<em>Guest Post by Clayton Swisher</em>: Smart Saudi Diplomacy Produces an “Onus Shift”

-

Embassy-103[1].jpg
(Vice President Richard Cheney, Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal and TWN guest blogger Clayton Swisher)
Clayton E. Swisher, a former Marine, is director of programs at the Middle East Institute in Washington DC and is author of The Truth About Camp David (New York: Nation Books, 2004).

If news that Saudi Arabia will attend the US-sponsored peace conference this September is correct, it is in fact a very big deal.
There will be no dusty conference chairs next to the Quartet and Israel’s usual Arab partners: Egypt and Jordan. Following US acceptance of the Arab League Peace Initiative this week during Secretary Rice’s visit to the region, first proffered by then Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in 2002 — it means the Initiative will also be the basis for discussion. That’s terrific news.
What’s more, the Saudis have denied the US and Israel the ability to allege — as they generally have since the collapse of US President Bill Clinton’s 2000 peace drive — that there is no Arab “partner for peace.”
Despite Arafat’s death in 2004, the US and Israel have relied on the “no partner” mantra, pointing to Palestinian internal dysfunction, factional violence between Fatah and Hamas, and the “lack of democratization” canard which was nothing more than a stall attributable to pro-Likud White House ideologues coupled with US preoccupation with Iraq and the so called “Global War on Terror.”
The US also excused its non-involvement because of Sharon’s pledge to quit Gaza, which in reality only bought Israel more time to increase its hold on the settlements of the Occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Seven years on the question now will be if there is an Israeli partner willing in word and deed to recognize the Palestinians right to exist on the land occupied since the 1967 war. With the US bogged down in Iraq, and with the Bush Administration’s hopes to confront the growing regional influence of Iran in Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine, there is an understanding that any US-Arab-Israeli alliance against Iran will hinge on progress on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Ergo the recent US proposal to provide so-called moderate Arab states (including Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE) with a stunning military arms package.
The heretofore-diplomatic vacuum on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict means Palestinians are now dependent on larger power brokers more than ever before. That Saudi Arabia — with all its significance throughout not just the Arab world but Islamic world writ large — will attend this conference and give Israel the de facto recognition President Bush called for in his July 16th speech means the onus will be on the US and Israel to produce the big deliverable: Palestinian statehood and an end to Israeli occupation.
The Bush Administration has a terrible credit rating in the peace process, and one could envision regional distractions producing a US default to the tried-and-failed drawn out, incremental peace process in order to “kick the can” down the road for the next US President.
Which is why Saudi Arabia and its Arab allies should not stop there. They should bookend the Arab Peace Initiative with a timeline for the US and Israel. The Arabs should make clear that the Arab Peace Initiative and commitment to a two-state solution ends with the Bush Administration in January 2009.
The Arabs took a big risk by tabling the Arab Peace Initiative and signing on to the US-sponsored peace conference in terms of provoking the domestic Islamic radicalism that continues unabated, thanks in large part to prior US indifference towards Palestinians, the bungled Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, and the overall perception of US hostility toward Muslims.
This may in fact be a very long shot. But if the Saudis continue to deny the US and Israel excuses towards an end of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, history will correctly judge where the majority of responsibility should rest.
— Clayton Swisher

Comments

36 comments on “<em>Guest Post by Clayton Swisher</em>: Smart Saudi Diplomacy Produces an “Onus Shift”

  1. MP says:

    MP; I enjoy your responses, but frankly they are sophistic word play.
    ME: Maybe you can point out where I engage in sophistry. To be honest, though, you keep changing the mark without acknowledging whether or not I’ve hit the previous one. Kali seemed to be all hopped up on “phenotypes,” but when I answered his/her request, she/he didn’t even acknowledge it.
    I don’t blame you: You have an impossible task. You are trying defend predatory Zionism and blaming the Arabs for not accepting the loss of their land to Europeans. That’s a pretty hard argument to make, but you just keep soldiering on.
    ME: No; I don’t blame them. But their tactics have proven not to work and are likely to bring continued disappointment. I would advise them to change tactics. Just as I advise some of my Zionist friends to change theirs. But again, I do reject the notion that the land was ENTIRELY Palestinian. It wasn’t. Why, then, should be the state be “just” a Palestinian state?
    In terms of “predatory Zionism,” I think you have to look at the social conditions that gave rise to Zionism and gave impetus to the creation of the State. To simply regard it as a “predatory” movement is to ignore a HUGE amount of history (history history, Carroll, not “Jewish history”) that gave rise to it. Carroll has no problem ignoring, downplaying, or explaining away this history, but that doesn’t mean it goes away or never existed.
    Some quick thoughts though:
    Jews had no problems engaging in terrorism (King David Hotel, Deir Yassin, etc) when it served their purposes. They NOW don’t need to engage in that form of terrorism. They have the IDF to do it on a grander scale. Former IDF chief terrorist–and newHarvard student–Dan Halutz had no problem leveling Palestinians apartment buildlings, regardless of the number of children, he killed. But I guess if you deliver the bomb from a jet instead of a car, you are not a terrorist….
    ME: It should be pointed that the Zionists did a WHOLE lot more to found the state of Israel than throw bombs. Or use violence. As a practical matter, the Palestinians should broaden their palette as well. They might have more success. Had the Arabs not decided that violence was the way forward, the IDF probably would not be what it is today. As I say, these conflicts have a way of hardening and becoming more extreme the longer they go; hence, people like Halutz.
    Next, the Arabs rejected partition because the UN (under Western pressure) granted the Zionist Entity about 55% of historic Palestine even though the Jews were a substantial minority at that time. The Arabs rejected the Partition because it was UN-sanctioned theft of their land.
    ME: Were the Arabs willing to accept a smaller Israel? I believe the initial Zionist proposal was for much less land than the partition gave them. To do this justice, we’d probably have to have a discussion about the “historic Palestine,” which included Jordan, and various population flows, which paint a somewhat more complex picture. But it is true that after their experience in Europe (and frankly, elsewhere) the Jews were–understandably in my book–reluctant to accept being a minority, at least in this one place. How you, or anyone else for that matter, can’ understand that one is beyond me.
    And considering that Israel is in violation of about 70 UN Security Council resolutitons, I enjoy your chutzpah in referring to the one you like.
    ME: The one I like was the original one. I could just as easily say to you, “Why excuse/laud the original violation and hang your hat on the others?” More broadly, the UN has thrown a number of things at Israel, such as the Zionism=Racism resolution which, considering the world at large and even the founding of this country, is pretty darnk chutzpadica.
    We’d have to go through them one by one to have a real discussion. I certainly don’t defend all of Israel’s actions, but she is often painted as evil in a way that just doesn’t fit the facts, at least as I see them. Calling Zionism a “predatory” movement is one of those epithets that just doesn’t fit the facts.
    Anyway, I enjoy our discussion, and I’m glad you do too.

    Reply

  2. MP says:

    Carroll writes: “MP, you are spouting jewish bible myth or revised jewish history again….please refer to real history when discussing the ORIGINAL INHABITANTS OF PALESTINE.
    ME: You mean the ones that sprang up from the sand “original?” Give me a break. The Bible, BTW, does NOT assert that the Israelites were the original inhabitants. That is not, nor has it ever been, “the claim.” There is also huge history in the connection between Jews and the land. This is not myth or, as you condescendingly assert, “Jewish history.” It is history history.
    Now, are you claiming that because the Israelite tribes absorbed the culture of the original Canaanites that that qualifies them as Canaanites who were the actual first inhabitants of the Palestine in question today?
    ME: What’s your point? But, if, in fact, the Canaanites were absorbed into the Israelites that would, in fact, make them pretty “original.” But again, the word “original” is not important to me and it is not, as I’ve said, the Biblical claim. The Bible outlines how the Jews CAME TO the land of Canaan. So you’re objecting to a point that isn’t being made, at least not by me. And not by the Bible.
    The Canaanites and the Israelites were two SEPERATE tribes and religions…every history book except jewish ones recongize the Canaanites who were first in Palestine as seperate from the nomadic jewish tribes who came later.
    ME: Actual Jewish historians, who are pretty good at their trade, ALWAYS assert that these peoples were two separate peoples, and so does the Bible.

    Reply

  3. Matthew says:

    MP; I enjoy your responses, but frankly they are sophistic word play. I don’t blame you: You have an impossible task. You are trying defend predatory Zionism and blaming the Arabs for not accepting the loss of their land to Europeans. That’s a pretty hard argument to make, but you just keep soldiering on.
    Some quick thoughts though:
    Jews had no problems engaging in terrorism (King David Hotel, Deir Yassin, etc) when it served their purposes. They NOW don’t need to engage in that form of terrorism. They have the IDF to do it on a grander scale. Former IDF chief terrorist–and newHarvard student–Dan Halutz had no problem leveling Palestinians apartment buildlings, regardless of the number of children, he killed. But I guess if you deliver the bomb from a jet instead of a car, you are not a terrorist….
    Next, the Arabs rejected partition because the UN (under Western pressure) granted the Zionist Entity about 55% of historic Palestine even though the Jews were a substantial minority at that time. The Arabs rejected the Partition because it was UN-sanctioned theft of their land. And considering that Israel is in violation of about 70 UN Security Council resolutitons, I enjoy your chutzpah in referring to the one you like.

    Reply

  4. Carroll says:

    Posted by MP at August 3, 2007 04:00 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    MP, you are spouting jewish bible myth or revised jewish history again….please refer to real history when discussing the ORIGINAL INHABITANTS OF PALESTINE.
    Now, are you claiming that because the Israelite tribes absorbed the culture of the original Canaanites that that qualifies them as Canaanites who were the actual first inhabitants of the Palestine in question today?
    The Canaanites and the Israelites were two SEPERATE tribes and religions…every history book except jewish ones recongize the Canaanites who were first in Palestine as seperate from the nomadic jewish tribes who came later.
    http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/explore/world_cultures/middle_east/canaanites.aspx
    The Canaanites, assumed to be the first inhabitants of Palestine and Jerusalem, were nominally ruled under Egyptian hegemony in the twentieth century B.C.E.
    The Canaanites, with whom the Israelites came into contact during the conquest by Joshua and the period of the Judges, were a sophisticated agricultural and urban people. The name Canaan means “Land of Purple” (a purple dye was extracted from a murex shellfish found near the shores of Palestine).
    The Canaanites, a people who absorbed and assimilated the features of many cultures of the ancient Near East for at least 500 years before the Israelites entered their area of control, were the people who, as far as is known, invented the form of writing that became the alphabet, which, through the Greeks and Romans, was passed on to many cultures influenced by their successors–namely, the nations and peoples of Western civilization.
    The religion of the Canaanite agriculturalists proved to be a strong attraction to the less sophisticated and nomadic-oriented Israelite tribes. Many Israelites succumbed to the allurements of the fertility-laden rituals and practices of the Canaanite religion, partly because it was new and different from the Yahwistic religion and, possibly, because of a tendency of a rigorous faith and ethic to weaken under the influence of sexual attractions. As the Canaanites and the Israelites began to live in closer contact with each other, the faith of Israel tended to absorb some of the concepts and practices of the Canaanite religion. Some Israelites began to name their children after the Baalim; even one of the judges, Gideon, was also known by the name Jerubbaal (“Let Baal Contend”).
    The Canaanites were the indigenous people of the ancient Levant (modern Israel, Palestine, Transjordan, Lebanon and coastal Syria). They spoke a Semitic language related to Hebrew. During the Early Bronze Age, as trade with Egypt increased, strongly defended cities developed throughout the region which formed the centres of independent states. Egyptian campaigns were occasionally launched against some Canaanite cities but relations were normally maintained through trade.
    Starting around 2000 BC, Canaanites began to infiltrate the Egyptian Delta, and their donkey caravans can be seen on a number of Egyptian tomb paintings. By 1700 BC they had seized control of the Delta and established a local dynasty known as the Hyksos or “Shepherd Kings”. This period (1700-1480) saw the development of a rich and imaginative artistic style, and it was at this time too that the Canaanites developed an alphabetic writing system that was passed on to the Phoenicians.
    Around 1550 BC the Hyksos were driven from Egypt by the energetic kings of the Eighteenth Dynasty, and Tuthmosis III (1504-1450 BC) put the entire Canaanite region under direct imperial control. Throughout the period of the Egyptian Empire, disaffected and dispossessed Canaanites, known to the Egyptians as Habiru migrated to the hill country regions. This Habiru population formed the kernel of what was to become historical Israel, and it was referred to as such by the pharaoh Merneptah (reigned 1236-1223 BC) on a victory stele now in the Cairo Museum.

    Reply

  5. Carroll says:

    Where there is no justice there can be no peace.
    Posted by Kathleen at August 5, 2007 09:02 AM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    My own words exactly. No justice, no peace.

    Reply

  6. MP says:

    Matthrew writes: “MP: Palestinians need to give up dreaming about Haifa. Ok. They should do it the day after an Israeli Prime Minister announces to Congress that Jews don’t own “the entire land.” Amazing how Palestinians have the onus to give up the right to their homes in their lifetimes, but Jews have no responsibilty to give up assinine claims from 2000 years ago.
    ME: Here is what I’d say. There were some Zionists who claimed a right to the “entire land.” And the longer this conflict has gone on, as I alluded to above, the more power extremists, inevitably it seems, seem to get. But as a matter of fact, Israel has not claimed a right to the “entire land”–especially, but not only, if you include ALL of Palestinian in the phrase “entire land.” Moreover, Israel HAS shown a willingness to give up land for peace, e.g., Sinai and, even in a way, Gaza (though I won’t argue the complexity of that situation right now). They took over the Golan because they were being shelled from the Heights. They invaded Lebanon because they were being shelled from Lebanon. In any event, that is why those moves had POPULAR support within Israel. And there is talk now about giving back the Golan, etc.
    And, to go back, the Zionists AGREED to the partition–that is, to not getting all of the land, though many wanted it.
    It has been the Palestinians and the Arab states who insisted on NO land for the Israelis. Of course, I’m only painting a simplified picture because of this medium. But I think, in general, it’s fair to say that the Arabs have been against any Jewish state at all. And Hamas and Hezbollah hold this position explicitly today–Hezbollah, who has had NO land taken from them and his happy to have Syria occupying THEIR country against the wishes of their compatriots.
    But my point about giving up Haifa wasn’t really about rights, per se. It was much more practical. The Palestinians and, at times, the Arab states, have tried to get rid of Israel. They have failed. The Palestinians have remained in misery, not all of it, by any means, caused by Israel. They would be well-served by trying a different course. Without cataclysm, they aren’t going to get Haifa–they should remove it as a goal. MJ Rosenberg makes precisely the same point to Israeli wingers: You’ve tried force to neutralize the Palestinians. How’s the strategy been working out? (Not well.) I would say the same thing to Palestinians. The idea that Qassam rockets are effective resistance is just ridiculous. All they do is push back the day when the Israeli electorate will embrace a PM who can move to peace without committing political suicide.
    And if these Jewish claims are not assinine, then the Normans still have a legitimate claim to England and the Spanish to the Netherlands.
    ME: I’m not “up on” those claims. But I would say there is a difference. The Normans CAME from France and had a place to live in France. The Spaniards CAME from Spain and had a place to live in Spain. The Jews CAME from Palestine, but, by 1948, were decimated and had no place to live because it was obvious that the Europeans, in those countries where the Jews were numerous, had rejected them as native to those lands. They were the “other.” My uncle is a good example. An assimilated Hungarian Jew who was playing a gig late Friday night at a cafe. He came home in the wee hours only to find the door to his home (and those of the other Jews in the neighborhood) wide open and no one there. After the war ended, he wasn’t in a mood to go back to the ‘hood, key in hand, and reclaim his house. I’m sure that’s understandable.
    More irony: Some Sephardic Jews retain the keys from homes lost in Spain in 1492, yet they deny the legitimacy of Palestinian “keys” from 1948. This cognitive dissonance is why Zionism will not ever be accepted in the ME.
    ME: I’ve heard about those keys, but had forgotten. Are these Sephardim throwing bombs and blowing up cafes or sending in invading armies to get their homes back? It should also be noted that Palestinians were PARTIES to the 1948 conflict, and the conflicts that erupted earlier. As far as I know, Spanish Jews were good citizens of Spain and many, even, pretended to convert to keep their necks. But maybe my history is spotty. Perhaps those Spanish Jews were killing good Catholics and otherwise in conflict with the regime (except by refusing to convert). In any event, are they trying to get their homes back? I truly don’t know.

    Reply

  7. Matthew says:

    MP: Palestinians need to give up dreaming about Haifa. Ok. They should do it the day after an Israeli Prime Minister announces to Congress that Jews don’t own “the entire land.” Amazing how Palestinians have the onus to give up the right to their homes in their lifetimes, but Jews have no responsibilty to give up assinine claims from 2000 years ago. And if these Jewish claims are not assinine, then the Normans still have a legitimate claim to England and the Spanish to the Netherlands.
    More irony: Some Sephardic Jews retain the keys from homes lost in Spain in 1492, yet they deny the legitimacy of Palestinian “keys” from 1948. This cognitive dissonance is why Zionism will not ever be accepted in the ME.

    Reply

  8. Kathleen says:

    Carroll…. Bolton/Mongrel… love it.
    On the subject of being pushed off your land, ask any Native American about that.
    Shoving any people off their ancestral lands is wrong, no matter where on the planet it occurs.
    Where there is no justice there can be no peace.

    Reply

  9. MP says:

    Matthew writes: MP: I wouldn’t argue that the Jewish connection to the land is a “myth.” The point, rather, is that Serbs also feel an intense connection to Kosovo. But the Serbs’desire–and “God’s will–are two different things.
    ME: Yes, but I would venture that we’re talking about two different situations and historical realities here. The Serbs had/have a place to go called Serbia, whereas the Jews didn’t have a place to go called Jewia. But it’s complex, and I won’t pretend to eliminate the complexities involved.
    But Arab perfidy vis-vis the Palestinians does not justify Israel’s dispossession of the Palestinians. Tony Judt has it right: Israel is the only country in the world that keeps a weak and impoverished people under a violent occupation and, paradoxically, is considered a victim.
    ME: Yes, and the current situation is intolerable. I would only add that the current situation didn’t simply spring up; it grew, bit by bit, over the course of the conflict. For example, prior to 1967, Israel didn’t have the Palestinians under violent occupation, and yet the argument against Israel and Zionism was, essentially, the same. And prior to that, the Palestinians could have had a state of their own had they agreed. Now, of course, all of this is riddled with complexity, and I’m not trying to simplify it–and who knows what would have happened had different choices been made–but it’s hard for me to look back at this conflict, and simply point my finger at Israel, especially, though not entirely, given the circumstances under which the state came into existence and the condition of the Jews then.
    People point to Israel’s intransigence in the face of the Saudi’s 2002 plan–that was finally proposed 52 years AFTER Israel came into existence. Finally, after 52 years, Saudi decides it’s time to call the war over. Hmmm. Is it realistic to expect one side to turn on a dime after 52 years in which the Saudis were happy to keep the “cold war” against Israel going?
    Things change; times change; positions generally grow more hardened and calcified over time; more hurt and desire for vengeance and distrust of the other side build up. The conflict doesn’t remain the same because the parties don’t stay the same. They generally become less flexible until or if there is a break through or the parties “hit bottom,” as they say in the 12-step biz.
    Having said all that, I still believe the onus is on Israel to make peace happen. They are the stronger party. They need to move away from the mindset of victimhood despite the hatred pointed at them. They have to go the extra mile and understand that the current situation isn’t tolerable, morally or practically.
    The Palestinians have to give up the dream of owning Haifa. And they have to do their part, which they haven’t always done, IMO. They have to understand they are dealing with a people that has also been brutalized over many centuries and in living memory, and even recent immigrants to Israel haven’t had such good experiences in their homelands (many of them).
    These people just aren’t going to be in the mood to put up with, as Juan Cole calls them, “little rockets.” They don’t have many qualms about tanks versus hand guns because, frankly, they aren’t interested in a “fair fight.” They’ve had enough of being on the short end of an unfair fight.
    Not understanding this simply keeps the political fires within Israel roiling…just as Israel manages to do with Palestinian politics.
    That’s how I see it any way.

    Reply

  10. Matthew says:

    MP: I wouldn’t argue that the Jewish connection to the land is a “myth.” The point, rather, is that Serbs also feel an intense connection to Kosovo. But the Serbs’desire–and “God’s will–are two different things.
    But Arab perfidy vis-vis the Palestinians does not justify Israel’s dispossession of the Palestinians. Tony Judt has it right: Israel is the only country in the world that keeps a weak and impoverished people under a violent occupation and, paradoxically, is considered a victim.

    Reply

  11. MP says:

    I agree: The Jewish People are chosen in the way all peoples are chosen. They are unique and bring something unique to the world. The same way the Palestinian and other Arab people’s are chosen and (also) seem to think that “all this” is, by God’s will (I almost wrote, “by Gold’s” will), theirs.
    (If you read many of the Arab plaints about Palestine, it has very little to do with the plight of the Palestinians, but rather with what happens to “Arab lands.” This accords with the fact that the Palestinians are universally mistreated by their proximate neighbors and, throughout the Arab world where they have roamed.)
    But the question here seems to be…is the Jewish historical/cultural connection to the land real or a myth. You know, did a bunch of Europeans just decide to move there and kick the other folks out driven by a bunch of nonsense they just made up. I think the answer to that is, no.

    Reply

  12. Matthew says:

    The proper way to refer to the Jewish People is as the People Who Chose Themselves. Like many cultures, they created a universe, where, surprise, God allegedly put them in the center, i.e., “chose” them. This is an ulmost universal belief. Et tu China? Ancient Greece? The examples are endless.
    No one who has traveled the world would ever claim Canaan was a desirable peace of real estate. Hence, if God “gave” the Jews that land, then God had a funny sense of humor. Give me Southern France, British Columbia, New England, etc, any day.
    The problem for 21st Century America, is that many influential Americas actually believe and act on this “chosen” crap. They should be subject to ridicule. Let’s purge this Iron-Age idocy from polite society. And let’s do it now.

    Reply

  13. MP says:

    Here you go, Kali. I assume if you were REALLY interested in the topic, you might have found this as easily as I did with just a few clicks of your mouse. As I say, for my money, it’s beside the point, but since you brought up it, I did a LITTLE poking around. From the New York Medical Center:
    Genetic Analysis of Jewish Origins
    Did you ever wonder if 2000 years of recorded history could be preserved in the genetic record? Recent work from genetics labs has validated the Biblical record of a Semitic people who chose a Jewish way of life several thousand years ago.
    These observations are the biological equivalent to the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls, suggesting that despite 2000 years of Diaspora, the relatedness of the Jews of Eastern European (“Ashkenazi”), North African (“Sephardic”) and Middle Eastern (“Oriental”) origin can be demonstrated by genetic marker analysis.

    Reply

  14. MP says:

    Kali writes: “What exactly is racist about asking about the genetics of people who, despite the fact that they haven’t actually lived there, say that they have a few thousand-year-old claim on land that is disputed?
    ME: But, of course, they HAVE lived there as you pointed out– in fact, they have an unbroken chain of living there since before there was such as thing as a Muslim or a Christian. Moreover, they have a long, long connection to the land.
    It isn’t racist to ask about the genetic make-up of anyone. But it is racist to suggest that certain folks have a right to land because of their genetic make-up.
    Scientists have now narrowed down genetics to the point where African Americans can identify which parts of Africa their ancestors came from.
    ME: So? I’m not terribly interested in the genetic discussion (for reasons mentioned above), but last I read, they had discovered genetic links among European Jewry. But I don’t care much one way or another. The whole genetic angle is pure racism, whether it concerns a drop of Negro blood or a drop of “Semitic” blood.
    And HELL YES, I am saying that European Jews, like Douglas Feith, Michael Chertoff, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Ariel Sharon, Benjamin Netanyahu, Henry Kissinger, Larry Silverstein, Wolf Blitzer, Elliot Abrams, David and Meyrav Wurmser, Paula Zahn, Sumner Redstone, Haim Saban, Michael Eisner, Steven Spielberg, Tom Lantos, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Henry Waxman, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the Shulzbergs and the Grahams, (had to pause to take a breath there because the list is so long…) Zelikow, Wolfensohn, Adelman, Edelman — my fingers are tired…
    ME: You must not be used to typing. It sounds like you’re trying to answer a question I asked, but I checked, and I can’t see how what you just wrote relates to anything I wrote. I’ve never seen Paula Zahn’s name on one of these lists. What has she done? You might also check out an article by Uri Avnery, perhaps the leading peace activist in Israel since the late 50s early 60s, that was posted. He’s very complimentary toward Wolfensohn.
    But here’s a question for you: What is the list supposed to signify in your view? I’d be interested in knowing.
    I could type names all night but suffice it to say that the Bible should not be a land claim document that can and will be used to destroy the real world because the chosen, who have no whit of a claim to the actual physical land between the Euphrates and the Nile, decide to destroy the world to further the chosen’s goals of regional, if not global, hegemony.
    ME: This is pretty much a mish-mash. But let’s just take one point, shall we? Israel doesn’t stretch between the Nile and the Euphrates, nor has it ever. Nor have any of Israel’s Armies ever pushed to that point or tried to lay claim to that land.
    Nor have Jews–or Zionists–ever sought “global hegemony.” This is an old, old anti-Semitic canard.
    You’re just pissed off because the rest of us (the goyim) have figured it out.
    ME: No, I’m not angry. I would say you are, however, based on your “HELL YES.” I am a bit sad, though, that every generation of Jew and gentile has to wade the sort of garbage you’ve laid out here. Maybe you’ve just “caught on,” Kali, but this is old, old, OLD stuff.

    Reply

  15. Kali says:

    What exactly is racist about asking about the genetics of people who, despite the fact that they haven’t actually lived there, say that they have a few thousand-year-old claim on land that is disputed?
    Scientists have now narrowed down genetics to the point where African Americans can identify which parts of Africa their ancestors came from.
    And HELL YES, I am saying that European Jews, like Douglas Feith, Michael Chertoff, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Ariel Sharon, Benjamin Netanyahu, Henry Kissinger, Larry Silverstein, Wolf Blitzer, Elliot Abrams, David and Meyrav Wurmser, Paula Zahn, Sumner Redstone, Haim Saban, Michael Eisner, Steven Spielberg, Tom Lantos, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Henry Waxman, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the Shulzbergs and the Grahams, (had to pause to take a breath there because the list is so long…) Zelikow, Wolfensohn, Adelman, Edelman — my fingers are tired…
    I could type names all night but suffice it to say that the Bible should not be a land claim document that can and will be used to destroy the real world because the chosen, who have no whit of a claim to the actual physical land between the Euphrates and the Nile, decide to destroy the world to further the chosen’s goals of regional, if not global, hegemony.
    You’re just pissed off because the rest of us (the goyim) have figured it out.

    Reply

  16. MP says:

    Kali writes: “Active role in their own salvation???
    ME: Yes. When the world shat on them, they did something about it. Finally.
    This is where Zionists piss people off — by assuming that they are the chosen — as if the people who fought or are fighting for their freedom in the U.S., South Africa, Sri Lanka,East Timor, Kashmir, Romania, the Ukraine, the French underground, Tibet, the White Rose society under Hitler, IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN (the last of which has endured centuries of foreign invasions)and in Palestine, have not taken an active role in their own salvation…
    ME: True. Point taken. They aren’t unique in that regard.
    And I never said that there weren’t Jews in Palestine. In fact the Jews in the Middle East (the true Semites) were probably safer than Jews in the fabled diaspora, as they were treated very well by the Arabs and the Persians. They were also treated well in Spain under the Moors.
    ME: Hmmm. The life of the dhimmi is not one of being treated well. We can talk about the expulsion of Sephardic Jews from those lands in 1948, and how “true” they were considered, when the time came, if you want. Some reckon the total to be about 750,000. Now, given that Israel was NOT founded on Iraqi, Egyptian, Saudi, Syrian…or on any of the other lands where these people had been living for centuries as, presumably, “true Semites,” not to mention “true” citizens of their respective countries, it’s a little hard to see how that constitutes being treated well. But it’s true, no pogroms, no gas chambers, no ovens, no work camps. Snark aside, it’s a complicated issue.
    If you look at many of the Muslim arguments against Israel, the point often seems to be less about the injustices endured by the Palestinians than the moral terpitude of infidels taking Muslim land. This corresponds with how poorly Palestinians have been treated by other Arabs. This does NOT justify the injustices that Israel has perpetrated, but it does shed some light on the life of the dhimmi and the Muslim approach to geography.
    A genetics question MP — many of the most powerful Jews in Israel look European, and they or their parents are in fact from Europe — they often have blond hair, blue eyes and very fair skin — where does that phenotype come from genetically if they are indeed Semites?
    ME: Many Lebanese and Syrians are blond and blue-eyed. What is your point? Being Jewish isn’t a matter of genetics, or only partly so, and not at all for all Jews. You’re barking up a rotten tree here. Dark-skinned Jews can stay; all the rest, pack up?
    I don’t see many blond-haired, blue-eyed, Middle-Easterners outside of Israel. In fact, I have never seen a blond-haired, blue-eyed Semite outside of people who now call themselves Israelis.
    ME: Look again. And see above.
    And both blond hair and blue eyes are recessive traits — I await your answer as to why some so-called Israelis, most of whom *oddly* enough are European Jews, do not show the same phenotypes as the Arabs who have actually lived in what is now called Israel since before recorded history.
    ME: “So-called Israelis”? I thought Israel was an actual country with actual citizens. Anyway, are you arguing for a correspondence between pure genetic makeup…and the rights to certain lands? Are we into that old Khazars argument? Kali, I’m not accusing you of being a racist, but this is indeed a racist argument. And, of course, Jews “actually lived” in Israel before there was such a thing as a Muslim.

    Reply

  17. Kali says:

    Active role in their own salvation???
    This is where Zionists piss people off — by assuming that they are the chosen — as if the people who fought or are fighting for their freedom in the U.S., South Africa, Sri Lanka,East Timor, Kashmir, Romania, the Ukraine, the French underground, Tibet, the White Rose society under Hitler, IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN (the last of which has endured centuries of foreign invasions)and in Palestine, have not taken an active role in their own salvation…
    And I never said that there weren’t Jews in Palestine. In fact the Jews in the Middle East (the true Semites) were probably safer than Jews in the fabled diaspora, as they were treated very well by the Arabs and the Persians. They were also treated well in Spain under the Moors.
    A genetics question MP — many of the most powerful Jews in Israel look European, and they or their parents are in fact from Europe — they often have blond hair, blue eyes and very fair skin — where does that phenotype come from genetically if they are indeed Semites?
    I don’t see many blond-haired, blue-eyed, Middle-Easterners outside of Israel. In fact, I have never seen a blond-haired, blue-eyed Semite outside of people who now call themselves Israelis.
    And both blond hair and blue eyes are recessive traits — I await your answer as to why some so-called Israelis, most of whom *oddly* enough are European Jews, do not show the same phenotypes as the Arabs who have actually lived in what is now called Israel since before recorded history.

    Reply

  18. MP says:

    Kali writes: “–the difference between their experience and the experience of European Jews was that my family was actually PHYSICALLY OCCUPYING ITS LAND when they were dislocated as a result of an act of the British *empire*. This was the arbitrary separation of British-created India into what is now India and Pakistan.”
    Well, this wouldn’t seem to be a difference, but rather a similarity–only the problem for European Jews wasn’t one of “dislocation.” They weren’t exactly offered a land of their own in, say, Germany.
    There is also a conceptual and historical error in stating that only Arabs or only Muslims occupied the land in 1948 or before, as if they are the only ones entitled to it and Jews are mere interlopers. Jews have had a continuous presence there since antiquity and made regular pilgrimmages there from Diaspora. The Jewish connection to the land isn’t simply a Zionist myth.
    It should also be pointed out that the original Zionist proposal was for a very small (relatively speaking) piece of land. Smaller than the partition proposal. And the partition proposal was smaller than the land contained within the Armistice lines.
    And, of course, the UN partition did provide for a Palestinian state. Think of all the misery and bloodshed that could have been saved if the surrounding Arab countries–who had no legitimate claim on the land themselves–had decided that diplomacy was better than war or ultimatums.
    I don’t think that Zionists claim that Jews are the only ones to have suffered–you’d have to show me some back up on that one. But they may be unique among the dispossessed peoples of the world in that they chose to take an active role in their own salvation. In short, they are the opposite of the self-pitying supplicants they are often portrayed as.
    As to your right to speak out as an American–ditto.

    Reply

  19. Sandy says:

    Having read this piece a few days ago — what Kali says — and what the convicted (Iran/Contra) criminal Elliott Abrams is doing — is worth considering:
    http://www.counterpunch.com/christison07262007.html
    July 26, 2007
    A CounterPunch Special Report
    Thoughts on the Attempted Murder of Palestine
    The Siren Song of Elliott Abrams
    By KATHLEEN CHRISTISON
    Former CIA analyst
    “Coup” is the word being widely used to describe what happened in Gaza in June when Hamas militias defeated the armed security forces of Fatah and chased them out of Gaza. But, as so often with the manipulative language used in the conflict between the Palestinians and Israel, the terminology here is backward. Hamas was the legally constituted, democratically elected government of the Palestinians, so in the first place Hamas did not stage a coup but rather was the target of a coup planned against it. Furthermore, the coup — which failed in Gaza but succeeded overall when Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, acting in violation of Palestinian law, cut Gaza adrift, unseated the Palestinian unity government headed by Hamas, and named a new prime minister and cabinet — was the handiwork of the United States and Israel.
    The Fatah attacks against Hamas in Gaza were initiated at the whim of, and with arms and training provided by, the United States and Israel. No one seems to be making any secret of this. Immediately after Hamas won legislative elections in January 2006, ELLIOTT ABRAMS, who runs U.S. policy toward Israel from his senior position on the National Security Council staff, met with a group of Palestinian businessmen and spoke openly of the need for a “hard coup” against Hamas. According to Palestinians who were there, Abrams was “unshakable” in his determination to oust Hamas. When the Palestinians, urging engagement with Hamas instead of confrontation, observed that Abrams’ scheme would bring more suffering and even starvation to Gaza’s already impoverished population, Abrams dismissed their concerns by claiming that it wouldn’t be the fault of the U.S. if that happened.
    Abrams has been working on his coup plan ever since with his friends in Israel. As part of this scheme, the U.S. also urged Abbas — again making no secret of this — to dissolve the Fatah-Hamas unity government formed in March this year, form a new government, and call for new elections. Abbas acceded to U.S. demands with embarrassing alacrity after Hamas took Gaza. In a further gratuitous turn of the screw, he has appealed to Israel to turn up the heat on Hamas in Gaza by stopping delivery of fuel to Gaza’s power plant and keeping the Rafah border crossing point from Egypt closed so that none of the thousands of Palestinian waiting at the border to return home will be able to enter.
    The UN’s outgoing Middle East envoy, Alvaro de Soto, whose final report on his two years in Palestine-Israel was recently leaked to the press, describes Abrams and a State Department colleague, Assistant Secretary David Welch, threatening immediately after the Hamas election victory to cut off U.S. contributions to the UN if it did not agree to a cutback in aid to the Palestinian Authority by the Quartet (of which the UN is a member, along with the U.S., the EU, and Russia). De Soto also describes a gleeful U.S. response to Hamas-Fatah fighting earlier this year. The U.S., he says, clearly pushed for this confrontation, and at a meeting of Quartet envoys, the U.S. delegate crowed that “I like this violence” because “it means that other Palestinians are resisting Hamas.”
    The Israeli-U.S. strategy for Palestine is now crystal clear: overturn the will of the people (in this case as expressed through democratic elections), kill off any resistance (Hamas in this case, along with any civilians who might get in the way), co-opt a quisling leadership (Fatah and Mahmoud Abbas), push out and kill if necessary as many people as international opinion will allow, ultimately rid Palestine of most Palestinians. The cast of characters and organizations has changed from earlier times, but this has essentially been Israel’s strategy from the beginning.
    The Bush administration is putting a beautiful face on this strategy in the aftermath of the Hamas takeover of Gaza, trying to lure the Palestinians with empty favors to Abbas and Fatah — a three-month amnesty for 178 so-called militants in the West Bank, release of 250 prisoners (out of 11,000), $190 million in aid (most of it recycled from previous undisbursed allocations, and amounting in any case to a mere seven percent of Israel’s annual subsidy from the U.S.), release of customs duties withheld for the last year by Israel (monies stolen by Israel in the first place). The U.S. is also holding out the promise to Abbas, if he behaves, to be allowed to play with the big boys in the Middle East and be included among the favored “moderates.” In a speech on July 16, Bush offered the Palestinian people a choice. They can follow Hamas, he said, and thus “guarantee chaos,” give up their future to “Hamas’ foreign sponsors in Syria and Iran,” and forfeit any possibility of a Palestinian state. Or they can follow the “vision” of Abbas and his Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, “reclaim their dignity and their future,” and build “a peaceful state called Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people.” The prerequisites imposed on Abbas are, as before, to recognize Israel’s right to exist, reject violence, and adhere to all previous agreements between the parties.
    The promises of Bush and his neocon hucksters, led by Elliott Abrams, are a siren song, holding out a false hope that Abbas’ surrender to U.S. and Israeli enticements will bring a just peace and a just resolution of the issues most important to the Palestinians. The vision of a “peaceful state called Palestine” that the U.S. holds out is a sham, constituting perhaps 50 percent of the West Bank (but only ten percent of original Palestine) in disconnected segments, with no true sovereignty or independence, no capital, and no justice for Palestinian refugees. In these circumstances, Bush’s vision of a “reclaimed dignity” and a decent future for Palestinians is also a sham. Although Abbas and his Fatah colleagues are going along thus far, most Palestinians have not fallen for these blandishments, which offer nothing in return for their abject surrender to Israel.
    The election of Hamas in the first instance sent a political message — of resistance to Israeli occupation and extreme dissatisfaction with Fatah’s failure to end it or even to protest it adequately and the international community’s failure to help — and nothing in recent developments gives the Palestinians any hope that their message has been heard. Quite the contrary, in fact. But any expectation that this fact will lead them now to surrender is premature. As Israeli activist and commentator Jeff Halper wrote soon after the Hamas election, the Palestinians gave notice in that election that they would not submit or cooperate, that they were resurrecting a tactic from the 1970s and ’80s, of remaining sumud, steadfast — not engaging in armed struggle but not caving in to Israel’s desire that they disappear. The race now is to see whose strategy prevails and whether the Palestinians in their steadfastness can hold out against Israel’s long-term strategy of apartheid, ethnic cleaning, and even, as honest commentators have increasingly begun to label it, genocide….” snip

    Reply

  20. Kali says:

    My parents and grandparents were kicked out of their ancestral lands at the same time Israel was *born* –the difference between their experience and the experience of European Jews was that my family was actually PHYSICALLY OCCUPYING ITS LAND when they were dislocated as a result of an act of the British *empire*. This was the arbitrary separation of British-created India into what is now India and Pakistan.
    Thus my family was like the Palestinians who were *only* occupying their OWN land during the *birth* of Israel and were slaughtered and moved as a result of the British Balfour declaration of 1917, and other Zionist actions before and since.
    Cry me a river MP, but at the end of the day, many people are sick of the Zionists claiming they are the only ones who have suffered, EVER.
    And, as an American citizen, I will do my utmost to educate other Americans about the devastation the Zionists have wrought, and will continue to wreak until we stop Israel from controlling U.S. foreign policy and stop a further cataclysm that would be a result of that control.

    Reply

  21. MP says:

    Commentary by an Egyptian reporter and an excellent to recent Uri Avnery column:
    “What Use Were All The Wars?
    By Mona Eltahawy
    Saturday, July 28, 2007; A19
    VELEN, Germany — If turning 40 isn’t challenging enough, try preparing for this milestone when you’re as old as one of the worst defeats Arab armies ever suffered at Israeli hands. Wars mark time and generations in the Middle East, so it’s difficult not to take the humiliation personally.
    My birth at the end of July 1967 makes me a child of the naksa, or setback, as the Arab defeat during the June 1967 war is euphemistically known in Arabic. There was no Summer of Love for us in 1967. We Children of the Naksa were born not only on the cusp of loss but also of the kind of disillusionment that whets the appetite of religious zealots.
    My parents’ generation grew up high on the Arab nationalism that Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser brandished in the 1950s. By 1967, humiliation was decisively stepping into pride’s large, empty shoes.
    As the region marks the 40th anniversary of the Arab-Israeli war, it’s been a relief to be watching from another country, one where the stain of wars and defeat have marked several generations. But no relief or distance can silence this question: Is this what we fought all those wars with Israel for?
    My country, Egypt, fought four wars against Israel between 1948, when the Jewish state was created, and 1979, when Egypt became the first Arab country to sign a peace treaty with Israel. Two of my uncles were rocket engineers during the 1973 war, the last conflict between the two countries.
    Watching the Palestinians’ whiplash descent into civil war in Gaza this summer, it is difficult not to question the past. Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land has caused no end of misery, poverty and frustration for the Palestinians. It has even scarred the Israeli people’s conscience. But occupation doesn’t explain the reckless and often corrupt leadership that seems to be the curse of the Palestinians.
    You might think society would have evolved differently in the two countries that have peace treaties with Israel — Egypt and Jordan — or that their treaties have rendered conflict out of the question. Think again.
    Has Egypt or Jordan logged better records on human rights or political freedoms because of those treaties? Has development or progress taken the place of war? Ask the thousands of political prisoners and the silenced dissidents of both countries.
    Egypt has been at peace with Israel for 28 years. For the past 25 years, we have had the same president, who has never visited Israel — just the tip of the iceberg known as the “cold peace” between the two countries, which Egyptian officials usually blame on negative public opinion of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land.
    We have subsumed so much into the Palestinian cause, channeling efforts that should have gone into development into a near obsession with Palestine, for little apparent good. Egypt boasts that it can talk to both the Israelis and the Palestinians, but even that has done little for its influence in halting intra-Palestinian fighting in Gaza.
    I visited Israel for the first time in September 1997. Soon after, I moved to Jerusalem as a correspondent for Reuters. I wanted to see things for myself and not have to rely on the “official” narrative given by our media.
    To this day I remain under the suspicion of my country’s security services. When I returned to Egypt after my year in Israel, a state security officer — whose nom de guerre was Omar Sharif — held up a thick file that he said was full of orders to have me followed and my phone tapped.
    My generation, sadly, might be lost to defeat and humiliation. If so, the best gift we can offer those coming behind us is clear advice: Don’t walk in our footsteps, and know that the best way you can help Palestinians is to help your own countries.
    The Arab leaders of the 1967 era are gone, replaced in Jordan and Syria by their sons; preparations for a similar handover are underway in Egypt. The Palestinians are led by the dangerously impotent combination of a weak president and a prime minister who is a religious zealot.
    And still there is no Palestine.
    Why has time stood still for the Arab world? The Syrian town of Quneitra is exactly as it was when it was destroyed after the 1967 war with Israel, untouched so that we never forget. Yet how many German cities, almost leveled during World War II, have been rebuilt and are thriving again?
    The 1967 war was one of the many conflicts with Israel that bookend our ages. Looking around the Arab world today, we must ask: What were they all for? It’s time to move on.”

    Reply

  22. MP says:

    Clayton–I agree with you: good news. I’m assuming that when you talk about an “Arab partner” here, you are assuming that the Saudi presence will also bring Hamas around to accepting the 1967 borders. You don’t mention, but it would appear to be a necessity to moving to a peaceful settlement.
    With all the recent discussion here about “talking to our enemies,” it’s probably worth noting that this is the first time in history that a Saudi official delegation will visit Israel or is willing to talk face to face with them (as far as I recall).
    I guess it’s also worth pointing out that it wasn’t just Israel who ignored the 2002 initiative–the Palestinians did as well, if memory serves.
    As to the comments on this thread, it always amazes me how every HOPEFUL post on this situation seems to bring out those who hate Israel the most to assert (again) that she only has vilest motives and has no interest in peace. Whether it be Kali, who seems to want to fight 1948 all over again, and maybe WWII, or FTFU with his silly assertion that Israel seeks “global hegemony.” (That wouldn’t be Israel, dear, that would be the Jews, ‘member?)
    It’s also interesting (to me at least) that even in amateur pundit land, the coin of the realm is to “be right”–preferrably “to have been right all along”–and most preferrably “to have been right for many, many years” or “from the beginning.”
    Any development that threatens this status–however much it might bring succor to millions–is to be abhorred and knocked about. Better to be right than to have peace at last.

    Reply

  23. FedTheFUp says:

    In March of 2002, the Arab League presented Israel with a peace offer that would include full normalization of Israeli-Arab relations. This offer was headed by Saudi Arabia.
    The offer would be contingent on Israel returning to her pre-1967 borders, recognizing East Jerusalem as the capitol of an independent Palestinian state, and finding a just solution for the Palestinian refugees.
    Rather than accept it, Israel launched the siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, a site where many Christian sects believe that Jesus was born.
    That siege lasted for more than a month, with *holy* men of many different Christian sects being starved of food and water.
    Israel does not want peace, she wants regional if not global, hegemony, so to Steve and your guest bloggers, just acknowledge that fact and let’s get the discussion started from a realistic basis, because Israel is not worth WW III.
    And many Americans, despite having been blinded by the U.S. “mainstream media” are now realizing that Israel is the millstone around our necks that will destroy us as a nation, if not destroy the entire world.

    Reply

  24. Mr.Murder says:

    The Tutwilers patented slant drill heads for oil, perhaps you’re familiar with Kuwait stealing oil from Iraq by this method before Saddam’s invasion?
    They tapped the world’s second largest oil field, while we were keeping Saddam distracted in his war with Iran.
    April “Green Light Girl” Glaspie?
    Kucinich got some owrds in about the Rendon group with Rumsfeld. No more baby incubator stories?

    Reply

  25. Mr.Murder says:

    Stay the course!

    Reply

  26. Mr.Murder says:

    Steve, new your boss’s own published finding flies in the face of your present published report of progress for Saudi-Israeli talks about the two state solution:
    “I find no evidence that the CIA had direct contact with bin Laden, but they were allies with Saudi intelligence during the 1980s. The formal alliance with Saudi intelligence was a check-writing operation in which the Congress would appropriate covert funds each year and then somebody would fly to Riyadh where Prince Turki al-Faisal would write matching-funds checks, which would go into the formal accounts of the CIA administered out of Washington, Switzerland, and elsewhere.”
    http://www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/4421.html

    Reply

  27. Mr.Murder says:

    The interests of Arabia and Israel are parallel.
    Arabia wants to artificially inflate the price of OPEC oil. The best plausible lever in that aim is Israel as a hostile presence to other member states.
    This is not breaking new ground, it is more stay the course.
    Dick Cheney takes special interests in Arabia. The name Michael Sheldon Cheney is legendary in oil circles, the man helped secure lend lease grants for the trans Arabian railroad, a precursor to the trans Arabian pipeline that connects Saud oil to the Mediterranean and Europe at its refinery destination in southern Lebanon.
    It’s my contention that this name is not a coincidence.The most one can get from people with background knowledge is a non denial.
    The House of Faisal is of interest too. Iraq’s first King Faisal was flown by the RAF to view surface strata and oil possiblities between the World Wars. Richard F. Halliburton was the pilot. His family was next door neighbors to the Tutwilers.
    Marge Tutwiler, of recent NYSE VP, was James Baker’s former Undersec. of STate, she was Iraq’s CPA communications director, one of her relatives works in the Senate Staff of the Vice President.
    Coincidence?
    “Follow the money.”
    PS- The biggest issue isn’t oil or land, it’s water. Thus Galilee and thus Lebanon to its southernmost river. Turkey has the same concern with headwaters to the Tigris and Euphrates in northern Iraq/Kurdistan. Continuation is the issue, not resolve, heaven forbid the UN start making delcatory statements on watershed rights…
    Why has the USA not resolved that crisis, since it once funded the PUK/PKK to be counterinsugents vs. Saddam? Perhaps another reason the title ‘insurgency’ was slapped on Iraqi sovereigns. The attempt is to delegitmize others when your argument is so overrides the need to address issues as they are.

    Reply

  28. Carroll says:

    Anyone seen The Good Shepherd ?
    Pesci, playing the mob boss negotiating to hit castro for Matt Damon makes a speech about how Italians have family and church, Irish have the tradition, Jews their homeland….and asks “what do YOU (Wasps) have?”
    Damon answers….The United States…all of you are just visiting.
    >>>>>>>
    I don’t know Bolton’s ethnic background, I would guess mongrel. I do know Bush is from the Dutch sect of Linden Seperatist, the ones who burned witches… and had to hire a boat to get out of Europe…
    It’s time for WASP wur.

    Reply

  29. hass says:

    The Saudis made the same peace offer from over 2 decades ago ago that Israel rejected.
    TIME reported this back in 1981:
    Fahd stated that Israel could “live in peace” with its Arab neighbors provided it permitted the Palestinian population of the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip to form an independent state. That condition alone made the proposal unacceptable to the Israeli government, but U.S. and European officials said that they hoped the Fahd initiative might be a first tentative step toward working out some solution to the dangerous impasse in the Middle East.
    In an interview with the official Saudi Press Agency, Fahd called for: 1) Israeli withdrawal from all territory that it had occupied since the 1967 war; 2) removal of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and other occupied areas; 3) guarantees of freedom of worship for all religious groups within these areas; 4) recognition of the rights of 2 million Palestinian refugees — from the 1948 war as well as the 1967 war — for repatriation or compensation; 5) U.N. trusteeship over the West Bank and Gaza Strip during a transition period of several months; and 6) establishment of an independent Palestinian state, with the Arab eastern section of Jerusalem as its capital. Such an agreement, Fahd continued, should be guaranteed by the U.N. or by some of its members, presumably meaning the U.S.
    More important, the agreement would assure the right of all states in the area to live with each other peacefully.
    When will you people get it – Israel doesn’t want peace – Israel wants land.

    Reply

  30. Carroll says:

    Bogga,bogga……
    “Veteran Israeli Intelligence expert, Juval Aviv, said in recent media interviews that his sources on terror plots directed at the United States indicate that multiple attacks on our homeland are in the final stages of preparation. Read the details.
    ‘Possible Attack on the U.S. Within Ninety Days’
    By FSM Editors
    Counterterrorism expert Juval Aviv met recently with reporters at Fox News and revealed information, which he believes is accurate, concerning an imminent Al Qaeda attack on five to seven American cities simultaneously.
    “I predict, based primarily on information that is floating in Europe and the Middle East, that an event is imminent and around the corner here in the United States. It could happen as soon as tomorrow, or it could happen in the next few months. Ninety days at the most,” said Mr. Aviv.
    Mr. Aviv knows of that which he speaks. He is a former Israeli Counterterrorism Intelligence Officer and has also served as a special consultant to the U.S. Congress on issues of terrorism and security. He is best known as the source of the 1984 book, Vengeance: The True Story of an Israeli Counter-Terrorist Team by George Jonas, on which Steven Spielberg’s film Munich was based. He is also the author of The Complete Terrorism Survival Guide: How to Travel, Work and Live in Safety (2003); and Staying Safe: The Complete Guide to Protecting Yourself, Your Family, and Your Business (2004).
    Currently, Aviv is the president of Interfor, Inc., a corporate investigations firm in New York City.
    So it is clear that Aviv has the background and experience in global terror and its operating methods to warrant taking his current warnings seriously. It would be foolish to ignore or minimize this counterterrorism veteran’s expert prognosis. Mr. Aviv told Fox that, from what his sources have been relating, sleeper cells that already have been placed inside the continental United States are on the verge of carrying out major attacks.
    “What they’re going to do,” he explained, “is hit six, seven or eight cities simultaneously to show sophistication and really hit the public. This time, which is the message of the day, it will not only be big cities. They’re going to try to hit rural America. They want to send a message to rural America: “You’re not protected. If you figured out that if you just move out of New York and move to Montana or to Pittsburgh, you’re not immune. We’re going [to] get you wherever we can and it’s easier there than in New York.”
    While this prediction leaves most Americans feeling helpless, fearful and frustrated, Juval Aviv recommends that we at least do what we can. He suggests that for the next few months, if we are traveling by public transportation, we should equip ourselves with a bottle of water, a hand towel and a flashlight. He reminds us that many fatalities in the London tube and Madrid train attacks occurred from victims who breathed in the lethal fumes from bomb components and burning gasoline. Had these people had wet towels to cover their mouths and noses, they would have had a much better chance of survival.
    Americans must do the same, he advises. The global war on terror is not “somewhere over there in the Middle East.” It is here on our own soil. If ever there were a time to be especially vigilant, the time is now.”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    It will be intersting to see who we invade or bomb if we have another attack.
    Oh wait, I know, it will be the French. They have too many Muslims you know.
    Or maybe the idea behind another terrier attack is to round up all the US Muslims and put them in camps…I think that was Daniel Pipes idea or that all american Vietnam girlie, Michele. They are breeding too fast and could turn into..gasp’…voters!…or worse yet they could form a Arab-American Lobby for the ME.
    Please wake me from this orwellian nightmare.

    Reply

  31. Carroll says:

    The buffon speaks again….in the Financial Times
    http://tinyurl.com/3e3z4s
    Britain can’t have two best friends
    By John Bolton
    Published: July 31 2007 18:21 | Last updated: July 31 2007 18:21
    Gordon Brown’s first Washington visit as Britain’s prime minister has prompted tea-leaf reading about the strengths and weaknesses of the US-UK relationship. Momentarily diverting – and probably unavoidable – as the frenzy of speculation is, the real tests lie ahead. Actions ultimately trump semiotics in national security affairs.
    (snips…….)
    Thus, saying that the UK’s “single most important bilateral relationship” is with America, but is not comparable with UK membership of the EU, is a clever but ultimately meaningless dodge. Drop the word “bilateral”. What is Britain’s most important “relationship”? Does Mr Brown regard the EU as a “state under construction”, as some EU supporters proclaim, or not?
    The answers to these questions are what Washington really needs to know. What London needs to know is that its answer will have consequences.
    For example, why does a “union” with a common foreign and security policy, and with the prospect of a real “foreign minister” have two permanent seats on the UN Security Council and often as many as three non-permanent seats out of a total of 15 council members? France and Britain may not relish the prospect of giving up their unique status, but what is it that makes them different – as members of the “Union” – from Luxembourg or Malta? One Union, one seat.
    Mr Brown cannot have it both ways (nor will President Nicolas Sarkozy), in part because many other EU members will not let the matter rest. Of course, the Security Council permanent seat itself is not the real issue – it is the question of whether Britain still has sovereignty over its foreign policy or whether it has simply taken its assigned place in the EU food chain.
    Consider also the US-UK intelligence relationship. Fundamental to that relationship is that pooled intelligence is not shared with others without mutual consent. Tension immediately arises in EU circles, however, when Britain advocates policies based on intelligence that other EU members do not have. How tempting it must already be for British diplomats to “very privately” reveal what they know to European colleagues. How does Mr Brown feel about sharing US intelligence with other Europeans?
    Finally, there is Iran’s nuclear weapons programme, which will prove in the long run more important for both countries than the current turmoil in Iraq. Here the US has followed the EU lead in a failed diplomatic effort to dissuade Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons. If Mr Bush decides that the only way to stop Iran is to use military force, where will Mr Brown come down? Supporting the US or allowing Iran to goose-step towards nuclear weapons?
    I will wait for answers to these and other questions before I draw conclusions about “the special relationship” under Mr Brown. But not forever.
    >>>>>>>
    “London needs to know there will be consequences”?
    What the hell is that… Bolton is threatening Britain now? What a little pissant. Actually I would to see the US start something with Britain or some other European country…that would bring on our long need revolution in this country.
    It’s no secret that Bolton and his Israeli and neo friends want to destroy every relationship the US has with any country but Israel.
    On the morning of 911 I said that Bush would hijack the hijacking, take US to war and bankrupt the country. Two days later I said Israel was hijacking Bush’s Wur on terriers for their own agenda and would drag the US to the bottom of the pit with them. I also said that Israel’s game would be to make all their enemies, and everyone is an enemy to them, our enemies and seperate the US from all traditional allies and make us their force in the world against everyone they hate including Europe…who they hate almost as much as they hate the Arabs. Europe must be put down and demonized just as the UN must be dismantled.
    I was right….on every count.
    The entire world sees what has and is going on with this. They are no longer willing to play along like poodle Blair did, the bloom is off the terrier rose. The great terrier wur play is a flop and the stage has turned to quicksand.
    Not long ago some post ask how the US will end up…I predict death by a thousand self inflicted cuts. And looking at the current crop of candidates, the dems winning the next election isn’t going to stop it.

    Reply

  32. larry birnbaum says:

    Notwithstanding the somewhat bizarre tone of this post — it’s all about who would bear the “onus” for the failure to achieve peace, rather than about how to actually achieve it — it would be great if the Saudis would get more involved in a positive way.

    Reply

  33. Carroll says:

    I am betting 50 to 1 against the Arabs getting Isrmerica to move forward to anything in Isr-Pal. Saudi is going to have to get a lot tougher…a lot tougher.
    Meanwhile here is a guarenteed hot button for AQ, Iraq and all Arab countries…
    “U.S. checking possibility of pumping oil from northern Iraq to Haifa, via Jordan
    By Amiram Cohen
    The United States has asked Israel to check the possibility of pumping oil from Iraq to the oil refineries in Haifa. The request came in a telegram last week from a senior Pentagon official to a top Foreign Ministry official in Jerusalem.
    The Prime Minister’s Office, which views the pipeline to Haifa as a “bonus” the U.S. could give to Israel in return for its unequivocal support for the American-led campaign in Iraq, had asked the Americans for the official telegram.
    The new pipeline would take oil from the Kirkuk area, where some 40 percent of Iraqi oil is produced, and transport it via Mosul, and then across Jordan to Israel. The U.S. telegram included a request for a cost estimate for repairing the Mosul-Haifa pipeline that was in use prior to 1948. During the War of Independence, the Iraqis stopped the flow of oil to Haifa and the pipeline fell into disrepair over the years.
    The National Infrastructure Ministry has recently conducted research indicating that construction of a 42-inch diameter pipeline between Kirkuk and Haifa would cost about $400,000 per kilometer. The old Mosul-Haifa pipeline was only 8 inches in diameter.
    National Infrastructure Minister Yosef Paritzky said yesterday that the port of Haifa is an attractive destination for Iraqi oil and that he plans to discuss this matter with the U.S. secretary of energy during his planned visit to Washington next month. Paritzky added that the plan depends on Jordan’s consent and that Jordan would receive a transit fee for allowing the oil to piped through its territory. The minister noted, however, that “due to pan-Arab concerns, it will be hard for the Jordanians to agree to the flow of Iraqi oil via Jordan and Israel.”
    Sources in Jerusalem confirmed yesterday that the Americans are looking into the possibility of laying a new pipeline via Jordan and Israel. (There is also a pipeline running via Syria that has not been used in some three decades.)
    Iraqi oil is now being transported via Turkey to a small Mediterranean port near the Syrian border. The transit fee collected by Turkey is an important source of revenue for the country. This line has been damaged by sabotage twice in recent weeks and is presently out of service.
    In response to rumors about the possible Kirkuk-Mosul-Haifa pipeline, Turkey has warned Israel that it would regard this development as a serious blow to Turkish-Israeli relations.
    Sources in Jerusalem suggest that the American hints about the alternative pipeline are part of an attempt to apply pressure on Turkey.
    Iraq is one of the world’s largest oil producers, with the potential of reaching about 2.5 million barrels a day. Oil exports were halted after the Gulf War in 1991 and then were allowed again on a limited basis (1.5 million barrels per day) to finance the import of food and medicines. Iraq is currently exporting several hundred thousand barrels of oil per day.
    During his visit to Washington in about two weeks, Paritzky also plans to discuss the possibility of U.S. and international assistance for joint Israeli-Palestinian projects in the areas of energy and infrastructure, natural gas, desalination and electricity.”
    >>>>>>>>>>
    Yes indeed, go ahead, prove to the Arabs that everything the world said about the US being run by zionist by for Israel is true and that we intend to “”loot” the ME for our mafia nephew Israel.
    Actually I read about this plan in the Economist before we ever invaded Iraq but didn’t believe we would actually be that crass.
    Sure fire way to keep the terrier war going…Israel is asking for it and asking for it.
    Let’s see a show of hands…how many people think the US (cause Israel has not put a dime or drop of blood into this fight) can “subdue” the entire ME and then “control” it by continued force to make Israel the top dog in the Arab world.
    Anyone?
    Stupider and stupider.

    Reply

  34. Harris says:

    Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud is the force behind this.

    Reply

  35. Cracker Copeland says:

    The U.S. and Israel DO NOT want nor have they ever wanted, real peace in the Middle East. To contend otherwise is as ridiculous as it is false. Israel would have to remove back to pre-1967 borders and Israel will never do that. Israel would have to cease their unmitigated apartheid policies towards the Palestinians and mercy knows, Israel will never do that. Washington will continue the status quo as long as Washington can bully the rest of the world into “grudging acceptance” of Israeli wishes. There is no real peace process in the Middle East and thus shall it ever be. Yank Israel up short and force them into real negotiations with the Syrians, Egyptians, and the Palestinians then, the peace process “should” be easy as pie-in-the-sky.

    Reply

  36. Kali says:

    I don’t know if anyone else here has read the Bible but it’s full of crap and to use it as the basis of a couple thousand-year-old land claim (and the cause of the coming World War III) makes me want to file for property in England, Ireland, India and Burma, all of which my ancestors occupied much more recently.
    Why isn’t Israel in Germany? What exactly did the Arabs have to do with the Jewish Holocaust?
    I deserve the property my recent ancestors owned much more than the Jews (many of whom are of European descent and not true Semites) deserve the land now called Israel.
    And yet even Walt and Mearsheimer, co-authors of “The Israel Lobby & U.S. Foreign Policy”, state that Israel has a “right to exist.”
    Then put the damn country in your back yard and leave the Arabs alone. Leave us all alone and in peace.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *