1. Gaza will remain a cancerous, isolated territory housing terrorists, with both Israel and Egypt guarding what amounts to an international prison camp for the lawless. When it is handed over to the UNHCR for resettlement and taken from the UNRWA maintenance organization, its residents may have a future. Not before. Nothing to do with Israel, which pulled out except for self-defense retaliation. In fact Israel is massively supplying food, medicines, and other goods of non-aggressive significance. Read the border trade statistics.

2. As long as parts of the West Bank present a possibility of Gazan takeover (read "Hamas"), it will not have independence. It will continue to be an administered territory with local government except for defense, security, and foreign policy (analogous to a US or UN trust territory in such matters). As a result West Bank Palestinians will be far better off than if they were integrated with, say, Jordan, or cut loose on their own. Their (and Jordan's) economic and technological power cannot and will never be at the level of the Israelis; as a self-governing territory they gain vastly more economic benefits from that Israeli economic and technological activity than they would if cut loose, and they know it. When polled, they express choices clearly, despite rhetoric from ambitious and often corrupt politicians,.

Actually, that quote was from the link but I do in fact support it.
.
Do you really miss the point so obviously or are you making a joke? Anyway, let me explain it to you.
.
I am commenting on Mearsheimer's (and now Walt's) odious opinions. I am treating them as individuals with ideas, and not belittling them by making them representatives of any particular group.

I can't imagine you miss the point here also, but just in case you're not making a joke . . .
.
The point of the Yourish post was to show how similar the odious opinions are between Mearsheimer (and now Walt) the noted Jew Haters Charles Lindbergh and Father Coughlin ON THE SUBJECT OF JEWS.
.
It's not the case where they are being compared on an unrelated topic like in the situation you presented.

Obviously you perceive a difference between those people you feel are anti-semitic gentiles (like M and W) and non-anti-semitic gentiles.

From reading what Mreino has written, it appears fairly clear that the difference is non-anti-Semitic gentiles (using your specification "gentiles", although if Mreino specified this I missed it) don't lump Jews into "good Jews"/"bad Jews" categories, while anti-Semitic gentiles do.

Hitler was also supposed to have been a vegetarian. It doesn't mean that all vegetarians are like Hitler, unless one is speaking solely about their vegetarianism. In this case, Mreino is speaking about the individuals' utterances about Jews, and likening the various historical anti-Semites' words with Mearsheimers. Mreino isn't saying M is exactly like Coughlin, only like him with regard to his utterances towards Jews. If Coughlin also taught at Chicago, or liked pizza, or some such, and one tried to draw the conclusion that M was an anti-Semite like Coughlin because of these unrelated similarities, you would have a point.

You're just trying to blow smoke. Is Mearsheimer accurate or inaccurate? It's wildly irrelevant to compare Mearsheimer to anti-Semites.

Let's make a deal:

We'll grant that there is no such thing as "Bad" Jews,

IF

You'll grant that there's no such thing as extremist Muslims.

can we all just acknowledge factually that Mearsheimer never used the term "Good Jew" or "Bad Jew."

His particular dialectic was "Righteous Jews" and "new Afrikaaners."

By which I think he simply meant those Jews that are willing to criticize Israel for anything besides taking it too easy on Arabs. And those Jews AND non-Jews who are Pro-Israel activists and will defend Israel at all costs... not matter how stupid its policies are.

This whole "Good Jew" v "Bad Jew" thing is a straw man. And it's hilarious how all the Israel bashers on this blog fell right in to it as if it's assumed that's precisely what Mearsheimer said.

I think you have spent a lot of words and some poor analogies to make a simple point - the context is important when deciding whether M is like Coughlin or not. You choose not to consider the context, and conclude that M is not like Coughlin because sometimes people who make these kinds of comparisons are not.

And as to the other point the obvious issue is simply whether it's *fair* to be lumping M & W in with Hitler or Coughlin on the given point of association/comparison, or whether it's a smear, and it's obviously the latter [DinDC: It's not so obvious, and it is only M. I don't buy into the guilt by association thing just because W linked it...when he explicitly defends it, that's another story]....

...Damn near everyone who speaks or thinks about anything connected with Israel or jewry makes distinctions between "good" jews who support their point of view and "bad" ones who don't.

Actually, they don't. And the ones that do very rarely put it into the stark terms of "righteous Jews" (most likely consciously usurping the notion of the "righteous among the nations") and "new Afrikaaners" (by which he might as well have said Nazis). And they also don't try to paint the rest of the Jews as undecided between this good and evil.

We'll grant that there is no such thing as "Bad" Jews,

IF

You'll grant that there's no such thing as extremist Muslims.

Or conversely, one would have to grant that the designation "extremist Muslim" be applied to those who differ in their prognostications and policy prescriptions about some conflict involving a Muslim country.

For instance, I differ from you in what I think will happen in this conflict and its resolution, and so label you an "extremist Muslim". I go on to label all Muslims who agree with you as "extremist" and, furthermore, label all those Muslims who haven't yet decided as on the fence between "extremist" and "moderate".

Consider that when the shoe is on the other foot. I have no doubt you would consider me anti-Muslim if I voiced that opinion outside of this conversation.

I'd think most people can comprehend that there is more than one way to express an idea. Mearsheimer has silly invented a new terminology for a very ancient theory, namely that it's OK to despise and question the loyalty of some Jews, so long as you qualify it by noting that there are some Jews who are just wonderful. Amazing how these old tricks work again and again. All that's needed are some gullible masses.

"Extremist Muslim" IS applied by both non-Muslims and Muslims to those Muslims whose prescriptions and actions are odious to the human rights of others and who are generally Muslim Supremacists. Those who could care less about other groups or their well-being, and are just out for their own tribe.

Prognosticating is irrelevant. I could predict a whole bunch of disasterous outcomes for events in the world. That doesn't mean Im actively working to make them come about, or that I believe in the destruction of the world. It's the beliefs and actions that matter when determining who is truly righteous, and who never grew out of the childish, me, myself and my tribe phase in their development into a truly humanized person.

Mearsheimer himself says the "two state solution" is a pipe dream. Does that mean he's a "new Afrikaaner?" He's prognosticating something that selfish Israelis have been wanting, advocating, and actively working for for decades. He's not prescribing it or advocating it. Just predicting it.

Walt himself says that he doesn't completely believe that it is dead yet. He's "sitting on the fence" with his prognosis. I HARDLY think Mearsheimer thinks Walt is a "new Afrikaaner."

I don't consider you anti-Muslim for stating the facts. Yes, Hamas is a huge obstacle, namely because of their fanatical hard line insistence on compromises that I, as a Muslim, think are retarded.

On the other hand if you truly believe as do some of the other pro-Israel contributors to this blog that the essential problem with Muslims is their faith itself, and not a grab-bag of legitimate gripes ranging back several centuries as well as an embarrassing lack of long term strategic thinking, then yes, I would say you are an Islamophobe.

A Balanced View: Did you read the speech or are you as dumb as a soapdish? The speech is all about AMERICAN JEWS; this is the phrase he uses. In fact, his enemies list is pretty much all AMERICAN JEWS, not Israelis (I am using caps in case your problem is one of eyesight rather than just stupidity). Take a minute to read it before running your mouth and looking stupid.

Could you not be bothered to read the speech you are commenting on or are you just an idiot? Please explain.

So what are you saying? That it is inherently bad (ie, anti-semitic, to use the tired phrase) to look critically at Israelis (or Jews at large for that matter)? Introducing Mengele to the discussion is either parodic or infantile. Lindbergh and Coughlin are merely irrelevant. How would you judge white South Africans and their pre-1990 racial attitudes, US attitudes to race in the US, espcially the South (and towards American Indians), French attitudes towards their Algerian colony? Do you believe it is improper to render moral judgments of human groupings based on their behavior? Or do you, for some reason that you would need to explain at length, afford an exception to policy for Israelis/Jews?

The answer to the point above is that the situation is NOT analogous to the white south or South Africa. Black Americans and South Africans NEVER displayed the violence that Palestinians have in "furthering" their cause. That is the reason most American Jews continue to stand by Israel. Beleive it or not, we're not all sheisters looking to screw over the United States.the same moronic moral relativism is behind the absurd notion that pro-Israel Jews are the same as Muslim extremists. Last I checked, no one from Aipac has threatened physical violence against American citizens. Think about it, please.

In defaming American Jews , Mearsheimer chooses to white wash over our concerns and legitmate arguments for Israel and instead relies on ad homonym attacks. It's a sign of intellectual weakness.

"Extremist Muslim" IS applied by both non-Muslims and Muslims to those Muslims whose prescriptions and actions are odious to the human rights of others and who are generally Muslim Supremacists. Those who could care less about other groups or their well-being, and are just out for their own tribe.

Right, and I suppose "new Afrikaaner" would be appropriate for those who do support a hypothetical future apartheid scenario. But there are a number of differences here:

1) Since the situation doesn't exist (and, truth be told, I don't see it as very probable), what M is doing is slandering those who he thinks will support apartheid or, possibly, those who he wants to discredit with a pro-apartheid label.

2) "Extremist fence-sitter", if I may, isn't applied to most Muslims and shouldn't be. IMO, those who say or imply that Muslims are undecided about extremism just because they choose not to speak out about it (and I think this is the large majority of Muslims), are bigots.

Re: W&M being "new Afrikaaners"...they wouldn't be. M specifically singled out Jews.

From Commentary Magazine's "Contentions" Weblog
May 9, 2010

Anthony Julius’s Trials of the Diaspora

In the New York Times Book Review, Harold Bloom reviews Anthony Julius’s monumental new book, Trials of the Diaspora. It is a cover review — an indication of the book’s importance — and a uniformly favorable one: a “strong, somber book” reflecting “extraordinary moral strength.” But even those complimentary terms, from one of America’s leading literary critics, do not begin to convey the scope and magnitude of Julius’s achievement.

The book’s subtitle is A History of Anti-Semitism in England, which itself understates the significance of the book, since the book covers aspects of the psychology and sociology of anti-Semitism that extend far beyond a single country’s experience. Julius has provided probably the most in-depth discussion of the “blood libel” in any volume meant for general readers; and without understanding the blood libel it is impossible to understand the literary power of Shakespeare’s Shylock or Dickens’s Fagin — and without understanding the power of those literary portrayals, one cannot understand modern English anti-Semitism. The literary analysis of Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Dickens in this book is masterful, but even more significant is the connections Julius makes from literature to culture to politics.

Julius is one of England’s most prominent lawyers, best known in America for his representation of Deborah Lipstadt in the libel action that Holocaust denier David Irving brought against her. He also represented Ariel Sharon in connection with the Independent’s anti-Semitic cartoon of Sharon eating a Palestinian child (itself an allusion to the blood libel); he represented the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) against London’s then mayor, Ken Livingstone; both Haifa University and Hebrew University against the Association of University Teachers (AUT); and Israeli universities and Jewish academics against the National Association of Teachers, among other actions — all of which has given him a perhaps unique understanding of contemporary anti-Semitism in England. He is also a literary critic with a gift for a telling phrase, such as his description of certain Jewish ideologists as “proud to be ashamed they are Jews.”

Julius is particularly eloquent on two matters: first, the sheer surreality and incoherence of anti-Semitism:

The Holocaust should have altogether put paid to anti-Semitism. It should have rebutted once and for all the principal anti-Semitic fantasy of malign Jewish power; it should have satiated the appetite of the most murderous anti-Semites for Jewish death. And yet instead it precipitated new anti-Semitic versions or tropes: (a) Holocaust denial, (b) the characterizing of Zionism as an avatar of Nazism, and (c) the cluster of allegations that the Jews are exploiting the Holocaust in support of false compensation claims, the defense of Israeli policies, the defense of Zionism, etc. Many Arab and Muslim anti-Semites somewhat promiscuously embrace all three tropes – denying the Holocaust, praising Hitler, and representing Israel as the successor to the Nazi state.

And second:

Julius acknowledges the need for nuance and judgment in evaluating anti-Semitic sentiment at any particular historical point in time, and the unemotional discussion that characterizes his book makes his conclusion about the present particularly chilling:

Trials of the Diaspora has been written across a period of rising violence and abuse directed at English Jews. Of the present conjuncture, then, my provisional judgment is that it is quite bad, and might get worse. Certainly, it would seem that the closed season on Jews is over.

This is a very important book.

--Posted By Rick Richman - 05.09.2010 - 10:12 AM

Copyright © 1997-2009 Commentary Magazine
All Rights Reserved

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/richman/291481

Ibish also says:

"In my view Mearsheimer misses at least two of the most obvious and plausible scenarios for the medium-term, in a manner that suggests he doesn't really understand the conflict in a very complex way (actually, that's kind of obvious). The first is the prospect of continued occupation or, as he would put it, the emergence of a fully-fledged apartheid state , resulting in an ever-escalating series of violent conflicts increasingly characterized by religious fanaticism."

Both scenarios Ibish say's are plausible, that Mearsheimer didn't fully cover are, by their nature, apartheid.

ofcourse being the unilateral border plausability, which kind of begs the question as to why Ibish never mentions the settlements when positing this possibility.

In fact , with all the fuss about settlements recently, Ibish only mentions settlements in passing, once, near the end of his post.

That's just simply not true. Read Mearsheimer's speech. He's expressly talking about Jews.

SMCI, obviously the second scenario isn't apartheid by nature. Even if it was, I don't think it would impact Ibish's criticism of M.

Another obvious scenario that neither Ibish nor M mention is the possibility that the Palestinians accept less in order to get their state. Implicit in M's scenarios is the assumption that the Palestinians won't make large concessions to achieve peace.

that they aren't willing to make big concessions is implicit only because they have nothing left to concede!

What more do you people want?

His speech is not about Israelis, it is about "AMERICAN JEWS".

Please explain whether you did not read the speech you are commenting on or whether you were dropped on your head as a child and never recovered.

that they aren't willing to make big concessions is implicit only because they have nothing left to concede!

What more do you people want?

Right. It is inconceivable that the Palestinians make any large concessions.

How about Jerusalem? It is not that big an area and there can be territory swaps in any event. It is the biggest sticking point in the negotiations. Everything else can be much more easily reconciled.

I'm not advocating it (I think the settlement should have the Arab neighborhoods of east Jerusalem going as the capital for a future Palestine, which I know is a big concession by both sides). The point is that it doesn't even get considered. M, the realist, could certainly get up there and drone on about how a settlement is reachable if only the Palestinians would cede Jerusalem in negotiations. He could recount that the Palestinians are the weaker party, their leaders started a war they lost, how historically stateless groups and those losing wars they started always had to make large concessions, territorial and otherwise, in order to achieve statehood/armistice. How ceding Jerusalem would not materially impact the functioning of a future state. Blah, blah, blah.

Of course, all of this is sheer fantasy, and only to make a point. The Palestinians see the negotiating itself as a big concession, and M of course places no blame on them for their own decision...it's always Israel's fault!

J Thomas, marking a red line in negotiations doesn't mean that the object can't be negotiated, it means it can't be given up. When you have two sides that mark a red line pertaining to a single item, there is an impasse.

The rest of your post takes as axiomatic a particular narrative (for instance, you assume that the Palestinians have already made a concession of Israel, but conversely, the Israelis believe they are making a concession by ceding Palestine) and also assumes things are already apportioned (for instance, that east Jerusalem already "belongs" to the Palestinians, and to get it in negotiations Israel must give up something else). My point was basically to challenge this dogma. It is a standard refrain from the quartet, et. al., that things not be "prejudiced" or pre-determined for the negotiations. I am highlighting that this really only runs one way.

Like it or not Sir Mixx!

It is interesting that you used the same exact accusation and format though.

hmm....

"The new Afrikaners will of course try to come up with clever arguments to convince themselves and others that Israel is really not an apartheid state, and that those who say it is are anti-Semites."

I suppose the Israel critics will take up this new term, "new Afrikaaners" and you guys will come back with equivocation... saying that calling someone a "new Afrikaaner" is anti-Semitic.

And the world goes round and round.

Nevermind that every one of these Walt posts generates the same 50 anti-Israel posts, often cut and pasted.

I'm arguing that it shouldn't be OK for ANYONE. For instance, when I point out the injustice in US immigration policy toward Mexicans, I'm not just trying to be clever -- I really think, as an American that there needs to be a renewed focus on immigrant rights. The same way that as a Jew, I'm really concerned about Israel's policies in the settlements and fully support a peace deal, as do most of us "new Afrikaaners."

What's very frustrating is:

A) Oversimplication. As in "Israel is a racist aparthied state" and "anyone who supports it is a fascist and/or has dual loyalities." Believe it or not, this is a complicated conflict with many legitimate concerns and crimes on both sides. And believe it or not, some of us really believe an alliance with Israel is in US interests.

B) Singling out. As in, "Zionism is racism." Actually, nationalism is racism, or often is. So long as people want to hold Israel responsible for crimes committed by many states, I'll continue to point this other cases.

If the discussion of US immigration policy was dominated by people asserting the United States was a uniquely terrible, racist, xenophobic country then, yes, I would point out that other countries have similar issues. In fact, this Web site did just that the other day with it's photo essay on the world's worst immigration laws. Context is very important to a rational discussion, and I don't think many people here appreciate that.

And forgive me, but I don't see a ton of people actively seeking solutions here. More often, it's folks trotting out their dimestore, hyperbolic criticisms of Zionism and/or Jews. Sort of like the UN General Assembly, actually.

Yes, we 100 percent agree on that. As I said earlier, the settler movement is extremely distressing and concerning to me as a liberal leaning Zionist. Now that Palestinians have taken strong steps toward reducing violence in the West Bank (with some help from the IDF), I think both internal and external pressure on the right wingers will rise exponentially, and justifiably so.

My ONLY complaint is that many of the commenters here, including, it seems, yourself, operate as if Israel existed in a vacuum, with no regard for the actions of the Palestinians or other states. This has moral and practical implications. For instance, if the US repeals it's support for Israel's security, as you seem to propose, why on earth would the average Israeli feel more supportive of taking a huge security risk and withdrawing from the territories? From an ethical standpoint, how does the US reducing support for Israel have any positive overall impact on the region when, by this administration's own admission, the primary concern is making things easier for our own occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan? Isn't that hypocrisy? How does that affect great change in the region?

I agree with most of your practical steps, but still doubt the George W. Bush-like moral chauvinism will go very far with Israelis. Many of them are already convinced the uptick in pressure has been drivn by U.S. concerns in Afghanistan -- a premise this administration has advanced whole heartedly. To use your analogy, we're like that friend covered in his own vomit who goes, "Dude, you've had too much, let me drive," and then passes out an instant later. On a deeper level, most Israelis, just like most Muslims, don't wake up in the morning thinking they're evil, and won't take well to hearing otherwise.

So here's another idea. President Obama gave a brilliant speech in Cairo speaking directly to the Muslim world. Why can't he go to Tel Aviv and explain to Israelis why it is in fact in their best interest to make peace, and how the US will support them in taking the necessary risks? Why not communicate with them rather than confront them?

It is apparently only his judgment they will not. But when faced with a ultra stark and undeniable choice between moving forward or backward, people do the right thing. Its in the gray areas when there is vacilation, but I also agree those days are waning. I part with Walt, and think the window of a possible 2-state reconciliation began to close with the beginning of the settlement programs (explicity sanctioned by the govt) in early 68. M's speech appeared to be like a response to Aaron Miller's (and others) budding open-mindedness; people who are just getting past their idealism and wondering WTF they're been trying to do......
History seems to be a two steps forward, one-step backward proposition. Pick your own ratio, but they're essentially positive, and the last forty years of this conflict has been a period of recidivism.

Their hunch is that the "bad Jews" are sowing the seeds of their own destruction.

"You want domination? Fine. Just be prepared for what comes as its blowback"

Mearsheimer specifically said that "American Jews who care deeply about Israel can be divided into three broad categories." He was not talking about non-Jews.
.
Also, is it really much of a stretch to equate "Righteous Jews" with "Good Jews" and "New Afrikaaners" with "Bad Jews"? Do you think he meant New Afrikaaners as a compliment.
.
I wish this was only a straw man. Then I wouldn't despair at reading the comments on this blog.

I do despair that this is the future coming at me. I never thought Americans would sink this low.
.
But you're wrong that I'm changing the subject. I'm addressing exactly what Walt did.

Well you're right about the "American Jews" of three categories. I take issue with Mearsheimer here though. Anyone who in any way supports, advocates for, defends, or even so much as tolerates Israeli apartheid should be labeled as a "new Afrikaaner." He shouldn't have limited it to American Jews. And I honestly don't think it was his intention.

As to the Righteous Jew vs Bad Jew dyad... prove to me that apartheid against the goyim is textually sanctioned in Judaism, and I'll concede to you that Mearsheimer's "New Afrikaaners" are in fact, not bad Jews.

And I'd think that you are severely maligning the Jewish faith by claiming that treating non-Jewish human beings this way doesn't make one a Bad Jew. And I'm sure there are a few David's on this blog that would like to have a conversation with you.

But don't you see? That's precisely what Mearsheimer is doing -- shooting the messenger. Rather than argue with the arguments put forth by the pro-Israel community, he's mounted a sustained attack on their ethics and loyalty to the United States.

There are definitely a large number of Jews in Israel and in the diaspora who want to make the ultimate land-grab and would go to any lengths to deny the Palestinians their homeland as a sovereign state. These jews are therefore prepared to support an apartheid regime in Israel unless they are successful in genocide or kicking out the Palestinians. It would seem to be legitimate to call then the New Afrikaners. Those Jews who oppose them are indeed the Righteous Jews. Jimmy Carter said this a long time ago and at least 50% of the US and European population now agree with him and this percentage is increasing every day. Finally the tide is turning and the strident and selfish voices of these Jewish Afrikaners are sounding more bizarre as they assault us with their emotional, illogical and tired old canards. The strong development of organizations like JStreet and JCall is ensuring that common sense and fairness will deal with these New Afrikaners in the way that world opinion silenced the old Afrikaners. The campaign to notice the elephant in the room as started by Walt and Meirsheimer has been a significant breakthrough and the arrival of Obama has launched the final assault on the Israeli land-grab and settler lunacy. Righteous Jews have a lot to celebrate this year despite the disrespectful last gasps of the Israeli government as they try to ignore reality and the relentless progress of George Mitchell who already conquered the Irish, whose national deviousness is far beyond the reaches of the New Afrikaners. Call me an anti-Semite or a self-hating Jew but it has no meaning in this new era of no-holds-barred discussion from which Jewry has been so long protected by the bullies in AIPAC and the fawning courtiers in DC and NY.