In the Times of London, Daniel Finkelstein writes,
The poverty and the death and the despair among the Palestinians in Gaza moves me to tears. How can it not? Who can see pictures of children in a war zone or a slum street and not be angry and bewildered and driven to protest? And what is so appalling is that it is so unnecessary. For there can be peace and prosperity at the smallest of prices. The Palestinians need only say that they will allow Israel to exist in peace. They need only say this tiny thing, and mean it, and there is pretty much nothing they cannot have.
Talk about proportionality. Israel is asked to endure daily rocket attacks, ignore the conspiring forces of destruction on its borders, and to focus its energies on giving more land to their assailants. While all that’s required of Hamas is that they acknowledge Israel’s right to exist. Forget about cease-fires and road maps: Hamas has yet to get on board with point one of the social contract that allows for coexistence on the planet. As Finkelstein reminds us:
Yet they will not say it. And they will not mean it. For they do not want the Jews. Again and again – again and again – the Palestinians have been offered a nation state in a divided Palestine. And again and again they have turned the offer down, for it has always been more important to drive out the Jews than to have a Palestinian state. It is difficult sometimes to avoid the feeling that Hamas and Hezbollah don’t want to kill Jews because they hate Israel. They hate Israel because they want to kill Jews.
There cannot be peace until this changes.
This is not much different from saying, there cannot be peace.
“…why is President Obama raising taxes on the very private investment funds that are expected to buy the toxic assets in the first place?”
Because the desire to run private investment funds is inelastic and not affected by tax rates. Requiring general partners to pay their fee income at wage rates is not going to drive people out of that business. Neither is taxing long term gains at 20% instead of 15%.
RE: The Kirk taxes deal, I think the solution to America’s tax delinquency problem is obvious.
Every American is going to be appointed to work for the government. If/when it’s discovered that they haven’t paid their taxes, they will have to pay their taxes in order to have the government job.
Simple fix!
“But Obama is the man who thought Rashid Khalidi’s views were worth listening to. Why would he change his modus operandi now?”
Yeah, what kind of crazy person listens to filthy Arabs unless they’re in full cringe?
“I’d be curious to know what the “Obama-resistent” investment strategy is. Put your money in a mattress?”
Nope, because we’re heading for rampant inflation. Or maybe devaluation. I mean, you can store it there but who knows what if anything it’ll be worth when it’s “safe” to get it back out.
I’m trying to think of everything durable that I can spend cash on — re-build my deck, pave my driveway, re-side the house, and similar projects at my dad’s house, for instance — because I don’t think much is going to be Obama-proof on the way down. He will expand his reach again and again, saying what’s wrong with the first steps is that they were ‘not enough’.
Gray market informal economy, here we come.
Re Hilary on Iran: Now we know what “smart power” means: admit that merely talking to an opponent is useless, but continue to do so. Smart. Real smart.
Not only is Obama likely to listen to Freeman because Obama in the past took Khalidi’s views seriously, but why would he have appointed him to such an important post if he didn’t give credence to them? In other words, Peretz’s hope that Obama, if he doesn’t dump Freeman, will simply ignore him is illogical. Freeman is not some electorally useful figure Obama has to be nice to; he’s Obama’s pick to author his daily intelligence reports.
“Charles Krauthammer wants to know what Obama has against the word ‘democracy’ when it comes to Iraq.”
Prudence, I suppose.
In any case, this is a narrowly sectarian objection at best, and maybe not even that, for it is hardly to be imagined that the Commentariat and the Weekly Standardisers are goin’ to start callin’ the former al-‘Iráq a failure on Uncle Sam’s part merely because the postinternationalzonal régime reverts to Levantine normalcy.
Happy days.
I’d settle now for a credible guarantee of democracy, going forward, in the US. Our Maximum Leader is not too committed to the concept.
“Marty Peretz says the president has two choices with regard to Chas Freeman — dump him or ignore him. ”
the editor of a magazine that has never turned a profit and that is days away from bankruptcy is is giving “choices” to the president of the united states. Lets go down to the local soup kitchen and see if any of them have nay ultimatums for our commander in chief. Why would the president ignore someone he appointed?
I’m reminded of the old joke abuot a mosquito floating down a river on his back saying “raise the bridge!”.
lester, don’t usually agree with you, but that is an excellent post.
#9-It’s almost as bad as a President who never accomplished anything being elected to office.
12 huh?