Guest Post by Jonathan Guyer: Let’s Go Comprehensive

-


Jonathan Guyer is a Program Associate with the New America Foundation/Middle East Task Force.
During President Obama’s brief presser with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak yesterday, one word was conspicuously absent: comprehensive.
While much of the two leaders’ remarks focused on the Israel-Palestine track, they only alluded to the Arab Peace Initiative (API), which holds out the opportunity of normalized relations with the Arab states as an incentive for Israel to end the occupation and solidify a two-state solution.
Thus far, President Obama has tried to break down this everything-for-everything scenario by turning the comprehensive aspect of the API into a sequential process. In letters President Obama reportedly sent to a handful of Gulf and Arab states, he urged them to take the lead in confidence-building measures toward Israel. Special Envoy Mitchell has also pursued this short-term goal.
Compare this to Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal’s view. While visiting Washington last month, FM al-Faisal maintained a strong line on the need for a comprehensive two-state solution while also asserting that a bits and pieces approach will not bring the parties closer to a deal:

Incrementalism and a step-by-step approach has not and – we believe – will not achieve peace. Temporary security, confidence- building measures will also not bring peace. What is required is a comprehensive approach that defines the final outcome at the outset and launches into negotiations over final status issues: borders, Jerusalem, water, refugees and security.

The United States Senate has taken a decidedly different approach. At the end of their legislative session, 77 senators signed onto the Bayh-Risch Letter which put the onus on Arab states to “do more to end their isolation of Israel.”
However, if Arab states were to upgrade relations with Israel based on minor policy changes coming out of Tel Aviv – such as the temporary construction freeze in the West Bank which Ha’aretz reported yesterday – what incentive would that leave for Israelis to clinch a comprehensive deal?
Early normalization gestures are just that – too early and merely gestures. True progress will be cultivated at the very moment of establishing a Palestinian state, and a tit for tat strategy will only sidetrack this big picture goal.
Shai Feldman and Gilead Sher echo this point in their op-ed, “The grand bargain that is the Mideast’s best hope,” published in today’s Financial Times:

The reluctance of Saudi Arabia’s Prince al-Faisal to reward a partial Israeli move such as a settlement construction freeze is understandable given the distrust between Israel and its Arab neighbors. The failure to end the conflict through interim stages has made all parties skeptical about such steps being more than temporary.
Instead, what is proposed here is that the Arab states engage Israel in an exercise in reverse engineering. The Arab states should announce that once Israel reaches an agreement with the Palestinians on a permanent resolution of the dispute, the Arab states would reward Israel for every step it takes towards implementing this vision.

To resolve the conflict, gestures have not and will not be enough. It’s not the incremental steps in and of themselves that are negative, but rather the fact that those baby steps will in turn be viewed as the objective.
Let’s go comprehensive.
— Jonathan Guyer

Comments

143 comments on “Guest Post by Jonathan Guyer: Let’s Go Comprehensive

  1. Target Coupon Codes says:

    I think they might have been right; but I think it’s becoming increasingly obvious that Obama isn’t a tough enough negotiator or a tough enough leader to enact either his domestic or foreign policy preferences other than in a highly diluted way.

    Reply

  2. David says:

    I forgot to mention that militaristic ideological anti-communism is a mental disorder.

    Reply

  3. David says:

    While president, Carter got a couple of things terribly wrong and other things quite right. Post-presidency, he has done less of the former and more of the latter.
    LBJ’s Vietnam policy was abominable, his domestic policy superb.
    I condemn presidents when they are homicidally wrong, praise them when their policies are praiseworthy. So what’s new about presidents getting some things right and some things terribly wrong.
    No, I will never forgive Brzezinski for talking Carter into the Afghanistan idiocy, or Carter for going along with it (so did Dan Rather, dammit) nor will I ever forgive Kissinger for a list of offenses too long for this post.
    But I will damned sure back Carter when he is correct, as was Brzez regarding the Iraq insanity. Maybe Bz learned a few things, however late, and Carter has never stopped learning of evolving toward a more complete humanitarian.

    Reply

  4. Paul Norheim says:

    I find it difficult to find earlier comments at TWN, but here`s a couple
    of quotes:
    Posted by Paul Norheim, Jan 28 2009, 3:01PM – Link
    It seems think people like Madelaine Albright, Zbigniev
    Brzezinski, and Henry Kissinger all suffer from chronic
    “international migraine” – but not for the obvious reasons:
    making life miserable for the Iraqis in the 90`s, screwing up
    Afghanistan in the 80`s, and bombing Laos, Vietnam, and
    Cambodia in the 70`s etc. etc.
    And speaking about Brzezinski: asking him for advise re.
    Afghanistan is as obscene as asking Kissinger for advise re. Laos
    or Chile.
    Did someone mention “respect for other countries”?
    ———-
    Posted by Paul Norheim, Aug 12 2008, 6:38PM – Link
    Yeah, and this from Wikipedia on Z.B. (especially the last
    paragraph!):
    “In 1998, Brzezinski was interviewed by the French newspaper
    Nouvel Observateur on the topic of Afghanistan. He revealed
    that CIA support for the mujaheddin had started before the
    1979 Soviet invasion, knowingly increasing the probability of a
    Soviet invasion. Brzezinski saw the invasion as an opportunity to
    embroil the Soviet Union in a bloody conflict comparable to
    America’s experience in Vietnam. He referred to this as the
    “Afghan Trap” and viewed the end of the Soviet empire as worth
    the cost of strengthening militant Islamic groups. [19][20]
    ——————————
    As the quotes suggest, I have no problems agreeing with your general view
    here. I just think that some of your furor has another source as well:
    Carter`s ME views. That doesn`t make me a hypocrite.

    Reply

  5. Paul Norheim says:

    “You may think his position on the Middle East
    excuses all the havoc he’s wrecked on the world.”
    Of course not. Why would you assume that?
    WigWag, I happen to like Carter`s current Middle
    East approach. I have never written a general
    comment about his human rights record – nor, for
    that sake about the human rights record of
    presidents like Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Bush
    senior, or Nixon. I happen to like some of the
    things some of these presidents did, other things
    not so much. But I`ve not commented on their track
    records. I have no doubt that it`s bad in many
    respects: US presidents per definition have bad
    human right records – and some were worse than
    others.
    As you may or may not remember, I`ve referred to
    the Brzezisnki interview several times at TWN, and
    suggested something similar to you with regard to
    the the destruction of Afghanistan and the
    consequences today. Carter obviously shares the
    responsibility for this.
    Where is my hypocrisy in this?

    Reply

  6. WigWag says:

    “Still convinced it does not have to be this way, but appalled by the current realities, and still pissed by the various villifications/rejections of Jimmy Carter, one of the few people speaking essential truth to the situation.” (David)
    “You’re right, David, instead of straight forwardly attacking Jimmy Carter for his positions in the Middle East conflict, WigWag is fighting a proxy war with Carter in Kabul.” (Paul Norheim)
    Sorry guys, you both have it wrong. It’s not me who has it backwards, it’s you.
    You like Carter’s position on the Middle East so you’re inclined to ignore the fact that he has an even worse human rights record than George W. Bush. You find his position on the Israel-Palestine dispute laudable so you don’t care that his record on human rights is abysmal.
    There’s a word for that. Can you guess what it is?
    Here are just a few of the things you’re willing to ignore because you’re invested in Carter’s reputation as a figure of conscience:
    1) To advance his hatred of the Soviets, Carter exploits radical Islam to fight a secular communist regime in Afghanistan. With the CIA coordinating the effort, the U.S. spends $40 billion to recruit and assist freedom fighters like Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar.
    2) Carter provides financial and logistical support to the regime of Anastasio Somoza in Nicaragua despite the fact that Somoza order the assassination of democracy advocate, Pedro
    Chammoro.
    3) Carter dramatically increases aid to the junta in El Salvador to help the government in the fight against freedom fighters (many of whom were not communist rebels).
    4) Carter claims that the Khemer Rouge, not the Vietnamese backed rebels who overthrew them, are the sole legitimate representatives of the Cambodian people. He orders his U.N. Ambassador, Andrew Young to vote to seat the Khmer appointed representative in the UN General Assembly.
    5) Jimmy Carter and Zbig Brzezinski implement a CIA backed program called “Task Force 80” designed to fund CIA-Thai forces in propping up the Khmer Rouge.
    6) Carter provides millions of dollars in military aid and CIA assistance to Indonesia to help the Indonesians defeat an insurgent movement in East Timor. One third (200 thousand people) of the East Timor population is killed by U.S, supplied weapons sent to the Indonesians by Jimmy Carter.
    7) Jimmy Carter calls the Shah of Iran one of his and America’s “greatest friends.” At a White House speech with the Shah in attendance, Carter says,
    “Our talks have been priceless, our friendship is irreplaceable, and my own gratitude is to the Shah, who in his wisdom and with his experience has been so helpful to me, a new leader. We have no other nation on earth who is closer to us in planning our mutual military security. We have no other nation with whom we have closer consultation on regional problems that concern us both. And there is no leader with whom I have a deeper sense of personal gratitude and personal friendship”
    Jimmy Carter was not only an incompetent President; he was one of the most immoral Presidents in American history and we are still dealing today with the results of the terrible decisions he made 35 years ago.
    You may think his position on the Middle East excuses all the havoc he’s wrecked on the world.
    I don’t.

    Reply

  7. Paul Norheim says:

    You`re right, David,
    instead of straight forwardly attacking Jimmy
    Carter for his positions in the Middle East
    conflict, WigWag is fighting a proxy war with
    Carter in Kabul.

    Reply

  8. David says:

    So am I guilty of anti-semitism if I think Netanyahoo should go Cheney himself? Eff him and the ‘alf-arsed steed he rode in on. It is time for Obama to employ some presidential cunning and, as Penny said she could do on “Big Bang Theory” when referencing her experience in junior rodeo, rope, hogtie, and castrate him in less than 60 seconds. It’s rodeo time, Barack.
    Likud is not doing Israel, the United States, or the greater Middle East any longtime favors. Stupid does not get better with age. And as I said before, while I did not agree with either the premises or the nature of the creation of the modern state of Israel, since it is a fact on the groung, it is a gd shame that it is not a force for good in the Middle East, but rather, under Likud and with its current mindset, one of the several problems.
    Still convinced it does not have to be this way, but appalled by the current realities, and still pissed by the various villifications/rejections of Jimmy Carter, one of the few people speaking essential truth to the situation.

    Reply

  9. Paul Norheim says:

    Secret Admirer,
    please relax!
    I don`t blame you; I`m struggling to spell words
    correctly in English too. I know it ain`t easy.

    Reply

  10. Secret Admirer says:

    Hey, hey, nordic guy. We don’t particularly like your kind of thinking, got it? Like we don’t give out no strategic plans, if you get my meaning, any more than them fascists, or whatever there called, did when they were building up.
    Bottom line,that’s it. And you can keep your moderate republican insults to yourself. If me and Nadine ain’t heart an soul proud right wing real Americans there ain’t no hope.

    Reply

  11. Paul Norheim says:

    “If we can’t stand up for the heart and soul of the
    party, what good are we?”
    Secret Admirer, I would like to hear more from a
    moderate republican – if that`s what you regard
    yourself. They are rare animals at TWN.
    Could you please expand a bit on your comment?

    Reply

  12. Secret Admirer says:

    I really gotta hand it to youse guys Nadine. It’s good to know you got the back of that Oxycontin-stoked clown. If we can’t stand up for the heart and soul of the party, what good are we?

    Reply

  13. nadine says:

    Wigwag, So after I said that Rush Limbaugh never said or implied that Obama was Muslim, but had free speech problems with liberals telling him that he was not allowed to say Obama’s full name, Paul presents as damning evidence a quote that backs me up in all particulars!
    It’s as good as a comedy. I thank him for the good laugh.
    I have never heard any evidence, btw, that Rush is bigoted against blacks in the least. But if you count anti-liberalism as bigotry, which liberals love to do, then of course he’s guilty as sin.

    Reply

  14. Paul Norheim says:

    WigWag,
    now, there are two different issues here.
    1)The actual use of Obama`s middle name, it`s
    signal effects and the motives behind it.
    2) Whether Obama, his staff and Americans in
    general should feel free to use his middle name.
    As I`ve stated twice above on this thread: I
    should wish that his middle name got used
    commonly. Axelrod and others opposed it,
    calculating that it would incite the bigots and
    hurt Obama`s campaign. That was probably a correct
    calculation at the time, tactically spoken – given
    the ignorance of many Americans, and the bigotry
    and suspicion after 9/11 and the capture of Saddam
    Hussein. But in the long run, using his middle
    name would probably work against bigotry.
    “Is it legitimate to suspect that he has ulterior
    motives when Limbaugh uses Obama’s middle name?
    Of course.”
    And the issue I raised on this thread was why
    certain people, like Nadine and Limbaugh, use his
    middle name in the current circumstances.
    Is it legitimate to suspect that she has ulterior
    motives when Nadine uses Obama’s middle name?
    Obviously. And that was one of my points. The
    second point was the signal effect in the given
    context. There are very good reasons to suspect
    that when right wingers (like Limbaugh and Nadine)
    are more or less the only ones who use his middle
    name in the American political discourse – this is
    not making it more legitimate to be an Arab or a
    Muslim, but less so. It encourages intolerance and
    bigotry.
    The case would be very different if people known
    for their tolerance – like Steve Clemons, to
    mention an example – started to use his middle
    name. I would certainly encourage that.
    Of course there is hypocrisy and bigotry on all
    sides. I don`t think you can accuse me of being
    silent every time I see bigotry on the left at
    TWN. And just like you, I`m sure I am guilty of
    hypocrisy once in a while. Still, that does not
    delegitimate my opposition to the current use of
    Obama`s middle name by people with ulterior
    motives – by people whose bigotry is well
    documented.

    Reply

  15. WigWag says:

    You don’t need to like Limbaugh, Paul, to know that when Clinton was President he referred to him as William “Jefferson” Clinton all the time.
    Does Limbaugh have a nefarious purpose in referring to Obama’s middle name?
    Probably.
    Does that mean everyone else in the world needs to apologize for using Obama’s middle name (especially when Obama does it himself for purposes of convenience like he did in Cairo)?
    Of course not.
    Do I doubt that Limbaugh is a bigot?
    No.
    But has Obama behaved honorably?
    No.
    When he first entered politics he did everything he could to establish his “Christian bona fides” by becoming an active member of Reverend Wright’s church (he didn’t realize that it would blow up in his face later on).
    During the campaign he (especially David Axelrod) worked assiduously to prevent the press from using his middle name.
    And then there was his behavior towards Congressman Ellison and the zeal with which he forbade Muslim women in head scarves from being seen anywhere near him.
    During his Campaign against McCain, I attended a rally in Ft. Lauderdale for him (not because he appeared, which he didn’t, but because Hillary Clinton was appearing on his behalf). The rally was full of people carrying Obama signs from every walk of life. There were signs like “Union Members for Obama,” “I’m Pro-Israel and I’m Pro-Obama” and “Obama’s Pro Choice.”
    There was a family standing near the stage that was carrying a sign that said “Turkish Americans for Obama.” I witnessed the Obama people approach them and request (politely) that they discard their placard. To be honest, I found it astounding. I think I may have mentioned this incident at the Washington Note at the time but I’m not sure.
    The problem with people on the left is their rank hypocrisy. They often feel free to criticize others for precisely the same behavior they engage in themselves.
    There are numerous examples of this. The left correctly criticized George Bush for his incompetent and frankly immoral foreign policy. But then they go on to praise Jimmy Carter who funded the Afghan Mujahideen, propped up the Khmer Rouge, supported Somoza in Nicaragua and called the Shah one of his “closest friends.”
    Many members of the “left” especially in Europe revel in their disdain for Avigdor Lieberman for his highly questionable and arguably racist comments about Israel’s Palestinian citizens. But they are far less exuberant about mentioning the Hamas Charter which explicitly states that only Muslims can rule in Jerusalem and quotes from the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”
    The same is true in the case of whether or not Obama’s middle name can be used.
    Is it legitimate to suspect that he has ulterior motives when Limbaugh uses Obama’s middle name?
    Of course.
    But the behavior of Obama and his staff when it comes to the use of the President’s middle name as well as their treatment of Muslim Americans is equally suspect.
    In English we have an idiom that you may or may not recognize; “if it’s good for the goose, it’s good for the gander.”
    On this issue at least, Limbaugh’s the goose; Obama’s the gander.
    Most of us are guilty of hypocrisy far more often then we are willing to admit. I know that I am.
    But this is a vice that the left and the right partake of equally. They both think it’s the other side that is behaving badly while they’re on the side of the angels.
    They are both incorrect.

    Reply

  16. Paul Norheim says:

    It took me 20 seconds to google this Rush Limbaugh quote:
    “Now the Drive-Bys are insinuating that I think calling Obama by his middle name to
    highlight something Muslim is legitimate. Wrong again! I have never said that. All I
    said was are we going to let these guys tell us what we can’t say? Obama doesn’t
    like his middle name being used, so we can’t use it? What are we going to call him?
    Barack Fitzgerald Obama? Barack Earl Obama? Should we give him some other middle
    name? I can call the Drive-Bys every day and say, “You know, I really wish you
    wouldn’t say this about me the next time you mention me,” and it isn’t going to
    matter.
    But somehow when Obama doesn’t want his middle name used or if he doesn’t want to be
    called a liberal, then our guys say, “Okay! Okay! Oh, oh! Fine, fine, whatever you
    want.” They’re so defensive and so afraid. That’s what I pointed out. I’ve never
    said he’s a Muslim. Other kooks out there are doing that. I’m not wasting my time
    with that. Only an idiot would insinuate I’m out there trying to make a connection
    between Obama and some radical Islamic faction. As I say, this is either laziness or
    malice when these people include me in all of these rantings of some people out there
    who are attempting to make that connection. We don’t do it here. I hardly ever use
    his middle name — and I’m not the one, by the way, that came up with this Obama
    Barack, that was Ted Kennedy at the National Press Club, and yet I still get credit
    for that. I spoke about it as a free speech issue… how we’re allowed to address
    him. No, liberal. We can’t use his middle name. So what’s next?”
    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_022808/content/01125108.guest.html
    ——————————————————————–
    “Rush Limbaugh has never needed to send out any coded signals about how he feels
    about Obama. He calls him a socialist who doesn’t like America unless he gets to
    “fix” it with a massive government takeover of every business he can reach. He makes
    fun of Obama by playing his speeches speeded up so that Obama sounds like a
    chipmunk.” (Nadine)
    And occasionally he uses his middle name. Now, why do you think a man who plays
    Obama`s speeches speeded up to make him sound like a chipmunk, occasionally (“hardly
    ever” – translated: sometimes)
    choses to use his middle name?
    And then he whines and feigns innocence of the broader context – precisely the same
    tactics as you use, Nadine, words by words.
    Limbaugh gets away with his tactics – because the majority of his audience are more
    ignorant than even the average American in political matters.
    The readers and commenters at TWN are not ignorant, Nadine, nor are we stupid.
    Copying Limbaugh`s tactics and arguments at TWN was a mistake, and you won`t get away
    with it.

    Reply

  17. nadine says:

    Paul,
    Rush Limbaugh has never needed to send out any coded signals about how he feels about Obama. He calls him a socialist who doesn’t like America unless he gets to “fix” it with a massive government takeover of every business he can reach. He makes fun of Obama by playing his speeches speeded up so that Obama sounds like a chipmunk. He says he hopes Obama fails.
    But he has never called Obama a Muslim or laid any particular emphasis on the name “Hussein” that I am aware of, though he has no more use than I do for being told it’s a thought crime to call a man by his full name.
    Ann Coulter is the only right-wing columnist/satyrist I know who stresses Hussein by calling Obama “B. Hussein Obama”. She is pretty shrill most of the time.
    If there were even 1% of all the racism and xenophobia you seem to think exists in America, Obama could never have been elected in the first place.
    Instead, his race helped him in the election. No white man with his thin resume could have run, no matter how good a speaker he was. Obama was carried along by his offer of racial absolution to Americans who voted for him and the media’s ardent desire to accomplish a “historic moment” by helping Obama to win however they could.

    Reply

  18. Paul Norheim says:

    I see…
    What about Limbaugh and the rest of the wingnuts
    in America who currently call him Barack Hussein
    Obama, and who did so during the election?
    Are they just innocently using his middle name, or
    do they insert it knowing the signal effect in the
    broader context?
    Oh, they must be innocent, don`t you think? Just
    like you?
    But does it matter? The current broader context IS
    THERE, plain for all to see, and their, and your
    use have certain signal effects, regardless of
    your motives.

    Reply

  19. nadine says:

    Paul, you might have a point if I had called Obama just “Hussein” as the Israeli right-wingers do, but I didn’t. I called him by his full name and you threw a hissy fit, like a Victorian lady so distressed by the sexual connotations of the word “leg” that she covered up the legs of her piano and tables with drapes so that no one would have an excuse to use the dreaded word.
    Declaring the use of the President’s full, given name verboten (though he of course may trot it out and make the most of it whenever he pleases) is frankly ridiculous.
    “The President’s name is Barack Hussein Obama.”
    “Aaargh! You can’t say that! The Context! the Context!” (faints dead away)
    Too funny.
    Like it or not, President Obama is not Lord Voldemort and anybody can use his full name whenever they like without committing a thought crime.

    Reply

  20. Paul Norheim says:

    “What context?”
    As explained above: The Rush Limbaugh context. The
    health reform debate context. The Cairo speech /
    Israeli response context – all in all: the wider
    political discourse in which your statement is
    expressed.
    You can`t just individually pick a narrow frame
    and declare: “This is MY personal context!”
    An example: If I tell an anecdote about a
    particular greedy Jew with a big nose, I may or
    may not be aware of the broader historical and
    political context of that anecdote. That does not
    simply make the broader context go away.
    That`s the whole point of the word “context”: It`s
    something wider than your individual choices and
    statements, something broader than the actual
    issue discussed. Sometimes the person who says
    something is not even aware of the broader
    context.
    In this case, both you and WigWag are fully aware
    of the wider context of your use of Omama`s middle
    name. I documented that above, quoting former
    statements from you and WigWag. Hussein is a name;
    but in the US/Israel/Middle East discourse, used
    as a middle name for the current POTUS, it has
    several rather specific connotations. This has
    little to do with my interpretation, or your
    interpretation of what you said. Sometimes
    “Hussein” means more than just Hussein, and this
    is one of those cases.
    Now, the readers of TWN may accuse you of a lot of
    things, but ignorance with respect to the current
    political discourse among American/Israeli right
    wing groups, is not one of them. Thus your
    contextual “innocence” is not credible.
    Was that clear enough?

    Reply

  21. nadine says:

    “You are attempting to deny the context within which this ‘discussion’ is taking place?”
    What context? My context was saying that Obama’s push for a Mideast settlement was against the wishes of Israel, Saudia Arabia and Egypt, and the Palestinians only wanted it as long as they got something for nothing. I concluded by saying that nobody wants a comprehensive settlement except Barack Hussein Obama, and I hope he realizes it by now.
    That was the actual context. Instead of arguing any of these points, you and Paul begin screaming in outrage that I dared called Obama by his full name. Oops, did I stab some sacred cow of the Left? Lots of hot-house flowers here, judging by the level of invective.

    Reply

  22. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “…where’s Nadine?”
    She’ll be back. You can’t kill ghouls on the internet. At least, not until they figure out some way to post garlic.

    Reply

  23. arthurdecco says:

    choke, choke, cough, cough… I can barely see through the smoke and rubble…Who’s still standing? cough, cough…oh there’s POA…choke…there’s Paul Norheim…there’s Neo-Controll…cough, cough…
    …where’s Nadine?

    Reply

  24. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Nadine, you truly qualify as an asshole. I realize such language and ad hominem is frowned upon here, but there aren’t really any civil words in the english language that do justice to describing you. “Asshole”, “liar”, “racist”, all fit you quite well. The “racist” monicker has definitely been earned, early on, by you. In fact, you earned that one as Ironbelle, and as Nadine. “Liar”, too, is a credible description, for both you and Ironbelle, established by arguments such as “no one is going hungry in Gaza” or “no Palestinians are being deprived of medical care”. Earning the title of “asshole”, however, is not as black and white, and I must confess that I can only express my opinion here. Others here might disagree with me as far as the “asshole” label goes, but I doubt many disagree with the “liar” and “racist” labels.
    However, I don’t feel very guilty or bothered by my crude ad hominem, because personally, I’d rather be called an asshole than a racist. And I have suffered through years now, of assholes such as you, coming here to TWN and throwing the “anti-semite” horseshit at me and many other regular posters. So, in calling you an “asshole”, I’ve actually upgraded your status from “racist”.
    Darn it, in typing the prior sentence, it occurred to me that you’re actually a “racist asshole”. So there you go, in two short sentences you were promoted, then demoted. Damn, doncha hate it when that happens?
    rac⋅ism  /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA
    –noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
    2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
    3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
    ass⋅hole  /ˈæsˌhoʊl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation
    [as-hohl]
    –noun Vulgar.
    1. anus.
    2. Slang. a. a stupid, mean, or contemptible person. b. the worst part of a place or thing.

    Reply

  25. Neo Controll says:

    Uh, no, Paul is actually an almost quintessential reconciliator, not an impugner of motives, though of late he has become a bit more feisty.
    “Normal people”. What is this? You are attempting to deny the context within which this ‘discussion’ is taking place? Puleeese Nadine. There is nothing ‘normal’ about the meta language which has evolved here: this is not argument. This is about you pretending to be an average man on the street, while at the same time injecting a colloquial reference to ‘Hussein’ that corresponds to the usage that the screaming yahoos at town meetings invoke seeking to dredge up the invocation of Rush the great. Really.
    — NCHQ

    Reply

  26. nadine says:

    Neo,
    Normal people don’t agree with the “argument” that you are displaying enormous amounts of “coded” racism by simply referring to the President as Barack Hussein Obama. Normal people respond by saying, “But that’s his name.” Normal people don’t accept that this paranoid outburst even constitutes an “argument”.
    Why don’t you get a life and stop communing only with fellow residents of the fever swamps? Paul doesn’t make arguments, he only impunes the motives of anybody who doesn’t agree with him.

    Reply

  27. Neo Controll says:

    Get a life Nadine. Paul has been around here, making arguments and taking heat long before you ever discovered TWN. You, my precious flower, have shown yourself.
    –NCHQ

    Reply

  28. nadine says:

    “And now Nadine says to me: “Other people’s
    sensitivities you dismiss as ‘lunatic’, the way
    you did Aluf Benn’s after Obama’s Cairo speech,
    even though I pointed out to you that the entire
    Israeli political spectrum reacted the same way.”
    What can I say? Am I a lunatic, or is Benn a
    lunatic? ”
    Look how you twist the argument. I said that you dismissed Benn as a lunatic – which you did – displaying insensitivity to others, and all of a suddenly this becomes an accusation that you’re the lunatic? “She is pressuring me”. Oh, really? Poor baby, can’t stand the pressure of a few critical words! Who knew you were such a hot-house flower?
    But I see you’ve decided you’re quite healthy and only those with a different philosophy are the lunatics. Why not, I’m sure all your friends agree with you there in your bubble of Euro-sanctimony.
    So you can sit and agree with all your friends that you are sane and logical and others are crazy. Well, that certainly saves the trouble of having to make an argument, doesn’t it?

    Reply

  29. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “I could care less what Obama’s name or race is”
    Lying jackass. Thats why you’ve made such an issue of “innocently” using his middle name, eh?
    Most of us, for ease and expediency, just use “Obama”. You don’t know who we mean when we do so?
    Your argument is ridiculous on its face, you lyin’ racist buffoon.

    Reply

  30. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Lieberman accuses Norway of promoting anti-Semitism
    By Chaim Levinson, Haaretz Correspondent
    Amid escalating tensions between Israel and Sweden, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman on Sunday accused another Scandinavian country – Norway this time – of promoting anti-Semitism.
    Israel and Sweden have been embroiled in diplomatic crisis this week, after a Swedish daily printed an article alleging that Israel Defense Forces soldiers harvested organs of Palestinians.
    On Sunday, Lieberman moved his criticism on to Norway for marking the birthday of an early 20th century “pro-Nazi” author.
    “I was amazed at the Norwegian government’s decision to celebrate the 150th birthday of Knut Hamsun, who admired the Nazis,” Lieberman told students at the Ariel University Center. “He gave the literary award he won in 1943 to Josef Goebbels, and praised Hitler in an obituary as a warrior for mankind.”
    But the foreign minister’s criticism of the Scandinavian country did not end there.
    “I remember that in the Durban-II conference,” Lieberman said, referring to last April’s UN anti-racism summit which was criticized as allegedly biased against Israel. “The Norwegian representatives were among the few who didn’t walk out, and today I realize it’s not a coincidence. How low can you go?”
    continues…….
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1109501.html
    Amazing, isn’t it? What nation’s policies can be considered more racist than Israel’s? And this sack of shit Lieberman, a KNOWN racist of epic proportions, gets to point fingers and accuse OTHERS of racism? Israel and the United States did not attend Durbin Two because they knew the TRUTH would be aired there.

    Reply

  31. Paul Norheim says:

    DonS,
    I`m not writing to convince Nadine. Just to signal
    to the pro Israel propagandists (and BTW also to
    certain people spreading – knowingly or not – the
    good old anti-semitic arguments in new bottles)
    that they`ll not have an easy ride at TWN.
    I also believe that commenters like Nadine have
    supporters and sympathizers, and that they to some
    extent represent certain larger groups, beyond
    their individual voices.
    As a side effect, I improve my command of the
    English language – a language I`m not forced to
    write in any other situations where I live right
    now. The language course aspect is not the least
    important to me. I hope this doesn`t bother the
    readers of TWN. Until now, I`ve picked up new
    words and expressions every day here, often while
    arguing with propagandists and bigots. Even fools
    have often proved to be excellent English
    teachers.

    Reply

  32. DonS says:

    Quite an effort, Paul. More than is needed really. You should know by now that the “Nadines” care not for logic, or consistency. As to her schizoid presentation, it follows from the above. Also, we all have aspects of ourselves that embrace different feelings, thoughts, opinions, etc. And these disparate parts don’t often acknowledge, or recognize each other. However when one claims that another is insensitive, projects, or is obsessed with identity in the face of the solid documentation you provide, it’s time to stop looking for exculpating explanations. We are dealing with a serious propagandist, trained or untrained, who uses words with malevolent intent. Lying is only the tip of the iceberg.

    Reply

  33. Paul Norheim says:

    Try this link for the whole article – and especially the picture!
    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/07/29/is_obama_ignoring_israel
    I hope it works…

    Reply

  34. Paul Norheim says:

    Dear TWN readers,
    let`s provide some context to this somewhat
    obscure discussion!
    Nadine is referring to an article by Aluf Benn,
    editor-at-large at the Israeli leftist/liberal
    newspaper Haaretz, discussed in an article at
    foreignpolicy.com, that Dan Kervick linked to in a
    discussion ca a month ago.
    Here is Dan`s link – and I encourage readers of
    TWN to have a look, especially at the picture of a
    young, non-lunatic, 100 % normal Israeli citizen,
    and his charming poster:
    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/07/29/i
    s_obama_ignoring_israel
    And if you don`t feel for clicking at the link (or
    it doesn`t work), let me provide you with an
    excerpt from the article at Foreign Policy,
    written by Steve Breyman:
    “Some Israelis have been shocked to discover that
    Barack Obama might be serious about ending further
    construction of settlements in the West Bank.
    Among them is Aluf Benn, editor-at-large of
    Haaretz. In a New York Times op-ed, he complains
    that while the U.S. president has traveled the
    globe delivering major addresses, he hasn’t
    directly spoken to Israelis.
    “The Arabs got the Cairo speech; we got silence,”
    Benn writes. Somehow he must have missed this
    passage from Obama’s address:
    America’s strong bonds with Israel are well known.
    This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon
    cultural and historical ties, and the recognition
    that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is
    rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.
    Around the world, the Jewish people were
    persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in
    Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust.
    Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part
    of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved,
    tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third
    Reich. Six million Jews were killed — more than
    the entire Jewish population of Israel today.
    Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and
    hateful.
    Is Benn miffed because Obama made these remarks in
    Cairo instead of Tel Aviv? Because they were aimed
    at Muslims instead of Israeli Jews?
    Nope. It’s just that acknowledging the
    “unbreakable bond” between the United States and
    Israel (in a speech aimed at Muslims!) was not
    enough.
    “Mr. Obama’s stop at Buchenwald and his strong
    rejection of Holocaust denial…appealed to
    American Jews but fell flat in Israel,” Benn
    writes. “Here we are taught that Zionist
    determination and struggle — not guilt over the
    Holocaust — brought Jews a homeland.” He then
    says Obama’s comments “infuriated” Israelis who
    felt the comments were redolent of those of
    “enemies like Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.”
    Talk about gratitude for 60 years of
    uninterrupted, unwavering and limitless U.S.
    support for the Zionist project. And talk about
    history being written by the victors.
    Benn does some additional creative construction of
    history when discussing the politics of the
    settlement freeze. He says that Obama has not just
    failed to bring about a freeze, but has failed
    “even to stir debate about the merits of one” in
    Israel. What of the fact that no U.S. president
    has ever induced Israel to stop settlement
    expansion? Does Benn really believe that Obama
    should have done in six months what his
    predecessors could not achieve in 40 years?
    (…)
    The “price” paid by Obama, Benn says, is that
    Israelis don’t like him. The article cites a
    Jerusalem Post survey showing that 50 percent of
    Israeli Jews consider Obama pro-Palestine, while
    just 6 percent consider him pro-Israel. And, he
    notes, Israeli “rightists” have taken to calling
    Obama “Hussein,” as “proof of his pro-Arab
    tendencies.”
    Benn is on a slippery slope here, as he of course
    knows — even if his American readers do not pick
    up on the nuance. For an Israeli rightist to refer
    to Obama as an Arab or pro-Arab is to associate
    him with “bugs” and “insects” — the terms used by
    Israeli rightists to describe Palestinians.
    He then longs for the good old days of the Clinton
    and George W. Bush White Houses. In those years,
    “memories of State Department ‘Arabists’ leading
    American policy in the Middle East were erased.”
    The statement is plainly nonsense. Where were
    those Arabists when President Harry Truman
    recognized the State of Israel within hours of its
    birth? Or when the Johnson administration
    overlooked the deliberate attack on the U.S.S.
    Liberty and the death of 34 sailors in 1967? Or
    when former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and
    former President Richard Nixon saved Israel in
    1973 by shipping U.S. tanks from Germany —
    risking nuclear war with the Soviet Union? Or when
    the Reagan administration smiled upon the 1982
    invasion of Lebanon? They lost the internal
    debate.
    (…)
    Benn tries to end his essay on an upbeat note:
    “Perhaps there are good reasons behind Mr. Obama’s
    Middle East policy… But until the president
    talks to us, we won’t know. Next time you’re in
    the neighborhood, Mr. President, speak to us
    directly. We will surely listen.”
    Israelis have been “listening” to American
    presidents about the occupied territories for
    decades. What do Americans have to show for these
    exchanges? The settlements have grown enormously
    in size and number under every Israeli government
    since 1967 contrary to international law, U.N.
    Security Council resolutions, and declared U.S.
    policy. Netanyahu has said in no uncertain terms
    that settlement construction will proceed. It’s
    become infinitesimally more difficult for the
    Israeli tail to wag the American dog under Obama.
    Just wait for the reaction should Obama actually
    show some real spine in the relationship.”
    ———————————————
    This is the article with reference to Aluf Benn
    that Dan, Nadine and I discussed a month ago.
    Now Nadine claims that my instinct is confined to
    the tripwires of my own “personal atmosphere”: I
    project. The Israelis do not project when they
    listen to Obama`s speech in Cairo; it`s me who
    project. It`s me, if anyone, who is “paranoid”
    (see Nadine and WigWag above); not the Israelis or
    their supporters.
    Aluf Benn, on his side, says Obama’s comments
    “infuriated” Israelis who felt the comments were
    redolent of those of “enemies like Mahmoud
    Ahmedinejad.”
    Aluf Benn notes that Israeli “rightists” have
    taken to calling Obama “Hussein,” as “proof of his
    pro-Arab tendencies.”
    Still, I am the paranoid case here, the one who is
    projecting. Aluf Benn is a 100 % healthy guy.
    And now Nadine says to me: “Other people’s
    sensitivities you dismiss as ‘lunatic’, the way
    you did Aluf Benn’s after Obama’s Cairo speech,
    even though I pointed out to you that the entire
    Israeli political spectrum reacted the same way.”
    What can I say? Am I a lunatic, or is Benn a
    lunatic?
    My conclusion seemed easy enough a month ago. But
    now Nadine claims that the entire Israeli
    political spectrum sees the world the same way as
    Benn does. She is pressuring me: Am I, Paul, the
    lunatic, or are Aluf, Nadine and the entire
    Israeli political spectrum lunatics, confined to
    the tripwires of their own nationalistic
    atmosphere?
    I`m not a psychiatrist, and I`ve never visited
    one. I`m just a layman in these matters, like most
    people.
    However, I`ve decided for myself that I`m the sane
    one here, the relatively healthy, if not 100 %
    patent proof non-lunatic person.
    I trust in my own judgement – or if you will: I`m
    confined to my own judgement. I realized that when
    I was 17, and I`m gonna stick to that for the
    foreseeable future. If anybody is paranoid here,
    it`s not me. And if Nadine is correct, I`m getting
    more and more worried about the mental health of
    “the entire Israeli political spectrum” – Aluf
    included.
    And Nadine herself?
    I`m sure she is a healthy woman with no mental
    issues. After all, “Hussein” is to her just a
    middle name.

    Reply

  35. nadine says:

    “However, I have a certain instinct for words – how seemingly harmless words may contain more than what is said.”
    If you do, it is confined entirely to the tripwires of your own personal atmosphere. Other people’s sensitivities you dismiss as ‘lunatic’, the way you did Aluf Benn’s after Obama’s Cairo speech, even though I pointed out to you that the entire Israeli political spectrum reacted the same way. Your instincts seem remarkably insensitive out of your own sphere. You expect everybody else to feel just as you do. The word for this is “projection.”

    Reply

  36. Paul Norheim says:

    “…and for you, racial and cultural identity trumps everything
    else.”
    Nope. I haven`t wasted much time on my “cultural identity”,
    whatever that means. I happen to be a white male, currently
    living in a rather white, homogenous society. Rather boring, but
    not such a big deal. However, I prefer to be abroad, uprooted, a
    bit lost. I accept and respect that “home” and “homeland” means
    a lot to the majority of the world population. To me, it means
    less. Maybe this will change when I get old – I don´t know.
    However, I have a certain instinct for words – how seemingly
    harmless words may contain more than what is said. Sometimes
    Hussein means just Hussein, sometimes not. For Nadine,
    Hussein obviously meant a lot some weeks ago. Now, Hussein
    apparently is a neutral word for Nadine.
    I guess there must be two Nadine`s, then? One for whom it
    meant a traitor of the Israeli case and a secret sympathizer of
    Hamas and Achmedinejad, and one for whom it simply means
    “Hussein”. And the former Nadine probably doesn`t know the
    latter. Who knows, perhaps they wouldn`t even have liked each
    other, if they met one day?

    Reply

  37. Dan Kervick says:

    Great literary artists are not typically known for being judicious and balanced political thinkers, and some of the greatest among them have shown abominable or puzzling moral judgment at various points in their lives. This really shouldn’t be so surprising. The same insightful sensitivity they carry into the light and dark corners of human experience makes them susceptible to various sorts of moral and political extremism and perversity, and sometimes even madness. They are able to pen their masterpieces of love and hate, desire and disgust, grief and exaltation, and vengeance and compassion, because they intimately know love, hate, desire, disgust, grief, exaltation, vengeance and compassion themselves, sometimes in their extreme forms.

    Reply

  38. nadine says:

    Paul, you cannot get it through your head that I am not working from the same philosophical rulebook as you are. You are a multiculturalist and for you, racial and cultural identity trumps everything else. Therefore, I must mean all kinds of insults merely by saying “Barack Hussein Obama”. You are projecting your own value system onto me.
    I could care less what Obama’s name or race is; what I care about are his VALUES and the POLICIES he chooses. I see that he is a leftist and whatever he thinks he knows about the Mideast comes from his adviser Robert Malley and his friend Rashid Khalidi. They have fed him this model where everybody really wants peace deep down, if only the US turned over a new leaf, pressed the Arabs just a little and Israel a lot.
    But the model is crap, and the results show it. Obama went to King Abullah of SA really expecting cooperation and he got an anti-Israel tirade. That makes Obama look weak. That’s bad for Obama and bad for the USA. Bad for the Mideast too; a Mideast where nobody fears the displeasure of the USA is a Mideast more likely to explode.
    Now I don’t think Obama wants to destroy Israel but King Abdullah sure does, and the Palestinians do too. Obama has got to figure out the real reason that there is no Palestinian state is that the Palestinians absolutely refuse to accept one for fear it will harm their chances of getting what they DO want, Palestine from the river to the sea with NO Jews in it. Until Obama figures out the score, he will continue to harm himself and the USA with these misbegotten initiatives.
    I think Obama drank his own Kool-Aid. He really believed he was soooo special that intractable problems generations old would become solvable because he had arrived on the scene. Well, surprise, they didn’t. Obama needs to get over himself, fast.

    Reply

  39. WigWag says:

    “I happen to know one of his grandchildren, Regine Hamsun, a stunningly beautiful woman who is a painter…”
    I’ve never believed that the sins of the father afflict unto the several generations. Nor would I want my children or grandchildren jugdged by my stupidity.

    Reply

  40. Paul Norheim says:

    “And I’ve read that he praised Hitler as a “warrior for mankind.””
    Yes, Hamsun was not only a reactionary anti-modernist who
    hated modern civilization and urban life (as well as a forceful
    modernist in some of his books); he was also a stubborn
    provocateur. His praise of Hitler came two days AFTER Hitler
    was dead, when Hamsun had everything to lose by saying this.
    (he himself was 86 at the time).
    Like Pound, he was sent to a mental hospital after the war,
    declared mentally unfit (and later to a home for old people). Of
    course, this was just a method to avoid the unpleasant duty of
    judging him in a court.
    Norway was a young and small nation of two million people,
    immensely proud of it`s world famous Nobel Price winner, and
    it was too tempting to declare him senile – and thus excuse his
    nazi sympathies as a matter of mental illness and due to the
    fact that he was deaf…
    Unlike Pound, Celine, and Eliot, he was not much of an anti-
    semite. (But he was outrageously anti-British, which, in addition
    to how well he was treated in Germany, to a certain degree
    explains his pro-German sympathies that developed around
    year 1900, and increased during the 1. world war.) Hamsun and
    his son helped a Jewish writer who worked in a publishing
    house, Max Tau, to escape to Sweden during the German
    occupation in WWII, if I remember correctly.
    After the war, Hamsun wanted to be judged by a court, he
    insisted that he was responsible for his actions, but in vain. Four
    years later, when he was 90, he took revenge against his
    psychiatrist by writing a brilliant little autobiographical book –
    actually one of his best in decades.
    He died in 1953, 94 years old.
    I happen to know one of his grandchildren, Regine Hamsun, a
    stunningly beautiful woman who is a painter. One summer in
    the 1990`s she got an amount of money, due to an extension
    of the time the relatives of a dead artist possess the rights to
    his work according to EU rules. Regine was very generous, she
    ordered white wine to me and our mutual friends every night.
    So you could say that my friends and I were happily drunk one
    summer on money from Knut Hamsun`s books. I have no
    regrets – and plenty of pleasant memories from that summer.
    Why Anni-Frid Lyngstad anyway, when we have the 1980`s
    synth band AHA? Just joking. But we`ve been celebrating the
    dramatist Henrik Ibsen to death for 100 years now – and yet
    many Norwegians (me included) prefer the novels of Knut
    Hamsun.
    Small and young nations often do foolish things.

    Reply

  41. WigWag says:

    Wait a minute, cancel the 70th birthday celebration for Lyngstad; the ABBA reunion tour will have to wait. In 2010 she will only be 65.
    How could I get my arithmetic so wrong?
    Mama Mia!

    Reply

  42. WigWag says:

    I’ve got it!
    Anni-Frid “Frida” Lyngstad of ABBA (born November 15, 1945 in Ballangen, Norway) is turning 70 next year. Instead of a birthday celebration for Hamsun, how about a national birthday bash for her?

    Reply

  43. WigWag says:

    I’d be inclined to accept the letter sent by the Foreign Minister to the Wallenberg Foundation. But if it’s true, it’s certainly troubling that Norway would be celebrating a man who actually gave a literary award he won to Josef Goebbels. And I’ve read that he praised Hitler as a “warrior for mankind.”
    No one is saying his writing should be censored, but doesn’t Norway have some other literary or artistic figure it could fete instead?

    Reply

  44. Paul Norheim says:

    “Foreign Minister Støre’s letter to the International Raoul
    Wallenberg Foundation
    Mr. Baruch Tenembaum
    The International Raoul Wallenberg Foundation
    34 East, 67th Street
    New York, NY 10065 USA
    Dear Mr. Tenembaum
    Thank you for your letter of 9 July, on behalf of the International
    Raoul Wallenberg Foundation, expressing apprehension with
    regard to Norway’s commemoration of the 150th anniversary of
    the birth of the Norwegian author Knut Hamsun.
    I would like to emphasise that the commemoration is a tribute
    to the literary achievements of Knut Hamsun, for which he was
    awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1920.
    The Hamsun anniversary in no way condones Hamsun’s support
    for the Nazi regime. He received massive condemnation for this
    after the war, and his pro-Nazi activities must continue to be
    condemned.
    This difficult aspect of Hamsun’s life has been debated in
    Norway for many years, and in fact the anniversary has
    intensified the public debate about all sides of his life. As a
    result, a nuanced and critical view of him, both as an acclaimed
    author and a person who sided with the Nazis who occupied
    Norway for five years, has developed.
    I would like to point out that full reference was made to
    Hamsun’s Nazi sympathies at the Hamsun exhibition in Oslo
    earlier this year. This aspect of his life will also feature
    prominently in the Hamsun exhibition at the Hamsun Center in
    Hamarøy, where he grew up.
    We believe that democracy and the education of future
    generations will best be served by being completely frank about
    these divergent aspects of Hamsun’s life.
    In your letter you also refer to the Task Force for International
    Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance and
    Research (ITF). Let me assure you that Norway stands firm in its
    commitment to the principles of the Stockholm Declaration on
    the Holocaust, which form the basis of the Task Force. As you
    know, Norway is currently assuming the Task Force chair.
    Yours sincerely
    Jonas Gahr Støre”
    ————————————
    According to Norwegian newspapers, the Wallenberg Foundation
    was very satisfied with Gahr Støre`s reply. But Lieberman in Tel
    Aviv has his own agenda, as I said above – and Hitler comes in
    very handy in his agenda.
    If the Swedish government criticized the Danish papers, it was
    wrong and inconsequent.
    However, there is a difference between insulting a religion and
    accusing soldiers of a crime. A hypothetical example: Would it
    be anti-Americanism if it happened to be a Swedish newspaper
    that accused American soldiers of the My Lai massacre during
    the Vietnam war, and demanded an investigation? I`m sure
    Washington and the American Army would see it that way. And a
    lot of Vietnam protesters around the world were actually anti-
    American.
    From here and from America – even from Israel – it`s very
    difficult to judge if there is substance in the organ story – or
    just empty accusations with sinister motives.
    Seeing what Israel currently labels as “anti-semitism”, I don`t
    think their accusations have much weight. And that`s a pity,
    because anti-semitism exists, and no doubt will continue to
    exist, even independently of what Israel does. Israel frequently
    abuses that label to avoid legitimate criticism. This makes Jews
    more vulnerable all over the world in the long run – despite the
    claims to the opposite by f.ex. Outraged American.
    Israel as well as it`s critics have to distinguish between anti-
    Tel Aviv and anti-semitism, to prevent this from happening.
    The middle name: As I said above, I wish Obama would use it
    often, also in America. But I also know why those who actually
    use it now do so.
    And so do you.

    Reply

  45. Kathleen Grasso Andersen says:

    No doubt ditching the middle name was Obamas’s choice…remember he cancelled an event with Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison and nixed any photo-ops with Muslims in headgear. I’m sure he preferred to be considered “Southern Baptist Black”, than radical “Nation of Islam Black” hence the sometimes “reverendy” tone. This is not rocket science marketing…no names carrying freight…no visuals that re-inforce a negative….post 9/11 negatives are verboten.

    Reply

  46. WigWag says:

    Well Paul, I think you would have to admit that the Swedish Government pleading the importance of freedom of the press after criticizing the Danes for printing the cartoons that angered some in the Muslim world is hypocritical. Regardless of how good a writer Hamsun was or wasn’t, expressing outrage that a national celebration of the birthday of a Nazi sympathizer is planned doesn’t seem that over the top to me.
    The point is not that Avigdor Lieberman is a saint, the point is that lots of people who think that unlike him, they’re on the side of morality (like the people who object when Obama’s middle name is used) need to look at themselves in the mirror.
    As often as not, they are what they criticize.

    Reply

  47. Paul Norheim says:

    Nadine,
    maybe you`re not even aware of when you`re lying. I very rarely
    accuse someone of lying at TWN. But I have never seen someone
    lying so openly, so frequently, so naturally on this blog, as you.
    I`m beginning to think that you`re incapable of seeing it yourself.
    I documented your relation to the middle name issue above, – the
    wider context of your use of his middle name – for everybody to
    see – from a discussion a month ago.
    And now you simply deny it. Just like that. “Hussein” is 100 %
    neutral to you. Black is white. And I`m the walrus.

    Reply

  48. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Once again, (as if it needed emphasis), we see Nadine feeding us a line of shit that we all know is a line of shit. Even Nadine knows its a line of shit, but she is such a shameless liar that she tenaciously sticks to a lie that everyone knows is a lie.
    Like I said a while back, I think she is just batshit crazy.

    Reply

  49. nadine says:

    “A) I did not argue against your right to criticize anyone, nor B) claim that your use of his middle name has racist connotations. ”
    Of course you did. You went ballistic when I made the innocuous statement “So the only person who actually wants a comprehensive Mideast settlement is Barack Hussein Obama. I can only hope he understands that by now.”
    This is merely referring to the President by name, with no slurs about “Muslim” anywhere in sight. Indeed, the context of the statement was that Obama’s current policy runs against the interests of BOTH the Israelis and the Arabs, and thus is completely futile.
    Yet from this statement of policy criticism you infer all kinds of coded racial accusations against Obama: “Hussein is a common Arab name. Used by Nadine when she talks about the American President, it`s a common Israeli codeword for: muslim, Hamas-supporter, Ahmedinejad-sympathizer, anti-semite -in short: the enemy.”
    Bullshit. It’s his name. I will call him by name and criticize the remarkable stupidity of his Mideast policy whether that name is Joseph Paul Smith or Barack Hussein Obama.

    Reply

  50. Paul Norheim says:

    “Representatives of the Jewish community in Sweden,
    meanwhile, expressed concern Sunday about a diplomatic
    situation that they feel has gotten out of control.
    “The calls from the Israeli government to the Swedish
    government to distance itself from or to comment on the article,
    for me are difficult to believe and don’t help the relations,”
    Gunnar Hokmark, president of the Swedish-Israel Friendship
    Association and a member of the European Parliament, told The
    Jerusalem Post.
    “Making the article a conflict between the two governments, as I
    see Lieberman doing, to me is unwise. And I’m saying this as a
    strong friend of Israel,” he added. (Jerusalem Post)
    —————————-
    Of course, because Hokmark and other Swedish Jews who
    actually live in Sweden know a couple of things about the value
    of a free press – and how the Swedish system works.

    Reply

  51. Paul Norheim says:

    It`s not only accusations of organ harvesting that “proves” how anti-semitic the Swedes are. Now, let`s
    take a closer look at what qualifies as “anti-semitism” according to Israel –
    from Jerusalem Post this week:
    “Swedish government funds anti-Semitic NGOs
    By GERALD STEINBERG
    The article in Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet accusing Israeli soldiers of stealing and selling the
    organs of Palestinians is not a surprise or isolated aberration, but rather the result of a long campaign
    of anti-Israeli demonization, based on manufactured “evidence” repeated by Palestinian “eyewitnesses”.
    A screen capture showing the article in Aftonbladet, with a picture of a dead Palestinian next to a
    picture of a New Jersey rabbi.
    Applying the strategy adopted at the NGO forum of the 2001 UN Durban conference, the well-financed
    network of radical non-governmental organizations (NGOs) plays a major role in this demonization,
    and the Swedish government is a major source of funding. Expressions of modern anti-Semitism and
    blood libels are the logical results of this activity.
    An NGO Monitor research report on Swedish government funding, published on June 29 2009,
    documented this pattern in detail, and warned of the incitement and anti-Semitic language being used
    routinely by these organizations. This systematic study examined over 20 major NGOs funded through
    the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA), Diakonia, the multi-national NGO
    Development Center (NDC), and the Swedish Mission Council (SMR).
    Many of these NGOs routinely accuse Israel of “genocide,” “ethnic cleansing,” and “apartheid,” and some
    compare Israeli military and political officials to Nazis. This propaganda warfare is waged through the
    façade of “research” reports which routinely quote Palestinian “testimonies,” taken and repeated
    without question. The path from this demonization to the blood libels of Aftonbladet is short and
    direct.
    The Palestinian Medical Relief Society (PMRS), run by Dr. Mustafa Barghouthi, and receiving funds from
    the SMR framework, is a prominent example. Barghouthi referred to the Gaza conflict as a “horrendous
    massacre,” and used terms like “ghetto,” and “apartheid” on a radio program. PMRS refers to the
    security barrier as the “apartheid wall,” and claimed that Israel employs a “racist ideology” and inflicts
    “collective punishment” on the Palestinians.”
    continues…
    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1249418642826&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

    Reply

  52. PissedOffAmerican says:

    On Sweden……..
    Its telling that Israel is once again attacking the messenger, while seeking to divert attention from the message. There is very real and compelling evidence that IDF troops HAVE engaged in organ harvesting. Some things are too horrible to contemplate, and even in the face of compelling evidence, it can be hard to point an accusing finger, because our own sense of human decency wants so much to believe such atrocities do not occur.
    I am past that point with RSOI, (the Racist State Of Israel), for Israel, in its actions, has shown me that there is no abuse or atrocity they will not stoop to.

    Reply

  53. Paul Norheim says:

    WigWag,
    there are two reasons why Lieberman accuses Sweden and
    Norway of anti-semitism.
    1) Because both the governments and the media in Sweden and
    Norway frequently criticize the actions of the Israeli government
    and the IDF more openly and strongly certain some other
    countries. Israel doesn´t accept criticism of it`s settlement
    policy and it`s conduct of war.
    2) To divert attention from other issues. Hitler has actually
    become surprisingly useful for Lieberman.
    A) A couple of months ago he ordered the Israeli embassies all
    over the world to have a picture of Adolf Hitler greeting an Arab
    leader 70 years ago.
    B) Now he asks why the Norwegians don`t ban a writer who
    wrote an obituary to the very same Adolf Hitler.
    C) Five days ago he mentioned that Sweden was neutral towards
    Adolf Hitler.
    It`s just a cheap trick, an attempt to divert the attention from
    the real and difficult stuff. And the real and difficult stuff
    involves the settlements, the conduct of the IDF.
    And of course the corruption charges against… no, NOT
    AGAINST ADOLF HITLER, but against AVIGDOR LIEBERMAN!

    Reply

  54. PissedOffAmerican says:

    This is the typical disingenuous SHIT that Wig-wag and this racist abomination Nadine dish out on a regular basis.
    No one here is advocating for Obama to “hide his middle name”. On the contrary, we are merely recognizing the motive behind Nadine’s use of Obama’s middle name.
    Both Wig-wag and Nadine are aware of this fact, yet their utter and complete inability to offer arguments honestly or in good faith supercedes their ability to admit that that is obvious.
    When one reads such exhibitions of unwielding dishonesty as we see above, one realizes how devoid of character these two truly are.

    Reply

  55. Paul Norheim says:

    “I am just not playing the game of ‘criticism of Obama or
    mention of the forbidden name Hussein’=RACISM. Not playing. I
    have as much right to criticize Obama as you had to criticize
    Bush.”
    Sorry Nadine, but you`re full of bullshit.
    A) I did not argue against your right to criticize anyone, nor
    B) claim that your use of his middle name has racist
    connotations.
    Some use it because they are racists; you use it for
    C) it`s muslim connotation – that`s what I`ve said. I said that
    “Hussein” means this for you: “Muslim, Hamas-supporter,
    Ahmedinejad-sympathizer, anti-semite -in short: the enemy.”
    And I have documented it above.
    D) I never called Bush Hitler or a nazi. I personally think that the
    names of Hitler, Himmler and Eichmann should stay out of
    current political debates – unless we talk about things like what
    happened in Rwanda, with the Armenians and similar events.
    E) I have even objected when people compared Bush with Hitler
    here.
    I just pointed out WHY you – Nadine – chose to use Obama`s
    middle name. That`s all.

    Reply

  56. WigWag says:

    Well, that’s interesting. Ezra Pound certainly was an Anti-Semite and Nazi sympathizer. If my memory serves me correctly, he spent most of the Second World War living in fascist Italy, leaving only after Mussolini was executed.
    I’d read his poetry, but I don’t think I’d celebrate the 150 anniversary of his birth. Would someone who organized a celebration of Ezra Pound’s birthday be worthy of criticism; it’s a close call but it certainly wouldn’t be outrageous to object.
    Although Wagner died long before the advent of Nazis, he was an avowed Anti-Semite whose music became emblematic of the Nazi cause.
    Many Israelis object to his operas being performed in Israel although they are. I’ve seen them myself.
    I like the music but I wouldn’t celebrate his birthday. If I did, I wouldn’t think I was above criticism.

    Reply

  57. Paul Norheim says:

    “As for Knut Hamsun, why don’t you enlighten us Paul, about
    whether or not he was a Nazi sympathizer.”
    He was clearly a Nazi sympathizer, just like Pound, Benn, Celine
    and others. His literary work was admired by people from Thomas
    Mann and Herman Hesse to Gottfried Benn, by communists,
    liberals and fascists – the whole specter. Paul Auster said the
    novel “Hunger” (1890) had influenced his own novels.
    Those who arranged the celebration in Norway made it very clear
    that they celebrated the writer of novels, not the politician. His
    case has been discussed intensely since the second world war;
    almost annually there is a new Hamsun-debate in our country –
    but rarely new facts or points of view.

    Reply

  58. Outraged American says:

    I’m Indian, Burmese, Irish, Scots, English, Portuguese- do I get a
    house in each country?
    Get over it. And those genetic testing results are highly suspect
    given who or what were behind the studies.

    Reply

  59. nadine says:

    “You don’t think that Obama’s prattling on about his
    Muslim background and his middle name of Hussein (…), and reciting the Palestinian “narrative” of Israel’s being founded because of the Holocaust might be a wee bit more alarming to Israelis than his skin color?” (Nadine)
    Yes Paul, they are alarmed by his PRATTLING on about his Muslim background and his RECITING the Palestinian narrative of Israel’s founding, and his picking a fight with Israel, which naturally leads them to believe that he is pro-Palestinian in POLICIES, which are what concern them. Not his name.
    If Obama was governing like the centrist he ran as, the Israelis wouldn’t mind his name a bit.
    I am just not playing the game of
    ‘criticism of Obama or mention of the forbidden name Hussein’=RACISM. Not playing. I have as much right to criticize Obama as you had to criticize Bush.

    Reply

  60. DonS says:

    Nadine, you really need to follow more closely. Your critics, and critics of Israeli behavior and policy, on this blog, are no more “left”, than any other stereotype — though it is understandable that you call yourself right of center, and attribute the same to Wigwag.
    And, BTW, I never heard the phrase “Chimpy Bushitler” until you just invented it.

    Reply

  61. WigWag says:

    The story is, as you know Paul, somewhat more complicated than you present it. The Swedish Ambassador to Israel sharply criticized the article. The controversy escalated only after the Swedish Government criticized its own Ambassador for his comments about what appeared in the newspaper. As for your remark about freedom of the press, it has been widely noticed that the Swedish Government didn’t seem to be overly concerned about freedom of the press when it criticized the Danes for publishing the famous cartoons depicting the Prophet.
    As for Knut Hamsun, why don’t you enlighten us Paul, about whether or not he was a Nazi sympathizer.
    Wikipedia says that the great Yiddish author Isaac Bashevis Singer, called him the father of modern literature. It also says that Hamsun supported Germany in both World Wars, that he visited with and praised Adolph Hitler and that he supported the Boers in South Africa. Of course, wikipedia is wrong as often as it’s right.
    Your an expert on literature, Paul. Was Hamsun a Nazi sympathizer or wasn’t he? Should he be praised or vilified?
    Who is more guilty of racism; Avigdor Lieberman or those who want to celebrate Knut Hamsun’s birthday?

    Reply

  62. nadine says:

    I notice OA is claiming that Ashkenazi Jews have no connection to Palestine. Science says different, for any who are interested in the scientific facts. From wikipedia:
    Genetic studies indicate that modern Jewish populations share their origins with a common ancient population that underwent geographic branching and subsequent independent evolutions.[13] Moreover, DNA tests have demonstrated substantially less inter-marriage in most of the various Jewish ethnic divisions over the last 3,000 years than in other populations.[14] The findings lend support to traditional Jewish accounts accrediting their founding to exiled Israelite populations, and counters theories that many or most of the world’s Jewish populations were founded by local populations that adopted the Jewish faith.[14][15]
    DNA analysis further determined that modern Jews of the priesthood tribe — “Kohanim” — share an ancestor dating back about 3,000 years.[16] This result is consistent for all Jewish populations around the world.[16] The researchers estimated that the most recent common ancestor of modern Kohanim lived between 1000 BCE (roughly the time of the Biblical Exodus) and 586 BCE, when the Babylonians destroyed the First Temple.[17] They found similar results analyzing DNA from Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews.[17] The scientists estimated the date of the original priest based on genetic mutations, which indicated that the priest lived roughly 106 generations ago, between 2,650 and 3,180 years ago depending whether one counts a generation as 25 or 30 years.[17]
    Although groups of converts to Judaism could have been absorbed into contemporary Jewish populations — in the Khazars’ case, absorbed into the Ashkenazim — it is unlikely that they formed a large percentage of the ancestors of modern Ashkenazi Jews, and much less that they were the genesis of the Ashkenazim.[18]
    Paternal Lineages
    A study published by the National Academy of Sciences found that “the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population”, and suggested that “most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora”.[13] Researchers expressed surprise at the remarkable genetic uniformity they found among modern Jews, no matter where the diaspora has become dispersed around the world.[13]
    Other Y-chromosome findings show that the world’s Jewish communities are closely related to Syrians and Palestinians.[16] The authors of this specific study wrote that “the extremely close affinity of Jewish and non-Jewish Middle Eastern populations observed … supports the hypothesis of a common Middle Eastern origin”.[16] According to another study of the same year, more than 70% of Jewish men and half of the Arab men (inhabitants of Israel and the territories only) whose DNA was studied inherited their Y-chromosomes from the same paternal ancestors who lived in the region within the last few thousand years. The results are consistent with the Biblical account of Jews and Arabs having a common ancestor. About two-thirds of Israeli Arabs and Arabs in the territories and a similar proportion of Israeli Jews are the descendants of at least three common ancestors who lived in the Middle East in the Neolithic period. However, the Palestinian Arab clade includes two Arab modal haplotypes which are found at only very low frequency among Jews, reflecting divergence and/or large scale admixture from non-local populations to the Palestinians. [19]
    Points in which Jewish groups differ is largely in the source and proportion of genetic contribution from host populations.[20][21] For example, Teimanim differ from other Mizrahim, as well as from Ashkenazim, in the proportion of sub-Saharan African gene types which have entered their gene pools.[20] Among Yemenites, the average stands at 35% lineages within the past 3,000 years.[20] Yemenite Jews, as a traditionally Arabic-speaking community of local Yemenite and Israelite ancestries,[21] are included within the findings, though they average a quarter of the frequency of the non-Jewish Yemenite sample.[20] The proportion of male indigenous European genetic admixture in Ashkenazi Jews amounts to around 0.5% per generation over an estimated 80 generations, and a total admixture estimate “very similar to Motulsky’s average estimate of 12.5%.”[13] More recent study estimates an even lower European male contribution, and that only 5%–8% of the Ashkenazi gene pool is of European origin.[13]
    Maternal Lineages
    Studies of maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA have lead to review of the archetype of Israelite-origin for some Jewish populations. Previously, the Israelite origin identified in the world’s Jewish populations was attributed only to the males who had migrated from the Middle East and then forged the current known communities with “the women from each local population whom they took as wives and converted to Judaism”.[22]
    Research in Ashkenazi Jews has suggested that, in addition to the male founders, significant female founder ancestry might also derive from the Middle East. [22] In addition, Behar 2006 suggested that the rest of Ashkenazi mtDNA is originated from about 150 women, most of those were probably of Middle Eastern origin.[23]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew

    Reply

  63. Paul Norheim says:

    “All this stuff is too funny and very, very predictable.
    For the record, I have never called Obama a Muslim. A moron,
    yes, but not a Muslim.” (Nadine)
    But you think it`s just natural that the Israelis should be “alarmed”
    by his “Muslim background” . don`t you?
    “You don’t think that Obama’s prattling on about his
    Muslim background and his middle name of Hussein (…), and
    reciting the Palestinian “narrative” of Israel’s being founded
    because of the Holocaust might be a wee bit more alarming to
    Israelis than his skin color?” (Nadine)

    Reply

  64. Paul Norheim says:

    “So who are the bigots, the people who use the President’s middle
    name or those that don’t?”
    What do you think, WigWag? Those who haven`t used it yet –
    afraid that it would encourage ethnic and religious bigotry? Or
    those who have used it because they don`t like Arabs or
    Muslims?
    Very difficult to answer that one, isn´t it?

    Reply

  65. nadine says:

    WigWag, it’s hilarious. Those of us who are right of center just endured 8 solid years of “Chimpy Bushitler” and the like, and now the Left has vapors because someone calls President Obama by his given name! Only they can do it! From us, it’s racist!
    LOL, can you say “projection”?
    Likewise for “The President as The Joker” cartoons. When Vanity Fair published Bush as The Joker, well, that was art and serious commentary. When some street poster turned up showing Obama as The Joker with the word “Socialism”, the leftosphere went nuts about white racist militias preparing a lynching.
    Unfortunately for their fantasies, it was then discovered that the artist was a Democratic Palestinian-American from Chicago who never had much use for Obama. Oh, No! A Democratic Palestinian-American! That doesn’t fit the white racist narrative at all! If the artist had only been a white Republican, you would be seeing the story every day and the left side of blogosphere would be working themselves into a frenzy over it. But the artist’s inconvenient politics & ethnicity killed the story.
    All this stuff is too funny and very, very predictable.
    For the record, I have never called Obama a Muslim. A moron, yes, but not a Muslim.

    Reply

  66. Paul Norheim says:

    Now it looks like the bigoted Foreign Minister of Israel intends
    to accuse every single foreign country of anti-semitism. In the
    beginning of this week, he accused Sweden, because the Prime
    Minister didn`t want to distance himself from a newspaper
    article in a Swedish paper – and explained this with the principle
    of freedom of speech. At the end of this week, Lieberman
    accuses Norway of anti-semitism:
    Last update – 20:41 23/08/2009
    Lieberman accuses Norway of promoting anti-Semitism
    By Chaim Levinson, Haaretz Correspondent
    Amid escalating tensions between Israel and Sweden, Foreign
    Minister Avigdor Lieberman on Sunday accused another
    Scandinavian country – Norway this time – of promoting anti-
    Semitism.
    Israel and Sweden have been embroiled in diplomatic crisis this
    week, after a Swedish daily printed an article alleging that Israel
    Defense Forces soldiers harvested organs of Palestinians.
    On Sunday, Lieberman moved his criticism on to Norway for
    marking the birthday of an early 20th century “pro-Nazi”
    author.
    “I was amazed at the Norwegian government’s decision to
    celebrate the 150th birthday of Knut Hamsun, who admired the
    Nazis,” Lieberman told students at the Ariel University Center.
    “He gave the literary award he won in 1943 to Josef Goebbels,
    and praised Hitler in an obituary as a warrior for mankind.”
    But the foreign minister’s criticism of the Scandinavian country
    did not end there.
    “I remember that in the Durban-II conference,” Lieberman said,
    referring to last April’s UN anti-racism summit which was
    criticized as allegedly biased against Israel. “The Norwegian
    representatives were among the few who didn’t walk out, and
    today I realize it’s not a coincidence. How low can you go?”
    (…)
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1109501.html
    ——————————
    Which country is next on the list?
    New Zealand? Iceland? Canada?
    When he`s finished with his bizarre and paranoid accusations,
    nobody will probably listen when someone warns against anti-
    semitism.

    Reply

  67. WigWag says:

    “And you Wig wag? Shame” (JohnS)
    Sorry DonS, it’s not me who thinks Obama needs to hide his middle name. The people who do are the people who need to examine their motives. My understanding is that Hussein, which can be spelled a number of different ways, means “good” or “handsome” in Arabic. The name has an honored pedigree with the first “Husayn” being the grandson of the Prophet.
    What exactly is it about the name that those who object to calling the President by his full given name object to?
    Why are they so anxious to suppress the President’s middle name? What does this say about them? Why do they think that Obama, unlike so many other recent Presidents, has a middle name that dares not speak its name?
    It’s all a small point really. But it’s emblematic of the caricature of themselves people who think they’re on the left of the political spectrum often become
    “The Times They Are a-Changin`, WigWag…..” (Paul Norheim)
    Paul Norheim, my comment that you cited was made in August, 2008 when Barack Obama was Senator Obama. He’s now President. When referring to him, there’s nothing wrong with using the convention used for other recent Presidents. When Bill Clinton was Attorney General or even Governor of Arkansas he was referred to as William Jefferson Clinton far less often than after he became President.
    But upon reflection, I think it was okay to refer to the President’s middle name during the Presidential campaign as well.
    It has been pointed out that when he was running for President the person most concerned about suppressing use of his middle name was his political guru, David Axelrod. A good case argument can be made that by doing so, he (and Obama himself) countenanced and even encouraged bigotry.
    So who are the bigots, the people who use the President’s middle name or those that don’t?

    Reply

  68. Paul Norheim says:

    Posted by WigWag, Aug 23 2009, 5:14PM – Link
    (…) As for me, I think President Obama should be treated like all
    other Presidents. Using their middle names seems to be the
    current trend and if it’s good for Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon,
    Clinton and Bush it’s good enough for Obama.
    ————————————–
    Posted by WigWag, Aug 23 2009, 4:25PM – Link
    Nadine, I think it’s strange and somewhat paranoid that anyone
    would object to the use of President Obama’s full given name,
    Barack Hussein Obama.
    ——————————————-
    Posted by WigWag, Aug 14 2008, 11:49PM – Link
    (…) I have contributed scores of comments pertinent to Obama
    since I first discovered the Washington Note. Some of those
    comments may have been smart, many were undoubtedly
    dumb, but never once did I use the Senator’s middle name. His
    ethnic background doesn’t interest me and his religion doesn’t
    interest me. If you have even one example of anything that I
    have ever said about the Senator that made reference to either
    his religion or his ethnicity then you should point it out,
    otherwise, you should apologize.”
    —————————
    The Times They Are a-Changin`, WigWag…..

    Reply

  69. DonS says:

    We all know who uses the “Hussein”, and it isn’t to trumpet their inclusiveness. This little vignette at TWN just serves to reinforce how far down toward the bottom Nadine feeds. And you Wig wag? Shame.

    Reply

  70. Outraged American says:

    Yeah, because if we left the Hussein out Obama would be BO.
    Paul, in the US of A “BO” means “body oder” — so more power to
    the Zionist lobby and its minions in the media for reminding us
    CONSTANTLY of Obama’s middle name. Because he is a not so
    closeted Muslim despite all that Reverend Wright hooey.
    He was just pretending to go to a Christian church, he had his
    prayer mat tucked in the back of his trousers in case the call to
    prayer came during communion.
    There’s a documentary called “Reel Arabs” that explores the
    demonization of Muslims by Hollywood.
    Questions, Questions, are you there?
    She’s probably off boring her neighbors by claiming their
    petunias are anti-semites and discussing at extensive length
    how flowers have a history of persecuting Jews.

    Reply

  71. WigWag says:

    “Are you seeking their company now? Or would you prefer going straight from calling him quisling to — calling him Hitler? Certainly, Nadine wouldn’t object to that.”
    Nadine can speak for herself about what she does or doesn’t object to. As for me, I think President Obama should be treated like all other Presidents. Using their middle names seems to be the current trend and if it’s good for Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Clinton and Bush it’s good enough for Obama.
    As for Obama, it seems to me that he’s right on some things and wrong on others. He’s right on Afghanistan and wrong on FISA. He’s right on his Supreme Court nominations and wrong to give up the public option on health care reform. As for his Middle East strategy, I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt for now. Strategically I think he’s made some poor decisions (more robust negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians occurred while Bush was President than have occurred so far under Obama-but it’s early yet.) Substantively, we don’t know much about Obama’s positions on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute so I’m reserving judgment. I do have a sneaking suspicion that within a few short months I will have more reason to like Obama’s Middle East policy that many Israel critics at the Washington Note, but time will tell.
    And yes, I do think that my characterization of Obama during the campaign as a quisling looks like a good prediction; at least so far.
    As you know, Paul, a quisling is someone who collaborates with the enemy. Obama has collaborated with Wall Street to save the banks while asking nothing in return. He looks like he’s about to collaborate with the health insurance companies by giving them 50 million more customers subsidized by the taxpayers without extracting a “public option” in return.
    Who knows, when his Middle East policy is announced, you might be calling his a quisling yourself.

    Reply

  72. Paul Norheim says:

    “It seems to me that the people guilty of ethic stereotyping are
    not the people who refer to President Obama as Barack Hussein
    Obama, but the people who somehow think his middle name is
    off limits; that it should be omitted.”
    I wish Obama had used his middle name always – for several
    reasons. Currently, there are only certain groups who use it – as
    a way to say that they suspect him of being a muslim in
    disguise or an extremist – this happens either in a “war on
    terror” context (like during the election) or a Israel/Palestine
    context (like after his Cairo speech.
    THIS is what I was talking about, and you know this very well,
    WigWag. Once I made a somewhat hastened comment – which
    made you insist that you had NEVER used the “Hussein” name –
    which was actually correct -and I apologized. But why did you
    even mention this – if not because you know exactly the current
    motives behind using his middle name?
    Are you seeking their company now? Or would you prefer going
    straight from calling him quisling to — calling him Hitler?
    Certainly, Nadine wouldn`t object to that.

    Reply

  73. WigWag says:

    Nadine, I think it’s strange and somewhat paranoid that anyone would object to the use of President Obama’s full given name, Barack Hussein Obama.
    After all, President Bush (the younger) was frequently referred to by a bastardized version of his middle name, “Dubya.” President Clinton was called by his full name, William Jefferson Clinton, at least as often as Obama is. Eisenhower was referred to as Dwight David Eisenhower more often than he was called Dwight Eisenhower and it was quite common for President Nixon to be called Richard Milhous Nixon.
    President Kennedy was usually referred to by his nickname, JFK and the same was true of President Johnson who was usually called LBJ. In both cases, their middle initials were included. No one refers to President Kennedy as JK or President Johnson as LJ.
    It seems to me that the people guilty of ethic stereotyping are not the people who refer to President Obama as Barack Hussein Obama, but the people who somehow think his middle name is off limits; that it should be omitted.
    Perhaps they think that our nation’s first African American President and our first President with a Muslim parent should be addressed differently than all other recent American Presidents.
    Come to think of it, it’s not just recent Presidents. The 9th President of the United States was never referred to as William Harrison; he was called by his full name, William Henry Harrison.

    Reply

  74. Carroll says:

    Posted by nadine, Aug 23 2009, 2:01PM – Link
    In any other context the Left is quick to yell “don’t blame the victim” but in the case of anti-Semitism, the victims must have had it coming. Hitler must have had good reasons.
    Thank you for making your anti-semitism so explicit.>>>>>>>>>>>
    Why you Anti- Gentile, Anti -Arab, Anti -America anti -all- “Others” semite you!
    ROTFLMAO!
    Go stuff it honey. Everyone has had enough of the myths and anti semite slur as a defense against the truth about zionism, Israel’s behavior and the zionista thugs like you.
    The zionist and Israel are by any sane, logical person’s measurment a nut case “cult” in the form of a state criminal gang.
    I am not indulging your or their myth making, paranoia or propaganda. If you don’t want to hear it, leave.

    Reply

  75. Outraged American says:

    Your premise is that the Bible is a legal document guaranteeing
    the land between the Niles and Euphrates to the Jews?
    Do you realize how absurd that sounds?
    Made even more absurd by the fact that most of the Jews at the
    highest levels of power in Israel (Bibi, Tzipi and Avigdor, I’m
    looking at you) are Ashkenazim and have NO GENETIC TIES TO
    PALESTINE.
    It’s like me converting to Islam and claiming a “Koranic right” to
    a house in Mecca.
    Maybe I’ll do that — anyone know if Mecca’s cooler than
    Phoenix this time of year?
    Welcome to the 21st century. Israel has no “right” to exist. It
    certainly doesn’t have a right to suck our tax dollars and use
    them to slaughter the native inhabitants of the entire region and
    it certainly doesn’t have a right to start WW III by attacking Iran.

    Reply

  76. DonS says:

    Nadine, your assertion that “In any other context the Left is quick to yell “don’t blame the victim” but in the case of anti-Semitism, the victims must have had it coming. Hitler must have had good reasons.” is classic red herring. No one is making that link, and your bring it up as as tacit assumption continues the string of tendentious and dishonest rhetoric. But your tactics fit right in with the AIPAC winner-take-all, keep them off balance with ridiculous cries of “fire” in the theater.

    Reply

  77. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “I notice the discussion of the nature of Hamas has dropped off the radar”
    Not really, Nadine. Its just that very few are still willing to debate with a known racist liar. It seems you’ve kinda blown your wad here.
    Why don’t you tell us again how no one is going hungry in Gaza, or how no Palestinians are being deprived of medical care.
    Or perhaps you can get Susan or Ironbelle to clue us in, eh?

    Reply

  78. PissedOffAmerican says:

    What Freeze? Netanyahu Clears the Way for 450 New Units (at least) in Pisgat Ze’ev
    August 20, 2009
    Is something new happening in the East Jerusalem settlement of Pisgat Ze’ev?
    Yes. According to a report in yesterday’s Hebrew-language business daily “The Marker”, the Israel Lands Authority has decided to accept “appeals” by contractors relating to the failed Pisgat Ze’ev tenders, and award contracts for the construction of at least 450 new units. An image of the article from the print version of The Marker (Hebrew-only) can be viewed/downloaded here.
    Wasn’t it reported recently that Prime Mininster Netanyahu had frozen some tenders for construction in Pisgat Ze’ev?
    Yes. At the end of July it was reported that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu had “frozen” tenders for 900 new units in the East Jerusalem settlement of Pisgat Zeev. The back-story here was that these tenders, which had been issued by the Government of Israel in July and August 2008, had essentially failed – that is, the bids offered by real estate developers were so low that the government elected to not award the contracts.
    Optimists were cautiously welcoming of this news. Skeptics were, well, skeptical. Sadly, it appears the skeptics were right.
    Are these the same tenders and if so, how is it that they have been “unfrozen”?
    Yes, these are part of the tenders for 900 units that were issued previously but not awarded.
    What does it mean to say that the tenders “failed”?
    Tenders are an invitation for bids to purchase construction rights. The issuance of tenders does not obligate the government to award contracts; it is more like an auction, and if the bids submitted are below the valuations made by the governmental assessor, the government reserves the right not to award the contract to any bidder – even the highest. That was precisely what happened with the 2008 Pisgat Ze’ev tenders, and contracts were awarded for the construction of only 56 of the 763 units on the auction block. When, three weeks ago, the Israel Land Authority moved to reissued the tenders, Netanyahu instructed them not to.
    How can failed tenders now be back in play?
    According to The Marker, the ILA has decided, more than a year after the original tenders were issued and bids made, to accepted appeals lodged by bidders and award the contracts to build 450 of the units based on those bids.
    They have decided to do so despite the fact that these same bids were found to be insufficient less than a year ago, and despite the fact that since the time they were originally issued, the real estate market in Jerusalem has surged – meaning that the construction rights are worth even more now than when the tenders were issued and the bids submitted.
    The Ministry of Construction is further quoted as saying that it intends to issue additional tenders in Pisgat Ze’ev in the near future.
    A map of Pisgat Zeev showing the new tenders can be viewed/downloaded here.
    Is this a normal development with respect to how tenders are handled by the Government of Israel?
    No, this is a highly unusual and very serious development. It means that the government of Israel is going out of its way to award tenders that, had they been left to the natural course of events and market conditions, would have failed.
    Moreover, the extreme irregularity of how these tenders are being handled – with the government in effect reviving previously failed tenders a full year after they were published, rather than issuing new ones – underscores the political motives underlying this decision. Normally, any appeal by bidders takes place shortly after tenders are issued and bids are refused. If the appeal succeeds, the ILA generally auctions off the construction rights among the highest bidders. We know of no precedent for an appeal after such a long period of time, and where as a result tenders were awarded based on the original bids.
    The normal thing to do in a case like the Pisgat Ze’ev tenders, if the government wanted to promote this construction, would be to re-issue the tenders, based on the new market conditions, and let the bidding process play itself out.
    Why would the Government of Israel decide to take this strange course and revive “dead” tenders?
    There is only one reason why the government of Israel would prefer to revive the original tenders, rather than issue new ones: it allows Israeli officials to say, “What are you getting upset about? There is nothing new here – these are old tenders. We are just following through with something that was already approved.”
    It also means that the contracts can be awarded very quickly, meaning that third-party rights – i.e. those of private contractors, who appear to have been interviewed for the story in The Marker – will almost immediately be brought into play. Once third-party equities are involved, as the government well knows, projects are much harder to roll back.
    So Netanyahu thinks he can get away with new settlement construction – construction that Netanyahu has the authority to stop – by manipulating the technicalities to argue that he is totally innocent of any wrongdoing and bears no responsibility. If this argument fails, Netanyahu may well argue that the government had no choice but to go ahead with the tenders or face lawsuits – something that sounds good but is simply not true, but will be true once the contracts are awarded.
    What do the Pisgat Ze’ev tenders say about the intentions of Netanyahu and his government?
    There can be no question: this decision to go ahead with the Pisgat Ze’ev tenders is a deliberate decision by Netanyahu to poke a finger in the eye of President Obama and Special Envoy Mitchell. It is the latest effort by Netanyahu to use settlement-related developments in East Jerusalem to challenge and undermine President Obama’s peace effort.
    continues………..
    http://peacenow.org/entries/what_freeze_netanyahu_clears_the_way_for_450_new_units_at_least_in_pisgat_zeev
    So, what do you think? Is anyone reading this naive enough to believe that Clinton and Obama are unaware that the “settlement freeze” is bullshit? Yet in the face of Israeli propaganda and lies, Obama tells us that events are “encouraging”, all the while knowing that Netanyau and Lieberman are spitting in his face. There is more than one way to cow-tow to the Israelis, and it appears Hillary and Barack are going to use them all.

    Reply

  79. nadine says:

    P.S. I notice the discussion of the nature of Hamas has dropped off the radar. Quelle surprise.
    Window glass.

    Reply

  80. nadine says:

    In any other context the Left is quick to yell “don’t blame the victim” but in the case of anti-Semitism, the victims must have had it coming. Hitler must have had good reasons.
    Thank you for making your anti-semitism so explicit.
    btw, I don’t know if you are really so ignorant of history as to think that the Jews would have been “looking for a homeland” without the Holocaust.
    Zionism started in earnest in the 1880s and by the 1940s there were 600,000 Jews in Palestine, well organized into a proto-state. This was before any of the Holocaust survivors arrived. Without a Holocaust, Israel would not have had a brief window of world sympathy but would have the aid of 6,000,000 European Jews to more than make up for it. Since the Brits were not going to hang around running the Mandate of Palestine forever, history might not have been very different. Who knows, the Zionists might have had MORE European sympathy since in those days anti-Semites screamed “Jews, out of Europe!”. Today they scream “Jews, out of Palestine!”

    Reply

  81. Carroll says:

    “”Here we are taught that Zionist determination and
    struggle —
    not guilt over the Holocaust — brought Jews a homeland.”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Every discussion of the ‘foreign’ country of Israel turns into the ‘Jews’, by design and by the Jews themselves but any mentions of the craziness of the “Jewish” state is anti semetic.LOL
    Their arguement and justification for whatever Israel does is:
    1) the eternal victimhood of the Jews
    2) the holocaust and the ‘guilt’ of the ‘world’ for the jewish holocuast.
    3) then there’s always the “bible deed” thrown in
    4) and the claim that because the Jews ruled Palestine for “70 years out of 21 centuries” it ‘belongs’ to them and they are just ‘reclaiming’ it.
    5) and the latest reason bandied about..”jewish self determination”. Whatever the hell that is.
    6) and which ever one of these claims doesn’t work they try a new one.
    Every time these arguements get going I want to scream..”Use some LOGIC.”
    First. Is it even logical or probable that the Jews were ‘hated’ since the begining of time for no reason? That this one group among all in the world,in all time, is totally innocent of any acts or behavior that would have brought hatred or suspicion down on them? When the jews were exiled from Egypt for instance the Jews said it was because of ‘anti semitism’. The Egyptian history says it was because with a war looming they didn’t trust the Jews around the Egyptian government not to sell them out to the enemy for money. Two different stories. Which is right? Is is a bit of both? Were the Jews the “only” group in history who were ever hated and perscuted? No, they weren’t. They’ve just been the loudest for the longest.
    Second. How did WWII come to be more about the Jews than mad man Hitler’s quest to extend the Motherland by rolling over every country around him? And how did the holocuast come to be the “fault” of the “world” instead of just the nazis and those who cooperated with them? How exactly was the US or the allies responsible for the Jews? And more responsible for the Jews than the other 75 million that died in WWII?
    Third and fourth. The “Bible deed” and the 70 years are too ridiculous to even comment on.
    Fifth. ‘Self determination”..? as in self determination of the Irish or the Arabs, the Buddhist, the Catholics? To the cult self determination for the Jews is some kind of “divine right” based on their victimhood and exceptionalism. Typical hallmarks of cult mentality.
    The ‘holocaust’ was the only event that could have made an Israel possible. Without it zionism would still be floundering around looking for a “homeland” or maybe have set up a Jim Jones camp in some obscure location because not the UK, nor the US, nor the UN would have gone to the extreme of “giving part of another country” to a minority group of religious or ethnic cultist just because they claimed no one liked them and they had been expelled from countries xyz. Not even Britian’s desire to get rid of their political jewish problem and the Stern and Irgun gangs would have induced the US or UN into giving the zionist a “country”.
    So from an 1800’s minority cult movement, to the holocaust, to today, all of this is absurd. It’s been fostered by myth,propaganda, political corruption, blackmail, graymail,bollywood, the zionist cult leaders, ethnic and religious fanaticism mixed together to produce a kind of tribal nationalism, brain washed followers who want to wallow in their victimhood and exceptionalism and etc..
    They are crazy, period. For 9 years I have listened to all this insane crapola and spin regarding Israel and the US and I-P and the Jews.
    I guess we can give credit to the determination of the jews to get trillions of US and world dollars poured into this zionist enterprize the size of New Jersey, that is an abject failure any way you look at it. 65 years and still at war, still not self supporting, still a welfare state of the US and Germany, still suing any entity they can find for more holocaust dollars, still crying anti semitism.
    It’s nothing more than a racket.
    This entire Jewish,Zionist,Israel,US phenomena is a aberration of all logic, common sense, truth, facts, US interest, humanitarian ethics, etc..it’s plain political corruption and the insanity of a plain old cult.
    But the cultist are too far gone and politicans too far corrupted to be deprogrammed back to sanity or reformed, so it will end wherever it ends. All we can do is watch. And read about it in the history books later.

    Reply

  82. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Heres the bullshit AIPAC, Lieberman, Netanyahu, the Jerusalem Post, and the RSOI (Racist State Of Israel) is feeding us….
    Israel FM: Settlement Construction Effectively Frozen
    Lieberman said settlement construction had effectively been halted.
    Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said Thursday that Israel had effectively frozen construction in West Bank settlements, The Jerusalem Post reported. Lieberman’s comments substantiated earlier reports that the Israeli government had not issued a single tender for building in West Bank settlements, including large settlement blocs, since March. This policy, implemented by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Housing Minister Ariel Atias, will reportedly remain in effect until the beginning of 2010. Israel has taken this step, in addition to removing dozens of checkpoints and roadblocks in the West Bank, in an effort to bolster the Palestinian economy, ease movement and access, and jumpstart peace talks. Despite these overtures, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has refused to resume negotiations with Israel, and Arab states have rebuffed calls to improve ties with the Jewish state.
    http://www.aipac.org/130.asp#27806
    And here is the truth, according to Peace Now….
    Peace Now Settlement Watch, August 2009
    Semiannual Report on Settlement Construction,
    January-June 2009
    According to a Peace Now inspection, construction within the “settlement blocs” continues as usual, with no freeze to be seen on the ground. Conversely, construction at isolated settlements continues through various settlement-freeze “bypass” tracks:
    a. Actualizing old plans — some of the new construction seen in the last months, especially in the isolated settlements, is construction based on old plans that were approved years ago. This is meant to bypass the “settlement freeze,” without needing to approve a new plan that must receive the defense minister’s approval.
    It is important to explain that it is within the power of the government to prevent construction that was approved in the past However, it is politically easier for the government to allow the construction while turning a blind eye, with direct or indirect encouragement, and continue claiming there is a “settlement freeze,” when it comes to actualizing an old plan.
    Presently new neighborhoods are under construction on the basis of old plans in Kochav Ha’shachar (plan from 1995), Matityahu (plan from 1984), Ma’ale Michmash (plan from 1999), Tqoa (plan from 1997), Elkana (plan from 2001), Na’ale (plan from 1999), Kfar Etzion (plan from 1993), and Barkan (plan from 2003).
    According to the Spiegel Report, an official report by the Defense Ministry, there are more than 40,000 housing units in plans that were approved in the past but have not yet been actualized. Some of those plans are not relevant or need further approvals before being implemented. Theoretically, it is possible to double the number of settlers in the settlements without approving a single new plan. A real settlements freeze must include a freeze on actualizing construction and not only on planning procedures.
    b. Illegal construction – another way to bypass the freeze is by building illegally. Some of the new construction is illegal, sometimes based on old plans that did not go through all of the licensing processes and sometimes without any plans. Examples are Halamish, Kiryat Netafim, Kochav Ya’akov and Kedar (in Kedar there is construction in the area of an approved plan but based on the provisions of a new plan but has not yet been approved). The government is showing no determination to stop the illegal construction despite warnings made to the law enforcement agencies. See for example at Halamish.
    The main findings
    General (in settlements, outposts and industrial areas):
    • The building of 596 new structures began in the first half of 2009, of which 96 were in outposts.
    • 35% of the structures were built east of the route of the separation fence (208 structures) while 65% (388 structures) started to be built west of the fence.
    • A rise in the number of permanent structures and a drop in the number of caravans. The number of permanent structures that started to be built rose 8% in the first half of 2009 (372 compared to 344 new structures in the second half of 2008), and the number of caravans dropped 43% (204 compared to 361 new caravans). Most of the decline was recorded in the settlements and outposts east of the route of the separation fence (a 35% drop in the general number of structures compared to only a 6% decline in construction west of the fence).
    In settlements (without outposts and industrial areas)
    • The construction of 492 new structures began in settlements, including 351 permanent structures, 131 caravans and 10 industrial structures. 124 structures were built east of the separation fence route and 368 west of it.
    • In addition, groundwork began for at least another 60 structures.
    • Significant construction sites:
    . Tqo’a — groundwork for a new neighborhood and continued construction in the neighborhood near the entrance to the settlement.
    . Elkana — groundwork for a new neighborhood and continued construction in the northern neighborhood
    . Halamish — 12 duplex buildings (construction was stopped by a court order)
    . Kedar — groundwork for a new neighborhood (42 housing units)
    . Na’ale — groundwork for a new neighborhood and beginning of construction of nine structures
    . Kfar Etzion — groundwork for a new neighborhood
    . Barkan — groundwork for a new neighborhood (62 housing units)
    . Matityahu — groundwork for a new neighborhood
    . Tzufin — groundwork for a new neighborhood
    continues……
    http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=61&docid=4364
    And here is Obama and Hillary’s response to the Israeli lies…..
    ” ”
    And here is Congress’ response to the Israeli lies…..
    “$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$”

    Reply

  83. Outraged American says:

    Guess no visit to “The Holy Land” for me if I go to Gaza. I’m
    starting to think that if the Zionists had been settled on the
    Moon we’d have a “War on Moon Dust” with an occasional foray
    into attacking comets.
    And Mars. And Venus. And Pluto. And the dark side of the
    Moon, but that would be a daily struggle against darker moon
    dust that had been there longer.
    Report: Pirates seize ship on Israel’s behalf, preventing arms
    from Iran (h/t for both to antiwar.com)
    http://tinyurl.com/nyeem9
    To expand on what POA posted:
    Israel’s New Visa Rule for Foreigners: If You Want To Visit
    Palestine, Stay There
    http://tinyurl.com/lk8ywy

    Reply

  84. Carroll says:

    Posted by nadine, Aug 23 2009, 3:10AM – Link
    Carroll, that CIA report came from the same organization that utterly failed to foresee any danger for the USSR before it all came crashing down. Their track record for prognostication has not been great, to put it mildly
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I can’t think of anything offhand that the CIA “pin pointed exactly”…not the moment of Castro’s takeover in Cuba or Russia’s fall or the ousting of Iran’s Shah.
    It seems to me, historicaly, that in most cases the actual end or begining of the end comes on suddenly. When circumstances align it becomes a spontanous event.

    Reply

  85. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Its all about motive when one is using Obama’s full name, Nadine. But you know that don’t you?
    The Susan Pearlstein thing intrigues me. She seems to be a bridge between you and Ironbelle. I don’t believe much in coincidences in such things. Wig-wag seems to be interlinked as well.
    (Insert the theme tune from Twilight Zone here)

    Reply

  86. nadine says:

    So because I said that Obama’s Mideast policies were based on a flawed model of reality and have already failed, as they were doomed to, I am therefore not allowed to call President Obama by his full name?
    As far as I can follow the convoluted logic here, it is that Obama and his supporters may use his full name, his Muslim connections, and his left-wing “nuanced” pro-Palestinian ideas about he Mideast whenever and wherever they see fit; but Obama opponents are never, under any circumstances, allowed to mention any of these things because that would be racist. Or is it imperialist? It gets so confusing, this terminology.
    Can you even comprehend how hypocritical you are?
    You can’t have it both ways. If Obama can mention it, so can I. You cannot declare whole sections of foreign policy discussion verboten for Obama opponents to even mention, unless they profess agreement with Obama. You can try, but you will preach only to your choir.

    Reply

  87. Paul Norheim says:

    I`ll be happy to talk about my paranoia, Nadine. But let`s
    first talk about your paranoia. Here`s an excerpt from the
    discussion I mentioned:
    Posted by nadine, Jul 29 2009, 4:10PM – Link
    (…) You don’t think that Obama’s prattling on about his
    Muslim background and his middle name of Hussein (you
    know, the stuff that nobody was allowed to mention during
    the campaign), and reciting the Palestinian “narrative” of
    Israel’s being founded because of the Holocaust might be a
    wee bit more alarming to Israelis than his skin color?
    Posted by Paul Norheim, Jul 30 2009, 5:43PM – Link
    Dan,
    thanks for the link, especially the reference to what Aluf
    Benn,
    editor-at-large of Haaretz, said in the New York Times op-
    ed:
    “”Here we are taught that Zionist determination and
    struggle —
    not guilt over the Holocaust — brought Jews a homeland.”
    He
    then says Obama’s comments “infuriated” Israelis who felt
    the
    comments were redolent of those of “enemies like Mahmoud
    Ahmedinejad.””
    As you saw, I joked with Nadine above, as a reaction to
    her
    absurd claims about Obama`s Cairo speech. I said:
    “Are you sure he borrowed this Holocaust narrative from
    the
    Arabs, and not from Ahmedinejad, to secretly promote the
    imminent return of the Mahdi?”
    I thought her interpretation was so weird that I wanted to
    bend
    it a bit, to show the ridiculous absurdity of her
    argument. I
    didn`t realize that the editor of Haaretz already had
    quoted that
    lunatic argument, approvingly, as an interpretation in
    vogue
    among Israelis today, in the NYT.
    (…)
    Posted by nadine, Jul 30 2009, 6:07PM – Link
    (…)
    Paul: Just to mail you a clue, Aluf Benn is the very
    liberal editor of the left-wing paper Haaretz. The entire
    Israeli public reacted to Obama’s speech the same way
    because for Israelis, Palestinians are NOT window glass.
    Israelis actually hear the arguments Palestinians put
    forth day in and day out about how the Jews are European
    thieves with no connection to Palestine, no history, no
    rights to an inch of Palestine, except the Europeans felt
    sorry for them after the European crime of the Holocaust,
    which didn’t even happen in the first place. The Israelis
    recognized this line when Obama peddled it back to them in
    duly softened, “nuanced” form (Obama did tell the Arabs to
    stop denying the Holocaust, thanks so very much). That’s
    why in a recent poll, only 6% of Israeli Jews think Obama
    is “pro-Israel.”
    Posted by Paul Norheim, Jul 30 2009, 7:14PM – Link
    (…)
    “The entire Israeli public reacted to Obama’s speech the
    same
    way…”
    If that`s true with regard to the Holocaust reference,
    it`s even
    worse.
    ——————————————————-
    There was no attempt from Nadine in that discussion to
    distance herself from Aluf Benn`s “muslim” interpretation
    of the POTUS as an enemy of Israel. And what Nadine
    alludes to when she says “Hussein” or “muslim” should also
    be clear from the above quoted excerpts.

    Reply

  88. Paul Norheim says:

    I`m not sure what part of the CIA
    prediction/description with regard to Israel you
    don`t believe in, Nadine: that Israel is developing
    an apartheid state, or that this “colonial
    enterprise” will fall suddenly and quickly?
    Re Hussein: I`ll find the discussion later.

    Reply

  89. nadine says:

    “Hussein is a common Arab name. Used by Nadine when
    she talks about the American President, it`s a
    common Israeli codeword for: muslim, Hamas-
    supporter, Ahmedinejad-sympathizer, anti-semite –
    in short: the enemy.”
    Don’t look now, Paul, but your paranoia is showing. I called the President of the United States by his given name, the one he himself uses. This is not code for anything except in your fun-house mirror view of the world.

    Reply

  90. Paul Norheim says:

    “Hamas’ policy of shooting thousands of rockets at
    Israel after the Israeli withdrawal in 2005 led to
    the blockade and the Israeli operation of Dec 2008”
    (Nadine)
    Not entirely true: look up what Israel did on the
    4th of November last year – oh, I`m sure you are
    well aware of the facts, and your mission here is
    not connected to facts, but propaganda.

    Reply

  91. Paul Norheim says:

    Let me add to my comment above: WigWag called Obama
    a “quisling” in a different context, with regard to
    his “collaboration” with the republicans. The
    wingnuts on the far right currently compare him
    with Hitler in the health reform “debates”. When
    WigWag not only tries to ridicule him as a naive
    and week fool in the I/P context, but angrily
    starts using words like those he`ve used in other
    contexts, you may take it as a sign that Obama is
    on the right track in the Middle East (like Jimmy
    Carter). We`ll see.
    Re “Hussein”: Nadine confirmed the muslim
    fundamentalist connotations I mentioned above on a
    thread several weeks ago.

    Reply

  92. nadine says:

    Carroll, that CIA report came from the same organization that utterly failed to foresee any danger for the USSR before it all came crashing down. Their track record for prognostication has not been great, to put it mildly.
    I read Tony Karon’s report in Time and it struck me again how very deeply the media and the Democratic establishment (but I repeat myself) wish to find moderation in Hamas. They will clutch at the thinnest of straws.
    So Hamas has put down an Al Qaeda group which got uppity? All this means is that Hamas is fighting a zero-sum game for control of Gaza and will not permit others to muscle in on its turf. Yet from this slender reed Karon assures us that Hamas has often been at odds with Al Qaeda ideologically (as if trying to destroy Israel was in some way against Al Qaeda’s goals) and is a pragmatic group dependent on popular support. Now this is not totally untrue; Hamas does confine its targets mostly to Israelis almost always (you could get some argument from Egypt on this point), and it rose in popularity based on giving social services. However, when push comes to shove with Hamas, ideology trumps pragmatism.
    Consider the following questions:
    Hamas won the election in 2006 (thanks mostly to splits in Fatah), then overthrew Fatah in 2007. Was this to gain popular support, or just power that comes out of a gun?
    No future elections are planned. Hamas rules as a police state, and has killed hundreds of Fatah and now Al Qaeda opponents. Is this done to garner popular support?
    Hamas is instituting sharia bit by bit, and has recently made hijab compulsory and has instituted a Virtue Police to beat women who are not covered up enough to suit them. The population of Gaza is far from uniformly Islamist. Was this done to garner popular support?
    Hamas’ policy of shooting thousands of rockets at Israel after the Israeli withdrawal in 2005 led to the blockade and the Israeli operation of Dec 2008, where Hamas got its ass kicked, but not hard enough to overthrow it. Did this make it gain in popular support? Before you answer “yes”, consider that while Palestinians will rally round their leaders while under Israeli attack, in the aftermath they will quietly consider if their leaders’ policies have been a success or failure. Hamas will never admit it was defeated, but everybody understands that if it had won it would still be shooting rockets.
    Despite the best wishes of Tony Karon, Hamas remains an irridentist, radical Islamist organization. Hamas wanted popular support for the same reason it wanted elections: to gain power. Power achieved, elections vanish and popularity plays second fiddle to ideology.

    Reply

  93. Paul Norheim says:

    “Watching them natter ineffectively about the
    settlements, one can only consider Obama and
    Clinton’s stance as being diversionary, purposely
    unmindful of the far more serious abuses and
    crimes Israel is committing in an ongoing campaign
    of occupation and oppression.” (POA)
    —————————————-
    “So the only person who actually wants
    comprehensive Mideast settlement is Barack Hussein
    Obama.” (Nadine)
    ———————————————-
    “Posted by WigWag, Feb 05 2009, 4:59PM – Link
    DavidT, you have somewhat mischaracterized what I
    said. I did not call Obama supporters quislings; I
    called President Obama a quisling.” (WigWag)
    ————————————————
    Hussein is a common Arab name. Used by Nadine when
    she talks about the American President, it`s a
    common Israeli codeword for: muslim, Hamas-
    supporter, Ahmedinejad-sympathizer, anti-semite –
    in short: the enemy.
    Vidkun Quisling was a Norwegian Prime Minister
    during WWII who collaborated with the Nazis.
    Quisling in international language: a traitor,
    working for a foreign power.
    I agree with POA that the president should have
    used stronger words on several occasions from the
    bombing of Gaza and up till today. However, I
    would assume that Obama has got something right
    when he provokes such responses by these
    commenters. I`m just waiting for the Hitler-
    analogy at TWN.

    Reply

  94. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Exclusive Interview with FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds
    By Khatchig Mouradian • on August 21, 2009 •
    On April 23, 2007, I sat down in Washington, D.C. with FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds for an extensive interview, which was published in the Armenian Weekly and on ZNet and widely circulated. On Aug. 18, 2009, I conducted a follow-up phone interview with Edmonds, who was visiting New Zealand. The interview is an overview of what has transpired in her case since 2007, with emphasis on her deposition in the Schmidt vs. Krikorian case in Ohio earlier this month.
    Edmonds, an FBI language specialist, was fired from her job with the FBI’s Washington Field Office in March 2002. Her crime was reporting security breaches, cover-ups, blocking of intelligence, and the bribery of U.S. individuals including high-ranking officials. The “state secrets privilege” has often been invoked to block court proceedings on her case, and the U.S. Congress has even been gagged to prevent further discussion.Edmonds uncovered, for example, a covert relationship between Turkish groups and former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), who reportedly received tens of thousands of dollars in bribes in return for withdrawing the Armenian Genocide Resolution from the House floor in 2000.
    Born in Iran in 1970, Edmonds received her BA in criminal justice and psychology from George Washington University, and her MA in public policy and international commerce from George Mason University. She is the founder and director of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC) and in 2006 received the PEN/Newman’s Own First Amendment Award. She speaks Turkish, Farsi, and Azerbaijani.
    Below is the full transcript of the follow-up interview.
    ***
    Khatchig Mouradian—I asked you in 2007 what had changed during the five years since 2002, when you first contacted the Senate Judiciary Committee to reveal the story on Turkish bribery of high-level U.S. officials. You said, “There has been no hearing and nobody has been held accountable. We are basically where we started…” Two more years have passed, we have a new president, and I have to ask the same question again. Has there been any change?
    Sibel Edmonds—Nothing has changed. As far as the Congress is concerned, the Democrats have been the majority since November 2006 and I have had zero interest from Congress on having hearings—any hearings—on this issue, whether it’s the states secrets privilege portion of it or the involved corruption cases. The current majority has been at least as bad as the previous one. At least the Republicans were gutsy enough to come and say, We’re not going to touch this. But the new majority is not saying anything!
    The Obama Administration is pretty new. For what I see, they are continuing the previous administration’s state secrets privilege policies. As far as the whistleblower protection and related legislations are concerned, the new White House has already made it clear that they do not want to provide any protection for national security whistleblowers—these are the whistleblowers from the FBI, CIA, and all the other intelligence and law enforcement agencies and, of course, the Defense Department.
    As far as the mainstream media is concerned, at least from what I have seen, the situation has actually gotten worse. To me that seems to be the major reason behind the Congress’ and the White House’s inaction and lack of desire to pursue accountability. As long as the pressure from the mainstream media is not there, of course they aren’t going to act. They are driven by that pressure, and the mainstream media in the U.S. today does not fulfill its role and responsibility by providing that pressure.
    Of the three—Congress, the executive branch, and the media—I would say the biggest culprit here is the mainstream media.
    K.M.—The most recent example of the deafening silence of the mainstream media was your deposition during the Schmidt vs. Krikorian case on Aug. 8. There, you spoke, under oath, about how the Turkish government and a network of lobby groups and high-ranking U.S. officials and Congressmen have engaged in treason and blackmail. A big story by any standards, it was only covered by Armenian newspapers and a few blogs. How do you explain this silence?
    S.E.—I know field reporters who are so excited and want to chase the story. But when they went to their papers—and I’m talking about mainstream media and very good investigative journalists—their editors are refusing to touch it. When you watch the video or read the transcript, you will see how explosive the deposition was. And remember, I was speaking under oath. If by any standard, if I were to lie or be untruthful in any way, I would go to jail. I am answering these questions under oath, and yet, the mainstream media is refusing to touch it. And this is very similar to what we saw with the AIPAC/Larry Franklin case.
    I have emphasized the fact that the American Turkish Council [ATC], the Turkish lobby, and these Turkish networks, they work together, in partnership with AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee] and JINSA [Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs]. So not only is there pressure on media outlets from the Turkish lobby and the corrupt U.S. persons involved, but they also have this pressure placed on the media via their partners from the Israel lobby—and the latter’s influence on the mainstream media in the U.S. is undeniable.
    The irony is that my deposition has made it to the front page of Turkish newspapers—and Turkey doesn’t even pride itself with freedom of the media—yet the mainstream media has not written a single word about it.
    K.M.—In an article you wrote about the 4th of July titled, “It Ain’t about Hot Dogs and Fireworks,” you say: “Recall the words of the Constitution Oath that all federal employees, all federal judges, all military personnel, all new citizens are required to take, step back, and pay special attention to these lines: ‘support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies—foreign and domestic.’ Now ask yourself who is meant by ‘domestic’ enemies.”
    Talk about these “domestic enemies.”
    S.E.—The domestic enemies I refer to are the U.S. officials, whether elected or appointed, who do not represent the interest of the American people—whether they are national security or foreign policy-related interests—and instead, they represent their own greed, their own financial benefit and/or foreign interests. A good example here is Dennis Hastert.
    Less than three years after Vanity Fair ran a story about Hastert’s covert relationship with Turkish groups, Hastert’s group announced that it’s the registered lobbyist for the government of Turkey receiving, $35,000 a month from the Turkish interests. How much more vindication does the American mainstream media want? This man, for years, cashed in while he was under oath to be loyal and represent American interests and the Constitution. While in Congress, this man was not only representing foreign governments, but also foreign criminal entities. As soon as this man got out of Congress, he came out of the closet and officially became a representative of foreign interests. Bob Livingston [a former Republican Congressman from Louisiana] is another example. As soon as he got out of Congress, he registered under FARA [Foreign Agents Registration Act] to represent foreign interests. Steven Solarz [a former Democratic Congressman from New York] is yet another example.
    Another prominent example is Mark Grossman at the State Department. For years, he has been representing foreign entities. In fact, he’s been violating criminal laws in the U.S. And guess what? He leaves the State Department in 2005 and he’s immediately placed on the payroll by a company in Turkey called Ihlas Holding, and he goes and joins a lobby and starts representing Turkish entities’ interests.
    These opportunities do not come when these people leave their offices. In order for these people to secure these jobs and lucrative payments, they have to serve these foreign entities while they are in office. And they have done just that!
    The victims here are the American people, their national security, and the integrity of this government. And in many cases that I know about, it is about our national security-related, intelligence-related information that is being easily provided to foreign entities by these individuals. Based on the laws we have since the beginning of this nation, these people should be prosecuted criminally.
    continues……
    http://www.hairenik.com/weekly/2009/08/21/exclusive-interview-with-fbi-whistleblower-sibel-edmonds/

    Reply

  95. David says:

    Logic suggests to me that the conclusions in this possible CIA report is correct. Israel is too full of itself, has too much faith in its military prowess, thinks its nuclear arsenal has some positive proactive value, and is convinced the US will stand by it no matter what. I think the Likudniks are wrong on all counts. I thought the premises for the founding of the modern state of Israel were invalid, and I thought the suffering inflicted on the displaced Palestinians was appalling. But once Israel was a fact on the ground, and once it won the 1967 war, meaning that no outside force could dispossess it, had it become a comprehensive, truly secular, morally infused democracy, it was in a position to be a good neighbor and a positive link between the Middle East and the Western nations, especially the United States and Great Britain. But instead it proved to be just another self-serving, expansionist nation with some kind of misguided notion that it was on a mission from god. Way too much like its prime benefactor in that regard.
    But Israel cannot do to the Palestinians what we did to the Native Americans, any more than the Afrikaaners could to the black South Africans.
    Very sad when you consider that other powerfully humane Jewish tradition, the one I got to see in full force during the civil rights movement.

    Reply

  96. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Well, Susan, your infatuation with Wig-wag’s nattering is surpassed only by your amazing habit of coming out from behind the curtains on those occassions when the blog is blighted by the likes of Nadine or Ironbelle. Is this just a coincidence?
    http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2008/07/despite_facts_o/#comment-109471
    When he isn’t offering an education on Hamlet, are you also noticing his use of “facts” that he knows are unsubstantiated and suspect, such as he did on this thread? Hamlet may be a clever way to hide bullshit, but it certainly doesn’t erase it.

    Reply

  97. Susan Pearlstein says:

    Never expected to learn so much about Hamlet at thewashingtonnote.com. I appreciate it. Thanks, WigWag.
    Susan Pearlstein

    Reply

  98. PissedOffAmerican says:

    And for those of you who have wondered who these cowards were that have accompanied Cantor and Hoyer in their trick-turning junkets to Israel, yet have refused to be named, here you go…..
    http://tinyurl.com/scumballs

    Reply

  99. PissedOffAmerican says:

    August 18, 2009
    U.S. Turns Blind Eye to Israel’s
    New Separation Policy
    By JONATHAN COOK
    In an echo of restrictions already firmly in place in Gaza, Israel has begun barring movement between Israel and the West Bank for those holding a foreign passport, including humanitarian aid workers and thousands of Palestinian residents.
    The new policy is designed to force foreign citizens, mainly from North America and Europe, to choose between visiting Israel — including East Jerusalem, which Israel has annexed illegally — and the West Bank.
    The new regulation is in breach of Israel’s commitments under the Oslo accords to western governments that their citizens would be given continued access to the occupied territories. Israel has not suggested there are any security justifications for the new restriction.
    Palestinian activists point out that the rule is being enforced selectively by Israel, which is barring foreign citizens of Palestinian origin from access to Israel and East Jerusalem while actively encouraging European and American Jews to settle in the West Bank.
    US diplomats, who are aware of the policy, have raised no objections.
    continues…
    http://www.counterpunch.org/cook08182009.html
    The last sentence of the above quoted excerpt says it all;
    “US diplomats, who are aware of the policy, have raised no objections”
    That sentence underscores the lack of substance and sincerity in Obama’s stance in regard to the Isr/Pal conflict. There is far more than this “new separation policy” that is being ignored by this Administration. Watching them natter ineffectively about the settlements, one can only consider Obama and Clinton’s stance as being diversionary, purposely unmindful of the far more serious abuses and crimes Israel is committing in an ongoing campaign of occupation and oppression.

    Reply

  100. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Carefully peruse the information contained on this site….
    http://www.btselem.org/English/index.asp
    When one examines the depth of the Israeli abuses, this business of a “settlement freeze” becomes laughable. Why is it that Obama and Clinton offer this charade of a “hard line” when there are far more serious policies and actions being practiced by Israel than the mere theft of land? Since when is murder less egregious than theft? Since when is racism less notable than greed? Since when is ethnic cleansing less detestable than geographical expansion?

    Reply

  101. WigWag says:

    “WigWag, I’m a college graduate and I didn’t know that when Hamlet told Ophelia “get thee to a nunnery” that by nunnery he might mean either convent or brothel. I’ve seen Hamlet several times and your explanation puts that scene in a whole new light for me.” (Susan Pearlstein)
    Actually Susan, like the rest of Shakespeare, Hamlet is filled with irony, double entendre and not so subtle references to sex. Today, we’re not particularly familiar with Elizabethan slang so a lot of the references go right over our heads. Many things that the average Elizabethan audiences would have found uproariously funny and quite raunchy, we frequently don’t even notice.
    There’s a perfect example of this in Act 3, Scene 2. It’s the scene where Hamlet has the visiting minstrels put on a play about a king who murders his brother and usurps his throne. Hamlet’s purpose is to observe his uncle watching the action to determine whether he reacts to the play with a guilty look; Hamlet’s goal is to confirm his uncle’s complicity as was suggested to him by the ghost of his father.
    Prior to the start of the play, as the audience wanders into the auditorium, Hamlet sees his now former lover Ophelia enter. This is the dialog that passes between them:
    QUEEN GERTRUDE: Come hither, my dear Hamlet, sit by me.
    HAMLET: No good mother, here’s metal more attractive.
    HAMLET: Lady, shall I lie in your lap?
    OPHELIA : No, my lord.
    HAMLET: I mean, my head upon your lap?
    OPHELIA: Ay, my lord.
    HAMLET: Do you think I meant country matters?
    OPHELIA: I think no-thing, my lord.
    HAMLET: That’s a fair thought to lie between maids’ legs.
    OPHELIA: What is, my lord?
    HAMLET: No-thing.
    OPHELIA: You are merry, my lord.
    HAMLET: Who, I?
    Here’s the translation provided by the premier scholarly work on the subject, *Shakespeare Bawdy.* By the way, despite the colloquial sounding title, the book is considered to be a scholarly treatise. (Eric Partridge, Penguin Books, 1947).
    QUEEN GERTRUDE: Come Hamlet, sit by me.
    HAMLET: No mother, here’s something more attractive.
    HAMLET: Lady, shall I fuck you?
    OPHELIA : No, my lord.
    HAMLET: I mean, shall I slip my prick into you?
    OPHELIA: Yes, my lord.
    HAMLET: Do you think I meant your cunt?
    OPHELIA: I think a vagina, my lord.
    HAMLET: That’s a fair thought to fuck between maids’ legs.
    OPHELIA: What is, my lord?
    HAMLET: The cunt and the prick.
    OPHELIA: You are horny my lord.
    HAMLET: Who, me?
    More often than not, Shakespeare’s intended meaning goes right over the head of contemporary audiences.
    The conventional thinking is that Hamlet is a heroic figure with a tragic flaw; indecision. I think this interpretation is completely wrong. I think Hamlet is an anti-hero with few if any redeeming values. He’s wrecked with Oedipal guilt (Freud wrote a famous article about Hamlet) and he hates women because of what he views as his mother’s disloyalty. Hamlet is outraged at what he views as his mother’s betrayal and he’s pissed off that his uncle/step father has usurped his throne. His anger is so intense that he rants and raves like a maniac throughout the play although it is unclear whether he is really mad or just feigning madness.
    There are actually quite a lot of foreign policy lessons to be learned from all of this. The play is about dynastic succession, women’s proper role in leadership and what obligations they owe to men; and about the consequences of poor leadership. Remember, because of the turmoil Hamlet created at court, the evil Norwegian, Fortenbras conquers Denmark in the end.
    Issues like these are discussed all the time at the Washington Note.
    I come up to the New York area every Thanksgiving to visit with my family and my granddaughter has tickets for the upcoming Hamlet on Broadway. I’m looking forward to seeing it, but if truth be told, I’m a little suspicious of film stars who think they can play Hamlet. I didn’t like either Mel Gibson’s or Kenneth Branaugh’s performances very much. I also saw a stage performance by Ray Feines that I didn’t think was great. Of course, Kevin Kline’s performance was sublime but he’s really as much a stage actor as a film actor. Can Jude Law carry it off? It will be fun to find out.
    Thanks Susan for putting me in mind of all of this.

    Reply

  102. רפידות גובה says:

    Despite his huge electoral win, adversaries, allies and reluctant allies alike no longer fear crossing him; this doesn’t bode well for his domestic policy and it doesn’t bode well for those like JG who want to see a “comprehensive” settlement to the Middle East imbroglio.

    Reply

  103. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Carroll …. 2:50PM
    Well, I really don’t think I would wanna be living in Israel, considering the actions of the Israeli government. On Israel’s present course, things can only get uglier.
    I don’t condone rocket attacks or suicide bombings, but I certainly understand them. And, in fact, I find them to be far more plausibly described as an “act of defense” than Israel’s actions are.

    Reply

  104. Susan Pearlstein says:

    WigWag, I’m a college graduate and I didn’t know that when Hamlet told Ophelia “get thee to a nunnery” that by nunnery he might mean either convent or brothel. I’ve seen Hamlet several times and your explanation puts that scene in a whole new light for me.
    By the way Hamlet is coming to Broadway in September with Jude Law playing the starring role. I have tickets and I’m really looking forward to seeing it.
    Thanks.
    Susan Pearlstein

    Reply

  105. ... says:

    zionism and islamic fundamentalism – a match made in hell where anyone who even witnesses it is in for the same…

    Reply

  106. JohnH says:

    I agree. But for different reasons. Israel’s ability to bully its neighbors is coming to end. Hezbollah pricked the aura of invincibility. The next, or maybe the following Israeli rampage, will lead to significant damage in Israel itself. At that point, the Westernized, secular part of Israeli society will stampede to join the diaspora. That will leave the crazies behind to fight it out amongst themselves for the remains of a society that has lost its talent.
    Of course, Israel has every opportunity to negotiate with its neighbors instead of conducting rampages, thereby preserving itself. But negotiations don’t seem to fit into the Zionist mentality.

    Reply

  107. Outraged American says:

    Press TV is surprisingly accurate and fair: I would trust it much
    more than the MSM here.
    Anecdotally, parts of Ventura Blvd. in LA (the San Fernando
    Valley), is now “Little Israel” or at least seems to be.
    I am trying to hammer home that Jews are doing just fine in
    their diaspora, and really have no reason to fear another Jewish
    Holocaust.
    A one state solution and living in peace with her neighbors is the
    only way Israel can survive.
    Here’s an interesting commentary (h/t antiwar.com) written by a
    Zionist, no less, about how Israel needs to lose the victim
    mentality:
    The Holocaust’s shadow over Israel’s choices
    The Jewish state’s fixation with preventing annihilation actually
    undermines its security
    http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0817/p09s02-coop.html

    Reply

  108. Carroll says:

    This story is making the internet rounds…no way to verify the actual report or exactly what it says or why it was leaked if it exist. But as one who always said Israel would not last indefinitely I certainly agree with this. What doesn’t work,is hated in it’s own neighborhood and has the majority of the world against it can’t last forever.
    CIA report: Israel will fall in 20 years
    Fri, 13 Mar 2009 14:44:41 GMT
    A study conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has cast doubt over Israel’s survival beyond the next 20 years.
    The CIA report predicts “an inexorable movement away from a two-state to a one-state solution, as the most viable model based on democratic principles of full equality that sheds the looming specter of colonial Apartheid while allowing for the return of the 1947/1948 and 1967 refugees. The latter being the precondition for sustainable peace in the region.”
    The study, which has been made available only to a certain number of individuals, further forecasts the return of all Palestinian refugees to the occupied territories, and the exodus of two million Israeli – who would move to the US in the next fifteen years.
    “There is over 500,000 Israelis with American passports and more than 300,000 living in the area of just California,” International lawyer Franklin Lamb said in an interview with Press TV on Friday, adding that those who do not have American or western passport, have already applied for them.
    “So I think the handwriting at least among the public in Israel is on the wall…[which] suggests history will reject the colonial enterprise sooner or later,” Lamb stressed.
    He said CIA, in its report, alludes to the unexpectedly quick fall of the apartheid government in South Africa and recalls the disintegration of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, suggesting the end to the dream of an ‘Israeli land’ would happen ‘way sooner’ than later.
    The study further predicts the return of over one and a half million Israelis to Russia and other parts of Europe, and denotes a decline in Israeli births whereas a rise in the Palestinian population.
    Lamb said given the Israeli conduct toward the Palestinians and the Gaza strip in particular, the American public — which has been voicing its protest against Tel Aviv’s measures in the last 25 years — may ‘not take it anymore’.
    Some members of the US Senate Intelligence Committee have been informed of the report.
    http://www.presstv.com/Detail.aspx?id=88491&sectionid=351020202

    Reply

  109. Carroll says:

    Tony Karon always describes Hamas correctly. They are Nationalist first and foremost, not loony religious terriers.
    http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1917809,00.html
    “Despite its Islamist ideology, Hamas is first and foremost a nationalist movement, taking its cue from Palestinian public opinion and framing its goals and strategies on the basis of national objectives, rather than the “global” jihadist ideology of al-Qaeda. For example, Hamas has periodically debated the question of whether to attack American targets in its midst, and each time has reiterated the insistence of the movement’s founders that it confine its resistance activities to Israeli targets.
    “What distinguishes Hamas — as well as organizations like Hizballah and Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood — from groups like al-Qaeda is that they recognize, whether out of principle or practical necessity, that the will of the people they claim to represent is paramount,” says Mouin Rabbani, an Amman-based analyst with the Center for Palestine Studies. “In deciding their actions, they’re ultimately more responsive to their environment than to their principles.”
    That display of force (against AQ in Gaza) will likely reinforce the emerging consensus in the West that no credible Israeli-Palestinian peace process is possible without the consent of Hamas. Indeed, one European diplomat in the region told TIME that U.S. officials were pleased by the Hamas action in Rafah. The action “benefited Hamas because it allowed them to show that they’re capable of enforcing their authority and order, in Gaza, and also to distinguish themselves from the radical jihadists,” says Rabbani. “This shows not only that Hamas is different from al-Qaeda, but that the two are actually violently at odds.”
    While Hamas may have gained diplomatically from taking down Moussa’s outfit, the emergence of an al-Qaeda-inspired group ready to openly challenge Hamas authority is a reminder of the downside. Some of the leading elements in Jund Ansar Allah were former Hamas members who broke with the movement over its decision to join in the political process of the Palestinian Authority by running for election in 2006. They were bolstered, according to Palestinian observers, by jihadist elements from other Arab countries, taking advantage of the widespread despair and frustration in Gaza brought on by the ongoing economic siege. While Hamas is currently enforcing the cease-fire it adopted seven months ago at the close of Israel’s Gaza invasion, the economic siege remains largely in place — although if Egyptian-mediated negotiations over the fate of captive Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit are successfully resolved, that might prompt Israel to ease the pressure.
    Although basic food and fuel supplies are entering Gaza, the Israelis have kept out the construction material essential for rebuilding the thousands of homes damaged and destroyed in January’s fighting. If the onset of winter sees no progress in rebuilding the homes of those currently living in tents and other temporary shelters — and especially if the U.S. pushes a plan that is viewed as an attempt to isolate Hamas — the pressure on the group to end the cease-fire will be coming not just from more radical challengers, but from Hamas’ own commanders and fighters. “”
    Of course Israel hopes to provoke more violence from Hamas by withholding basic reconstruction materials from Gaza. That’s always been the Israel MO, provoke, respond, seize, punish, kill. Requires no brain to understand that game.
    Engage with Hamas Obama or your bullshit on peace will smell even more…it’s the only way.

    Reply

  110. ... says:

    paul 803pm post… great post paul.. thanks for saying all that.

    Reply

  111. samuelburke says:

    congratulations to israel….the pariah state.
    the only reason why there are not more voices against this pariah state here in the u.s is because those that ought to be speaking out are afrraid to make a moral stand and fear losing their jobs, positions, proffesions or whatever you call your calling in life.
    cowards all.
    Zionist Pioneer Renounces Zionism
    By HELENA COBBAN
    I’ve never met Dov Yermiya, a Jewish Israeli peace activist who is now 94 years old. But I read of course the book he published in 1983 in which he wrote with anguish about the torture and other gross mistreatment of civilians he witnessed directly during Israel’s invasion of Lebanon the year before.
    I have it in my hand now.
    I just learned, from an open letter published by Uri Avnery, that Yermiya, recently renounced the ideology and practice of Zionism with these stirring words:
    “I, a 95 year old Sabra (native born Israeli Jew), who has plowed its fields, planted trees, built a house and fathered sons, grandsons and great-grandsons, and also shed his blood in the battle for the founding of the State of Israel,
    “Declare herewith that I renounce my belief in the Zionism which has failed, that I shall not be loyal to the Jewish fascist state and its mad visions, that I shall not sing anymore its nationalist anthem, that I shall stand at attention only on the days of mourning for those fallen on both sides in the wars, and that I look with a broken heart at an Israel that is committing suicide and at the three generations of offspring that I have bred and raised in it.
    “… for 42 years, Israel turned what should have been Palestine into a giant detention camp, and is holding a whole people captive under an oppressive and cruel regime, with the sole aim of taking away their country, come what may!!!
    “”The IDF eagerly suppresses their efforts at rebellion, with the active assistance of the settlement thugs, by the brutal means of a sophisticated Apartheid and a choking blockade, inhuman harassment of the sick and of women in labor, the destruction of their economy and the theft of their best land and water.
    “Over all this there is waving the black flag of the frightening contempt for the life and blood of the Palestinians. Israel will never be forgiven for the terrible toll of blood spilt, and especially the blood of children, in hair-raising quantities… “
    http://www.counterpunch.org/cobban08172009.html

    Reply

  112. JohnH says:

    I have been around since before the creation of Israel, and I have yet to see Israel give Palestinians anything, ever. It’s always stick, stick, stick, and no carrot. And now they have the chutzpah to ask that Arabs make a positive gesture!
    Arabs states seem to have finally learned the lesson that should have been obvious after Arafat recognized Israel and got nothing for Palestinians in return. Arafat and Fatah got jobs for themselves protecting Israel against Palestinians and access to opportunities for corruption, such as control over the sugar monopoly in the Occupied Territories. But for Palestinians? Nothing. Nada. Waloo.
    How about a sincere, positive gesture from Israel? I expect pigs will fly before that happens.

    Reply

  113. Carroll says:

    Blah,blah,blah…
    Saud al-Faisal is right. Nothing to be gained by giving Israel anything until AFTER they done what they have to do.
    Actually they shouldn’t be given anything at all except a bomb down the chimmey..theives aren’t usually rewarded for returning stolen property and that is, after all, what this is about…returning Palestine land and resources.
    Everyone must be reading today with all the mention of books and it so happens I have been reading “A World of Trouble” by Patrick Tyler
    (on the ME-US-Isr) off and on today. I recommend it.
    Did you know that Israeli operatives bombed a French civilian nuclear component plant near Paris that was manufacturing supplies for Iraq in 1979? And then murdered the Egyptian physicist working for the plant? Then the Israelis also bombed a plant in Italy that was doing similar work for Iraq. (According to US-British Intelligence) Hummm…what else have they false flagged bombed?
    This book also has the indepth stuff on Kissinger and Haig operating as agents for Israel within their respective adms.
    One thing that was mentioned reminded me of today’s times…..was how Kissinger played the “poor Jews” card trying to scare Nixon into not taking a hard public line on the trouble Israel was causing in the ME for the US because it would make anti semitism run rampant in the US.
    So far in this book the only person that actually acted in the US interest where it concerned Israel was Dulles.
    I have mostly given up on Obama…he’s not quite ‘tough’ enough for what the US needs now. I would like to see Chuck Hagel go “”independent”” and run for president next election. We had ‘neo hell’ with Bush and now ‘half baked’ with Obama…I trust the dems will go down the same tiolet the repubs did. We can hope.

    Reply

  114. Paul Norheim says:

    WigWag,
    I`ve seriously tried to understand you complains
    against Obama. Maybe I`m slow, but honestly, I
    don`t get it.
    According to you, everything is going just fine in
    the Israel/Palestine conflict – isn`t it? Nobody
    there want peace, and Obama lacks the guts to
    implement it, so you should be happy?
    Ok – who knows, perhaps Hillary would have
    succeeded with a health care reform this time? And
    probably American soldiers would be fighting in
    Iran right now.
    But hey, Obama is doing an LBJ in Afghanistan –
    and you couldn`t seriously expect any candidate to
    do that AND attacking Iran simultaneously, could
    you? Be patient, WigWag, and you`ll probably get
    your invasion of Iran in due time.
    “I remember that during the Primary Campaign I
    argued that if Hillary Clinton was elected she
    would be tougher on the Israelis and drive a
    harder bargain than Obama would.
    Other commentators like Dan Kervick and Paul
    Norheim disagreed; they suggested that Obama,
    unlike Clinton who had been a strong Israel
    supporter during her days as New York Senator,
    would be more motivated to push for a deal that
    was fair to both parties.”
    I would be a bit surprised if you could document
    that. As far as I remember, I lost any
    expectations I might have had with regard to the
    Middle East when Obama went down on all four at
    the -08 AIPAC convention, talking about an
    “undivided Jerusalem”. Thus I had zero
    expectations whatsoever – and was pleasantly
    surprised when he started pressuring Tel Aviv on
    settlements. I also had – and still have – zero
    expectations to the current Secretary of State on
    these issues.
    My main argument then was that if you compare the
    experience/lack of exp. of Obama/Biden with ditto
    of McCain/Palin, and added political judgement on
    foreign policy issues (which is what I care most
    about: US domestic policies is basically none of
    my business as a foreigner; US foreign policy is
    everybody`s business), the choice should be a no-
    brainer. I still think that McCain/Palin would be
    a very bad idea – don`t you?
    I thought, and still think Obama was the best you
    could have got in these circumstances. With or
    without Biden or Clinton as a VP or in charge. My
    main point was always that you had to avoid the
    McCain/Palin option. I never expressed any
    messianism on behalf of Obama – I just hoped you
    could vote against the worst option available.
    While you month after month faked a “dilemma”:
    whether you should vote for Obama or McCain. Or
    maybe it wasn`t fake – I don`t know.
    To be frank, I regard the United States as not
    only the most powerful, but also the potentially
    most dangerous country in the history of mankind.
    Not because of some inherent evil in the
    population. And I`m not even sure the average
    American voter is more, or less, stupid or
    ignorant than people in other “developed”
    countries – although the degree of ignorance is
    depressing, when you consider the fact that this
    ignorance has a certain weight in a democracy.
    My main concern is familiar to most TWN commenters
    – including you: the unholy alliances between
    business, finance, politicians, media and lobbies
    – and especially the fact that the 4th estate is
    simply not functioning. In recent times this has
    been proved not only by the fact that Main Stream
    Media regarded the invasion of Iraq as a
    reasonable option, and even supported it, but
    also, during the last couple of months, how the
    media and the political environment has allowed
    some extremists to screw up the entire health
    reform debate – giving the twittering Sarah Palin
    a megaphone at the same time as they ridiculed
    her.
    America has the best universities, the most
    competent expertise in the world. The
    *potentially* best press, a model for the rest of
    the world, especially due to it`s admirable role
    in the Watergate scandal 30 years ago. Still, all
    the knowledge, good judgement and expertise you
    can mobilize doesn`t count much if the White House
    and other forces behind it steers toward
    catastrophe.
    I`m quite confident that those who define the
    debates in MSM will make sure that the irrational
    voices will dominate in the I/P discussions as
    well in the foreseeable future.
    Israel`s actions during the last decades qualify
    that state to be almost at the top on the list of
    pariah states, besides countries like North Korea
    and Zimbabwe. It will not happen. My only hope is
    that the influence of organizations like J-street
    will slowly increase, and that if Obama sticks to
    the freeze-settlements demand, more Americans will
    see that Israel is a colonial power. I sincerely
    doubt that a “comprehensive” approach will lead to
    a viable two-state solution in the coming years.
    But if more people realize that Israel
    systematically grabs territory from the
    Palestinians, that`s a start. If Obama stubbornly
    sticked to that issue for his first period,
    perhaps something could happen in a second period?

    Reply

  115. Outraged American says:

    Your chance to talk to an expert on the Israel Lobby!!!
    800 259 9231
    POA where are you?

    Reply

  116. WigWag says:

    Off Topic
    For those who might be interested, the New America Foundation’s Nicholas Schmidle, the author of the great book on Afghanistan/Pakistan *To Live or to Perish Forever* was interviewed on NPR’s New York Station, WNYC this morning. It was an excellent interview that touched on many of the topics that Katherine Tiedemann alluded to her in her recent post about Richard Holbrooke (now in the Washington Note archives).
    On that thread, a number of commenters includng me mentioned the status of women in Afghanistan under the Taliban. Schmidle had some interesting comments to make on this subject.
    Anyone who wants to listen to this very interesting inteview can google *Leonard Lopate* show and click on the link for the pod cast.
    It was quite interesting and well worth checking out. The interview runs about 30 minutes.

    Reply

  117. PissedOffAmerican says:

    In Wig-wag’s comment, there is an important message about his posting. He will even use arguments, offered as fact, that he KNOWS are unproven. He presents the media representations of events as likely being acts of subterfuge by the Israelis and/or the Arabs, yet engages in the same kind of subterfuge and propagandizing when offering comments here. In short, Wig-wag is little more than a purposeful liar.
    Where is the integrity in saying “It might have raised Israeli “confidence” a tad when Saudi Arabia indicated that it would permit Israel to fly over its airspace on the way towards Iran” when Wig-wag is aware no such “indication” was ever offered by Saudi Arabia? In the immediate post above, we see Wig-wag offering a rare admission, that lies are part and parcel of his commentary. Bear that in mind when you read the commentary of this mouthpiece Wig-wag, who admits to dishonesty as easily as most of us admit to breathing.

    Reply

  118. Outraged American says:

    Jeff Gates, who’s written a book on the Zionist Lobby, is going to
    be on the What Really Happened radio show today (Thurs., Aug.
    20) at 5 PM Central.
    Gates actually worked in Congress at a fairly high level, so saw
    the Israel lobby in action.
    That’s 3 PM Pacific and 6 PM Eastern.
    The book is called “Guilt by Association” and its received great
    reviews.
    You can access streaming audio of the interview at the
    WhatReallyHappened.com site. It’s on the right hand side under
    “listen live”
    It’s a call-in show, and I plan to listen to see if POA shows-up
    and is as irascible in person as he is on here. That was a joke.
    Well, kind of. Go for it POA! Let us know how you really feel.

    Reply

  119. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Did the Saudis really give the Israelis permission to cross their airspace to attack Iran? Who knows?”
    But you’ll still advance the premise as gospel, won’t you, you oily little prevaricator?

    Reply

  120. WigWag says:

    “Get thee to a nunnery: why wouldst thou be a breeder of sinners? I am myself indifferent honest; but yet I could accuse me of such things that it were better my mother had not borne me: I am very proud, revengeful, ambitious, with more offences at my beck than I have thoughts to put them in, imagination to give them shape, or time to act them in. What should such fellows as I do crawling between earth and heaven? We are arrant knaves, all; believe none of us. Go thy ways to a nunnery.” (Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1)
    Apropos of POA’s comment at Aug 19 2009, 8:10PM.
    High School students who read Hamlet typically understand Hamlet’s remark to his paramour, Ophelia as a plea for her to forget about him because he is not worth thinking about (pissed off as he is about his father being murdered and his mother marrying his uncle). They believe Hamlet is either literally or figuratively suggesting that Ophelia enter a convent.
    By the time college students read Hamlet, they understand that in Elizabethan times the word “nunnery” was a euphemism for a brothel. So the frequently debated question is whether Hamlet was suggesting to Ophelia that she go to a convent or to a whore house.
    Bawdy as he was, Shakespeare was almost certainly being ironic and deliberately ambiguous. His remark to Ophelia is widely viewed as a double entendre.
    Similarly, things in the Middle East are rarely what they appear to be. In the newspapers, the Egyptians rip the Israelis but then allow their nuclear armed naval vessels to cross the Suez Canal. The Jordanians pledge allegiance to the Arab cause but then cooperate with the Mossad. Leaders of the Palestinian Authority express outrage about an Israeli invasion of Gaza that they themselves encouraged.
    Did the Saudis really give the Israelis permission to cross their airspace to attack Iran? Who knows? The fact that the Israelis and the Saudis denied the story after it appeared means next to nothing.
    The idea that the Saudis and Israelis were trying to send a message to the Iranians is perfectly plausible but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true.
    Like Shakespeare, are the Saudis and Israelis being deliberately ambiguous?
    In light of everything we know about the Middle East this seems like as good a guess as any.

    Reply

  121. nadine says:

    A while back I predicted that Obama would not punish Netanyahu for non-cooperation, and look, he hasn’t. Now I have another prediction for you: there will be no comprehensive Mideast peace plan.
    Already Obama’s Mideast policy has had two stages. In the first, he picked a fight with Israel and tried to get some good will gestures from the Arabs. Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt all told him, you get nothing from us. In the second, Obama suggested that both sides give something simultaneously. Netanyahu gave a temporary unofficial settlement freeze (I agree with you that it’s just for show), and the Arabs once more said, you get nothing from us. Abu Mazen’s reaction was to demand that the US make Israel give him concessions for nothing in return. Meanwhile, both Israel AND the Arabs said to Obama, What are you going to do about Iran?
    So settlements are dead in the water. The Arabs don’t want them, the Israelis don’t want them, and the Palestinians only want them if they require concessions from Israel for nothing in exchange from the Palestinians.
    The Fatah conference just concluded rejected the idea of recognizing Israel or declaring a state in anything less than all of Palestine. Abu Mazen’s chosen successor, Mohamed Ghaneim, is a hard-liner who never accepted Oslo and Fatah has now officially adopted the Al Aqsa brigades as its military wing (anybody remember all the nonsense that Arafat spouted denying that he was connected to the suicide bombers of the Al Aqsa brigade, which was dutifully reported by the New York Times et. al.?).
    So the only person who actually wants a comprehensive Mideast settlement is Barack Hussein Obama. I can only hope he understands that by now. The White House did say the other day that it was reviewing its Mideast policy, which is a hopeful sign that he understands that his first two policy attempts have failed.

    Reply

  122. ksjhjd says:

    All roads lead to Rome.

    Reply

  123. JohnH says:

    I have no doubt at all that Israel, Obama and the Arab states will be able to achieve a “comprehensive solution.” I also have no doubt that key details of the deal, nullifying most of it, will be revealed to the Palestinians only after the fact. The key to all this is that the Arab states are no more a friend of the Palestinians than Israel. But the Arab states have to have some pretty nothings to show their “street” to convince them that a good deal was done.
    Like health care, it seems that all the ruckus is about convincing people that things are going to change for the better, and then returning to the status quo ante when people aren’t looking.
    As the Sicilian saying goes, “we have to change everything so that nothing changes.”

    Reply

  124. WigWag says:

    JG made another comment in his post that I find puzzling. He says,
    “However, if Arab states were to upgrade relations with Israel based on minor policy changes coming out of Tel Aviv – such as the temporary construction freeze in the West Bank which Ha’aretz reported yesterday – what incentive would that leave for Israelis to clinch a comprehensive deal?”
    I am always perplexed when pundits, or for that matter Israelis themselves, suggest that Israel should be rewarded by the Arab States for halting settlement activity or for that matter taking any other kind of action. It was amusing that when Saudi Arabia first announced its peace plan of a few years ago, that the Saudis suggested that if Israel would only comply with the plan, the Arab nations would “welcome Israel to the neighborhood”
    It always struck me that this would be alot like Homer Simpson welcoming Warren Buffet to the neighborhood. It’s nice in a goofy kind of way, but mostly it’s just beside the point.
    What exactly do the Sunni Arab nations have to offer Israel that could provide them with a sufficient inducement to make a deal with the Palestinians?
    It certainly isn’t trade. Economically, with the exception of Saudi Arabia, UAE and Kuwait, the Arab nations are economic basket cases. On a nominal basis if you aggregate the gross domestic products of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and the Palestinian Authority it reaches only about three quarters of the Israeli GDP. On a per capita basis it’s even worse. Aggregated, the per capita GDPs of Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Iraq doesn’t equal Israel’s per capita GDP. Of course, if Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or the UAE are added to the list, the collective Arab economies look better. But the reality is that there isn’t an Arab State without oil that has a GDP (per capita) as large as Botswana’s and if Saudi Arabia and Kuwait didn’t have oil, neither would have a GDP as large as Romania’s.
    Israel’s economy is increasingly based on high tech, biotech, pharmaceutical manufacturing, defense industries, machine tools and high value added agriculture (olive oil and fish farming for example rather than tomatoes). Precisely what are the backwards and in most cases impoverished Arab nations supposed to buy from Israel? What do they have that Israel would want to purchase?
    Is Israel supposed to be motivated by the idea of cultural exchanges between themselves and the Arab nations? What culture are we talking about? Egypt had a couple of extraordinary novelists; the Nobel Prize winner Naguib Mahfouz for example and the underappreciated Yusuf Idris but there hasn’t been a Nobel Prize in literature or anything else awarded to anyone living in another Arab state. There are plenty of Iranian winners and Iran has a rich cultural history; the same is true of Turkey. But other than Egypt, is Israel likely to be culturally enriched by exchanges with Saudi Arabia, Jordan or Syria? (Actually, other than the Egyptians, there is one other Arab Nobel Prize winner; Yasser Arafat who along with Rabin won the Nobel Peace Prize.)
    Is Israel supposed to be motivated by scientific exchanges with the Arab nations? The only problem is that in the Arab world there is virtually no world class science. A quick look at Google Scholar or pub med reveals there are no “Science” or “Nature” papers that emanate from universities in the Arab world. It’s impossible to find journal articles in respected journals from professors of chemistry, physics or mathematics from faculty at Arab universities.
    In the world of medical research it’s also slim pickings. The only paper of importance I could find came from Saudi Arabia. A group of Saudi investigators worked with investigators from the Harvard Medical School to examine consanguineous families (that is families where first cousins marry which are prevalent in the Muslim world) to search for susceptibility genes to diseases like Type I diabetes and autism. But the paper makes clear that the Harvard researchers provided the analytical work; the Saudis just provided the cohort.
    All of this is in contrast to Israel which has six world class universities with faculty members who publish literally thousands of journal articles in well respected publications.
    Are the Israelis supposed to be motivated by the prospect that their civilian aircraft will be permitted to over fly Arab airspace? They’ve been doing just fine without that for years. Is it Arab oil that’s supposed to motivate the Israelis? Israel has one of the most energy efficient economies in the world; it is pioneering the development of rechargeable batteries for electric cars and it gets all the oil it needs.
    It’s hard for me to see what it is that the Arab world has to offer the Israelis. The Americans and Europeans on the other hand do have things to offer the Israelis that might serve as inducements.
    Membership in the EU and NATO might be a place to start.

    Reply

  125. PissedOffAmerican says:

    I love it when these Muslim hating bigots come here blathering about Jew hating bigots.
    Perhaps the key to peace is giving these sick perverted monsters on both sides someone they can mutually hate.
    Rhyolite, you should hook up with Nadine, its a match made in heaven. Granted, its Bosch’s heaven, but hey, how often does one find a soulmate on the highway to hell?
    Go for it.

    Reply

  126. rhyolite says:

    There already is a palestinian state-It’s called “Jordan”. It was established by the British in 1923 when they had the mandatory power in Palestine. It gave the Hashemite Dynasty over 75% of the territory that had specifically been set aside as a Jewish state by the League of Nations after WWI. The Arabs should be more than satisfied with that-but because of jew hatred, pure and simple, they are not. We all know what the real issue is here, it is hatred of Jews-this has nothing to do with territory-that is just a charade.

    Reply

  127. samuelburke says:

    heaven knows i am a libertarian…but here is john pilger on barac obama
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXL998q7skI&feature=related

    Reply

  128. samuelburke says:

    john pilger on obamarama…the manchurian corporate candidate…
    http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_seyret&Itemid=91&task=videodirectlink&id=3407

    Reply

  129. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Steve…..
    The next time MSNBC calls you in as a guest commentator, will you do me a big favor? Tell them about the nation called “Israel”, and show them where it is on the map?
    Thanks.

    Reply

  130. ... says:

    dan kervick – i like your summary, especially of the political environment that has come to define the usa…

    Reply

  131. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Uh oh, more unhelpful and provocative acts by Israel. How encouraging.
    http://www.imemc.org/article/61427
    The Israeli military levels Palestinian owned shops in northern West Bank
    Wednesday August 19, 2009 16:18 by Ghassan Bannoura – IMEMC News & Agencies
    Israeli troops destroyed on Wednesday at dawn five Palestinian owned shops in the northern West Bank city of Qalqilia.
    Local sources reported that the military vehicles and a bulldozer stormed an industrial zone located in the eastern part of Qalqilia then demolished five care repair shops.
    The sources added that the military gave no reason for the demolition. Meanwhile also near Qalqilia Israeli troops have sealed off a road that connects Azon atmah village with the city. Witnesses said that troops arrived with large concrete blokes and used to them to seal off the road.

    Reply

  132. PissedOffAmerican says:

    A woman and her child injured by Israeli military fire east of Gaza
    Ghassan Bannoura – IMEMC
    Wednesday August 19, 2009
    A Palestinian woman and her child were injured as Israeli tanks opened fire on Wednesday at homes located east of Gaza City.
    Witnesses reported that Israeli tanks and bulldozers invaded farm lands close to the borders with Israel. As bulldozers destroyed farm lands tanks, opened fire at resident homes, leaving one woman and her child injured.
    Medical sources said that the woman and her child were moved to Gaza City hospital after receiving moderate wounds.
    Later on in the day the Israeli military opened fire at homes close to Nahal Oze crossing at the eastern borders. Damage was reported but no injures.
    http://uruknet.com/?p=m57106&hd=&size=1&l=e
    Perhaps Obama finds this “encouraging” as well.
    Or, uhm, maybe Hillary finds it a bit “unhelpful”.

    Reply

  133. Jonathan Guyer says:

    Considering how much time Presidents Mubarak and Obama discussed Israel-Palestine during yday’s very brief briefing, I’d say a two-state deal is high on both leaders’ list of priorities. Watch the above video for yourself – JG

    Reply

  134. Dan Kervick says:

    It’s probably no use rehashing the Obama-Clinton contest and speculating with counterfactual hypotheses about what would have happened if Clinton had been elected. But since WigWag wants to keep it going, here are my guesses:
    The good news is that Clinton probably wouldn’t be preparing to jump into Afghanistan with both feet. Score one point for Hill’s side.
    The bad news is that she would have a taken a much slower route out of Iraq, and would probably have exploited the continued US presence in Iraq to ratchet up pressure on Iran. I strongly suspect we would be at war with Iran by now. Given her track record, Clinton probably would have gone into a full hectoring howl during the Iran election aftermath, and exploited that crisis as a window of opportunity to kill some Muslim baddies, erase gender-based doubts in her capacities, and build some “war president” cred. My impression is that the Hillary Clinton who ran for president believed in her bones that “the road to Jerusalem runs through Tehran”, as they say, and would have pursued that course. Her approach would have been to take a somewhat neocon-like path: to try to kick Iran’s ass early, curry favor in so doing among the Israelis and the Sunni despots, and then to use that leverage to shove a phony peace plan down the throats of the general Arab public. It would doubtless have backfired in a major way, as such neoconnish schemes inevitably do.
    There would have been no Cairo speech or its equivalent, which if nothing else has at least bought a little bit of time. Such a speech wouldn’t even have been worth trying, since the messenger would have come in lacking any credibility on the issue of US-Muslim and US-Arab relations.
    For Obama abroad, much depends on the outcome of the health care debate at home. If Obama can pull out a serious win on health care, than his standing and heft as a leader will shoot up again, and he can use that boost as a springboard for firm action abroad. He will have a very enviable record of major first year accomplishments – a colossal stimulus bill, a solidly progressive Supreme Court appointee, a long-sought health care reform bill – to match most of his predecessors. And if he can score on health care, the perception of capable domestic and economic leadership will increase investor and consumer confidence and provide an additional economic shot in the arm.
    I can’t seriously believe Obama expected to get anything done during the summer anyway. It looks to me like people on the other side have been given a chance to say their pieces and blow off steam, and his most strident opponents have taken the hangman’s rope offered them and made themselves look increasingly ridiculous in the process. Congress has been left alone to negotiate the details on health care, with the result that Obama’s own stock is not yet closely tied to many specific initiatives. The middle-of-the-roaders are now just waiting for some stepped-up presidential leadership from Obama, and looking for him to put some simplifying definition on a confusing health care picture. The administration will now roll out the big fall blitz, some compromise will be reached on the public option, and a deal will get done.
    If there was ever really any doubt, Obama has certainly by now fully grasped the fact that most people in the Republican party have not the slightest interest in working out a consensus plan on any major initiatives, but are out to sink his presidency no matter what. That’s obviously how it works: opposition parties are structurally committed to winning elections by defeating the sitting president and his agenda. For some reason, people often think it is the height of cynicism to suggest that parties are interested above all else in defeating their opponents and getting their people elected. But in fact that is how the two parties function in this country. It’s hard to believe Obama doesn’t in fact understand this. I rather suspect that his political approach is to give his opponents every opportunity that a reasonable and patient man could be expected to give, before pushing his own agenda through. Nobody in the middle could blame Obama now for going for a Democrat-only bill – not after the wingnut summer freak show that the Republican leadership has allowed to take place in the stead of a serious two-party debate.

    Reply

  135. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “It might have raised Israeli “confidence” a tad when Saudi Arabia indicated that it would permit Israel to fly over its airspace on the way towards Iran.” (Wig-wag, still lying a lie he’s already been caught lyin’ about. Now, the $64, 000 dollar question is; Will wig-wag offer sound rebuttal, or once again offer conjecture about the size of my…..oh, never mind.)
    Israel denies Saudis gave IDF airspace clearance for Iran strike
    By Haaretz Service
    Saudi Arabia has indicated to Israel that it would not protest use of its airspace by Israeli fighter jets in the event the government resolves to launch a military assault against Iran, according to a report which appeared in the British newspaper The Sunday Times.
    The Prime Minister’s office issued a statement in response Sunday morning, saying that “the Sunday Times report is fundamentally false and completely baseless.”
    continues…..
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1097882.html
    Saudi Arabia Denies Reports Regarding Israeli Use of Its Airspace
    WASHINGTON, July 6 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ —
    The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
    today issued the following statement in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia:
    “The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia totally and categorically denies accounts
    published by a British newspaper regarding contacts with Israel or permission
    to use Saudi airspace for any hostile activities. The Kingdom is greatly
    puzzled by the publication of this false information, which directly
    contradicts the established, firm and clear policies of the Saudi government
    regarding relations with the occupying government of Israel and the Kingdom’s
    prohibition against the use of its territories or airspace for aggression
    against another nation.”
    http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS204660+06-Jul-2009+PRN20090706

    Reply

  136. samuelburke says:

    one fact is certain….we have a govt and their employees who are willing to incite its citizens in order to arrest them much like all the fake terrorist plot setups we have seen these past few years….
    Attorney: FBI trained NJ blogger to incite others
    Defense attorney: FBI had trained NJ blogger how to incite others when he was an informant
    http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/08/18/attorney-fbi-trained-nj-blogger-to-incite-others-3/

    Reply

  137. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “There are many areas in which an administration….”
    Key word; “administration”.
    And apparently, this “administration” does not speak in one voice. And until it does, there will be no change in the Isr/Pal/USA dynamic. The hurdles placed in Obama’s path by the likes of Reid, Hoyer, and Bayh are simply too high to jump. Factor in the powerful oppositional wackjobbity of these scary religious nuts like Huckabee and his dark age army of far right wingnuts praying nightly for Armegeddon, and Obama is dead in the water.
    Even if the economy was sound, health care was not an issue, and pigs could fly, Obama cannot make progress towards peace without the support of his own party. And its clear he doesn’t have it.
    If you aren’t wearing official Israeli issue kneepads, you aren’t allowed into the whorehouse known as “Congress”.

    Reply

  138. WigWag says:

    Nadine makes a very interesting point; while Mubarak (in the deep recesses of his soul) may desire a peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians, it is hardly his highest priority. The Egyptians and Saudis may not be willing to take Obama up on his suggestion that they promote “confidence building” measures but I have a sneaking suspicion that Israel was pretty happy with Egypt’s permission for Israeli nuclear armed submarines to traverse the Suez Canal. It might have raised Israeli “confidence” a tad when Saudi Arabia indicated that it would permit Israel to fly over its airspace on the way towards Iran.
    And while King Abdullah of Jordan tows the party line articulated by the other Sunni Arab states (and the Palestinian Authority) does anyone doubt that the Mossad and the Jordanian secret service cooperate every day?
    Sure, in theory the Arab States want a comprehensive peace settlement, but Nadine is right; they don’t want it (or need it) all that much.

    Reply

  139. PissedOffAmerican says:

    This morning, on another thread, after posting a number of links demonstrating that a “settlement freeze” is pure unmittigated horseshit, I said;
    “So, Israel has publically announced a “settlement freeze” that they have no intention of implementing, and our politicians will use it as an example of “progress” towards peace”
    Right on cue;
    Obama ‘Encouraged’ by Israel Settlement Policy
    Amid Criticism Netanyahu Denies Freeze
    by Jason Ditz, August 18, 2009
    President Barack Obama says he is “encouraged” by Israel’s current stance on its West Bank settlements, as while they have repeatedly rebuffed the US on its call for a freeze, officials say they have refused to issue new housing permits over the past few months in something Housing Minister Atlas called a “waiting period.”
    http://news.antiwar.com/2009/08/18/obama-encouraged-by-israel-settlement-policy/
    Yet from the same article…..
    “Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu denies that the government has frozen its construction, a position which would be politically unpopular in his right-far-right coalition government. At the same time, the US has soften its call for a freeze, willing to make it a one-year freeze only”
    End excerpts.
    So what exactly is this posturing jackass Obama “encouraged” by?
    On the other thread, Paul makes the comment, (to paraphrase), that Obama is exercising his strongest option, and that to suddenly cut aid is an impossible option to him. I concur with Paul’s latter point, yet strongly disagree with the former argument. Obama IS NOT exercising his strongest options. What is required is a change in the public’s perception of Israel as the knight in shining armor fighting off the hordes of bloodthirsty Muslim barbarians. Very few Americans, when queried, are aware of Israel’s human rights abuses, war crimes, and violations of UN mandates. This is why these sleazeball lying propaganda-pimping foreign agencies, like AIPAC, are able to sugar coat a giant foreign policy turd.
    It is time that Obama, if he is truly interested in changing the dynamic, stop using terms like “encouraging”, or “provocative”, or “unhelpful”, and start using HONEST terms like “illegal”, “counterproductive”, “destructive”, etc. There is nothing “encouraging” in this charade about “freezing settlements”, and Obama knows it.
    In fact, when it comes down to sheer human misery, the settlements are the least of the Palestinians problems. There are far graver abuses occuring than mere land theft. People are starving. People are being denied medical care. People are being denied educations. Water is being diverted. The infrastructure is being purposely degraded. There is raw sewage running in the streets. The hospitals are being denied replenishment of supplies. Farmlands and orchards are being razed. Fisherman are being harrassed and denied access to fishing grounds. Peaceful protests are being countered with deadly force. Americans are being illegally targeted and accosted. The list goes on ad infinitum.
    Obama and Clinton stand mute while Israel COOKS CIVILIANS IN WHITE PHOSPHOROUS, and shoots American citizens in the head, and now they are going to laud Israel for taking “encouraging” steps in regards to the settlements, even when these steps AREN’T REALLY OCCURRING?
    Folks, this is horseshit. It is insincere posturing, both from Israel, and from our own government. And the bulk of the American public is too uninformed, from the likes of Maddow and Olberman, and too misinformed, from the likes of Hannity and Limbaugh, to know they are being shamelessly punked, lied to, and conned.
    Change, my ass.

    Reply

  140. nadine says:

    During President Obama’s brief presser with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak yesterday, one word was conspicuously absent: comprehensive.
    Has Guyer even considered the most obvious reason: that an Israeli/Palestinian negotiation is not very high on Mubarak’s priority list? Compared to his real priorities: Washington’s support for Gamal succeeding him as President, and stopping the Iranian bomb.
    Mubarak wasted quite a lot of time trying to foster a Fatah-Hamas reconciliation, and he knows it’s not going to happen, and without it, there will be no serious negotiation, because there is no Palestinian who could make a deal.

    Reply

  141. Zathras says:

    The manifold advantages of “engagement,” about which contributors to this site regularly post passionately-worded lectures, are plainly not apparent to everyone.
    The Arab boycott and non-recognition of Israel have lasted longer than the American boycott of Cuba or the breach in relations between the United States and Iran. The benefits of Arab governments’ policy to the Palestinians are hard to discern, yet the policy itself goes unquestioned.
    This is a debating point, obviously, yet another one to add to the thousands of debating points that appear like dandelions in the spring whenever the Middle East is discussed. The Saudi king does not value “engagement” short of a general comprehensive settlement of everything that everyone endorses because he knows proposing such engagement would get him murdered. That’s Arab politics — as Rabin’s fate showed, it isn’t only Arab politics — and it isn’t about to change.
    At least in theory, Guyer is right. There are too many people on both sides with an interest in throwing a step by step peace process off the rails for us to expect such a process be successful. But Dan Kervick is correct as well, for the same reason — all the Arabs and Israelis who want to avoid the responsibility of volunteering concessions necessary to a settlement make it necessary that such concessions appear to be the product of American pressure. Creating this appearance would require an American effort for which the Obama administration is not prepared (and could not be, unless the President were willing to neglect his more important responsibilities). That means, for now, that Obama’s team has to play for time and try to keep things from getting worse.

    Reply

  142. WigWag says:

    JG implores Obama “Let’s go comprehensive.” I have a sneaking suspicion that JG and alot of other folks who agree with him are going to be seriously disappointed. It’s true that rumors are afloat that George Mitchell will soon be announcing Obama’s peace plan. Presumably, if an announcement is made at all, it will be made sometime after Ramadan and the Jewish High Holy Days.
    If the tenacity and competence with which Obama is pursuing his “comprehensive” health care reform plan is any indication, those waiting with baited breath for his “comprehensive” Middle East peace plan are in for a let down. After all, Obama’s demand that Israel stop all settlement activity (including natural growth) in the West Bank and Jerusalem without exception and permanently until a peace deal is reached, is about to go the way of the “public option” in his health care reform endeavor.
    If Obama can’t stare down the likes of Chuck Grassley and John Kyl on health care reform, the idea of his staring down Netanyahu, Barak, Abbas, Mashaal or Assad is preposterous.
    To say that Obama has a glass chin is putting it kindly; he simply has no guts. I’m afraid that after just a few short months in office, he’s been exposed. Despite his huge electoral win, adversaries, allies and reluctant allies alike no longer fear crossing him; this doesn’t bode well for his domestic policy and it doesn’t bode well for those like JG who want to see a “comprehensive” settlement to the Middle East imbroglio.
    I remember that during the Primary Campaign I argued that if Hillary Clinton was elected she would be tougher on the Israelis and drive a harder bargain than Obama would.
    Other commentators like Dan Kervick and Paul Norheim disagreed; they suggested that Obama, unlike Clinton who had been a strong Israel supporter during her days as New York Senator, would be more motivated to push for a deal that was fair to both parties.
    They might have been right; but I think it’s becoming increasingly obvious that Obama isn’t a tough enough negotiator or a tough enough leader to enact either his domestic or foreign policy preferences other than in a highly diluted way.
    I remember arguing that Obama was an inexperienced neophyte who was all sizzle and no steak. From glancing at the progressive blogosphere these days it looks like more and more Obama supporters are coming to the same conclusion. Unfortunately for them, their realization came too late.
    If progressives are mad about Obama abandoning the “public option” I can’t wait to see how JG and others react when Obama pretends that a temporary settlement freeze that excludes Jerusalem is what he wanted all along.
    Between FISA, Guantanamo, the sell-out to the banks, the coming health care debacle and the inevitable disappointment on the settlement freeze, how long will it be before progressives are kicking themselves for supporting Obama over Clinton?
    Who knows, before long we may even see the start of a “Progressives for Palin” campaign”
    Maybe we’ll see Will Bower or JG or Dan Kervick as head of the new organization.
    (Norheim is out of the question because he’s Norwegian and the “birthers” probably dislike Norwegians as much as they dislike the Kenyans and the Mexicans).
    Stranger things have happened.

    Reply

  143. Dan Kervick says:

    A comprehensive approach such as Jonathan Guyer describes is necessary. Unfortunately, it is also far-reaching and bold, and will require concentrated US leadership, an intense communications push behind both a national and international discussion, and 24/7 attention at the highest levels. It cannot be attempted by the US administration while the health care push is soaking up so much political energy and attention in Washington. So it looks like the administration has decided on a holding pattern with preparatory diplomacy and a few confidence-building measures thrown in while it attends to health care.
    There are many areas in which an administration can and must be expected to walk and chew gum at the same time. This isn’t one of them. If and when the administration decides to get serious about an I/P conflict resolution based on a comprehensive vision of a clearly and forcefully communicated end state, they will have to put everything they have into the effort, and fight off fierce resistance and indefatigable efforts at sabotage from every quarter. All they can try to do for now is preserve stability and keep things pointed in roughly the right direction while they wait for the appropriate time for the big launch.

    Reply

Add your comment

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