Communications breakdown? TNR smearing?

Sullivan wants to dispute with Chait over whether Leon Wiesenthal is one of the … Righteous Jews or one of the New Afrikaners, I guess:

But when you read the Diarist cited, you find a somewhat more nuanced view. In so far as it is comprehensible, it is a response to appallingly revanchist behavior by far right settlers, but supports their goal:

The lunatic Jews who insist that a Jew must live anywhere a Jew ever lived do not see that they, too, are re-opening 1948 and the legitimacy of what it established. Why does the Israeli government allow the argument for a unified Jerusalem to be mistaken for the heartless revanchism of these settlers?

So Wieseltier’s attack on the far right is that they are weakening the case for Israel’s permanent control of all of Jerusalem,

I’m wondering whether Andrew’s comprehension has slipped or if he is making use of a bad reading — another one of his straw babies.

The goal of the “revanchist” settlers is to take all of the West Bank. Wieseltier specifically calls them “lunatic” for thinking they can get all the West Bank. Another goal of the revanchist settlers is to take all of Jerusalem. As far as I know, Wieseltier is open to Jewish control over the Holy Basin, but wants the outlying Arab neighborhoods to go to the Palestinian Authority — which the revanchist settlers are against.

(Wieseltier may also be using “unified Jerusalem” in the weakest sense possible, the way candidate Obama used it at the AIPAC conference: to signify a Jerusalem that is not divided by barbed wire at every adjacent Jewish and Arab neighborhood.)

and re-opening the entire question of the legitimacy of Israel to boot.

TNR’s liberal Zionists manage to maintain an admirable distance from the farthest Israeli right, while never supporting anything that might actually prevent them from driving Israel into the ground.

Gimme a break. The most conservative Israel voices at TNR have recommended unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank and drawing of provisional borders. That would definitely prevent the “farthest Israeli right […] from driving Israel into the ground.”

Furthermore, the most conservative Israel voices at TNR are willing to accept only “natural growth” in defined areas, to support the Jewish claim to contiguous Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem and the three main settlement blocs. I don’t see how restricting construction to “natural growth” in the blocs that Bill Clinton, and possibly even Jimmy Carter, know to be Jewish cities just across the Green Line would assist the “farthest Israeli right.”

Furthermore, TNR has backed the unilateral take-down of illegal outposts, as well as the Gaza withdrawal. Was that a gift to revanchism, to the “farthest Israeli right”?

Has TNR backed Obama over Netanyahu on the settlements question – about as basic a question if we are ever to get a two-state solution?

Newsflash to the Dish — or rather, “Here’s news that you won’t get on the Dish … ” Obama is now saying what TNR has been saying, that our president screwed up the path of diplomacy that was necessary for his own policies. Surely, Andrew knows Obama has admitted this. Yet no Dish posts about this event at all.

In any event, my sense is that the most conservative Israel voices at TNR would back a temporary Total Freeze, in conjunction with reciprocal demands on Palestinians.

Why can’t Andrew remember that phrase “in conjunction with reciprocal demands on Palestinians”? Perhaps that phrase would be a helpful part of a paradigm for a liberal Zionist. I mean, I know it would frustrate Mearsheimer, who may want to put them in his New Afrikaner category. But it would do wonders for Andrew Sullivan’s guilty conscience.

%d bloggers like this: