|
Thursday Aug 13, 2009
Rosner's Domain: Hussein Agha and Robert Malley: LikudniksPosted by SHMUEL ROSNER
Comments: 47      Follow Rosner's Domain on Twitter!!! A couple of Contentions commentators were trying their own interpretation of the Hussein Agha Robert Malley article in the NYT. The Agha-Malley article argued that the peace process' "central premise is that ending the occupation and establishing a viable Palestinian state will bring this [the Israeli-Palestinian] matter to a close". However: It is hard today to imagine a resolution that does not entail two states. But two states may not be a true resolution if the roots of this clash are ignored. The ultimate territorial outcome almost certainly will be found within the borders of 1967. To be sustainable, it will need to grapple with matters left over since 1948. The first step will be to recognize that in the hearts and minds of Israelis and Palestinians, the fundamental question is not about the details of an apparently practical solution. It is an existential struggle between two worldviews.Writes Rick Richman: The Arab rejection of the newborn Jewish state is now in its 62nd year, and as George Will said at the Claremont Dinner earlier this year, "How the president believes that if we return to the 1967 borders, the antipathy to Israel, which predated the 1967 borders, will disappear, I do not know." Malley and Agha have performed the useful service of telling us that Wills analysis is correct. Writes Jonathan Tobin: [The authors] stumble upon a key truth about the entire peace process - they understand that what the Palestinians want isn't merely sovereignty in the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem. Jews want a Jewish state and are willing to let the Palestinians have their own state too in order to live in peace. The problem is that the core of Palestinian national identity is a desire not for a Palestinian state but for eradicating the Jewish one, which they view as illegitimate no matter where the borders are drawn.Don't get over-excited by this allegedly eye-opening article. It also includes some annoying statements such "Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, and Khaled Meshal, the head of Hamas's political bureau, have indicated they now accept what they had long rejected". Outrageous comparison, and frankly, also a bogus one. Netanyahu did accept something, but didn't accept "what he had long rejected". Meshal didn't accept anything. And the article also doesn't honestly answer the question of Agha's and Malley's intention. Do they think that Israel should drop its "Jewish and Democratic" title? They don't say such thing, but one might suspect that this is what they believe: Drop "Jewish" - or there will be no peace. They might think that such threat will make Americans more prone to pressure Israel - or Israelis more prone to change the character of their country. I think this is a pipe dream. Thus, the practical conclusion for their fairly-accurate analysis should have been this one: It is obvious that a solution cannot be realized before there is a change in the Palestinian position and the Palestinians accept Israel's right to exist in peace and security as a Jewish state. The reason the Palestinians refuse to accept this is because for them this is not a territorial dispute, but an existential conflict. The medias failure to report this most basic point, the evidence of it, and the implications of it, creates a dangerously misleading portrayal of the situation and prospects for its resolution. You see? Agha and Malley might pretend to be wave-of-the-future peace processors. But they are really Likudniks. Just like the minister making the statements I quoted - Moshe Yaalon.
1 | Manny, Thursday Aug 13, 2009
I never quite liked Rosner's slippery political point of view. But now I realize he's not very bright either.
2 | eliyho matz matzozky jr, Thursday Aug 13, 2009
mr rosner the last sentence in the nytimes article on the definition of the israeli nation is the key subject matter that should concern us this subject is of course no discussed nor is it explored well sort of an answer would be an israeli republic with a written constitution for the israelis not for the muslems in saudi arabia or the jews in new york that might lead to a solution incorporating the region into an economic political blok would also help but many thinkers and writers havent yet arrived to deal with this particular intelectual challenge i guess we wilhave to wait...
3 | Mike Feldman, Canada, Thursday Aug 13, 2009
Reminds ne of something I've said before. The Palestinian position can be compared to Germany demand that the Allies surrender unconditionally if they want to end World War 2.
4 | Hofikoman, Thursday Aug 13, 2009
Although there have been Arabs who want peace and there may be more of them than is usually conceded, the most any Arab sovereignty which feels subordinate to Sharia will offer Israel is a truce ie. cessation of hostilities. Yet when Anwar Sadat tried to be careful in adhering to the Sharia line, he ended up going beyond the letter of the law. It is not surprising that the rulers who have been most forthcoming are the Hashemites alleged Descendants of the Prophet. A cold peace and more are possible, but ideologically driven Arab movements are stubbornly dogmatic, the blood feud strong.
5 | Amnon, the Great AMERICAN Southwest, Thursday Aug 13, 2009
Why is Robert Malley, a piece of dreck from parents who are real pieces of manure even allowed to comment here? His father was the opposite of Paula Abdul. Whereas Paula came from a Jewish parent and an Arab parent, she identifies strongly with being a Jewess, unlike foolish Bobby. The mom? Heck, she deserves to be tarred and feathered. The former Barbara Rosenberg (probably related to Julius and Ethel) was a JINO, a "red diaper baby" who'd in her haste to make excuses for Islamic Fascists would scroo her own. That's what they taught their sonny, who fully blames Israel for no peace. A schmuck.
6 | Amnon, the Great AMERICAN Southwest, Thursday Aug 13, 2009
P.S. Even if this schmuck, this low-life, this loser Malley was even slightly objective, his ties to and being paid by the you-know-who collaborator Soros negates anything even remotely valuable he might say...and so far all this Islamofascist appeasing, excuse maker for Arafat son of Misojudaic Communists has been saying is tripe, b.s., manure. He's another Simon Girty (look this bastard up in your history books), someone who chose to go terrorist symp (in Girty's case he went Native and torturer).
And for those who love Obama,hiring Malley was just another example of why he's dreck too.
7 | John S. Hancock, Thursday Aug 13, 2009
How shocking that the Palestinians aren't just thrilled and delighted about recognizing the State of Israel. They'd prefer, naturally, that the United Nations hadn't given over fifty percent of the land to a people who in 1948 themselves owned only six percent of this territory. However, the Palestinians know that their occupiers aren't going to go away though they shouldn't be required to love those who've dispossessed and brutalized them for over sixty years.
8 | Vic Rosenthal, USA, Thursday Aug 13, 2009
Here's another quote from the article:
"In their eyes, to accept Israel as a Jewish state would legitimize the Zionist enterprise that brought about their tragedy. It would render the Palestinian national struggle at best meaningless, at worst criminal."
'Criminal' is appropriate. See fresnozionism.org/2009/08/defining-israel/
9 | cares1996, Friday Aug 14, 2009
Until the palestian people put forth a legitimate gov. they`ll not have much credibility ,so I strongly reccomend that this is where they should focus their attention.Maybe if so many outsiders would give this angle the required attention who know`s we might get somewhere.Use your brains Palestian people has anything the Kings said gotten you anywhere yet,No it hasn`t so why is there to lose by trying a peaceful solution.
10 | Mike Feldman, Canada, Friday Aug 14, 2009
John S. Hancock. 60 years ago there were no Palestinians. How the Israelis dispossed and brutalized a people who did not exist and were in Jordan in 1949 is beyond me.
11 | Raed Kami, London, England, Friday Aug 14, 2009
Palestine is Islamic Waqf and cannot be given to Jews. If you want peace, leave and go back to Belarus or Las Vegas, places that you have true historical claims to. As long as israel exists, we will massively resist. You must choose: israel or peace-you cannot have both
12 | Randy H USA, Friday Aug 14, 2009
Why is Rosner featured on the home page and not buried in Blog Central where he belongs?
13 | jonah in Jamaica, Friday Aug 14, 2009
The Pal conference in Bethlehem has stated many so called non-negotiable positions before they will negotiate. I have only one: The various Pal groups and leadership must fully recognize the existance of Israel as a Jewish state, irrevocably and forever. Then we can begin to negotiate.Until that happens Israel should expand the large settlement blocks. I wonder, if we changed the name of the country from Israel to Jewland would that make it easier for them to make that one concession?
14 | David Kopel New York, NY, Friday Aug 14, 2009
No. 7: Its an embarrassment to besmirch your famous pseudonym with such palpable falsehoods. In fact, Israel receive less than the 20% of the original Palestinian mandate which included most of Transjordan. And what 6% are you referring to? 6% of the entire Mandate or 6% of the tiny state they were left with? Either formulation is a lie, but the latter is so outrageous no wonder you won't sign your real name to it.
15 | Stosh, USA, Friday Aug 14, 2009
John Hancock...your history is faulty. The UN in 1947 gave the Jews far less than 50% of the Mandate, not much more than Tel Aviv & environs plus strips of land in the Upper Galilee. The Arabs rejected the notion of any Jewish state, and invaded. The 1949-67 armistice lines that resulted are not borders. The Arabs also refused to accept responsibility for the refugees created by their aggression. Not included above is the fact that Jordan, constituting nearly 80% of the original Palestinian Mandate, was set aside as an Arab state (it is judenrein by law) in the '20s.
16 | Michael Schopf U.S.A., Friday Aug 14, 2009
John Hancock makes the sly point that the U.N. in 1948 awarded the Jews more than half the land when they owned only six per cent. I say "sly" point because it implies that Palestinian Arabs owned the other 94 per cent. In fact, most of the territory was state land. For example, who owned the Negev Desert, Mr. Hancock? You fail to mention that the territory awarded Palestinian Arabs exceeded the share of the land they owned as well.
17 | , Friday Aug 14, 2009
RAED KAMI. Englandistan...You say you will "massively" resist...do you mean the 1.6billion muslims you cowards keep boasting...well...thats NO PROBLEM...just like a plague of locusts...destructive and a nuisence..BUT...easily taken care of. As for your idiotic first sentence...you are absolutely right the land which you refer to as "Palestine" is in TRUTH and FACT known as JORDAN...that cannot be given to Jews...In fact the Jews don't want it. As for "Peace"...that choice is for YOUR people to squirm about...ISRAEL as ALWAYS WILL PREVAIL...yep... as always will prevail...
18 | also Friday, Friday Aug 14, 2009
#17. I sense a "Nugget"in this post. Raed gives us the option of Israel or peace. Let's take Israel. Screw peace and the camel that Raed rode in on.
19 | Mike Feldman, Canada, Friday Aug 14, 2009
To all John S Hancock responders. What type of a chicken shit of a man (if John S is a man) must hide behide the identity of a famous American to post his nonsense. It should be duly noted that John Hancock was disliked by many of his peers, and was considered vain and shallow and an ineffective political figure. Probalbly a good choice for the chicken shit who uses his name on this blog.
20 | John S. Hancock, Friday Aug 14, 2009
To all those pro-Israel apologists, Mike Feldman diminishes only himself by his offensive rant but it's so typical of the gutter rhetoric employed by the Zionists. When faced with the reality of the terrible injustices, the crimes against humanity they've committed against the Palestinian people over more than sixty years the Zionists can't deflect it, they're hopelessly lost.
I'm proud of my name and of having common ancestry with a founding father of the United States of America. Whatever Mr. Feldman believes is insignificant and not important.
21 | andy_london, Friday Aug 14, 2009
#11 what are you spewing about YOU get out of our country .As long as you people are here you bring chaos with your ugly 6th century ideology.Of course I forgot you worship a bloodthirsty diety and THINK your going to "paradise" snigger[oh yeah]Israel will be here long after all you suicide brigade are long gone.Your even killing one another now i.e.pakistan iran fatah and hamas.You never hear of Israeli suicide squads or british or american .We live in a democracy which by the way you lot are trying to dismantle with your rage and jealousy but {really long for} poor sods.
22 | John S. Hancock, Friday Aug 14, 2009
Michael Schopf, Israeli apologists like yourself like to say the land was "state owned" as though the Palestinians weren't there working it. They didn't exiist according to the Zionists who thought nothing of driving them from the land. It's like that today as Palestinian land is confiscated for "security" reasons only to be turned over to expand illegal Israeli settlements. You can't get around the fact that in 1948 about 500 Palestinian towns and villages were destroyed by the Zionists who forced some 750,000 Palestinians to leave their land and homes.
23 | Stosh, USA, Friday Aug 14, 2009
John Hancock, you continue to post tendentious bs. Many of those Arabs left because their Arab brothers promised them war spoils once the Jews were driven into the sea. Didn't work out that way...tough. Those same Arabs (Egypt, Iraq, etc.) then conducted pogroms against their own native Jews and drove over 500,000 of them to emigrate, many of whom came to Israel with only the clothes on their backs. They and their descendants are now over 40% of Israel's Jewish population. Their right to compensation is at least equal to that of Arab refugees.
24 | Ben, Friday Aug 14, 2009
primordial position of the world Powers are: the fanatical arrogant arabs beeng the part of huge muslim world must be persuaded and young flexible lonely Israel with her complex of the victim must yield.Most articles are the victim`s cries of justice! The way out is to be permanently strong .
25 | Mike Feldman, Canada, Friday Aug 14, 2009
John S. You seem to be a 20th century history buff. Why not post a couple of blogs listing the deeds of your murderous, ethnic cleansing, butchering Muslim brothers. You are diminished by pointedly ignoring what I know you must know.
26 | John S. Hancock, Friday Aug 14, 2009
Stosh USA You may wish to rewrite history but the days when people believe the Israeli created myths surrounding its founding are long gone. The idea that either the Palestinians or Jews in Arab countries weren't forced out are both lies but you, typically, only see the pain one community suffered. Each side deserves compensation. However, it's the Palestinians who remain under Israel's immoral and illegal occupation.
27 | Moshe, Haifa, Friday Aug 14, 2009
Raed Kami's post shows ones again the truth of Malley and Agha's thesis.
It is amazing how many people (non muslims) try to misrepresent the palestinian point of
view when all you need to do is to ask them directly.
28 | Stosh, USA, Friday Aug 14, 2009
John Hancock - I have Sephardic relatives who were living in Haifa in '48 and heard Arab League broadcasts telling the Arabs there to flee so they could come in and deal with the Jews. Its you who are the revisionist. Occupation is not the reason for continued hostiilties; it is Arab rejection of Israel, including proposals to establish two states in 1937(Peel Comm.), 1947(UN), 1967(3 Noes), and 1993-2000(Oslo). The Arabs have shown many times that eradication of Israel is their top priority; ending occupation of the territories and establishing a Palestinian state are secondary.
29 | John S. Hancock, Friday Aug 14, 2009
Mike Feldman I don't sanction the murder of anyone either Palestinian or Israeli. There's been unspeakable atrocities committed by both sides during this conflcit as you too must well know. However, far and away the vast majority of victims continue to be Palestinians. The Palestinians live under a brutal, vicious, immoral and illegal occupation. Israeli soldiers though are another matter. They're occupiers who almost everyday commit murder, confiscate Palestinian land, demolish houses. These "soldiers" are legitimate targets and the Palestinians have the right to forcibly resist them.
30 | andy-london, Friday Aug 14, 2009
Tell me of 1 islamic country that westerners emigrate to [and I'm not talking of muslims who are born in the west]? I thought so,NOT ONE.Now why would that be?I know a lot come to the west to spew out their ideology but we westerners are not buying it.You dress primitivly your laws are primitive but i notice you all love our way of life. Now we can identify with Israel as their like us living in a democracy.but you people lie, kill even to putting your children in the firing line every time Israel responds to your usual rocket barrage into THEIR country. cont.
31 | andy-london, Friday Aug 14, 2009
The first thing palistinian kids are taught is how to use a gun,and dont deny it we've all seen it on national t.v.If any of them dare to change their religion [as is happening in great numbers ]sharia law comes to the fore by executing them "YOUR OWN KIDS". How can you justify yourselves as human beings?That's why you can lie with impunity and put these little ones in the firing line every time Israel has to hit back at you for suicide bombings ect.Not 1 of you can give a truthful answer on this blog to ANY questions and of course we'd NEVER be allowed on ANY of your blogs.
32 | andy-london, Friday Aug 14, 2009
The first thing palistinian kids are taught is how to use a gun,and dont deny it we've all seen it on national t.v.If any of them dare to change their religion [as is happening in great numbers ]sharia law comes to the fore by executing them "YOUR OWN KIDS". How can you justify yourselves as human beings?That's why you can lie with impunity and put these little ones in the firing line every time Israel has to hit back at you for suicide bombings ect.Not 1 of you can give a truthful answer on this blog to ANY questions and of course we'd NEVER be allowed on ANY of your blogs.
33 | Joseph Mancried, Saturday Aug 15, 2009
john, yes the Jewish refugee from Arab countries got off their asses and built a country while the Arabs sat and collect UN welfare.
34 | GOLDEN NUGGET Astralia, Saturday Aug 15, 2009
#18...I am the author of #17..AND...you are right...ISRAEL Of Course !!....ALWAYS ISRAEL!!....As for RAED's camel...it's a toss up as to whether Raed's screwing the camel or the camels screwing Raed
...guess they're both smiling...yep both smiling...
35 | Michael USA, Saturday Aug 15, 2009
#11 | Raed Kami~London: I notice you are a great hero, doing all your resistance in good ol' blighty! Good for you, stsay where you are safe from harm. You know where you belong. As for us Jews, we cakme from Israel, not becasuse we wanted to leave but because we were conquered by armies. Now we are returning to our home, the holy state of Israel and recaliming our own. You say, "As long as israel exists, we will massively resist." I like the way you resist, in comfort far from the ME. You're smart because Israel will again defeat your feeble attempts at warfare. The arabs are impotent!
36 | Amnon, the Great AMERICAN Southwest, Saturday Aug 15, 2009
John S. for Stupid Hancock,
How would you like some of the stuff the Israelis supposedly have done to your oh-so-innocent (yeah, murdering horses is soooooo angelic, isn't it, jerk?) Palys done to you. Oh how I only wish the Israelis really did what you accuse them of doing. And did it to you too.
You're a typical coward, a fascist anti-Semitic idiot who loves the Palestinians simply because they hate Jews. As you do. Otherwise they'd be exactly what you are, an untermenschen. Dreck, vomit. Go back to that swamp in Eurotrash you crawled out to trespass on Indian land. And...
Piss Off.
37 | Real American, Saturday Aug 15, 2009
We're going to confiscate your land NEXT, pilgrim...As Amnon has said so clearly, piss off girlieboy. You wouldn't last 10 minutes in a Cowboy bar with your ignorant, dark, hate views.
And in my part of Oklahoma Fascist girlieboys and Muslim honor killing child abusing scum are NOT welcome. But.. do come here, it will be at your own risk as a few of us Real American Cowboys would gladly stomp the bleep out of you.
38 | Observer, Saturday Aug 15, 2009
Robert Malley's father was a KGB agent and R.Malley is continuing the work of his father who was anti-Israel and hostile towards the Jewish state. NYT is a "proper" forum for these hostile forces. Robert Malley is no friend of Israel and he might be listened to by B.Obama and his administration for that reason. B. Obama's policies have been formed by anti-Semites, like Samantha Power and Z. Brzezinski and he himself has been educated by such people(Wright, Khalidi). What is striking, is the openness of such hostile policies towards the Jewish state.
39 | Mike Feldman, Canada, Saturday Aug 15, 2009
#29. John S. We almost got somewhere. Problem is posters like yourselves find it necessary to introduce falsehoods to create the logic for the false conclusions which follow. To read some of the posts here, it would seem that the Muslims are innocent schoolgirls while the Israelis are brutal child-killers. The simple fact is that Israeli action has always followed provocation, and is not a knee jerk reaction. It is undenialble that if the Muslims actually wanted to live in peace with Israel, there would be no resistance from the Israelis to their overtures.
40 | John R, Saturday Aug 15, 2009
The two core issues for Israel in a peace treaty are 1. Security and 2. maintaining Israel as a Jewish State. Give the Palestinians the West Bank in return for a 20 yr lease on the settlements. Each year,under a schedule, specific settlements would be vacated until after 20 yrs, all are vacated. The US should help Israel absorb the bulk of the relocation costs and the Palestinians should prove over that time they can honor security arrangements, The Palestinians should, front end, sell their right of return for total fair value to Israel w/international financial help.
41 | Mike Feldman, Canada, Saturday Aug 15, 2009
John R. A couple of problems here . Give the Palestinians the West Bank for a 20 yearl lease on the settlements. (a) whose the landlord? (b) what steps have the Palestinians taken to assure Israel (in Israel's absolute discretion) that they haven't just set up a hostile state committed to its destruction. You want to back end Palestinian committments while front ending Israeli committments. "prove over time that they can honor security arrangements." If they can't, does Israel invade a sovereign country? You apply a cost to the right of return. There is no right of return. Hence, no value.
42 | Mike Feldman, Canada, Saturday Aug 15, 2009
John R. CONT. John you sound like a "win" "win" type of neogtiator. Unfortunately your hypothesis allows the Palestinians to take all the chips and leave Israel with nothing. What's going on now is better than your offer.
43 | David j feiger USA, Saturday Aug 15, 2009
When has reality or truth ever bothered our "free press" from pursuing it's own agenda? As Hearst's San Simeon is a monument to the financial rewards of self serving, sensational, untruthful and unprofessional journalism so today's media-internet is an electronically generated monument to the same practices today. Any form of belief, perception, deception, etc. can find reinforcement and encouragement in today's dissolved social contract of the "information revolution".Technology has transformed generational gaps into desperate realities. The Arabs goal is the elimination of everything Jewish
44 | John R, Saturday Aug 15, 2009
To #41 The Palestinians are obviously the landlord. Israel would maintain security in the settlements they lease. If the Palestinians fire rockets into the settlements then Israel STOPS vacating them and STOPS paying rent. Palestinians are front ending their commitment ,not Israel. UN Resolution 194 gives Palestinians a choice of right of return or just compensation. It was passed overwhelmingly. Since giving right of return would effectively destroy Israel as a Jewish State, I'm trading their rights(front end) for the West Bank( over time) in as prudent and secure a method as I can.
45 | John S. Hancock, Monday Aug 17, 2009
AMNON, YOU'RE ARGUMENTS ARE SO LAME YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO THE USUAL PHONY PERSONAL ATTACKS, HOW TYPICAL OF ISRAELI APOLOGISTS.
STOSH. HOW RIDICULOUS TO BELIEVE THE NONSENCE THAT 750,000 PALESTINIANS WILLINGLY GAVE UP THEIR LAND AND HOMES. HOW SHOCKING THAT THE PALESTINIANS HAVE REJECTED INVASION BY NEO-COLONIALISTS WHO OWNED NO MORE THAN 7 PERCENT OF THE LAND IN 1948.
46 | Mike Feldman, Canada, Monday Aug 17, 2009
John S. You're shouting. Careful of your blood pressure. Unfortunately for the Palestinians the neigbouring Arab states were not happy with the pre-1967 borders and kept attacking Israel. These attacks were not motivated by a "Palestinian crisis", but a simple hatred of Israel. A hatred caused simply because israel was there. A colonialist subjugates colonies to increase its natural resourses and obtain trade advantages. There is no such motivation for Israel, so any reference to colonialists is foolish. Erroneous references to Israel's previous land holdings are not useful tol the Palestinian cause. Better to live in the present.
47 | John S. Hancock, Monday Aug 17, 2009
FELDMAN I HAD TO WRITE LARGE SO YOU COULD READ IT. HOW SURPRISING THAT THE ARABS OF NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES WOULD RESIST THE INVASION. ECONOMIC EXPLOITATION OF THE AREA HAS BEEN ONGOING FOR 61 YEARS. THE FACT THAT THE INVADERS ONLY OWNED 7 PERCENT OF THE LAND IN 1948 IS ENTIRELY RELEVANT ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF THE CONTINUOUS COLONIZATION OF THE WEST BANK. THIS REFERENCE IS HISTORICALLY ACCURATE AND NOT HELPFUL TO THOSE WHO SHILL FOR ISRAEL.
|
 |
Search this blog
The Israel Factor, Sep. 2009: Obama is rapidly losing favor with panel of Israeli experts
Tags:
Blogroll |
Post your own comment
