More Still

Rick:

Stop. You're both wrong. I didn't think the issue was whether Oslo made things better or worse ( comparing actual to theoretical) but whether it was a tactical error to effectively renounce a claim to the West Bank and Gaza. While no one knows ( again theoretical) I doubt it as per Ben's comment on East Jerusalem and the fact that Israel never wanted Gaza.

The real issue is what would happen if Israel changed its policy today to assert a claim. This would be disastrous on every front. For all the reasons we're well aware of Israel has to continue to pursue some kind of separation - its only the how that is still subject to debate.

Ben:

Rick, the issue for Evelyn Gordon precisely was whether Oslo has made things worse than they had been in terms of world perception of Israel. She trumpets loudly that it has (Baz—the words Commentary put in enlarged print on the cover so stating were Gordon’s). I agree it is a silly place for her to stake her claim, and a shaky basis for her policy prescription. But it is the one she chose.

Baz, notwithstanding my general sympathy for exoteric analysis, I think that you are way too kind to Gordon by saying she did not really mean her stated thesis, but meant something else which you then conclude is a powerful or thought provoking analysis.

Can any conclusion be drawn other than that her stated thesis is flawed? Take for example the quote you reproduce which contains within it that Israel’s world standing has fallen to “an unprecedented low”, and which, after reviewing certain anti-Israel events, proclaims that they would have been unheard of when Israel was refusing to negotiate with the Palestinians or recognizing the legitimacy of their claims. This type of proclaiming without attention to facts is useless or worse.

You state that the comparison between whether Israel’s pre or post Oslo International standing is worse is probably “unasnswerable”. Then shouldn’t we be troubled that Gordon purports to answer it unequivocally and worse, purports to advocate a course of action on the basis of her “answer”?

Shouldn’t we be concerned that she proclaims her “answer “ from a list of anti Israel activities which she states would not have occurred or even be thought of pre Oslo while ignoring pre Oslo boycotts, literally dozens of UN condemnatory resolutions pre Oslo, resolutions of non-aligned states declaring Zionism a threat to world peace pre Oslo, and numerous other pre Oslo indicators of anti-Israel feeling on the world stage which cast considerable doubt on her conclusion that the events she points to are new, unprecedented and much worse than before.

Shouldn’t we be concerned that she blames all of the problems Israel has on the world stage on Oslo without considering some of the international benefits that the peace process brought Israel—a withdrawal of the odious “Zionism is Racism” resolution at the UN, diplomatic and trade relations with the two economic powerhouses India and China, peace with Jordan, etc, etc. and that she makes no attempt to weigh or balance them but just pronounces the peace process guilty?

Using her mode of analysis, since anti Israel initiatives on the international scene have taken place post Netanyahu’s election and his Bar Ilan and General Assembly speeches, he must be the problem.