Peter:

You write:

"Davai is irritating.

Davai can be wrong-headed in what he says.

But can you really point to comments that are racist?"

You're a good man and I can tell you that your decision to post here was a real boost to me personally. Sometimes it can be really frustrating and seemingly futile to post about Israel; indeed some alleged lefties at the Cafe seem to take the position that if you choose to spend precious time posting about Israel then you are not a real corn casseroled, artery-clogged American. This is one of those times I'm feeling spent so I think I'm going to take a wee break to catch my breath. Some parting observations:

Last week we had two major events, one macro and one in our own little cubbyhole at the Cafe. We had the Annapolis conference and we had MJ Rosenberg on a major television news program. So what do we get? We get MJ Rosenberg, a nationally recognized spokesperson on matters concerning Israel, calling davai racist and even questioning his bona fides because he left the totalitarian Soviet Union for the United States rather than to Israel. It's nonsense and its downright offensive to the dozens of Jews I know from the Soviet Union who love this country at least as much as MJ does (if not more because MJ has grown up in this free country like most of us and unlike davai who grew up in a totalitarian state).

Now davai has not and does not get a pass from me by any stretch of the imagination. He's contentious and posts too much and can be offensive. And his obsession with MJ (and his never-ending colloquies with Howard (sorry Howard)) can just ruin a thread. But that is ultimately a management issue and davai is no more racist than some of the faux populists and other alleged lefties who spew the same talking point drivel on here day in and day out. So I'm taking a little breather, call it a Hannukah hiatus, from playing the role of one of the house zionists around here.

Zionista was absolutely correct to challenge MJ's poisonous and stifling barbs at davai, and MJ is particularly wrong for ignoring Zionista, who is a long-time and regular poster. I am becoming less and less convinced, and it hurts me to say this, that MJ takes this forum as seriously as many of us do (and when I say many I mean folks who take all different positions on the I-P conflict). If I'm correct, and I hope I'm wrong, then MJ is blowing a unique opportunity to address a very diverse and intelligent group of posters.

But thanks Peter for not being afraid to swim against the tide at times. I will continue to read every word you write.

Bruce

Posted at December 3, 2007 7:05 AM in response to Olmert and Abbas Go For It

Deleted

Posted at December 2, 2007 1:56 PM in response to Olmert and Abbas Go For It

Davai:

Today is my daughter Noa's first birthday and we just had a wonderful time with family and friends. The only thing I will say is that if my soulmate Zionista is upset then so too am I. Over the past year Zionista has earned my unwavering respect and admiration and I am proud to stand with him/her.

Bruce

Posted at December 2, 2007 1:58 PM in response to Olmert and Abbas Go For It

"Maybe, as lally suspects, the Israelis aren't as serious about peace as they claim to be."

Maybe you and lally are right that the Israelis might not be serious about negotiations. I'm not here to argue the contrary, or to question the bona fides of the Palestinians. My principal point was plainly and remains about the negotiations process. I guess I believed that was a critical point to make in this discussion frankly. But if you're right that this could be all about the Israelis having no interest in good faith negotiations then of course the process would not matter and what I thought was critical becomes irrelevant.

Posted at December 1, 2007 10:05 AM in response to Olmert and Abbas Go For It

Wordie:

"Stupid, stupid, stupid. This action has probably undone much of the goodwill that was projected at Annapolis, and the extremists can use it to sow doubts. It didn't even take the administration a week to screw up."

I agree that the United States, in a diplomatic sense, acted with absolute and extraordinary imprudence by first offering and then withdrawing the Security Council Resolution. Clearly, as reflected in the piece you cite to concerning the reaction of Hamas, such a clumsy diplomatic maneuver gives fodder to those who claim that Annapolis is a farce.

It appears, however, from the first article you cite that both the Israelis and the Palestinians opposed the introduction of the Security Council resolution (although there is no direct Palestinian confirmation), and I have to tell you that from a negotiating perspective I believe that the introduction was, at best, extremely ill-timed, especially since it was done without first consulting with the two principal parties to the negotiations. Annapolis, if it was anything, gives a broad, albeit not entirely complete international imprimatur for negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians to proceed. Now, if it has any chance of working, you have to let the Israelis and Palestinians have a go at it.

The toothpaste is out of the tube and the bargaing table is set. . .again. There will be time later and it will be necessary for others, including in my view the voices now reflected in political Hamas, to chime in on what will be. As in this case, the continued missteps of the Bush Administration in the diplomatic realm has and will continue to make things that much more difficult. But it is what it is. The real measure of success or failure will emerge from the proverbial smoke-filled room.

Bruce

Posted at December 1, 2007 8:33 AM in response to Olmert and Abbas Go For It

John:

"You better believe the Supreme Court is a critical issue."

Under this and any future GOP Administration, membership in that Federalist Society has essentially become, and will presumably continue to be, a condition precedent for nomination to the Supreme Court, and to every federal district and appellate court as well.

Not pretty.

Bruce

Posted at November 27, 2007 2:07 PM in response to JFK: "I Guess Experience Doesn't Count"

"The comments on this so far are very telling.
Mr. Rosenberg, I do believe you've hit a sore spot for Clinton supporters."

I'm not sure I understand your point. Sounds like snark sans substance.

Posted at November 27, 2007 10:25 AM in response to JFK: "I Guess Experience Doesn't Count"

MJ:

"Intelligence? All our candidates are smart. Experience? They all have it. Character is where they differ. That is where the decision has to be made."

I am inclined to agree with you implicitly about the importance of character. But how does one go about judging character in a modern-day campaign? By prior voting history? By flip-flops? By things said in a carefully-tailored stump speech?

I ultimately want a Democrat in the White House for a number of reasons and so I think, if I weren't bound by certain institutional considerations, I would look to which of the Dems is most likely to win in November of 2008. On this point, I believe even HRC is less likely to embroil us in stupid international conflicts than ANY of the other serious GOP contenders, and I also believe that on important social issues that we don't emphasize as much at the Cafe because there is probably more consensus on such issues than we see in the international arena (like the composition of the Supreme Court which I believe is a critical issue), any of the Democrats trumps any of the Republicans.

So ultimately I guess my principal consideration would be electability.

Bruce

Posted at November 27, 2007 8:06 AM in response to JFK: "I Guess Experience Doesn't Count"

Mythbuster:

You seem to be suggesting that Bill Clinton blamed Arafat BEFORE the November 2000 election for a breakdown in negotiations, and that this was done for the purpose of helping his wife get votes in New York (presumably from the Jewish bloc). I had not heard that before. May I ask where you are getting your information from? It doesn't seem to make sense with my understanding of the timeline, which was that, even after Camp David concluded in the summer of 2000, the parties continued to meet on and off through January 2001. Thanks.

Bruce

Posted at November 28, 2007 3:06 PM in response to On Hamas, Saud al-Faisal Agrees with Colin Powell who Agrees with Brent Scowcroft who Agrees with Zbig Brzezinski who. . .

Thank you.

Posted at November 27, 2007 6:24 PM in response to On Hamas, Saud al-Faisal Agrees with Colin Powell who Agrees with Brent Scowcroft who Agrees with Zbig Brzezinski who. . .