Yossi Melman is a senior commentator for the Israeli daily Haaretz. He specializes in intelligence, security, terrorism and strategic issues. An author of seven books on these topics, his most recent book, The Nuclear Sphinx of Tehran: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the State of Iran was published recently by Carroll & Graf.
Close.
Yossi Melman
Tel Aviv, Israel
Yossi Melman is a senior commentator for the Israeli daily Haaretz. He specializes in intelligence, security, terrorism and strategic issues. An author of seven books on these topics, his most recent book, The Nuclear Sphinx of Tehran: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the State of Iran was published recently by Carroll & Graf.
more »
This guy has got a lot of nerve knocking the Bush admin,being that it was just a couple of months ago that Bush signed a $30 billion dollar aid package to Israel.Bush is the best friend that Israel has had in America in a long line of friendly administrations.Way too friendly,as far as I am concerned.
Regarding Yossi Melman's comment. Yes, there is nothing illegal that AIPAC is doing, and no one is accusing it of doing anything illegal. The issue is whether its positions are detrimental to US moral values (positions such as condoning land seizures, collective punishment such as demolishing of homes, use of cluster bombs in Lebanon in civilian areas, etc.), and its national interest in having economic and political relationships with the Arab world and Iran.
Can any politician now talk about the 2 AIPAC high profile officers that are indeicted for ESPINAGE on America BY THE FBI.
I would like OBAMA, Clinton, Guliani MCcain, to comment without loosing any campaign money
-if they had any political ghuts OR ANY EDITORIAL IN THE WHOLE usa to say that those who spy on us whether RUSSIANS, CUBANS OR ISRAELIS are guilty of treason.
i DARE YOU TO SAY that in the Whashington Post.
if we can not talk about people spying on us becasue there is a lobby.then America, my friends, is not the super power of the whole world. it is AIPAC, am afraid.
Why does the US continue to give the Israelis billions of dollars in foreign aid each year, even though we can’t afford it and have to borrow the money from the Chinese (plus interest)?
I don’t know either unless it’s because AIPAC owns our congress, senate and executive branches of government.
By Jeffrey Heller
Reuters
Monday, November 19, 2007; 8:29 AM
“JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert sought wide Arab support on Monday for a U.S.-led peace conference by agreeing to release 441 Palestinian prisoners and reaffirming a pledge not to build new Jewish settlements....
Olmert did not say in earlier remarks to his cabinet if he would freeze construction within existing settlements in the occupied West Bank, as sought by the Palestinians and the United States. A senior Palestinian negotiator, latching on to the uncertainty, called Olmert's comments "nonsense."...
In addition, settlers have set up several dozen hilltop outposts without government approval.
Olmert repeated at the cabinet session a long-standing promise to remove the outposts, but again set no date.
In a gesture to Abbas, he also won cabinet approval to release 441 Palestinian prisoners, a government official said.
All were members of Abbas's Fatah faction "without blood on their hands" and could go free as early as Friday after a review of a release list by a ministerial committee, the official said. Abbas had wanted 2,000 freed...
SAUDI PARTICIPATION
Saudi Arabia, which has not said whether it would attend the November 26-27 conference, had demanded a "freeze of settlements" before the meeting. It was unclear whether Olmert's remarks would go far enough to persuade Riyadh to participate.
"What Olmert announced today is nonsense," senior Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said. "Olmert has to understand he either declares a full settlement freeze in all occupied areas including East Jerusalem, or it's nothing."
The road map calls for a freeze to "all settlement activity," including "natural growth," a reference to building in existing settlements to accommodate growing families.
"If Olmert does not halt 'natural growth' then nothing has changed," said Nabil Abu Rdainah, an Abbas aide.
About 270,000 Jewish settlers live among 2.5 million West Bank Palestinians. The World Court has branded all settlements on land captured by Israel in a 1967 war as illegal.
Abbas's chief negotiator said Israeli and Palestinian teams had failed to make progress on a pre-conference joint document that would address in general terms core issues such as borders and the future of Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees.
In a surprise announcement, Olmert's office said the prime minister planned to go to Egypt on Tuesday for talks with President Hosni Mubarak.
His trip appeared to be part of efforts to ensure broad Arab participation in the Annapolis meeting, a launching pad for formal talks on Palestinian statehood. Arab League foreign ministers meet in Cairo on Friday to decide whether to attend...
If one of the two, Israeli and Palestinian, must go, then which should it be? We need only look at the testimony of the land: the land receives a certain amount of rainfall each year, not very much, by the standards of most people. And the Palestinians make due with as much water as the heavens there provide, while the Israelis cannot.
If one must go, it seems clear which it should be.
What’s the matter? You are all for expulsion of the native population from their land; but expelling the invaders and occupiers is somehow abhorrent to you. Does this make sense to you?
Your previously posted solution to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict:
1. Declare a no fly zone over the region.
2. Demand that Israel destroy all planes, tanks and nuclear weapons. If they refuse, we do it for them.
3. Stand back and say: "O.K. boys and girls, have at it."
Your hostility toward Jews is frighteningly familiar - a Nazi redux. You would forcibly disarm them and leave them to be slaughtered by their sworn enemies. I have identified you and called you out as an anti-Semite for other similarly repugnant suggestions, but left you with some measure of good will last evening. It is clear that wish to re-engage. I reiterate that the bulk of the comments posted here are the equivalent of thousands of years of anti-Jew propaganda that usually begin with adolescent attempts to be clever such as yours. So, graffiti-boy, if you really want to show everyone how clever you are, let the games begin. How will you have it, in iambic pentameter or haiku?
“In the long term, the only possible solution, in my view, is a population transfer. That is a highly volatile topic and I have no idea how it will take shape. The most significant hurdle to any implementation is clearly mollifying Arab sensibilities.”
And again:
“At least peaceful, voluntary separation is a peaceful solution.”
You make very good sense, and the Arab sensibilities will need no mollifying at all, I assure you.
I like your proposal to relocate all 6 million Israelis to Texas. When shall we get started? Where shall we put them? Near San Antonio would be great.
I have composed a parting ode to commiserate your passing:
“I weep for you,” old William says:
“I deeply sympathize.”
With sobs and tears I sort them out
Those of the largest size,
Holding my pocket-handkerchiefs
Before my streaming eyes.
If you should preceed me in the morning, take a look at:
At least peaceful, voluntary separation is a peaceful solution. In Europe the issue was decided by two world wars and the complete and utter destruction of Germany. In the War against Global Communism, the so-called Cold War, the issue was decided by economic warfare with the ultimate collapse and dissolution of The Soviet Union.
Two, one, two, three, four
All you are saying is give war a chance
Hare, Hare Krishna, Hare, Krishna
All you are saying is give war a chance
The issue in Ireland remains undecided. Perhaps through the intermingling of two the closely related populations, the wane of the Catholic Church and an increased consumption of the Craythur (the "water of life") that conflict may stupefy its way into history.
Rabbis, and Pop eyes, Bye, bye, bye byes
All you are saying is give booze a chance
No such luck for the Palestinians. It will be blood or separation.
Derek Taylor, Norman Mailer,
Allen Ginsberg, Hare Krishna,
Bloody, Bloody, Bloody Krishna
Look, Joseph, you can call me whatever your politically correct mantra mentality demands. I'll still wish you the best.
All I am saying is give stupid a chance
Hare, Hare, Hara Krishna
Someone who is not a fool, William, will question his situation when he finds that he is not like those around him. He will want to understand why and how he is different from others, and he will want to be confident that it is for the right reason that he is different from others. The mob, while it certainly cannot be relied upon to act with anything resembling reason, at least has access to a lot more information that any individual, and the individual who finds himself disagreeing with the mob would do well to wonder if the mob does not know something that he does not know.
There is, in the longer term sense of things, peace breaking out all over the world. The Germans no longer want to fight the French, the Russians no longer want to fight the Americans, the Irish Catholics no longer want to fight the Irish Protestants, and so on. They have all realized that there is a better life to be had if they do not judge and condemn other people based on differences.
And yet you, William, can only see the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians resolved through ethnic cleansing, and specifically (big surprise here) through the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. And this makes you different from other people, an anachronism. And this satisfies you.
There are, William, new things under the sun, and you are the worst, most pathetic sort of fool to think that there is nothing you do not know that would have any effect on how you think and how you act. Far beyond being just an anachronism, William, you are in fact spiritually dead. That is you.
I hope one day you come back to life. But as they say, there's no fixing stupid.
Thank you Joseph. I am most satisfied to be described as an anachronism. I'm not entirely sure what your brave new world entails, but I suspect a yellow submarine somewhere in the mix. I hate to be the bearer of bad news; but, one day you too, if you are fortunate, may become an anachronism. You can kick against the goad, but there is nothing new under the sun. You appear to be a capable individual. My very best to you.
No, actually, William, I think it is a very good thing that you are not in charge. You probably are unable to see it in yourself, but you are every bit as evil a racist as the anti-semites against whom you rail. I appreciate your candor above, but you have made it very clear that you are a person of another time, a person of nationalism and bigotry and racism. The world cannot move forward with the likes of you. The best we can all hope for is that you step out of the way.
I'll get over the reference to the term "Palestinians" at least for now. On a personal level I understand their discomfort more that you may imagine. I have lived (on the local economy) in many different foreign countries (albeit Asian) for extended periods of time. So, I understand "foreignness", that is, the quality of being alien or not native and I understand, (although to lesser degree because I have been fortunate enough to have favorable options) its opposite, that is, being displaced. Of the two, being displaced is far and away the most heart rending. Make no mistake, local Arabs in the British Mandate of Palestine have been, whether by their own fear or by political miscalculation or in a relatively small number of cases forcibly displaced. Off the top of my head four significant things have militated against the local Arabs:
1.Their virtually unanimous adherence to Islam which has since its inception viewed Jews as inferiors, that is, dhemmis.
2.The overwhelming nature of the culture into which they were born, that is, a shame culture. So, when combined with the first, the shame of Jews being in a superior position is intolerable. Their inability to, in many cases, compete with Europeans also enters into this mix.
3.The refusal of adjacent Arab states to assimilate them primarily because of their political militancy. Neither Jordan (to which that are most closely affiliated) nor Syria nor Egypt wants anything to do with them. They have, in fact, become political pawns used to elicit sympathy from and hold grievances against western governments. Additionally, any quarter or outreach to Jews is a death sentence – they are held hostage to a monolithically violent point of view.
4.World opinion, since the late 1960s, has reverted from its largely sympathetic view of Jews because of the Holocaust, to one where anti-Semitism (cloaked as anti-Zionism in many cases and various other forms of perennial Jew-hatred) is now widely accepted. This phenomenon has emboldened anti-Israel groups and involved the West in further petrifying or putrefying, if you will, any possible conciliation (I use that term because reconciliation implies that there has ever been a time without hostility). The fall of the Soviet Union with its concomitant loss of influence in the Arab world has also (as strange as this assertion may seem on the surface) exacerbated the situation.
Given my sympathies for the displacements, they are not on any order of magnitude comparable to those suffered in the wars of the 20th century or in the population displacements suffered under communist regimes in Europe and Asia. Frankly, in comparison they are insignificant both in numbers and loss of life. I do not want to seem crass or to trivialize Arabs, but that is simply the case.
I seriously doubt that even under the best of circumstances, given the degradation of world opinion that a tractable solution is possible in the foreseeable future. Further entrenchment, in my view, with flashes of instability is the most likely scenario. In the long term, the only possible solution, in my view, is a population transfer. That is a highly volatile topic and I have no idea how it will take shape. The most significant hurdle to any implementation is clearly mollifying Arab sensibilities. Money is not an issue. Precedent is not an issue (a cursory look at relatively recent historic references to peaceful population transfers will supply significant examples). Overcoming the Muslim propensities outlined above first involves understanding that they exist and I am not optimistic on that count. I have seen nothing to indicate that the required statesman exists anywhere.
I am firmly convinced that any further diminution of Israel's position whether militarily or politically or in the "court of world opinion" is a grievous error and highly likely to ignite a serious conflagration that may lead to very, very serious unintended consequences.
As a final thought: Make no mistake, any successful future solution to the "Palestinian" problem will not alleviate general Muslim hostility toward the West. That is a different nightmare for a different discussion.
RE: "I have no opposition to anyone forming a state. What I do oppose, regardless of race religion or ethnicity, is for anyone to violate another person's rights, whether for the purpose of forming a state or otherwise. Had the Great Powers wished to form a Jewish state, they ought to have put up the funds to buy out all of the land that they intended for the state from its rightful owners, made acceptable arrangements for the disposition of anyone in the territory who did not conform to whatever demograph was needed for the state, and then allowed whatever people they allowed to emigrate to the land they'd bought to form a state. This is obviously not what was done, and that is what I object to. Interestingly enough, if you look at all of the money that has been devoted to establishing and maintaining Israel through force, it probably could have achieved the same result peacefully, through land purchases and other compensations, many times over.devoted to establishing and maintaining Israel through force, it probably could have achieved the same result peacefully, through land purchases and other compensations, many times over. "
Good thinking. As you can see from my musings, it's too bad we weren't in charge. I apologize for any grammatical errors that inhibit clarity.
William, while your amanuensis might have corrected your "ADL" to "JDL," it is pretty clear that you were defending the JDL, as indefensible as that organization's actions may be.
If you would truly like to get back on my good side, why don't you tell me which of the grievances of the Palestinians regarding the formation of the State of Israel you believe to have merit? I won't hold my breath waiting.
RE: "impose your religious beliefs onto me"? How could I possibly do that now given that you've "unmasked me". If I claimed that God is gay, then perhaps I'would have had a chance; but, you’ve already said that "You're not going to get anywhere with me with that". So, I will pledge to "restrict myself" when addressing you. Your reprimand will be adhered to immediately. I will immediately watch back to back screenings of "Redacted", "Rendition" and "In the Valley of Elah" with Saimese subtitles until I've been properly re-educated.
"To diverge for a moment, I consider God's use of secular Jews to secure their return to the Land and one of His finest works and a supreme irony to those with a mind to appreciate it. I suspect, however, that you do not share my view in this matter either."
I may be familiar with your position, William from San Antonio: the messiah is supposed to ride into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey, and "the messiah" is observant Jews while "the donkey" is the secular Jews who founded the State of Israel. Is that your particular flavor?
In any case, it is clear that your Zionism is religiously based, and you are correct that I do not share your view. I would hope, further, that you would not seek to impose your religious beliefs onto me or onto anyone else. However, it seems that you are willing to pull any quasi-rational argument out of any garbage pit or cesspool, so long as it supports your religious position. You're not going to get anywhere with me with that; please try to restrict yourself to arguments that are not covered with stink when you are addressing me. And if you don't have any, leave your position as your personal preference, which you can vote and shop according to, but which you should not expect anyone else necessarily to agree with; to do otherwise is dishonest.
Also, it was not the ADL, which has however become a fringe propagandist organization, that the anonymous poster linked to, but the JDL, which is a terrorist organization founded by Meir Kahane and associated with the mass murderer (although you possibly consider him a hero and a martyr) Baruch Goldstein. Possibly you are not as opposed to terrorism as you imagine, having defended links to this terrorist groups webpages: you have been unmasked.
Dr. W. E. Blackstone, a prominent Christian Zionist, was quoting 4 prominent legal scholars of the day. They are named in the quote. Please remove your anti-Jew blinders.
In regard to the Jewish Encyclopedia, I found it scholarly and an accurate portrayal of the Jewishness of the era. It is a snapshot of what has been true throughout Jewish history; that is, that Jewish thought is not monolithic. From the incidents of the golden calf and the 12 spies to the emergence of the Essenes and the Sicarri to the very development of "Reform" Judaism, Jewish thought has explored and delved and, in many cases led human thought as a whole. You need only reference Karl Marx and Milton Friedman in the same breath to make that point. But, to use this article to claim that Jews as a whole forsook or discarded their ancient homeland is preposterous on its face. I urge you to carefully, fully read the article you quote. If there is one thing and one thing only that runs true in the heart of the Jew it is an eternal attachment to the Land. You need only look at the word Jew which is derived from Judah, their ancient homeland and heart of the heart of the Land in general to understand that point. Do some "Jews" deny their heritage? Of course. There are Jews who are avowed atheists. There are Jews who are Buddhists (like ben-Gurion who flirted with Buddhism). You can even make the case that the 20th century incarnation of Zionists were predominately secularists and I will agree with you. But, to espouse the theory that the Jews in general ever disavowed the Land is hogwash. It sounds more like Arafat’s rant that the temple mount is not the temple mount.
To diverge for a moment, I consider God's use of secular Jews to secure their return to the Land and one of His finest works and a supreme irony to those with a mind to appreciate it. I suspect, however, that you do not share my view in this matter either.
In regard to the ADL, it is a "radical" extension of Jewish thought. The very idea that Jews should defend themselves is radical to the anti-Jew. In fact, as part and parcel of their dhemmi status throughout the Muslim world, Jews were forbidden to raise their hands to deflect rocks cast at them by children of the "believers" or to wipe the spit from their faces as it was considered a hostile gesture.
I should also add, Anonymous, that the Jewish Defense League is a terrorist organization that has been implicated in a murder on US territory and in a bombing plot against a US Congressman. Please don't include any links to their webpages again if you wish anyone to take your arguments seriously.
You don't really know what you're talking about. Up until the Holocaust -- some say up until the Six-Day War -- Zionism was not even a majority position among Jews. Look it up. Most orthodox Jews still believe that Israel is not really a legitimate Jewish state, that it is perhaps a necessity in the face of anti-semitism, but that really the Jewish people have not redeemed their right to the land because the messiah has not come. Look it up.
Let me point you to the Jewish Encyclopedia -- which was written in around 1905, prior to a lot of the revisions to history that have occurred in concert with the Zionist enterprise -- entry on Zionism to get a true idea of historical Jewish attitudes on the matter:
Also, I believe your "Dr. W. E. Blackstone" was a theologian. It is odd that you should try to portray anything he wrote as a legal opinion of any sort.
“The surprising truth, however, is that from the point of view of both the peace process and even more fundamental American interests, the U.S. should be more "pro-Israel," not less. The basic reason for this is that the Arab war to destroy Israel is a subset of Islamo-fascist jihad against the West. It makes little sense for the U.S. to be neutral in such a struggle, just as the U.S. could not be neutral as Nazi Germany proceeded to gobble up Europe.”
Get real! The only fascists are the US/Israeli invaders/occupiers who have used the world’s most powerful war machine to keep the Palestinians under the Israeli Jackboot living in squalor, to control their food, water and energy supplies, and to allocate to each Israeli the same amount of water as four Palestinians.
This is the root cause, along with our illegal preemptive invasion and occupation of Iraq, for any Muslim retaliation against the West. Of course the Neocons and Israeli Lobbyists were prime instigators of our disastrous invasion of Iraq.
Mr. Singer argues that we should be even more pro-Israel to expedite the submission of the Palestinians and Islamic Jihadists in general.
Nonsense! The Muslim world will simply wait for the U.S. Empire to founder on its inability to get its dependency on Middle East oil under control, and be bankrupted by the oil producing nations.
My solution to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict:
1. Declare a no fly zone over the region.
2. Demand that Israel destroy all planes, tanks and nuclear weapons. If they refuse, we do it for them.
3. Stand back and say: “O.K. boys and girls, have at it.
The version(s) you cite are generally valid. There are widely differing descriptions of events (narratives) that I could supply to counter specific passages, different percentages and numbers that could be offered,and most telling, significant additions of Arab riots, pogroms and mass murders could be inserted for clarity. You haven't tried to peddle that the temple mount is not the temple mount, so I'm not going to get into a disputation over general timelines.
BTW "Filastin hi arduna, Wa al-Yahud kilabuna" means "Palestine is our land, and the Jews are our dogs" and I'm not kidding that that phrase has been chanted by Arab mobs since the 1920s. It offers a particular insight into the Arab mentality, their general regard for Jews and their specific perception of Jews as perpetual dhemmis.
I don't believe your claim that "the Jews abandoned their claim to the territory" is accurate. I do know that there exists a tiny Jewish religious sect that maintains beliefs along those general lines, but to claim that it is true in any general sense is misleading at best. I do know that throughout the Roman pagan era, the Roman Christian era, the Byzantine era, the Muslim era, the era of the Crusades and the Ottoman era (and several minor intervening periods such as the Napoleonic conquest of Egypt) Jews were actively prohibited from returning to ancient Judea in any significant numbers. They did, however, remain in enclaves of varying size throughout the 1800 years you describe. I will have to see your sources to comment further. Please supply them. In the mean time please see the following:
Legal Title
Not only did this land persist solely within the framework of Jewish history and tradition, but the Jews alone have upheld their claim to it as a country in its own right. Contrary to widely held misconceptions, Israel's presence in all parts of Palestine remains legal on both historical and mandatory grounds.
Quoting eminent legal luminaries who saw the Jewish claim as legally sound, Dr. W.E. Blackstone pointed out in 1891 that, since the Jews never gave up their title, nor ever abandoned their land, the general "law of dereliction" could not hold in their case. They made no treaty and did not even surrender, but simply succumbed to the overwhelming power of the Romans after the most desperate, prolonged conflict and were captured or enslaved. Since then they have disputed the possession of the land by all available means and have neither sought nor gained independence elsewhere.
Blackstone further affirmed that, according to logical precedents established by such authorities as Buswell, Wheaton, Clifford, Phillimore and others, "the forcible manner by which Israel has been kept out of the land with no means of redress" is equivalent in principle to a continued "state of war" and that, therefore, "limitations should in no event run against them pending settlement of their claim."
Hence, according to the foundation principles of international law, there was no basis for prescription against the Jewish people, either on the ground of dereliction or of undisputed possession, so that their continuously affirmed title remained valid while there were Jewish claimants alive. This right was recognized and endorsed by Britain in "Peace Handbook No. 162 on Zionism" (F.O. k920), and by the Mandate of the League of Nations to reinstate the Jews in their native homeland.
“Now Rick : We all know you cut and paste from other forums. Nothing bad here Rick, just no original thought processes taking place. If my work here is not done, I can return.”
In my opinion, original thought processes can be sometimes over rated. Sometimes the truth bears repeating and is useful in a number of related circumstances.
Don’t be a stranger kemo sabe. There are plenty of varmints round here that need to be rounded up and thrown in the pokey.
This page is designed and maintained by:
Dr. Eng. Baker Abdel Munem
Ph.D.(Engineering),Ph.D.(Economics),Ph.D.(Political Science)
Palestine Ambassador to Canada
Well his version of history tracks well with many others that I reference, such as this U.N. site:
Now Rick : We all know you cut and paste from other forums. Nothing bad here Rick,just no original thought processes taking place. If my work here is not done, I can return.
In the 1800 years from the time the Romans destroyed the temple and expelled the ancient Israelites from their homeland, Greeks, Turks, Armenians, Arabs, Syrians, and probably countless other ethnic groups emigrated to and established communities between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Small numbers of Jews moved there, too -- there was no legal or political force than kept them from doing so save for one: Jewish tradition held that God had allowed them to be expelled, and that they were not to regain sovereignty over the territory until the coming of the Messiah.
So for 1800 years, the Jews abandoned their claim to the territory, which, even by their own records, they originally took by force in any case.
If anyone wants to argue that anti-semitism and particularly the Holocaust made it necessary to established a Jewish state, I think that argument could be made reasonably and honestly. But to claim that an ancient kingdom, established by force and then abandoned for almost two millenia, gives the Jewish people the right to sovereignty in Israel/Palestine is too base and dishonest to be worthy of any serious consideration.
Unfortunately your reference to “Dr. Baker Abdel Munem” means nothing to me. But I take it he is a proponent of kicking the illegal Zionist invaders and occupiers out of Palestine, so he must be an honorable man.
“Are you unaware of the Jewish Wars of 70 AD and 135 AD that resulted in the death and expulsion of millions of Jews from Judea at the hands of the Romans; and, that the Jews were thereafter forbidden access to Jerusalem on pain of death?”
Yes, I was aware that the Jews were treated badly by the Romans. But so what? Does this justify the Zionist invasion and occupation of Muslim land 1800 years later?
I read your narrative on the history of Palestine with interest. I refer to it as a narrative because it is largely a story line authored by Dr. Baker Abdel Munem, a member the Fateh Revolutionary Council and clearly tailored to fit a political objective i.e. "Filastin hi arduna, Wa al-Yahud kilabuna". I’ll let you post a translation for our fellow readers. Hint: It's a common Arab slogan chanted at large gatherings for about a hundred years now that mentions Jews and dogs in the same breath. Putting that aside, everyone is entitled to a story line. One of your comments, however, is so egregious that it cannot go unchallenged:
"Yes, but the Jews walked away from Palestine 2000 years ago."
Just walked away, indeed! Are you unaware of the Jewish Wars of 70 AD and 135 AD that resulted in the death and expulsion of millions of Jews from Judea at the hands of the Romans; and, that the Jews were thereafter forbidden access to Jerusalem on pain of death? How many times do you think that the following Psalm passed over the lips of Jews throughout the succeeding generations?
"If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither, let my tongue cleave to my palate if I do not remember you, if I do not set Jerusalem above my highest joy."
How often have the supplicatory words, "Next Year in Jerusalem" been spoken by a Jew – a Jew named so for Judea after Judah ben Jacob ben Isaac ben Abraham for whom the Land was named?
In contrast, how many Arabs have offered similar sentiments over the generations? Hint: None. No Arab even has a name for the Land other than Palestine (from the word Philistine given by the Emperor Hardian to degrade the defeated Jews) which he can’t even pronounce. He can't pronounce it because there is no 'P' sound in Arabic – it comes out Balastin. He can't pronounce it because he is an Arabic speaker from Arabia. Ask a "Palestinian" to name an indigenous "Palestinian" food or an indigenous "Palestinian" mode of dress or an indigenous "Palestinian" dance and you will get a dumb "Palestinian" look because there are none because he is not an indigenous "Palestinian" but an Arab. The point is that the Arabs have no ties to the Land other than passing through it on the way to slaughter indigenous Egyptians on the way through North Africa to end up slaughtering indigenous "Andalusians". The "Palestinian" indigenouity dates from the late 1960s. That's why the "Palestinians" didn't have any problem just walking away from “Palestine” in 1948.
BTW, ask your mentor, Dr. Baker Abdel Munem, the Canadian, if he mouths O Canada while dreaming of the indigenous Biladi?
I have taken your advice and reread Mohamed Malleck, Swift Current, Canada.
He says that we should not limit AIPAC’s legal ability to lobby the U.S. Government, unless we also limit everyone’s ability to lobby. This is similar to my friends Tom Wonacott’s and BobL’s contention that limiting lobbyists is equivalent to limiting free speech.
I say we need to get all private funding out of national (and local) elections, and make political attack ads on TV as illegal as selling crack cocaine to kids on the corner. We need to focus on the candidates’ positive solutions to problems and kill the attack ads and smear campaigns.
Campaigns should be government financed, and the only form of lobbying allowed should be you and I writing to our representatives.
You also say:
“Jews lived on the land as long as, or longer, than our Muslim Bros.”
Yes, but the Jews walked away from Palestine 2000 years ago.
The four maps titled Palestinian Loss of Land 1946 – 1999 give the picture. From the one on the left (Palestinian and Jewish Land in 1946) Palestinians owned practically all (92%) of the land in 1946, prior to the illegitimate UN partition. Since, Palestine was not the UN’s to give away; this is the map that any peace agreement must go back to.
Here is a summary of the Brief History of Palestine:
Note that just prior to the turn of the 20th century (1895), the total population of Palestine was 500,000 of whom 47,000 (9%) were Jews who owned 0.5% of the land.
In 1917, at the time of the Balfour Declaration, the total population was 700,000 of which 56,000 (8%) were Jews.
In 1947, after 30 years of Zionist immigration, the illegal UN partition of Palestine allocated 53% of the land to the Jews who accounted for only 30% of the population and owned only 8% of the land. Only 47% of the land went to the Arab Palestinians who accounted for 70% of the population and actually owned 92% of the land.
In 2005, the Jewish population stood at about 5,200,000 (50.7%) compared to the 5,056,000 (49.3%) Arab Palestinian population.
So clearly, the only fair and equitable thing to do is to evacuate the 4,470,000 illegitimate Zionist Jews and descendents to the U.S., leaving the Jewish population at the original 47,000 that were there at the turn of the 20th century (adjusted for normal 2% population growth demographics, or about 430,000 Jews today.
The single state solution is the only one with a prayer of success, with right of return granted to the exiled Palestinians in refugee camps. Life will be very uncomfortable for the remaining Jews, sort of like that of the minority Sunnis in Iraq today, only worse. But if they don’t like it, they are welcome to join their brethren in the U.S.
As for the Balfour Declaration:
The Balfour Declaration of 1917 (dated November 2, 1917) was a classified formal statement of policy by the British government on the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire in the aftermath of the World War I.
The letter stated the position, agreed at a British Cabinet meeting on October 31, 1917, that the British government supported Zionist plans for a Jewish "national home" in Palestine, with the condition that nothing should be done which might prejudice the rights of existing communities there.
So the result was the forceful injection by the British, of the Zionist Jews, who had been expelled from the region 2000 years ago.
Who would have thought that such an illegal Zionist immigration could ever satisfy: “the condition that nothing should be done which might prejudice the rights of existing communities” of Palestine?
The British soon recognized the folly of this policy and attempted to halt the Zionist immigration. They were attacked by a terrorist group named Irgun (some call it Etzel), established by the violent Right-Wing of the Zionist Movement in Palestine. The most well-known of these attacks was the King David Hotel bombing which occurred on July 22, 1946. This was a well-planned act engineered by the Irgun's Leader and future Prime Minster, Menachem Begin.
So the Balfour Declaration, and resulting Zionist immigration, was a terrible mistake. The British tried and failed to reverse this terrible decision.
Repercussions of this heinous crime are behind all turmoil and bloodshed in the Middle East including Iraq, Lebanon, Palestinian occupied territories, Syria, Iran etc.
The whole world will never see peace as long as the crime of the 20th century is not corrected.
Well folks, here we go again - the same anti-Jew crowd, the same anti-Jew rhetoric.
"Zionism=racism"
"Swift Boaters with unlimited air time funded by the Israeli"
"Israel have instigated their own terroristic activities"
"The Jews have managed to make themselves detested"
"a handfull of neocons duped a bunch of mayberry machievelli's into foisting a senseless war upon the sleeping american people"
"The longer the Israelis attempt to hold on to their ill begotten land, the harder will be their fall"
"Free palestine of jewish occupation"
"Israel continues to take Palestinian land to settle well healed American Jews"
"Palestine was taken away from its rightful owners"
"the Palestinians, a poor group of unwanted peoples"
The only one worth countering is from Marian Baginski who spouts a long discredited smear called the Franklin "Prophecy". Please see:
Hi Rick,Victoria,and assorted fellow travelers. Now we all know Israel did not steal any Palestinian land, because there was not any " Palestine" to steal land from. Jews lived on the land as long as,or longer, than our Muslim Bros. Please gang try to understand, being a Zionist is only a perjoritive, if you don't like Israel. Otherwise it simply means the return to and re-creation of a Jewish homeland in ancient Israel. You may not like the result, but thats all that it means. I would like you gentle folks to consider that their is a Turkish lobby,a Armenian lobby, A Polish and Italian lobby and a cute little group called the Arab League. Most have lobbists on K st. in DC. They are not trying to control gobal warming. In closing try to gleam some understanding and rationality from Mr Mallack from Canada. He expresses himself well without malice. Well, got to move on my work here is done.
The problem is that our ties to Israel DO impede diplomatic progress in the Middle East. We, as Americans, have a very real interest in limiting our support of Israel, to reduce the popular perception of the U.S. as an Israeli puppet. U.S. support of a Palestinian state would go a long way to help repair damaged relationships with Arab nations in the region.
Two dates — two numbers. Read them and weep for what could have, and should have, been. On Sept. 11, 2001, the OPEC basket oil price was $25.50 a barrel. On Nov. 13, 2007, the OPEC basket price was around $90 a barrel.
In the wake of 9/11, some of us pleaded for a “patriot tax” on gasoline of $1 or more a gallon to diminish the transfers of wealth we were making to the very countries who were indirectly financing the ideologies of intolerance that were killing Americans and in order to spur innovation in energy efficiency by U.S. manufacturers.
But no, George Bush and Dick Cheney had a better idea. And the Democrats went along for the ride. They were all going to let the market work and not let our government shape that market — like OPEC does.
[Think maybe the Oil Lobby had anything to do with that?]
You’d think that one person, just one, running for Congress or the Senate would take a flier and say: “Oh, what the heck. I’m going to lose anyway. Why not tell the truth? I’ll support a gasoline tax.”
Not one. Everyone just runs away from the “T-word” and watches our wealth run away to Russia, Venezuela and Iran.
I can’t believe that someone could not win the following debate...
Comparing the NRA and AIPAC is absurd.
NRA is a domestic lobby group and it debates a fundamental right of American citizens in respect to the American constitution.
AIPAC is a machine that promotes the interests of an independent, foreign state in America....and a lot of times above and beyond the limits of national interests of the United States.
The fundamental question is whether the interests of a (small, relatively new) foreign state can and should trump the interests of the world's largest economy and military power with 300m people.
FYI, a piece of trash email from the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and their ilk is being circulated that says Hillary supported the Black Panthers of the 60s and 70s and was complicit in getting a killer off with serving only 4 years in prison. It’s a hoax of course. It only takes a quick Google of Hillary Clinton Alex Rackley to turn up the following Urban Legend web site:
Ah yes, the silly season is upon us. This kind of garbage in the hands of Swift Boaters with unlimited air time funded by the Israeli and Big Oil lobbyists gets us a president like George W. Bush and bogged down in an ill advised and unnecessary war.
No, Hillary didn’t shut down Yale and get the shooter freed after a few years. She did help organize other students to help the ACLU monitor the trial for civil rights violations.
As for Warren Kimbro, the man who admitted to shooting Alex Rackley in the head, the reason he's not still in prison is that the government allowed him to plead to a lesser charge (second degree murder) in exchange for turning state's evidence against other Panthers; he was sentenced to life in prison but was released after four years.
Versions of the e-mailed denunciation headed "Paul Harvey's 'The rest of the story'" began circulating on the Internet in June 2000. This header plus a comment at the end of the text ("And now, as Paul Harvey says, you know the rest of the story") caused some to believe Paul Harvey had read this piece (or a shorter version of it) on the air. Paul Harvey's people confirm he has never broadcast the Panthers and Hillary Clinton story.
For absolute fear of being labeled an antisemite (which does not really mean anti-Jewish anyway, it literally means anti-arab), because I'm not, I am anonymous in this post, because I do not want to be targeted by anyone or any group.
What I have to say is this: Israel has not abided by its treaties.
This fact in itself makes it unconscionable that the state has any business lobbying the legislature in the US. Also, I do not view Israel as a 'democratic' state at all, so the rhetoric heard in the media about Israel being 'the only democratic state in the middle east' is totally incorrect. Israel is not democratic.
Moreover, the people of Israel have instigated their own terroristic activities since just before its formation - on the British, and have continued their strikes on neighbors many times since then.
Let's look at how and from where the Israeli state was born, and you will see the same 'terrorism' as has been pounded on us by the media for the past several years.
Even if AIPAC operates within the law, which I am inclined to believe that it generally does, should American citizens not be concerned that an extensive effort is being made to direct their government to a particular course of action? You have every right to flirt with my girlfriend, but don't expect me not to curse you at my every opportunity if you do.
All Comments (74)
This guy has got a lot of nerve knocking the Bush admin,being that it was just a couple of months ago that Bush signed a $30 billion dollar aid package to Israel.Bush is the best friend that Israel has had in America in a long line of friendly administrations.Way too friendly,as far as I am concerned.
November 27, 2007 6:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 27, 2007 18:31
Regarding Yossi Melman's comment. Yes, there is nothing illegal that AIPAC is doing, and no one is accusing it of doing anything illegal. The issue is whether its positions are detrimental to US moral values (positions such as condoning land seizures, collective punishment such as demolishing of homes, use of cluster bombs in Lebanon in civilian areas, etc.), and its national interest in having economic and political relationships with the Arab world and Iran.
November 27, 2007 3:04 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 27, 2007 15:04
AIPAC EQUELSS TREASON
Can any politician now talk about the 2 AIPAC high profile officers that are indeicted for ESPINAGE on America BY THE FBI.
I would like OBAMA, Clinton, Guliani MCcain, to comment without loosing any campaign money
-if they had any political ghuts OR ANY EDITORIAL IN THE WHOLE usa to say that those who spy on us whether RUSSIANS, CUBANS OR ISRAELIS are guilty of treason.
i DARE YOU TO SAY that in the Whashington Post.
if we can not talk about people spying on us becasue there is a lobby.then America, my friends, is not the super power of the whole world. it is AIPAC, am afraid.
November 26, 2007 4:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 26, 2007 16:43
Question for the group:
Why does the US continue to give the Israelis billions of dollars in foreign aid each year, even though we can’t afford it and have to borrow the money from the Chinese (plus interest)?
I don’t know either unless it’s because AIPAC owns our congress, senate and executive branches of government.
November 26, 2007 1:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 26, 2007 13:29
From today’s WP:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/19/AR2007111900213_pf.html
Olmert acts to bolster Abbas before meeting
By Jeffrey Heller
Reuters
Monday, November 19, 2007; 8:29 AM
“JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert sought wide Arab support on Monday for a U.S.-led peace conference by agreeing to release 441 Palestinian prisoners and reaffirming a pledge not to build new Jewish settlements....
Olmert did not say in earlier remarks to his cabinet if he would freeze construction within existing settlements in the occupied West Bank, as sought by the Palestinians and the United States. A senior Palestinian negotiator, latching on to the uncertainty, called Olmert's comments "nonsense."...
In addition, settlers have set up several dozen hilltop outposts without government approval.
Olmert repeated at the cabinet session a long-standing promise to remove the outposts, but again set no date.
In a gesture to Abbas, he also won cabinet approval to release 441 Palestinian prisoners, a government official said.
All were members of Abbas's Fatah faction "without blood on their hands" and could go free as early as Friday after a review of a release list by a ministerial committee, the official said. Abbas had wanted 2,000 freed...
SAUDI PARTICIPATION
Saudi Arabia, which has not said whether it would attend the November 26-27 conference, had demanded a "freeze of settlements" before the meeting. It was unclear whether Olmert's remarks would go far enough to persuade Riyadh to participate.
"What Olmert announced today is nonsense," senior Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said. "Olmert has to understand he either declares a full settlement freeze in all occupied areas including East Jerusalem, or it's nothing."
The road map calls for a freeze to "all settlement activity," including "natural growth," a reference to building in existing settlements to accommodate growing families.
"If Olmert does not halt 'natural growth' then nothing has changed," said Nabil Abu Rdainah, an Abbas aide.
About 270,000 Jewish settlers live among 2.5 million West Bank Palestinians. The World Court has branded all settlements on land captured by Israel in a 1967 war as illegal.
Abbas's chief negotiator said Israeli and Palestinian teams had failed to make progress on a pre-conference joint document that would address in general terms core issues such as borders and the future of Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees.
In a surprise announcement, Olmert's office said the prime minister planned to go to Egypt on Tuesday for talks with President Hosni Mubarak.
His trip appeared to be part of efforts to ensure broad Arab participation in the Annapolis meeting, a launching pad for formal talks on Palestinian statehood. Arab League foreign ministers meet in Cairo on Friday to decide whether to attend...
November 19, 2007 9:46 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 19, 2007 09:46
veritas odium parit
November 18, 2007 5:35 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 18, 2007 17:35
And William, verveces tui similes pro ientaculo mihi appositi sunt.
November 18, 2007 4:54 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 18, 2007 16:54
If one of the two, Israeli and Palestinian, must go, then which should it be? We need only look at the testimony of the land: the land receives a certain amount of rainfall each year, not very much, by the standards of most people. And the Palestinians make due with as much water as the heavens there provide, while the Israelis cannot.
If one must go, it seems clear which it should be.
Anonymous, go piss up a rope.
November 18, 2007 4:34 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 18, 2007 16:34
@Rick
The matter is lies
distorted propoganda
answer in haiku
no tikee, no laundry
November 18, 2007 2:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 18, 2007 14:31
William, your knowledge is inspirational. Your wisdom is clear. Thank you for your posts
November 18, 2007 2:02 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 18, 2007 14:02
William
What’s the matter? You are all for expulsion of the native population from their land; but expelling the invaders and occupiers is somehow abhorrent to you. Does this make sense to you?
November 18, 2007 1:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 18, 2007 13:22
@Rick
Your previously posted solution to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict:
1. Declare a no fly zone over the region.
2. Demand that Israel destroy all planes, tanks and nuclear weapons. If they refuse, we do it for them.
3. Stand back and say: "O.K. boys and girls, have at it."
Your hostility toward Jews is frighteningly familiar - a Nazi redux. You would forcibly disarm them and leave them to be slaughtered by their sworn enemies. I have identified you and called you out as an anti-Semite for other similarly repugnant suggestions, but left you with some measure of good will last evening. It is clear that wish to re-engage. I reiterate that the bulk of the comments posted here are the equivalent of thousands of years of anti-Jew propaganda that usually begin with adolescent attempts to be clever such as yours. So, graffiti-boy, if you really want to show everyone how clever you are, let the games begin. How will you have it, in iambic pentameter or haiku?
November 18, 2007 10:29 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 18, 2007 10:29
William:
“In the long term, the only possible solution, in my view, is a population transfer. That is a highly volatile topic and I have no idea how it will take shape. The most significant hurdle to any implementation is clearly mollifying Arab sensibilities.”
And again:
“At least peaceful, voluntary separation is a peaceful solution.”
You make very good sense, and the Arab sensibilities will need no mollifying at all, I assure you.
I like your proposal to relocate all 6 million Israelis to Texas. When shall we get started? Where shall we put them? Near San Antonio would be great.
November 18, 2007 8:36 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 18, 2007 08:36
@Joseph
I have composed a parting ode to commiserate your passing:
“I weep for you,” old William says:
“I deeply sympathize.”
With sobs and tears I sort them out
Those of the largest size,
Holding my pocket-handkerchiefs
Before my streaming eyes.
If you should preceed me in the morning, take a look at:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?articleref=1195127513805&id=1175976086659&pagename=JPost%2FJPTalkback%2FShowTalkback&tb_num=17
------------------------------------
17. dear pig faced lesbian
joe - us
11/18/2007 05:59
go hang yourself
------------------------------------
You can pass the time duking it out with another Joe at the Jerusalem Post. There is a certain charm about his posts, too.
November 18, 2007 3:25 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 18, 2007 03:25
@Joseph
At least peaceful, voluntary separation is a peaceful solution. In Europe the issue was decided by two world wars and the complete and utter destruction of Germany. In the War against Global Communism, the so-called Cold War, the issue was decided by economic warfare with the ultimate collapse and dissolution of The Soviet Union.
Two, one, two, three, four
All you are saying is give war a chance
Hare, Hare Krishna, Hare, Krishna
All you are saying is give war a chance
The issue in Ireland remains undecided. Perhaps through the intermingling of two the closely related populations, the wane of the Catholic Church and an increased consumption of the Craythur (the "water of life") that conflict may stupefy its way into history.
Rabbis, and Pop eyes, Bye, bye, bye byes
All you are saying is give booze a chance
No such luck for the Palestinians. It will be blood or separation.
Derek Taylor, Norman Mailer,
Allen Ginsberg, Hare Krishna,
Bloody, Bloody, Bloody Krishna
Look, Joseph, you can call me whatever your politically correct mantra mentality demands. I'll still wish you the best.
All I am saying is give stupid a chance
Hare, Hare, Hara Krishna
November 18, 2007 2:04 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 18, 2007 02:04
Someone who is not a fool, William, will question his situation when he finds that he is not like those around him. He will want to understand why and how he is different from others, and he will want to be confident that it is for the right reason that he is different from others. The mob, while it certainly cannot be relied upon to act with anything resembling reason, at least has access to a lot more information that any individual, and the individual who finds himself disagreeing with the mob would do well to wonder if the mob does not know something that he does not know.
There is, in the longer term sense of things, peace breaking out all over the world. The Germans no longer want to fight the French, the Russians no longer want to fight the Americans, the Irish Catholics no longer want to fight the Irish Protestants, and so on. They have all realized that there is a better life to be had if they do not judge and condemn other people based on differences.
And yet you, William, can only see the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians resolved through ethnic cleansing, and specifically (big surprise here) through the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. And this makes you different from other people, an anachronism. And this satisfies you.
There are, William, new things under the sun, and you are the worst, most pathetic sort of fool to think that there is nothing you do not know that would have any effect on how you think and how you act. Far beyond being just an anachronism, William, you are in fact spiritually dead. That is you.
I hope one day you come back to life. But as they say, there's no fixing stupid.
November 18, 2007 12:37 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 18, 2007 00:37
@Joseph
Thank you Joseph. I am most satisfied to be described as an anachronism. I'm not entirely sure what your brave new world entails, but I suspect a yellow submarine somewhere in the mix. I hate to be the bearer of bad news; but, one day you too, if you are fortunate, may become an anachronism. You can kick against the goad, but there is nothing new under the sun. You appear to be a capable individual. My very best to you.
November 17, 2007 11:28 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 17, 2007 23:28
Yes.
November 17, 2007 10:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 17, 2007 22:55
@Joseph
Ar you the same Joseph that wrote the second to last paragraph in my last post?
November 17, 2007 10:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 17, 2007 22:42
No, actually, William, I think it is a very good thing that you are not in charge. You probably are unable to see it in yourself, but you are every bit as evil a racist as the anti-semites against whom you rail. I appreciate your candor above, but you have made it very clear that you are a person of another time, a person of nationalism and bigotry and racism. The world cannot move forward with the likes of you. The best we can all hope for is that you step out of the way.
November 17, 2007 10:32 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 17, 2007 22:32
@Joseph
I'll get over the reference to the term "Palestinians" at least for now. On a personal level I understand their discomfort more that you may imagine. I have lived (on the local economy) in many different foreign countries (albeit Asian) for extended periods of time. So, I understand "foreignness", that is, the quality of being alien or not native and I understand, (although to lesser degree because I have been fortunate enough to have favorable options) its opposite, that is, being displaced. Of the two, being displaced is far and away the most heart rending. Make no mistake, local Arabs in the British Mandate of Palestine have been, whether by their own fear or by political miscalculation or in a relatively small number of cases forcibly displaced. Off the top of my head four significant things have militated against the local Arabs:
1.Their virtually unanimous adherence to Islam which has since its inception viewed Jews as inferiors, that is, dhemmis.
2.The overwhelming nature of the culture into which they were born, that is, a shame culture. So, when combined with the first, the shame of Jews being in a superior position is intolerable. Their inability to, in many cases, compete with Europeans also enters into this mix.
3.The refusal of adjacent Arab states to assimilate them primarily because of their political militancy. Neither Jordan (to which that are most closely affiliated) nor Syria nor Egypt wants anything to do with them. They have, in fact, become political pawns used to elicit sympathy from and hold grievances against western governments. Additionally, any quarter or outreach to Jews is a death sentence – they are held hostage to a monolithically violent point of view.
4.World opinion, since the late 1960s, has reverted from its largely sympathetic view of Jews because of the Holocaust, to one where anti-Semitism (cloaked as anti-Zionism in many cases and various other forms of perennial Jew-hatred) is now widely accepted. This phenomenon has emboldened anti-Israel groups and involved the West in further petrifying or putrefying, if you will, any possible conciliation (I use that term because reconciliation implies that there has ever been a time without hostility). The fall of the Soviet Union with its concomitant loss of influence in the Arab world has also (as strange as this assertion may seem on the surface) exacerbated the situation.
Given my sympathies for the displacements, they are not on any order of magnitude comparable to those suffered in the wars of the 20th century or in the population displacements suffered under communist regimes in Europe and Asia. Frankly, in comparison they are insignificant both in numbers and loss of life. I do not want to seem crass or to trivialize Arabs, but that is simply the case.
I seriously doubt that even under the best of circumstances, given the degradation of world opinion that a tractable solution is possible in the foreseeable future. Further entrenchment, in my view, with flashes of instability is the most likely scenario. In the long term, the only possible solution, in my view, is a population transfer. That is a highly volatile topic and I have no idea how it will take shape. The most significant hurdle to any implementation is clearly mollifying Arab sensibilities. Money is not an issue. Precedent is not an issue (a cursory look at relatively recent historic references to peaceful population transfers will supply significant examples). Overcoming the Muslim propensities outlined above first involves understanding that they exist and I am not optimistic on that count. I have seen nothing to indicate that the required statesman exists anywhere.
I am firmly convinced that any further diminution of Israel's position whether militarily or politically or in the "court of world opinion" is a grievous error and highly likely to ignite a serious conflagration that may lead to very, very serious unintended consequences.
As a final thought: Make no mistake, any successful future solution to the "Palestinian" problem will not alleviate general Muslim hostility toward the West. That is a different nightmare for a different discussion.
RE: "I have no opposition to anyone forming a state. What I do oppose, regardless of race religion or ethnicity, is for anyone to violate another person's rights, whether for the purpose of forming a state or otherwise. Had the Great Powers wished to form a Jewish state, they ought to have put up the funds to buy out all of the land that they intended for the state from its rightful owners, made acceptable arrangements for the disposition of anyone in the territory who did not conform to whatever demograph was needed for the state, and then allowed whatever people they allowed to emigrate to the land they'd bought to form a state. This is obviously not what was done, and that is what I object to. Interestingly enough, if you look at all of the money that has been devoted to establishing and maintaining Israel through force, it probably could have achieved the same result peacefully, through land purchases and other compensations, many times over.devoted to establishing and maintaining Israel through force, it probably could have achieved the same result peacefully, through land purchases and other compensations, many times over. "
Good thinking. As you can see from my musings, it's too bad we weren't in charge. I apologize for any grammatical errors that inhibit clarity.
November 17, 2007 9:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 17, 2007 21:56
William, while your amanuensis might have corrected your "ADL" to "JDL," it is pretty clear that you were defending the JDL, as indefensible as that organization's actions may be.
If you would truly like to get back on my good side, why don't you tell me which of the grievances of the Palestinians regarding the formation of the State of Israel you believe to have merit? I won't hold my breath waiting.
November 17, 2007 7:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 17, 2007 19:07
@Joesph
@Joseph
RE: ADL v JDL Sue my amanuensis.
RE: "impose your religious beliefs onto me"? How could I possibly do that now given that you've "unmasked me". If I claimed that God is gay, then perhaps I'would have had a chance; but, you’ve already said that "You're not going to get anywhere with me with that". So, I will pledge to "restrict myself" when addressing you. Your reprimand will be adhered to immediately. I will immediately watch back to back screenings of "Redacted", "Rendition" and "In the Valley of Elah" with Saimese subtitles until I've been properly re-educated.
Will that put me back on your good side?
November 17, 2007 6:53 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 17, 2007 18:53
"To diverge for a moment, I consider God's use of secular Jews to secure their return to the Land and one of His finest works and a supreme irony to those with a mind to appreciate it. I suspect, however, that you do not share my view in this matter either."
I may be familiar with your position, William from San Antonio: the messiah is supposed to ride into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey, and "the messiah" is observant Jews while "the donkey" is the secular Jews who founded the State of Israel. Is that your particular flavor?
In any case, it is clear that your Zionism is religiously based, and you are correct that I do not share your view. I would hope, further, that you would not seek to impose your religious beliefs onto me or onto anyone else. However, it seems that you are willing to pull any quasi-rational argument out of any garbage pit or cesspool, so long as it supports your religious position. You're not going to get anywhere with me with that; please try to restrict yourself to arguments that are not covered with stink when you are addressing me. And if you don't have any, leave your position as your personal preference, which you can vote and shop according to, but which you should not expect anyone else necessarily to agree with; to do otherwise is dishonest.
Also, it was not the ADL, which has however become a fringe propagandist organization, that the anonymous poster linked to, but the JDL, which is a terrorist organization founded by Meir Kahane and associated with the mass murderer (although you possibly consider him a hero and a martyr) Baruch Goldstein. Possibly you are not as opposed to terrorism as you imagine, having defended links to this terrorist groups webpages: you have been unmasked.
November 17, 2007 3:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 17, 2007 15:20
I apologize for the typographical errors in my posts. My amanuensis is on maternity leave.
November 17, 2007 3:04 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 17, 2007 15:04
@Joseph
Dr. W. E. Blackstone, a prominent Christian Zionist, was quoting 4 prominent legal scholars of the day. They are named in the quote. Please remove your anti-Jew blinders.
In regard to the Jewish Encyclopedia, I found it scholarly and an accurate portrayal of the Jewishness of the era. It is a snapshot of what has been true throughout Jewish history; that is, that Jewish thought is not monolithic. From the incidents of the golden calf and the 12 spies to the emergence of the Essenes and the Sicarri to the very development of "Reform" Judaism, Jewish thought has explored and delved and, in many cases led human thought as a whole. You need only reference Karl Marx and Milton Friedman in the same breath to make that point. But, to use this article to claim that Jews as a whole forsook or discarded their ancient homeland is preposterous on its face. I urge you to carefully, fully read the article you quote. If there is one thing and one thing only that runs true in the heart of the Jew it is an eternal attachment to the Land. You need only look at the word Jew which is derived from Judah, their ancient homeland and heart of the heart of the Land in general to understand that point. Do some "Jews" deny their heritage? Of course. There are Jews who are avowed atheists. There are Jews who are Buddhists (like ben-Gurion who flirted with Buddhism). You can even make the case that the 20th century incarnation of Zionists were predominately secularists and I will agree with you. But, to espouse the theory that the Jews in general ever disavowed the Land is hogwash. It sounds more like Arafat’s rant that the temple mount is not the temple mount.
To diverge for a moment, I consider God's use of secular Jews to secure their return to the Land and one of His finest works and a supreme irony to those with a mind to appreciate it. I suspect, however, that you do not share my view in this matter either.
In regard to the ADL, it is a "radical" extension of Jewish thought. The very idea that Jews should defend themselves is radical to the anti-Jew. In fact, as part and parcel of their dhemmi status throughout the Muslim world, Jews were forbidden to raise their hands to deflect rocks cast at them by children of the "believers" or to wipe the spit from their faces as it was considered a hostile gesture.
The thin disguise of your comments grows thinner.
November 17, 2007 1:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 17, 2007 13:52
I should also add, Anonymous, that the Jewish Defense League is a terrorist organization that has been implicated in a murder on US territory and in a bombing plot against a US Congressman. Please don't include any links to their webpages again if you wish anyone to take your arguments seriously.
November 16, 2007 7:24 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 16, 2007 19:24
@Anonymous:
You don't really know what you're talking about. Up until the Holocaust -- some say up until the Six-Day War -- Zionism was not even a majority position among Jews. Look it up. Most orthodox Jews still believe that Israel is not really a legitimate Jewish state, that it is perhaps a necessity in the face of anti-semitism, but that really the Jewish people have not redeemed their right to the land because the messiah has not come. Look it up.
Let me point you to the Jewish Encyclopedia -- which was written in around 1905, prior to a lot of the revisions to history that have occurred in concert with the Zionist enterprise -- entry on Zionism to get a true idea of historical Jewish attitudes on the matter:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=132&letter=Z
Also, I believe your "Dr. W. E. Blackstone" was a theologian. It is odd that you should try to portray anything he wrote as a legal opinion of any sort.
November 16, 2007 6:54 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 16, 2007 18:54
@Rick
Wrong blog. Move next door and we'll have it out with sawed-off shotguns at 6 paces.
November 16, 2007 2:57 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 16, 2007 14:57
Saul Singer:
“The surprising truth, however, is that from the point of view of both the peace process and even more fundamental American interests, the U.S. should be more "pro-Israel," not less. The basic reason for this is that the Arab war to destroy Israel is a subset of Islamo-fascist jihad against the West. It makes little sense for the U.S. to be neutral in such a struggle, just as the U.S. could not be neutral as Nazi Germany proceeded to gobble up Europe.”
Get real! The only fascists are the US/Israeli invaders/occupiers who have used the world’s most powerful war machine to keep the Palestinians under the Israeli Jackboot living in squalor, to control their food, water and energy supplies, and to allocate to each Israeli the same amount of water as four Palestinians.
This is the root cause, along with our illegal preemptive invasion and occupation of Iraq, for any Muslim retaliation against the West. Of course the Neocons and Israeli Lobbyists were prime instigators of our disastrous invasion of Iraq.
Mr. Singer argues that we should be even more pro-Israel to expedite the submission of the Palestinians and Islamic Jihadists in general.
Nonsense! The Muslim world will simply wait for the U.S. Empire to founder on its inability to get its dependency on Middle East oil under control, and be bankrupted by the oil producing nations.
My solution to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict:
1. Declare a no fly zone over the region.
2. Demand that Israel destroy all planes, tanks and nuclear weapons. If they refuse, we do it for them.
3. Stand back and say: “O.K. boys and girls, have at it.
November 16, 2007 1:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 16, 2007 13:44
The version(s) you cite are generally valid. There are widely differing descriptions of events (narratives) that I could supply to counter specific passages, different percentages and numbers that could be offered,and most telling, significant additions of Arab riots, pogroms and mass murders could be inserted for clarity. You haven't tried to peddle that the temple mount is not the temple mount, so I'm not going to get into a disputation over general timelines.
BTW "Filastin hi arduna, Wa al-Yahud kilabuna" means "Palestine is our land, and the Jews are our dogs" and I'm not kidding that that phrase has been chanted by Arab mobs since the 1920s. It offers a particular insight into the Arab mentality, their general regard for Jews and their specific perception of Jews as perpetual dhemmis.
November 16, 2007 12:27 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 16, 2007 00:27
@Joseph:
I don't believe your claim that "the Jews abandoned their claim to the territory" is accurate. I do know that there exists a tiny Jewish religious sect that maintains beliefs along those general lines, but to claim that it is true in any general sense is misleading at best. I do know that throughout the Roman pagan era, the Roman Christian era, the Byzantine era, the Muslim era, the era of the Crusades and the Ottoman era (and several minor intervening periods such as the Napoleonic conquest of Egypt) Jews were actively prohibited from returning to ancient Judea in any significant numbers. They did, however, remain in enclaves of varying size throughout the 1800 years you describe. I will have to see your sources to comment further. Please supply them. In the mean time please see the following:
Legal Title
Not only did this land persist solely within the framework of Jewish history and tradition, but the Jews alone have upheld their claim to it as a country in its own right. Contrary to widely held misconceptions, Israel's presence in all parts of Palestine remains legal on both historical and mandatory grounds.
Quoting eminent legal luminaries who saw the Jewish claim as legally sound, Dr. W.E. Blackstone pointed out in 1891 that, since the Jews never gave up their title, nor ever abandoned their land, the general "law of dereliction" could not hold in their case. They made no treaty and did not even surrender, but simply succumbed to the overwhelming power of the Romans after the most desperate, prolonged conflict and were captured or enslaved. Since then they have disputed the possession of the land by all available means and have neither sought nor gained independence elsewhere.
Blackstone further affirmed that, according to logical precedents established by such authorities as Buswell, Wheaton, Clifford, Phillimore and others, "the forcible manner by which Israel has been kept out of the land with no means of redress" is equivalent in principle to a continued "state of war" and that, therefore, "limitations should in no event run against them pending settlement of their claim."
Hence, according to the foundation principles of international law, there was no basis for prescription against the Jewish people, either on the ground of dereliction or of undisputed possession, so that their continuously affirmed title remained valid while there were Jewish claimants alive. This right was recognized and endorsed by Britain in "Peace Handbook No. 162 on Zionism" (F.O. k920), and by the Mandate of the League of Nations to reinstate the Jews in their native homeland.
http://www.jdl.org/israel/israel_or_palestine.shtml
November 15, 2007 11:57 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 15, 2007 23:57
Pale Rider:
“Now Rick : We all know you cut and paste from other forums. Nothing bad here Rick, just no original thought processes taking place. If my work here is not done, I can return.”
In my opinion, original thought processes can be sometimes over rated. Sometimes the truth bears repeating and is useful in a number of related circumstances.
Don’t be a stranger kemo sabe. There are plenty of varmints round here that need to be rounded up and thrown in the pokey.
November 15, 2007 11:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 15, 2007 23:50
Hello William
“Dr. Baker Abdel Munem wrote the "history" you copied from the Internet.”
Is this what you mean?
http://www.cyberus.ca/~baker/pal_hist.htm
Ah yes:
This page is designed and maintained by:
Dr. Eng. Baker Abdel Munem
Ph.D.(Engineering),Ph.D.(Economics),Ph.D.(Political Science)
Palestine Ambassador to Canada
Well his version of history tracks well with many others that I reference, such as this U.N. site:
http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/cf02d057b04d356385256ddb006dc02f/aeac80e740c782e4852561150071fdb0!OpenDocument
The Origins and Evolution
of the Palestine Problem:
1917-1988
If you have a specific challenge, then please make your case.
November 15, 2007 11:33 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 15, 2007 23:33
Now Rick : We all know you cut and paste from other forums. Nothing bad here Rick,just no original thought processes taking place. If my work here is not done, I can return.
November 15, 2007 10:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 15, 2007 22:42
In the 1800 years from the time the Romans destroyed the temple and expelled the ancient Israelites from their homeland, Greeks, Turks, Armenians, Arabs, Syrians, and probably countless other ethnic groups emigrated to and established communities between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Small numbers of Jews moved there, too -- there was no legal or political force than kept them from doing so save for one: Jewish tradition held that God had allowed them to be expelled, and that they were not to regain sovereignty over the territory until the coming of the Messiah.
So for 1800 years, the Jews abandoned their claim to the territory, which, even by their own records, they originally took by force in any case.
If anyone wants to argue that anti-semitism and particularly the Holocaust made it necessary to established a Jewish state, I think that argument could be made reasonably and honestly. But to claim that an ancient kingdom, established by force and then abandoned for almost two millenia, gives the Jewish people the right to sovereignty in Israel/Palestine is too base and dishonest to be worthy of any serious consideration.
November 15, 2007 10:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 15, 2007 22:31
@Rick
Dr. Baker Abdel Munem wrote the "history" you copied from the Internet.
November 15, 2007 10:28 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 15, 2007 22:28
William, San Antonio:
Unfortunately your reference to “Dr. Baker Abdel Munem” means nothing to me. But I take it he is a proponent of kicking the illegal Zionist invaders and occupiers out of Palestine, so he must be an honorable man.
“Are you unaware of the Jewish Wars of 70 AD and 135 AD that resulted in the death and expulsion of millions of Jews from Judea at the hands of the Romans; and, that the Jews were thereafter forbidden access to Jerusalem on pain of death?”
Yes, I was aware that the Jews were treated badly by the Romans. But so what? Does this justify the Zionist invasion and occupation of Muslim land 1800 years later?
November 15, 2007 9:11 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 15, 2007 21:11
@Rick:
I read your narrative on the history of Palestine with interest. I refer to it as a narrative because it is largely a story line authored by Dr. Baker Abdel Munem, a member the Fateh Revolutionary Council and clearly tailored to fit a political objective i.e. "Filastin hi arduna, Wa al-Yahud kilabuna". I’ll let you post a translation for our fellow readers. Hint: It's a common Arab slogan chanted at large gatherings for about a hundred years now that mentions Jews and dogs in the same breath. Putting that aside, everyone is entitled to a story line. One of your comments, however, is so egregious that it cannot go unchallenged:
"Yes, but the Jews walked away from Palestine 2000 years ago."
Just walked away, indeed! Are you unaware of the Jewish Wars of 70 AD and 135 AD that resulted in the death and expulsion of millions of Jews from Judea at the hands of the Romans; and, that the Jews were thereafter forbidden access to Jerusalem on pain of death? How many times do you think that the following Psalm passed over the lips of Jews throughout the succeeding generations?
"If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither, let my tongue cleave to my palate if I do not remember you, if I do not set Jerusalem above my highest joy."
How often have the supplicatory words, "Next Year in Jerusalem" been spoken by a Jew – a Jew named so for Judea after Judah ben Jacob ben Isaac ben Abraham for whom the Land was named?
In contrast, how many Arabs have offered similar sentiments over the generations? Hint: None. No Arab even has a name for the Land other than Palestine (from the word Philistine given by the Emperor Hardian to degrade the defeated Jews) which he can’t even pronounce. He can't pronounce it because there is no 'P' sound in Arabic – it comes out Balastin. He can't pronounce it because he is an Arabic speaker from Arabia. Ask a "Palestinian" to name an indigenous "Palestinian" food or an indigenous "Palestinian" mode of dress or an indigenous "Palestinian" dance and you will get a dumb "Palestinian" look because there are none because he is not an indigenous "Palestinian" but an Arab. The point is that the Arabs have no ties to the Land other than passing through it on the way to slaughter indigenous Egyptians on the way through North Africa to end up slaughtering indigenous "Andalusians". The "Palestinian" indigenouity dates from the late 1960s. That's why the "Palestinians" didn't have any problem just walking away from “Palestine” in 1948.
BTW, ask your mentor, Dr. Baker Abdel Munem, the Canadian, if he mouths O Canada while dreaming of the indigenous Biladi?
November 15, 2007 7:27 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 15, 2007 19:27
Pale Rider,
Thanks for the post kemo sabe,
I have taken your advice and reread Mohamed Malleck, Swift Current, Canada.
He says that we should not limit AIPAC’s legal ability to lobby the U.S. Government, unless we also limit everyone’s ability to lobby. This is similar to my friends Tom Wonacott’s and BobL’s contention that limiting lobbyists is equivalent to limiting free speech.
I say we need to get all private funding out of national (and local) elections, and make political attack ads on TV as illegal as selling crack cocaine to kids on the corner. We need to focus on the candidates’ positive solutions to problems and kill the attack ads and smear campaigns.
Campaigns should be government financed, and the only form of lobbying allowed should be you and I writing to our representatives.
You also say:
“Jews lived on the land as long as, or longer, than our Muslim Bros.”
Yes, but the Jews walked away from Palestine 2000 years ago.
Here is the relevant map of Palestine:
http://www.ccmep.org/delegations/maps/palestine.html
The four maps titled Palestinian Loss of Land 1946 – 1999 give the picture. From the one on the left (Palestinian and Jewish Land in 1946) Palestinians owned practically all (92%) of the land in 1946, prior to the illegitimate UN partition. Since, Palestine was not the UN’s to give away; this is the map that any peace agreement must go back to.
Here is a summary of the Brief History of Palestine:
http://www.cyberus.ca/~baker/pal_hist.htm
Note that just prior to the turn of the 20th century (1895), the total population of Palestine was 500,000 of whom 47,000 (9%) were Jews who owned 0.5% of the land.
In 1917, at the time of the Balfour Declaration, the total population was 700,000 of which 56,000 (8%) were Jews.
In 1947, after 30 years of Zionist immigration, the illegal UN partition of Palestine allocated 53% of the land to the Jews who accounted for only 30% of the population and owned only 8% of the land. Only 47% of the land went to the Arab Palestinians who accounted for 70% of the population and actually owned 92% of the land.
In 2005, the Jewish population stood at about 5,200,000 (50.7%) compared to the 5,056,000 (49.3%) Arab Palestinian population.
So clearly, the only fair and equitable thing to do is to evacuate the 4,470,000 illegitimate Zionist Jews and descendents to the U.S., leaving the Jewish population at the original 47,000 that were there at the turn of the 20th century (adjusted for normal 2% population growth demographics, or about 430,000 Jews today.
The single state solution is the only one with a prayer of success, with right of return granted to the exiled Palestinians in refugee camps. Life will be very uncomfortable for the remaining Jews, sort of like that of the minority Sunnis in Iraq today, only worse. But if they don’t like it, they are welcome to join their brethren in the U.S.
As for the Balfour Declaration:
The Balfour Declaration of 1917 (dated November 2, 1917) was a classified formal statement of policy by the British government on the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire in the aftermath of the World War I.
The letter stated the position, agreed at a British Cabinet meeting on October 31, 1917, that the British government supported Zionist plans for a Jewish "national home" in Palestine, with the condition that nothing should be done which might prejudice the rights of existing communities there.
So the result was the forceful injection by the British, of the Zionist Jews, who had been expelled from the region 2000 years ago.
Who would have thought that such an illegal Zionist immigration could ever satisfy: “the condition that nothing should be done which might prejudice the rights of existing communities” of Palestine?
The British soon recognized the folly of this policy and attempted to halt the Zionist immigration. They were attacked by a terrorist group named Irgun (some call it Etzel), established by the violent Right-Wing of the Zionist Movement in Palestine. The most well-known of these attacks was the King David Hotel bombing which occurred on July 22, 1946. This was a well-planned act engineered by the Irgun's Leader and future Prime Minster, Menachem Begin.
So the Balfour Declaration, and resulting Zionist immigration, was a terrible mistake. The British tried and failed to reverse this terrible decision.
Repercussions of this heinous crime are behind all turmoil and bloodshed in the Middle East including Iraq, Lebanon, Palestinian occupied territories, Syria, Iran etc.
The whole world will never see peace as long as the crime of the 20th century is not corrected.
November 15, 2007 3:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 15, 2007 15:42
I'm pro-American and anti-exploding barbarian - a term I appropriated from another blog.
November 15, 2007 2:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 15, 2007 14:36
William of San Antonio clearly prefers anti-Arab rhetoric.
November 15, 2007 2:28 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 15, 2007 14:28
Well folks, here we go again - the same anti-Jew crowd, the same anti-Jew rhetoric.
"Zionism=racism"
"Swift Boaters with unlimited air time funded by the Israeli"
"Israel have instigated their own terroristic activities"
"The Jews have managed to make themselves detested"
"a handfull of neocons duped a bunch of mayberry machievelli's into foisting a senseless war upon the sleeping american people"
"The longer the Israelis attempt to hold on to their ill begotten land, the harder will be their fall"
"Free palestine of jewish occupation"
"Israel continues to take Palestinian land to settle well healed American Jews"
"Palestine was taken away from its rightful owners"
"the Palestinians, a poor group of unwanted peoples"
The only one worth countering is from Marian Baginski who spouts a long discredited smear called the Franklin "Prophecy". Please see:
http://www.adl.org/special_reports/franklin_prophecy/print.asp
The remainder of PLO pamphlet cut and paste comments are too absurd to bother with until you all get some new material.
November 15, 2007 3:42 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 15, 2007 03:42
Hi Rick,Victoria,and assorted fellow travelers. Now we all know Israel did not steal any Palestinian land, because there was not any " Palestine" to steal land from. Jews lived on the land as long as,or longer, than our Muslim Bros. Please gang try to understand, being a Zionist is only a perjoritive, if you don't like Israel. Otherwise it simply means the return to and re-creation of a Jewish homeland in ancient Israel. You may not like the result, but thats all that it means. I would like you gentle folks to consider that their is a Turkish lobby,a Armenian lobby, A Polish and Italian lobby and a cute little group called the Arab League. Most have lobbists on K st. in DC. They are not trying to control gobal warming. In closing try to gleam some understanding and rationality from Mr Mallack from Canada. He expresses himself well without malice. Well, got to move on my work here is done.
November 14, 2007 11:25 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 14, 2007 23:25
The problem is that our ties to Israel DO impede diplomatic progress in the Middle East. We, as Americans, have a very real interest in limiting our support of Israel, to reduce the popular perception of the U.S. as an Israeli puppet. U.S. support of a Palestinian state would go a long way to help repair damaged relationships with Arab nations in the region.
November 14, 2007 7:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 14, 2007 19:07
Does the Israeli Lobby have to much influence over U.S. decisions?
Answer YES! After 40 votes: 78% Yes, 22% No.
http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=966
November 14, 2007 1:28 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 14, 2007 13:28
From today’s NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/opinion/14friedman.html?hp=&pagewanted=print
November 14, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Two dates — two numbers. Read them and weep for what could have, and should have, been. On Sept. 11, 2001, the OPEC basket oil price was $25.50 a barrel. On Nov. 13, 2007, the OPEC basket price was around $90 a barrel.
In the wake of 9/11, some of us pleaded for a “patriot tax” on gasoline of $1 or more a gallon to diminish the transfers of wealth we were making to the very countries who were indirectly financing the ideologies of intolerance that were killing Americans and in order to spur innovation in energy efficiency by U.S. manufacturers.
But no, George Bush and Dick Cheney had a better idea. And the Democrats went along for the ride. They were all going to let the market work and not let our government shape that market — like OPEC does.
[Think maybe the Oil Lobby had anything to do with that?]
You’d think that one person, just one, running for Congress or the Senate would take a flier and say: “Oh, what the heck. I’m going to lose anyway. Why not tell the truth? I’ll support a gasoline tax.”
Not one. Everyone just runs away from the “T-word” and watches our wealth run away to Russia, Venezuela and Iran.
I can’t believe that someone could not win the following debate...
November 14, 2007 12:27 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 14, 2007 12:27
Comparing the NRA and AIPAC is absurd.
NRA is a domestic lobby group and it debates a fundamental right of American citizens in respect to the American constitution.
AIPAC is a machine that promotes the interests of an independent, foreign state in America....and a lot of times above and beyond the limits of national interests of the United States.
The fundamental question is whether the interests of a (small, relatively new) foreign state can and should trump the interests of the world's largest economy and military power with 300m people.
November 14, 2007 12:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 14, 2007 12:21
FYI, a piece of trash email from the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and their ilk is being circulated that says Hillary supported the Black Panthers of the 60s and 70s and was complicit in getting a killer off with serving only 4 years in prison. It’s a hoax of course. It only takes a quick Google of Hillary Clinton Alex Rackley to turn up the following Urban Legend web site:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/panthers.asp
Ah yes, the silly season is upon us. This kind of garbage in the hands of Swift Boaters with unlimited air time funded by the Israeli and Big Oil lobbyists gets us a president like George W. Bush and bogged down in an ill advised and unnecessary war.
No, Hillary didn’t shut down Yale and get the shooter freed after a few years. She did help organize other students to help the ACLU monitor the trial for civil rights violations.
As for Warren Kimbro, the man who admitted to shooting Alex Rackley in the head, the reason he's not still in prison is that the government allowed him to plead to a lesser charge (second degree murder) in exchange for turning state's evidence against other Panthers; he was sentenced to life in prison but was released after four years.
Versions of the e-mailed denunciation headed "Paul Harvey's 'The rest of the story'" began circulating on the Internet in June 2000. This header plus a comment at the end of the text ("And now, as Paul Harvey says, you know the rest of the story") caused some to believe Paul Harvey had read this piece (or a shorter version of it) on the air. Paul Harvey's people confirm he has never broadcast the Panthers and Hillary Clinton story.
November 14, 2007 8:53 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 14, 2007 08:53
For absolute fear of being labeled an antisemite (which does not really mean anti-Jewish anyway, it literally means anti-arab), because I'm not, I am anonymous in this post, because I do not want to be targeted by anyone or any group.
What I have to say is this: Israel has not abided by its treaties.
This fact in itself makes it unconscionable that the state has any business lobbying the legislature in the US. Also, I do not view Israel as a 'democratic' state at all, so the rhetoric heard in the media about Israel being 'the only democratic state in the middle east' is totally incorrect. Israel is not democratic.
Moreover, the people of Israel have instigated their own terroristic activities since just before its formation - on the British, and have continued their strikes on neighbors many times since then.
Let's look at how and from where the Israeli state was born, and you will see the same 'terrorism' as has been pounded on us by the media for the past several years.
November 13, 2007 11:25 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 13, 2007 23:25
Even if AIPAC operates within the law, which I am inclined to believe that it generally does, should American citizens not be concerned that an extensive effort is being made to direct their government to a particular course of action? You have every right to flirt with my girlfriend, but don't expect me not to curse you at my every opportunity if you do.
November 13, 2007 11:23 PM | Report Offensive Comments