W/r/t Merkel-led austerity and Eurozone rules, that's exactly the problem. It's ironic that German policies may be indirectly accelerating the pace of Jews leaving Europe.
With the French 10-year bond yield at 0.64% (relative to the current U.S. 10-year treasury yield of 1.83%) and in light of the prolonged European economic torpor, it would seem that the failure of European countries to embrace Mr. Keynes can lead to the alienation of the French of any religious faith, which of course can foster anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim violence and politics over there. Popular extremist ideologies clearly do not help the situation.
Your graph omits Iran's support for Hezbollah and Assad, the 1994 bombing of the Buenos Aires JCC, a history of less than charitable rhetoric toward the Jewish people, the 1979 hostage incidents, etc. The Iranian military may be a joke, but it projects power in many other ways. I'm not telling you anything you don't know.
Peggy - I have no specialized knowledge aside from a subscription to the NYT and a peruse of most of Cole's columns. I'm just a shady Wall Street employee.
Spiral007 - the Lebanese should decide their own fate, which is to say, not at Iranian-Syrian gunpoint.
Professor Cole - Bibi sucks, what can I say. If you have Brendan Gibbons in one of your classes, give him my regards.
The "real subtext?" While I freely admit that I can't divine the intentions of today's inane GOP, but I doubt that the accusation concerns Israel's now ancient occupation of southern Lebanon (not to discount the suffering of its and Israeli victims.) The proxy Party of God remains a violent organization and for all its demonstrated capabilities against Israel civilians, it is a much more toxic presence in Lebanon.
No. 8 is tendentious. Hezbollah coerced its way into any role as a quasi-state actor and is involved in all sorts of violent activities with respect to civilians in Lebanon and Israel. As you know, the so-called Party of God has been accused, not unreasonably, of complicity in or being directly responsible for Hariri's assassination.
Your statement that Zionists generalize about, stereotype, and "Nazify" Arabs is sloppy and misleading. Indeed, the evidence you muster for this assertion is some settler ally of Avigdor Lieberman of all people. And I don't see what it is necessary to compare the treatment of Na’ama Margolies with the restrictions on pupils at Qurduba School. It seems that both merit treatment on their own terms.
How much of this crisis is driven by the Turkish desire to achieve regional supremacy or perhaps enhanced prestige in the Arab World? The Turkish government certainly is no friend of Kurdish Muslim minorities in Turkey and so there expressed concern for Palestinian Muslims seems self-serving. With a buffoonish Israeli leadership, it seems like low-hanging fruit to pick on Bibi and Lieberman.
On the subject of secession, given the entrenched political gridlock in the not-so United States, the undemocratic electoral college and Senate, seeming disconnect in basic values between Blue and Red states (see above), and the fact that the Red States produce very little relative to the Blue, why should the coastal and Big 10 states (Nebraska should never have been admitted) put up with Oklahoma, Mississippi and the like?
At some point, can you write a post about the situation in Morocco? I'm scheduled to go on vacation there this October and so have been following the news there more closely?
Why would "some number" (is it 4 or 4,000,000?) of Palestinians want to "return" to living in a country that in your view at the least is discriminatory to Arab Muslims and trending toward a pre-Enlightenment worldview?
The West Bank Palestinians have come a long way, and there was even an article about the West Bank in the NY Times travel section some months ago, as you well know. But Hamas has not disappeared, either in Gaza and the West Bank. The Israeli government's central failure is not cutting a deal at such an opportune time that would elevate Abbas's vision in the eyes of West Bank (and Gaza) residents and concurrently neutralize Hamas and the other violent religious zealots. But, alas, Israel has its own zealots to placate.
If Iran poses such a dire threat to Israel, and it may with zealots like Ahmadinejad and Khameni in charge, or it may not since the Iranian regime's assault on its own people demonstrates cold self-preservation, why wouldn't the Israeli government cut a deal with Abbas and bolster its global and regional credibility? I never understood this impotence. Israel seems as divided as the U.S. on just about everything.
Professor, would you have any comment on this? (Informed Comment displays great insight into what goes on in the Muslim world, which is why I am a daily reader, but on the subject of Israel, the Comment becomes a jeremiad against the Israel right wing and its American allies, which may be fine, but feels incomplete.)
Thanks for your response. Fadlallah was surely gracious to condemn 9/11 despite his selective endorsement of suicide attacks. Needless to say, Chris Hitchens would have a field day with this powerful religious figure.
An interesting and context-providing piece, as usual. But didn't Fadlallah infamously justify the use of suicide attacks, as the Gray Lady noted in its obit? That would be added context.
Thanks for your response. I am in agreement with your second paragraph, except of course with your terminology. My only comments would be that the misdeeds of Jews fleeing or surviving the Nazis should be viewed within the context of their beleaguered predicament. Also, these misdeeds should not undermine the legitimacy of Israel.
As to the first paragraph, my point was that Palestine was one of the only refuges that could have been available to European Jewry, as the rest of the world looked the other way while Hitler implemented the Final Solution. So the people to whom you refer as "European Jewish settlers" are refugees, displaced persons, etc. (The term "settler," with its imperialistic connotations, is needlessly incendiary in light of the Netanyahu policy of allowing religious fanatics to "settle" the West Bank and East Jerusalem.)
Also, I did not accuse you of anti-Semitism so there's no need to bring out the dreaded "I have Jewish friends" defense. I assume you have Jewish friends; you live in Ann Arbor and work at the University of Michigan. On that subject, and for me, on your next visit to Zingerman's, have one of the guys make you the old Good Golly, Miss Molly--corned beef sandwiched between two latkes. I believe it was taken off the menu, but it's so good.
Where was European Jewry expected to go once Hitler took power? Where were the remnants of European Jewry supposed to go after World War II? The U.S. (and the rest of the world) were effectively closed. The British were not so interested in opening Palestine to Jewish victims of Nazi terror at any time. We both know that the 200,000 or 400,000 "European Jewish settlers" who were in the area in the 1930's are a pittance. (Why do you emphasize these Jews' Europeanness? Would it make a difference if they were Sephardic?) I'll leave it to historians such as Tom Segev and yourself to evaluate Israeli and Arab conduct in the late 1940's and what it all means.
I am your loyal reader and am grateful for your daily columns. I have learned a tremendous amount from them and am proud that you teach at my beloved alma mater. But the tremendous insight you bring about the Muslim world can be undermined on the difficult subject of the Arab-Israeli conflict by a striking callousness to Jewish history. Sympathize and advocate for the Palestinians all you wish. You certainly have no obligation to objectivity on your blog. I just think the pieces would be stronger (and perhaps more persuasive though probably less provocative) if history's great complicatedness were acknowledged. (I apologize if this comment is condescending -- that's not my intent. And yes, I am of the J-Street sort.)
I cannot understand how you refer to the Holocaust survivors who moved to Palestine after World War II as "European Jewish settlers" as if they were some pernicious combination of traditional European imperialists and fundamentalist West Bank-style settlers. This phrase is deeply tendentious, and you sound like that "ostrich with his head in the sand" that you like to complain about. As an acclaimed historian, you certainly know all too well that Truman was in favor of accepting only minimal numbers of survivors into the U.S. and that the survivors could not stay in a post-war Germany or Poland. As an avid reader, I think you are better than that.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
W/r/t Merkel-led austerity and Eurozone rules, that's exactly the problem. It's ironic that German policies may be indirectly accelerating the pace of Jews leaving Europe.
With the French 10-year bond yield at 0.64% (relative to the current U.S. 10-year treasury yield of 1.83%) and in light of the prolonged European economic torpor, it would seem that the failure of European countries to embrace Mr. Keynes can lead to the alienation of the French of any religious faith, which of course can foster anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim violence and politics over there. Popular extremist ideologies clearly do not help the situation.
Prof. Cole -
Your graph omits Iran's support for Hezbollah and Assad, the 1994 bombing of the Buenos Aires JCC, a history of less than charitable rhetoric toward the Jewish people, the 1979 hostage incidents, etc. The Iranian military may be a joke, but it projects power in many other ways. I'm not telling you anything you don't know.
Peggy - I have no specialized knowledge aside from a subscription to the NYT and a peruse of most of Cole's columns. I'm just a shady Wall Street employee.
Spiral007 - the Lebanese should decide their own fate, which is to say, not at Iranian-Syrian gunpoint.
Professor Cole - Bibi sucks, what can I say. If you have Brendan Gibbons in one of your classes, give him my regards.
The "real subtext?" While I freely admit that I can't divine the intentions of today's inane GOP, but I doubt that the accusation concerns Israel's now ancient occupation of southern Lebanon (not to discount the suffering of its and Israeli victims.) The proxy Party of God remains a violent organization and for all its demonstrated capabilities against Israel civilians, it is a much more toxic presence in Lebanon.
No. 8 is tendentious. Hezbollah coerced its way into any role as a quasi-state actor and is involved in all sorts of violent activities with respect to civilians in Lebanon and Israel. As you know, the so-called Party of God has been accused, not unreasonably, of complicity in or being directly responsible for Hariri's assassination.
Your statement that Zionists generalize about, stereotype, and "Nazify" Arabs is sloppy and misleading. Indeed, the evidence you muster for this assertion is some settler ally of Avigdor Lieberman of all people. And I don't see what it is necessary to compare the treatment of Na’ama Margolies with the restrictions on pupils at Qurduba School. It seems that both merit treatment on their own terms.
While Graham's logic of permanent war is dangerous and misguided, Hitch's indictment of Pakistan is ironclad.
That would be THEIR express concern.
JC -
How much of this crisis is driven by the Turkish desire to achieve regional supremacy or perhaps enhanced prestige in the Arab World? The Turkish government certainly is no friend of Kurdish Muslim minorities in Turkey and so there expressed concern for Palestinian Muslims seems self-serving. With a buffoonish Israeli leadership, it seems like low-hanging fruit to pick on Bibi and Lieberman.
On the subject of secession, given the entrenched political gridlock in the not-so United States, the undemocratic electoral college and Senate, seeming disconnect in basic values between Blue and Red states (see above), and the fact that the Red States produce very little relative to the Blue, why should the coastal and Big 10 states (Nebraska should never have been admitted) put up with Oklahoma, Mississippi and the like?
Didn't Tom Friedman make a similar point a few months back?
Professor C -
At some point, can you write a post about the situation in Morocco? I'm scheduled to go on vacation there this October and so have been following the news there more closely?
Much appreciated and enjoy the Fourth -
Steve
He also made Cheney look sane and reasonable during their VP debate.
Why would "some number" (is it 4 or 4,000,000?) of Palestinians want to "return" to living in a country that in your view at the least is discriminatory to Arab Muslims and trending toward a pre-Enlightenment worldview?
The West Bank Palestinians have come a long way, and there was even an article about the West Bank in the NY Times travel section some months ago, as you well know. But Hamas has not disappeared, either in Gaza and the West Bank. The Israeli government's central failure is not cutting a deal at such an opportune time that would elevate Abbas's vision in the eyes of West Bank (and Gaza) residents and concurrently neutralize Hamas and the other violent religious zealots. But, alas, Israel has its own zealots to placate.
If Iran poses such a dire threat to Israel, and it may with zealots like Ahmadinejad and Khameni in charge, or it may not since the Iranian regime's assault on its own people demonstrates cold self-preservation, why wouldn't the Israeli government cut a deal with Abbas and bolster its global and regional credibility? I never understood this impotence. Israel seems as divided as the U.S. on just about everything.
Professor, would you have any comment on this? (Informed Comment displays great insight into what goes on in the Muslim world, which is why I am a daily reader, but on the subject of Israel, the Comment becomes a jeremiad against the Israel right wing and its American allies, which may be fine, but feels incomplete.)
My grammar is awful due to lack of adequate morning coffee. My apologies. Trust me, I am embarrassed.
You define "spunk" as an attack that the UN found was unprovoked? You're losing me, Professor.
It goes without saying that if the situation were reversed, there would be no conviction. I am incredulous.
Thanks for your response. Fadlallah was surely gracious to condemn 9/11 despite his selective endorsement of suicide attacks. Needless to say, Chris Hitchens would have a field day with this powerful religious figure.
An interesting and context-providing piece, as usual. But didn't Fadlallah infamously justify the use of suicide attacks, as the Gray Lady noted in its obit? That would be added context.
Thanks for your response. I am in agreement with your second paragraph, except of course with your terminology. My only comments would be that the misdeeds of Jews fleeing or surviving the Nazis should be viewed within the context of their beleaguered predicament. Also, these misdeeds should not undermine the legitimacy of Israel.
As to the first paragraph, my point was that Palestine was one of the only refuges that could have been available to European Jewry, as the rest of the world looked the other way while Hitler implemented the Final Solution. So the people to whom you refer as "European Jewish settlers" are refugees, displaced persons, etc. (The term "settler," with its imperialistic connotations, is needlessly incendiary in light of the Netanyahu policy of allowing religious fanatics to "settle" the West Bank and East Jerusalem.)
Also, I did not accuse you of anti-Semitism so there's no need to bring out the dreaded "I have Jewish friends" defense. I assume you have Jewish friends; you live in Ann Arbor and work at the University of Michigan. On that subject, and for me, on your next visit to Zingerman's, have one of the guys make you the old Good Golly, Miss Molly--corned beef sandwiched between two latkes. I believe it was taken off the menu, but it's so good.
Best,
Steve
Where was European Jewry expected to go once Hitler took power? Where were the remnants of European Jewry supposed to go after World War II? The U.S. (and the rest of the world) were effectively closed. The British were not so interested in opening Palestine to Jewish victims of Nazi terror at any time. We both know that the 200,000 or 400,000 "European Jewish settlers" who were in the area in the 1930's are a pittance. (Why do you emphasize these Jews' Europeanness? Would it make a difference if they were Sephardic?) I'll leave it to historians such as Tom Segev and yourself to evaluate Israeli and Arab conduct in the late 1940's and what it all means.
I am your loyal reader and am grateful for your daily columns. I have learned a tremendous amount from them and am proud that you teach at my beloved alma mater. But the tremendous insight you bring about the Muslim world can be undermined on the difficult subject of the Arab-Israeli conflict by a striking callousness to Jewish history. Sympathize and advocate for the Palestinians all you wish. You certainly have no obligation to objectivity on your blog. I just think the pieces would be stronger (and perhaps more persuasive though probably less provocative) if history's great complicatedness were acknowledged. (I apologize if this comment is condescending -- that's not my intent. And yes, I am of the J-Street sort.)
I cannot understand how you refer to the Holocaust survivors who moved to Palestine after World War II as "European Jewish settlers" as if they were some pernicious combination of traditional European imperialists and fundamentalist West Bank-style settlers. This phrase is deeply tendentious, and you sound like that "ostrich with his head in the sand" that you like to complain about. As an acclaimed historian, you certainly know all too well that Truman was in favor of accepting only minimal numbers of survivors into the U.S. and that the survivors could not stay in a post-war Germany or Poland. As an avid reader, I think you are better than that.
What a sad predicament. I appreciate that (as I read it) your piece comes across as both a friend to Israel and the Palestinians.