IsraelThe Village
Idiot!

FP 22. Juni 2013

Haaretz Jun.18, 2013

Tone of SNL’s 'Really!?!' marks Clinton’s queries on Israeli peace perceptions
By Chemi Shalev

After Obama and Kerry, former president’s speech is third installment of U.S. 'emergency intervention' to divert 'startup nation' from its Titanic course.

Excerpts:
Though he was less theatrical than the two comedians, parts of former President Bill Clinton’s speech and remarks to the press on Monday at the Peres Academic Center in Rehovot could easily have qualified as a special Israel rendition of the departed skit. Clinton’s words should be read with the same SNL tone of sarcasm mixed with utter disbelief.

"Is it okay with you if Israel has a majority of its people living within your territory who are not now, and never will be, allowed to vote?" Really!?! And "If it is, can you say with a straight face that you'll be a democracy?” Seriously!?! And “If you let them vote, can you live with not being a Jewish state?” Are you kidding!?!

Clinton’s rhetorical queries, after all, reflect the growing incredulity and dismay felt by many of its friends in America and throughout the world at what seems to be the Israeli acceptance and even popularity of the notion that peace is both impossible and overrated. That the conflict with the Palestinians is “manageable”. That things will be OK - “yihiye beseder” - don’t know when, don’t know where, and mainly don’t know how - but we know they’ll be OK, some sunny day.

And what its supporters find especially appalling - and its enemies immensely appealing - is that so many prominent Israeli politicians not only don’t take the trouble to conceal, but are actually proud of their vision of endless stalemate. That they advocate it, boast of it, proclaim it in their public speeches and press conferences for the entire world to hear.

And that by doing so, they give pause to those people who may have otherwise believed that the absence of peace is not for Israel’s lack of trying and may even be the Palestinians’ own fault.

What other logical conclusion can there be, especially on a week that Israel’s defense minister - often touted as the second most important minister in the land - dismisses the transformative Arab peace initiative as nothing more than “spin”; that his deputy - sometimes portrayed as the Likud’s “next generation” - swears that the Israeli government’s objective is to block a two-state solution; or that its economic minister - widely described as the new kingmaker of Israeli politics - declares that peace is as dead as a dodo, so Israel should “build, build, build.”

Clinton’s appeal, in fact, can be viewed as the latest in an ongoing US lecture series to the Israeli public, a concerted effort at emergency intervention to try and move the Israeli body politic from the Titanic course that Americans seem to think it is on. It began in March with PresidentObama’s address to Israeli students in Jerusalem, continued earlier this month with Secretary of State John Kerry’s speech to the American Jewish Committee in Washington and culminated, for the time being, with Clinton’s message in Rehovot.

And while it also reflects the differing styles of the speakers, it has progressed - or perhaps deteriorated - from Obama’s rousing rhetoric to Kerry’s detailed analysis to Clinton’s undisguised befuddlement. At times it sounds like a dialogue among equals or an impassionate assessment of risks and opportunities, but often it is a simple message, spoken v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y, to an otherwise brilliant “start-up nation” that is somehow “developmentally challenged,” on this one vital issue, which, in pre politically correct terms, means that it behaves like the village idiot.

The American message is singular and unequivocal: 1. The way forward: “there is no alternative to a Palestinian state” (Clinton), “the two-state solution is the only way” (Obama), a “realistic one-state solution simply does not exist.” (Kerry) 2. The price of inaction: “Delegitimization will gain steam” (Kerry) “Israel’s isolation will grow” (Obama) “The Palestinians will have more babies” (Clinton) and “Israel won’t remain both Jewish and democratic” (all three).

And 3. The naysayers are “cynicists who have never solved anything” (Kerry) or “extremists who always provide an excuse not to act” (Obama).

P.S.: Of course, those Israeli politicians who think otherwise will scoff at the “naïve” Americans and their “improper intervention." They will base their confidence on their crucial “inside” knowledge as compared to the clueless Americans on the “outside."

This is a seemingly valid point - though it flies in the face of the organizational theories advanced by Israeli Nobel Prize Winner Daniel Kahneman. In a famous 1993 article by Kahneman and Dan Lovallo, the authors stipulate that many executives base their decisions on the “inside” view because it is “valued as a serious attempt to come to grips with the complexities of the unique case at hand” while the “outside” view “is rejected for relying on crude analogy from superficially similar instances.”

The authors go on to detail the pitfalls of “inside” decisions – including, among other things, a tendency to deny reality “because facing the facts can be intolerably demoralizing”, the phenomenon of seeking to validate one’s own forecasts and the fact that most people are usually “over optimistic” about their own original beliefs.

And they come to the unequivocal conclusion that “It should be obvious that when both methods are applied with equal intelligence and skill, the outside view is much more likely to yield a realistic estimate.”

Full article:
Seth Meyers, who is slated to replace Jimmy Fallon on NBC’s Late Night program, marked his departure from Saturday Night Live a few months ago by recreating his classic Weekend Update segment with Amy Poehler called “Really!?! with Seth and Amy”.

Though he was less theatrical than the two comedians, parts of former President Bill Clinton’s speech and remarks to the press on Monday at the Peres Academic Center in Rehovot could easily have qualified as a special Israel rendition of the departed skit. Clinton’s words should be read with the same SNL tone of sarcasm mixed with utter disbelief.

"Is it okay with you if Israel has a majority of its people living within your territory who are not now, and never will be, allowed to vote?" Really!?! And "If it is, can you say with a straight face that you'll be a democracy?” Seriously!?! And “If you let them vote, can you live with not being a Jewish state?” Are you kidding!?!

Clinton’s rhetorical queries, after all, reflect the growing incredulity and dismay felt by many of its friends in America and throughout the world at what seems to be the Israeli acceptance and even popularity of the notion that peace is both impossible and overrated. That the conflict with the Palestinians is “manageable”. That things will be OK - “yihiye beseder” - don’t know when, don’t know where, and mainly don’t know how - but we know they’ll be OK, some sunny day.

And what its supporters find especially appalling - and its enemies immensely appealing - is that so many prominent Israeli politicians not only don’t take the trouble to conceal, but are actually proud of their vision of endless stalemate. That they advocate it, boast of it, proclaim it in their public speeches and press conferences for the entire world to hear.

And that by doing so, they give pause to those people who may have otherwise believed that the absence of peace is not for Israel’s lack of trying and may even be the Palestinians’ own fault.

What other logical conclusion can there be, especially on a week that Israel’s defense minister - often touted as the second most important minister in the land - dismisses the transformative Arab peace initiative as nothing more than “spin”; that his deputy - sometimes portrayed as the Likud’s “next generation” - swears that the Israeli government’s objective is to block a two-state solution; or that its economic minister - widely described as the new kingmaker of Israeli politics - declares that peace is as dead as a dodo, so Israel should “build, build, build.”

Small wonder, then, that Clinton is but the latest in a recent series of direct American appeals that are aimed at reminding the Israeli public of what their politicians seem to conveniently forget: that there’s no such thing as a free lunch, that current calm is transitory, that an unwillingness to strive for peace entails a steep price and that a conflict with no end in sight isn’t necessarily a piece of shrapnel embedded near someone’s posterior, as Economic Minister Naftali Bennet said this week, but could also be a malignant tumor that has already metastasized and is on the verge of becoming inoperable.

Clinton’s appeal, in fact, can be viewed as the latest in an ongoing US lecture series to the Israeli public, a concerted effort at emergency intervention to try and move the Israeli body politic from the Titanic course that Americans seem to think it is on. It began in March with President Obama’s address to Israeli students in Jerusalem, continued earlier this month with Secretary of State John Kerry’s speech to the American Jewish Committee in Washington and culminated, for the time being, with Clinton’s message in Rehovot.

And while it also reflects the differing styles of the speakers, it has progressed - or perhaps deteriorated - from Obama’s rousing rhetoric to Kerry’s detailed analysis to Clinton’s undisguised befuddlement. At times it sounds like a dialogue among equals or an impassionate assessment of risks and opportunities, but often it is a simple message, spoken v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y, to an otherwise brilliant “start-up nation” that is somehow “developmentally challenged,” on this one vital issue, which, in pre politically correct terms, means that it behaves like the village idiot.

The American message is singular and unequivocal: 1. The way forward: “there is no alternative to a Palestinian state” (Clinton), “the two-state solution is the only way” (Obama), a “realistic one-state solution simply does not exist.” (Kerry) 2. The price of inaction: “Delegitimization will gain steam” (Kerry) “Israel’s isolation will grow” (Obama) “The Palestinians will have more babies” (Clinton) and “Israel won’t remain both Jewish and democratic” (all three).

And 3. The naysayers are “cynicists who have never solved anything” (Kerry) or “extremists who always provide an excuse not to act” (Obama).

All three speeches (and remarks to the press) are a translation into acceptably diplomatic language of Obama’s harsh assessment, as published by Jeffrey Goldberg in January of this year, that “Israel doesn’t know what its best interests are,” that “its own behavior poses a long term threat” and that it is leading itself to “apartheid”.

At that time, however, Obama seemed to be pinning most of the blame for this situation personally on Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. He and others in his Administration may now be waking up to the fact that the problem also resides with other Israeli politicians as well as the Israeli public itself.

P.S.: Of course, those Israeli politicians who think otherwise will scoff at the “naïve” Americans and their “improper intervention." They will base their confidence on their crucial “inside” knowledge as compared to the clueless Americans on the “outside."

This is a seemingly valid point - though it flies in the face of the organizational theories advanced by Israeli Nobel Prize Winner Daniel Kahneman. In a famous 1993 article by Kahneman and Dan Lovallo, the authors stipulate that many executives base their decisions on the “inside” view because it is “valued as a serious attempt to come to grips with the complexities of the unique case at hand” while the “outside” view “is rejected for relying on crude analogy from superficially similar instances.”

The authors go on to detail the pitfalls of “inside” decisions – including, among other things, a tendency to deny reality “because facing the facts can be intolerably demoralizing”, the phenomenon of seeking to validate one’s own forecasts and the fact that most people are usually “over optimistic” about their own original beliefs.

And they come to the unequivocal conclusion that “It should be obvious that when both methods are applied with equal intelligence and skill, the outside view is much more likely to yield a realistic estimate.”

But Kahneman, true believers will respond, does not take into account the possibility of divine intervention. God will provide, they might say, though this forecast is also contradicted by statistical and empirical evidence - the “outside” view - of the Lord’s dismal past performance in averting catastrophes from his “Chosen People.”
Link→