Frum has a point. The peace process is dead and staying dead. The USA and the EU are still in denial about this, but there will be no two-state solution. Israel has no real interest in it, and as time passes (demographic tick-tock) neither will the Palestinians. Bob is still nostalgic for the 1990s (in the company of Abbas) when there was a glimmer of hope for a two-state resolution of the conflict. Sorry, that is over now. Biblically speaking, the handwriting is on the Apartheid Wall. Ultimately, there will be one state between the Jordan River and the Sea. I tend to blame the collapse of a peace process on Israeli intransigence and the horrific crimes of the occupation, although plenty of blame accrues to Arafat, Hamas and Islamic Jihad as well. In any case, Frum arrives at the same point I do, although he comes from the extreme Zionist right and I from the progressive left: there is no walking these parties down the aisle to a 2-state dream. As Bob suggests in his thought experiment, Palestinians can, and soon will, simply demand the right to vote as Israelis. Good for them. I will support them in their quest for a

Five star comment.

Quoting Wonderment: Palestinians can, and soon will, simply demand the right to vote as Israelis.

And Israel will simply refuse. If you really believe that ultimately there will be a one state solution (of course there will), and that Palestinians within that state will demand a right to vote, you better remain quiet about it. Because if Israel believes that Palestinians within its territory will eventually win the right to vote, it will expel or exterminate as many of them as possible before that can happen. There is only one outcome that can be safely counted on: A Jewish state in perpetuity. And, once again, let's just remind people of what has been happening over the last century. Israel has almost completed its conquest. Just a few more years to go. No way they're going to let any peaceniks screw up their decades-long project now.

Personally I find Mickey's contrarian bent refreshing and a bit familiar. Starting to read The End of Equality now, weird reading a book from 94 about politics.

Gentlemen, The train of indigenous Iranian democracy--the Green Movement--has already left the station. It's done--wave goodbye, put a fork in it, and put a final fork into any wishful thinking that US support for domestic democrats in Iran will have any effect at all. Those 'democrats' are themselves fiercely loyal to their country and their Islamic Revolution. Their movement is a very essentially a conservative movement to reacquire freedoms they believe lost in the June 2009 elections. The Greens are most definitely NOT regime change democrats. But they will pay a price for opposing the theofascism governance in Iran, despite their loyalty to their country and their Islamic Revolution. By the June 2013 elections in Iran, all of the 2009-10 Greens will be gone; dead, discredited, or "disappeared." The IRGC, specially formed as a 'parallel organization' to protect the Revolution, is more firmly in control than ever, and will never permit a repeat of electoral disputation in Iran again. The IRGC already acts as the Praetorian Guard, self-funded with at least 30% ownership of the Iranian GDP, and has the entire nuclear portfolio under its control. Not even the 600,000 man Iranian Army is in a position to take on the 400,000 IRGC, which

So, as the title of the DV implies, I think Frum said all sorts of silly, outrageous, or factually challenged things in the course of this interesting and enjoyable 65 minutes. This is the only one I really want to talk about though. http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/266...8:47&out=39:38 I'm having trouble reconstructing the moral argument that Frum is making here. It sounds like he's saying that people that have started wars in the past can make no moral claims against the people they initiated those past wars with, thus giving the aggrieved party moral carte blanche in all future interactions. That's why it would be morally permissible for the United State government to disenfranchise the descendants of Confederates and militarily occupy the 11 states of the Confederacy today, 150 years after the war. This is so crazy that I'm about 95% sure that it isn't what he's trying to say, and Frum assured us earlier in the DV that he hates having his views mischaracterized, so I give up. What does Frum mean here? I would think that all people have a fairly strong right to be citizens of a sovereign state if they so choose. The Palestinians living in Gaza

Quoting Don Zeko: So, as the title of the DV implies, I think Frum said all sorts of silly, outrageous, or factually challenged things in the course of this interesting and enjoyable 65 minutes. This is the only one I really want to talk about though.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/266...8:47&out=39:38

I'm having trouble reconstructing the moral argument that Frum is making here. It sounds like he's saying that people that have started wars in the past can make no moral claims against the people they initiated those past wars with, thus giving the aggrieved party moral carte blanche in all future interactions. That's why it would be morally permissible for the United State government to disenfranchise the descendants of Confederates and militarily occupy the 11 states of the Confederacy today, 150 years after the war. This is so crazy that I'm about 95% sure that it isn't what he's trying to say, and Frum assured us earlier in the DV that he hates having his views mischaracterized, so I give up. What does Frum mean here?

I would think that all people have a fairly strong right to be citizens of a sovereign state if they so choose. The Palestinians living in Gaza

The fight against any form of Fascism has always been nothing less than a fight to the death.

Franco was around for an awfully long time.

frum has been proven to be delusional. perhaps a pathological liar as well?

Quoting Wonderment: The USA and the EU are still in denial about this, but there will be no two-state solution. Israel has no real interest in it, and as time passes (demographic tick-tock) neither will the Palestinians.

Presumably, there are not a few other Jews, especially among the population of Israel, who can hear the same clock as you. I wonder, then, what do you think motivates these people to oppose a two-state solution, if we stipulate that eventually, the Palestinian and other Arab people in Israel will become the majority? Do you think they are burying their heads in the sand, so they don't hear the tick-tock? Or do you think they plan to run an apartheid state or other similar minority-rule country for the foreseeable future? The thing that I don't get is why anyone who cares about Israel as a Jewish state would be opposed to some sort of two-state solution now, while they still have the clout to make it so, with terms as favorable as they're ever going to get. Seems to me that the more time they let pass, the less bargaining power they'll have, just by the population numbers, and so I don't

Quoting Don Zeko: So, as the title of the DV implies, I think Frum said all sorts of silly, outrageous, or factually challenged things in the course of this interesting and enjoyable 65 minutes. This is the only one I really want to talk about though.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/266...8:47&out=39:38

I'm having trouble reconstructing the moral argument that Frum is making here. It sounds like he's saying that people that have started wars in the past can make no moral claims against the people they initiated those past wars with, thus giving the aggrieved party moral carte blanche in all future interactions. That's why it would be morally permissible for the United State government to disenfranchise the descendants of Confederates and militarily occupy the 11 states of the Confederacy today, 150 years after the war. This is so crazy that I'm about 95% sure that it isn't what he's trying to say, and Frum assured us earlier in the DV that he hates having his views mischaracterized, so I give up. What does Frum mean here?

I would think that all people have a fairly strong right to be citizens of a sovereign state if they so choose. The Palestinians living in Gaza

I think David Frum's comments on the Tea Party movement are largely on point, though I think there is much more slippage between layer 1 (C4L-types) and layer 2 (the party types) than he indicates. I think this is caused by a large number of people newly drawn into the political process (largely, as David says, due to resentments built up in the Bush years) who have not yet formed their tribal commitments, and who have sympathies that lean in both directions. The reality of populism and the grassroots, I think, is that you don't have a real orderly sorting of people by their beliefs. Personal connections, random chance, and a spirit of restraint from criticism, can cause a much more heterogeneous structure to the movement.

I would think that all people have a fairly strong right to be citizens of a sovereign state if they so choose. The Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank clearly are not, so why are their often unsavory efforts at achieving this more nefarious than any geopolitical group since the Confederacy? Does anyone have better insight into the mind of Frum than I do?

Yes, I would be happy to translate: "In order to justify Israel's conduct, no matter what it may be, I'll concoct whatever sophistry is at my intellectual disposal. I merely start from the premise, 'If Israel does it, it must be good.' Nothing is too ludicrous." Right-wing Zionists, most notably American ones like Frum, will shamelessly rush to Israel's defense for everything from torture to assassination to collective punishment, to the slaughter of civilians. They will smear anyone from Jimmy Carter to Justice Goldstone to Barack Obama, for daring to deviate from the Likud party line. If all else fails, play the anti-Semite or self-hating Jew card. I think Bob asked the wrong (right for 1990) moral question. The real question has nothing to do with the current bogus "peace process," but is

Do you think they are burying their heads in the sand, so they don't hear the tick-tock?

Yes, it's like global warming denial: "We've still got 50 years, so fuck it. Worse comes to worst, we take our foreign passports and bail to the EU, Russia or the USA." They also get caught up in the cycle of violence and revenge. Nothing like endless mutual hatred to distort your thinking.

The thing that I don't get is why anyone who cares about Israel as a Jewish state would be opposed to some sort of two-state solution now, while they still have the clout to make it so, with terms as favorable as they're ever going to get.

A lot of decent people believe very strongly in a two-state resolution. They refuse to admit that there is no path to it. I guess they need a few more years.

Quoting Wonderment: Yes, it's like global warming denial: "We've still got 50 years, so fuck it. Worse comes to worst, we take our foreign passports and bail to the EU, Russia or the USA."

I suppose I could believe that, although I confess to a bias of believing Jews are more sensible.

They also get caught up in the cycle of violence and revenge. Nothing like endless mutual hatred to distort your thinking.

No denying that.

A lot of decent people believe very strongly in a two-state resolution. They refuse to admit that there is no path to it. I guess they need a few more years.

This is funny -- a place where, perhaps, you are more realistic and I am more idealistic.

Quoting TwinSwords: Nice to see Bob on so much, lately. Also glad to see David; although I disagree with him about almost everything, he's always been an enjoying diavlogger to listen to.

I agree with Frum when he says the Republican party has gone insane.