TNR BLOGS

August 19, 2008 | 11:10 PM
August 19, 2008 | 9:13 PM
August 19, 2008 | 5:53 PM

August 19, 2008 | 5:17 PM
August 19, 2008 | 5:12 PM
August 19, 2008 | 11:32 AM

August 19, 2008 | 6:06 PM
August 19, 2008 | 3:49 PM
August 17, 2008 | 9:21 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

August 19, 2008 | 1:59 PM
August 19, 2008 | 12:43 PM
August 18, 2008 | 6:20 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
20.05.2008
Live from the Holy Land

I am in Israel and I'm sorry that I haven't posted during the last few days. But my old Toshiba laptop has collapsed and I bought myself a MacBook Air whose exquisite intricacies I am still trying to master. Here goes:

There are several reasons for my trip now and at least one reason for my not coming to the 60th anniversary festivities at which George Bush was the most notable guest and which was also attended by Henry Kissinger, hundreds of weighty intellectuals, 9 Nobel Laureates, several TNR folk and more than a smattering of celebs. So Barbra Streisand's decision not to come seemed so self-absorbed as to be comic. By the way, Nadine Gordimer finally did come, as I reported she would. Apparently, interviewed by Amos Oz, she made a fool of herself not quite knowing the difference between Fatah and Hamas.

Still, I was not invited. This I attribute to Shimon Peres whose ire I had raised on many occasions and frankly this is because I think him the dreamiest leader of Israel, what with his "balance not bullets" paradigm of speaking and of giving hope.

Of course I've said this and written this. In Israel most of the people are grateful for the fact that he is no longer in real politics and that he has been sidetracked to the symbolic post of president of the state in which, pray God, he will not molest women as his predecessor did.

Leon Wieseltier spoke at the conference that was at the core of the gathering. Perhaps this will be the subject of his Diarist next issue.

Anyway, so why am I here? I've come because Al Gore received from Tel Aviv University the coveted Dan David Prize in recognition of both learned and public efforts in raising "the consciousness of the world to the disastrous effects of global warming" and, of course, I will be talking with all kinds of people about the political and social situation in the country. As I arrived, Channel 10 announced a public opinion survey about how Israel should deal with Hamas. Usually, Israelis err on the dovish side or are more dovish than the government. But while Ehud Olmert's splintered cabinet tries to find some modus vivendi with Hamas, the public itself wants to cripple this enemy and prevent it from doing what Hezbollah did two years ago in the north and continuing what the Gaza murderers have been doing ever since Israel left the Strip.

Ehud Barak, the Minister of Defense, told the Jerusalem Post and Ha'aretz that while Israel is amenable to a ceasefire and to increasing supplies to Gaza, it wouldn't take much for Hamas to trigger a heavy mobilization into the area.

Posted: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 10:49 AM with 15 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

liberal reformer said:

Amen on Shimon Peres. I just blogged on him in passing recently, commenting on his quasi-utopian visions for the Middle East. That the lion will lay down with the lamb might be a nice daydream but when your enemies are Hezbollah and Hamas, you can't afford to clutter your mind with such a useless meme. When Khaled Mashaal maked nice with Ehud Olmert and invites him for tea and talks sweet reason, then I will follow Mr. Peres.

May 20, 2008 2:28 PM

LISAH said:

Hi, LR -- thanks for the shout=out the other day...have just been drowning in stuffff....and am so fed up with the Dem primary that I just keep repeating myself...boring, right????

And, as you say, amen to this post....

May 20, 2008 3:46 PM

liberal reformer said:

LISAH: Great to have you back. This campaign is interminable but it is coming to an end. I predict that Hillary will be gone by no later than June 15th. By the way, Mr. Peretz, I want to wish you a good trip in Israel. I am sure that you are enjoying yourself.

May 20, 2008 4:03 PM

sleepyavl said:

You Peretz, deranged cretin, you're in Israel? Are you paving the way for Zbigniew? When the Anointed One, whose boots you lick on a daily basis, becomes president, this is who Israel will have to deal with. If you're a Zionist, Ahmed Tibi is too. Come on, answer, quote from that you anti-Semite you worship, Maureen Dowd.

May 20, 2008 9:14 PM

rozenson said:

sleepyavl, you really have no purpose being here, unless you just enjoy being a heckler from the peanut gallery. You have not once from my memory contributed anything worthy of discussing at length on this site. Arutz Sheva's website is probably a better fit for you. They have an English version, so you can demonstrate your prowess in either language if you please.

May 21, 2008 1:06 AM

ginzy said:

Welcome to Israel Mr. Peretz.  Now that you are live from Israel perhaps you may want to look up the few of your faithful Commentators who actually live in Israel.  If you are interested, I can take you around the re-"settled" region of Gush Etzion (population 50,000+) & show you recent and ancient history plus a fine winery and some good cafes / dairy restaurants.  And most importantly, how the Gush is a great place from which to launch Katyusha rockets into Tel Aviv.

And it seems that you arrived just in time for the latest tempest in the Israeli teapot.  In his latest attempt at attaining the coveted status of a media Etrog, "Cash and Carry" Olmert announced indirect peace talks with the Syrians (Rhodes Redux), under Turkish auspices.  Not surprisingly the announcement triggered an uproar.  See the J.Post for the latest.

www.jpost.com/.../Satellite

and

www.jpost.com/.../Satellite

and

www.jpost.com/.../Satellite

and

www.jpost.com/.../Satellite

Here we go again.  Now can someone please explain to me the logic of handing over hard, strategic assets in exchange for promises to be nice and not play with our enemies?  And given the growing Sunni-Wahabbi-al Qaeda influence in Syria who would like nothing more than to toss out the Alawites (Assad & his cronies), how long do you think it will take for a re-Syrianized Golan to become a convenient terror base?  And even if Assad does manage to continue to hold off the Sunni hordes, how long will it take for his Iranian buddies to set up shop on the re-Syrianized Golan.

One major hurdle that Olmert will have to overcome is a an Israeli law requiring a 61 vote majority and a plebecite for any agreement that gives up territory over which Israel has declared sovereignty (this includes declarations that Israeli law governs the territory).

Hershel Ginsburg

(MollySimon, I'll leave off the regalia for you but you misunderstood my intent and I owe you an explanation).

Jerusalem / Efrata.

May 21, 2008 7:52 AM

sleepyavl said:

Rozenson, you're not the brightest of candles. You can only make arguments by being your natural state - stupid. Let's examine your donkey's logic argument: Arutz Sheva is the settler's station. I do not support the settlers (although I do not hate them; I think the settlements will have to be dismantled, but I see them as brothers). But your donkey's logic declares that I should be whatever you dislike.

As for your opinion to what I contributed or not, it is worth nothing. I understand you like to grovel to an idiot like Peretz, who has a long list of anti-Semites he likes and promotes here. I don't. Enjoy your Peretz and keep your shitty lessons for yourself, OK?

May 21, 2008 10:28 PM

rozenson said:

"Rozenson, you're not the brightest of candles. You can only make arguments by being your natural state - stupid."

More playground taunts. Wonderful. I'm pleased to hear you're not one with the settlers. That doesn't mean that only if you're Dati-Le'umi can you visit Arutz Sheva. I said it would be a much better fit for you than Peretz's blog, because evidently you're convinced that he's in cahoots with the scum of the earth. So why do you bother to waste your time here? If we offend you so, why not find a less "donkey logic"-afflicted forum? Save yourself, if not us.

May 21, 2008 11:33 PM

sleepyavl said:

Ah Rozenson, you haven't quite grasped the logic of providing opposition. Perhaps you are too used to be a yes-man for that. Or to receive the offerings of yes-men (which has no more dignity than being a yes-man). One day you may understand what saying no means. Until then you'll say: "Yes, yes!".

I don't think Peretz is "in cahoots with the scum of the earth". That's too vague and it seems quite characteristic for you to pretend I said something vague. That is called setting up a straw man - which you can valiantly push then! Not so fast. Peretz is in cahoots with a specific bunch of anti-Semites - anti-Semitic journalists like Maureen Dowd and politicians that have chosen anti-Semitic advisors, like Barack Obama has chosen. His supposed care for Israel disappears then. With freind like Peretz, Israel needs no enemies.

May 22, 2008 2:46 PM

rozenson said:

By "scum of the earth," I was projecting "anti-Semites," which I consider synonyms. And unless you don't, there is no logical fallacy.

"Peretz is in cahoots with a specific bunch of anti-Semites - anti-Semitic journalists like Maureen Dowd and politicians that have chosen anti-Semitic advisors, like Barack Obama has chosen."

What IS a logical fallacy is claiming that even if Obama chose anti-Semitic advisors that this somehow means that the candidate is automatically anti-Semitic. And this is precisely what you have done in the sentence above (unless you simply are using poor syntax). Using this logic, we can claim that John McCain and George W. Bush are, too, anti-Semitic and anti-Israel.

May 22, 2008 6:27 PM

sleepyavl said:

"What IS a logical fallacy is claiming that even if Obama chose anti-Semitic advisors that this somehow means that the candidate is automatically anti-Semitic."

Rozenson, you should perhaps learn to read English, it's never too late - though it's too late for you to learn logic. I didn't say Obama is an anti-Semite, I said he chooses anti-Semites (such as Samantha Powers, Jeremiah Wright and Zbigniew Brzezisnki - still on his campaign) as his advisors. I can certainly say Obama has bad judgment and that he has chosen anti-Semites - that's a fact. Given that he has little experience, he should at least have good judgment. He does not.

Which anti-Semitic advisors do George W. Bush or John McCain have and why have you even moved the discussion here? It is also characteristic that you moved the discussion here. That is because you have no pertinent arguments in a discussion about Peretz - so you start to ramble some gibberish about Bush and McCain.

May 22, 2008 9:17 PM

rozenson said:

"Peretz is in cahoots with a specific bunch of anti-Semites - anti-Semitic journalists like Maureen Dowd and politicians that have chosen anti-Semitic advisors, like Barack Obama has chosen."

This statement implies that your "specific bunch of anti-Semites" includes "anti-Semitic journalists" like Dowd and "politicians that have chosen anti-Semitic advisors" like Obama. Unless you siphon off the Dowd portion of the statement as the only elaboration to "anti-Semites," you are including Obama in that category.

"Which anti-Semitic advisors do George W. Bush or John McCain have and why have you even moved the discussion here?"

I think one could argue James Baker is just as anti-Semitic as anyone on Obama's staff. (I'm not arguing that he IS an anti-Semite, only that he rises to the threshold placed on Obama advisors, which is making an offhand comment not approved by Israel or a policy recommendation that is not identical to the Israeli government's.) The point is not to accuse George W. Bush or John McCain of anti-Semitism; it is to illustrate the absurdity of the claim you implicitly made earlier, in relation to Dowd and Obama. Luckily, you seem to have retracted this.

May 23, 2008 1:21 AM

sleepyavl said:

Rozenson: James Bakes IS anti-Semitic. You don't have to argue, he has proven it abundantly. You really are a clueless and narrow-minded ideologue, like an old horse with blinders. Your blinders are left and right. You make it sound as if I cared whether anyone was Republican or Democratic, which shows you don't understand the first thing about the argument. James Baker being an anti-Semite doesn't make it any better to see Obama advisors being anti-Semites.

You seem a bit unhinged. Obama has chosen a whole slew of anti-Semites as his advisors. I argue that it has zero importance what his personal feelings are - it matters what he does, not what he feels or thinks (which I don't know and absolutely don't care about). If he chooses anti-Semites as his advisors, why should I care about his beliefs? A person's actions are important, not his beliefs.

Truman wrote he disliked Jews in his journal - yet he supported Israel when it mattered the most. I don't give a shit he was anti-Semitic in private - he was as pro-Israel as possible in his actions. That's all it matters, not cheap words in private.

I haven't retracted anything Rozenson. I didn't say Obama is an anti-Semite because it is irrelevant - what IS relevant he chose these anti-Semitic bastards. If the bastards get positions in his administration, I will absolutely say Obama is an anti-Semite. For now it looks disgusting enough that he has these loathsome people around.

May 23, 2008 7:59 PM

sleepyavl said:

Rozenson

"it is to illustrate the absurdity of the claim you implicitly made earlier, in relation to Dowd and Obama."

Rozenson, you really are an imbecile. I say this calmly and with no intention to apologize because it's not n insult - it's a statement of fact. Reading the last phrase of your message made me realize how weak you are. Let me explain.

Maureen Dowd has written a whole series of articles in 2004 in which she accused Jews of pushing the US in war. While no Jew was member of the first Bush cabinet, she accused Jews in lower positions of manipulating the cabinet members. The Jews in lower positions were undersecretaries (like Wolfowitz), who allegedly manipulated George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Condi Rice. She also accused Rumsfeld of being a Jew (Rumsfeld is of German origin). The US never fought a war for Israel, while it did lose 500,000 Americans to liberate Europeans. Israel fought several wars to defend its existence - and fought them alone. Yet Dowd accused Jews of making the US fight their wars and manipulating the powerful people - the US president, vice-president, secretary of state, national security advisor.

I never retracted anything. I said and say and have proof that Dowd is anti-Semite. I didn't say Obama is an anti-Semite, I simply do not trust him because he chose anti-Semites s advisors and he certainly will be an anti-Semite if he gives those people jobs in his administration.

What I realized in your last post is not just that you are stupid - you are also incredibly ignorant. There are people worth disagreeing with, but you're not one of them. Go and read before you post. You have zero logic - perhaps you have an excuse for that. You have zero excuse for ignorance. Please receive te assurance of my clearest contempt.

May 23, 2008 8:17 PM

rozenson said:

sleepyavl, I have fallen for your game, and for that I truly am an imbecile. You have redirected the conversation away from my initial question, which you have chosen not to answer. I'll repeat it, in case you have forgotten. Given that The Spine is a haven for imbeciles and associates of anti-Semites, why would you bother to waste your time here? Surely you can't be learning much here from us lowly beings. Sharpen your mind someplace more stimulating. We wouldn't want to weigh you down with our ignorant thoughts.

May 24, 2008 4:08 AM

Double click this space to insert your ad.