+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

Michael Oren's diplomatic psychobabble

Does the former Israeli ambassador really think that an imaginative psychoanalysis of Obama can explain away Netanyahu’s annexationist policies?

By Aviad Kleinberg

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry speaks to then Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren, Tel Aviv, April 9, 2013. (State Dept photo)

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry speaks to then Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren, Tel Aviv, April 9, 2013. (State Dept photo)

Michael Oren blames President Barack Obama for ruining relations with Israel, after the latter broke two sacrosanct rules that Oren himself came up with: that the United States and Israel should not have public disagreements, and that no steps should be taken to publicly embarrass the other side.

Oren is aware, of course, of the fact that successive Israeli governments (read: Netanyahu’s governments) have openly opposed U.S. policy (for instance vis-a-vis the Iranian nuclear deal), that every so often those governments declare new rounds of settlement building in the West Bank at the least opportune moments (say, for instance, when Vice President Biden visited Israel), and that they initiate rounds of violence against the Palestinians while openly and proudly declaring their oppositional stance. Oren even knows that Israel’s prime minister gave a speech to Congress without coordinating with the Obama administration, and did so in an attempt to drive a stake through the president’s Iran policy.

Oren has some very complex explanations for these all these annoying facts: the settlement announcements were never made by the prime minister himself, the attacks on Washington’s Iran policy are of the utmost importance to Israel — and the speech to Congress? Every Israeli leader would have done the same, and so on and so on. What is it so difficult for Oren to understand? The fact that Obama does not automatically support Israel, primarily that he does not automatically accept its settlement policies? Is it that President Obama dares to meekly protest the Israeli government’s unilateral steps.

That chutzpa — that the United States has policies which it doesn’t submit for Israeli approval — astounds Oren to a degree that he feels the need to explain it. Because neither the historical nor the political tools at Oren’s disposal can explain such madness (how is it possible that Washington doesn’t accept our annexationist policies?), he turns to psychology. Obama’s mother was married to two Muslim men. Oren reveals to us that Obama saw himself as a bridge between his mother and her husbands. Oren also dares to speculate “how that child’s abandonment by those men could lead him, many years later, to seek acceptance by their co-religionists.”

From now on, this is the mantra: he who does not accept Netanyahu’s annexationist policies suffers from deep-rooted psychological problems and is trying to seek acceptance in the eyes of his mother’s former husbands. In case you were wondering, Obama’s largess toward Israel — at least in the eyes of Oren — is a means for camouflaging his hostility toward us (which is expressed though his refusal to accept Netanyahu’s annexationist policies.)

But Oren’s interest in socio-psychology does not end with President Obama’s family history. Oren also has important insights into American Jews. “There were discussions in the White House in which there were six Jews – three Americans and three Israelis, discussing a Palestinian state — and the only non-Jewish person in the room was the president or the vice president.”

Since we now understand the psycho-familial roots of Obama’s hostility toward Israel, we expect those same Jews — who we hope are exempt from trying to seek the acceptance of their deadbeat Muslim dads — to support Netanyahu’s annexationist policies. And here it turns out that the Americans (the Jewish-Americans) did not meet Oren’s expectations.

Obviously, you’ll say, they are Obama’s poodles who were hand-picked to take part in a plot to seek acceptance from deadbeat dads! Actually, you’re wrong. It turns out that somehow, Obama’s advisors managed to reach the same political conclusions without having Muslim fathers.

Is that a problem? Not for Michael Oren, who believes that non-Orthodox and intermarried American Jews serving in the Obama administration “have a hard time understanding the Israeli character.”

So men: if you are Muslims, marry Muslim women. If you’re Jewish, marry a co-religionist, and it better be an Orthodox wedding. It’s nothing personal. It’s just that if you don’t act according to these rules, you may end up being a major problem for the Israeli government.

Michael Oren may be trying to analyze the Israel-U.S. relationship, but sometimes overdoing it only makes things worse. Chill out, Michael. 

Prof. Aviad Kleinberg teaches in the history department at Tel Aviv University and has a weekly column in Yedioth Ahronoth. A Hebrew version of this post first appeared on his blog.

Newsletter banner

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • LEAVE A COMMENT

    * Required

    COMMENTS

    1. Jello

      I believe that Oren is trying to explain Obama’s proclivity for tolerance of radical Islam and his persistent and deliberate sabotage of Israeli/American diplomatic relations. That Obama and Bibi disagree is one thing, that the White House and the President persistently insist on focusing on the disagreements and expressing their disappointment/anger/outrage towards Israel is very much a deliberate policy for an institution that has to deal with many other pressing issues.

      Perhaps he is also seeking to understand why Obama has proven incapable of pursuing any policy that did not consist of surrender, withdrawal and appeasement and why he expects other countries to base their foreign policy on his own views of how the world works which have been thoroughly discredited by recent history.

      Reply to Comment
      • Y-Man

        “That Obama and Bibi disagree is one thing, that the White House and the President persistently insist on focusing on the disagreements and expressing their disappointment/anger/outrage towards Israel…” If you think that the White House and the President “persistently insist” on disagreeing with Israel which gets more American support, diplomatically and monetarily, than any other foreign nation) more than, say, Russia or ISIS, then you’re either really stupid or you know you’re lying.

        Reply to Comment
        • Ginger Eis

          “If you think that the White House and the President “persistently insist” on disagreeing with Israel which gets more American support, diplomatically and monetarily, than any other foreign nation) more than, say, Russia or ISIS, then you’re either really stupid…”

          So, “ISIS” is now a “nation”? Gee, Y-Man! And you have the Chutzpah to tell Jello “your are really stupid” even as you refuted none of his arguments?

          Regardless,

          1. Reasonable people fail to see the point of using Russia and ISIS to make the kind of comparison you made above. All the friends of our good Ol’ US of A receive equitable diplomatic support from the US. Equitable support is that which is proportionate to specific diplomatic danger. Israel receives support that is proportionate to the dangers posed to her by Muslim(-Arab) nations who not only have an automatic majority in the UN to do as they wish with the Jewish State, but have vast financial assets and economic clout to lobby almost the entire countries of the UN against her. In terms of ‘equity’ the US gives equal diplomatic support to its allies (Nato Members, Japan, Australia, etc.). Israel does not receive more than others.

          2. Israel and the US have about 45 billion a year bilateral trade between themselves. The Jewish State buys over 14 billion from the United States and the United States buys about 24 billion from Israel. Trade between the US and Arab countries is (almost) non-existent – except for the 3 billion in oil the US buys from Saudi Arabia each year, which it actually does not need! The Jewish State manufactures the drones- and supplies much of the cutting-edge high tech used by the US Armed Forces, especially the US Air Force. Israeli hi-tech weapons systems are purchased by the US at far less cost than it would cost to develop them in the US. Although the US helps to fund the Iron Dome, that funding yields enormous dividends for the US in terms of transfer of technology that are considered “game-changer”. In total, technology from Israel are indispensable in keeping the United State well ahead of Japan and Germany and the Sole Military and Economic Super Power ever known to man! The paltry 3-billion dollars Israel receives from the US for weapons amounts to (LESS than) 1% (ONE%!) of Israeli GDP. And, surprise…surprise, 75% of that 3-billion dollars MUST be spent buying US military hardware and thus creating jobs in the US! Tens of thousands of Americans depend on jobs provided by over 200 Israeli high tech companies based in the US. Beyond that, those companies yield billions of dollars in revenues for the respective US states in which they are based! At best, the US gains more economically from Israel, not the other way round. At worst, the US and the Jewish State profit proportionately from each other.

          Accordingly, the idea that Israel receives milk and honey from the US, while the US receives nothing in return, is utter nonsense. It just ain’t true!

          Reply to Comment
      • Lo

        “Obama’s proclivity for tolerance of radical Islam”

        Haha, what the fuck are you talking about? Right wingers in America have been pushing the “Obama is a crypto-Muslim!” line for years now and it hasn’t become any less absurd or bigoted.

        “hat the White House and the President persistently insist on focusing on the disagreements and expressing their disappointment/anger/outrage towards Israel”

        I wonder if any other US presidents have become irate when Israeli leaders undermined standing, clearly enunciated US policies. I wonder if any of them did more than issue some testy rhetoric and then resume giving Israel everything it asks for and more.

        Pro tip: Saint Reagan told the Israelis to pound sand. Obama has showered Israel with more money than any previous president. It’s amazing when you actually look at what he’s done compared to the hysterical (and ugly) shrieking from right wingers about how radically dangerous Obama is.

        “pursuing any policy that did not consist of surrender, withdrawal and appeasement”

        Ask Osama bin Laden how he liked Obama’s “appeasement.” Bush said Syria needed to disarm its chemical weapons repeatedly, but who actually got them out? The right wing confuses arrogant belligerence with fortitude. Naturally, it doesn’t understand that the only reasonable thing to do after the overreach of the Bush years was to withdraw over-extended forces fighting pointless campaigns. But to right wingers today, refusing to get into a fight you know will accomplish nothing is “cowardice.”

        “why he expects other countries to base their foreign policy on his own views”

        BECAUSE HE’S THE FUCKING PRESIDENT OF THE FUCKING UNITED STATES. Israel’s status as a dependent client state notwithstanding, the US routinely encourages other states to either conform to its policy preferences or coerces them to not interfere. When states refuse to comply, the US either changes its objectives or compels compliance. This is nothing new (unless of course the black man does it).

        Reply to Comment
        • Jello

          1) “Obama’s proclivity for tolerance of radical Islam”
          The Obama White House supported the takeover by the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt. It refused to support the Green Revolution in Iran. It has been tolerant towards towards the fundamentalist Islamist government of Iran. It cozied up to the Islamists in Turkey. It has refused to name radical Islam as the problem that stands behind much terrorism in the world as in the cleverly named “Regional Conference on Countering Violent Extremism”.

          2) “Persistently insist on focusing on the disagreements and expressing their disappointment/anger/outrage towards Israel”

          Presidents have a lot of leniency in where they focus their time. Obama gets on television to berate Israel on a regular basis despite the fact that Israel is (1) a democracy (2) an ally (3) not very important in the grand scheme of things.

          3) “pursuing any policy that did not consist of surrender, withdrawal and appeasement”

          Or I can ask the interpreters in Iraq and Afghanistan that are being massacred since the United States has withdrawn troops from those countries. In the meantime Assad is still in power and still using chemical weapons. Russia has taken over Crimea and is taking over Eastern Ukraine, and while China is building artificial islands in the South China Sea. Oh, and let us not forget the fact that ISIS and al-Qaeda are alive and well and have attracted tens of thousands of recruits all over the world while continuing to launch attacks against Western targets.

          4) “why he expects other countries to base their foreign policy on his own views”

          And even as the president of the United States he is still delusional and pretty much a complete failure on foreign policy. The way he sees the world is fundamentally naive and wrong and this has been demonstrated repeatedly by recent events. A country basing its foreign policy on this moron’s idiotic view of the world will inevitably be worse off than one that ignores him. The United States is now a laughing stock in most of the world because it can neither coerce or compel. In fact it has effectively taken those tools off the table. The only tool in its arsenal is appeasement. The US can get away with this because it is a superpower. Other countries can not and so will do the only thing they can – ignore the White House and wait until the moron is out of power.

          Reply to Comment
    2. Pedro X

      Being Israel’s top diplomat in the United States, Oren was in a position to make first hand observations about Obama’s administration and its actions and words harming the fabric of the US-Israel relationship. It started early in Obama’s first term with the administration saying it was not bound by the understandings given by George Bush to Israel. Abbas himself said to Jackson Diehl that Obama pushed him up a tree and removed the ladder when he made settlements an issue. The Oslo Accords had already made them a final status issue but the administration could not leave the issue alone. Any flexibility that Abbas might have shown was denied him by Obama’s administration.

      Then Obama made his Cairo speech, a tremendous misjudgment. He did not follow up that trip with a trip to Jerusalem. When Netanyahu froze settlement construction for 9 months, Obama did not compel Abbas to commence negotiations. Abbas had been put so far up a tree by the Obama administration he could not come down. When Netanyahu released terrorist prisoners with blood on their hands, Obama did not require any quid pro quo from the Palestinians.

      The American administration has often criticized Netanyahu, even calling him a chickenshit. Yet Netanyahu had the ability and courage to speak in the American Congress to defend Israel’s position with regard to Iran. The administration of Obama had been saying there were two choices military force or a negotiated solution. Netanyahu pointed out the continuation of sanctions and tougher sanctions would bring Iran to abandon its program or negotiate a much better agreement than appears to be taking place.

      Israel is not the only Ally betrayed by the American administration. Most of the Gulf states would not send their leaders to the recent Camp David summit.

      Oren told David Horowitz of the Times of Israel, Obama’s actions in the middle east have shown him that Israel is on its own in facing the threats against it. The American administration will not prevent Iran from producing or using nuclear weapons should they choose to do so. The administration’s actions or inaction in relation to Syria is a perfect example of the American administration allowing its red lines to be crossed with no consequences. Iran noticed and does not believe that America would back up its talk with military action. Therefore it is free to act in the region as it wishes. It can arm Hezbollah with 150,000 missiles aimed at Israel with no consequences from the US. It can try to export more sophisticated weaponry to Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terrorist forces. It can intervene in Irag and Yemen. Its army can operate in Syria. The American administration of Obama has no action plan to contain Iran or its allies.

      If you lived in Israel like Michael Oren or Prime Minister Netanyahu, you would be concerned by the actions of Obama and his administration. As Oren said, Israel is on its own in confronting the challenges it faces.

      Reply to Comment
    3. Bruce Gould

      Once again, the solution, this time from an editorial in the Jerusalem Post: unilateral withdrawal, but a FAIR unilateral withdrawal:

      http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Act-independently-403699

      There’s this bit about Israel being as a light unto the nations – how about some action on that front?

      Reply to Comment
      • Jello

        It is not an editorial. It is an op-ed. Learn the difference.

        Reply to Comment
    4. Ben

      The unrelenting delegitimization of President Obama by the Israelis is simply appalling in terms of its sheer dishonesty and its sheer ingratitude. It is disgraceful.

      Greg Rosenbaum, chairman of the U.S. National Jewish Democratic Council, makes it clear (Haaretz):

      “Israel continues to be the top recipient of U.S. foreign military financing, and for fiscal year 2016, the administration requested $3.1 billion in funding. The two nations also have begun preliminary talks on a long-term package that would provide up to $45 billion in security assistance grant aid through 2028. Early this year, Israel signed a contract with the United States for the purchase of 14 F-35 fighter jets, amounting to $3 billion.

      Since Obama entered office, Israel has received more than $20.5 billion in foreign military financing. Unlike President George W. Bush, who rejected Israel’s request for bunker-buster bombs, Obama became the first president to approve the sale of these advanced weapons, and in the fall of 2012, the U.S. and Israel participated in Austere Challenge 12, the largest joint military exercise ever to be held between the two countries….

      Unlike Bush, who gave Israel’s Iron Dome system a frosty response, Obama has led the way in funding and supporting the research, development and production of the Iron Dome — which has been crucial in helping Israel defend itself against terrorist rocket attacks — as well as the joint U.S.-Israel missile defense systems David’s Sling, the Arrow II and Arrow III. Since 2011, the United States has provided Israel with more than $1.3 billion for the Iron Dome system alone.

      The military cooperation has been so strong that in a 2012 speech to the Israel National Defense College, then-Defense Minister Ehud Barak said, “The security ties between us and the current administration are at the highest level they have ever been.

      In the international arena, under Obama’s leadership, the U.S. has fought for Israel’s full participation in the United Nations, has voted against resolutions in the General Assembly condemning Israel, cast the only “no” votes on five anti-Israel measures last year in the Human Rights Council, and worked to ensure that the General Assembly held its first-ever session on anti-Semitism. Obama also prevented the Palestinians from unilaterally declaring an independent state.

      Under Obama, the United States continues to support the Binational Industrial Research and Development Foundation…nearly $50 million in U.S.-Israel cooperation….

      Regardless of political attacks against Obama’s pro-Israel record, let’s not forget the mixed record of Republican presidents when it comes to standing with Israel. Let’s briefly give some historical context to the relationship between the two countries under Obama.

      Not only did George W. Bush refuse to stand with Israel on promoting Iron Dome and selling bunker-buster bombs, but in 2005 he also froze nearly all U.S.-Israeli joint defense projects. And, just before Bush left office, the U.S. abstained rather than veto a one-sided UN Security Council resolution calling for a cease-fire in the Gaza Strip. Under Ronald Reagan, the U.S. joined a Security Council resolution condemning Israel for its destruction of Iraq’s Osirak nuclear facility and, despite Israel’s strong objections, undermined the Jewish state’s qualitative military edge by selling AWACS surveillance planes to Saudi Arabia. Dwight Eisenhower threatened to isolate Israel during the Suez War; and George H.W. Bush opposed loan guarantees to Israel….”

      Reply to Comment
      • Lo

        Your pesky “facts” have no place here when thinly veiled bigotry against a black president will suffice.

        The only thing Obama could have done to appease Israel’s racist right wing would have been to capitulate long-standing U.S. policy regarding the inherent illegitimacy of Israeli construction in the Occupied Palestinian territories while apologizing on his knees to Netanyahu for being such an uppity goy. And then he’d give another $3.1 billion in aid to Israel and they would remain abrasive ingrates.

        Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          “while apologizing on his knees to Netanyahu for being such an uppity goy”

          You know Lo? You should take it easy with your glib accusations against us for being bigots and racists.

          That sentence of yours is bigotted enough. You are stereotyping us as if we all call non Jews derogatory terms. You pretend that we all have disdain for “Goys”. But you know the reality? Nah of course you don’t. Or you don’t want to know because you prefer to be a bigot yourself. But the reality is that we only have disdain for those who have disdain towards us. People like you for instance.

          Do you think that’s unreasonable, Lo deary?

          Reply to Comment
    5. Ben

      “From now on, this is the mantra: he who does not accept Netanyahu’s annexationist policies suffers from deep-rooted psychological problems….”

      What’s so funny is that this is EXACTLY the mantra of the tireless delegitimizer-trolls in these comment sections! And they resort to the same dishonest garbage Michael Oren does! They’re just cruder about it. LOL!

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        I am prepared to accept this oped as a well meaning idea but it is totally misguided.

        Why is it misguided? Because it goes along with the strategy which the Palestinian Arabs have been pushing. It has been their wet dream for a long time to get the international community to push Israel, and Israel alone, into the corner and to give to the Palestinian Arabs a victory which they could never dream to achieve on their own.

        The problem with involving the international community is that it pits Israel against two major political blocs.

        1. The Arab-Muslim-Non Aligned bloc.

        2. The Western bloc.

        The first, gives the Arabs total and unconditional support. They are totally pro Arab and unabashedly anti Israel.

        The second are relatively neutral yet are totally self interested (who is to blame them for that?). So if necessary, they are willing to sell Israel short if it suits their self interest to do so.

        So where is the balance in that? It is a dream formula for the Palestinian Arabs to realize their maximalist demands.

        But no one seems to want to give us enough credit. We are willing and able to push back against any solution which the international community would attempt to impose on us. Therefore, the ideas that this oped is trying to promote are a recipee for long periods of stalemate such as the ones that we have seen already.

        Only two things could change that.

        1. If the International community would learn it’s lesson and would start to really pressure the Palestinian Arabs too to compromise. Pressure them as hard as they already pressured us.

        2. Or if the international community learns from it’s past mistakes and stay out of it.

        Not much chance that 1) will happen so the West should try 2) for a change. That has a much better chance to work because the Palestinian Arabs will only agree to a reasonable peace deal involving security for Israel as a Jewish nation state, if they come to the realization that no outside force exists to push Israel into making unreciprocated concessiond which amount to Arab dictates. And they know full well that at least for many years to come, they themselves, without outside help are unable to force Israel to succomb to their dictates. Only after they digest such a reality, will they agree to a realistic peace deal. Of course that assumes that their current situation is really as intolerable as they make out. That there is nothing worse than the “occupation”. Of course if that is untrue, then they are just propagandists and liars aren’t they? Maybe more people ought to be willing to confrontthem with such hard questions? That might help the prospects of peace… eh….maybe?

        Reply to Comment
        • Ben

          So some semblance of something fair, even minimally just, is being defined as “a victory which they could never dream to achieve on their own”? Well put it out on the table. Lay it out. Give us the outlines of “a realistic peace deal” in your mind. Give us specifics. I see a lot of complaining here but where’s the beef? What do you accept as “a realistic peace deal”?

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Look who is talking. Benny? I asked you that question many times but every time I ask, you avoid, avoid, avoid … and avoid more, answering my question as to how would you end the “occupation”, what kind of deal would YOU expect us to accept???!!!

            As for me, I already answered your question many times. I keep on bringing up Ehud Barak’s and Ehud Olmert’s peace offers as reasonably fair deals certainly at the time they were offered.

            What more do you want me to say Benny? YOU are the one who has been avoiding MY question. Are you ready to cease your avoidance and tell us what YOU consider to be a fair deal?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            But seeing that the Palestinian Arabs rejected BOTH those peace terms. And their response was a very bloody intifada, I would now introduce an additional demand…

            They [the Palestinian Arabs] have to conduct a referendum in which a majority of Palestinian Arabs would indicate that they recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. Then, such a formal recognition would need to be included and signed by their leaders as part of the peace deal. Anything less than that is unacceptable.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            Would that we could get back to anything close to the Olmert/Abbas approach to one another which was never a “deal.” Which went farther than anything else had but which was a kind of pseudo-offer as Olmert at that point had no power to see it through and had not put it to any real test of acceptance in the government. (And it is virtually certain IMO that the right would have brought down the government over it if Olmert was not already on his way out, a failed PM. It is also likely Olmert knew full well he could never get his terms through his own government and was posturing, knowing he was on his way out, for the sake of his legacy.) You see ANY thing even close to a willingness on the part of the current government to accept anything like Olmert’s approach? Please.

            We have been over and over WHY this Olmert/Abbas negotiation failed. You blame Abbas. I don’t. You discount Bernie Avishai’s account. I don’t. I think it is in fact authoritative. At the very least the negotiations failed for complex, multiple, interacting reasons. If Olmert had not left because of his legal problems–he resigned only days after his last meeting with Abbas–I believe a deal–different than what Olmert last offered but similar–could have eventually gone through at least to the point where Olmert and Abbas would have had to put an offer before their own respective governments and peoples. That never happened of course.

            Let’s just leave that aside and leave aside Netanyahu’s newly invented “Nation State of the Jewish People” ploy that has nothing whatsoever to do with security and is designed to avoid a peace deal.

            Two large settlements posed a problem that led Abbas to hesitate just before Olmert resigned. Olmert insisted on keeping Ariel, deep in the West Bank, and a long, wide finger of land connecting it, and insisted on keeping Ma’aleh Adumim near Jerusalem. Both of which deny the Palestinian state contiguity. Abbas at the time said no to Ariel and Ma’aleh Adumim but welcomed American bridging proposals. Olmert and Abbas also disagreed on numbers of returning refugees but Abbas was clear he understood there were limits and that a creative solution was needed and that he believed one could be found.

            Now do you, Gustav, see Ariel and Ma’aleh Adumim as potentially returnable in a final agreement or are they deal killers for you? And do you, Gustav, see a return of ANY refugees, in a creative symbolic arrangement, as acceptable, or is that a deal killer for you?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Unbelievable, Benny still is unwilling to respond to my following question which I asked him a number of times now…
            ————
            BEN:“On the other hand, why not just end the occupation?”

            GUSTAV:”Simple isn’t it?

            End it how? Unilaterally? Without a signed peace deal? Remember our unilateral withdrawal from Gaza? How did that work out?

            Or by signing a suicidal peace deal? No thanks Benny, we won’t let up to 4 million Arabs settle in Israel proper.

            Oh, and sign a peace deal with Hamas? They won’t sign one with us. At best, they are willing to sign a 10 year Hudna (cease fire). And what will they do during those 10 years? They will prepare for war against us.

            Next, Benny, let’s hear your next bright idea…”
            ———–
            Now Benny, I answered YOUR question about my idea of what sort of peace deal we are looking for. How about now, YOU answer MY question???!!!

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            The above post of Bennie’s illustrates what Israel is up against. Look at how desperate he is at discrediting Olmert’s peace offer.

            He even resorts to lies. Olmert made his peace offer to Abbas on September 16 2008. Netanyahu got elected as the new prime minister of Israel on February 10 2009. That was 5 months later. So Abbas sat on the offer without saying anything about it for all that time.

            This is what Condi Rice, the American secretary of state who was the chief negotiator on the American side, wrote about it in her memoirs…

            “She noted that she then believed the peace accord based on a two-state solution for two peoples was within reach, but her fears were realized during a meeting with Olmert and Abbas – when the PM refused to hand over a map he had drawn to the Palestinian president, demanding Abbas sign the agreement immediately. When Abbas refused, the pending deal imploded.

            Months later, Rice remembers US President George W. Bush requested Abbas accept Olmert’s offer, but “the Palestinian stood firm, and the idea died.”

            Yet, Benny quotes someone called Avishai against her. It is always the same. That’s what happened with Ehud Barak’s 2000/2001 peace offer which Bill Clinton described an opportunity of a lifetime missed by Arafat when he rejected it. But immediately all sorts of pro Arab apologists come out of the woodworks and tell us why the Israeli peace offers are NEVER good enough or were impossible to accept.

            And yet, if one asks apologists like Benny to tell us what type of Israeli peace offer do they expect which would be acceptable to them? Their silence is deafining. See my post to Benny above. It must be the fourth time that I asked him to tell us what in his opinion Israel has to do to end the occupation? But his silence is deafening. He refuses to answer my question point blank. What has he got to hide?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Anyone see a pattern here?

            Israel offers ever more concessions. All those concessions are deemed inadequate by the Palestinian Arabs and their lackeys.

            Yet when one asks them, what WOULD be good enough? They turn all shy and clam up.

            Reply to Comment
          • Marnie

            Why don’t you, Ben and Merav exchange your email addresses and continue your endless pissing contest somewhere other than here. No wonder its always the same suspects posting here, no fresh thoughts or conversations because you boyz can’t dialogue without dragging the entire thread into the Ben/Gustav/Merav, whoops “BigCat” show and it turns people away, which is a shame because fresh voices (not the same folks with new name, and how about names that aren’t so gay/phallic/junior high?)

            Reply to Comment
          • Weiss

            Jews that adore Fascism are UNACCEPTABLE…

            And the coming Palestinian State is inevitable …

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            You are a fascist Weiss.

            Why are you a fascist? Because you adore the Palestinian Arabs who right now support their supremacists and fascists. Know what I mean? A lot of them support Hamas. And the rest support the PLO who are not better than Hamas. They just employ different tactics by which they too hope to destroy the only Jewish nation state and replace it by the 23rd Arab/Muslim nation state.

            Reply to Comment
          • Marnie

            2SS is dead in the water, thanks to the xenophobic, racist government of Benzion Mileikowsky. And this same Mileikowsky also stated there will be no Palestinian state. Ever. So oingoboingo – take it up with him.

            Reply to Comment
    6. Weis

      Since Oren’s obsession with Racial Purity outweighs his disgust for the U.S. & our “freedom” to choose what is best for America, it is time for him to RENOUNCE his U.S. citizenship as he is a DUAL US-Israeli citizen.

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        WEIS:”Since Oren’s obsession with Racial Purity…”

        You are a moron Weis!

        Reply to Comment
    7. Anon Forrest

      I don’t know where else I could possibly get this information. Our family’s Seders always end up with curses on “self-hating” Jews vs Who Should Go to Israel, and can we help you pack? Thanks for your honesty, 972! I’ll keep my tithe current. af

      Reply to Comment
      • Ben

        Yes, and thanks for your honesty.

        Reply to Comment
      • Ben

        +972 Magazine relies entirely on grants and on the generous donations of their readers. Donate now and help them provide fresh news and analyses for their hundreds of thousands of readers worldwide. Any amount you choose to give goes a long way in sustaining this project!

        The best way to support +972 Magazine is by becoming a “972 sustainer,” through a small monthly donation. Alternatively, you can use the “donate” button to make a one-time contribution.

        Reply to Comment
    8. Click here to load previous comments

The stories that matter.
The missing context.
All in one weekly email.

Subscribe to +972's newsletter