LIVE STREAM at 1:30pm EST: Changing American Attitudes Toward the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

-

DSC_0133.JPG
This is a guest post by Jonathan Guyer, a program associate at the New America Foundation/Middle East Task Force.
Today at the New America Foundation, Zogby International President and CEO John Zogby will be unveiling an extensive survey of American perceptions with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The numbers suggest a widening partisan split between Democrats and Republicans on settlements, how the U.S. should lead negotiations, and attitudes toward Netanyahu and Israelis.
Yet there is a strong bitpartisan consensus that, “continuation of the conflict has a negative impact on U.S. interests in the Middle East.”
Whether or not the squabbles along the way could have been foreseen, the Zogby survey and two other polls of American opinion suggest that the American public is likely to be supportive of President Obama’s Middle East peace push.
The organization Avaaz’s poll of 1000 Americans exhibited support for getting tough with either party during peace negotiations if necessary. Meanwhile, J Street’s poll of American Jews shows that 73 percent support the U.S.’s active role in helping the parties resolve the conflict even when that translates into stating publicly its disagreements with Israelis and Arabs.
The presentation of the new poll’s findings will be followed by a conversation with Arab American Institute President Dr. James Zogby, Media Matters Senior Fellow M.J. Rosenberg, and the New America Foundation/Middle East Task Force Co-Director Amjad Atallah. TWN Publisher Steve Clemons will moderate the discussion.
— Jonathan Guyer

Comments

77 comments on “LIVE STREAM at 1:30pm EST: Changing American Attitudes Toward the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

  1. kotzabasis says:

    Kervick
    It would be insolent to argue against the great poet William Blake. But you forget that the wind is ‘contrarian’ and can blow Aeolus like the other way and “blind” the mocked eye.

    Reply

  2. nadine says:

    “I think the Palestinians will have much to agree to, land compromises for one . . ” (DonS)
    Okay, so this is supposed to be a negotiation where both sides agree to something in the end. Good, we can agree on the point.
    Could you please explain then, how negotiations are supposed to happen while the Palestinians are having a civil war? If one side agrees to anything at all, doesn’t matter what, the other side will condemn them for traitors.

    Reply

  3. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “What does it say of one’s character psychoanalytically that calls his opponent a “creature”…natter natter sputter spit…..”
    It says they are far too flattering in their description of a maggot.

    Reply

  4. kotzabasis says:

    Sweetness
    What does it say of one’s character psychoanalytically that calls his opponent a “creature” other than of the baseness and maliciousness of one’s personal psychostructure? The only “animus” that I’ve toward Paul is pity. As none of his arguments can stand vertically against the storm winds of reality. And that goes also for Clemons and Kervick, who in their pretentiousness of crafting strategy they are raised with Aristophanean banter to the clouds in an ‘infant’s’ basket.

    Reply

  5. Kathleen Grasso Andersen says:

    Last night I had the pleasure of hearing Richard Falk speak..he seems to think there is a slight shift in US policy towards Israel under Obama..but I wonder then, why the US opposed the Goldstone Report. I asked him if he thought the creation of J Street has had any impact…he said, Yes, but minimally..that it showed a split in Jewish opinion…I also asked him if he thought it would influence Congress if Americans signed a petition insisting that the US insist that Israel honor thr 1967 borders or forgo any further US aid…he said Yes. Actually he felt that only public engagement would bring about any change, as it did with Apartheid and South Africa…guess we have our work cut out for us then…
    Dan Kervick…on Nadine a song came to mind…atrolling we will go, a trolling we will go, Hi Ho the merryo. atrolling we will go…trolling for Israel.

    Reply

  6. Sweetness says:

    Kotz…to be honest…I don’t understand your animus toward Paul. You beat him up constantly.
    Why? That’s a real question…

    Reply

  7. kotzabasis says:

    Norheim
    “Poor creature!” From long ago I had the unedifying feeling that behind your cognitive polish your genes had their origin from the same cesspool as those of POA.

    Reply

  8. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Kotz has an “intellectual life”????
    Damn, imagine that. I had no idea that worms could think.

    Reply

  9. Paul Norheim says:

    I just googled his name, Dan, and it appears that he has six or
    seven blogs with different names, containing his collected attacks
    on us (all of them copied from TWN).
    On his blog “Nemesis” (sic), your name shows up 11 times on the
    first page, and on “kotzabasis” he refers to you 18 times. On
    “Planetary Power Politics” (!), however, your name occurs only 7
    times (but with additional attacks under the section “older
    posts”). Steve’s and my own name also occur frequently.
    His intellectual life seems so utterly dependent on our comments
    here, that I almost feel obliged to write more – just to feed the
    poor creature.

    Reply

  10. Dan Kervick says:

    Paul, it turns out that one only needs to change two proper names in a famous poem by William Blake to capture Kotzabasis’s sentiment fairly clearly:
    ______
    Mock on, mock on, Kervick, Norheim:
    Mock on, mock on: ‘tis all in vain!
    You throw the sand against the wind,
    And the wind blows it back again.
    And every sand becomes a Gem,
    Reflected in the beam divine;
    Blown back they blind the mocking Eye,
    But still in Israel’s paths they shine.
    The Atoms of Democritus
    And the Newton’s Particles of Light
    Are sands upon the Red Sea shore,
    Where Israel’s tents do shine so bright.

    Reply

  11. Paul Norheim says:

    Kotzabasis’ intellectual mission at the Washington Note seems
    to be to weaken Dan K., Steve C. and myself. I think he’s been
    working on this for a couple of years now. Steve creates a new
    post, the commenters argue about the topic, and in comes Kotz
    saying that we are week and delusional.
    By claiming that we are weak, not strong, Kotz somehow
    expects that we get weaker than we were before he made his
    claim. And by repeating this claim, by typing it again and again
    from somewhere in Australia, and posting it on a thread read
    thousands of miles from his home, he hopes that we slowly get
    weaker and weaker. Voodoo!
    Although I can’t speak on behalf of Dan and Steve, I would like
    to inform Kotzabasis and TWN’s readers that it actually works. I
    have no idea how (there must be some black magic going on
    here), but immediately after reading Kotz’s last post, I felt
    weaker! And I also felt Kotz’s increased strength. Weird!
    Repeat your claim once a week, Kotz, and I’ll be completely
    paralyzed around June or July. And you yourself will gain an
    enormous intellectual strength and willpower; before Christmas,
    you’ll become a veritable intellectual Superman in your fight
    against Islamo-fascism and the delusional left.
    Voodoo!
    Go for it, Kotz!

    Reply

  12. DonS says:

    I think the Palestinians will have much to agree to, land compromises for one . . .
    Recognition, etc. . .
    ***************
    I am now out of computer contact for several days . . . .

    Reply

  13. nadine says:

    DonS, you don’t want negotiations either. The word “negotiation” means that both sides agree to something somewhere sometime. What is it, that you want the Palestinians to ever agree to? What does you solution look like?

    Reply

  14. Carroll says:

    Huummm….saw this am that 300 congressperps had signed a letter to Hillary urging support for those ‘unbreakable bonds” between the US and Israel.
    The letter on the net showed Hoyer’s and Ackerman’s name and 4 others but not the entire list of names. Couldn’t find the entire list anywhere. So I call Peliso’s office and ask where a copy with all names might be found. Her aide says they know nothing about it. I call my congressman’s office and am told they know nothing about it either and he didn’t sign any letter to Clinton. So then I call Hoyer’s office and his aide tells me it’s ‘not available’ to the public.
    “Not avavilable to the public”?….what are they afraid of? Afraid to show their names or what?
    If anyone here finds a copy with all the names please do post it.

    Reply

  15. DonS says:

    Israel’s Vice prime minister, in line with the analysis and recommendation of TWN’s more perspicacious zionists asserts Israels policy is all about maneuvering, stalling for time, perception and, of course, manipulating American reaction. No intention or expectation of real negotiations or agreements.
    http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/26/yaalon-comments/

    Reply

  16. nadine says:

    “To succeed in those swing states which hold the key to who enters the White House, the Republican Party needs to be a big tent political party; catering to its most ardent supporters to the exclusion of swing voters and disaffected democrats (like me) is a sure recipe for failure.”
    Wigwag, look at Scott Brown. Definitely a moderate, big tent Republican, and definitely supported by the party. There will be no problem getting the Republicans to support moderate, swing state candidates this cycle. The rallying cry will be the fiscal conservatism of the tea partiers, not social issues.

    Reply

  17. ... says:

    i take israel based on it’s actions.. they typically talk a good line, but produce just the opposite….

    Reply

  18. nadine says:

    Yes, questions, I take Hamas at their word that they believe what they say they believe, and they believe they are doing it at the behest of Allah. Religious fanatics don’t change course easily. The Norheim/Kervick crowd a) don’t listen to anything Hamas or Fatah say or do, the better to b) declare them suffering saints; all the fault must lie on the Israeli side as the more powerful, Western, “white” power.
    They look at the world through a kind of fun-house mirror that multi-culturalism has erected, where it is impermissible to criticize any culture but what is declared “our own”. Somehow, “our own” includes the Jews whom Europe always considered aliens when it still had more than just a few of them. How convenient.
    Bibi doesn’t have much wiggle-room on Jerusalem. It’s as if the White House sent forth an ultimatum to the mayor of New York, saying “No Jews must build anywhere in Queens” Other whites, blacks, Latinos, Arabs can build in Queens, but not Jews. Can you imagine the mayor of New York trying to enforce such a rule? Of course not, he’d have to override all the laws of the New York to do it.

    Reply

  19. ... says:

    questions quote “The gamble is the left/right dynamic is Israeli politics. If Israel turns hard right, then this whole thing will be just another failure. If Netanyahu manages to bear left just a tad, or if Israelis manage a firmer shift left, then the whole thing pays off.
    Wait and see.”
    we were waiting and watching before the gaza massacre in early 2009… we waited and we saw… the goldstone report came out as a result of early 2009… israel is cooked…. no more waiting and seeing.. israel is primarily hard right and will accept no balance or dialogue… read nadines posts for an updated view on this…

    Reply

  20. susan says:

    What needs to be said over and over is that our unpopular wars in the Middle East fuel anti Semitism and anti American sentiments.
    Obama, to his shame, is not as opposed to the illegal settlements as he is to the hard liners who oversee them.
    He’s just fine with settlements; however, he would like “kinder, gentler” oversight of them.
    AIPAC has nothing to fear from him.

    Reply

  21. WigWag says:

    “Wigwag, Frum’s shtick is being a Republican who attacks other Republicans. There’s always an open slot for that act on MSM. If he can’t claim to be a Republican anymore, nobody will be interested in him.” (Nadine)
    Nadine, that’s exactly why the Republicans are likely to blow a golden opportunity to defeat Obama in 2012. Obama will be intensely vulnerable. He’s destined to lose all of the typically Republican states that he won in 2008 and he could lose quite a few of the swing states that he won.
    To succeed in those swing states which hold the key to who enters the White House, the Republican Party needs to be a big tent political party; catering to its most ardent supporters to the exclusion of swing voters and disaffected democrats (like me) is a sure recipe for failure.
    If the Republican Party and its ruling elite (like the people who run AEI) can’t tolerate Frum in their Party who can they tolerate?
    If the person who coined the term “axis of evil” for George W. Bush isn’t ideologically pure enough to work at a leading Republican think tank, who is?
    Frum is right about health care reform and he’s right about the Middle East. Anyone who thinks that Tea Partiers and evangelical Christians provide enough votes to win the White House just hasn’t paid attention to the electoral map.
    Frum should be made the head of the Republican Party not exiled from it.
    His views on both foreign and domestic policy will be proven to be prescient. By then it will be too late for Republicans.
    Obama couldn’t ask for better opponents.

    Reply

  22. Gary Mars says:

    It is critically important that the Israeli government:
    1. extends the freeze on Jewish settlement growth beyond the ten-month deadline next September;
    2. ends building projects in east Jerusalem and;
    3. withdrawal of Israeli forces to positions held before the second intifada in September 2000.
    These are reasonable & constructive expectations of the Obama administration.

    Reply

  23. Dan Kervick says:

    questions, I wasn’t attempting any kind of “argument”. I was just expressing idle curiosity.

    Reply

  24. questions says:

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-palestinian-forces26-2010mar26,0,6236351.story
    Interesting look at the tensions between the Palestinian police/pseudo-military in the West Bank and Israeli security concerns.
    They seem to exist in two parallel universes with very different understandings of their roles. Power issues, dignity issues, worth issues — all entangled with massive amounts of distrust.
    The cultural/distrusting/fearing problems run deep, and they make basic institutions more complicated to set up.

    Reply

  25. questions says:

    I’ve been too busy to post lately, but I’m squeezing this one in…. The whole “n posts in 0.5n hours” meme is foolish. We all at times get obsessed around here and spend more time than we should composing and searching and posting. It’s not a criminal offense (unless some MC stuck something in to the HCR legislation.)
    Find a better argument. Actually, find an argument at all.
    The issue seems to be this: Nadine takes Hamas at its word; that is, she doesn’t trust anything Hamas does. That, actually, is the game theory seal of approval response to the situation.
    The problem with this position is that it leads to a stalemate of mutual defections and a human rights tragedy.
    Obama’s n-dimensional chess game is currently at the stage of destabilizing the status quo so that there’s some room for altering strategies. If some kind of cooperation move can be made rational, then some kind of cooperation move will be made. I don’t know that US criticism is sufficient for this, but we’ll see. I have long thought that it might push Israel to the right, but because the criticism is wedded to FIRM economic support and a FIRM restatement of the alliance, it’s actually possible that Netanyahu has a little bit of wiggle room to make a cooperative move. If the cooperative move is met with the same on the other side, then maybe cooperation becomes the rewarded strategy.
    I think, in general, this destabilizing, the double and triple talk out of the administration, the friends don’t let friends drive drunk image, the Petraeus shuffle…all of this makes it harder for Netanyahu to continue on his current path, and that is a good thing. The constant building, the support for buying up land/buildings in Arab neighborhoods so that the encroachments are mere property transactions (now THAT’S a demon sheep!) — these moves are betrayal strategies and they need to be stopped.
    The gamble is the left/right dynamic is Israeli politics. If Israel turns hard right, then this whole thing will be just another failure. If Netanyahu manages to bear left just a tad, or if Israelis manage a firmer shift left, then the whole thing pays off.
    Wait and see.
    In the end, of course, any kind of peace is going to depend on internal political cultures in both nations and that is a far longer range issue. Just as lots of old people had to die off here to get DADT near its death bed, so too does a generation of paranoid, scarred, flipped out Israelis need to pass on. Does anyone have any polling data on younger Israelis’ attitudes towards the I/P situation? That’s usually the hope. (On the other hand, Reagan created a generation of deeply conservative teens….)
    Back to the point at the top, the number of words or posts has more to do with the amount of passion/interest. I’ve been accused of writing too much, too often…. Dumb-fucking non-argument.

    Reply

  26. Dirk says:

    It’s interesting to examine the contention that Israel is merely building within Jerusalem’s boundaries when they announce their latest settlement projects. I did a little research and found one map showing how they accomplish this little semantic trick: They expand the municipal boundaries.
    http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/images/jer_maps/Jlem1947-2000.html
    To those having troubles when browsing, with Firefox, at Haaretz, I would recommend they try just hitting the “Stop” button once the page has loaded. Alternatively they could go to the Edit->preferences->content and put in the Haaretz site under popup with “deny”. Safest would be to temporarily turn off javascript. Also, a good thing is going over to “security” and going to “…sites try to install add-ons” and entering the Haaretz site with “deny”. You could also to “privacy” and “accept cookies from sites” Exceptions and enter Haaretz with a “deny”.
    If you do temporarily turn off javascript, make sure you turn it back on after leaving the site.

    Reply

  27. Pahlavan says:

    The only Koran preaching the garbage you posted at 10:16PM is the one published by you and your criminal gang.

    Reply

  28. kotzabasis says:

    Yes Nadine, Norheim is pretentiously “morally pure” as any person of inveterate weakness would be. You have noticed of course that whenever he finds himself deplete of cogent arguments he resorts to smart ‘Alecry’, as above. And you must have noticed that Kervick too, the disciple of David Hume is not immune from this intellectually debilitating disease, as his above laconic comment reveals. And his hypocrisy in his “quick question” is astounding. As if his cascading passionate defence and suggestions of where America’s real interests lie could be supplanted by “…no other life.”
    Passion and intellect are vital forces of human action and envelope one’s life. And their value depends on the aims and goals one expends them on. Nadine expends them passionately by defending the justified concerns of Israel of being deluged and destroyed by fanatical Islam and in protecting an outpost of Western civilization in the midst of resurgent barbarity from the malevolence of the prattling and historically ignorant classes that for a long time now attempt to turn the defender against aggression, Israel, into the aggressor. Norheim and Kervick, likewise, are passionately expending these vital forces for their own aims and goals. The difference being between Nadine and Norheim-Kervick that while the former is fighting injustice and malignity, the latter are fighting for their manmade phantoms and for the cause of black magic. As their Archimedean point for ‘shifting the world’ is no other than the voodoo politics of a bygone ‘progressive’ era.

    Reply

  29. ... says:

    hire frum if you want to get frumpy while having everyone at the new america foundation ending up grumpy and stupid…next wigwag will be trying to find a job for perle, wolftwitz or rumsfield… i like how war mongers look out for one another…

    Reply

  30. ... says:

    more then a few of us here have made the observation connected to dans question…
    the headline “Changing American Attitudes Toward the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict”
    one can imagine what an uphill slog it will be “changing israeli attitudes towards the i/p conflict” with posters like wigwag or nadine hanging out here regularly saying so many stupid and dishonest things all in the name of zionism…

    Reply

  31. JohnG says:

    45 Posts over a 12 hour period — 15 of them from one individual.
    It begs Dan K’s query at 10:58 pm.

    Reply

  32. The Pessimist says:

    Thomas Paine exposes nadine:
    “To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.” — Thomas Paine, US patriot & political philosopher (1737 – 1809)

    Reply

  33. nadine says:

    “For Nadine’s information, Palestinians are Semites. ”
    For your information, JohnH, “anti-Semite” is the standard English term for Jew-hater. I can use that term if you prefer.
    Avigdor Lieberman has never said Arabs aren’t people and should be annihilated. If the Israelis think that, how come there are still 1 million Arabs inside Israel, and 2-3 million in the WB and Gaza? quite unannihilated? in fact, triple in number since 40 years ago?
    “But in Nadine’s little world, people are not good or bad by what they say or do.”
    No, that’s your little world, where Hamas’ genocidal wishes and rockets and suicide bombs don’t exist. Or are excused.
    The stupidest part of your little world is believing that Hamas cares about “settlements”, when they themselves freely say that ALL of Israel is a settlement that should be destroyed.

    Reply

  34. JohnH says:

    Sounds to me like Nadine is getting desperate.
    Utter amazement is what comes to mind when you read statements she makes, like the following, “So all Hamas has to do is be quiet for a month or two, and suddenly they are no longer anti-Semites…”
    For Nadine’s information, Palestinians are Semites.
    If she’s outraged by Abdallah Jarbu, maybe she should try reading some statements by Avigdor Lieberman. The difference is that Israeli foreign minister has the means to implement his program.
    But in Nadine’s little world, people are not good or bad by what they say or do. The only thing that matters is whose side they’re on. And she’ll continue complaining about outrageous statements by impotent Palestinians, while condoning outrageous behavior by the Israeli government.

    Reply

  35. nadine says:

    frenchconnection, obviously it wasn’t just a headline, it was the relevant five paragraphs. If you bothered to actually read Petraeus’ report, the I/P point was one of a list of about 13 or 14 points about the Mideast; Petraeus didn’t even mention in in his verbal testimony. So the “unhelpful bloggers” took one small point and blew it out of proportion, which is what Petraeus is saying.
    pessimist, oh yeah, infrastructure, what the Pals really want to build. They could have had their state many times by now, but victimhood is more profitable for them. The leaders are stuffing their Swiss bank accounts.

    Reply

  36. frenchconnection says:

    @ nadine
    of course you didn’t post the rest of the article. It’s just a headline. What Petraeus says is that some bloggers have been spinning a bit too far. But the central statement is just the same, Israel policies endanger American lives. As one of the comments says “if you have ever seen a denial of a denial, this is one”.
    @ the pessimist
    “Give them exactly one year to rebuild infrastructure and evict the Israelis from every square inch of land they have been illegally occupying since 1967.
    If Israel resists, the full UN body will mobilize and evict them by force. Problem solved.”
    Only NATO could do that job after neutralizing Israeli nukes (which they have threatened to use in precisely that scenario). Keep dreaming.

    Reply

  37. Dan Kervick says:

    Nadine, a quick question: Is this your job, or do you just have no other life?

    Reply

  38. nadine says:

    Just 9 percent of Jewish Israelis think US President Barack Obama’s administration is more pro-Israel than pro-Palestinian, according to a Smith Research poll taken this week on behalf of The Jerusalem Post.
    Forty-eight percent said that the Obama presidency favored the Palestinian side, 30% said his administration was neutral and 13% chose not to express an opinion for the survey, which has a margin of error of 4.5 percentage points.
    The poll of a representative sample of 500 Israelis was conducted on Sunday and Monday after weeks of heightened tensions between Obama and Israel, but before the crisis intensified during Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s visit to the White House.
    http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=171849

    Reply

  39. nadine says:

    No, Paul, you just like to preen as morally pure, and let others do your hating for you. Butter wouldn’t melt in your mouth.

    Reply

  40. Paul Norheim says:

    What Nadine doesn’t get is that I am employed by Satan directly,
    and not by any of his Arab middlemen.

    Reply

  41. nadine says:

    “But then, as an occupied people I think the Palestinians have a right, or at least a normal reaction, to wage aggression against their oppressors.”
    That’s what the Palestinians were invented for, DonS, and carefully maintained in misery by their “brother” Arabs. If Israel can’t stop being an “oppressor” by withdrawing to the Green Line (as it did in Gaza), then this isn’t really about settlements, now is it? For the Palestinians will stay “occupied” so long as Israel exists.

    Reply

  42. nadine says:

    Wigwag, Frum’s shtick is being a Republican who attacks other Republicans. There’s always an open slot for that act on MSM. If he can’t claim to be a Republican anymore, nobody will be interested in him.

    Reply

  43. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Certainly if you had your way, Hamas could freely import long-range missiles from Iran and park its missile launchers within range of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv”
    I’m getting there. Perhaps these racist murderous bastards you hold in such high esteem would think twice about sinking fishing boats, razing farmlands, and cooking women and children in white phosphorous if the Palestinians could actually defend themselves.
    And, if I had my way, YOU would LITERALLY be tarred and feathered straight onto the gangplank of the nearest garbage scow headed out to sea to dump the trash.

    Reply

  44. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “I’ve seen Hamas rockets and missiles defended here many times”
    You jackass liar. Do you really think anyone finds ANYTHING you say credible at this point? You really do display, openly, what lengths you sacks of shit will go to to maintain the now discredited narrative. Didn’t you ever learn that a premise that must be defended with lies is not a premise that is worth defending? Are you so fucked up that you don’t understand that simple aspect of basic human integrity?

    Reply

  45. nadine says:

    “But if Hamas doesn’t return to old tactics of blowing up school busses and restaurants, everybody will realize that the biggest obstacle is the settlement policies; ”
    This is a non-sequitur to the point of lunacy. So if Hamas “doesn’t return” or, more accurately, “is prevented from using” its old tactics of blowing up busses (I notice you forget rockets and missiles), then the only problem that could possibly remain is settlement policies?
    So all Hamas has to do is be quiet for a month or two, and suddenly they are no longer anti-Semites, no longer determined to wipe out Israel, no longer an Iranian proxy statelet, no longer have a deputy minister of religious affairs named Abdallah Jarbu, who expresses its mainstream view:
    “[The Jews] suffer from a mental disorder, because they are thieves and aggressors….They want to present themselves to the world as if they have rights, but, in fact, they are foreign bacteria–a microbe unparalleled in the world. It’s not me who says this. The Koran itself says that they have no parallel: ‘You shall find the strongest men in enmity to the believers to be the Jews.’
    “May He annihilate this filthy people who have neither religion nor conscience. I condemn whoever believes in normalizing relations with them, whoever supports sitting down with them, and whoever believes that they are human beings. They are not human beings. They are not people. They have no religion, no conscience, and no moral values.” http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4035.htm
    It takes a strong will to ignore anti-Semitism on this level, quite equal to anything the Nazis produced. It is only Hamas’ relative weakness that prevents them from putting these policies into full action. Weakness which you seem to be trying to correct. Certainly if you had your way, Hamas could freely import long-range missiles from Iran and park its missile launchers within range of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. One really wonders what you would blame for the conflict if you lost the “settlement” issue. Would you then support Hamas in calling Tel Aviv & all Israel a “settlement” that must be undone? That is Hamas’ mainstream position.

    Reply

  46. Paul Norheim says:

    And here, if you don’t mind, is the latest from Haaretz – again
    without a link due to virus issues:
    “Last update – 04:16 26/03/2010
    Cabinet likely split on U.S. demands for Mideast process
    By Barak Ravid and Natasha Mozgovaya
    WASHINGTON – Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will convene
    his seven-member inner cabinet Friday, in an effort to
    formulate a common position on the understandings reached in
    recent days by Netanyahu’s advisers and senior White House
    officials. At the current time, it seems highly unlikely that the
    so-called forum of seven reach a common position that is
    anywhere close to the American demands.
    A senior source at the prime minister’s bureau said Thursday
    that “it will probably take two or three meetings before any kind
    of consensus is reached between the seven over the American
    demands.”
    Netanyahu is reportedly concerned that any softening of his
    stance on the issue of Jerusalem or gestures to the Palestinians
    will result in a harsh response from the right flank of his
    coalition – especially Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman.
    Ministers Eli Yishai, Benny Begin, and Moshe Ya’alon share
    Lieberman’s rightist stance of Lieberman.
    Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who played an important role in
    overcoming the crisis in relations between Jerusalem and
    Washington, will emphasize in Friday’s discussions that Israel’s
    security is in great part dependent on cooperation with the
    Obama administration on the Palestinian question.
    Netanyahu returned Thursday from Washington having failed in
    all the tasks he had set for himself – primarily in rebuilding
    trust in his relationship with President Barack Obama.
    Prior to departing for Israel Netanyahu declared that there had
    been progress in the talks with the U.S. administration. “We are
    paving the golden path that will link between the wish to
    advance the peace process and our national interests,”
    Netanyahu said. Several hours later the White House spokesman
    said that progress had been achieved in important subjects.
    Notwithstanding efforts by Netanyahu’s aides and the White
    House to show that progress had indeed been made in the
    meetings between the two sides, the crisis between the prime
    minister and the president is perceived to have deepened and is
    based, in part at least, on Obama’s feeling that Netanyahu is not
    a reliable partner for the peace process.
    For his part, the prime minister appears to be unable to
    understand what it is the Americans want from him: “What is
    this fight about? What they want from me?” he told aides in a
    closed meeting.
    Throughout his three-day visit to the United States, Netanyahu
    sought to give the impression that the entire dispute revolved
    over the issue of construction in East Jerusalem, assuming that
    this would rally the support of America’s Jewry and of Congress.
    The prime minister went around Washington with a large map
    of Jerusalem and at every opportunity tried to show his
    interlocutors just why he claims it is impossible to freeze
    construction in the capital. “It is impossible to strangle this
    city,” he would say.
    However, the demands the Americans have made go far beyond
    the issue of Jerusalem; they now include more than was
    demanded by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton two weeks ago.
    Obama would like Israel to make good-will gestures to the
    Palestinians Authority, including the release of prisoners held in
    Israeli jails and the transfer of territory to the control of the
    Palestinian security forces.
    The president would also like to receive clarifications on the
    construction policy of Israel in the West Bank after the end of
    the 10-month settlement construction freeze, which is due to
    expire in September. In addition, the Americans want to know
    to what degree the prime minister intends to monitor
    construction in East Jerusalem and whether he is willingness to
    take responsibility for implementing any government decision
    on this matter.
    Most importantly, however, Obama wants to know how serious
    Netanyahu is in moving toward a peace agreement with the
    Palestinians. The president wants Netanyahu to put in writing
    his position on future discussions on the Palestinian demand for
    an Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 lines and to commit to the
    completion of talks within a two year time table.
    Meanwhile the leadership of the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC has
    called for the resolution of the differences between Israel and
    the U.S. “quietly, as is becoming close allies.””

    Reply

  47. WigWag says:

    Note to Steve Clemons and Steve Coll; now that David Frum has been fired from the American Enterprise Institute for being too liberal, it’s time to offer him a job at the New America Foundation.
    Frum is smart, capable and an original thinker. He’s at least as intelligent, well-spoken and provocative as any of the presenters on the panel mentioned in this post.
    The New America Foundation is in desperate need of some ideological diversity; Frum would be just the ticket.
    Hire Frum!

    Reply

  48. DonS says:

    “By the way, no one here that I know of defends excess by any side, including Hamas. ”
    I’ve seen Hamas rockets and missiles defended here many times. (nadine)
    I did not mean to indicate that I thought the ineffective rockets were and ‘excess’ by Hamas; I was thinking more in terms of the encroaching sahria radicalism. When it comes to asymmetrical warfare, the rocket barrage has to be considered fairly futile.
    But then, as an occupied people I think the Palestinians have a right, or at least a normal reaction, to wage aggression against their oppressors.

    Reply

  49. nadine says:

    Petraeus denies Mark Perry’s account and calls it “unhelpful”. From Haaretz:
    Commander of the U.S. Military’s Central Command Gen. David Petraeus phoned his Israeli counterpart, Gabi Ashkenazi, this week to deny reports that he had blamed Israeli policy for the failure in a regional solution and for endangering U.S. interests.
    Earlier this month, Petraeus warned the Pentagon that “America’s relationship with Israel is important, but not as important as the lives of America’s soldiers,” in a posting on the Foreign Policy Web site.
    In a 56-page report, the Central Command had written: “The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests,” the CENTCOM report read.
    Petraeus told reporters on Thursday that the report ? which he claimed had been taken out of context – had been drafted because: “We noted in there that there was a perception at times that America sides with Israel and so forth. And I mean, that is a perception. It is there. I don’t think that’s disputable.”
    “But I think people inferred from what that said and then repeated it a couple of times and bloggers picked it up and spun it,” he added. “And I think that has been unhelpful, frankly.”

    Reply

  50. nadine says:

    “By the way, no one here that I know of defends excess by any side, including Hamas. ”
    I’ve seen Hamas rockets and missiles defended here many times. “Oh! They don’t kill many people!” (that’s because Israelis have bomb shelters) “They’re okay! They have a right to resist occupation!” (even though the Israelis withdrew) “Israel has no right to respond to them!”
    As for the hundreds of fellow Gazans killed by Hamas, they look the other way and pretend it never happened. It doesn’t register as a human rights violation. It never seems to, when Arabs kill other Arabs. One Arab held up for two hours in a checkpoint looms larger as a human rights violation than a hundred shot down in Hamas/Fatah fighting. Literally.

    Reply

  51. nadine says:

    “”The current Israeli government, which was founded on different
    guiding political principles and does not recognize the Road
    Map, essentially abandoned the doctrine outlined in Bush’s
    letter. Israel brought the subject of settlement construction
    back to square one – and the Americans obliged them by
    returning to their default stance that Israel cease building
    beyond the Green Line.” ”
    That’s just not true. Netanyahu accepted the Road Map and the two state solution, the first time for a Likud government – giving something to the US. It was Obama who dropped Bush’s letters of agreement into the trash.
    Why should Israel (on any other US ally, for that matter) trust anything the US tells them now?
    Obama’s message is consistent: enemies get presents and respect, even when they are insulting us (cf: Syria and Iran), allies get the squeeze, and prior agreements mean nothing. That includes even prior statements by Obama himself: what became of the deadlines for sanction in Iran that Obama promised for September and December 2009?
    Obama thinks he is teaching the world to respect the US because he is more “fair”. He is too ignorant to understand the world works on “strong”, not “fair”. Nobody wants a weak, vacillating ally, no matter how “fair” he tries to be. This year he thinks it’s “fair” to be your ally, next year maybe he will think differently. Your best bet is to go shopping for a better ally.

    Reply

  52. JohnH says:

    I would suspect that many American Congressmen are also not happy at being constantly prodded like cattle by an arrogant little foreign government. When the tide finally runs out on Israel it will move with astounding speed. The tides have already begun to shift.
    This is why AIPAC forces all these Congressmen to stand and be publicly counted every year. AIPAC is terrified that one day their minions might stand up for themselves and not grovel before them. Making them grovel in public helps maintain the appearance of solidarity and discourages individual acts of disloyalty.
    One day soon, a few powerful politicians will break free. Then it will be a stampede for the doors. Another operation or two like Cast Iron should do it. A little more appropriate signaling from the administration and from the military wouldn’t hurt, either.

    Reply

  53. The Pessimist says:

    The sixty-plus year conflict desperately needs new arbitrators. Only the uninformed American public still considers the US Government to have any neutrality on this issue. Every US administration since Truman’s has been complicit in ethnic cleansing. No argument will persuade me to change this view.
    The entire world would be better served at this point if the UN simply disqualified the US from any negotiating participation and simply pulled 3 member names randomly out of a hat and mandated them to resolve the issue once and for all.
    Give them exactly one year to rebuild infrastructure and evict the Israelis from every square inch of land they have been illegally occupying since 1967.
    If Israel resists, the full UN body will mobilize and evict them by force. Problem solved.
    How’s that for getting right to the heart of the matter?

    Reply

  54. samuelburke says:

    I realize that the U.S wishes that it could resolve the I/P issue but,
    the unvarnished truth of the matter is that there ought to be some
    members of the Non Alligned Nations that participates as a
    disinterested arbiter.
    Lula from brazil ought to be nominated for the role.

    Reply

  55. Paul Norheim says:

    The American administrations were never happy with the
    systematic colonization of territories that didn’t belong to the
    Israelis, but rarely said so in public. Thanks to Obama’s
    insistence, even the Americans are now informed about “the
    facts on the ground” and who were responsible for them.
    Whatever happens next, no future American President can
    credibly pretend that Hamas, or terrorism, or anti-Semitism is
    the root cause of the I/P conflict. Terrorism and anti-Semitism
    in the Middle East is no minor issue, from Cairo to Tehran. But
    if Hamas doesn’t return to old tactics of blowing up school
    busses and restaurants, everybody will realize that the biggest
    obstacle is the settlement policies; and the huge question of
    how to remove illegal settlers from houses built on occupied
    territory – not bombs targeting Israeli civilians or Islamic
    fanaticism. Since Israel’s close and powerful ally the USA has
    allowed this to happen, it is obliged to continue to put pressure
    on Israel to stop the settlement policies.
    Hamas is aware of the change in Washington, and does not
    approve of Palestinian violence or an intifada in the current
    situation. They know that if the Palestinians keep calm, the
    whole world – USA included – will realize that the main obstacle
    is the settlement policies, and Netanyahu’s despaired attempt to
    both please the Americans and continue business as usual.
    The good news is that from now off, the real issues, the root
    causes, will be addressed, also in public. The bad news is that
    this may come to late.

    Reply

  56. DonS says:

    Nadine, my main point has to do with the political nature of US polarization — versus a significant analytical disagreement — not the sanctity of any given poll.
    But what about that neat point that Israeli building is being characterized as building within Jerusalem whereas it is only Jerusalem by the most tenuous distinction — largely semantic — and involves building on new, undeveloped ground? Such as Har Homa [SIC]. More tricks.
    By the way, no one here that I know of defends excess by any side, including Hamas. But it is good that you are so concerned by the putative lack of sensitivity to human rights within Palestine, but are totally deaf to any case of Israel’s ongoing, massive, and pervasive regime of repression of human rights. That’s a base line, but one which you define out of existence because you have shown yourself incapable seeing two sides.

    Reply

  57. Paul Norheim says:

    Here is another interesting Israeli take on Netanyahu’s tactics
    and attitude, from Haaretz. Again, I’ll copy the whole text, due
    to possible malware issues:
    “Netanyahu faces a U.S. adamant about East Jerusalem
    By Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz Correspondent
    Throughout the latest crisis between Israel and the United
    States, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s assertion that no
    previous Israeli government has frozen construction in East
    Jerusalem has been repeatedly mentioned. Netanyahu and his
    associates claim that the Obama administration has been
    pressuring Israel over East Jerusalem building, unlike previous
    American administrations.
    Netanyahu is right. There was never any real pressure – but the
    American demand in principle to cease construction in the West
    Bank and East Jerusalem is long-standing. In fact, all American
    governments have made the same demand of all Israeli
    governments, apart from on one occasion: The letter of
    understanding penned by former U.S. president George W. Bush
    that recognizes the principle of settlement blocs.
    Now, the U.S. is finally putting this demand into effect.
    Moreover, Netanyahu must also recognize the changing reality
    on the Palestinian side. Until 2004, the Palestinian Authority was
    led by Yasser Arafat, who was perceived by the Americans and
    Europeans as a terrorist. Now, the Palestinian leaders are viewed
    in Washington and within the EU as true partners in the peace
    process and in the effort to create a Palestinian state. It is
    Israel’s leaders – specifically Netanyahu, Foreign Minister
    Avigdor Lieberman, Likud Minister Benny Begin and Vice Prime
    Minister Moshe Ya’alon – who are far from being perceived in
    that way. In the past, the U.S. saw settlement construction as a
    “stick” used to deter Palestinian terror, but today it is viewed as
    an obstacle.
    How could Netanyahu have safeguarded the construction in East
    Jerusalem? By offering something in return. Past Israeli
    governments have indicated their intent to build in Jerusalem
    beyond the Green Line, but they simultaneously gave the U.S. a
    political strategy to present to the Palestinians. Netanyahu’s
    government is backtracking on all fronts and offering nothing to
    the Americans or the Palestinians.
    There was something extremely pretentious about Netanyahu’s
    speech at the AIPAC policy conference in Washington. He
    descended upon the American capital and, on the eve of his
    meeting with the U.S. president, emerged with a display of
    power (and an impressive one at that) in declaring that
    Jerusalem is not a settlement. As expected, his speech was met
    with a harsh but proportionate response from Obama. To add to
    his transgressions, Netanyahu insisted on meeting Obama
    without any real preparation for such high-level talks.
    Obama’s reaction is not a result of his victory in passing health
    care reform. The American president doesn’t needto be strong
    to offend an Israeli prime minister over a matter such as
    settlements. And despite the hopes of some in Israel, it doesn’t
    appear that the U.S. Jewish community will go out of its way to
    defend Israel on the settlement issue either.
    “Netanyahu should have taken into account the change within
    the American Jewish community,” Dov Weisglass, a senior
    adviser to former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, told the MESS
    Report. “Their support for Israel is decreasing and they will
    defend Israel in the face of the administration only on matters
    where there is a real threat to Israel. I have serious doubt that
    U.S. Jews see the Netanyahu government’s territorial aspirations
    in Judea and Samaria [West Bank] and the Palestinian
    neighborhoods in Jerusalem as an existential matter.”
    “The Sharon government and the Americans had worked a clear
    political outline, by which the territorial dispute between Israel
    and the Palestinians would be resolved according to the current
    demographic reality. In other words, Jewish population centers
    including Ma’ale Adumim and others surrounding Jerusalem, the
    Jerusalem Jewish neighborhoods over the Green Line, the Etzion
    settlement bloc and the Ariel settlement would be remain part
    of Israel – and what is outside of those blocs would be under
    Palestinian control.”
    “The current Israeli government, which was founded on different
    guiding political principles and does not recognize the Road
    Map, essentially abandoned the doctrine outlined in Bush’s
    letter. Israel brought the subject of settlement construction
    back to square one – and the Americans obliged them by
    returning to their default stance that Israel cease building
    beyond the Green Line.”

    Reply

  58. nadine says:

    DonS, It’s child’s play to construct polls with questions that lead to the answers you want, esp. on the Mideast, where most people are utterly ignorant. Avaaz’ poll is an example, “don’t you think building new settlements in Palestinian territories is harmful to peace” – is a question designed to get “yes” for an answer. In fact, Ramat Shlomo is an existing Jewish neighborhood with 20,000 inhabitants in northern (not eastern as is mis-reported) Jerusalem, neither new nor a settlement.

    Reply

  59. Carroll says:

    Some time ago I opined that Obama might either play the Israelis own game against them or outright refuse to play their game.
    From the insult outrage to the brush off WH visit looks like he’s using opportunities presented to do some of both.

    Reply

  60. Paul Norheim says:

    Posted by the Pessimist, Mar 25 2010, 2:30PM – Link
    “American Attitudes,” “American perceptions,” “American
    opinion,” “U.S. interests”
    (…)
    There are over 306 million American citizens. They do not all
    possess identical attitudes, perceptions, opinions or interests.
    Your framing of the issue as presented in the posting conveys a
    consensus of impossible proportions.
    ———————————
    “the Pessimist” has a very good point. This encourages
    unfortunate generalizations and prejudices. In foreign policy
    discourse, we usually say: The Americans think X, and the
    Iranians act like Y, while the Russians and the Europeans have
    suspicions towards the Argentinians —- etc.
    A much better alternative – to signalize that we refer to the
    governments of the countries referred to, would be to say:
    Washington thinks X, and Tehran act like Y, while Moscow and
    Brussels have suspicions towards Buenos Aires —- etc.
    Using the name of the capital, instead of the country, would be
    much more targeted and precise, and cause much less linguistic
    collateral damage.

    Reply

  61. Pahlavan says:

    While America’s leadership rely on polls to render a moral judgment, online attendance for NAF’s great topic drops by more than half immediately after poll results are shown. Meanwhile Jim Zogby remains politically correct by suggesting that “Palestinians” need to share their stories in order for America to read less about Israel suffering from its 22 dead, as image after image in our media show thousands of Palestinians killed and displaced with their neighborhoods literally carpet bombed.

    Reply

  62. ... says:

    isn’t this the trick used regularly?
    from pauls 3:57pm post….
    “Taking a page from Menachem Begin, he spoke not on behalf of the State of Israel, but in the name of the Jewish people itself and its millennia of history.”
    pushing all the right buttons but some have stopped buying any of it…

    Reply

  63. nadine says:

    “Hamas to proceed with execution of ‘collaborators’
    By KHALED ABU TOAMEH
    25/03/2010 06:34
    Mahmoud Zahar criticizes recent firing of rockets at Israel.
    The Hamas government has decided to execute a number of Palestinians who were found guilty of “collaboration” with Israel despite protests by human rights and legal organizations, Hamas’s Minister of Interior, Fathi Hammad, announced Wednesday.”
    http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=171743
    “A backtracks over Christian channel
    By KHALED ABU TOAMEH
    24/03/2010 01:47
    But owner of shut down station says it won’t go back on air until PA apologizes.
    Facing strong criticism, the Palestinian Authority government on Wednesday suspended its decision to close down several private TV and radio stations, including Al-Mahed TV, a Christian broadcaster in the Palestinian territories.
    Last week the PA shut down the stations under the pretext that the owners had failed to pay fees to renew the licenses for their stations.”
    http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=171669
    …because, unlike in Israel, there is no such thing as the right to free speech in the PA.
    Just a few notes from the side you so-called “human rights supporters” are rooting for. You’re all for the “human right” to shoot rockets at civilians, to kill anybody accused of being a “collaborator” (bet they got due process, huh?), and to shut off any media outlets that don’t support the government.
    Yup, you guys are a walking testament for your human rights priorities.

    Reply

  64. Paul Norheim says:

    From Haaretz – here is Aluf Benn about how Netanyahu was
    received in Washington. And due to possible malware, I’ll not
    give the link this time, but paste in the whole article from the
    web version of Haaretz:
    “Netanyahu leaves U.S. disgraced, isolated and weaker
    By Aluf Benn
    Details emerging from Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to
    Washington remain incomplete, but the conclusion may
    nonetheless be drawn that the prime minister erred in choosing
    to fly to the United States this week. The visit – touted as a
    fence-mending effort, a bid to strengthen the tenuous ties
    between Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama – only
    highlighted the deep rift between the American and Israeli
    administrations.
    The prime minister leaves America disgraced, isolated, and
    altogether weaker than when he came.
    Instead of setting the diplomatic agenda, Netanyahu
    surrendered control over it. Instead of leaving the Palestinian
    issue aside and focusing on Iran, as he would like, Netanyahu
    now finds himself fighting for the legitimacy of Israeli control
    over East Jerusalem.
    The most sensitive and insoluble core issues – those which
    when raised a decade ago led to the dissolution of the peace
    process and explosion of the second intifada – are now being
    served as a mere appetizer.
    At the start of his visit, Netanyahu was tempted to bask in the
    warm welcome he received at the AIPAC conference, at which he
    gave his emotional address on Jerusalem.
    Taking a page from Menachem Begin, he spoke not on behalf of
    the State of Israel, but in the name of the Jewish people itself
    and its millennia of history.
    His speech was not radical rightist rhetoric. Reading between
    the lines, one could spot a certain willingness to relinquish West
    Bank settlements as long as Israel maintains a security buffer in
    the Jordan Valley.
    But at the White House, the prime minister’s speech to
    thousands of pro-Israel activists and hundreds of cheering
    congressmen looked like an obvious attempt to raise political
    capital against the American president.
    Knowing Netanyahu would be reenergized by his speech at the
    lobby, Obama and his staff set him a honey trap. Over the
    weekend they sought to quell the row that flared up during U.S.
    Vice President Joe Biden’s trip here two weeks ago, and U.S.
    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described Netanyahu’s
    response to the ultimatums Washington presented to him as
    “useful.”
    Special envoy George Mitchell made a televised visit to the
    prime minister’s bureau Sunday to invite Netanyahu to the White
    House. Washington, it seemed, was trying to make nice.
    Far from it. Just when Netanyahu thought he had resolved the
    crisis by apologizing to Biden, Clinton called him up for a
    dressing down.
    This time as well, Netanyahu almost believed the crisis had
    passed, that he had survived by offering partial, noncommittal
    answers to the Americans’ questions. Shortly before meeting
    with Obama, Netanyahu even warned the Palestinians that
    should they continue to demand a freeze on construction, he
    would postpone peace talks by a year.
    His arrogant tone underscored the fact that Netanyahu believed
    that on the strength of his AIPAC speech, he could call the next
    few steps of the diplomatic dance.
    But then calamity struck. At their White House meeting, Obama
    made clear to his guest that the letter Netanyahu had sent was
    insufficient and returned it for further corrections. Instead of a
    reception as a guest of honor, Netanyahu was treated as a
    problem child, an army private ordered to do laps around the
    base for slipping up at roll call.
    The revolution in the Americans’ behavior is clear to all. On
    Sunday morning Obama was still anxiously looking ahead to the
    House of Representatives vote on health care – the last thing he
    wanted was a last-minute disagreement with congressmen over
    ties with Israel.
    The moment the bill was passed, however, a victorious Obama
    was free to deal with his unruly guest.
    The Americans made every effort to downplay the visit. As
    during his last visit in November, Netanyahu was invited to the
    White House at a late hour, without media coverage or a press
    conference. If that were not enough, the White House
    spokesman challenged Netanyahu’s observation at AIPAC that
    “Jerusalem is not a settlement.”
    The Americans didn’t even wait for him to leave Washington to
    make their disagreement known. It was not the behavior
    Washington shows an ally, but the kind it shows an annoyance.
    The approval of construction at the Shepherd Hotel in Sheikh
    Jarrah, announced before his meeting with Obama, again caught
    Netanyahu unawares. Apparently the special panel appointed
    after the Ramat Shlomo debacle to prevent such surprises failed
    its first test.
    Netanyahu is having his most difficult week since returning to
    office, beginning with the unfortunate decision to relocate the
    planned emergency room at Ashkelon’s Barzilai Medical Center
    and lasting through his humiliating jaunt through Washington.
    Returning to Israel today, Netanyahu will need to work hard to
    rehabilitate his image, knowing full well that Obama will not
    relent, but instead demand that he stop zigzagging and decide,
    once and for all, whether he stands with America or with the
    settlers.”

    Reply

  65. DonS says:

    Interesting that the information of the polls and the panelists reveals the extent to which attitudes towards Israel are polarized along political lines. If that doesn’t five the lie to the idea that there is some fundamental ‘security’ issues for Israel involved I don’t know what would. We have a political football at present in the war of words about who can be tougher on ‘Arabs’, and who can demonstrate more suspicion and hate of Muslims.
    Rosenberg’s comment, too, was interesting that his perception is that the US christianists really don’t give a damn about Jews; its all about hating Muslims and favoring anyone who kills Muslims.
    I would go further. The christianists have an anti-Semitic bias since they have a fundamental bias against anyone who deviates from their narrow idea of, not just ‘God”, but their conception of Jesus. For them, religious tolerance is a very small tent.

    Reply

  66. Paul Norheim says:

    Re Haaretz and malware: this could be the case, but I have had no
    problems, using Safari as a browser on a Mac.
    I mention this because I read a couple of days ago in a Norwegian
    PC site on the web that Firefox is currently extremely vulnerable
    to viruses. DonS mentioned that he was exposed to malware, just
    like Dan and POA, after visiting Haaretz, and that he used Firefox.
    So it could be a combination of Haaretz and Firefox.
    I’ll post an excerpt from Haaretz relevant to Carroll’s post later,
    but due to possible malware, I’ll not provide a link this time.

    Reply

  67. samuelburke says:

    How about the moral impact of participating in the act of shall we say Genocide.
    “Yet there is a strong bitpartisan consensus that, “continuation of the conflict has a negative impact on U.S. interests in the Middle East.”

    Reply

  68. Carroll says:

    http://warincontext.org/
    I am avoiding Haarezt due to their malware but warincontext has some bits about the Obama-Netanyahu meeting from it and other papers.
    I had read earlier in several papers that during their meeting they took a break for Netanyahu to consult with his group about Obama’s demands.
    Nothing has leaked yet about the exact conservation but leaks as to the treatment Netanyahu got from the WH has.
    Seems that Obama declared that no pictures would be taken of him and Netanyahu, no joint statement would be made with handshake photo-ops for Netanyahu.
    Then too the ‘break’ was taken when Obama announced he was going to lunch with Michelle and the children in the residential wing….not inviting Netanyahu to lunch at the WH.
    It was a hour and half meeting broken up for lunch
    for Obama in between, no invite for Bibi, no pictures, none of the usual fanfare for visiting dignitaries.
    I don’t know about Obama but when I get really furious I get ‘icy’ and am done with talkly talk.
    If this account is accurate I would say that ‘icy’ is where Obama is with Netanyahu

    Reply

  69. Carroll says:

    http://warincontext.org/
    I am avoiding Haarezt due to their malware but warincontext has some bits about the Obama-Netanyahu meeting from it and other papers.
    I had read earlier in several papers that during their meeting they took a break for Netanyahu to consult with his group about Obama’s demands.
    Nothing has leaked yet about the exact conservation but leaks as to the treatment Netanyahu got from the WH has.
    Seems that Obama declared that no pictures would be taken of him and Netanyahu, no joint statement would be made with handshake photo-ops for Netanyahu.
    Then too the ‘break’ was taken when Obama announced he was going to lunch with Michelle and the children in the residential wing….not inviting Netanyahu to lunch at the WH.
    It was a hour and half meeting broken up for lunch
    for Obama in between, no invite for Bibi, no pictures, none of the usual fanfare for visiting dignitaries.
    I don’t know about Obama but when I get really furious I get ‘icy’ and am done with talkly talk.
    If this account is accurate I would say that ‘icy’ is where Obama is with Netanyahu

    Reply

  70. Paul Norheim says:

    Ok, here is my two cents: I think President Obama tries to push
    buttons on three levels simultaneously.
    1) Internationally. The White House realizes that the current
    Israeli policies neither serve US nor Israeli long term interests –
    especially it’s settlement strategy. The embarrassing moment
    during Biden’s visit enraged him, but also created an
    opportunity for America to express openly that they were fed up
    with Netanyahu. The recent reaction from Biden, Clinton, and
    Axelrod was obviously coordinated by President Obama –
    (Clinton called Netanyahu right after a direct discussion with
    Obama in the WH). We also know that Obama asked Merkel to
    phone Netanyahu, to put more pressure on him. I would assume
    that Obama also has called the British, the French, and other
    leaders, as well as the EU leadership and the UN, for the same
    purpose. Thus this massive critique of Israel during the recent
    days.
    2) By insisting on the freeze on settlements, the White House is
    educating the majority of Americans, who may feel a deep
    sympathy for Israel, but who have not yet realized to which
    extent Israel systematically builds settlements, that in the long
    term constitute huge obstacles for serious peace agreements
    with the Palestinians. The more Obama confronts Israel on this
    issue, the more the Americans realize that not only terrorism,
    but also settlements are obstacles to a fair solution and a two
    state arrangement. In the long term, this may create an
    atmosphere that is less biased against the Palestinians – a more
    balanced view – while America at the same time wishes to
    continue some sort of “special relationship” with Israel.
    3) The majority of American Jews vote for the Democrats, and
    voted for Obama. J Street is another sign that the climate within
    the American-Jewish population is changing: AIPAC is old
    school; the younger generation is fed up and feel that the
    current Israeli leadership is way too extreme.
    Obama does not want to confront AIPAC and pro-Israeli US
    congressmen and senators directly, but hopes that a deeper
    change in perception may take place slowly and make AIPAC
    and the hard wing supporters less relevant and powerful.
    So yes, there is a climate change in these issues, but does this
    give reason for optimism? Not in my view. The perception is
    slowly changing even in America, but not in Israel. I can’t see
    any significant signs of a sincere will to negotiate a just
    settlement of the issues from the Israeli side, and the
    Palestinians are too weak and do not speak with one voice on
    these issues. The shift in US perception will take time, but year
    by year, a two state solution seems more and more impossible,
    thanks to the “facts on the ground”, systematically created by
    Israel since 1967.
    While the perceptions in America seem to approach the
    perceptions in the rest of the world, the perceptions within the
    Israeli bubble seems to go in the opposite direction. If they
    realize that America may not support Israel unconditionally in
    the future, this may create an opportunity to rethink their
    dreams, aspirations, and policies. But apart from a handful of
    marginal voices within the Israeli community, I have not yet seen
    any serious signs of self reflection from Israel. Only disbelief,
    confusion, and anger towards Obama.

    Reply

  71. JohnH says:

    Nadine throws another hissy fit!
    Maybe Nadine should educate herself a bit about how Israel observes human rights by reading the Goldstone Report or visiting B’tselem.
    http://www.btselem.org/English/index.asp
    But, no Nadine won’t read either. She’s only interested in complaining about the OTHER side, not about how Israeli behavior contributes to the problem.

    Reply

  72. the Pessimist says:

    “American Attitudes,” “American perceptions,” “American opinion,” “U.S. interests”
    For the sake of unambiguous clarity I would encourage you to define “American” and “U.S.” as it directly relates to the context of any issue your raise.
    There are over 306 million American citizens. They do not all possess identical attitudes, perceptions, opinions or interests. Your framing of the issue as presented in the posting conveys a consensus of impossible proportions.
    Your all-encompassing “American” is in fact a fractional minority when measured against the true definition of America; its entire population. America is not its government institutions, as I sense is your qualifier for all things “American.”
    Within the confines of the DC Bubble I can appreciate how this constrained national view is shaped. Outside the bubble we breathe less suffocating air. We have broader views of the surrounding landscape. We are not all for one and one for all.
    Regards

    Reply

  73. nadine says:

    Uphold human rights? Like Iran, Syria and Hamas, whom you love? Whom you want to appease and engage with? Who deny the last Holocaust because they want to stage a new one?
    Who do you work for, The Ministry of Truth?

    Reply

  74. JohnH says:

    Yes, becoming a unexceptional people, who live by the rules and uphold human rights, will be hell…
    Loss of power and privilege is never easy.

    Reply

  75. nadine says:

    “So we are watching unfold a sort of Chicago-style Realpolitik, flavored with the traditional academic leftist disdain for the Jewish state. The subsequent result is not so much a cut-off of U.S. aid as a subtle shift in perception abroad: Israel’s multiple enemies now are almost giddy in sensing that America is not all that into protecting the Jewish state, intellectually or morally. And given the nature of the UN, given the power of oil, given endemic anti-Semitism, given the collapse of classical liberal thought in Europe (e.g., Britain was far more deferential to Libya in repatriating a supposedly “terminally ill” mass murderer to Tripoli than it is currently with Israel), and given the realpolitik amorality of Russian and Chinese foreign policy, the world as a whole can now far more easily step up its own natural pressure on Israel, at just the moment when it increasingly has no margin of error with a soon-to-be nuclear Iran.
    Once the U.S. blinks, the floodgates open — that is the real lesson from the incremental, but unmistakable shift in U.S.-Israeli relations. Like radical shifts in thinking about health care, energy use, and amnesty, so too abroad Obama realizes that the difficult process of “change,” in this case of becoming a neutral in the Middle East and deeming Israel’s democracy unexceptional in the region, will require all sorts of dissimulation, denials, clarifications, and acrimony. But ultimately, the end of “solving” the Middle East crisis will be seen as well worth the now unpleasant and often tawdry means of doing it. ”
    – Victor Davis Hanson

    Reply

  76. nadine says:

    “The presentation of the new poll’s findings will be followed by a conversation with Arab American Institute President Dr. James Zogby, Media Matters Senior Fellow M.J. Rosenberg, and the New America Foundation/Middle East Task Force Co-Director Amjad Atallah. TWN Publisher Steve Clemons will moderate the discussion.”
    Another panel that ranges from the far-left to the left and purports to represent America.

    Reply

Add your comment

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