"Two incumbent House members, Earl Hilliard of Alabama and Cynthia McKinney of Georgia, both of them supportive of the Palestinian right to self-determination and critical of Israel, were recently defeated by relatively obscure candidates who were funded mainly by the Israeli lobby in New York. Where Middle East policy is concerned, the lobby has turned the legislative branch of the US Government into what Jim Abourezk, a former senator, once called 'Israeli-occupied territory'."

--Edward Said

Do I really need to add anything? Edward Said’s own words damn him. I urge everyone to read "Ivory Towers on Sand" by Martin Kramer. He details the mind boggling destruction caused by Said and his fellow cohorts within the halls of our major universities.

Islamist fundamentalism is in fact a relatively new thing among Palestinians. Arafat for example is not particularly religious. The Hamas brand of funamentalism has grown popular because of a combination of support for Islamist schools (Madras type) by Sharon (trying of course to discredit mainstream Palestinians) and Wahabi financial support for suicide bombers' families.

Unfortunaly more moderate Arab regimes care surprisingly little about Palestinians, perhaps because they're too busy repressing their own fundamentalists and courting the US for "aid" money. Things seem to be made worse in Occupied Territories (as in many places in the Middle East and the Magreb actually) by the fact that Mosques have become the only place where political dessent is allowed and safe. That's what happens when we push for policies that oppress mainstream opposition.

There is NO point to deny the fundamentalist and genocidal nature of Hamas and Islamist Jihad but they can certainly be seen partly as a rsult of deliberate policies by Israel and the Saudis (and Iran) as well as the result (at least in terms of popularity) of opposition to equally racist and genocidal religious fundamentalism on behalf of some Judaist extremists (I'd like to introduce the terms 'ultra-Zionism' and 'ultra-Zionist' to characterize people who think they have a god-given right to kill, cleanse and brutalize Palestinians.)

The fact that it is tabou to talk about Judiast extremism / fundamentalism doesn't make it any less true nor dangerous or reason for concern (I am not refering here to genuine orthodox Jews here - actually this brand of Judaism deems that it is not time yet for Jews to be reunited in Israel). These fanatics won't hesitate to kill an Israeli PM if necessary or sink a US vessel for that matter (and then erect a monument to their terrorists in settlements). If you want me to quote stuff from this brand of fundamentalists, please ask. But let me warn you, it's not going to be any pritier than fundamentalist Islamism (and Christian fundamentalism for that matter.)

Why am I reacting? Because there is no way one can understand the complexities of this conflict and the apparent incoherences of oriental commentators without a deep understanding of the ideological and military relationships and interactions among them. At least that's what Middle-Easterners tell me when I lecture them with Western morality lessons and disconected analysis...

The one-sided viewpoint of the anti-Israel crowd really does require a lot of mental and moral gymnastics in order to maintain. Even though I detest the settlements and despise Sharon, you cannot look at them in a vacuum. Israel would not have any settlements were it not for their enemies starting and losing wars of attempted annihilation... And Sharon would be sitting on his porch eating figs if Arafat hadn't rejected what was a pretty good peace proposal from Barak and launched the 2nd infitada... The deal was apparently good enough that Arafat has said he would now accept it, but the deal was from Barak, who is gone thanks to Arafat, and was based on a certain level of trust by the Israeli electorate that Arafat wanted peace, which is gone now thanks to Arafat...

Until the vast majority of Palestinians are ready to accept that a war to destroy Israel is a hopeless pipedream, the radicals will always give the likud party the leverage to keep up the horrendous occupation of the West Bank.

The myth of the so-called generous offer by Barak dies hard it seems. The settlements have in fact prospered under Barak. Budgets for settlement development were only marginally smaller than those allocated under Netanyahu. Tenders for public housing were issued at an unprecedented rate.

Here is a very generous version of what Barak is supposed to have offered at Camp David II. Basically it means ZERO withdrawal from existing settlements just a freeze on new settlements. That was to be a pre-condition for peace in the Mitchel report not the end point of the negociations...

It is open to question whether Palestinians will achieve any better than this, though. But it's clear that Barak tried to make peace without any mandate to give back any of the occupied terristories that have been be settled since 1967. (It is beyond questioning that Barak had no intention nor political capacity to negociate an inch of East Jerusalem.)

Barak made a fool of Israel's Labor party but, regardless of Arafat's "hard stance", it was doomed from the beginning because he had nothing to offer but the status quo. One cannot blame the Palestinian Authority for the falure of the talk, or then one has to equally blame both sides (and the Likudists, Sharon foremost, not the least for pouring oil on the fire.)

Sorry: here is a working link for the map.

P.S. I wouldn't want my wording to imply that the Mitchel report predated Camp David II, it's the opposite. But I think the Mitchel report is the most rational starting point that has been offered lately.

Professor Delong, I take it that you are personally acquainted with memebers of Hamas? If not, please explain your remarkable ability to discern the underlying motives of its members.

It certainly seems plausible to me to suggest that Hamas is "a (misguided) part of the struggle to be rid of Israeli military occupation." That they wish to end that struggle through the annihilation of Israel and the Jews who live in it does not contradict any part of what you quoted Said as saying. The Hamas charter you quote from is quite specific about the organisation's desire to be rid of Israeli occupation. They construe the occupation as covering a larger territory than just the West Bank and Gaza. Their targets have been overwhelmingly citizens of the state it opposes. That their means and actions may be misguided, or even despicable, does not make them any less actions against Israeli occupation.

Furthermore, you have very selectively quoted Said. Ellipses hide the most remarkable things.

Hamas and Islamic Jihad are... a (misguided) part of the struggle to be rid of Israeli military occupation.

This is not identical to:

But the power of the media to repeat, re-repeat and underline simple assertions, combined with the untiring efforts of the Israeli lobby, means that it is now locked into place that the Palestinians chose 'terror instead of peace'. Hamas and Islamic Jihad are seen not as a (misguided) part of the struggle to be rid of Israeli military occupation, but as part of the general Palestinian desire to terrorise, threaten and be a menace.

Gotta watch for those passive verbs. They have a way of deflecting intent and changing meaning.

You have taken a statement about the portrayal of Palestinians in the press (with which Said is dissatisfied and which I fully agree with him about) and turned it into an accusation that Said is an apologist for Hamas, something that he has quite specifically not done in this article.

This is utterly dishonest behaviour.

Scott, would you please post the link to Said's original piece. The link Chris provides is in fact about some extingwished exotic birds. I am not denying that there is perhaps some sort of sick parallel with the Palestinians' tragedy, but still I'd like to know what Edward Said has to say.

As for Professor DeLong, I don't think any of us is entitled to question his honesty. If there is any clarification to be asked, do so straightforwardly, after all that's what the comment section is about. Intellectual trust and clarity is very important to the proper working of a forum like this one.

P.S. My apologies for the confusion, it turns out that Professor DeLong does provide the right link, and not Chris'es.

Jean-Phillipe,

I retract the accusation of dishonesty. The previous thread over Israel was quite acrimonious and I plead temporary insanity. It is ungracious and ill-mannered to cast aspersions on one's host, even in as diffuse a context as a blog.

However, I would like to ask Professor Delong to clarify exactly what license enables him to read so very much into such a small text, especially when it's intent is clearly quite different than the one he imputes to its author.

Enough political writers are simply slandered for views that they have not put into print, as so many recent charges of anti-semitism so amply demonstrate. If Said has elsewhere acted as an apologist for Hamas, say so. Preferably, with URL's. Said is here accused of simply lying - Professor Delong is asking us to disregard his views as derived from dishonesty. That is a serious accusation and one that merits a lot more basis than an edited quote which has been carefully removed from context and imputed with a rhetorical intent entirely at odds with its content. Serious charges merit careful reading.

Edward Said knows that he lies through his teeth when he tells us that Hamas is a (misguided) part of the struggle to be rid of Israeli military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. But he thinks it's worth doing because he can thus throw some dust into the eyes of readers of the Guardian.

To hear Professor Delong say this sort of thing on such a slim basis opens him up to exactly the type of accusation he has leveled against Edward Said.

“Professor Delong, I take it that you are personally acquainted with memebers of Hamas? If not, please explain your remarkable ability to discern the underlying motives of its members.”

Is this some sort of joke? Are you trying to insult everyone’s intelligence? The motivation underpinning the goals of Hamas are not in the least bit debatable. There are indeed some mysteries which remain unsolved in our vast universe. This, however, is not the case with Hamas. Please read the following:

“Hamas preaches and engages in violence and terror in order to destroy the state of Israel and replace it with an Islamic state. Its virulent hatred of Jews and Judaism is deeply rooted in the anti-Semitic writings of Muslim Brotherhood theologians. In August 1988, Hamas issues its covenant laying down its ideological principles and goals. Replete with anti-Semitism, it echoes the notorious Protocols of the Elders of Zion and charges Jews with an international conspiracy to gain control of the world. In Hamas' worldview, Islamic precepts forbid a Jewish state in the area known as Palestine, the Jewish people have no legitimate connection to the land of Israel and Yasir Arafat is a traitor to the Islamic Palestinian cause. As its covenant proclaims, "The land of Palestine is an Islamic trust...It is forbidden to anyone to yield or concede any part of it...Israel will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it..."”

http://www.jewishpost.com/jp0203/jpn0303.htm

>>Yasir Arafat is a traitor to the Islamic Palestinian cause.<<

I am glad these Israeli analysts take the pain of writing this. It's a source of so much unnessary confusion.

I'm impressed. Who knew that you could be an apologist for Hamas without even denying their intent to obliterate Israel?

Prof De Long -
I always admire your writings, here and elsewhere, but this time you did fall for the temptation to quote selectively. Said's easy enough to criticise without doing that. I think your future credibility would be enhanced if you posted a short mea culpa.

These are emotive issues, which many people find hard to stay intellectually honest about - which is all the more reason for a particular effort to do so. Maybe we should start this thread again?

For example, there's a good discussion to be had on the relations between Arafat and the Islamic extremists (just as there is on the relations between Zionism and both Jewish and Christian eschatological fundamentalism). It's more complex than either critics or supporters of the PA will admit - and all parties seem to have an interest in distorting the question. You've got to remember, for instance, that part of Arafat's power base is among the substantial Christian minority of the Palestinians (a group whose very existence seems to be downplayed by all sides - for differing reasons).

Uh? I am no apologist for anyone who has innocent civil blood on their hands, be they Palestinian, Israeli, or blue gremlins with yellow stripes for that matter. I really wonder how came to read that from my words. Would you please tell me, I am curious.

It's Israel / Palestine we're talking about. What is this systematic refusal to see the wrong and the bad on both sides supposed to buy us? What kind of useful conclusion is the denial of the crimes committed by ultra-Zionists supposed to help us come up with?

What's your beef? Getting readers to believe Isralis are all -to the last- good peaceful guys, Palestinians all Islamist fanatics, and that none of the reactions of Palestinian extremists can be explained by the long-standing extremist ideas and politicies on the ultra-Zionist side?

Of course, explanation is not justification and it goes both ways, but I am tired to listening to useless monophonic discourse. How about you ackowleding this before I can all you an apologist for all the blood Sharon and his terror cells have on their hands? Terror cells, what terror cells? Assassinatios, what do you mean? Ethnic cleansing and massacres, uh? Deportation and torture, you must be kidding?

P.S. This post was addressed to Walt, obviously

FWIW, I thought Walt was referring to Said, not Jean-Phillippe.

Thanks for the peace-keeping efforts, Paul. If this is so, I apologize in advance to Walt. Nothing personal was implied though.

Jean-Phillippe:

Sorry for not being clear. I was referring to Scott Martens.

I am not an apologist for Sharon; up until 2 years ago I was unreservedly pro-Palestinian. On the thread about divestment, I wrote a long description this morning of what my objection is to your (Jean-Phillippe's) position.

The PLO/Israel issue reminds me of a parasite which sucks the life out of every topic it touches. Sometimes the exploitation is by ultra-Zionists; more often, as above, it is by zealots supporting the PLO.
Let me make a few points they overlook.
First, Arafat never at any point came forward with a counter proposal at Camp David. Isn't that what is supposed to happen in good faith negotiations?
Secondly, there were further land concessions made after those encapsulated in the map referred to by our Belgian apologist including one to join up the various pieces of territory.
Thirdly, further Israeli concessions were made in the Nov/Dec Camp David sessions in spite of the fact that the second Intifada had started in Sept.Was this latter supposed, by the way to be an inducement to the Israeli's to negotiate? Fourth, there was a proposal from Israel to give the PLO half of Jerusalem to administer including the Temple Mount. All the Israeli's asked for in return was that the Temple Mount not be excavated and that it be acknowledged a holy site for Jews. This latter request was turned down. Again no serious counter offer was made.
Don't take Barak's word for the above. Read Clinton on the subject.
Stepping back from the fray, what is the way out? Certainly both sides need to negotiate. They might both usefully find new leaders to conduct these negotiations. Unfortunately the events taking place there are making this daily more unlikely. Should Israel withdraw to the pre-67 borders? For my money,'yes' but it is hard to imagine the average Israeli, let alone Sharon, feeling happy about this as their compatriots are blown up by terrorists targetting innocent people. Should the Israeli's moderate their counter attacks? 'Yes' but they at least are targetting, in a singularly blunt way, terrorists.
Is any of this likely to happen? Of course not. Will this be to the long term advantage of the Palestinians. Of course, not. Nor is likely to do Israel much good.

I have a longer post in the " Will Youmans" thread I won't repeat here. The key point is "who says there is a 'way out'?" One or both sides may be mistaken in their preferences, but I don't see any resolution that all the critical sides would prefer to war.

>>Belgian apologist<<

That's it, I am out of here. [reghall] doesn't even have the decency to use my name nor point to whatever he thinks is apologetic in my comment. I wouldn't be surprised if prejudice against Belgium is actually implied by his name calling. I will now leave all Sharon supporters talking to themselves, that's going to make for an interesting discussion for sure.

Now that it's all Sharon supporters, let's get down to what really matters. Is it enough that we give Sharon the Nobel Peace Prize, or maybe we should actually carve him into Mount Rushmore? I wish I had a daughter, so that I could dream of the day in which she married our man Ariel.

If only under the belt attacks on critics of Israel was a new thing... It's not to the honor of the participants to this thread though.

I don't think we are due a "mea culpa" from the Prof for his excerpting. Perhaps he should apologize for overestimating the price of bandwidth and storage space - printing the whole paragraph and his interpretation of it might have saved us the trouble of following in his logical footsteps.

But, let me try. First, the paragraph:

"But the power of the media to repeat, re-repeat and underline simple assertions, combined with the untiring efforts of the Israeli lobby, means that it is now locked into place that the Palestinians chose 'terror instead of peace'. Hamas and Islamic Jihad are seen not as a (misguided) part of the struggle to be rid of Israeli military occupation, but as part of the general Palestinian desire to terrorise, threaten and be a menace. Like Iraq."

Meaning what? Well, I think an extremely reasonable interpretation of this text is: Due to the power of Western media and the Israeli lobby, Hamas and Islamic Jihad are seen, not as they are, but as they are not.

And what, then, are they?

"... a (misguided) part of the struggle to be rid of Israeli military occupation."

I think this flows quite naturally, and leads to the DeLong condensation of:

But the Said article is considerably worse than that. What is one to do with phrases like:

I know--and you know--and Edward Said knows that Hamas is not fighting against the Israeli military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, but for...

I think it is clear what Said was getting to, clear that the Prof understood it, presented it fairly, and objected.

"But the power of the media to repeat, re-repeat and underline simple assertions, combined with the untiring efforts of the Israeli lobby, means that it is now locked into place that the Palestinians chose 'terror instead of peace'. Hamas and Islamic Jihad are seen not as a (misguided) part of the struggle to be rid of Israeli military occupation, but as part of the general Palestinian desire to terrorise, threaten and be a menace."

Scott;

In essence, Said says: "Because of pro-Israeli propaganda, people see Hamas this way (as motiveless malignants) instead of that way (as misguided soldiers of independence)." And "that way" is implicitly the way we should see them and would see them if not for the media and the Israeli lobby. So I see no distortion in attributing to Said the view that "Hamas and Islamic Jihad [are] a (misguided) part of the struggle to be rid of Israeli military occupation."

To Jean-Philippe,
This is long string, you will admit. I couldn't remember your name, you silly boy.
I am sufficiently non-belgo-phobic to have lived there for 6 years and sent my children to good Wallon schools. As for being an 'apologist for the PLO' just revisit the spleen in your contributions about the Israelis. I notice that you did not refure any of my points.
Why don't you grow up.

I didn't bother to read the above posts, so forgive me if this goes over old ground.

Is one not allowe literary flourishes or rhetorical exaggeration?

For example, when President Bush calls Iraq, Iran and N. Korea, the 'Axis Of Evil'. Clearly that isn't true. It's not even nearly true. But no-one says that he is the Scum of the Earth. Even though at least one of his Axis is probably about ten times better than most of his allies...

Even if we didn't have the words of Hamas' charter, I for one could not accept any claim that they were now killing for an end to occupation, because they could have an end to occupation without killing. The map that Jean-Philippe has linked to certainly indictates that the Israeli offer would have entailed a kind of Swiss-cheese Palestinian state. But it would have taken Israeli troops out of the lives of the Palestinian people: it would have ended occupation.

That is not to say that the Palestinians should therefore have accepted the Israeli offer, or that there was some categorical moral imperative that they cease fighting. Historically, people have fought rather than accept what they saw as an inequitable territorial division. But not , usually, with these kinds of tactics: terrorist attacks on civilians.

Said, while renouncing the tactics, still obviously wants to mitigate their horror. So he links them to the struggle against occupation. I believe it is a false linkage.

>>Why don't you grow up.<<

Non-excuses accepted I guess... Quick question: is politeness more appreciated and cultivated among grown-ups or teenagers?

My problem in this country is actually the opposite: any moral argument a teenager could NOT have is a non-starter (like Bush's with or against us argument that basically turned Europe's sympathy into sarcasms in the blink of an eye...) You're either good or evil, right or wrong. An anti-Israel PLO apologist... A radical uneducated idealist... or a good American patriot / vassal. And so forth. It is basically impossible to lay down a moral logic that doesn't end with 'bad' or 'evil'.

Now, Hamas is as bad and as close to evil as it gets down there. I'd have to be wicked to think otherwise. But making this point in a vaccuum, making it the end of the story and using Hamas' murderous record to discredit all Palestinian analysts is... what should I say... unconstructive.

I am not saying we shouldn't be able to expect from Palestinian intellectuals a more reasonable attitude than Said's. But, given our self-righteous indiference to their humanitarian crisis, I think it's as good as it will get these days. I'd like to see how resonable your rhetoric would get if your country was under military occupation, your children uncapable of attending schools etc.

As far as your account of Camp David II goes, I am going to have to classify in my huge file titled "The unverifiable myths about Israel one has to believe to take part in a conversation with an occupation supporter without being insulted of {anti-semitism / apologism / one sided-ness / imaturity / etc}". The indecency of Barak's proposal is the only objective piece of information there is, but all we have been hearing for two years is how generous his offer was, yes, again and again. In fact, little before Camp David II, Barak retracted from an earlier proposal Arafat had tentatively accepted as an engaging starting point.

My purpose is not to claim that Arafat and co. had the most contructive negociating strategy that could be but that when folks like you boil it down to Arafat turning down an incredibly generous proposal by Barak, I cannot help but thinking it's a outright attempt to brainwash the public. And as a matter of fact, Gosh Shalom comes out with exactly the same conclusion.

It's amazing how taking a peaceful and non-racist stance these days has turned into an act of radicalism. New concepts like the "inaceptability of moral equivalency" are cooked up every day by occupation suporters to muzzle dialog and discretit morally negociation supporters. This tells me a lot about the way Western politics have been evolving lately. If you were standing at the center prior to 9/11, you inivitably sit on the left today, on a whole range of topics.

And if "growing-up" means starting to see the world in puritanical black and white for the purpose of feeling confortable in and around not-so-silent and oh-so-articulated and so-morally- superior backers of human rights abuses, well then I vow to stay young forever.

>>Said, while renouncing the tactics, still obviously wants to mitigate their horror. So he links them to the struggle against occupation. I believe it is a false linkage.<<

I believe his mistake was not to note in any way the atrocious character of attacks on civilians (he does so for 9/11 but not in the context of Palestine). He sounds tired of having to apologize for Arafat, Saddam Hussein, and all Arab regimes before being able to make any counter-point. On that account I can understand him.

It seems that it will only be when we will have turned the whole world into a giant Middle-East that people will mature to Said's idea that it is dangerous to de-politicise terrorism. In doing so we deligitimize the grieviances of large groups of peaceful people for the crimes of a few. It is as important to reward peaceful civil dessent as not to reward terrorism, because otherwise the net effect is more than often in favor of terrorists.

And yet, at the end of the day, Professor DeLong is right, I think, to point out that among Hamas' objectives is the elimination of all Jews from Israel. But to see this as a reflection of rempant Islamist fundamentalism among Palestinians is misguided I believe.

My reaction in this thread comes from the fact that when this is said, it needs to be added that Jewish settlers have exactly the same objective vis-a-vis Palestians. Because otherwise, what we go home with is again this childish black and white vision of all-good Israelis fighting off all-murderous Palestinians.

>>It seems that it will only be when we will have turned the whole world into a giant Middle-East that people will mature to Said's idea that it is dangerous to de-politicise terrorism. <<

If all Said were doing was insisting that we go beyond facile slinging of epithets ("evildoers doing evil"), then I would have no problem; even such a strongly pro-Israel commentator as Michael Kinsley makes that very point. But the actual commentary posted here goes far beyond that, into an implicit insistence that Hamas be 'understood' in terms which are extremely partial and misleading.

And yes, there is also a large body of opinion (in Israel and the U.S.) which reflexively reaches for forced and tendentious comparisons, justifications, mitigations, etc., for anything done by the IDF.

By "the actual commentary posted here" I of course meant Said's commentary, not Jean-Phillipe's.

>>into an implicit insistence that Hamas be 'understood' in terms which are extremely partial and misleading.<<

I aggree wholeheartedly, Jeffrey. Basically, Said is guilty of the very thing he is trying to denounce, i.e. a simplistic and morally bancrupt vision of the reality of the Middle-East and the Arab world, as far as he is concerned regarding Hamas, and its true objectives.

It's too bad because he is more accurate on some other points. But he decridibilizes himself by not transforming the point when it comes to things he is ideologically attached to.

It's a big planet, so I'm sure there are people who believe in all-good Israelis fighting all-evil Palestinians (or the converse). But does anyone here really hold that position?

For those interested in an expert bi-partisan discussion of what took place at Camp David II, I warmly recommend looking up Bitterlemons.org

[reghal], indeed the PA and some peaceful elements within the Israeli government attempted to rescue Camp David II by continuing the negotiations in Taba, Egypt. Palestinians participated in these very enthusiastically in fact, wrongly assuming that Camp David II had been a success, in that a number of previously tabou issues had been put on the table.

But by that time, however, a serious change had taken place in Israeli politics. As the new elections approached, Barak's government showed more and more weakness and the Taba talks lost their significance.

Re: why now? Because we can't really afford to go much deaper into misery than the current situation. One side or the other is going to soon make a tragic and irreparable mistake (namely transfer and/or a massage act of terrorism). It is time to lend a strong harm to Labor, especially if they get out of the government, as is likely to happen this week.

Walt, you are obviously not one of those, nor am I. I am thinking of the lurkers who lach more or less anonymously at either side of the debate every few posts. There is a selection bias here, only relatively moderate and reasonable people will dare to use their real name in the debate. If you're a (semi-)extremist from either side of the spectrum, you don't think exchanging respectful views is worth it, anyway.

massage act of terrorism => _massive_ act of terrorism, sorry.

it must be that I need a massage after all these hours sitting in from on my computer screen... ;-)

"It's a big planet, so I'm sure there are people who believe in all-good Israelis fighting all-evil Palestinians (or the converse). But does anyone here really hold that position?"

My imagination is running wild. Around sixty years ago, almost certainly someone else said:

"it's a big planet, so I'm sure there are people who believe in all-good allies fighting all-evil Nazis (or the converse). But does anyone here really hold that position?"

I would rather describe the present circumstances in this manner:

I believe in the mostly good Israelis fighting the all-evil Palestinians who actually hold power. The more moderate Palestinians either remain silent--or are murdered by the militants.

"The unverifiable myths one has to believe etc":
Do you, Jean-Philippe have a similar file of unverifiable myths one has to accept to support the PLO position? If not then it seems to me that your regard for the truth is asymmetric. Definition; "An apologist is someone who defends a belief or an idea." (As an aside what is so awful about being an apologist?) Are you not an apologist for the Palestinians? Now, careful, I did not say 'Arafat'.
"Arafat turning down an incredibly generous proposal" Where did I say this? Or even imply it? I said that Arafat made no counter-proposal and that the Israeli map put forward before Camp David was modified later in favor of the Palestinians. You presented the map as the Israeli offer which was a half-truth at best. It was their starting proposal.
You either don't understand English very well or you choose to twist words - the prerogative of apologists the world over.
I have no problem with supporting the Labor position is Israel. It is more sensible than that of the Likud. Given the violence taking place every day out there it is highly unlikely that they will win whatever help you provide.
For the rest your riposte was a lot of empty , spiteful blather about Israelis and their supporters.It bore little relevance to what I said.

apologist

\A*pol"o*gist\, n. [Cf. F. apologiste.] One who makes an apology; one who speaks or writes in defense of a faith, a cause, or an institution; especially, one who argues in defense of Christianity.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary,

Upon close inspection, I find apologist not to be the neutral word you are trying to make me (un)learn... especially in this context. When you posted your "Belgian apologist" it was highly suggestive that I was trying to apologize for Hamas, whereas it was obvious I wasn't. I am not even trying to apologize for the PA, I am trying to establish balanced facts in the flow of massive Likud-like propaganda.

>>You presented the map as the Israeli offer which was a half-truth at best.<<

I took the map from official Israeli sources in the hope that this would help make my point. This map actually already embeds most of the concessions Barak was ready to make. Want to compare it with maps from a flash presentation by Gosh Shalom? And if you are refering to Taba, as Gosh Shalom notes, Barak, a political corpse by the time he made the concessions, later repudiated himself the newer map. And it still falls short of 1967.

>>You either don't understand English very well or you choose to twist words<<

Do you speak any other language than abuse, Mr. Anonymous?

"I am trying to establish balanced facts in the flow of massive Likud-like propaganda."

Is somebody hinting that Likud propaganda is responsible for Bernard Lewis' thesis that much of the Muslim world wallows in self-pitying rage and bitterness? Are we to assume that Lewis is merely a tool of the Likud party for warning that the Islamic radicals have absolutely no interest in seeking peace with the so-called infidels in Israel and the other Western nations?

Is Likud propaganda responsible for the overwhelming number of reports concerning Islamic fascist anti-Semitism and intolerance toward democratic principles and religious freedom? Wow, those Likud people are really sneaky. They sure had me conned! It must indeed be a Likud plot to distribute copies of the Elders Of Zion throughout the Arab countries. Don’t they have any shame? it appears that the Likud party is even putting on a TV series in Egypt based on this historical fraud. Last but not least, it was most likely the Likud zealots that organized the attacks of 9/11.

>>Is somebody hinting that Likud propaganda is responsible for Bernard Lewis' thesis that much of the Muslim world wallows in self-pitying rage and bitterness?<<

I believe thoughts and opinions travel so fast and so far that it is basically impossible to know what's exatcly the effect of proganda by a group of people on an an other's thinking. Lately, for example, Christian conservatives seem to be taking inspiration from Likudists, and in turn now, Putin from Whashington's hawks... (the very reason a lot of people got nervous about the preemptive strike theory in the first place.)

>>Is Likud propaganda responsible for the overwhelming number of reports concerning Islamic fascist anti-Semitism and intolerance toward democratic principles and religious freedom?<<

I aggree that Islamic fundamentalism has a life of its own. But it is certainly exacerbated by Likudist propaganda and policies as well as by Western attitudes and policies. In turn, Islamic fundamentalism is exacerbating intolerance vis-a-vis Arab culture and Islam both in the West and in Israel. That's my main point: things and ideas, however good or bad, don't come to life and evolve in a vaccuum.

The positive spin on this is that by modifying our attitudes in a positive way, we're likely to affect other people's attitude. This was one of the greatest strenghs of Gandhi's non-violence opposition to Brittish colonialism. I wished Palestinians would have the intelligence to emulate him. But it takes the very type of trust in the other's ability to respond positively to peaceful dissent that we're unwilling to display towards Arab people...

“The positive spin on this is that by modifying our attitudes in a positive way, we're likely to affect other people's attitude. This was one of the greatest strenghs of Gandhi's non-violence opposition to Brittish colonialism.”

Nonviolent methods fail miserably when dealing with fascist dictatorships. Gandhi took advantage of the basic decency of British society. A Stalin, Hitler, or Saddam Hussein, would have immediately put him to death.

“I wished Palestinians would have the intelligence to emulate him.”

Some Palestinians have opted for peaceful dissent. Unfortunately, these folks are often murdered by the militants for allegedly collaborating with the enemy.

“But it takes the very type of trust in the other's ability to respond positively to peaceful dissent that we're unwilling to display towards Arab people...”

Huh? Where is the evidence to support this peculiar red herring?

>>Nonviolent methods fail miserably when dealing with fascist dictatorships. Gandhi took advantage of the basic decency of British society. A Stalin, Hitler, or Saddam Hussein, would have immediately put him to death.<<

An other thing that saved Gandhi is how brilliant and decent a person he was; would he have been anything shorter than "perfect", I am not sure he would have been treated the way he was. Which brings me to say that while I aggree with your receiving hand argument, I think that in the context of Palestine it can also be used to explain the inconsistency of the methods of rebelion on behalf of (moderate) Palestinians.

Sharon has recently repressed pretty brutality (deaths insuing) the few attempts at peaceful demonstrations Palestinians have done recently. Sharon surely wouldn't want them to opt for these tactics on a more consistent basis, that would take away his raison d'etre. And the PR has been done perfectly: few if anyone here seem to be aware of these peaceful raillies that took place around Ramallah and elsewhere.

>>Huh? Where is the evidence to support this peculiar red herring?<<

David, you're the first one to state that Arab regimes cannot be trusted to clean their own house and Muslims to react positively to good faith engagement on our part. And your view, are basically those of the current administration.

To those who still don't understand my point about the interdependency between Islamist fundamentalism and ultra-Zionism (and vice-versa!), I would like to ask the following question: Do you think the whites' perception of African-Americans as prone to violence are a reaction to or the root of African-American anger and mistrust of white people (please don't suddently start blanking about slavory, seggragation and KKK.)

Why would you care to point this out? Because besides applying to rule of law to all American citizens regardless of their skin color and their cultural backgroung, what matters most is to do everything we can to avoid human tragedies on all sides.

From that perspective, reaching out to minorities, scholarships for minorities, expressions of racial tolerance, strict defense of civil liberties, and subsidies education for inmates etc may matter as much if not more than the strict application of the rule of law in preventing violence. And yet, most people stop with saying, "criminals are bad people they should be [hurt]."

In other words, if the US was applying Likudist policies towards minorities, America would just be one big racial riot battleground (recall the LA riots ?). Does that mean that I think criminality is morally acceptable? No one more time. But if your concern about life is more than just rhetorical, then Likud-type of logic is, at best, the most stupid course of action to take.

"Mr Anonymous" It does not take a huge amount of intelligence to figure out that my name is Reg Hall, J-P. If you have difficulty with this, then I fear I am wasting my time.
Secondly, your definition is from Webster. A good dictionary. Mine is from Random House, also a good dictionary. You have no idea what I was thinking when I called you a 'Belgian apologist'. To be precise, in my definition you are an apologist for the Palestinians. Where did I mention Hamas?
That your map was not the final position of the Israels is certain. It was not the final position of the Israelis at the end of phase I of Camp David. But that is irrelevant. My point, still unrefuted, is that there was never at any point a counter-proposal from Arafat.
Now, please go back to growing up. You have some catching up to do.
Just to be sure,
Reg Hall

Consider yourself in ignore mode as far as I am concerned. And while you're at it, Mr. Reg Abuse Hall, go click on this web site's policies at the top of the page, to figure out whether or not your behavior fits in this forum, just to be sure.

And for the rest of us who would happen to care about what actually happened at and after Camp David II, here are some exerps from a fascinating article by Uri Avnery entitled Barak: A Villa in the Jungle:

Barak and Morris say that Arafat "kept saying 'no' to every offer, never making any counterproposals of his own." The record does not bear this out.

And I'll reserve this last one for Reg Hall:

[...] A wise old Hebrew adage says: "He who finds fault (with others) finds his own fault."

The only sign of immaturity I see with you, Jean-Philippe, is that you bother acknowledging a jerk like Reg...

I have read many different accounts of the Taba negotiations. Why should I believe this one over other ones?

“To those who still don't understand my point about the interdependency between Islamist fundamentalism and ultra-Zionism (and vice-versa!), I would like to ask the following question: Do you think the whites' perception of African-Americans as prone to violence are a reaction to or the root of African-American anger and mistrust of white people (please don't suddently start blanking about slavory, seggragation and KKK.)”

It is a huge mistake to conflate Islamic fascism with the plight of American blacks. The latter, earlier in our history, were indeed powerless victims. This was never the case with the Muslims who once dominated the world’s arts and sciences. The exact opposite is actually true. It might behoove one to read Bernard Lewis’ “The Muslim Discovery of Europe.” The great scholar contends that the ethnic and cultural arrogance of the Islamic leadership is an important reason for the decline of their civilization. They thought that anything produced by a non-IsIamic source wasn’t worthy of consideration. Needless to add, this attitude provided the West with the opportunity to eventually catch up and surpass them.

The Islamic fascists are bigots who desire to impose their ideology on the rest of us. They hate us not for our faults, but our virtues. These totalitarian thugs are not victims, but victimizers.

I would go even further than David here. The question of whether the West is solely responsible is not even relevant to the question of what we should do about radical Islam, just as the Treaty of Versailles is not relevant to what we should do about the Nazis. Both the means and the ends of radical Islam are unconscionable to us, and we must oppose them.

That said, I'm not averse to strategies that minimize the hatred directed against us. But not in such a way that we provide encouragement or reward to the terrorists.

>>The great scholar contends that the ethnic and cultural arrogance of the Islamic leadership is an important reason for the decline of their civilization. They thought that anything produced by a non-IsIamic source wasn’t worthy of consideration. Needless to add, this attitude provided the West with the opportunity to eventually catch up and surpass them.<<

Up until the pre-modern era, Islam was in general religiously more tolerant, and at times by far, than Christianity (with ups and downs of course). Many Spheradi communities prospered for many centuries around the Mediterraean in and around Muslim learning centers. Sepharadis were often trusted counselors to local Muslim lords etc. Even the Ottoman Empire was more tolerant towards Jews (and Chrisitans in fact) than medieval Christianity.

That's not so surprising as, in many ways, Islam is theologically much more akin to Judiaism than Christianity. For example, Islam recognizes Jesus Christ as a prophet but not as the messiah nor even less the son of god. To a Muslim thus, the crucifixion of J.C. has no more nor less meaning than the mistreatment of an other devine envoy. (This is not a statement of faith but just comparative theology - I beg you to argue with the facts if you disagree.) The inquisition and cruisade actually did more harm to Jews than Muslims all together.

>>just as the Treaty of Versailles is not relevant to what we should do about the Nazis<<

I actually aggree with you, Walt. Except that the point Keynes made was that we shouldn't have writen a Treaty of Versailles to begin with. I believe we stand at the verge of doing something similar with the War on Irak II (and even perhaps North Korea). The pessimistic version is of course that Iraq's embargo is already the equivalent of the Treaty of Versailles... On the other hand, neither Saddam Hussein nor any Arab leader is threatening the West with a war - wheres regarding Hitler, both Europeans and Americans dug their heads in the sand regarding Hitler's invasion plans.

The current illusion of afinity between Christian conservatives and conservative Jews is due to a deep misunderstanding about the theological underpinnings of conservative Christians' interest in Jerusalem and the holy land. To Christian fundamentalists (arguably only a segment, albeit not a negligeable one in this country, of Christian conservatives), proselitism (read conversion) is, again, the ultimate goal of their supposed tolerance to Judaism... I believe most conservative Jews are deeply aware of this but believe the (temporary) aliance worthwhile (which is surprising in a historical perspective!) in the context of their struggle against Islamism.

>>I have read many different accounts of the Taba negotiations. Why should I believe this one over other ones?<<

Walt, untimately this will hang upon your personal opinion about the relative trustworthiness and knowledgeability of the different journalists who have written on this subject. Personally, I tend to entrust people who have a real interest in peace, over those whose aim is either perpetuating the conflict for personal ideological or political reasons, or justifying their failures. I would not give more consideration to an account of Camp David by a member of the PA than by Barak for that matter (that's why I didn't quote any of that stuff.)

Accounts from the Clinton camp give the illusion of thrustworthiness, but Clinton's breach of agreement with Arafat about not blaming either side in case of failure, makes me suspicious. I believe Clinton really did want to make history on this one as well, but the running of Hilary in New York elections and her explicit courting for Jewish votes is one of the wild cards (especially since at that point one could argue Bill owed Hilary big time...) (And don't get me wrong: I don't think there is anything intrisically wrong with chasing Jewish votes - any more than any other group.)

I tend to believe the Clinton account because the details were corroborated by several different people. In that account, Barak and Arafat had reached a deal, and then after the fact Arafat (when talking to the Clinton administration) added many additional side-conditions that had the effect of undoing many of the terms of the deal.

I think the situation in Iraq (and perhaps North Korea) is closer to Nazi Germany remilitarizing the Rhineland than it is to the Treaty of Versailles itself. The ceasefire that ended the Gulf War had clear terms that included an inspection regime. If Saddam can flout the inspection regime, what does that say about the U.S.'s will to enforce the terms of the ceasefire?

Quoting Uri Avnery:

"In order to hide his catastrophic character weaknesses, Barak invented the historic lie of Arafat's rejectionism, now accepted by almost all Israelis and the world at large. "

Just a quick (and perhaps irrelevant) comment...

If you read the press in many parts of the world, the record is far more favorable to the Palestineans. In other words, 'world at large' in the expression above probably means USA, Israel and a handful of other countries.

"On the other hand, neither Saddam Hussein nor any Arab leader is threatening the West with a war -"

Why are you returning to that old red herring? It is very unlikely that Saddam Hussein will ever openly declare war on us. Instead, he has a long record of sending in terrorists to do the dirty work. Our real concern should be that one of Saddam's thugs will sneak into New York City with some sort of bomb in his suitcase. This scenario is far more likely if we continue to procrastinate.

Uri Avnery's version of what happened at Camp David (and afterward) is supported by at least one credible eyewitness - Robert Malley, who was a member of Clinton's negotiating team at Camp David. His account of Camp David, which he calls "the tragedy of errors," is worth reading.

Uri Avnery is a member of the left wing of the Israel's Labor party, well to the left of Shimon Peres.He is generally regarded as a pacifist. Note that I don't use this as a term of abuse. He was not in the room when Clinton was brokering the final sessions. Why should I believe him over Clinton? Worth noting too,that he is free to advance this view in Israel. It's hard to imagine a Palestinian being allowed to support any pro-Israeli view.
Secondly, as to the abuse, if you read back through the string you will find ,J-P, that the abuse made its appearance in your first response to my initial comment, the result of a misreading of what I was implying about your position.You then chose one definition of 'apologist' to justify this. You implied I was contributing anonymously even though you used my name, misspelled , in an earlier parenthetical comment and your entire set of contributions is replete with sneers aimed at people who don't agree with you. (Just for the record though I am pro-Israel in the sense that, unlike Hamas and Hezbollah, I do not want it annihilated. But I am not a supporter of Sharon.) You interjected a nasty speculation about my Belgo-phobism,which is as far from the truth as one can get.
And neither you nor anyone else has refuted the statements I made in my first comment unless trying to suffocate me with Avnery-inspired logorrhea* was supposed to do that.
Now let's see if you can stick to the admirable resolve expressed in your last ad hominem contribution.
Reg Hall
* 'Logorrhea' has two meanings, by the way.

I'm now rereading that Uri Avnery article in detail. It is incredibly poor. It's full of random speculation about the character and motivations of Clinton and Barak, and rationalizations for Arafat. My personal favorite is the way he justifies how Arafat could not give up possession of the "holy mosques", because no Muslim could stand for it, but Barak and Clinton should have been willing to give up the Temple Mount because there is no evidence that Solomon is a historic figure! There's also no evidence that Muhammed ascended to heaven from that spot either, so why the greater solicitude towards the feelings of Muslims?

I don't think the "Tragedy of Errors" article really confirms Avnery's account. Clearly Barak and Arafat did not get along, and it's no secret that Barak was a mediocre politician and negotiator. But that does not change the essential facts: Barak and Clinton could not get Arafat to offer any concrete proposals at Camp David, even preliminary ones, and at Taba Barak and Arafat reached an agreement, but then Arafat started adding new conditions.

Arafat's new conditions involved the "right of return". I don't think Israel will ever accept any meaningful right of return. They make accept token numbers of refugees, and they may be willing to pay reparations, but they will never accept a large-scale influx of Palestinians into Israel proper. If the Palestinians cannot give way on this point (and Avnery strongly implies that they can't), then there really will never be peace in the Middle East.