Thanks!
The non-managerial part of the Management

But far be it from me to stop Mr. Smith from saving the Jewish world, one long-winded, pissy blog comment at a time. I’m sure the right-wing extremists are trembling in fear of his mighty verbal prowess over in their petty Torah empire.

אז לך תזדיין, יא שרמוטה

Now, not that you’re a Nazi or anything, but you are a hateful little man. We can do very well without anymore of your drivel, but, noblesse oblige, I’m leaving this last comment of yours up.

Well, that works out beautifully; just as you never claimed to be smarter than anyone – btw, damn good policy – I never claimed to be nicer than anyone. And I don’t give a fuck whom you compare me too, because, frankly, I simply don’t respect you enough to try to convince you to do otherwise. Moreover, my job requires a certain amount of mental agility, and sometimes it’s fun to come home after a long day and take a few shots at a big, fat, greasy lox in a barrel. As far as the consensus about my smug, self-righteous tone, I take the source into consideration. Besides you, the only other individual I’m aware of expressing that view is an obnoxious, foul-mouthed bubblehead with an inexhaustible sense of entitlement, and the talent and intellectual capacity of a schnauzer.

As I said, I make no claims to be particularly nice. On the other hand, unlike you, I do play by certain rules. I leave abandoned, incontinent widows out of the line of fire. I don’t express my disapproval of people’s political views with sneering contempt for their physical shortcomings. I don’t attempt to exploit people’s sympathy by crying big, fat crocodile tears, or demean myself with statements like, “Awww, c’mon, I was just kidding” when someone recoils in disgust at yet another one of my cheap shots.

All in all, you’re a fraud. A miserable putz. A petulant windbag, a dishonest hack, and a snide, arrogant bully. In short – and excuse the mixed metaphor – you’re stuffed to the gills with more shit than a Christmas turkey.

Oh, and given this apparent “turgid” fetish of yours, here’s a bit of my advice: when telling someone you despise them, cut out the unctuous declarations of phony concern, such as “I hate to say it, but . . .,” “you might want to take your own advice,” and “I hope he’s been set straight this time,” as well as the wounded indignation shtick, like “You have the audacity . . .” and “Shame on you.” Trust me, you’ll come across as less condescending, and others will be less inclined to laugh at you and call you a clown.

So please feel free to keep on telling me when I’m being hateful, and compare me to whomever you like. That way, we’ll have some measure of equivalence, because whenever your hypocrisy becomes too much for me to stomach, I’ll continue telling you to take your advice and shove it up your ass.

As far as the right goes, it was Menachem Begin who signed the peace treaty with the Egyptians. There were Kachniks who opposed returning the Sinai of course, but those were just a small minority. And it was Ariel Sharon, no left-winger as far as I know, who unilaterally withdrew from Gaza. Don’t try to lump everyone right of center into a single camp. Those rabid fanatics you talk about in such broad sweeping terms are the same people that answered the call of duty and gave their lives on the orders of a government they didn’t necessarily support. So much for Hamas and Hizballah like rabid fundamentalism.

I’m not sure, but it looks to me as though your last response might have been truncated, as it seems to start rather abruptly. With respect to what was included, I agree with the principles you’ve outlined, but perhaps not as much with their execution.

the key to my comment is the “100%.” You were speaking about “returning” all the “occupied” territory in order to achieve peace. Some of that land which you would return has strategic value while some has far greater import in its relevance to Israel’s raison d’etre.

Ultimately, these issues were addressed by Israel at the Taba talks following the Clinton Initiative. The Palestinians would have ended up with 100% of Gaza, 97% of the West Bank/Judea and Samaria, land inside Israel in exchange for the remaining 3%, not to mention $30 billion in reparations, sovereignty over the first-ever country to be called Palestine, etc.

Fair enough; I don’t believe Israel needs to give back every inch of the captured territories in order to achieve a just peace. As you note, it would seem to contradict the principles of Zionism itself for Israel to be required to relinquish all control over the Temple Mount. Sovereignty should be based upon some variation of the horizontal model you reference as having been offered as part of the Clinton/Barak proposals. Likewise, Israel should insist upon at least maintaining some kind of military presence in the various other narrowly circumscribed locations that are deemed genuinely indispensable to Israel’s long-term security. The point, though, is that whatever parts of the West Bank are to be held back as part of a two-state solution, the decision must be made on the basis of legitimate security considerations, not as a pretext for the nationalists’ ongoing campaign to subvert the possibility of a Palestinian state. Thus, Israel will need to eschew such breathlessly cynical policies such as the current design of the “security wall,” or the prohibition against granting residency to the Palestinian spouses of Israeli Arabs, neither one of which has a damn thing to do with security, but with assuring continued Jewish demographic superiority while perpetuating the Occupation. Similarly, the seemingly innocuous 3% of the West Bank selected for retention must not be chosen – as has been proposed previously – in order to disrupt the geographical contiguity and political viability of a potential Palestinian state, with the intent of keeping it dependent, weak, and impoverished.

Note that I supported and still support the withdrawal from Gaza, and did support the Olmert/Sharon “convergence” plan. It just seems that this is not a strategy that works for the West Bank.

I’m not sure exactly what this refers to. If you mean that returning the West Bank is inappropriate in the absence of a permanent negotiated settlement, then, as already indicated, I’d have no objection to holding off on withdrawal until such a settlement is implemented. On the other hand, if you’re suggesting that Israel needs to retain control of the West Bank in perpetuity (beyond those limited exceptions discussed above), then, for the reasons discussed in greater detail below, I believe you’re sounding the death knell for Israel’s long-term survival.

On a side note, the single most cynical diversion offered by the ultra-nationalists, one repeated ad nauseum in recent weeks, is “Look what happened when Israel withdrew from Gaza,” as though the Palestinians’ lack of gratitude justifies their Torah empire in the West Bank. Bullshit. That fact is completely irrelevant with respect to my position, since my argument is that ending the Occupation will force the Palestinians to accept peace, not cause the scales of anti-Semitism and inhumanity to fall from their eyes. Even for those who believe in the good intentions of the Palestinians, however, the notion that the return of Gaza should have caused them to break down in tears of gratitude is preposterous. Gaza was nothing but an albatross around Israel’s neck, and there’s not a single Israeli – much less any Palestinians – stupid or gullible enough to imagine that dumping it revealed a goddamn thing about Israel’s intentions in the West Bank.

At this point, the equation has changed considerably considering the war the Palestinians launched, the post-disengagement Palestinian elections and attacks on Israel, and the use of the terrain by Hizbullah in a manner that could be emulated in Judea and Samaria.

When Israeli soldiers risked their lives and lost their lives to regain east Jerusalem in a war launched by an enemy, it is hard to justify giving up that particular piece of land to anybody.

Here lies the principal point of conflict in our views. My own view is that, strategically, the situation is precisely the same as it was before. The election of Hamas is meaningless, since Israel would retain control of the West Bank pending implementation of a secure peace treaty. Moreover, the potential for the terrain to be used as a base for guerrilla warfare is hardly new. Finally, while it may be “hard to justify” returning captured territory, that, frankly, is tough shit. The lives of Israel’s soldiers weren’t sacrificed in order to “win” additional territory, and the price of peace is disavowal of the temptation to extract a pound of flesh for one’s losses.

My own view is that Israel must commit itself to offering exactly the same deal that that earlier emerged from the Clinton Initiative. If that is not the case – if Israel is to demand that it is entitled to some specified premium as a result of “winning” its conflict with the Palestinians –how do we calculate that price; where do we draw the line? What does it mean, as a practical matter, that the equation has changed considerably? Does it mean that Israel should retain dominion over the West Bank indefinitely, denying its vast population the fundamental rights of self-determination and political independence? If so, fine, but that will render Israel the very apartheid state its critics claim it to be, ultimately resulting in its complete diplomatic isolation and ostracism as an international pariah. By way of comparison, just as the far Right has howled with indignation at Israel’s restraint in its current war with Hezbollah, they would have become apoplectic at the decision to spare the lives of the trapped Egyptian army at the close of the Yom Kippur War. After all, these Egyptians weren’t civilians, but professional soldiers who had killed a far greater number of Israelis than the Palestinians have even dreamed about. Just like the Palestinians, they were the aggressors; they had lost territory; and they would undoubtedly return to kill more Israelis if their lives were spared. For those bent on vengeance, it was every bit as “hard to justify” sparing the lives of Egyptian soldiers or returning the territory they’d “won” fair and square. The only problem, of course, is that such a policy would have turned Egypt into an implacable enemy for generations, making peace a virtually impossibility. That is precisely what the ultra-nationalists will have accomplished with the Palestinians. Of course, it’s a mistake to believe they’ll regard that circumstance as an unmitigated failure, since continued hostilities would only enhance their goals of establishing a theocracy in Israel, and ridding the country of the decadent values of secularism and democracy, which they and their fanatic Islamic counterparts disdain with equal intensity.

And on another note:

ck, I think Middle’s right, you do seem to be a bit riled. But don’t worry; I’m sure that very soon you’ll be the object of a love fest of your very own.

So yes, you are self-righteous and hateful.

Hmmm, I’d have to say that’s rather subjective conclusion, don’t you think? After all, Tom and Middle think my contributions are worth something. And they’re much smarter than you.

Man, I haven’t heard such dehumanizing language since the Nuremberg laws of 1934.

Tsk, tsk, tsk; I’m very disappointed ck. That’s skirting awfully close to a Nazi allusion, now isn’t it? Of all people, you should know we don’t do that at Jewlicious!

rabid nationalists – rabid like dogs?

squatting in the West Bank – in places like Hebron, Gush Etzion, the Kotel, french Hill etc.?

theocratic religious fanatics with ugly dreams of an empire possessed of nothing but seething contempt for the fundamental values of a democratic society – like those men who, under the orders of their democratically elected leaders, went off to fight and die in defence of the country?

You, from the comfort of your shaded lawn in North American Suburbia, have the audacity to compare these boys and their families to Hamas and Hizballah? Shame on you david smith and shame on anyone who agrees with you.

And then you talk of a “newly radicalized generation of Muslims” as if prior to this war, they were well on their way to becoming liberal, cosmopolitan and peace loving, ready to accept the existence of State of Israel.

As was the case before, there remains exactly one meaningful solution to this endlessly futile cycle of violence and retaliation, which is an end to the Occupation and establishment of a Palestinian State – Oh like the end of the occupation in Gaza has created a fantastic peace dividend!

Nonetheless, an end to the Occupation is precisely the condition the Palestinians have repeatedly identified as the contingency they’d be willing to accept as the basis of a permanent peace – Yeah, that depends on who the audience is. The Palestinian leadership has also expressly stated that they want nothing less than the complete annihilation of the State of Israel as we know it. Look at their logos, listen to what they say to their children and constituents. If only it were as easy as you say. But what the hell, your life and livelihood are not at stake. I’m glad you’re so comfortable putting the necks of others on the line.

Israel must acknowledge that right wing nationalism and religious fanaticism are a festering malignancy in the body of its political institutions, one that must be thoroughly excised in order to preserve the continued viability of Israeli democracy – except what do you do about right wing nationalists and religious fundamentalists that were duly elected? What of this democracy you keep talking about? And you call these people a malignancy? You liken them to cancer? Man, I haven’t heard such dehumanizing language since the Nuremberg laws of 1934.

So yes, you are self-righteous and hateful. Your prose is indeed turgid. You insist that all the Palestinians want is an end to the occupation but then you admit that it’s not true. They also want the right of return. The difference between you and the most right wing settler is simply a matter of one more concession. You say that the occupation is the basis of our critics’ moral authority but then you concede that they have placed so much capital on ending the occupation simply because they don’t think it will happen. You admit that if it does happen, they’ll just find some other made up injustice to crow about.

What I think Israel should do, instead, is dismantle the last visible trace of every single settlement and settler in the West Bank, announce that it has no interest whatever in permanent annexation of the territory, and embrace a policy that sovereignty will be transferred only upon the realization of a permanent negotiated peace. Such a policy would obviously satisfy all legitimate security concerns associated with ending the Occupation, while offering even greater strategic incentives for Palestinian cooperation than actual withdrawal. In short, there’s not a damn thing to lose.

Problems with this suggestion? What to do with occupied territory like… the kotel and the rest of east Jerusalem, French Hill, Talpiot, Ramot etc. etc. All the Jews that live there are technically settlers living in settlements.

The reason Israel was able to establish a state of peace with Egypt is that the government completely suppressed the demands for tribute by its stupid, bloodthirsty irredentists. That is a policy the government must continue to ruthlessly enforce.

Uh… the reason Israel was able to establish a state of peace with Egypt is that the Egyptians recognized that it was (at least in the foreseeable future) impossible to defeat Israel militarily. And this was occasioned by the aftermath of the Yom Kippur War. You may want to contemplate that. Our government is also a democracy based on civil rights and the force of law. Unllike the Egyptians, we can’t really, as a matter of course, ruthlessly suppress the expression of opinions we disagree with. david smith, please make up your mind already!

As to the last paragraph where you strongly disagree with my comment about returning land hard-won in war, the key to my comment is the “100%.” You were speaking about “returning” all the “occupied” territory in order to achieve peace. Some of that land which you would return has strategic value while some has far greater import in its relevance to Israel’s raison d’etre. Having control over the Temple Mount is not a small matter, but it is precisely what is spoken about by those who would have Israel give east Jerusalem to the Palestinians. Heck, I didn’t even oppose the notion of horizontal sovereignty that Clinton and Barak proposed to the Palestinians, but even that was already bordering on the inconceivable. When Israeli soldiers risked their lives and lost their lives to regain east Jerusalem in a war launched by an enemy, it is hard to justify giving up that particular piece of land to anybody. There are some key neighborhoods surrounding Jerusalem that are there to strengthen Israel’s hold over that land. I also reject the notion that they need to be given up. Ultimately, these issues were addressed by Israel at the Taba talks following the Clinton Initiative. The Palestinians would have ended up with 100% of Gaza, 97% of the West Bank/Judea and Samaria. land inside Israel in exchange for the remaining 3%, not to mention $30 billion in reparations, sovereignty over the first-ever country to be called Palestine, etc., etc. The Palestinians did not budge from their demands such as “right of return.” At this point, the equation has changed considerably considering the war the Palestinians launched, the post-disengagement Palestinian elections and attacks on Israel, and the use of the terrain by Hizbullah in a manner that could be emulated in Judea and Samaria.

Thanks very much. Though I don’t regard myself as all that delicate – indeed, I take a good deal of pride in my designation as a stupid, turgid, self-righteous asshole by their Highnesses, the King and Queen of Jewlicious – it’s nice to know the assessment isn’t universal. I’m particularly gratified by that circumstance given the fact that there seems to be a fair distance between us politically, perhaps to a smaller degree with Middle and a somewhat greater one with Tom. It’s not hard to cultivate the respect of someone who sees his own reflected brilliance in the mirror of your beliefs, but more gratifying to obtain the respect of those who, as often as not, tend to reach different conclusions.

Middle, you note that withdrawal is not the sole contingency the Palestinians have identified as the basis of a peace agreement, and, further, that the conflict has not only been exploited by Arab despots, but by the anti-Semitic Left and the Palestinians themselves. Quite right on both counts. I wasn’t actually unaware of these facts, but it was a sloppy argument on my part. The right of return, for example, is an especially pernicious bit of absurdity, and a per se repudiation of Zionism itself. Indeed, I’ve always believed the Israelis should thank God the Palestinians were never disciplined or smart enough to have embraced a policy of civil disobedience and non-violent resistance since ’67, peaceably insisting upon the right of return as their only condition for peace.
For these reasons, you and Tom both suggest that my proposal for withdrawal is fatally idealistic and naïve.

Here I disagree. While I may, indeed, be wrong, I don’t believe it’s the result of naiveté.
Specifically, I harbor no illusions that the Occupation is the root cause of the conflict, and recognize that a substantial portion of the Palestinians still nurse fantasies of reclaiming all of Israel. Nonetheless, I stand by the belief that while withdrawal may not be the Palestinians’ only condition for peace, it is the one on which their supporters have rhetorically placed so much of their moral authority (perhaps precisely because they believed it would never be met), that its rejection now becomes hopelessly untenable. Even if ending the Occupation doesn’t eradicate Palestinian anti-Semitism or result in an immediate cessation of terrorist activities, I believe internal and external political pressures will ultimately render continued Palestinian rejectionism unsustainable.

“[Unilateral withdrawal] is utter foolishness from the perspective of strategic defensive needs.”

Though we’ve reached different conclusions to date, I frankly suspect this is the most salient area of agreement between us, as we both embrace the assumption that the disposition of the territories should be decided on the basis of strategic security considerations, not the nationalist aspirations of messianic religious fanatics. On reflection, your arguments have persuaded me that there are legitimate and compelling security risks involved with unilateral withdrawal, and that essentially transferring sovereignty to the Palestinians under the present circumstances is unduly hazardous. As importantly, I also think it’s unnecessary. What I think Israel should do, instead, is dismantle the last visible trace of every single settlement and settler in the West Bank, announce that it has no interest whatever in permanent annexation of the territory, and embrace a policy that sovereignty will be transferred only upon the realization of a permanent negotiated peace. Such a policy would obviously satisfy all legitimate security concerns associated with ending the Occupation, while offering even greater strategic incentives for Palestinian cooperation than actual withdrawal. In short, there’s not a damn thing to lose.

the settlers gain their power not because of the extremists among them but because centrist parties like Likud and even Labor have assisted them over the years. Having said that, the real fanatics should have no role to play in Israeli government.

This is something I look forward to discussing with you in further detail, because, frankly, I just don’t believe it. First I find it wildly implausible that the incidence of rabid extremists among the settlers is as small as you’ve described, or that the scope of their influence on Israeli national policy is as marginal. After all, they can count among their proud accomplishments inciting the assassination of one of the greatest national heroes in modern Jewish history. Finally, the Likud strikes me as being about as “centrist” as the Republicans, with the truly execrable Netanyahu is as decent and honorable as “Snarling Savage” Cheney.

while you could argue that Israel needs to give back 100% of everything they’ve won with the blood of its sons, in truth there is little justice or morality in returning to aggressors land they lost in wars they began.

This is the only statement with which I disagree rather violently, and which sounds – inadvertently, I’m sure – as though it could have come from one of the more extreme of the West Bank’s ultra-nationalist religious fanatics. What Israel “won” with the blood of its sons was not some piece of barren desert in the Gaza Strip, or dominion over an entire population to whom it has no intention of granting political self-determination or civil rights, but the right to fulfillment of the Zionist dream and to exist in peace. Yes, Israel was the victim of aggression in the wars in which it captured the occupied territories, but that doesn’t mean geopolitics is a game of Risk, in which victorious countries get to keep captured territories because they “won” them The reason Israel was able to establish a state of peace with Egypt is that the government completely suppressed the demands for tribute by its stupid, bloodthirsty irredentists. That is a policy the government must continue to ruthlessly enforce.

You are so right. We could always take a different path. There are too many of us anyway. So what if we lost more than 3,000 people on 9-11-2001. And we have so many airplanes it isn’t so terrible if they take a few down occasionally. Even 10. It only sounds like a lot. But when you consider there must be hundreds and even thousands of them flitting around full of silly people most of whom won’t be missed by more than a few close relatives anyway, really, why do we have to go down the warpath? We should get a little perspective. Darn.

Seymour Hersh had an interesting piece on Israel, Lebanon, Iran, and Dick Cheney in last week’s New Yorker. Our VP seems quite intent on bringing Ahmadinejad down.

btw, good to have David Smith contributing. He adds a distinctive point of view, and states it well.