TPMCafe
« Max Blumenthal: Israelis to Obama - "Save Us From Ourselves!" | Home | To the Iranian People (A Limerick) »

Netanyahu's Speech: Don't Expect Much

user-pic

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is going to respond to President Barack Obama's Cairo address on Sunday with an address of his own at a conservative Orthodox university, Bar Ilan.

Leaders of parliamentary democracies almost always deliver major policy pronouncements in parliament. But Netanyahu seems to be obsessed with Obama and if Obama speaks at a university, so will Bibi. One Israeli told me, "Bibi has delusions of grandeur. In his own mind, he's as significant a figure as Obama and Israel is as significant as America.."

One can only hope that the content of the speech justifies the atmospherics. If Netanyahu accepts the two-state solution, the settlement freeze, and the demolition of the illegal outposts, his speech will indeed merit the hype. Anything less, and it won't.

Unfortunately, it's hard to imagine that he will accept those terms. As Israelis keep telling us, his right-wing coalition partners will bring down his government if he dares to challenge the settler lobby.

The irony is that the United States is only asking Netanyahu to live up to commitments of previous governments, a principle Israel holds dear. For instance, successive Israeli administrations stated that they will not deal with a Palestinian unity government (i.e., one that includes Hamas or people close to it) unless that government fully accepts the terms of agreements reached previously with the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority.

The Israelis are steadfast on that point: agreements cannot be repudiated just because a government changes. The Israeli right goes so far as to insist that President Obama accept an understanding on settlements that was supposedly reached by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and President George W. Bush even though there was nothing remotely official about it.

So far, the Netanyahu government has not applied that principle to itself. If it did, Netanyahu would have no choice but to accept the American terms. Perhaps that is what he will do, although that would probably require dumping his extreme right-wing coalition partners and replacing them with opposition leader Tzipi Livni's Kadima Party.

I don't rule anything out with Netanyahu. He is intelligent and resourceful. He is not an ideologue. I have no doubt that he wants a good relationship with the United States, which is Israel's lifeline. He knows that he cannot survive a confrontation with the Obama administration and he will go to great lengths to avoid one.

But he may not go far enough.

Netanyahu's right-wing advisors may think that he can finesse Obama through obfuscation. They may think he can suggest support for the "two state" principle while not saying the words "two" and "states" in close proximity to each other. Similarly, they may recommend hinting at a halt in settlement activity while leaving an opening for the "natural growth" excuse which, in the past, was used to justify significant settlement expansion. (Those citing natural growth argue that banning expansion of a settlement to accommodate new births is almost immoral. Of course, newborn babies do not usually require their own rooms, let alone their own houses.) As for the illegal outposts, they may advise Netanyahu to agree to their removal without any commitment to immediate action.

Ariel Sharon played this game while Washington turned a blind eye. But after spending time with Obama, I think Netanyahu understands that the Obama administration does not operate that way. No winks and no nods.

Caveats and conditions cannot be allowed to subvert Netanyahu's acceptance of the two-state solution, the Roadmap, and a settlement freeze. His commitments cannot be laden with new and extraneous demands on the Palestinians like acceptance of Israel "as a Jewish state," a requirement invented to deter any Israeli-Palestinian deal. If the speech amounts to nothing but a series of new Israeli demands to the Palestinians, it will be less than worthless. We've been down that road before; it leads only to a dead end and more violence.

Back in 2002, after President George W. Bush set forth the Roadmap as the means to the two-state solution, Israel accepted it with fourteen reservations that utterly eviscerated it. If Netanyahu accepts the Roadmap, it needs to be the Roadmap that the international community adopted, not Israel's own unique interpretation of it. (The uniqueness of the Israeli interpretation is best demonstrated in its assertion that it need take no action until the Palestinians completely fulfill their commitments first and by ruling out any discussion of such issues as the future of the West Bank, settlements or Jerusalem).

The Sharon government was adept at playing the Alphonse/Gaston routine ("After you, Alphonse." "No, you first, my dear Gaston!") except it always got to go second. It insisted that Palestinians stop violence before they do anything. Today, however, the Palestinian Authority not only renounces violence but in fact combats terrorism with the help of the United States.

Netanyahu's old adage "if they give, they will get" is no longer applicable, if it ever was. The Palestinians have nothing to give. They are the ones under occupation. They are the ones without a state. They are the ones whose lives are made miserable by expanding settlements. They have as much of a right to insist on the unconditional stopping of settlements as Israelis have to demand an unconditional end to violence. And the United States has the obligation to help.

The good news is that Netanyahu can honestly tell his coalition partners that he has no choice but to give the Americans what they want because, in fact, he doesn't. Obama, who has the support of both Congress and the pro-Israel community, is not going to back down. When it comes to settlements, the Israeli right is utterly isolated. Its allies are few, far between, and politically insignificant.

This does not mean that Israel is losing support in America. It is just that Israel's supporters understand that the settlements and the refusal to yield the occupied territories for a Palestinian state undermine both Israel's security and American interests throughout the entire Muslim world. Netanyahu can still count on real support for Israel in America. He just cannot count on mindless, knee-jerk support. Those days are over.

He needs to understand that in Obama he is dealing with a president who knows more about how the Middle East works after five months in office than most of his predecessors knew after eight years. Obfuscation and word games just won't cut it with Obama or, in fact, with Clinton, Jones, Biden, Emanuel, or Axelrod either. He has to deliver the goods.

If he doesn't, the pro-Israel community needs to be honest and call him out. Already there are a few voices urging Obama to ease up already, as if Netanyahu has already been pressured to do too much. He hasn't done anything yet. And all Obama has done is ask Netanyahu to fulfill the commitments of previous Israeli governments. That is not asking too much.


52 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic
The irony is that the United States is only asking Netanyahu to live up to commitments of previous governments, a principle Israel holds dear.
This is what's known as a distortion in polite circles and an outright lie by those interested in truth. Since 1967 the United States has FORMALLY asked Israel to cease constructing settlements but looked the other way when it actually did so. That was the reality. Obama is making a MAJOR break with previous U.S. policy (See Stratfor). You know it. That's why you wrote an article saying he has every right to do so (to renounce Bush administration agreements).

Netanyahu is NOT going to agree because the Israeli public doesn't want him to, according to the most recent Maagar Mochot poll. 56% don't want to freeze settlements and more than 2/3rds don't want to withdraw from them.

That poll has an interesting history. I first saw it in Ha'aretz. But within an hour it was removed and replaced with a slimy criticism by J Street, which says that it's nothing but settler propaganda. But Maagar Mochot is a highly respected organization and Ha'aretz provided a link to IMRA which gives the details of the poll. They look straighforward to me. J Street also tries to prevent an honest appraisal by pointing to who commissioned the poll, as if that is more important than the poll itself (as long as its honest).

Gag. Puke.

user-pic

N.B. Jimmy Carter did try to halt settlement construction, briefly, but nothing came of it. There were a couple of more attempts later, equally ineffective. Dore Gold had a good history of Israel and the West Bank going back to 1922 in a recent article in the Jerusalem Post.

user-pic

MJ says: "The Palestinians have nothing to give. They are the ones under occupation. They are the ones without a state. They are the ones whose lives are made miserable by expanding settlements. They have as much of a right to insist on the unconditional stopping of settlements as Israelis have to demand an unconditional end to violence. And the United States has the obligation to help.'

Unabashed truth telling.

user-pic

They don't have shit for rights.

Their position was that Jews have no right to a state in Palestine. None. Nada. Zip. They, and the surrounding Arab states, went to war continually and repeatedly to enforce their views. They lost...but they still hold the same views - not publicly (usually but hardly uniformly) but in reality.

Now its the Israeli position - the real one, not the ones presented for political and legal reasons - that they have no right to any state in Palestine.

I'm in total agreement.

user-pic

How bizarre you are. You actually read the entire post backwards. MJ was referring to Palestinians living under Israeli occupation.

You should go to Evelyn Wood and demand your money back.

user-pic

Of course he was. So?

user-pic

The more I draw out your comments, the more you rhetorically hang yourself.

You really don't have a clue, do you?

user-pic

No. Stop playing games and explain yourself. Either you've got good arguments or you don't.

user-pic

It is interesting and even eloquent, but you rambled away from Netanyahu's speech. Where (which university)? When?

user-pic

Bob Jones University. After Jesus returns.

user-pic

*I don't rule anything out with Netanyahu. He is intelligent and resourceful. He is not an ideologue.*

That flies in the face of all the evidence. Netanyahu is a political theorist who supports the creation of a greater Israel that excludes all Arabs, Muslims and non-Jews. That involves a system of 'transfer' as this particular ethnic-cleansing is euphemistically termed by Likud.

Arguably, Netanyahu is an ideologue of the worst kind in that his social philosophy is harshly detrimental to the indigenous population that suffers ever-increasing hardship as a direct result of his skewed ideas.

Political Zionism is, in the end, a dead duck for it tries to build a political and social edifice on foundations inherently weakened by violence and hatred. This is the age of democracy - although not of the US variety - and colonial type ethnic-cleansing is unacceptable to a world that watches every move of politicians such as Netanyahu with a knowing, beady eye.

user-pic

Take a look at the Jerusalem Post today for an article calling for Israeli honesty (per Obama) and laying out the real alternatives that Israel has before it. The author asks many excellent questions.

I think Israel has to realize that despite the emotional, biblical, historical, religious, moral etc. precedents, impulses, justifications, desires, etc., Israel is not going to be allowed to maintain sovereignty over all of the land "from river to sea." Following that comes the question of whether Israel will be allowed to encourage emigration, expel, buy out, push out, transfer Israeli Arabs to Palestine, following another precedent of partitions starting with India and Pakistan.

user-pic

And whether Jews will have the right to move to Palestine if they wish. If they do, won't Palestinians have to have the same rights?

user-pic

The article is good...but it contains nothing new.

By 1890 - 1900 at the latest - both the Arabs and the Jews realized it was not going to be possible to coexist.

Since neither group had the power to expel the other - it took several wars to establish that - they had to play games. Part of that was to construct false realities to mobilize the mobs - the descamisados as Alfred E. Newman calls them.

The author is just trying to wake them up.

user-pic

Ordinary says: "By 1890 - 1900 at the latest - both the Arabs and the Jews realized it was not going to be possible to coexist."

Right. Because the Palestinians lived on the land that the Zionists coveted. The Aztecs also had gold that the Spanish Conquistadores coveted. I guess their conflict was the Aztecs's fault.

user-pic

If you were 12 years old I'd say you were brilliant.
If you were a high-school or college student I'd excuse your ignorance as a normal part of the learning experience and applaud your courage.
But I think you're quite a bit older...that you're a pimply faced, social reject with pathetic pretentions.

user-pic

Obama likes to play poker. Fold, Bet, Raise. Who has a strong hand? Who is bluffing? Time to show your cards, Mr. Netanyahu.

user-pic

One problem Obama has is that he has not yet laid out an explicit peace plan or Israeli-Palestinian policy agenda. There have just been a few statements about settlements, some murmurings and leaks about what to expect, and a speech in Cairo that dwelt on broad thematic issues regarding US relationships in the Middle East. But people have run with all sorts of assumptions about what Obama is going to say.

So it would be best for Obama to step in here with some peremptory statements before Sunday, and make sure Netanyahu isn't able to seize the initiative to define the terms of the developing international debate. He needs to be kept on defense.

user-pic

Rahm Emmanuel still wants to be Speaker of the House in the not too distant future. I'm pretty sure the Jewish money men who chose him as a bundler and "suggested" Bill Clinton hire him as an adviser, the money men who hired him to be an investment banker, the money men who funded his Congressional campaign, and the money men who undoubtedly suggested him for Chief of Staff, would kill Rahm's political career if he allows Obama to push too hard for a fair M.E. peace.

And that all assumes I.D.F. volunteer/Israel summer resident Rahm actually wants to see Israel crawl back to the '67 borders or thereabouts.

Rahm is twisting arms in Congress to continue funding Bush's immoral occupations of choice. What makes anybody think that he feels any different about the occupation carried out by a country he has such love/loyalty for, and a country his father used terror to help create.

Of course Rahm is acting in Israel's interests behind the scenes. What is he, an Arab?

user-pic

Please let me know when you hear any Neocon call Rahm a self-hating Jew.

user-pic

Walker, you use every anti-semitic canard in the book. You are entitled to dislike Jews, which you clearly do, but not to express those views on this site.
Keep it up and you are out of here.

user-pic

You should do a column on all the players who are upset/ threatened by the possibility that Obama will bring reconciliation to the ME.

Obama's decision to shift strategic diagloque to Egypt and Saudi Arabia is literally a double-edge sword for those regimes: The more the West pays attention to those countries, the harder it becomes to label their governments "moderate." Obama may "best friend" those regimes to death.


For which, he has my full support.

user-pic

From reading other comments of yours as well as this one, Dan, I get the impression that you want Obama to dictate a plan to the parties, i.e., king of the world, here's what you all are going to do. I don't think you're going to get that. That's not the way Obama is and it's not the way Mitchell is. It's more like this:

DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) — George J. Mitchell, the Obama administration’s Middle East envoy, said during a visit with Syrian leaders here on Saturday that the country had a vital role to play in forging peace in the region....

Mr. Mitchell’s visit....is the administration’s strongest push yet to improve relations with the country. And it is part of a broader effort to press Arab countries to help resume Israeli-Palestinian peace talks and also pursue a peace deal with the Jewish state themselves.

Syria is seen as a key player in this process because of its support for the Palestinian militant group Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, and its intermittent peace talks with Israel.

“Syria has an integral role to play in reaching comprehensive peace,” Mr. Mitchell said. Syria and the United States share an obligation “to create conditions for negotiations to begin promptly and end successfully,” he told reporters after a 90-minute meeting with President Bashar al-Assad...

I also think the administration's interest in working on Iran and possible nukes, with trying things so early in the administration, is partly tied with assuring Sunni states in the region about Iranian dominance so that they feel more comfortable pushing Palestinians to a table.

Mitchell did not walk into previous peacemaking negotiations like a victorious general outlining the terms of surrender for the loser. He just tries to get negotiations going and keep them going.

I think you are going to be waiting a long time if you want a "plan" from them. With the Mitchell method, the parties are at a impasse like with a labor strike, you get them at a table and you make the "plan" at the table, as you go along. That's when you get tough along the lines of "you are being ridiculous," not now. Especially dictating plans before you have them sitting at a table, that's just a way to keep them away from any table.

user-pic

If I remember correctly - (as I am now old and infirm)- Rahm was appointed as Obama's chief of staff just about 15 seconds (or thereabouts) after Obama was himself declared president.

His very first important staff appointment was made so quickly that AIPAC officials texted him urgently to go a little more slowly otherwise people might get suspicious.

What nonsense - why would we think that?

user-pic

Today we hear allegations that there have been irregularities in the Iranian presidential elections. Reminds me of irregularities in another Middle Eastern state, reported on by the BBC in September 2007

‘The latest scandals to hit the Israeli political establishment are just two examples in a long line that have recently rocked Israeli political and public life.
The Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, is to face a police investigation into a house purchase in which he is alleged to have bought a house in Jerusalem at a price that was significantly below the true market value.
Separately he also faces allegations over the sale of Leumi bank in 2005 and the head of the Israeli Tax Authority, a top aide to Mr Olmert, and several others were arrested as part of a police investigation into possible bribery.
Meanwhile, Israel's ex-President Moshe Katsav struck a plea bargain with the attorney general to avoid rape charges. Under the bargain, he is due to be charged with lesser sexual offences and faces a suspended sentence.

Corruption scandals are part of the fabric of Israeli political history.
One factor in the Labour Party losing the election in 1977, after almost 30 years in power, was the feeling among the population that it was corrupt.
Famously, the party's leader, Yitzhak Rabin, resigned the same year after it was discovered that his wife held an illegal bank account.

New heights
More recently, Israeli prime ministers such as Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, and Ariel Sharon have faced investigations, although none of them were ever charged with wrongdoing.

Mr Olmert has been implicated in an alleged real estate scandal
The allegations, however, tarnished their premierships.
But with the spate of recent allegations there is now a feeling among the Israeli public that corruption is scaling new heights.
Ten years ago, Israel was listed 10th in an honesty league compiled by Transparency International, an anti-corruption group based in Berlin. It has now fallen to 34th place.
"I am very worried about what I see," says Daniel Kayros, an attorney with the advocacy group Movement for Quality Governance in Israel.

“ A politician can easily forget whose interests he is representing”

Daniel Kayros,
Movement for Quality Governance in Israel
"The corruption we are facing now is terrible. It's almost at an epidemic level."’

user-pic

Alternative scenario: Iranian held an election and people got excited about it. Now the Regime is trying to walk back the cat.

We need to see more democracy in Iran. But it needs to be the Iranians who choose the moment and its form.

P.S. Don't you think the people of Cairo, Amman, and Riyadh would love to have a democracy as flawed as Tehran's?


user-pic

Corruption, fraud, theft and all the rest of it are part of human nature, and therefore part of the history of every country and people. They can't ever be eliminated.

But they can be minimized. That's why not all social systems and culture are equal. That why Churchill's famous observation "Democracy is the worst of all systems...except for all the others" is so brilliant. It's our rights, freedom of speech and assembly, and our adherence to the rule of law, which allow us to do better than most others...even though our flaws are terrible.

All this is obvious...but you don't want to see it because you're a liberal and an anti-semite. You want to blame all the world's troubles on your own society and the Jews, almost certainly because you are frustrated and envious. Any time another society is criticized you always have to say "yes but..." and then list the flaws of America and Israel.

As for Alfred E.... Well, I'm still learning. I'd dearly like to know why he left AIPAC. I suspect the reason was personal; someone told him that he didn't have the right stuff. But I'll never know...

user-pic

MJ:
We readers should see more about this: "Today, however, the Palestinian Authority not only renounces violence but in fact combats terrorism with the help of the United States."

Colindale:
You made a very perceptive observation: "This is the age of democracy - although not of the US variety - and colonial type ethnic-cleansing is unacceptable to a world that watches every move of politicians such as Netanyahu with a knowing, beady eye."

Ethnic-cleansing is the anathema of our age. To advocate it as policy is as lucrative as endorsing a "final solution" for Palestinians. This is why the settlers, and Bibi if he stubbornly caters to them, utlimately have no political or moral leg to stand on. I hope Netanyahu can figure this out.

Meanwhile,
back at the Mount...it really all comes down to Jerusalem. Israel will never forsake the holy city. So the two-state solution will ultimately come down to a two-faith solution on the Mount.

Since this is a game of high stakes, as BluePearl suggests, let's get everything on the table, cut to the chase.

Proposal: Israel withdraws support of the settlers' de facto ethnic cleansing strategy.(Let the settlers stay there if they are willing to make amends with their new old neighbors.) In exchange, the state of Israel receives half of the Temple Mound, and a site for a new building to commemorate Jewish history on its most hallowed ground.

Here's a little poetry as comic relief to punctuate this high drama:

"...the cow and the bear will graze; their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox. The nursing child will play by the hole of the cobra, and the weaned child will put his hand on the viper's den. They will not hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain..." Isaiah


user-pic

You say: " In exchange, the state of Israel receives half of the Temple Mound, and a site for a new building to commemorate Jewish history on its most hallowed ground."

Having personally walked all over the Temple Mount, I am puzzled by this statement. Are you suggesting that the Muslim World agree to dismantle the Dome of the Rock, the Al Aqsa Mosque, or the Islamic Museum?

Is this a serious suggestion or just a provocation?

user-pic

Careful, mythbuster. Such questions show you clearly hate Jews, lol.

user-pic

My guess is he will accept the two state solotion in theory and attach a slew of conditions to it that could not possibly be met in the next 10 years. An illegal outpost here and there may get demolished, but the settlements will continue!

user-pic

When it comes to settlements, the Israeli right is utterly isolated. Its allies are few, far between, and politically insignificant.

Really? Then why do settlements continue to grow?

user-pic

Settlements grow because AIPAC insists upon it. And who are we, mere tax payers, to demur?

user-pic
user-pic

"You are entitled to dislike Jews, which you clearly do, but not to express those views on this site."

M.J., some of the greatest, most courageous humanitarians of all time were Jewish, and some of the best writers, scholars, scientists, etc, etc, as well as some of my closest friends.

If I made anti-Mafia comments, would you say I clearly don't like Italians?

Would I need to be Italian to criticize a mob run union/port/construction company?

You acknowledge that the Israel Lobby is extremely powerful, and that it's former leader pass notes around saying things like "A lobby works best in the dark, be careful, the walls have ears" or whatever.

We watched the Lobby destroy an Obama nominee for not toeing the line, and we see that "the long knives are out" for National Security Advisor James Jones:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-clemons/can-national-security-adv_b_214672.html

Do you think the Lobby thought it irrelevant who would be Obama's Chief of Staff? Isn't a former ballerina/IDF volunteer/part-time Israel resident/son of Irgun/Iraq-Afghanistan occupation supporting, notorious A22hole fair game for speculation?

Or can only Jews ask if any Neocon has ever called Rahm a self-hating Jew?

And if you were in a close knit group of billionaires with an Israeli-centric worldview, wouldn't you use your financial clout to place advisors in Democratic and Republican administrations?

I know you want to believe Rahm is more loyal to Obama than anything else in the world, but this is a guy who didn't even come out and support him over Hilary in the primaries.

All of this is fair game for discussion, no? What is I was Jewish, and not just a grandson of one on my father's side?

user-pic

And what do you think our founding fathers would think about Rahm's ideas voiced in this speech?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJBZZKlvrP4

"that is, if you are on the no-fly list, because you are known as maybe a possible terrorist, you cannot buy a handgun in America... If you're on that no-fly list, you're access to the right to bear arms is canceled. Because you're not part of the American family. There is no right for you, if you are on that terrorist list."

Senator Ted Kennedy was on the no-fly list. In being put there, did he forfeit his right to bear arms? Was he no longer part of the American family?

Is this appropriate for discussion? Or should we just trust Joe Lieberman to make sure, in his Homeland Security oversight role, that no non-terrorists are ever put on that no-fly-list?

I hope it's clear that I dislike creeping fascism, and I hope you'll grant me the freedom to make pro-constitution comments in the future. Thank you in advance.

user-pic

For the record, I do not consider any criticism of Israel, Zionism, out of bounds.
I consider you anti-semitic because you attack pretty much anyone, regardless of their views on an issue, as part of a Jewish conspiracy. You indulge in every anti-semitic canard in the book and so I consider you a racist.
See Mythbuster if you want to see the difference between political criticism and racism.
That is my last comment to you, or to your counterpart, Ordinary.
Play amongst yourselves.

user-pic

M.J., I know I criticized you for saying something like "Obama didn't go back on his campaign pledges on torture, illegal wiretapping, Guantanamo, and Iraq and Afghanistan, and even if he did, so what?"

I'd give you the direct quote but the archive links aren't working. I'm not trying to pull a YBD and put words in your mouth.

Did YOU deserve criticism for that comment? Or is it only because I also criticize Joe Lieberman and Rahm Emmanuel that you conclude I'm racist?

Show me an example of me criticizing a Jewish individual who clearly wasn't deserving of being criticized. Oh wait, that was your last comment to me, how very convenient.

There's a reason you've only given praise to Jews like Greenwald, Blumenthal, and Naomi Klein and Wolf. They have very humanitarian principles that they don't forget when somebody they have hyped breaks those same principles.

If you think yourself or Rahm Emmanuel are beyond criticism, please let us all know.

If you want to backtrack on your "so what" comment, let the pro-Constitution among us know as well. We'd appreciate it.


user-pic

"There's a reason you've only given praise to Jews like Greenwald, Blumenthal, and Naomi Klein and Wolf."

Correction, There's a reason I'VE only given praise...

Forgive me, Censor.

user-pic

Barack Obama is not a friend of Israel; and with friends like M.J., Israel's enemies can sit back and relax.

user-pic

So relax then, Maryalice.

user-pic

Your response is very clever, but so far, far off the mark.

user-pic

I don't think it's clever. It think he actually believes it. Pretty frightening, huh?

user-pic

Maryalice - Instead of leaving a cryptic comment why don't you add something meaningful to the discussion. Since I have not seen you around here very much we would like to understand your views of what Bibi/Israel should do about this conflict.

user-pic

Finding "enemies" is easier than solving problems.

user-pic

I am not an expert, but I believe that the very MOST Netanyahu should offer is to freeze the settlements. Until Israels's enemies (for lack of a better word) acknowledge the legitimacy of her existence, how much can he be pressured to give up? The U.N., which might be able to help, seems to be deaf. The White House seems not to be a real friend, for the first time in Israeli history. I don't know if his speech will be directed to the Arab world, but I am waiting to hear it. I wish him luck.

user-pic

Mary Alice, you don't know much. The PLO accepted Israel's existence in 1988. The Palestinian Authority worked hand-in-hand with Israel to combat terrorism during Oslo's last three years (no terrorism) and are again doing it.
What do the Pals have to do to, convert or commit suicide? I guess either will do (Orthodox conversion only).

user-pic
That is my last comment to you, or to your counterpart, Ordinary.
I can't possibly be accused of anti-semitism or anti-Zionism so you must be accusing me of racism. Is that correct, Alfred E.?

I can't remember the last time you addressed a comment to me? Months ago? Years? I can't say I sleep better for it...or worse. I wish you were amenable to argument, to reason, to facts. But you're not, and neither are most of your admirers.

But, as I've said before, one can always hope for the unexpected, the unlikely.

user-pic

Ordinary: "But, as I've said before, one can always hope for the unexpected, the unlikely."

After about 1,000 of your posts, I am still waiting for you to type in constructive post without an Arab stereotype...

(I'll be waiting a long time.)

user-pic

billwalker: "There's a reason I've only given praise to Jews like Greenwald, Blumenthal, and Naomi Klein and Wolf. They have very humanitarian principles that they don't forget when somebody they have hyped breaks those same principles."

Greenwald, Blumenthal, and Naomi Klein are self-hating Jews. You have a convoluted type of anti-semitism, billwalker. By praising them, your hate of Jews expresses itself through the hate in Jews who hate themselves.

Facebook

This information is very useful! Thanks!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of windows 2008 hyper v, iscsi target 3.2

Facebook

Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of sql server high availability

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

The Coffee House
TPMCafe's regulars

House Brew
From Your Cafe Editor

Special Guests
Big names and big brains

Special Features
Pressing topics and trends

Table for One
An expert's week-long talk.

All Reader Posts
TPM readers discuss.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address