Israel Expanding Settlements: Will Obama Finally Apply The Pressure?
Just yesterday US mediator, George Mitchell, told the Israelis that the United States opposed expanding the Gilo settlement in East Jerusalem. According to Israeli press reports, Mitchell said that moving ahead with settlement expansion now could kill the peace process.
So what did the Israelis do today? They approved the Gilo expansion.
This then may be President Obama's last chance to get it right. In his Cairo speech in the spring he demanded that the Israelis freeze settlements. Prime Minister Netanyahu ignored him except to make clear that he had no intention of freezing anything. Then the Secretary of State made it worse by going to Israel and praising Netanyahu for his "unprecedented" moves for peace.
At that point, the roof caved in. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas announced he would resign, followed almost immediately by warning that the Palestinians were finished with negotiations. They would, he said, declare a state unilaterally.
This caused great distress in Israel with both Netanyahu and Senator Joe Lieberman warning the Palestinians: "Don't you dare."
Then yesterday, in an effort to undo some of the damage, Mitchell told the Israelis not to proceed with the Gilo expansion causing the Israelis to limmediately announce they were going ahead with it.
It's almost amusing. Almost $4 billion in US aid a year and Netanyahu does not give us the time of day. (And not just on settlements either. The barbaric blockade of Gaza is in its fourth year).
Bibi is making Obama and America look like fools. But we have a chance to begin to show some mettle. Are we going to apply the pressure or surrender?
If past is prologue, we surrender. But hope springs enternal. Can we do the right thing for once? I mean, just how powerful is AIPAC anyway?
NOTE: MEDIA MATTERS WILL begin distributing my new Media Matters Action Network column right after Thanksgiving. If you want to receive it by e-mail, write to me at mjrosenberg8@gmail.com.
1. Israel keeps up Palestinian evictions 04 Nov 09
1. Dispatches: Inside Britain's Israel Lobby
1 = 1
November 17, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ: Your continued faith in Obama despite all the evidence to the contrary is inspiring.
It almost make me think you are Catholic. See http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c3a1.htm ("I believe, in order to understand; and I understand, the better to believe.")
November 17, 2009 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is too busy caving on financial regulation reform, not acting on immigration reform and climate change, compromising with everyone and his brother on health care, taking token steps on education and energy, letting the Cheney-Bush administration off every hook they should be swinging from -acting in other words, and despite well-meaning eloquence and well-above average intelligence, much like the invertebrate Democratic Congress he came from- to even acknowledge that AIPAC is a full-time insult to America and a dagger at the heart of any peace Mideast process based on the US being an honest broker. The odds that he might "finally apply the pressure" are as unnecessarily long as the prior sentence of this post.
November 17, 2009 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Poor PTroub, You are disappointed. Yes, Obama has discovered that US is not dictatorship, American people don't hate Israel and don't want socialism.
November 17, 2009 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are an ignorant dupe, Anna. I expected something like this years ago while you were still busy taking your eternally childish brain in for washing at the Warsaw Ghetto Paranoia school, Chicken-Droppings Russian conspiracy theories branch. Children have large exploitable memory banks, so it is no surprise to see you regurgitating the latest pitifully unoriginal crap about Obama being a socialist. If you had been less incurably infantile while in Russia, you might have learned what a real socialist dictatorship looks like.
November 17, 2009 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are you replying to it?! Do you think your comment makes for interesting reading? It's disgusting that the management allows the amount of trolling here, but feeding them only makes it worse.
November 17, 2009 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you post at all you feed them. I don't jump in here to fight these AIPAC dupes, they dump their camel dung into rationale adult conversations (and then I and others stuff some of it back down the misplaced orifices whence it originated). So either they are finally banned for sabotoging every adult dialogue they possibly can, or they feed and are fed. Evidently TPM prefers the latter. They probably don't realize how this policy degrades the quality of their comment boards.
November 17, 2009 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
If not for American people and AIPAC we would by now would live in the Workers Paradise.
November 17, 2009 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
If not for the generosity of THE American people (note how and when in English we use the definite article: signed up yet for beginning English As A Second Language?), and their flexible if convoluted immigration laws, "Anna," you would be rotting in the Workers Paradise of the Gulag where your juvenile brain still resides.
November 17, 2009 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, this is why I love American people who help people of East Europe, South Korea, Iraq and many other countries to archive freedom. This is why I love President Reagan who famously said "Tear down this wall".
November 17, 2009 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 17, 2009 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would ask a real Jew to comment on such obvious nonsense, not a travesty of a Jew such as you. The issue here is of course not Jews controlling America, but Jewish Americans liberating themselves from AIPAC.
November 17, 2009 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see, the issue here of Bad Jews controlling Good Jews who control US and the whole world. Makes total sense.
November 17, 2009 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dead wrong as usual. Not good vs bad. Real vs fake. Ask MJ's grandmother.
November 17, 2009 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK. I see, the issue here Fake Jews control Real Jews who control US and the whole world. Makes total sense.
November 17, 2009 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's the definition of neurosis? Doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results? The last thing the Israelis want is for the US to make nice with the Muslim world. Did we really think they were going to cooperate, just because the President of the United States now understands that it is in our best interest to improve relations with the Arab and Muslim world? They are more than willing to sabotage Obama's presidency to keep this from happening. His last chance is to allow the Palestinian request for a declaration of statehood on the '67 borders to go forward in the Security Council without a US veto. It won't happen, but it damn well should.
November 17, 2009 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Palestinians do not want the statehood on the '67 borders. They want so called resolution of called refugee problem, i.e unlimited immigration of Arabs to Israel.
November 17, 2009 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Israel annexes the WB and Gaza, it will very shortly be a majority Arab country, no longer Jewish, and no longer a democracy. The declaration of a Palestinian state is probably their last chance also.
from CBS Sunday Morning:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUMeyUlx6yc
November 17, 2009 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Try to get this through your paranoid half-wit brain, Anna: All Arabs are not Palestinians. And sign up for a class in basic English.
November 17, 2009 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK Not all, just, 5-10 millions of Arab insist of immigration to Israel.
November 17, 2009 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Millions of Russians "insisted" on immigrating to America after the worker's paradise there collapsed. We did not let them all in, however, just because they "insisted," even if some that were refused ought to have been admitted and vice versa (e.g. case in point here).
November 17, 2009 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because each country including US or Israel has a right to decide immigration policies alone. Arabs has no business to insist on immigration of 5-10 millions Arabs to Israel.
November 17, 2009 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
AnnaA: "Because each country including US or Israel has a right to decide immigration policies alone. Arabs has no business to insist on immigration of 5-10 millions Arabs to Israel."
The entire point behind "right of return" is that these refugees would not be "immigrating".
They anchor their claim upon a completely different point: Jewish forces ejected them from this territory when the nascant State Of Israel was being formed, and that under the laws of state succession the Jews of Mandate Palestine did not have the "right" to do that to these Arabs.
So according to the Palestinians this is not an "immigration" at all i.e. these refugees are "returning" to a state whose majority ethnicity wrongfully ejected them some 60 years ago.
Which makes "Israel" THEIR state as much as it is your state, AnnaA, even if you refuse to accept that.
November 18, 2009 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is exactly my point. When Palestinians talk of accepting a two state solution, they mean two Arab states.
November 18, 2009 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
AnnaA: "This is exactly my point."
No, AnnaA, that is your "paranoia".
AnnA: "When Palestinians talk of accepting a two state solution, they mean two Arab states."
No, AnnaA, they do not.
The Palestinians are insisting that they possess a RIGHT of return, and that Israel should recognize this i.e. that Israel should recognize that these refugees have legitimate RIGHTS that derive from the actions taken against them by the Jewish paramilitaries and the Haganah back in 1947-49.
They are not insisting that these rights MUST BE dealt with by the return of every single refugee and every one of their decendents.
They don't say that now, and they have never said that.
Not. Ever.
They are saying that they have RIGHTS, and that this RIGHT actually matters, and if Israel desires that these refugees not exercise those rights then ISRAEL HAS TO COMPENSATE THEM.
They are open to compensation AnnaA: it was written into UNGA Resolution 192 All Those Years Ago.
But Israel simply wants these refugees to disappear, and they are offended and they are outraged by that attitude, and they demand that Israel change its tune.
And quite right, too.
November 18, 2009 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Israel doesn't have a problem with compensation. Palestinians can get all the properties that Arab countries confiscated from Jews.
BTW, Are you really saying that Palestinians continue to fight for sop many years just to get money
November 18, 2009 3:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
AnnaA: "Israel doesn't have a problem with compensation."
Ahh, sorry, AnnaA, it does. Big time.
The Israeli state is responsible for the harm done to these people, and so it is the Israeli state that has the obligation to pay them recompense.
Not anyone else. I.S.R.A.E.L.
AnnaA: "Palestinians can get all the properties that Arab countries confiscated from Jews."
You are claiming that the Palestinians should seek recompense from those who did not cause them harm, and that this recompense should be in the form of property that has been stolen from someone else.
Hm, if I read that right then the one entity that *doesn't* have to pay anything is..... Israel.
How odd, because that is the entity that was responsible for the harm that was done to these individuals in the first place.
And that sounds "right" to you, does it?
AnnaA: "BTW, Are you really saying that Palestinians continue to fight for sop many years just to get money"
No, AnnaA, I am not.
I am saying that they are fighting for a just recompense for a wrong that was done to them AND they are fighting for that wrongdoer to acknowledge the harm - the CATASTROPHE, remember - that was done to them.
They aren't animals, AnnaA: they are a proud people, and those are two mighty powerful incentives for a proud person not to give up nor to give in.
November 18, 2009 4:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
AnnaA: "Palestinians do not want the statehood on the '67 borders."
How odd. They certainly say that's what they want, and they have been saying that since at least 1993.
AnnaA: "They want so called resolution of called refugee problem,"
They want the refugee problem fixed, yes.
They refuse to let that problem go away, yes.
AnnaA: " i.e unlimited immigration of Arabs to Israel."
I'm sorry, AnnaA, but you have just reached a conclusion based upon no evidence other that your own neurosis.
Please show me any statement from any PLO or PA negotiator stating that when they say "resolution of the refugee problem" they are really insisting upon "unlimited immigration of Arabs to Israel".
Heck, I'll even make it easier: give me a statement where they insist upon "unlimited immigration of PALESTINIAN REFUGEES to Israel"
November 17, 2009 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to you:
"to the Palestinians this is not an "immigration" at all i.e. these refugees are "returning" to a state whose majority ethnicity wrongfully ejected them some 60 years ago."
November 18, 2009 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
AnnaA, my two posts are not mutually-exclusive.
These refugees are insisting that they have a RIGHT to return to the land from which they were illegally ejected.
They are also insisting that this is, indeed, a right and not a sufferance i.e. if they "return" then they do so as citizens of the country that ejected them, and not as "immigrants".
Now, follow the bouncing ball, AnnaA:
1) If this is a "right" then it must have some intrinsic "value"
1) If it has a "value" then it should be possible to determine a "fair price" for it.
2) If Israel doesn't want these refugees to exercise that "right" then it has to pay them that "fair price".
Got that, AnnaA?
So if Israel doesn't want these refugees to return (and it doesn't) then it can't simply say "fuck off, ya' bastards".
It has to pay them compensation, and the amount of compensation should be the "fair price" that has been decided is the "value" of that "right".
That's what the Palestinians want, AnnaA i.e. they want to be compensated for NOT returning.
Israel, of course, is insisting that they "fuck off, ya' bastards", and then acts outraged when they refuse to take that hint.
November 18, 2009 1:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
How much?
November 18, 2009 3:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
AnnaA: "How much?"
Let Netanyahu freeze all settlement construction and we'll ALL find out, because according to both the Saudi Pland and the Road Map that price is *supposed* to be hammered out in the peace negotiations.
Mind you, Netanyahu is insisting that any negotiations must exclude the question of refugees.
He just wants them to "fuck off, ya' bastards".
November 18, 2009 4:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
November 18, 2009 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
"His last chance is to allow the Palestinian request for a declaration of statehood on the '67 borders to go forward in the Security Council without a US veto."
Maybe I missed something, but when did the Security Council become a de facto world government? When did they acquire the authority to recognize governments, establish borders and do other things of that nature? There's nothing giving them that authority in the UN Charter; not even close. And isn't it rather undemocratic to have a world government where individual nations (nearly all Christian ones, by the way) have veto power over everything? Do I get to vote for the people who now run the world? Sorry, but I feel rather uncomfortable with the idea of the Russians, Chinese, British and French running my life. I would imagine that there might be others equally uncomfortable with the notion.
November 17, 2009 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Maybe I missed something, but when did the Security Council become a de facto world government? When did they acquire the authority to recognize governments, establish borders and do other things of that nature?"
Who do you think created the modern State of Israel in the first place? Sixty years later, it's time for the other shoe to drop. The Israelis are totally unwilling to negotiate borders and permit the establishment of a free Palestinian state, so let the SC declare them and be done with it.
November 17, 2009 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it was the General Assembly that voted to establish both Israel and a Palestinian state. Not the Security Council. Big difference. Please try to read comments before you begin trolling.
"The Israelis are totally unwilling to negotiate borders and permit the establishment of a free Palestinian state, so let the SC declare them and be done with it."
Sorry, but it doesn't work like that, unless, like the Palestinians, you are opposed to democracy and the rule of law. You can't just go around declaring things just because you can't accept that the world doesn't see things you're way. That's acting like a 4 year old throwing a tantrum.
And supposing, just supposing, that the UN did recognize a Palestinian state. Would they require that that state respect the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which specifically states that all people, male and female, have equal rights? Would the Palestinians, or for that matter any of the shariatheid states agree with that? Or is the rule now that the Arab states have the right to pick and choose which international laws and conventions they choose. What the UN should really do is address the fact that shariatheid and the UN Declaration of Human Rights are incompatible and expel all nations that refuse to grant full and equal rights to women. It's more than time that that happened. The reality is that the entire world is fed up with Arab bullying and violence, and especially their idea that they have the right to brutalize women any time they want. That's what this whole conflict is about, you know. But then one can't expect anti-semites to understand such advanced concepts as human rights, can one?
And the Israelis have offered to negotiate countless times over the past 60 years. And have repeatedly offered to recognize a Palestinian state provided they also recognize Israel, which the Palestinians aren't willing to do. It's the Palestinians who want it all and aren't willing to negotiate or compromise. The Israelis have managed to negotiate peace treaties with both Egypt and Jordan, and have withdrawn from several territories, including the Sinai and Gaza. So give me one example of the Palestinians successfully negotiating anything with anybody, and actually living up to what they agreed to. Just one please. They violated the Oslo accords before the ink was even dry, as they have every agreement they've ever made.
November 18, 2009 1:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
"No, it was the General Assembly that voted to establish both Israel and a Palestinian state. Not the Security Council. Big difference. Please try to read comments before you begin trolling."
So if the UN (GA, SC) established the modern State of Israel, they are well within their powers now to establish the final borders and to create the modern State of Palestine alongside Israel.
Everyone who disagrees with you is not a troll. No need to be insulting.
November 18, 2009 6:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
John, I advise against responding to Mikepenis. He is the dumbest person who posts here and his "historical facts" are lifted directly from Tim LaHaye's novels.
He's just AnnaA without the Soviet schooling.
November 18, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Try googling United Nations, League of Nations, Mandates, and Palestine, Mikep. And note the lack of black UN helicopters swooping down upon redneck backwaters of the USA in that history.
November 17, 2009 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Maybe I missed something, but when did the Security Council become a de facto world government? When did they acquire the authority to recognize governments, establish borders and do other things of that nature? "
Not to recognize GOVERNMENTS, but STATES.
If the Palestinians declare a state then they will need protection from A Very Vengefull Israel that would not hesitate to squash that state like a bug even as it denied that the bug being squished under its heel was ever a state.
The UNGA can give it that protection by admitting "Palestine" as a member state of the UN.
But it can not do that until the UNSC finds that "Palestine" fulfils the requirements of the UN Charter, precisely because the Charter itself says that's the sequence that must be followed.
Get it now?
The declaration of independence becomes a formality IF the UNSC has already lined up all those Ducks on the Wall that are needed to admit "Palestine" as a fully-paid up member state of the UN.
That has nothing to do with "where are the borders?!?!" - that can be decided later.
Becasue the important point is this: once "Palestine" becomes a member state of the UN then Israel is not entitled to use *force* to decide that - or any other - point of disagreement between it and "Palestine".
Doing that is forbidden under Article 2(4) of that Charter.
November 17, 2009 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Becasue the important point is this: once "Palestine" becomes a member state of the UN then Israel is not entitled to use *force* to decide that - or any other - point of disagreement between it and "Palestine"."
No, you're wrong again JohnnyBoy. If the UN prohibited wars between its member states then there are an awful lot of states that are in violation of that. Under the UN charter, Israel definitely has the right to defend itself against attacks and to wage war if other nations declare war against it, as the Arabs have. And if the UN decides to move against nations that wage war illegally then it should start with the US and Britain, which seem to have no hesitation about attacking any nations they feel like attacking. But I guess it's ok if Christians and Muslims do it. Only seems to be a problem when Jews do it.
I've never heard such ignorant, uninformed, bigoted twaddle in my life. What planet are you people from???
November 18, 2009 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
mikep: "If the UN prohibited wars between its member states then there are an awful lot of states that are in violation of that."
And that is indeed true i.e. plenty of states have acted in violation of the Charter, just as it is true that many private citizens break the law.
And this may shock you, but some people actually break the law and (shhhhhhh! don't tell anyone) they get away with it.
Does that mean that we should do away with laws?
Does that imply that we can ALL ignore the laws with impunity?
Now, this is a fact: Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the use of force to settle disputes between states.
This is also a fact: If one state decides to disregard 2(4) and go WHAMMER-JAMMER on another state then the latter *is* entitled to defend itself under Article 51 of the Charter.
This is also a fact: Article 51 of the Charter allows that state the right to organize a COLLECTIVE response to that aggression.
You point out that both the USA and Britain attacked Iraq, and that is true: both states grossly violated the UN Charter in attacking Iraq, and Iraq was unable to find anyone willing to aid in her defence.
But, then again, both of those nations also hold a veto in the UNSC, and one of them is a Superpower, and Iraq was under the control of a monster.
It may have escaped your notice, but Israel does not have a veto, it is a pipsqueek amongst nations, and Abbas is not Saddam Hussein.
Now, Mike, you may not like this idea, but it is true nonetheless:
1) IF Palestine became a member state of the UN
2) AND Israel attacked it in order to snuff it out
3) THEN it is Israel that will be in violation of Article 2(4), and it will be Palestines who will be entitled to seek a collective response under Article 51, just as surely as Kuwait did back in 1991.
Remind me again what happened to Iraq and Kuwait when the dust finally settled on that little brouhaha?
MikeP: "I've never heard such ignorant, uninformed, bigoted twaddle in my life. What planet are you people from???"
Hi Ho!
Hi Ho!
Ad Hominem we go!
Which one of the seven dwarfs are you, Mike?
Has to be dopey......
November 18, 2009 2:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose:
1977 We are deeply disappointed, we have consistently stated and reiterated during the Prime Minister's visit here that such settlements are contrary to international law and are an obstacle to the peace making process. [ link ]
2009 The White House responded angrily Tuesday to Israel's plan to build 900 new housing units beyond the Green Line in Jerusalem, despite specific objections from the U.S., saying that "we are dismayed". [ link ]
2020 The US expressed strong disappointment at israel transferring the majority of palestinians to jordan. the secretary of state was quoted as saying "we are really, really mad this time...really!"
November 17, 2009 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The '48 borders, the '67 borders, a divided Jerusalem never had a chance. Those borders make for a non-viable Jewish state.
If Muslims were willing to acknowledge Israel's right to exist they would recognize that and agree to a population transfer from Gaza, the West Bank, and Sinai to the passes. If the rest of the world has a real interest in peace they would help finance the move.
Since none of that has the slightest chance of happening, or even of being discussed openly and rationally, we will not see a peaceful resolution of the I-P conflict.
Instead the "peace process" nonsense will continue to make work for a lot of worthless pundits until external events lead to a violent change.
November 17, 2009 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
International Relations 101 by Spider, anyone?
The people I don't like are 100% responsible for any problems, and therefore it is 100% up to them to make concessions to solve any such problems. "Our" (is Spider actually an American?) team is always right, always good.
No thanks, I'd rather watch the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders.
November 17, 2009 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Troub, if you want to argue you must learn to read. I didn't talk about who was responsible for the problems. I talked about solutions.
The proposed borders are not acceptable to the Jews and borders which are acceptable to the Jews are not acceptable to the Arabs. Therefore no peaceful solution is possible.
If you have nothing of substance to add then continue watching TV.
November 17, 2009 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I got rid of my TV years ago, Spider, but I can read well enough to spot your BS trick. You have changed your tune. First you said it was all up to "Muslims"; if they would only stop standing in the way of progress by unconditionally surrendering all the West Bank to Israel, all would be well, but THEY won't and never will therefore no solution.
Now you have amended your position to being one in which neither side is willing to compromise; thus no solution. At least Spider 1.1 is based on common sense instead of the AIPAC garbage underpinning Spider 1.0.
But many people were making such arguments in the 1970s about Israel and Egypt. The Camp David agreement of 1979 proved them wrong.
Historical parallels are of course tenuous at best, however. There is no USSR today which might make America need Israel as a "ally." In the '70s, however, AIPAC had not yet perfected paranoia-based fear-mongering as a catch-all delusionary technique and managed to ruin the careers of a number of decent members of Congress that questioned it. On balance, compromise is trickier now than 30 years ago, because the US is seen as fundamentally and deeply biased towards one side.
November 17, 2009 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, US under Bush was biased toward US and biased against Al Queda. Not anymore.
November 17, 2009 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
180 degrees ass-backwards again "Anna". You are batting 1000 here (ask your English as a Second Language teacher to explain that phrase). Al Qaeda was mostly a bunch of dirty thugs in caves and desert training camps before Bush and Cheney. Thanks to the monumental bungling of these chickenhawks (and their atrocities; HEY remember the 88 times you told us about them?! NOW they ARE relevant!!) however, Al Qaeda grew manyfold with new recruits in many countries.
November 17, 2009 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Try and speak English instead of hate-filled paranoid garbage.
In my first post I outlined a solution which would be acceptable to the Jews. I had the resolution of the India-Pakistan problem in mind. The latter did not prevent 3 subsequent wars and endless hostility, but it was probably the best possible solution. I was careful to say it's application to the I-P dispute had not the slightest chance of obtaining even a reasoned hearing.
Hard to see how the Sinai solution can be applied to the West Bank or Gaza. It occurred as a result of a war which seriously damaged both sides, there's a big, harsh, pretty much unpopulated desert which separated both sides...and Israel had no historical claim to it.
November 17, 2009 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not hard to see at all, Spider. Google Geneva Accords 2003. Yes, its messy, messier than Sinai, and laden with dubious baggage. So is the US Congress granting carte blanche in perpetuity to West Bank settler terrorists. Even you can probably guess which of the two best serves the people of the US and which is in the interests of a well-funded foreign special interest group. There is no immediate prospect of a large segment of Americans rising up to face down the AIPAC traitors (especially with the likes of Friedman and Cohen at the NY Times ready to turn into silly putty at the slightest little criticism of Israel by American officials) but if that ever happens, the settlers are toast. They could not even manage to do more than cry like babies when Sharon sent them packing out of Gaza.
November 18, 2009 4:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Control yourself, Troub. Evicting 8000 settlers from Sinai was a terrible ordeal for Israel - It took a man of Sharon's stature to do it - and they got nothing for it. They'll never evict a quarter of a million from the West Bank. Never. And there's nothing America can do to force them to.
November 18, 2009 5:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Terrible ordeal. What a competely stupid crock. They had a red carpet exit all planned for them. Apart from the crybabying and one or two loonies, it was smooth and over done with and forgotten in a matter of days. West Bank would take longer, but is imminently doable. Especially since most of your quarter of million would be close enough to taken care of via minor border-redrawing. The cultish terrorists in the outpost settlements would be the problem, especially when they join forces with their Arab counterparts to launch a wave of terrorism. But Israel would have the world behind them, and it would not take long though force would be needed in some cases no doubt.
November 18, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
If only you actually knew what you were talking about and vitriol didn't interfere with your brain function.
Sure, a peaceful solution could be found if the warring parties wanted one. But they don't, they really don't, and you don't have the power to force them.
On the evacuation of Gaza from Milton Viorst's book (pages 12 and 13).
The assassination of Rabin soon followed.
Since then the Israeli Left has died, and Benny Morris and Yaakov Lecovick have joined Zhabotinsky in a grim view of the prospects for peace. You ought to read the first two. They'd teach you something if you'd let them.
November 18, 2009 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The evacuation from Gaza happened many years after Rabin was killed, of course, but Milton Viorst sounds interesting nonetheless. What is the title of the book you quoted from?
November 19, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. Rabin was assassinated many years after Sinai was evacuated. But Viorst makes a strong connection and does so in the paragraph following his description of the evacuation. I should have quoted from it...but instead tried to compress the argument. Here is the quote I mistakenly omitted
from "What Shall I do with this people?" by Milton Viorst, pages 13 and 14.
November 20, 2009 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I notice that, in my rush to say things quickly and simply, I confused the withdrawal from Gaza with the withdrawal from Sinai in more than one way. But the mistakes are minor and in no way detract from my central argument; that withdrawal from West Bank settlements and a united Jerusalem is simply not possible for Israel.
November 20, 2009 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is nonsense if the Palestinian state is demilitarized, as all the peace proposals require, and not true in any case as long as Israel is militarily stronger than its neighbors.
I'll ignore the breathtaking moral assumptions here and simply ask what on earth are "the passes"?
November 17, 2009 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good question, but waste of time; you are responding to a pre-recorded AIPAC lie machine playing here. By the implied but fake history in this propaganda bite, Irgun should never have stopped blowing up hotels or accepted the 1948 partition since even many times that much land would not be "viable" for a state.
November 17, 2009 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The morality is simple; Jews saw a need for a state of their own and are trying to re-establish a presence in their ancient homeland. Arabs in the Ottoman empire saw a chance to throw off the Turkish yoke and re-establish their former dominance in the region. Neither side saw, or sees, coexistance as either possible or desirable.
A demilitarized Palestinian state is either not a state or not really demilitarized. Therefore it will not happen. All peace proposals over the last 50 or 60 years have failed - in case you've been asleep in a cave somewhere.
The Sinai passes? You don't know about them and their military importance?
The great powers have no interest in either Jews or Arabs. Their interest is in access to oil. If they could guarantee access they would forget about both. They're working on it...and also on lessening their dependence on the stuff. But I can't see a peaceful resolution. We've established huge bases in Iraq which, we hope, will allow us to seize control of both Iraqi and Saudi oil should the need arise...and it will.
November 17, 2009 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
International Spider Relations 101 continues, but Ignorance of History makes a poor prerequisite.
Japan was de-militarized after 1945, and is still severely constrained militarily, compared to other countries of its economic stature. Is it therefore not a state?
What cave were you in when the Israel-Egypt and Israel-Jordan peace deals were signed? Or was your diaper being changed?
November 17, 2009 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Grow up, Troub. Japan was completely and utterly defeated in 1945, had no friends in Asia or elsewhere, and was in no position to threaten anyone.
November 17, 2009 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
"completely and utterly defeated, no friends and in no position to threaten anyone" sounds reasonably close to Fatah today.
"utterly morally bankrupt, no friends, but capable of shooting itself in the foot" is a fairly close description of the Netanyahu clique today
November 18, 2009 4:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even if I agreed with you on most of it - I don't - Israel is not defeated, possesses a large arsenal of nuclear weapons, and has vowed never again. Not at all like Japan post WWII.
November 18, 2009 5:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Further your reply was irrelevant. You were comparing Japan to a future Palestinian state, not Israel, arguing that a non-militarized state was viable. It isn't because it would always pose a threat to Israel.
November 18, 2009 5:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your "logic" is now complete. There can be no Palestinian state because my paranoia tells me that a Palestinian state, even if it had no military and were therefore not a state, would still threaten my beloved Israel. In order to protect that foreign country, Israel, from the threat posed by the non-military non-state Palestine, America must insure that Palestine never becomes a non-militarized non-state.
It becomes more apparent how tens of millions of people could vote for a Vice President who thinks the continent of Africa is a country.
November 19, 2009 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
It fucking useless with you.
Israel is surrounded by Arab and Muslim states, all of whom are historically and/or currently, its enemies. Many of them harbor groups openly dedicated to its destruction. It's not paranoia for Israel to believe that a Palestinian state could not be kept demilitarized. You are truly a sub-human moron, an utter disgrace, a pathetic simalcrum of a human being.
Liberals are supposed to have intelligence and values which place them above tribal and religious bias which characterizes conservatives. They have neither. They're just angry losers. Nothing more.
November 20, 2009 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. Someone who disagrees agrees with you is not a "liberal," whatever that outdated label means to someone with little knowledge of economic history or geography, just because Rush Limbaugh rails against "liberals" and you recycle whatever he tells you.
2. Germany and France were historic enemies more fierce and for far longer than any animosity between Jews and Arabs in the Mideast. If you travel there you could still encounter prejudice and deep hatreds between those two countries, though mostly among people over about age 50. Nonetheless neither side in 2009 finds it to cross the Rhine river to slaughter hundreds of children on the other side. A peaceful two-state solution exists
a) because America wanted it that way
b) because it makes good common sense for the vast majority of both populations
c) because paranoid lunatic fringe groups have practically no power on either side
3. Your excessive use of profanity is typical of people who have an inferiority complex about their relatively low intelligence and/or poor education.
November 20, 2009 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Vaguely, upon reflection. Thanks for the clarification. I had thought "to the passes" referred to "Gaza, the West Bank and Sinai," not just Sinai. Would probably have figured it out otherwise.
November 18, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bibi is making Obama and America look like fools. But we have a chance to begin to show some mettle. Are we going to apply the pressure or surrender?
MJ, what specific forms of pressure are you recommending?
November 17, 2009 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan, can we withdraw some military aid until the settlements stop? It really wouldn't harm Israel's security one bit since they'd still be under our security umbrella but it might at least remind Netanyahu that the checks we write them aren't blank.
November 17, 2009 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, Let's Obama increase unemployment in US and decrease support of American Jews in the same time. Great Idea.
November 17, 2009 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
AnnaA: "Sure, Let's Obama increase unemployment in US and decrease support of American Jews in the same time. Great Idea."
How does withdrawing US military aid from Israel lead to increased unemployment in the USA?
After all, if Obama withdraws (for example) $3 billion in aid then he can always give that money to Gates with a note that reads "Here, you spend it".
Net effect on US industry: zero.
Indeed, if you have any understanding of the military aid to Israel you'd know that doing as I suggested above would result in an EXTRA $600 million being poured into the US economy.
November 17, 2009 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, Let him try.
November 18, 2009 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
AnnaA: "OK, Let him try."
Indeed, I think he should try, and we'll see who ends up hurting, and who ends up laughing.
November 18, 2009 2:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
propaganda is easy to spot once you know the truth.
i suggest obama bring the truth of the middle east to the american people with cameras rolling.
who would be against that?
November 18, 2009 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know whether a withdrawal of aid would be effective or not Destor. Israel is a very well-off country. How much of the aid do they really need?
But what I am interested in is seeing what MJ is willing to support; and that's because I suspect one reason Obama is so reticent about putting the screws to Israel is that, for all their claims of support for "getting tough" and constant bitching and symbolic vanity protests about Israel's government, MJ and his allies are completely unwilling to put their political asses on the line and defend any actual coercive measures. Obama knows that he has few solid and committed allies in the American Jewish community for a real "get tough with Israel" policy, and that if he ever really tried anything like that, J Street would probably transform itself into Son of Aipac in a few weeks time.
MJ and friends keep saying Obama should "do something", but when it comes time for consideration of actual proposals to inflict the kinds of real pain on Israel and Israelis that would be required to get that country to end its historical quest for expansion in Palestine, these liberal lobbyists won't go anywhere near them.
November 18, 2009 12:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
M.J. Rosenberg and courage? Here's what a long time friend has to say about him
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1143498911716&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
November 18, 2009 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
A good explanation of why MJ has little use for such Israeli ego-jerks telling him what to do in HIS country. If America, whose scores of UN vetoes have kept Israel alive, kicks back when Israel bites the hand that feeds it, that is not "appeasement" it is justice.
November 18, 2009 4:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are a fucking ass, Troub.
Ben David went to Israel and fought for what he believed in. That makes him courageous. Rosenberg, safe in this country, is trying to get America to force Israel to do something it believes is against its best interests, and his policies have already succeeded in getting Israelis killed.
Rosenberg has also refused to fight for this country, to participate in any of its "stupid wars". That makes him a selfish, unprincipled coward...on two counts.
November 18, 2009 5:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmmm, yeah, I thought that name rang a bell..
Here is what Rosenberg thinks of Lenny Davis:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/20/the_man_behind_the_j_street_smear_campaign/
The Man Who Was Before Steve Rosen.
Gosh! I'm sure such a man would have only praise for Rosenberg, and I'm sure that Rosenberg thinks only nice thoughts about Davis.
Or.... maybe not.
November 18, 2009 5:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ben David went to Israel and fought for what he believed in. So did his family. Rosenberg hasn't fought for any country. None of your rationalization can change that.
November 18, 2009 6:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Spider: "Ben David went to Israel and fought for what he believed in."
And a gentleman by the name of John Walker Lindh went to Afghanistan to fight for what he believed in.
A man you much admire, I take it?
Spider: "Rosenberg hasn't fought for any country. None of your rationalization can change that."
I'm still struggling to work out how that disqualifies Rosenberg from having an opinion, or why any opinion he has is unworthy of consideration.
It's been a long time since I read "Starship Troopers", but it could have been written with you in mind: "Service guarantees citizenship!"
November 18, 2009 7:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, there are courageous people who fight for things I don't believe in...and cowards whose beliefs I support. But I questioned Rosenberg's courage in this subset of posts...and there's no doubt he doesn't possess any. That lack renders his opinions valueless, certainly less valuable than opinions of courageous people I oppose. Too complicated for you to understand?
November 18, 2009 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Spider: "But I questioned Rosenberg's courage in this subset of posts...and there's no doubt he doesn't possess any. That lack renders his opinions valueless, certainly less valuable than opinions of courageous people I oppose. Too complicated for you to understand?"
No, not complicated at all: I can recognize an ad hominem argument when I see one.
So, if I may, this is spider-logic: Rosenberg talks about peace, but what does he know? After all, he refuses to fight, and so his opinion is worthless.
Hmmm, and what if his advice is correct?
Apparently you will reject that advice merely because you don't like the person who is proferring it, and not because you think the advice is "wrong".
And you consider that to be wise, do you?
November 18, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're off topic. Dan K noticed that liberal lobbyists don't have the courage of their convictions. I concurred.
But on the general point it is worth noting that people without courage make rotten allies, and one can legitimately ask what is the worth of their arguments if they cannot be counted on to fight for them? How much do they know about themselves or anyone else?
November 18, 2009 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
spider: "Dan K noticed that liberal lobbyists don't have the courage of their convictions. I concurred."
spider: "But I questioned Rosenberg's courage in this subset of posts...and there's no doubt he doesn't possess any. That lack renders his opinions valueless, certainly less valuable than opinions of courageous people I oppose."
Those two statements are saying the same thing, are they?
Odd, because the former is suggesting that MJ lacks the courage of his convictions (which is not to say that those convictions are worthless) whereas the latter suggests that MJ's convictions are worthless, and they are worthless because he is a cowardly lion.
So sorry, spider, but they look like two very, very different claims to me.
Is it possible that you don't even KNOW that there is a difference between those two statements of yours?
November 18, 2009 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Geezus, how do you live with yourself?
See if you can fit that into the very complex puzzle you've made of very simple ideas. Are you a lawyer...or just an ordinary shmuck with a lot of pretentions?
November 18, 2009 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spider: "Geezus, how do you live with yourself?"
I shall now point out that spider has made no attempt to reconcile his two irreconcilable statements.
How depressingly predictable.
Spider: "See if you can fit that into the very complex puzzle you've made of very simple ideas. Are you a lawyer...or just an ordinary shmuck with a lot of pretentions?"
I'll now point out that this is spider's attempt to backpedal out of this discussion as quickly as his hairy little legs can take him.
How utterly unsurprising.
Now, spider, I'll try again:
spider: "Dan K noticed that liberal lobbyists don't have the courage of their convictions. I concurred."
spider: "But I questioned Rosenberg's courage in this subset of posts...and there's no doubt he doesn't possess any. That lack renders his opinions valueless, certainly less valuable than opinions of courageous people I oppose."
They don't look the same to me.
They look the same to you, do they?
November 18, 2009 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shorter spider: "Ben Gurion fought to kill Arabs and remove fthem from their homes. What a Mensch!!!"
November 18, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely, given the context - of which you are totally ignorant despite many recent threads detailing it and an Internet full of such info.
How do you manage to be such a biased dope in these times?
November 18, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Imperial powers put Jews on Arab land because we didn't want them, and we didn't (and still don't) give two shits about Arabs, and spider thinks the Jews who waged the violence (with the assistance of the imperialists) to clear the land of Arabs are beyond reproach. Interesting value structure you got there, buddy.
November 18, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everything you've said is wrong-headed cant. Don't you know anything?
November 18, 2009 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I'm not mistaken, MJ has already stated his firm opposition to "BDS" (boycott, divestiture, sanction). I'm afraid that leaves MJ with just one option--hysterics. We'll have to wait and see if that works.
November 19, 2009 7:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about boycott divest and sanction against AIPAC? It is they, not the people of Israel, who have intimidated the US Congress into failing to back Obama on the settlements question (remember the topic of the page?).
If MJ can persuade other Jewish Americans to locate their consciences and to note that AIPAC contradicts those consciences and deserves to be extinguished, an occasional hysterical moment along the way would be a very minor irritant.
November 19, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mitchell is right; this announcement kills the negotiating process.
What the Americans have to do is accept that, and then reach the obvious conclusion i.e. there is no need to "protect" the negotiating process and, therefore, there is no need to pussy-foot around.
Here is what Obama can do instead, and there is nothing the Congress nor Netanyahu can do to stop him.
POTUS: "Ladies and Gentlemen, I wish to make it very clear that it has always been the policy of every post-war US Administration that the colonization of occupied territory by an occupying power is illegal under international humanitarian law and that, as a consequence, I am announcing today that the USA considers that all Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem to be in violation of international law."
That's the difference between "illegitimate" (which is the current phraseology) and "illegal".
And that makes all the difference to these settlements i.e. They. Are. Fucked. And. So. Is. Netanyahu.
Do it, Obama. Knee the fucker in the groin and then laught over his crumpled body.
He deserves it. And you know it.
November 17, 2009 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
But most Palestinians consider all of Israel to be occupied territory. Maybe all of Israel deserves it, too. Lucky for Israel nobody's going to listen to a dumb fuck like you.
November 17, 2009 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
spider: "But most Palestinians consider all of Israel to be occupied territory."
No, spider, they don't.
spider: "Maybe all of Israel deserves it, too."
No, spider, they don't.
spider: "Lucky for Israel nobody's going to listen to a dumb fuck like you."
No, spider, they won't.
They'll make up their own minds.
Well, apart from you, of course.
You appear to have your thoughts beamed directly into your brain from Hasbarah HQ.
It must be such a comfort never to have to think for yourself, heh, spider?
But I'm curious: what did they do with the Grey Matter when the Hasbarah Hacks scooped your brain out?
Size of a blackcurrent, was it?
I guess that'd be pretty easy to dispose of.....
November 18, 2009 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
19 years separate 1948 from 1967. That's all. Palestinians who consider the conquests of '67 to be occupied territory feel the same about those of '48 even if they're able to fool dummies like you into believing otherwise. But we do agree that nobody will listen to you about anything.
November 18, 2009 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
spider: "19 years separate 1948 from 1967."
Thanks for the maths lesson.
spider: "That's all."
Indeed, there is no other meaning to that equation.
spider: "Palestinians who consider the conquests of '67 to be occupied territory feel the same about those of '48 even if they're able to fool dummies like you into believing otherwise."
Riiiiiiiiight. And you know this to be true..... how?
spider: "But we do agree that nobody will listen to you about anything."
I will now refrain from pointing out that we do, you and I, appear to be conversing........
November 18, 2009 2:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Our country is full of illegal aliens. There's no doubt whatever that they are in this country illegally. Since you like the law so much, are so sure that you understand it in all its subtlety, I'm absolutely sure you want Obama to announce that all illegals are to be thrown out of the country tomorrow. Right?
Of course not. You miserable, hypocritical anti-semitic prick. Take your diseased fantasies and shove 'em up your ass.
November 18, 2009 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Spider: "Our country is full of illegal aliens."
All there as a result of a policy decision of a foreign power to colonize your country, I take it?
Spider: "There's no doubt whatever that they are in this country illegally."
Indeed. Now, I will repeat the question: are they all there as a result of a policy decision of a foreign power to colonize your country?
Spider: "Since you like the law so much, are so sure that you understand it in all its subtlety, I'm absolutely sure you want Obama to announce that all illegals are to be thrown out of the country tomorrow. Right?"
I'm curious: where did I say that all the Israeli settlers had to be thrown out of the occupied territories by this time next Tuesday?
I said the SETTLEMENTS should be declared illegal, and that this will seal their fate.
I stand by that comment: illegal colonies will have to go, but that is not to say that the timing of their removal must be "tomorrow".
Israel agreed to dismantle all the Sinai settlements back in 1978, spider. That happened overnight, did it?
Spider: "Of course not. You miserable, hypocritical anti-semitic prick. Take your diseased fantasies and shove 'em up your ass."
I find this to be a very useful rule-of-thumb: the quicker they are to resort to ad hom's, the more stupid they are.
You aren't anywhere near the record, spider, but A Very Credible Effort Nonetheless.
Well done, homi-boy.
November 18, 2009 4:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Knee the fucker in the groin and then laugh over his crumpled body
When you make a comment like that you can hardly complain if I think someone should crush your nuts.
where did I say that all the Israeli settlers had to be thrown out of the occupied territories by this time next Tuesday?
"I am announcing TODAY that the USA considers that all Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem to be in violation of international law."
As soon as Obama made that statement...the pressure would become intense...and you clearly want him to make that statement NOW.
I said the SETTLEMENTS should be declared illegal, and that this will seal their fate.
It won't. It will bring us to the brink of nuclear annihilation. Israel will not give up the settlements...au contraire it will intensify settlement activity and threaten to use nuclear weapons if it is attacked. Because you're a coward you think everyone else is too, and can't imagine any other way of thinking.
I said the SETTLEMENTS should be declared illegal, and that this will seal their fate.
You only want to enforce laws of which you approve. That makes a mockery of the legal process. You don't seem to notice or, if you notice, it doesn't bother you.
All laws are subject to differing interpretations and that's especially true in the international arena. All your claims about the legality of Israel's actions are partisan. The United States has not acted in the way you wish because it doesn't accept you reasoning. From what I've seen so far, you don't have a chance in Hell of convincing our government to change its position. Not you. Not Rosenberg. Not J-Street. Not the whole lot of you traitorous, cowardly fucks.
But, hey, keep trying. You have every right to do so.
November 18, 2009 6:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
spider: "When you make a comment like that you can hardly complain if I think someone should crush your nuts."
Now, be honest: you don't know what I'm talking about when I call your arguements "ad hominem", do you?
You can't, because while my comment may well have been crude and it may have been offensive it was most definitely not an "ad hominem".
Your responses, however, continue to be....
November 18, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
ad hominem
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
You want to nit pick? Just stick your finger up your ass. Don't come to me with your asinine arguments.
November 18, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
touchy, touchy. Are you getting tired of getting your ass kicked on this thread, you stupid troll?
November 18, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, so you don't know what an ad hominem is, and so you resort to quoting from other sources that also don't know what an ad hominem is.
Here's a good ad hom:
"But I questioned Rosenberg's courage in this subset of posts...and there's no doubt he doesn't possess any. That lack renders his opinions valueless, certainly less valuable than opinions of courageous people I oppose."
You are rejecting Rosenberg's opinion merely because you insist that the opinion of anyone who hasn't fired a gun is valueless, and not because the OPINION ITSELF is valueless.
That is an ad hominem.
Here is the comment of mine:
"Knee the fucker in the groin and then laugh over his crumpled body"
That is a call for violence, sure.
That is a display of contempt for Bibi, yep.
That is, yes, an offensive comment.
But what it is NOT is an ad hominem i.e. I am NOT attempting to invalidate any premise being put forward by Netanyahu when I invite Obama to gave that dude a swift kick in the happy-sacs.
I have, instead, offered advice to Obama and then invited him to take some vicarious pleasure while he's at it.
A cheap shot, sure, but not an ad hom.
November 18, 2009 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Do it, Obama." ?
He is not the type, Johnny. Never was, and probably never will be except in cases of most dire and utmost need.
Unfortunately.
Obama will lead only if Congress is ready to follow. There is thus only one feasible solution. Patriotic Americans have to wage all an-out long and bitter struggle to stamp out AIPAC or totally recast anew and apart from its West Bank directoriate. Jewish Americans must lead here, because the hearts, minds, pocketbooks, and ballots of Jewish voters in America are the crux. Without them AIPAC is defanged. Without AIPAC the Fake Christian lunatic messianics sputter in their cultish idiocy. Without the US Congress shackled by AIPAC, Obama has a free hand, at least until the next terrorist attack spreads mass stupidity again.
November 18, 2009 4:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ptoub: "He is not the type, Johnny. Never was, and probably never will be except in cases of most dire and utmost need."
All I am suggesting is that he stand up and make a policy statement.
No actions.
No threats.
Simply that he make the decision to stand up and say that he is sick of pussy-footing around, and that *this* is what the law says and that he agrees with it.
I doubt that you know this, but George Bush Snr came within an inch of announcing exactly that (i.e. that the settlements were illegal) and he was brought to that point because he was fed up with the intransigence of Yitzak Shamir (the Israeli politician who Netanyahu mimics more than any other).
He was only talked out of making that announcement because Baker pleaded with Bush to let him have One More Go.
Pity, because this would all be all over by now if Bush had ignored that bad advice.
He was taken right up to the edge by Israel, and the same thing is happening now to Obama.
Don't be surprised if he is pushed over that edge but, if he is, it'll be Netanyahu who is in for the fall.
November 18, 2009 5:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Concerning US statements on the legality of Israeli settlements, the Nixon, Ford and Carter administrations clearly and unambiguously denounced them as illegal; Carter voting in the unanimous SC 465 that they were illegal. The first president to waver was Reagan, who once called them not illegal, but also, (later iirc), called them illegal. No president since then has been as explicit as Reagan. George Bush Sr as UN ambassador had officially stated they were illegal. The most explicit and official statement of US policy is the 1978 statement of State Department Legal Adviser Herbert Hansell, which has never been repudiated. So all Obama needs to do, if he had any guts, is issue a statement phrased in the usual opaque way, like "The US position remains that described in the 1978 Hansell letter."
November 19, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"So all Obama needs to do, if he had any guts, is issue a statement phrased in the usual opaque way, like 'The US position remains that described in the 1978 Hansell letter.' "
Exactly so. And the CONSEQUENCES of Obama saying that should not be underestimated.
Because while Obama describes settlements as "illegitimate" then their fate remains purely a DIPLOMATIC issue, and the "facts on the ground" that they represent give Israel formidible leverage in any purely DIPLOMATIC solution.
But once Obama switches to "illegal" then they become much less potent as a negotiating weapon, because every time Israel attempts to levereage those "facts" to her advantage (e.g. "let me keep Ma'ale Adumim and I'll give you back Alfei Menashe") then the other parties can - and will - point out that Israel is attempting a transaction that is being conducted entirely in stolen goods.
November 19, 2009 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I don't know if you know this" Johnny, but I am reasonably confident that Mr. Obama, the smartest president we have had in a very long time, knows everything you are saying. He probably agrees with you on most of it. Not-caving has never been a high priority with Obama, however (of the 20 or 30 desirable traits in a President this is probably the only one where GW Bush was better than Obama is). Not losing his temper clearly IS something he prizes greatly. Netanyahu knows this too, and Obama knows that he knows it.
That is why there are so many blogs like this one with long comment lists. (Among other things) they reflect the real struggles going on behind the diplomatic manuvering. Key among them is the struggle for the hearts and minds of Jewish Democratic funders and supporters of AIPAC. When they finally turn on it, and expose it for the deceit-based Likudnik tool it truly is, and if they are then able dig in their heels long enough and hard enough to cut it down to size on Capitol Hill, Obama's Mideast policy could be released from its main set of shackles. Until then, there is Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea, and the rest of the world, health care, economic recovery, energy and climate change, and the federal budget deficit.
November 20, 2009 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow!
What happened to the "Give Peace a Chance" Democrate party. I guess the Dailey family were not allowed to have John Lennon music in the house.
It sounds like johnboy needs his ballet tights let out.
November 17, 2009 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see signs of movement within the Israeli polity that are indicative of momentum towards enough already:
57% of Israelis would talk to Hamas.
The willingness to see Arabs as partners is strongest among sabras, then "veteren olim" and lagging well behind, newbies/FNGs.
Shaul Mofaz has come out of nowhere with proposals that are, I believe, Israeli-authored and he's finding receptive ears among Israelis who are also unafraid to talk to Hamas, etc.
Avigdor Lieberman and Shimon Peres are actively seeking to forge ties with other countries (outside of the ME) in order to lessen the burden on the USofA and get more of their eggs out of our basket.
All to the good for an Israel to practice charting her own course. Does Brazil seem a likely "ally"? Chortle. Brazil was one of the first countries to invite Palestian Iraqis stuck on the border to join them as full citizens of Brazil. (They shame US!) And they know the drill.
Better you Israelis should get up to speed with Syria et al via Ankara. The current bunch of leaders couldn't manage it but there certainly are pragmatic Israelis who can see the advantages of integrating into the neighborhood.
Oh and yeah, Sarkozy would be on board for the ride.
November 18, 2009 2:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nov 17, 2009
Poll: Lieberman is Israel's most corrupt minister
By JPOST.COM STAFF
Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is considered Israel's most corrupt minister, according to the results of a survey conducted Tuesday at the Israel-Sderot Conference on Social Issues.
According to the poll, taken among over 550 people, Interior Minister Eli Yishai is believed to be the second most corrupt, followed by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Transportation Minister Yisrael Katz.
November 18, 2009 3:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
youTube: Gideon Levy Interview on Israel's addiction
November 18, 2009 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Blue: an informative accurate assessment from an experienced Israeli journalist.
It makes the hasbarah crew that post here, look like complete idiots.
November 18, 2009 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gilo is not in East Jerusalem. Gilo is in South-Central Jerusalem. Look for it on Google Maps or something. It ain't hard.
This whole dust-up escapes me. There are already, according to Wikipedia, 40,000 Israeli Jews living in Gilo; What difference does it make if Gilo is more dense than before? I imagine that the subtext is that somebody thinks that Israel will boot out the 40,000, find a place for them to live, and give the place to the PA. If so, they are deeply in denial. If not, what's the issue?
November 18, 2009 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Espresso: "This whole dust-up escapes me."
Israel is insisting on the right to continue changing the "facts on the ground" even as it denies the Palestinians any right to make any unilateral steps.
That is a massive display of "bad faith", and the Palestinians are right to say that there is no point in entering into negotiations when the other side is displaying "bad faith".
Espresso: "There are already, according to Wikipedia, 40,000 Israeli Jews living in Gilo; What difference does it make if Gilo is more dense than before? I imagine that the subtext is that somebody thinks that Israel will boot out the 40,000, find a place for them to live, and give the place to the PA. If so, they are deeply in denial. If not, what's the issue?"
Look, this is very simple: is the topic of Jerusalem a subject for negotiations, or isn't it?
If it is then it doesn't matter how "tight" Israel's "grip" on Gilo is, nor does it matter how "insistent" it is that anyone who thinks that Israel will ever relinguish Gilo is coo-coo-crazy.
Because if you insist that IN THAT LIGHT OF THAT then there is no point in discussing Gilo then you are, indeed, insisting on the right to predetermine the outcome of those negotiations.
Now, I'll repeat the question: is the topic of Jerusalem a subject for negotiations, or isn't it?
Because Israel can not claim - as you are claiming - that the fate of Gilo has already been decided AND still claim that the fate of Jerusalem is a subject to negotiation.
Those two concepts are mutually-exclusive, and if you can't see that then you are simply not looking hard enough.
November 18, 2009 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Johnboy4546 wrote:
So let's negotiations start to negotiate the real issues. Palestinian should put the numbers on the table. Arab countries should be ready to compensate Jews. If they are not ready to compensate Jews, they have no right to demand that Israel compensate Arabs. US should insist of compensating all refugees in ME.
November 18, 2009 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
AnnaA: "So let's negotiations start to negotiate the real issues."
Netanyahu refuses, AnnaA, even as he pretends that he isn't.
Because even as he insists on "negotiations without preconditions" he is ALSO insisting that the negotiations must be about these topics:
1) The borders of Israel
2) The fate of the settlements
3) The demilitarization of what is relinguished
4) The acceptance of Israel as "the Jewish state"
AnnaA: "Palestinian should put the numbers on the table."
They will not be allowed to if it gets to Netanyahu's laughable "negotiations without preconditions but only on the topics I want".
That subject will be forbidden under those Bibi-talks, and the moment the Palestinians put such a proposal on the table is the instant that Bibi gets up and walks out the door.
AND he'll blame the Pals for his walkout AND you'll support him when he does so i.e. you are recommending that the Pals do something which you will later condemn them for.
That's the zionist way of "negotiating", and we have seen it so many times before.
Abbas has too, which is why he refuses to play that game.
November 18, 2009 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
He is not insisting that the negotiations must be about any specific topics. Yes, there is something that he wants to discuss, but he doesn't require Palestinians to accept them as the only topics for discussions.
The bottom line, there is a good reason why Palestinians don't want to be specifics about their compensation demands. They are probably ridiculous.
November 18, 2009 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
AnnaA: "He is not insisting that the negotiations must be about any specific topics."
I'm sorry, AnnaA, but that statement is simply not true. Read the transcript of his speech at Bar-Ilan University:
Netanyahu: "To vest this declaration with practical meaning, there must also be a clear understanding that the Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside Israel’s borders."
He is insisting that everyone must accept *before* the negotiations that there is no Right of Return to Israel.
Right of Return is therefore A Forbidden Subject, even though you insist that everything and anything can be introduced in those negotiations.
Netanyahu: "If we receive this guarantee regarding demilitirization and Israel’s security needs, and if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the State of the Jewish people, then we will be ready in a future peace agreement to reach a solution where a demilitarized Palestinian state exists alongside the Jewish state."
That is a precondition, AnnaA i.e. Israel will not even consider any negotiations towards a Palestinian state UNTIL those conditions are met BEFORE the negotiations.
That means a Palestinian Army is A Forbidden Topic for those negotiations, and that the concept of Israel as a secular, pluralist society is A Forbidden Topic for those negotiations.
Even though you claim that these negotiations can be about anything and everything.
Netanyahu: "Regarding the remaining important issues that will be discussed as part of the final settlement, my positions are known: Israel needs defensible borders, and Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel with continued religious freedom for all faiths."
Again, Netanyahu is listing the issues that he insists WILL BE discussed in negotiations, even though you insist that the negotiations will not be about any specific topics.
You are, simply put, "wrong".
November 18, 2009 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink