In Haaretz yesterday, Ari Shavit detailed the results of Netanyahu’s serial efforts to commence negotiations with the Palestinians:
He accepts the principle of two states, and receives no response. He suspends construction in the settlements, and is rejected. He courts Mahmoud Abbas, and is disparaged. The son of Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s personal secretary wants a historic reconciliation with the Palestinians, and the Palestinians are slamming the door. He is offering the Palestinian national movement negotiations over the establishment of a Palestinian nation-state, and has found that there’s no one to talk to and nothing to talk about. Zilch. A brick wall.
Sometimes you get the impression that the Palestinian Arabs do not really want a Palestinian state. They could have had one in 1919 (the Weizmann-Feisel Agreement), 1937 (the Peel Commission), 1947 (UN Resolution 181), 2000 (the Camp David proposal), 2001 (the Clinton Parameters), or 2008 (the Annapolis Process offer). Six formal offers — each accepted by the Jews and rejected by the Arabs.
The peace-partner Palestinians do not really have a negotiating position — only a set of demands to reverse history. They demand that Israel withdraw to the 1967 lines to reverse the Six-Day War (a war the Arabs caused). They demand a “right of return” to reverse the 1948 war (a war the Arabs started). They demand all of East Jerusalem — not simply the Arab neighborhoods and Muslim religious sites — to control the historic portion of the city; they concede no Jewish connection to the Temple Mount or the Western Wall.
Evelyn argued persuasively today that the goal of Hamas in its negotiations for the release of nearly a thousand Palestinian prisoners — in exchange for one Israeli soldier — is not really the release of the prisoners. A similar insight explains the absence of a Palestinian state despite 90 years of two-state offers, increasing Israeli concessions throughout the Oslo and Annapolis “peace processes,” and Netanyahu’s unsuccessful efforts to commence negotiations once again. A second state is not really what the Palestinians want — not if the cost is recognition of a Jewish one in defensible borders. What they really want is something else.
I fail to understand the animus among the supporters of Obama for Hillary and vice versa. The candidates agree on nearly every issue, and their policy differences are minimal. Why are people like Olberman so worked up? Is it manufactured rage?
They are and have been full of rage for years, so it’s not surprising that they reflexively turn to its various modes when engaged in conflict among themselves. It’s just how they roll, to use the hip-hop phrase. On the other hand, to be fair, if the Republican contest had stretched out like the Democrats’ has, I think you’d be seeing very high levels of internecine vitriol on the right as well. Just consider how nasty some of the bloggers and radio personalities were getting around the time of the “Rally for Romney.” It still doesn’t take much to trigger an anti-McCain propaganda dump in some quarters, with the by now familiar recitation of highly personal, desperately ugly attacks, and a few vocal obsessives can give a false impression of serious discord.
Not to suggest that there hasn’t been some real harm done, at least among those who’ve been watching closely – but most even of them will still probably come home sooner or later. They may take their politics personally, but that also means that sooner or later their political calculations will take over. Come November, or sooner, they’ll demonstrate their moral superiority to themselves by arguing, organizing, and finally voting against their personal feelings. It’s the soft core version of shouting “Long live Comrade Stalin!” to the firing squad.
I think this is only a preliminary to the sort of “manufactured outrage” that we’ll see deployed in the fall in Obama’s favor. Any criticism of his judgment or capacities will quickly get decoded as “racist” and worries about his foreign policies will be “warmongering” or the like. It’s a strange thing, but in the service of a candidate whose essential premise is the need to overcome divisions, Obama’s supporters (in the media and elsewhere) will, I think, work very hard to show McCain and his supporters in the worst possible light. I wonder how well the McCain campaign will do in responding to that or if they’ll be gun-shy and stay away from the fight?
It strikes me as “outrage on autopilot.”
So much of their mindset post – 9/11 seems premised upon the belief that Islamofascism, etc. isn’t REALLY a threat, that the “problem” is foreign policy as practiced by Republicans, etc.
Recognizing that this could be characterized as “blaming the victim”, they’ve expended a lot of effort on denial – we’re not really a victim, Isalmofascism isn’t really a threat, those wascally Wepubicans are the cause of the problem, etc. and so on.
The thing is, these dems aren’t used to arguing a point because people who disagree with them have to be either ignorant or evil – - – and, voila!!! the rebuttal is born:
Object to their analysis and you’re a Zionist or you’re in league with Haliburton and/or the oil companies, etc. Or you’re questioning their patriotism.
All of which is intended to deflect criticism of their judgment, analysis, program, etc. and prevent analysis of their position where the islamofascist challenge is concerned.
With that said, as contrived as it was in the beginning, I suspect they’ve gotten to the point where they believe it themselves.
I think the strange thing is that the outrage is sincere, it’s just not coherent. The reason I suspect it’s sincere is that so many liberals seem to have accepted as fact the idea that Freudian hidden messages and subconscious appeals to this or that nefarious urge are all-powerful, real and deftly applied by GOP strategists. They believe this, I think, because the alternative explanation is that people in fact understand the issues and either simply don’t believe the candidate, disagree with them or don’t trust them to do what they say they will do. For instance many liberals seem to think that discussions about lapel pins or associations with domestic terrorists are some underhanded tactic to get people to subconscously turn on the candidate; they ignore the fact that many people hear someone say something like “I think the true patriotism is not wearing the flag but fighting for issues blah blah” and consciously hear someone who not only doesn’t value tradtional patriotism very much but who also seems to think that a clever formulation about “true patriotism” will be simply accepted at face value as true and valid. They don’t seem to understand that claiming to not see anything outrageous about associating with someone like Ayers, for a politician who is seeking an awful lot of power, is consciously accepted as an admission by that candidate that they will be very casual aboout how they exercise that power they seek, and that they don’t feel that they are bound by common standards of judgment. I don’t need to think he believes everything all of his associates do to come to the conclusion that this is a person who does not feel bound by traditional mores such as be mindful of the company you keep. This is why liberals are frequently heard musing to the effect that they lost because of some dirty psychological trick; they don’t accept that it’s possible that people heard them just fine, know what they meant and simply disagree.
Well-said. A lot of liberals do have this idea that they somehow have been losing elections due to some kind of unfair mind-tricks. You won’t hear them talk about this in the open too often, as of course it implies a serious lack of respect for the intelligence of the populace. I don’t know see how anyone can deny that someone’s choice as spiritual advisor and close friend (some say “father figure”) may be a reflection of that person’s beliefs, values, and approach to the world. And all of the victim nonsense is just absurd. There’s nothing wrong with Obama choosing to go to Rev. Wright’s church, but he and his supporters should not act like it is unfair when his fellow citizens are concerned about their potential president’s spiritual and personal choice. We’re all free to attend whatever crazy anti-American church we want, but such a choice may very well affect our chances of becoming president. Only someone who does not believe in the notion of personal responsibility would fail to accept this.