauling the local children, it's time to have her put down.

     

     

    Comments

    I would remove the following two paragraphs

    When your puppy craps on your kitchen floor, it's a drag.  When she craps on your rug it pisses you off.  When you slip your foot into your shoe only to encounter the warm, steamy pile she left, you may rage in frustration.

    When the puppy grows up to be a full grown Staffordshire Terrier and starts mauling the local children, it's time to have her put down.

    They weaken your post, which up till then is as rough as a cob, but fair.


    by David Seaton on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 2:52pm

    An editor who works for free is a treasure; those two paragraphs, however, are the heart & soul of the post.

    by jollyroger on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 3:02pm

    No they aren't, they are merely the image that got you fired up to write... self-discipline is a writer's best friend.


    by David Seaton on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 3:08pm

    the image that got you fired up to write

    You are correct.

     self-discipline 

    Are you talkin' to me?

     


    by jollyroger on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 7:34pm

    The image that gets you started is often discarded once what you are writing takes shape. Any journeyman writer knows that.

    In this case comparing human beings to dogs is always offensive and doesn't form part of civilized discourse. And in the case of Jewish people, talking about having them "put down" has a distinctly Hitlerian ring to it, don't you think? It disqualifies the rest of the post, which is harsh, but reasonably fair.

    Anyway, you have really crossed all the frontiers and are way, way, way, out of bounds into David Dukedom... to such an extent that one, who is sufficiently paranoiac, might imagine you some sort of a Zionist-troll-agent-provocateur.


    by David Seaton on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 6:53am

    Hmmm.

    Point well taken....


    by jollyroger on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 1:55pm

    You are a scholar and a gentleman.


    by David Seaton on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 1:58pm

    In my defense, I have so thoroughly divorced the concept of Jewish people at large from Israel as a geo political actor that I completely missed the dangerous implications of "put down".  

    Remarkably obtuse, in retrospect, but there you are.


    by jollyroger on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 2:01pm

    It appears that the Seatster was having you on.

    On Talk Like a Pirate Day, too. Just when your guard was down.


    by Rootman on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 7:13am

    Quite serious in fact... Rog is quite promising, needs a bit of polishing though.


    by David Seaton on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 8:22am

    When the puppy grows up to be a full grown Staffordshire Terrier

    Someone once said "our senator may be a son of a %&$#, but he's our son of a ......

    The Terrier, Militarily/politically, appears as our guard dog, listening for those who would do us harm. The terrier who chews up the yard (our beachhead)

    We want the terrier to keep the intruders from reaching inside of the house. We don't want to have to fight another Normandy?

    Makes you sick though, when you see the damage the darn Terrier does. unless you know of another to take it's place?

    Will Egypt or Syria give us the use of the Airspace?  

    I'd like to say "everyone is welcome to my tent, but I know with some, I'd have to sleep with one eye open." 

    To those who believe in an "eye for and eye"  I'm afraid they won't accept my apologies, until they remove my eyes. 


    by Resistance on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 6:24pm

     Res, I swear before Jesus, I can't tell which side of this argument you mean to come down on.


    by jollyroger on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 7:34pm

    If you're on the side of peace, I'm with you Jolly.


    by Resistance on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 10:50pm

    No justice, no peace...


    by jollyroger on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 1:56pm

    I think Americans might just as well cease arguing about this.  No significant change in US policy is going to happen, and all of the punditry on all sides of the debate is utterly pointless.  Any foreign governmental assistance for the Palestinian cause is going to have to come from other governments.


    by Dan Kervick on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 11:19pm

    On the contrary, Dan. Americans should argue about this more -- maybe after first learning something about the subject. Israel-Palestine is near the heart of the whole Greater Middle East briar patch, into which thousands of American lives and billions of American dollars have been tossed. The three current wars (and those in the past and the future) are what is really pointless. The U.S. desperately needs a debate over its financial and moral priorities. The dream of empire is dead, thankfully; maybe something better can replace it.


    by acanuck on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 2:20pm

    The U.S. desperately needs a debate over its financial and moral priorities

    Ya gotta pay the cost to be the boss...


    by jollyroger on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 3:27pm

    As it happens, I wrote a book review of Imperial Hubris when it came out in 2004. I didn't entirely buy Scheuer's most hellish conclusions, but I'd argue it's a very important book.


    by acanuck on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 4:47pm

     Scheuer's most hellish conclusions, 

    Scheuer is a real conundrum.. Everything he says sounds reasonable, until he comes up with this latest lament for the loss of the rendition option... I guess you can take the boy out of the CIA, but you can't...


    by jollyroger on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 6:39pm

    Yeah, he's refreshingly willing to admit the U.S. dug itself into this hole with misguided policies, but his solution is to go genocidally ruthless on anyone who stands in our way. A scary guy. But the only western author I know whose book has been personally endorsed by Osama bin Laden -- to paraphrase, "He gets me."


    by acanuck on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 7:54pm

    So what's there to debate?

    Israel tells the Americans to butt out, they go after the Palestinians just as the Syrian President is going after his own people.

    The world condemns Israel, the world condemns Syria. (Shiites happen)

    Then what, World War Three?

    You think America's just going to stand by, and let Iran or Syria rule the neighborhood?

    When Israel forces the refugees into Egypt, Jordan, Syria or Saudi Arabia, you think the US is just going to allow the world to bomb Israel into submission?  

    Israel is not leaving; you'll see the end of the world before that happens.  

    What is there to debate; were between a rock and a hard place.

    Some would say, "America; reign in your ally or else"

    Or else what?

    Tell me what is the worse that can happen;..... and you'd better expect it.

    Israel will mimic Syria. and the world will cry about it, but what will the UN do, what has the Arab world done to stop Assad ?  

    The three current wars (and those in the past and the future) are what is really pointless. The U.S. desperately needs a debate over its financial and moral priorities. The dream of empire is dead

    Dead for whom?  You think the Iranian Revolutionary Council is dead?  Or the spread of Sharia Law is going to abate?

    The moment we pull out of Afghanistan the Taliban are coming right back and off with the hands and heads in the public squares.

    You'll remember the days of America held hostage. When the middle east unites against America and it's allies, it will make the three current wars look like a picnic.

    While you condemn Israel; condemn Iran and Syria, see if they give a crap about your condemnation.

    People say America needs to butt out of Iraq and Afghanistan, they need to butt out of Pakistan which has nukes. Maybe the US should butt out of Israel affairs too?

    Israel provides the US a forward base, we don't have to kiss them but we do need them.  We can't count on Turkey or Egypt or any of the countries that have been shaken up by the ARAB spring.

    Are we sure they'll continue to be friendly to the US? Maybe we'll have a repeat of "America Held Hostage"; but on a  MUCH larger scale?  

    You think America is having a class war; you'll see a World War, then watch out.   


    by Resistance on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 6:30pm

     US a forward base

     

    The ol' land based aircraft carrier...but the sailors (and sailorettes, yum) on the carrier don't go all medieval on the locals at the drop of a yarmulke. (ed note:don't lets get into nasty similes, shall we/)


    by jollyroger on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 6:36pm

    Are you telling me all those soldiers that hit the beaches at Normandy didn't have to? We didn't need to establish a beach head to bring in supplies?

    I suppose we could remind the Middle east we don't need boots on the ground; remember Hiroshima? 

    What was all the fuss about when that little Russian country blackmailed us, so we could get landing rights and to be able to fly over their airspace, in order to supply our troops on the ground.  

    We could have used aircraft carriers, instead of 

    The ol' land based aircraft carrier...


    by Resistance on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 9:31pm

    the unexamined assumption is that we are entitled to project our power and are therefore entitled to a staging base

    by jollyroger on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 10:38pm

    I long for the days when all the little Hitlers and Stalins lay down their arms.

    It'll be nice when we All, can beat our spears into plowshares.

    The day will come when the "lamb lies down with the lion"

    Until then ............fear rules

    Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.
    Theodore Roosevelt


    by Resistance on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 4:43pm

    There's Heinlein's missive on the use of violence to solve problems, but aside from the Bosnian catastrophe, for the last 70 years Europe's been a pretty nice place to live without all that emphasizing guns over dialogue.

    And there are fewer Hitlers and Stalins the less we believe in revolution from the barrel of a gun, whether so-called democratic revolutions or communist ones.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 01/26/2014 - 9:13am

    The Arab Spring was just on simmer for the last few years and the revolutionary days are reaching the boiling point. 

    Tell those opposed to tyrants like Assad or the leader of the Ukraine; that revolution from the barrel of a gun is over. The governed grow tired of dialog.


    by Resistance on Sun, 01/26/2014 - 4:11pm

    That's what the Romans thought too, even though I recently learned there were greater costs than I realized over the centuries - some of those then dropping yarmulkes fought back.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 01/26/2014 - 9:07am

    Looks like our forward base is having trouble keeping the sailorettes in line....


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 01/26/2014 - 5:38pm

    Avast and ahoy!

     

    Edit to add: Putting a whole new spin on "your sister wears combat boots..."


    by jollyroger on Sun, 01/26/2014 - 6:01pm

    Hmmm.

    So a prominent poster has a featured post up about the president presently, and with a focus on the Middle East.  Not finished with it yet but it is a fascinating article by David Remnick (a long-time family friend who took my sister and brother-in-law to the WH Correspondent's dinner last year), who is no lackey on matters pertaining to Israel--as one can see, inter alia, from his relatively recent glowing article about Haaretz and columnists like Gideon Levy and his colleague Amira Hass--every faux lefty's favorite Hebe writers across the globe.  

    But nah says PP, let's instead reach back, find a peculiar article from 2011, and taunt the local loud-mouth Jew.  Perhaps the incentive to ignore the current featured post by a prominent poster is to get a rise out of the local Jew so we can get him banned.      Or maybe it's just fun going to the literary zoo, watch him squirm, and get some kicks and giggles in between.

    Whatever rocks your boat over there in expat land.  Taunt away, and don't worry because you used no actual buzz words so everything is cool.  Nothing to see here. . .

    Bruce S. Levine

    New York, New York

    P.S. Peter Schwartz, the duality we addressed recently consists of two competing elements that are inextricably intertwined with one another.

    Addendum: Michael et al., please this is not a challenge to any of you or your authority, which I respect.  Neither is it a statement that I would act more aggressively were I in your respective shoes.  But please try to trust me on this one; if I'm going down I do not wish for it to be this way and under these circumstances.  If I cross the last line left to me I want to make it count! (kidding sort of) Thanks in advance.

    And PP, please, I am not asking to continue this thread.  You are certainly welcome to respond, but only if you see a reason to do so.  Thanks.


    by Bruce Levine on Sun, 01/26/2014 - 1:59pm

    Wow, this blog post is way too extreme for my tastes, both the title and the imagery, as Seaton addressed above. Bruce, you're justified in feeling offended by it imo.


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 01/26/2014 - 2:41pm

    I'm no more offended by the piece than anyone else might be, or perhaps should be, but I just thought that the timing of writing about it was illuminating, and worthy of some attention. 


    by Bruce Levine on Sun, 01/26/2014 - 2:52pm

    Actually, I see that PP got the link from JR in another blogpost.  I guess they both think that there's a place for this.


    by Bruce Levine on Sun, 01/26/2014 - 3:54pm

    Well gee, Bruce - I don't even know what 2011 refers to as I didn't link to anything.

    I agree with Seaton where JR's phrasing was over the top, but since he'd said it I didn't need to. (& everyone's all friendly with JR here because no matter what he says "he means well" - and sure enough, whatever offense you've had is transferred to me - bravo)

    My mention of yarmulke's was in reference to JR's comment about drop of a yarmulke & my recent discussion with Anonymous Lurker about Jewish revolt & population in the early A.D. Roman Empire, along with the idea that it was easy for empire to project power via staging bases - until it didn't work so well (reminded me of Reagan & Lebanon as well). Whether that was successfully amusing as intended, it was hardly intended offensive, and of course wasn't meant for you at all. [believe it or not, I talked about Israeli matters long before I heard of bslev]

    How that's taunting you or what, I've no idea.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 01/26/2014 - 4:26pm

    G-d willing I can be who I am, and  and you can demonstrate that propensity, i.e. that you can discuss these matters without reference to bullshit.   I have not seen it, and it has not been my experience with you.   That's it, that's my honest feeling, and edited to add that there was a time when I did feel otherwise.   


    by Bruce Levine on Sun, 01/26/2014 - 4:33pm

    Whatever - you're a little bit too honest with your feelings all the time - gets embarrassing.

    By the way, I have no idea how I ended up posting on an old article - assume either some reference from Resistance or JR to it, but didn't track it down yet.

    Update: found the reason, was via JR's comment this morning I followed.

    Perfect - you didn't even understand what I was saying, but had to equate it with somehow supporting JR's comment on Israel, and then managed to get more pissed off at me, even though he made the original post and then referred to it 3 years later.

    Really, just stay away from me. Restraining myself from using my normal street language, since seems to ruffle New Yorkers' feathers.

    Let me state this again to be clear - you had no idea what I was talking about, but went out of your way to get super-offended, even thinking it was personally taunting you. How pathetic is that?


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 01/26/2014 - 4:57pm

    PP, having read your explanation and your initial thread comments, I guess I have absolutely no clue whatsoever about why you chose to post anything on this particular thread.  But it doesn't matter.  You think it was fine to comment on this particular thread that is three years old, and you also think that it matters not that you made a yommie joke on such a thread.  OK.  We disagree.  Understand that I wouldn't post on a thread that mocks any particular group, not just Jews.  Again, that's just me.

    As to leaving you alone, I propose we make it mutual.  I think people of honor would recognize the equity of my counterproposal.  Absent a rejection I will assume we shall walk separately.  Of course, as a matter of honor, please do take the last word here if you wish.

    As to embarrassment, sometimes I get embarrassed about things I do but hardly about expressing my feelings as a writer.  I know no other way.  If you're embarrassed for me, then hey thanks but I'm fine.

    We have different styles.   You write in anonymity in such a way that, to me, takes  advantage and makes your argumentative google-based style something  other than real and genuine.   That, I would suggest, would be cause for embarrassment were I in the position.

    Anyway, I will honor my end of the bargain.  We shall stay away from one another.  

    Feel free to curse at me.  I don't care, but I cannot join you back because if I get banned I don't want it to be because of you, and I say that with all due respect.  


    by Bruce Levine on Sun, 01/26/2014 - 6:50pm

    It was a throwaway line about yarmulka's and the Jewish opposition to the Roman feeling of entitlement to Empire, thought I explained that. I didn't notice the date until you brought it up. Jolly rick-rolled me, but I got him back by publishing his sister in army boots.

    I also happened to counter Resistance's idea that violence/guns will make it all better - he didn't take it all personal and insulting.

    The fact that I write anonymous is because I never ever ever want you or several others to know who I am and go off on some even more paranoid reaction that could personally affect me, such as someone stalking or whatever. [to be fair, I don't think you've latched on to any of my personal revelations like a couple others have, but it's a disturbing feeling - and in real life I've had old friends turn bonkers and start faxing and calling family & acquaintances. Thanks, I'll keep to my adopted wise greekness]

    And yes, I write anonymously so I can be a bit obnoxious and honest and irreverent and not have it in any way affect my work, not that there's much chance of that, or security clearance if I ever needed one, not that the dragnet hasn't made that thought irrelevant, as my IP trail & statements display.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 01/27/2014 - 1:07am

    As to leaving you alone, I propose we make it mutual.  I think people of honor would recognize the equity of my counterproposal.  Absent a rejection I will assume we shall walk separately.  Of course, as a matter of honor, please do take the last word here if you wish.

    fugetaboutit Bruce. My experience is people who make that request never intend to keep it. Then its whoops, and I forgot, or I meant to post this reply to someone else. For a person with honor like yourself it just means they get to attack you while you get to eat it in silence. In the end you'll realize you're just being played for a sucker and give it up.


    by ocean-kat on Mon, 01/27/2014 - 1:59am

    Practicing for a part in a movie? Yeah, you can go away as well with no great loss - shame, a few years ago you seemed like you had something to say, now it seems like you just enjoy feeding your head & get in a superior put-down. Hasta.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 01/27/2014 - 6:28am

    Speaking of that discussion of the Jewish revolt, you and Aaron Carine never responded to my last post, which was added a few days later.  Did you see it?


    by Lurker on Mon, 01/27/2014 - 5:19pm

    Hi, yes, I think I saw it, looked up some details that I was skeptical about but seemed to confirm you were pretty right, then ran out of steam to comment - anyway, appreciated.


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 01/28/2014 - 2:22am

    To be sure.

    I'm not seeing PP's link or much of anything from him.

    Was it removed?


    by Peter Schwartz on Sun, 01/26/2014 - 7:41pm

    no, it's there - search for "Romans" - I misspelled "yarmulka"


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 01/27/2014 - 6:27am

      Roger's "drop of a yarmulke" joke  does seem rather insensitive and in questionable taste.

      I think Western anti-Zionists shouldn't be so indifferent to Palestinian demands for Israel's destruction. It's at least as intransigent as Netanyahu's position--perhaps more, since Netanyahu's plan does allow for a (truncated) Palestinian state.

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/pm-would-give-up-86-of-west-bank-says-deput...


    by Aaron Carine on Sun, 01/26/2014 - 4:49pm

    Don't understand - is substituting "yarmulke" in "drop of a hat" the offensive part? [no "drop of a sombrero" or "fez" either?]. Or you're actually referring to the comment about "going medieval on the locals" and "forward base"?

    I think you're also confusing "Palestinian demands for Israel's destruction" (an important official said this recently?) vs. unwillingness to officially acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state, which has problematic repercussions for Palestinians:

    Accepting the principle of a Palestinian “right of return” is a complete non-starter for Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, government officials said on Wednesday.

    The comments came in response to Chinese news agency Xinhua’s report that US Secretary of State John Kerry proposed to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas that he agree to Israel’s allowing into the country some 80,000 Palestinian refugees as part of a final peace agreement.

    According to the report, based on comments from a Palestinian official, this proposal was similar to one then-US president Bill Clinton offered at Camp David in 2000. The report said Abbas wanted to increase the number of Palestinians allowed into Israel to 200,000, and that this demand was under discussion.

    On Sunday, in an indication that the refugee issue was on the agenda during Kerry’s talks here, Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman told Israel’s ambassadors abroad that he would not agree to allow into Israel “even one” Palestinian refugee.

    In 2008, then-prime minister Ehud Olmert is believed to have agreed to a symbolic acceptance by Israel of some 5,000 Palestinian refugees.

    Government officials said that Netanyahu would not agree to even “a symbolic acceptance of the so-call right of return.”

    “In the framework of two states for two peoples, those Palestinians who want to return to the Palestinian state will be able to do so, but the idea that Israel will take in any of the grandchildren of people who fled the fighting in 1948 is simply a non-starter,” one official said.

    So acknowledging Israel as a Jewish state is tantamount to giving up all connection of Palestinian exiles with Jerusalem, complete capitulation which collapsed the 2000 peace deal, which probably causes long-term problems for Palestinians within Israel as well.

    Also, how do you square top Israeli officials like Elkin as being against Palestinian statehood - isn't it roughly the same as Palestinians opposing a Jewish state, i.e. a "both sides do it" equation?


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 01/26/2014 - 5:30pm

      I don't expect Palestinians to recognize Israel's right to be a Jewish state. I just want them to accept Israel's right to exist. They've been having trouble with this.  Hamas wants to destroy Israel, and some Fatah guys have said the same thing since Oslo.

    http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/Terrorism/Palestinian/Pages/Anti-Isr...

    http://www.aish.com/jw/me/48883602.html The Palestinian public's attitude towards a two state solution seems to shift.

    http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/6-in-10-Palestinians-reject-...

    http://www.pcpsr.org/

      Unfortunately, I can't read Arabic, so I don't know how reliable the translations are. I'm trying to find Arafat's 1996 statement about destroying Israel.

     Rejecting a Palestinian state is about the same as rejecting Israel's right to exist, but the Israeli Prime Minister doesn't reject it. He does want to keep a seventh of the West Bank, and he builds the damn settlements, and he makes the unreasonable demand for recognition of  Israel as a Jewish state--there is intransigence on both sides.

     


    by Aaron Carine on Sun, 01/26/2014 - 6:27pm

    I think we mostly agree - but 1) I think officially Palestinians have softened their rhetoric even since 2007, 2) I somehow think the poll you cite might have been designed to make the goals of a settlement even harder, to present Palestinian attitutudes towards Israel in the worst possible light - just a hunch.

    [hunch turned out to be somewhat right in this analysis of Greenberg's polls vs. Palestinian polls - though a bit more balanced than maybe I'd guessed - but importantly noting that when a final outcome was presented with the different pieces explained, the Palestinians were more accepting of the 2-state solution. doesn't mean I think Palestinians talk nice about Israelis, but in the end I think they'll be pragmatic and fairly normal if something resembling a normal solution to this situation is presented. if we took every GOP senator's vicious comments about the Mideast and Muslims as our official policy, it'd be hard to imagine that we were the ones who sponsored several rounds of peace talks]


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 01/27/2014 - 12:51am

    Take a look at the Magnes Zionist for some perspective.

    It seems the Israeli public has been moving away from the two-state solution.


    by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 01/27/2014 - 8:37am

      You mean Judah Magnes? He was one of the guys who advocated a binational state before 1948--the idea never had much support from either Arabs or Jews.

     The poll I checked, which was less than a year old had 63 percent of Jewish Israelis(at least I presumed they were Jewish) supporting a two state solution. I guess attitudes could have shifted somewhat in the last six months.


    by Aaron Carine on Mon, 01/27/2014 - 9:33am

    Yes, in a sense. He, "Jerry Haber," takes the name from Judah Magnes and for the reason you mention. An orthodox Jew, Israeli-American citizen (I think), professor at Maryland U, he has a very interesting perspective. His real name is there, too.

    Just Google The Magnes Zionist and you'll find him. Then scroll through the postings. In a recent one, unless I misread, he seems to call into question whether Israelis are still strongly behind a two-state solution. Maybe I'm wrong. This one might be it.

    http://www.jeremiahhaber.com/2013/09/reading-lustick-more-carefully.html

    For example, they write, “one of the most compelling aspects of the two-state solution is that a solid majority of both Palestinians and Israelis alike have shown, in virtually every poll taken in the past twenty years and more, that they are in favor of peace based on two states.”  It’s time to lay this claim to rest.  For one thing, it ignores recent polling in which the Israelis have fairly conclusively rejected even the minimalist picture of a Palestinian state. Thus in July 2013 the Peace Index poll found that “the majority of Jewish respondents, to different extents, is not prepared to concede to the Palestinians on any of the four problems that stand at the heart of the conflict,” borders, Arab refugees, Jerusalem, and settlement evacuations . The data of the  August 2013 poll strengthen the “previous finding that there is currently no sweeping support for the two-state solution and indicate that the Israeli public is not losing sleep over the basic premise of the negotiations that without two states a bi-national reality will emerge.”  Close to 77% of the Jewish public oppose Israeli recognition in principle of the right of return, with a small number of Palestinians refugees being allowed to return and compensation being offered for others.”  For another, when Palestinians think of two states, they think of a state that will look more or less like Israel, something that virtually no Israeli (or their supporters) wish.


    by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 01/27/2014 - 10:06am

    Holy Moly...had no idea this was from 2011 when I wandered in.

    Weird experience. Still can't figure out what PP and Bruce are talking about.

    Then Dan piped up for the first time in ages...but not really.

    Anyway, Jolly's metaphor about "putting down" Israel is foul. Way out of bounds, beyond where there are bounds.


    by Peter Schwartz on Sun, 01/26/2014 - 7:49pm

     Way out of bounds, beyond where there are bounds.

     

    I believe we have established that beyond peradventure. (It's also poor form to keep choking after *the tap-out.)

     

    *http://dagblog.com/comment/reply/18114/189159

     


    by jollyroger on Sun, 01/26/2014 - 8:12pm

    Dear Jolly,

    The sudden time travel...meeting long-departed friends whizzing by...put me into a state of vertiginous disorientation. I thought I was letting go when I was actually tightening. Dangerous when the past suddenly comes visiting and people start talking like it's the present...

    All that said, had I said such a thing, I think I would've taken my licks and licked my wounds in dignified silence. Your friends know that those couple of paras you spent some time crafting don't reflect your real thinking...


    by Peter Schwartz on Sun, 01/26/2014 - 10:11pm

    .


    by Resistance on Mon, 01/27/2014 - 9:10am