The American Spectator : Peace for Land

Print Email

Text Size

Peace for Land

By Jay D. Homnick on 1.26.10 @ 6:07AM

Knowing Obama after Massachusetts is in no position to hit back, Netanyahu made his move.

"So, Sadie, why do you look so happy today?"

"I got a letter from my son Abe in Israel."

"And how is with Abe?"

"He lost all his money in a business, his apartment was damaged by a bomb and he had to wait a month to get a refrigerator."

"Then why so happy?"

"Because mine Abe writes such a beautiful Hebrew!"

This bit of Jewish gallows humor encapsulates much of the modern experience of having coreligionists, often relatives, in Israel. The grind of their everyday battle for survival is tolerated while the astonishing phenomenon of the revenant country and language is celebrated. The perfect metaphor for life in Israel is the ubiquitous habit there of eating sunflower seeds. They jam a fistful of unopened shells in their mouths, then walk down the street spitting the shells while somehow extracting the seeds with teeth and tongue, swallowing only the seeds. Israelis spend their lives dodging shells of one sort or another.

One of these is the shell game of the world-demanded American-sponsored Europe-monitored peace talks with the Palestinians. As matters are currently constituted, these are simply impossible to bring to a satisfactory conclusion. Sounds shocking, but no less true for all that.

Back in 1993, when the Oslo Accords were signed, there was a possible road to success. Arafat would accept most of the West Bank except for the fully built cities of Maaleh Adumim, Kiryat Arba and the group of closely aligned towns of the Etzion Bloc. The neighborhoods built onto Jerusalem since 1967, such as Ramot and Gilo, would remain intact on the Israel side. Additionally, the Rabin government at that time actually began a large new city called Modiin, historically the base of the Hasmonean kings who defeated the Greeks. Modiin was designed to even out the line between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv to flesh out a more natural and defensible border.

The fact that Arafat was silent about Modiin was understood to mean the final outlines of the peace were in place. Although he put up roadblocks to stall a final agreement, his official objections concerned issues of repatriation of Palestinian refugees, water rights, financial arrangements, the powers of the Palestinian Army and the like.

However, all that progress has long since been undone. First Clinton and then George W. Bush managed to fumble near the goal line, get intercepted, sacked and thrown for a loss on consecutive plays. Once Bush announced (with Sharon's apparent acquiescence) the United States supported a two-state solution, something never hitherto enunciated openly, the Palestinians learned to play much-harder-to-get. Now they are demanding all the settlements back, including the neighborhoods fully woven into the fabric of Jerusalem life, plus East Jerusalem as a capital, all without giving ground on the repatriation claim.

Add to that the fact that Mahmoud Abbas no longer represents all the Palestinians because Hamas usurped much of his territory by both plebiscite and coup. The result is that his only appearance of power is achieved by saying no, because if he would say yes he would be exposed as unable to deliver. This is like the penniless tenant who refuses to pay the rent until you paint the apartment but won't allow your painter to enter.

Enter Obama stage left into this farce on January 20, 2009. He declared the situation to be so ridiculously easy that everyone knows what must be done, Israel gives up x, Palestinians give up y, the new equation is z, case closed. He deputized Hillary Clinton and former Senator George Mitchell to mop up while he turned to more complex matters of state. The Israeli electorate responded by presenting him with Benjamin Netanyahu, the only leader on the world stage whose English and stage presence rivals Obama. Netanyahu then got to play good cop to his own bad cop, enacting a species of settlement freeze with time and space limits. Abbas, on the other side, has dug his heels in, looking more intransigent by the day; he has no choice anyway, as outlined earlier.

So in essence Israel has been negotiating with America, trying to please America, making gestures and concessions to America, because it has to please America. Pleasing the Palestinians is irrelevant and in any case impossible. Netanyahu has endured a series of snubs by Obama, through it all wearing a public face of bonhomie.

Now, still smiling, Netanyahu has piggybacked on the Massachusetts moment (Jews may not eat pig but they may take benefit) to dig out of his hole. Knowing Obama is in no position to hit back, he made his move. He met with George Mitchell Sunday morning, praised the Senator for offering new initiatives, and then he went to ceremonies in Maaleh Adumim and the Etzion bloc to declare they are "indisputable" parts of Israel. Perhaps those areas should declare Scott Brown an honorary Senator.

The Etzion celebration was particularly significant, because it was held on the site of the Arab massacre of 130 Jews on the day before Israel declared independence, and Netanyahu delivered his promise to the great-grandson of one of the victims.

Where will things go from here? It is a sad reality that negotiations are no longer feasible. The only long-term solution is for the Palestinians to develop their institutions to the point they declare their own state and live in peace. They can keep their demand on the table for the settled territories but de facto ignore them, much as China and Russia do with their disputed lands. But at least Israel has received a small respite; while Obama bows to the Saudis and Chinese they don't have to bow to him quite so obsequiously. They can focus again on all their other hardships and joys; spit out the shells, swallow the seeds.

topics:
Barack Obama, West Bank, Benjamin Netanyahu

About the Author

Jay D. Homnick, commentator and humorist, is a frequent contributor to The American Spectator. He also writes for Human Events. Here he performs his original composition, "Buy You (Bayou) a Drink".

Letter to the Editor View all comments (87) | Leave a comment

S.L. Toddard| 1.26.10 @ 7:25AM

"Now they are demanding all the settlements back, including the neighborhoods fully woven into the fabric of Jerusalem life, plus East Jerusalem as a capital, all without giving ground on the repatriation claim"

I'm not sure that one is expected to "give ground" in order to have one's stolen property returned.

Stuart Koehl| 1.26.10 @ 8:41AM

Does this mean you advocate a return of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California to its "rightful owners"? I'm willing to compromise on that one--Mexico can have California, as long as they assume California's debt.

Aside from that, Toddard engages in precisely the kind of invidious judgments that characterize the paleo-con anti-Israel position.

I heard nothing whatsoever about Jordan's unilateral annexation of the West Bank in 1949, or of Egypt's incorporation of the Gaza Strip. These are apparently non-events, as was the refusal of both Egypt and Jordan to integrate the Palestinians into their citizenry, keeping them instead in squalid refugee camps because it suited their own political agendas.

There is no mention of the repeated attacks into Israel from its 1948 borders by armed Fellahin (precursors of the PLO) supported by both Jordan and Egypt until 1956, or the refusal of the Arab states to recognize Israel and rescind the state of war between them, or the numerous acts of armed aggression by the Arab states culminating in the closing of the Straits of Tiran, the proximate casus belli of the 1967 war.

Toddard also ignores the exemplary stewardship of the occupied territories while the were under Israeli control, so that Palestinian living standards quickly became the second highest in the Arab world (something similar seems to be happening in the West Bank today, in contrast to the continuing poverty of the Gaza Strip under Hamas).

Why Toddard things Israel "stole" anything from the Palestinians is beyond me, particularly as there never was any such thing as a Palestinian nation or a Palestinian polity. Prior to 1918, Palestine was just one district of the Ottoman territory of Syria. Prior to the 1890s, a plurality of the people in Palestine were Jews who had either been there for centuries, or who had come to the Holy Land to die in the land of their fathers. In fact, if Mark Twain and a variety of 19th century gazetteers are to be believed, Palestine was largely depopulated until the Zionists began immigrating, establishing farms and industries, and thereby attracting Arabs to the newly prosperous region.

Since the position of the Palestinian Authority remains "one Palestine from the River [Jordan] to the [Mediterranean] Sea", and since it still considers all Jewish land in Palestine to be "stolen", the inescapable conclusion one must draw from Mr. Toddard's concurrence with this position is he does not recognize the legitimacy of Israel at all, and is, de fact, in favor of abolishing the Jewish state.

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.26.10 @ 9:22AM

Stuart,
very nice post. Thank you.

You wrapped it up so darned concisely, I can barely believe it. That post goes into my permanent document files.

S.L. Toddard| 1.26.10 @ 10:04AM

“Does this mean you advocate a return of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California to its "rightful owners"?”

I am not aware that America’s possession of those lands is in legal dispute. Could you cite me which international laws America is violating by possessing them, or any organs of international law which have declared America’s possession of them illegal?

“I heard nothing whatsoever about Jordan's unilateral annexation of the West Bank in 1949, or of Egypt's incorporation of the Gaza Strip”

Of course you haven’t. Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank is not germane to a discussion of the legality of Israeli settlements.

“There is no mention of the repeated attacks into Israel from its 1948 borders by armed Fellahin (precursors of the PLO) supported by both Jordan and Egypt until 1956, or the refusal of the Arab states to recognize Israel and rescind the state of war between them, or the numerous acts of armed aggression by the Arab states culminating in the closing of the Straits of Tiran, the proximate casus belli of the 1967 war.”

Of course there isn’t. Attacks against Israel a half century ago are not germane to a discussion of the legality of Israeli settlements today.

“Toddard also ignores the exemplary stewardship of the occupied territories while the were under Israeli control, so that Palestinian living standards quickly became the second highest in the Arab world (something similar seems to be happening in the West Bank today, in contrast to the continuing poverty of the Gaza Strip under Hamas).”

I did no such thing. Israeli stewardship of the occupied territories decades ago is not germane to a discussion of the legality of Israeli settlements today. You have very bizarre expectations when you engage in conversation. It is odd – you expect a person to start jumping all over the map, wandering off into irrelevancies and non sequitur, and talking about everything except the subject at hand – as you yourself are doing here.

Perhaps you have ADHD.

“Why Toddard things Israel "stole" anything from the Palestinians is beyond me”

Really. Are you unaware that the EU, myriad UN organs, UN security council resolutions etc and the International Court of Justice have found the settlements illegal under international law? Is this profound ignorance feigned, or is that knowledge truly “beyond” you? If you are aware – if you know that the consensus of the international community is that these settlements are illegal – then why pretend to be baffled as to why anyone else would agree?

“Since the position of the Palestinian Authority remains "one Palestine from the River [Jordan] to the [Mediterranean] Sea", and since it still considers all Jewish land in Palestine to be "stolen", the inescapable conclusion one must draw from Mr. Toddard's concurrence with this position is he does not recognize the legitimacy of Israel at all, and is, de fact, in favor of abolishing the Jewish state.”

*sigh*

I don’t understand why you can’t discuss this forthrightly and honestly. First you put on a phony show pretending to have no idea – that it is “beyond” you – how anyone could ever think those settlements illegal when that is the consensus of the international community and the majority of international law organizations. Now you dishonestly attribute to me positions I do not hold. It’s a bore, truly.

Please cite where I concur with the Palestinian position that “all Jewish land in Palestine” is “stolen”, or retract.

Stuart Koehl| 1.26.10 @ 5:54PM

So, Mr. Toddard, you consider the unilateral declaration of independence of the Republic of Texas was legitimate? On what grounds? If it is, why not the Rhodesian unilateral declaration of independence? In contrast, the establishment of the State of Israel was the result of a United Nations declaration partitioning Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab (note--NOT "Palestinian") state. Israel accepted that partition, but its Arab neighbors did not. As a result of the ensuing war, some of the territory that would have belonged to the Arabs ended up in Jewish hands, and vice versa.

Vae victis, Dude.

If the Israelis had behaved as the Arab states did, then there would be no Palestinian issue today, because, well, there would be no Palestinians in Palestine, just as there are no Jews in Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Egypt, Syria, Morocco, Algeria, etc. etc.

Why are there no Jews in those countries? Because the Arab governments expelled them all in 1948-49, kicking them out with barely the clothes on their back (a cache of ancient Jewish religious texts confiscated by Iraq in 1948 was recently discovered mouldering in the basement of the former Ba'athist security services; Iraq has the chutzpah to claim them as property of the government of Iraq).

In contrast to the Arab states, which refused to extend citizenship to displaced Palestinians, but instead kept them cooped up in foetid refugee camps, Israel accepted all the Jewish refugees from the Arab states, and managed to integrate all of them into Eretz Israel, despite the strained financial condition of the Jewish State in its early years, and the necessity of taking people, many of whom had been eking out a medieval subsistence living, and assimilating them into a modern, 20th century society. The contrast in behavior is striking indeed, and says just about everything you need to know about the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

SoCon| 1.26.10 @ 6:22PM

Good first post, Stuart--except for your cheap shot about California. Too easy and so predictable, nasty and unnecessary barbs about my state have become commonplace and boring.

It's beneath you.

Can't you get a new shtick?

Stuart Koehl| 1.27.10 @ 7:03PM

Sorry. Of course, you could move to Arizona or New Mexico. Millions of Californians are doing just that.

SoCon| 1.28.10 @ 12:59AM

Turning tail and running doesn't come easily to some people, Stuart. Some of us have family responsibilities that we take seriously, too.

Thanks so much for all your concern, though.

S.L. Toddard| 1.26.10 @ 7:57PM

I'll be happy to address each question and point here, but first thing's first: Could you cite me which international laws America is violating by possessing "Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California", and any organs of international law which have found America’s possession of these territories illegal? If not, to what "right" are you referring when you speak of "rightful owners"?

Are you unaware that the EU, myriad UN organs, UN security council resolutions etc and the International Court of Justice contend that the Israeli settlements are illegal under international law? If you *are* aware – if you know that the consensus of the international community is that these settlements are illegal – then why pretend to be baffled as to how anyone else could agree?

And please cite where I concur with the Palestinian position that “all Jewish land in Palestine” is “stolen”, or retract.

victor| 1.26.10 @ 9:17PM

S.L von Toddard:
"And please cite where I concur with the Palestinian position that “all Jewish land in Palestine” is “stolen”, or retract."

S.L.: "Israeli stewardship of the *occupied territories* decades ago is not germane to a discussion of the legality of Israeli settlements today."

By referring to the lands as *occupied* that Israel won in defensive wars against her own person by Arab belligerents, you admit that you believe that Israel stole that land.

Please cite the years and circumstances that prove Israel *stole* those lands.

victor| 1.26.10 @ 9:22PM

S.L. von Toddard:
"if you know that the consensus of the international community is that these settlements are illegal"

Consensus???
You mean the *consensus* that Global Warming exists?
You mean that kind of *consensus*?

How about the *consensus* that the Earth was the center of the Universe, so much so that men were put to death for saying that it was not so?

You mean that kind of *consensus*?

And how about the *consensus* that George Washington was an *isolationist*?

Yes, yes, let's talk about *consensus*!

BTW don't forget to fill out your 2010 Consensu Form, eh?

S.L. Toddard| 1.27.10 @ 7:12AM

“By referring to the lands as *occupied* that Israel won in defensive wars against her own person by Arab belligerents, you admit that you believe that Israel stole that land.”

Oh my. Dear Victor – I was quoting Mr. Stuart Koehl, who wrote that “Toddard also ignores the exemplary stewardship of the occupied territories while the were under Israeli control”. Just so we’re clear, here – because Mr. Koehl wrote that, it is your opinion that he believes “that Israel stole that land?”

“Please cite the years and circumstances that prove Israel *stole* those lands.”

What lands?

“Consensus???
You mean the *consensus* that Global Warming exists?
You mean that kind of *consensus*?”

Actually, yes. That a broad consensus exists is not (obviously) proof that the consensus is correct, but such a broad consensus precludes the implication that an opinion consistent with that consensus is some sort of obscure, fringe idea, as Mr. Koehl pretended earlier.

U.R.E. Toddard| 2.5.10 @ 12:55PM

Gee whiz, if impartial organizations like the UN says the settlements are illegal, that settles it!
For the first time in history, a country is expected to return territory it won in war - esp. a defensive war! That abolishes the implicit threat of "Don't start with me or you may lose some of your territory!", a threat that has prevented many wars throughout history.
If we need to tolerate the corrupt UN to wring out the little bit of good they do, let's not fool ourselves by actually quoting the UN as some sort of arbiter of morality and right.

Rich Rostrom| 1.29.10 @ 5:46PM

"armed Fellahin (precursors of the PLO)"

ITYM Fedayeen - "fellahin" are Egyptian peasants.

Reinhard| 1.26.10 @ 10:14AM

Based on this logic, the entire North American continent should be considered stolen property. Unless, Mr. Stoddard, you feel the land was properly purchased from the indigenous population.

Rick| 1.26.10 @ 2:10PM

Twenty four dollars just doesn't buy what it used to.

(The value of the trade goods exchanged by Peter Stuyvesant for Manhattan Island, New York City)

Rick| 1.26.10 @ 2:10PM

Twenty four dollars just doesn't buy what it used to.

(The value of the trade goods exchanged by Peter Stuyvesant for Manhattan Island, New York City)

S.L. Toddard| 1.26.10 @ 3:18PM

"Based on this logic, the entire North American continent should be considered stolen property"

What logic?

Christopher Holland| 1.26.10 @ 8:11PM

Your logic. Or are you so nuanced that you argue with yourself?

SoCon| 1.26.10 @ 9:48PM

Perhaps Toddard's arguing with those pesky voices in his head once again.

S.L. Toddard| 1.27.10 @ 7:17AM

"Your logic. Or are you so nuanced that you argue with yourself?"

My logic is that under international law there are Israeli "settlements" that are illegal. Now, based on "this logic", why should "the entire North American continent" be "considered stolen property"?

Reinhard| 1.27.10 @ 9:42AM

You're splitting hairs, basing your argument on the Israeli settlements as "stolen property". Does that mean you agree that the current Israeli "footprint" except those settlements is legal? I don't get that impression given your previous posts. I"m suggesting that you feel the entire country is on land stolen from the previous owners. History is full of examples of various groups of people displacing others as a result of conflict. My point based, on your presumption of Israel stealing land, is to draw a parallel to the Europeans displacing the native population in the Americas yet in your case it's theft an in the American case it's legitimate. Using your argument, people all over the world should be demanding their land back. England should revert to the Saxons, Brazil should revert to the natives, the Dutch should leave South Africa, northern Poland should be returned to the Germans, the Chinese should leave Tibet, the U.S. should vacate Hawaii. In summary, your notion is naive. If international law, such as it is, should to be applied to the Israelis, it should be grandfathered to include a whole series of thefts.

S.L. Toddard| 1.27.10 @ 10:13AM

"I"m suggesting that you feel the entire country is on land stolen from the previous owners."

That would be incorrect. I was speaking to the settlements only, not all of Israel.

Reinhard| 1.27.10 @ 10:56AM

Let me try to conclude this. Do you believe the state of Israel is legitimate because of UN resolution 181 (1947) and your only point here is that they are breaching international law in creating settlements beyond the original footprint.?

S.L. Toddard| 1.27.10 @ 1:12PM

Yes. Read my original post (top one): I took issue with the line "Now they are demanding all the settlements back... without giving ground on the repatriation claim" to which I responded "I'm not sure that one is expected to "give ground" in order to have one's stolen property returned" (in reference to the land the settlements were on).

Alan Brooks| 1.26.10 @ 2:58PM

Because of Nazism, Nietzsche got an undeserved reputation as an antisemite, the National Socialists adopted Nietzsche, not vice versa. Nietzsche refuted Wagner's antisemitism in his (title apropros) 'Nietzsche contra Wagner'.
Jews are scapegoats, as even most antisemites secretly know. However, though scapegoatism and jealousy are, as always, a factor, there are-- naturally--other factors. For one, gentiles don't like the way many Jews look. Because of the intense nature of antisemitism, a non-Jewish semite can possess the same physical appearance as a Jewish person and be treated in an entirely positive manner, unlike very many Jewish persons.
Related to this are the racial-sexual obsessions encountered, but by no means limited to, in Hitler's 'Mein Kampf'. Hitler's prose is so bad it is scarcely worth quoting him, yet because of Hitler's enormous (to say the least) impact, a quote or two from him might be illustrative. In 'Mein Kampf' Hitler wrote of "crook-legged" Jewish men seducing 'Aryan' girls and women. Related to that, in turn, Hitler wrote of the "promiscuous bastardization" of the races, reproductive miscegenation, which he claimed is engineered by the Jewish "race".
Around the time of the 2008 US elections, the Stormfront white supremacist organization claimed the Jewish "race" promotes the degradation of American culture by mixing the "cultural" substance of the "races". Naturally, Stormfront is an extreme example of antisemitic organization, yet organizations such as Stormfront (the name of the organization to a small extent invokes the Nazi Stormtroopers) are serious and do represent the inchoate sentiments of many antisemitic sympathizers who, though not violent antisemites such as Stormfront, share the militants' dislike or hatred of Jews. Stormfront used Janis Ian, a Jewish musical composer and performer, as an example of a "Jewess" whose lyrics and music allegedly degrade gentiles by infusing "Aryan" and Black musical and literary genres. Even without this by now completely stale race-baiting trajectory, such is almost comical, because entirely non-Jewish musical composers have done far more than Janis Ian to infuse Black musical memes into so-called "Aryan" music. The famous heavy-metal and Pop "Blues-Rock' musical combo Led Zeppelin, for starters, has done exponentially more to fuse Black Blues (and some Jazz-- Jazz being a derivative of blues) into "White" music. In Led Zeppelin's case the imitation of the Black Blues idiom has been direct, utilizing the Blues of, for instance, the Black composer and performer Wille Dixon in Led Zeppelin's studio and live-performing repertoire.
Many other examples of composer-performers who infused Black Blues memes into other (including Asian) musical "cultures", can be cited; from Eric Clapton to the Rolling Stones, and-- it goes without saying-- the Beatles, the most famous Pop-Rock group ever. The Beatles recorded and performed several Black-composed works: Little Richard, Robert Johnson, and more than one track that had originally been composed for a Black girl group.
So Janis Ian was transparently, and ludicrously, used as a scapegoat by Stormfront; in fact she hadn't been born when Black Blues and Jazz memes were incorporated into popular music.
The more educated, and many antisemites are uneducated or poorly educated, antisemites and white supremacists point to Jewish involvement in Communism, and it is embarrassing that the father of Communism was Jewish. However, his outstanding assistant Fredrich Engels was not Jewish, and neither was Vladimir Lenin, the principal founder of active (rather than theoretical) Communism. Leon Trotsky, who was Jewish, was a chief assistant to Lenin, but Trotsky was politically eliminated by the non-Jewish Joseph Stalin less than ten years after the 1917 Russian Revolution, not to mention how Trotsky was killed by an agent of Stalin roughly a dozen years after Stalin assumed absolute power in the Soviet Union.
Jews have not been, and are not today, disproportionately represented in Communist agitatory activities. Communist governments have virtually ceased to exist, and depictions of direct Communist influence in government is apocryphal.
Most Communists have been Asian-asian, not Jewish-"asian", as the latter has been claimed for over a century: "Jewish-asian" hordes straight out of Genghis Khan was a recurring propaganda myth decades before the Red Army invaded Nazi Germany in 1945.
And no one did more, not even Stalin himself, to bring Eastern armies farther into Mittel Europe than Mongolia had ever come, than Adolf Hitler and his National Socialists.

Richard Baker| 1.26.10 @ 7:34AM

Go Bibi!

loulou| 1.26.10 @ 11:58AM

I second that! Go Bibi!

Jim O'Brien| 1.26.10 @ 7:37AM

The book to read is "The Israel Test" by George Gilder.

Obama and his Sec. of State Clinton want Israel to make unilateral concessions to the terrorists. Obama had Miranda rights read to the Detroit bomber, and will give the 9/11 planners the rights of U.S. citizens in a court in NYC. Obama is giving aid and comfort to our Islamist enemies, while they seek to annihilate Israel AND the United States. Obama should be impeached.

Melvin| 1.26.10 @ 8:13AM

Until the foreign policy of Gamal Abdel Nasser that was adopted by the Arabs in the Arab war of attrition with Israel is dropped, nothing will change.
Arabs display to faces, the face that they show to American Presidents, and the other face of proselytizing the destruction of Israel to their people and proxy armies.
The Arab nations will never ever be at peace with Israel, until the Western Nations admit this, there will be no path to peace with either side.

Old Joe| 1.26.10 @ 9:40AM

Every time I read an article like this I ask myself the same question. Are American Jews Democrats first and Jewish second? Do they put their political party before their allegiance to their fellow Jews in Israel? Every Republican president for as long as I can remember (I am 64 years old) has been a strong supporter of Israel and every Democrat president I can remember has been a strong supporter of the PLO. What goes on in the mind of an American Jewish voter?

S.L. Toddard| 1.26.10 @ 10:13AM

"Are American Jews Democrats first and Jewish second? Do they put their political party before their allegiance to their fellow Jews in Israel?"

Are you implying that American Jews have a dual-loyalty, and that this dual-loyalty should favor a foreign nation-state over America? Do you believe Jews *are* disloyal to America in that way, or that they *should* be?

Old Joe| 1.26.10 @ 10:26AM

I lived in south Florida (Brooklyn with Palm Trees) for a number of years and in a neighborhood predominately Jewish. During that time I learned a lot about Jews from my interactions. I learned how they had been persecuted in every corner of the world. I learned that they were clannish and justifiably so for self protection. I learned that they all professed a love and support for the holy land. I learned to respect them and Israel greatly. I learned that as a whole they are very hard working, productive, smart, and family oriented. I learned that they were typically strong in their religious beliefs. I also learned that they vote as a solid Democrat block for the very people who love the PLO and hate Israel. Go figure.

jd| 1.26.10 @ 3:09PM

Classic case of the self-loathing Jew.

Bob Miller| 1.26.10 @ 10:56AM

The mind of "Toddard" cannot comprehend that the US and Israel have any moral and strategic interests in common. In the morning, he must see some irreconcilable conflict between putting on the right shoe and putting on the left shoe.

William R| 1.26.10 @ 11:06AM

Israel has no strategic value to the United States. None! It has no resources. What it has is a very powerful lobby in this country and evangelical rapture Christians

S.L. Toddard| 1.26.10 @ 11:07AM

How does our one-sided support of Israel *benefit* us "strategically"? How does that relationship enhance our security?

jd| 1.26.10 @ 3:16PM

If you cannot understand the strategic benefit to the US in supporting Israel, you should not be on this blog.

Throughout the history of the whole peace process, Israel has been the one making honest efforts toward peace. Palestinians have the saboteurs in this process. To deny such is to deny reality in the name of bias.

Bibi is one shrewd politician. I take offense to the author in this article equating Bibi's speaking style as being on par with Obama's. Bibi is in a league all his own and his speaking ability and diplomatic strategery far surpasses anything that Obama can "hope" to emulate.

S.L. Toddard| 1.26.10 @ 3:19PM

"If you cannot understand the strategic benefit to the US in supporting Israel, you should not be on this blog."

Really. How does our one-sided support of Israel *benefit* us "strategically"? How does that relationship enhance our security?

GW| 1.26.10 @ 3:59PM

Well, for one Israel won't give the nukes they have (which I'm sure they do) to terrorists as would Iran. Instead of giving Israel money and trying to coerce them into pointless "negotiations", we should take the leashes off the hounds and let them get rid of our muslim problem for us. The jews have a much better reason for attacking Iran or Syria than we do. In essence, they can fight a common enemy as they have more incentive in doing so, and we don't have to get bogged down trying to democratize a culture that is stuck in the 7th century. And BTW, the common enemy is from the same cloth that have killed and want to kill more innocent Americans/Westerners simply because they're not a certain sect of muslim. But obviously you know more about global politics and interests than say...John Bolton or Bibi Net. The CIA should consider hiring you and Pat Buchanan for some consulting work.

S.L. Toddard| 1.26.10 @ 5:21PM

Did you post that under the wrong comment? My questions were: "How does our one-sided support of Israel *benefit* us "strategically"? How does that relationship enhance our security?" If you have no answer for that, don't worry - there isn't one.

"The jews have a much better reason for attacking Iran or Syria than we do"

I'm sorry - don't you mean "Israel"?

GW| 1.28.10 @ 3:39PM

I'll type slowly this time so you can read. Israel is a stable, democratically elected government in a region of high instability and corruption. It is also a non-Muslim country. Now I know you live in a fantasy world where Muslims and Christians and Jews and Buddhists and Atheists all hold hands and sing Kumbaya around the camp fire, but imagine the world from a realistic view at least for the time being, one where jihadists still exist and still want to kill westerners. NOTE: This is where I show Israel is much more friendly to American interests than, say, the Arab-bloc.

Iran's government has called the United States the "great satan" and Israel the "little satan." Now I know Ahmadinijad is probably a decent man in your world, but I'm not too trusting of the maniacal Hitler of our time. NOTE: This demonstrates both Israel and the United States share a common enemy.

So why should we support Israel? Well, if you would read MY comment, I have argued what we are doing isn't working, and propose a change as well. Instead of trying to buy a false, temporary stability, I insist we reduce aid to Israel (and most other nations as well) and in turn stop pressuring them into giving concessions to a terrorist group posing as a legitimate governing body. NOTE: That's right, I'm actually arguing against American interventionism, which has prevented Israel from ridding terrorists from their borders.

They, with the knowledge we support their right to self-government and freedom from having rockets lobbed into their backyard by 7th century suicidal jihadists, will necessarily engage in military operations that benefit not only them but also us. NOTE: We win by default!

The reason Israel has a much better reason for keeping Iran and Syria nuke-free is proximity. Now unless you want Iran to become nuclear, or you want a decimated al-Qaeda to gain more leverage in carrying attacks, I'm sure you'd agree aligning with Israel is much better than whatever proposal you originally thought would benefit us "strategically."

Now unless you're worried about a Jewish-run state sending in suicide bombers to the rest of the world (I know, there's quite a precedence) then I think we might not want to alienate our closest ally.

Christopher Holland| 1.26.10 @ 8:17PM

Yeah, right. Who needs Israel when America has so many other friends, especially in the Middle East - Syria, Iran, the Palestinians, Egypt, Saudi Arabia? All these peace loving, prosperous democracies promoting freedom and American values. Screw the Israelis, what have they ever done for us.

William R| 1.26.10 @ 11:02AM

CIA report: Israel will fall in 20 years

http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=88491

Israel is hell bent on destroying itself. Demographics is destiny and by not creating a Palestinian state on the West Bank Jews will become a minority in their own country. It will be another South Africa. The world will begin to demand one person one vote!

If Israel is going to survive the the United States should follow Ronald Reagan's advice and become neutral in the Middle East. Neutrality! Then we can begin to act as honest peace brokers. It's going to take guts because of AIPAC and their fifth column in this country

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.26.10 @ 6:18PM

William,
Thanks for dropping in. You always give we adults in the room a chuckle.

You and Toddard ought to found a society of two...heh...to change the world..........to a cartoon.
You two are funny, just like a baby farting in the room...with a smile on his face.

Margie| 1.26.10 @ 8:30PM

HaHaHa! Great analogy.

SoCon| 1.26.10 @ 9:50PM

Old Texican you crack me up!

victor| 1.26.10 @ 10:16PM

Hey Ken, they already made a cartoon about Toddard and William. On Broadway, in fact:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li5nMsXg1Lk

The Toddard: This is the earth. And this is William. You can tell the difference quite easily. One is a lump of inert matter hurtling blindly through the void. The other... is the earth.

james wilson| 1.26.10 @ 11:08AM

Reagan taught us we are only likely to have exceptional leaders in a democracy when our backs are up against the wall, and even that is no guarantee. I think very highly of Netanyahu, the only Israeli leader I have ever seen that way.

Certainly Jews have divided loyalties--Karl Marx and the county of their most recent origin. Goyim increasingly are exhibiting the same disease, so we ought to know it well.

It is ironic that the Israeli questions are never settled because in fact the Israeli's will not do to their enemies what their enemies will enthusiastically do to them, and for all their rhetoric, the Palestinians know it. There will never be peace until the Palestinians have reason to know it.

Netanyahu's plan has been to finally turn Israel's socialist mindset into a capitalist one, with the power and dynamism that offers, harnessing Israel's lone asset, the intellect. He has been successful. Bless him, but every success will also increase the gulf with Israel's enemies. That too is a very old story.

S.L. Toddard| 1.26.10 @ 11:10AM

"Israel is hell bent on destroying itself. Demographics is destiny and by not creating a Palestinian state on the West Bank Jews will become a minority in their own country"

Israel has only one course of action available vis a vis self-preservation (with regards to the demographic threat) and reacquiring some square footage of moral high ground: it must 1) pull back to something resembling its 1967 borders, 2) remove itself from all colonized lands outside its 1967 borders (that includes renouncing control of the Palestinian ghetto and leaving them to self-determination), and 3) expel all Arabs from Israel. Step 3 would require some sort of humanitarian assistance for the emigrants, which perhaps the U.S. could help provide as some sort of grand-finale to the U.S. aid deal. Once Israel has taken these four steps, and stopped receiving aid from the U.S., it should be free to meet any attacks against it with whatever force it deems necessary without US interference.

John II| 1.26.10 @ 3:19PM

My dear Toddard, I think you should take a deep breath and reread your smug boilerplate, say, six times. You will then understand what it sounds like to me, inasmuch as you have said the same thing before. I will then happily accept your apology.

And I am shocked, SHOCKED by your impertinent, ideologically-obsessed, tin-eared response to the informed disquisition by Mr. Koehl. I am sorry to say so, Tod, but arguing with you is like arguing with a can of paint.

Which reminds me, I have to redo our garage door this spring. Thanks a hell of a lot for reminding me of THAT. And now back to Wyatt Earp and the final confrontation at the OK Corral.

Robert| 1.26.10 @ 4:22PM

Methinks you don't understand the simple concept of 'right of conquest'. Israel was attacked; conquered land formerly belonging to the attackers, and is now the legitimate owner thereof.

S.L. Toddard| 1.26.10 @ 5:22PM

I'm sorry, Robert, but no such "right" exists.

Stuart Koehl| 1.26.10 @ 5:58PM

Then I guess you'll be packing up your bags and heading back whence your ancestors came. Oh, wait! Whoever they are, they got there by "right of conquest", which of course, "does not exist"--at least in your mind.

The only recourse left to you is either moving to some uninhabited island unclaimed by any nation-state, or removing yourself from the face of the earth.

I know which would be better for earth.

S.L. Toddard| 1.26.10 @ 8:10PM

"Then I guess you'll be packing up your bags and heading back whence your ancestors came. Oh, wait! Whoever they are, they got there by "right of conquest", which of course, "does not exist"--at least in your mind."

Oh I see. So because dinosaurs roamed the earth millions of years ago, that means they "exist" today, in 2010. How marvelous! My nephew will be very excited.

Now, under what treaties does the United States (or any other Western nation) currently recognize a "right of conquest"? That was a principle of international law until the early 20th century, I understand, but I was under the impression that after Nuremburg and the UN charter etc that "right" was renounced by the civilized peoples of the world. Perhaps I am wrong - please, what court expressly recognizes the "right of conquest"?

Reinhard| 1.27.10 @ 10:20AM

I finally get your point about the Israelis stealing land. They missed the conquest deadline! Hey, maybe the Romans could try to sue to get their empire back, alas its not to be, no grandfather clause.

S.L. Toddard| 1.27.10 @ 2:45PM

So what you're saying is that Jews trying to recover their art, gold etc that the Nazis took when they conquered most of Europe - you believe those Jews are in the wrong. That gold is the rightful property of Nazis, yes?

Also, it was once widely accepted that victorious soldiers, after capturing a town, had the "right" to deal with the inhabitants however they liked - i.e. rape all the women, put them to the sword etc. Because that was considered a "right" at one point, it still is a right according to you, correct? You revere the Right To Rape?

Stuart Koehl| 1.27.10 @ 7:06PM

No, the Nazis lost (big time--you can look it up), and to the victors go the spoils. Now, some countries, such as the Soviet Union, took that literally, and simply socked away all their Nazi loot, because, well, they were Commies who did not believe in private property anyway.

But the rest of the European allies decided that Germany should make restitution for its wartime crimes, including restoration of stolen Jewish property to its rightful owners.

S.L. Toddard| 1.28.10 @ 7:54AM

Sure, of course, but the Nazis were within their rights to take that property from the Jews in the first place according to you, correct? Until the Nazis were conquered, that Jewish wealth they stole was the Nazis' property by right, no? Right of Conquest and all? Also, I assume you consider the Nazi extermination of the Jews of Eastern Europe etc as being within the Nazis' "rights" as well, yes? They were conquerors after all, and putting conquered peoples to the sword is a "right" various peoples have claimed throughout history, and since that was once considered a "right" it still must be, according to your thinking. Is that not correct, Genghis Koehl?

This actually explains a lot. The neoconservative embrace of torture initially seemed outrageous to me, but it seems now that it is simply one component of a general oriental-style barbarism you folks advocate. Torture, Right Of Conquest, secret gulags and torture chambers, rejection of the rule of law – taken in totality it's a rejection of Western civilization itself. Now, I suppose you will argue that Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran etc have no responsibility to adhere to Western notions of justice and civilization, that because we in the West have renounced the Right of Conquest does not mean that peoples in the Middle East have, that their notions of justice aren't more "barbaric" than ours - just "different" etc, and that the right of conquest, torture, pillaging etc are all consistent with Middle Eastern notions of "justice". But even if that is the case (and I'm not convinced that it is), we Americans, and we in the West, have renounced that sort of barbarism as inconsistent with the values of the civilized Christian West, and made those values manifest in international law. As such we have a responsibility to uphold our own traditions and standards and to expect (or at least hope for) better than barbarism from Middle Eastern peoples. We must at least condemn that sort of barbarism as beneath us, and pity them for it, and encourage them through our own example to embrace civilized notions of justice, compassion and humanity, no?

I seem to be getting ahead of myself – you have not yet accepted (or at least admitted) that we in the civilized West have renounced the Right of Conquest. Could you tell me under what treaties does the United States (or any other Western nation) currently recognize a "right of conquest"? That was a principle of international law until the early 20th century, I understand, but I was under the impression that after Nuremburg and the UN charter etc that "right" was renounced by the civilized peoples of the world. Perhaps I am wrong - please, what Western court expressly recognizes the "right of conquest"?

Reinhard| 1.28.10 @ 9:34AM

Wow...now we're all over the map on this issue. It's even brought out the ultimate bogeyman, the Nazis. When all else fails...

My point was not about "right of conquest". Mr. Toddard, you base your premise about illegal Israeli settlements on the violation of international law. I see that as a tenuous point. International law only carries weight if everyone agrees with that law and, more importantly, enforces it. Unfortunately this law is the product of a bunch of bureaucrats at the UN or the Hague (it guess...I'm not an attorney, nor is the source really important). My point is that whenever I see some outraged official cite "a violation of international law" my reaction, and I'm sure it's shared by many, is "whatever". It's rather like Canadians complaining that Americans drive faster than the Canadian speed limit, and the American respond with "thanks for sharing". International laws are like UN resolutions...universally ignored, unless they support an organic agenda . That gets to the heart of my, sloppy and rambling point. the Israelis are constantly judged against a set of external standards (laws etc.), yet others are not afforded the same criticisms. Adhering to international law, resolutions, etc is a noble concept, but reality bites and you can't judge one group for "violation" when violation is a universal activity.

S.L. Toddard| 1.28.10 @ 9:56AM

I'm sorry, Mr. Reinhard - that was a response to Mr. Koehl, not you.

As for the alleged irrelevance of international law, I'll just remind you that we are bound by such per Article 6 of the Constitution. You may argue that the Constitution is irrelevant and we need not adhere to it, but I for one cannot agree with you on that score - to argue that requires a love and trust of Big Government that I simply cannot muster. None of that changes the fact that the Right of Conquest was a principle of international law until the early 20th century but is no longer. Much like the "right" to put conquered peoples to the sword, that "right" has been renounced by the civilized world, through the medium of international law.

KyMouse| 1.26.10 @ 11:15AM

The Jewish people are the only people who have a land grant from God, as revealed in Genesis 15, Deuteronomy 1, and dozens of other passages in the Bible. God promised that the land would belong to Israel, but also that they would be driven out because of their disobedience toward Him and persecuted in many lands. At some point, He would bring them back to that land, and then they would never be driven out of it again. Even people who consider the Bible to be only a book, not the divine word of God, must admit that those things have come to pass.

The Jews are the only people who have been driven out of their land and returned to it almost two millennia later, speaking the same language and acknowledging (if not always worshipping) the same God -- the late Zola Levitt, a Jewish believer in Jesus, used to point that out all the time.

And about one in five of today's Israelis are Arabs, who enjoy freedoms and a standard of living that is the envy of the rest of the Middle East. In a recent survey, the vast majority said they would rather live in Israel than anywhere else.

KyMouse| 1.26.10 @ 2:40PM

I'll give three Bible passages for anyone who wants to see what I'm talking about in the above comment: Leviticus 26:36-39 (which warns of persecution in gentile countries), Deuteronomy 28:15-68 (which warns of many kinds of punishment) and Jeremiah 31:35-37 (which contains a reaffirmation of God's covenant with Israel).

The Jewish people and Israel, although small in number and size, have been a huge blessing to the rest of the world in terms of science, invention, literature, art and so much more. This morning, I took my generic medication (for osteoporosis) that's made by Teva, an Israeli-based pharmaceutical company. That's just one reason I'm grateful for all that Jews and Israel have done. I'll bet that each of you benefits in some way from them, too.

John II| 1.26.10 @ 3:38PM

For my part, I'm particularly grateful for the classic movies produced in the 30s and 40s and for the musicals of the fifties. And then there's the Marx Brothers and Burns & Allen and Jack Benny.

The Catholics are okay too: Lou Costello, John Ford, John Wayne (who was baptized on his deathbed after raising his kids Catholic), Spencer Tracy, Don Ameche, Bing Crosby, Karol Wojtyla (well--he never made it to Hollywood, but he was a great fan of Jack Benny's), Jack Oakie, Maureen O'Hara, Frank Capra . . . the list goes on.

Why, if it weren't for the Jews and the Catholics, I wouldn't have anything to do after work!

SoCon| 1.26.10 @ 5:43PM

Hey, you forgot that beautiful Catholic girl, Loretta Young; "... a symbol of beauty, serenity and grace."

Margie| 1.26.10 @ 5:22PM

..And most importantly, the Jews gave us Salvation. "You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for Salvation is from the Jews." Jn. 4:22.

Margie| 1.26.10 @ 1:15PM

"But Israel is saved by the LORD with everlasting salvation; you shall not be put to shame or confounded to all Eternity." Is. 45:17.
Just try and fight against God's will if you must. You aren't going to win!

Franklin| 1.26.10 @ 2:03PM

Don't remember the reason for or when it aired, but I remember the meeting with Bibi and little o. That was the one where little o never looked at Bibi, just the floor. That was because the little o could not bring himself to look directly at a better man than he was(is).

Bibi is a leader and one that will take care of his country because he loves it and it's citizens.

Little o could learn a lesson or two from Bibi.

John II| 1.26.10 @ 3:05PM

Thanks, Franklin. Nothing like cutting to the chase. Remember the portrait of Jimmy Carter drawn by the late, great MacNally? I mean, the huge, ornate wooden frame with the tiny image of the little Carter dangling from the bottom of the frame?

Our posterity demands a similar portrait of Professor Obama. Michael Ramirez, are you listening?

Margie| 1.26.10 @ 2:09PM

Imagine if Bibi Netanyahu were our President..instead of Obama. One can dream, can't they?

Helen Donnelly| 1.26.10 @ 3:02PM

Margie...what a grand dream...

Patriot| 1.27.10 @ 6:28PM

Not Brown ever! The guy's a pro-abort--kiss his presidential candidacy good bye!!

victor| 1.26.10 @ 10:24PM

Yes, a president that not only loves the people, his country and is willing to fight for her and them.
We've had a few of them in the last 60 years or so:
Truman, Reagan, GW.
With God's grace, we'll have another one in 2012.

Brown-Palin 2012!

Reinhard| 1.27.10 @ 1:42PM

As an independent conservative, I cannot understand the mindless attraction to Palin. If she's the standard, too bad Annie Oakley is dead. She'd make an even better candidate. Amazing.

Patriot| 1.27.10 @ 6:26PM

I can't understand the mindless negative bleating and braying about Sarah Palin. Some of you troglodytes must be threatened by a real woman.

Your incessant whining doesn't become you.

Reinhard| 1.27.10 @ 1:49PM

Even better: "With god's grace"...as though god (like there is such a thing) would give a rat's ass who's president of the U.S. Hmm..thinking about it, we're god's reality show...create us, then sit back and enjoy the fireworks. Pure entertainment.

Franklin| 1.27.10 @ 7:12PM

I'll pray for you, Reinhard.

If you don't believe in God, why are you so mad at Him?

Claudia Monteverdi| 1.26.10 @ 2:40PM

The bundle of comments preceding this not are telling. We have a scholrly denouncer of Israel, with any reference to "The Jews" well- veiled, we have the most adroit refutation from a gentlemen who should be composing the government's replies to the Supreme Court and of course the omnipresent rabble of all pedigrees..

I say to all of: Mr Homnick did it best and said it best. IIt's all there in every well honed word, in every disguised but still ever-apparent raw nerve of justifiable emotion.

In a short (but sweet) sentence: How damned good you are Jay H !

Great Work,
Claudia Monteverdi

William R| 1.26.10 @ 3:26PM

Not much of a reply I must say!

The one state solution is coming which will mean the end of Israel. Netanyahu a real visionary.

Claudia Monteverdi| 1.26.10 @ 4:47PM

Mister William arrrrrrrrrrrrrr--if you must you must----I tolerate buffoons and louts quite well.....Now this "one state solution" you speak of? Are you speaking of your much cherished caliphate The Al Qaieda States of America ? Mister William R--you stink of raw sewage on a midsummer high noon
Claudia Monteverdi

Margie| 1.26.10 @ 8:39PM

You nailed the creep, Claudia. The cowrd won't answer you, though. But his post said it all.

Claudia Monteverdi| 1.27.10 @ 11:43AM

Thanks Margie...well, he smells like a rat, and sounds like a rat...we don't really have to be too bright to guess what he tastes like...anyway, you were right on..he has vanished into his harem or whatever abbatoir in which his sort hangs out..
Claudia

victor| 1.26.10 @ 10:26PM

You guys had your chance back in 1947 for a two state solution.
But you guys got greedy and thought you could eat the whole pie. It ain't gonna happen twice.

PCP Smoker| 1.27.10 @ 2:34AM

Excellent piece. Good insight

Richard Baker| 1.27.10 @ 7:42AM

"Bible? We don't need no stinking Bible." Regarding the critics of supporting Israel, the above should be their motto. Their problem seems to be that these damned Jews just won't listen to them and die. Good. Go Bibi!