Krauthammer: Obama’s Settlements Canard

Opinion • Views: 4,008

Charles Krauthammer’s column today is about Barack Obama’s speech to the Muslim world, and his call for Israel to cease settlement growth: Barack Obama’s Israeli Settlements Canard.

This first paragraph is the truly important point, and it’s the reality that most diplomats and politicians are constitutionally unable to acknowledge:

In the 16 years since the Oslo accords turned the West Bank and Gaza over to the Palestinians, their leaders built no roads, no courthouses, no hospitals, none of the fundamental state institutions that would relieve their people’s suffering. Instead they poured everything into an infrastructure of war and terror, all the while depositing billions (from gullible Western donors) into their Swiss bank accounts.

Obama says he came to Cairo to tell the truth. But he uttered not a word of that. Instead, among all the bromides and lofty sentiments, he issued but one concrete declaration of new American policy: “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements,” thus reinforcing the myth that Palestinian misery and statelessness are the fault of Israel and the settlements.

Blaming Israel and picking a fight over “natural growth” may curry favor with the Muslim “street.” But it will only induce the Arab states to do like Abbas: sit and wait for America to deliver Israel on a platter. Which makes the Obama strategy not just dishonorable but self-defeating.

My only difference with Krauthammer is that these myths are not unique to Barack Obama; the Bush administration said the same things about settlements, and so has every US president for the past 20 years.

It’s a phenomenon that psychologists call “displacement” — the real problem (Arab rejection of Israel’s right to exist) is so difficult and unworkable that blame is displaced to an easier target (the settlements).

But the fact is that even if the settlements were to vanish completely, the underlying problem of rejectionism would remain. There can never be any real progress toward peace until the US and the world overcomes this obsessive denial of reality.

Jump to bottom

408 comments
1 kansas  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:07:45am

Maybe people are paying attention to this.

Image: obama_index_june_5_2009.jpg

2 debutaunt  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:08:55am

The destruction of Israel seems to be non-negotiable.

3 FurryOldGuyJeans  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:10:41am

The Arabs don't want just the settlements to disappear, but they are an impediment to the ultimate objective.

4 sattv4u2  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:10:44am

But the fact is that even if the settlements were to vanish completely, the underlying problem of rejectionism would remain

Bingo

There have been times when the expansion of the settlements was stopped. The Arab worlds response was that Israel had to do more. There have been times where the Israelis promised to abandon the settlements. The Arab worlds response was that Israel had to do more

5 beholden  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:11:00am

When the Israeli's are pushed into the sea, then and only then will there be peace.

/doesn't sound like real peace to me

6 MandyManners  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:12:12am

In the 16 years since the Oslo accords turned the West Bank and Gaza over to the Palestinians, their leaders built no roads, no courthouses, no hospitals, none of the fundamental state institutions that would relieve their people’s suffering. Instead they poured everything into an infrastructure of war and terror, all the while depositing billions (from gullible Western donors) into their Swiss bank accounts.

Didn't they also cannibalize various bits of infrastructure for scrap metal to make rockets?

7 Capitalist Tool  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:12:21am

Bolton/Krauthammer '12

8 FurryOldGuyJeans  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:12:23am

re: #5 beholden

When the Israeli's are pushed into the sea, then and only then will there be peace.

/doesn't sound like real peace to me

The Arabs/Islamists will just resume fighting each other once they eliminate Israel.

9 Ben Hur  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:12:27am

George Bush was not against "natural growth" in settlements.

10 latingent  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:12:37am

This man is brilliant. But he left out the part where the Palestinians teach their children to hate while they are still in diapers, thus perpetuating their hate for generations to come.

11 tarkus  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:12:42am

thanks Charles for highlighting this truth. It is only Arab/muslim rejectionism that perpetuates this conflict.

12 Kragar  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:13:05am

The issue has never been about land.

13 [deleted]  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:13:32am
14 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:13:58am
... overcomes this obsessive denial of reality ...

(might I add) ... and THEN moves on to directly confront the more difficult truth of Arab hatred.

Both can be done in conjunction.

15 Danny  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:14:14am

It's probably too soon to tell for sure, but it's beginning to loo like Obama's Cairo speech will end up doing far more damage than good to the US.

16 MJ  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:14:15am

Israel removed every single settlement from Gaza.

And what was the response from the Palestinians?

The issue is not settlements.

The issue isn't really lack of Palestinian institutions so that is a major problem as Netanyahu has said time and time again.

The issue is the continual rejection of the Right of Israel to exist as a Jewish State in the Middle East by the Arabs.

17 Capitalist Tool  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:14:26am

re: #6 MandyManners

In the 16 years since the Oslo accords turned the West Bank and Gaza over to the Palestinians, their leaders built no roads, no courthouses, no hospitals, none of the fundamental state institutions that would relieve their people’s suffering. Instead they poured everything into an infrastructure of war and terror, all the while depositing billions (from gullible Western donors) into their Swiss bank accounts.

Didn't they also cannibalize various bits of infrastructure for scrap metal to make rockets?

I can't get the pictures of decaying/destroyed greenhouses (which the Israelis turned over intact and functioning to the Palis in Gaza) out of my head.
Shame on me living in the past.

18 Noam Sayin'  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:15:29am

Was just reading this over at RCP, and was going to post in the spinoffs.

19 Walter L. Newton  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:15:53am

re: #6 MandyManners

But, they did make giant puppet costumes for children's TV show. That was an accomplishment.

20 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:15:59am

The Obama administration does seem to be pushing the "settlement" issue harder than his predecessors, though; GWB had a written agreement with Israel that some of the "settlements" would be part of Israel after an agreement with the Palis, in return for other land. And they would be allowed to have "natural growth".
The Cairo speech was vague, but other statements, largely from Hillary Clinton, that any expansion of "settlements" is not supposed to be allowed.

Of course, the Palis won't be happy until all the "settlements" are removed, including "settlements" like Tel Aviv.

21 Vicious Babushka  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:16:08am

Krauthammer has been saying this ever since Oslo. Too bad nobody listens to him.

22 Ben Hur  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:16:10am
"We would like to ask Cairo: What is this iron curtain that Abdel Nasser and his cohorts have lowered around Gaza and the refugees there? These are the very methods which the dictator Hitler used in the countries he occupied. Imagine, Arabs, how Nasser (who claims to be the pioneer of Arab nationalism) treats the Arab people of Gaza, who starve while the Egyptian governor and his officers bask in the wealth of the Strip..."

Radio Mecca
March 10, 1962

[Link: www.jpost.com...]

23 realwest  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:16:10am

re: #5 beholden Ah, but for the Arabs, once Israel is pushed into the sea, then they can in fact resume fighting each other.
But CK's basic premise is absolutely irrefutable:

In the 16 years since the Oslo accords turned the West Bank and Gaza over to the Palestinians, their leaders built no roads, no courthouses, no hospitals, none of the fundamental state institutions that would relieve their people’s suffering. Instead they poured everything into an infrastructure of war and terror, all the while depositing billions (from gullible Western donors) into their Swiss bank accounts.

[emphasis, realwest]

24 debutaunt  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:16:21am

Starting with the premise that peace is the desired result seems to be naive.

25 MandyManners  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:16:24am

re: #17 Capitalist Tool

I can't get the pictures of decaying/destroyed greenhouses (which the Israelis turned over intact and functioning to the Palis in Gaza) out of my head.
Shame on me living in the past.

I'd forgotten the tunnels.

26 subsailor68  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:16:30am

Dr. Krauthammer's first opening paragraph is absolutely spot on. And here's just one example of what went on after Gaza was handed over:

Looters strip Gaza greenhouses

And that story is from 2005! Who could possibly think that these people are capable of running a successful state?

27 rwmofo  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:16:40am

What happened when the Israelis left their settlements in Gaza? That resulted in peace, love and tranquility or something didn't it?

Oh, wait.

28 Vicious Babushka  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:16:44am

re: #19 Walter L. Newton

But, they did make giant puppet costumes for children's TV show. That was an accomplishment.

No, they just ordered online cheap Halloween costumes made in China.

29 _RememberTonyC  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:16:48am

and that is why there will never be peace between the Israelis and the arabs/muslims/palestinians/islamists.

period.

30 Joel  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:17:07am
My only difference with Krauthammer is that these myths are not unique to Barack Obama; the Bush administration said the same things about settlements, and so has every US president for the past 20 years.


George W. Bush I felt was giving lip service to that. The only two people who actually bought into the settlements are an obstacle to peace are Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush and now Obama is too.

31 MandyManners  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:17:09am

re: #19 Walter L. Newton

But, they did make giant puppet costumes for children's TV show. That was an accomplishment.

Maybe they should apply for an NEA grant.

32 Ben Hur  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:17:36am

They are concentrating on the "settlements" so they can blame Bibi for not getting along with the US.

They are trying to get Bibi out of office.

33 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:17:37am

On Yahoo...story about 0bama calls Ahmadinejad out on Holocaust. Read the story through twice and watched the video. I didn't see where he called him out by name.

Am I missing something?

I wouldn't be surprised if I missed something, but, am I missing something?

34 ORD neighbor  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:17:49am

Wrong ideas propounded in common by both Bush and Obama are still wrong ideas. It's the wrong ideas that are the real source of problems. It matters not who is propounding them, they are still wrong.
The implications of this not being obvious to the public anymore are left as an exercise for the reader.

35 Vicious Babushka  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:18:04am

Can Last Mohican take a look at the picture I posted in spinoffs (Shot in the Heart! But no Blood) and explain how someone can be shot in the heart and yet there's no blood or even a bullet wound?

36 MandyManners  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:18:23am

re: #32 Ben Hur

They are concentrating on the "settlements" so they can blame Bibi for not getting along with the US.

They are trying to get Bibi out of office.

Maybe get an exchange program for ACORN?

37 dr. akim ullsheetbay  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:18:27am

if it was about the west bank and gaza why was the plo formed in 1964?

38 usa_usa  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:18:55am

Will the global warming and the rising sea levels solve the middle east problem ?

39 [deleted]  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:19:00am
40 sattv4u2  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:19:14am

Not really OT, just another thing for Israel to be concerned about

Iran is still defying the UN Security Council and has so far amassed 1,359 kilogrammes of low-enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF6), the UN atomic watchdog said Friday.

[Link: www.breitbart.com...]

Thang God the IAEA is on the case

Paging Mr El Baradei,,,,,, Mr. Mohamed ElBaradei

41 realwest  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:19:33am

re: #10 latingent

This man is brilliant. But he left out the part where the Palestinians teach their children to hate while they are still in diapers, thus perpetuating their hate for generations to come.


Ah, but you fail to see that that is all part of the Palestinian's Department of Education. They don't need no stinking schools.

42 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:19:34am

re: #31 MandyManners

Maybe they should apply for an NEA grant.

They could probably co-produce a show with PBS - the Palestinian Broadcasting System.

43 Ward Cleaver  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:19:52am

re: #7 Capitalist Tool

Bolton/Krauthammer '12

Isn't Krauthammer Canadian by birth?

44 Wyatt Earp  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:20:08am

They didn't want the land before 1940, and they only showed an interest when the Jews received it. The problem is - and always has been - the Palestinians, in my opinion.

45 gatorbait  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:20:17am

The Arab position has always been one of pretense. Settlements, occupation, Apartheid Wall, limitations on movement, etc. are obvious ploys to force Israeli concession at the behest of her only real ally, the United States. It should have become obvious once and for all when Arafat rejected the Camp David Accord with Barak and Clinton that there is only one Arab war objective: namely, the obliteration of Israel in totality. No Land of Israel and no Jewish people in the Land of Israel. That is all they want. There will be peace in the Land when we finally get a President who tells these Arabs to drop this pretense and move on.

46 Ward Cleaver  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:20:17am

re: #28 Alouette

No, they just ordered online cheap Halloween costumes made in China.

Itchy ones.

/i hope

47 Walter L. Newton  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:20:24am

re: #31 MandyManners

Maybe they should apply for an NEA grant.

I was watching "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" last night, and Chris Rock, playing a movie director said... "I thought of Sesame Street first. But I called it NWP... "N* with Puppets." I about fell of the couch.

48 itellu3times  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:20:47am

re: #6 MandyManners

In the 16 years since the Oslo accords turned the West Bank and Gaza over to the Palestinians, their leaders built no roads, no courthouses, no hospitals, none of the fundamental state institutions that would relieve their people’s suffering. Instead they poured everything into an infrastructure of war and terror, all the while depositing billions (from gullible Western donors) into their Swiss bank accounts.

Didn't they also cannibalize various bits of infrastructure for scrap metal to make rockets?

They cannibalized a dam and caused a flood and sewage spill on themselves. They cannibalized a huge greenhouse farm and gave up the food and revenue it produced.

They cannibalize peace every day.

49 Danny  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:20:48am

re: #32 Ben Hur

Agree. This will result in further demonizing of Israel in the eyes of most of the rest of the world.

50 Kenneth  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:20:48am
It’s a phenomenon that psychologists call “transferrence” — the real problem (Arab rejection of Israel’s right to exist) is so difficult and unworkable that blame is transferred to an easier target (the settlements).

You are bang on there, Charles. Obama often uses other primitive defensive mechanisms such as projection, splitting and denial.

51 Ward Cleaver  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:20:51am

re: #44 Wyatt Earp

They didn't want the land before 1940, and they only showed an interest when the Jews received it. The problem is - and always has been - the Palestinians, in my opinion.

The trailer trash of the Middle East.

52 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:20:57am

Well, this is the "bromides and lofty sentiment" Presidency.

Or the "bromides and lefty sentiment" Presidency.

Six of one, half dozen of the other.

53 Ben Hur  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:21:09am

re: #39 taxfreekiller

Make a fake photo shop film of the settlements being dismantled, give it to al greasy TV, show that to the Palies and then on the NBC news-less show. All done.


I once heard Howard Stern say on his radio show that all the Jews in Israel have to do is change the name of the country and the Arabs would think it's no longer there.

54 voirdire  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:21:31am

Moral equivalence to the absurd.

55 dhg4  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:21:43am
My only difference with Krauthammer is that these myths are not unique to Barack Obama; the Bush administration said the same things about settlements, and so has every US president for the past 20 years.

I believe that Krauthammer explains why President Obama is going further than other presidents.

To what end? Over the past decade, the U.S. government has understood that any final peace treaty would involve Israel retaining some of the close-in settlements -- and compensating the Palestinians accordingly with land from within Israel itself.


That was envisioned in the Clinton plan in the Camp David negotiations in 2000, and again at Taba in 2001. After all, why expel people from their homes and turn their towns to rubble when, instead, Arabs and Jews can stay in their homes if the 1949 armistice line is shifted slightly into the Palestinian side to capture the major close-in Jewish settlements, and then shifted into Israeli territory to capture Israeli land to give to the Palestinians?

This idea is not only logical, not only accepted by both Democratic and Republican administrations for the past decade, but was agreed to in writing in the letters of understanding exchanged between Israel and the United States in 2004 -- and subsequently overwhelmingly endorsed by a concurrent resolution of Congress.

Yet the Obama State Department has repeatedly refused to endorse these agreements or even say it will honor them. This from a president who piously insists that all parties to the conflict honor previous obligations. And who now expects Israel to accept new American assurances in return for concrete and irreversible Israeli concessions, when he himself has just cynically discarded past American assurances.

President Bush accepted that the "facts on the ground" had changed and Israel couldn't be expected to remove all Jewish communities from Judea and Samaria. Now President Obama and his administration are apparently abandoning that understanding.

(I think Krauthammer is wrong to feel that Israel must trade land for land. The PA's failed to negotiate in good faith. Getting less land than they would have gotten in 1993, is a reasonable payback for their unseriousness.)

56 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:21:47am

re: #43 Ward Cleaver

Isn't Krauthammer Canadian by birth?

Uh oh.

57 Wyatt Earp  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:21:58am

re: #51 Ward Cleaver

The trailer trash of the Middle East.

Think they wear "wife beaters"? They definitely have bad teeth.

58 Tumulus11  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:22:28am

41 realwest
6/05/09 10:19:33 am

. We don't need no steenkin' infrastructure.


'At least five Palestinians including two toddlers drowned in a “sewage tsunami” today, when a water treatment reservoir burst its embankment, flooding a village in the northern Gaza Strip.

The deluge, triggered by the collapse of a system aid organisations had long warned was dangerously overburdened, submerged dozens of homes in the Bedouin village of Umm al-Nasr beneath a cesspool of foul-smelling effluent.

Two women in their 70s, a teenage girl and two boys aged one and two died in the flood. At least 15 people were injured and local medics say scores more are still missing.'

// Times Online Mar. 27, 2007

59 lawhawk  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:22:31am

Obama said he would tell the truth, but instead we get a revisionist history on the region, and proffered the usual nonsense about settlements. Of course, it's the same nonsense that the State Department has been spouting for decades (which helps explain why the Presidents have been saying the same).

The settlements were never the problem - and as I've repeatedly pointed out, Israel has repeatedly removed its citizens from communities in Sinai, Gaza, and the West Bank in pursuit of peace. Israel got peace in the Camp David Accords with Egypt, but the Gaza disengagement showed the limits of land for peace when one party - the Gazans seek war and annihilation of Israel over peaceful coexistence in a two-state solution. Israel created no-go areas for Jews in the West Bank, and still terrorism remains a concern so that there are checkpoints that the Palestinians bitch and moan about and that the terrorists can't seem to avoid. Maybe if the Palestinians do more to stop the terrorism and indoctrination into an anti-Israel stance that doesn't recognize Israel as anything more than for targeting data, there could be peace eventually.

What the Muslims heard from that particular phraseology was that the US would demand the end of settlements, which will also be taken as a minimum precondition for any peace deal. It will be added as yet another grievance, despite the fact that everyone knows that it is no such obstacle to peace.

The obstacle to peace remains as it has been - Palestinians who refuse to recognize Israel's existence; Palestinians who seek war over peace; and Arab nations that fund and encourage the war against Israel's existence.

60 _RememberTonyC  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:22:36am

re: #51 Ward Cleaver

The trailer trash of the Middle East.

unfair slur against trailor trash ... please take it back ...

61 [deleted]  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:22:39am
62 sattv4u2  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:22:48am

re: #57 Wyatt Earp

Think I know they wear ARE "wife beaters"? They definitely have bad teeth.

63 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:22:59am

re: #47 Walter L. Newton

Did you feel the language was a tad raw? I did.

64 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:23:02am

re: #57 Wyatt Earp

Think they wear "wife beaters"? They definitely have bad teeth.

But they don't keep cars up on blocks in the front yard; they make them into car bombs instead.

65 justabill  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:23:18am

re: #8 FurryOldGuyJeans

The Arabs/Islamists will just resume fighting each other once they eliminate Israel.

Yes, but this won't be our fault, or Israel's fault, so the world will just ignore it...

66 Capitalist Tool  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:23:29am

re #1333, 1335, 1339, last thread-
Rush just called Obama at Buchenwald - narcissistic

67 Son of the Black Dog  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:23:38am

re: #51 Ward Cleaver

The trailer trash of the Middle East.

I know trailer trash, and believe me, that's an insult to trailer trash.

68 Kenneth  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:23:38am
...it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people -- Muslims and Christians -- have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years they've endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead.

If the Arabs would have accepted the homeland offered to them by the UN some 60 years ago, none of them would have been dislocated and all these years of war would never have happened. Of course, the world would never would have heard of the invented ethnicity of the "Palestinians" either.

69 Ward Cleaver  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:23:41am

re: #60 _RememberTonyC

unfair slur against trailor trash ... please take it back ...

Sorry!

70 [deleted]  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:23:48am
71 Vicious Babushka  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:23:59am

re: #44 Wyatt Earp

They didn't want the land before 1940, and they only showed an interest when the Jews received it. The problem is - and always has been - the Palestinians, in my opinion.

the "Palestinians" could have been absorbed by their Arab brethren, just like Israel absorbed 800,000 Jews from Arab countries. Instead, they chose to keep them in misery in "refugee camps" in order to breed a generation of rabid attack dogs.

72 MandyManners  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:24:16am

re: #44 Wyatt Earp

They didn't want the land before 1940, and they only showed an interest when the Jews received it. The problem is - and always has been - the Palestinians, in my opinion.

Look at all the land that the Zionists improved. Were there any citrus groves before they planted them?

73 kansas  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:24:19am

re: #6 MandyManners

In the 16 years since the Oslo accords turned the West Bank and Gaza over to the Palestinians, their leaders built no roads, no courthouses, no hospitals, none of the fundamental state institutions that would relieve their people’s suffering. Instead they poured everything into an infrastructure of war and terror, all the while depositing billions (from gullible Western donors) into their Swiss bank accounts.

Didn't they also cannibalize various bits of infrastructure for scrap metal to make rockets?

That was just their way of trying to give back to Israel./

74 _RememberTonyC  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:24:28am

re: #69 Ward Cleaver

Sorry!


I feel better now ... thanks.

75 Wyatt Earp  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:24:39am

re: #71 Alouette

the "Palestinians" could have been absorbed by their Arab brethren, just like Israel absorbed 800,000 Jews from Arab countries. Instead, they chose to keep them in misery in "refugee camps" in order to breed a generation of rabid attack dogs.

Middle Eastern Pit Bulls.

76 Kenneth  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:24:51am

re: #56 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Uh oh.

No, Krauthammer was born in NYC, but he grew up in Montreal.

77 realwest  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:25:07am

re: #35 Alouette Well I'm not a doctor, but I've seen people shot - in the heart, head and other places and I can propose at least three different explanation:
a) He was not shot in the heart and indeed is not even dead;
b) He was shot in the heart and bled out and "cleaned up" before the photo was taken; or
c) He was shot in the heart, after he had already died and had bled out.
Personally I dibbs a) above.

78 [deleted]  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:25:11am
79 Wyatt Earp  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:25:21am

re: #72 MandyManners

Look at all the land that the Zionists improved. Were there any citrus groves before they planted them?

Or adequate plumbing?

80 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:25:25am

re: #76 Kenneth

No, Krauthammer was born in NYC, but he grew up in Montreal.

Are we going to need to check his nirth certificate?
///////

81 Joel  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:25:28am

From powerline blog

Much has been made of President Obama's "on the other hand" transition, in his speech yesterday, from the Holocaust to the travails of the Palestinians. Some thought that he implied a kind of equivalence. But the appalling Tom Brokaw reminded us that it could have been worse when he asked Obama about his visit to Buchenwald on the Today Show this morning:

BROKAW: What can the Israelis learn from your visit to Buchenwald? And what should they be thinking about their treatment of Palestinians?

Unbelievable. Obama, to his credit, squelched the analogy:

OBAMA: Well, look, there's no equivalency here.

82 Walter L. Newton  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:25:29am

re: #63 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Did you feel the language was a tad raw? I did.

Mine or the movie?

83 Capitalist Tool  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:25:46am

re: #43 Ward Cleaver

Isn't Krauthammer Canadian by birth?

Thought someone in another thread linked to story 'bout Krauthammer as American born... might have misread it.

84 itellu3times  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:25:52am

Finally, CK gets one exactly on target.

I might add, the Israelis have paid for the settlements in blood, and by no choice of their own. No attacks since 1948 (or 1967), no settlements, it's that simple. In fact, no attacks since 1990, and there'd be far fewer settelements, Israelis (if not their government) had a policy of putting new settlements in, at the sites of new attacks on the West Bank. Did the Arabs ever learn? Nope.com.

Reversing that is not easy.

If the Arabs want them back, maybe they can have them back, I'd propose, after maybe 100 years of peace as payment in kind. No preconditions, that's not a PREcondition, that's the deal, Ishmeal.

85 Kenneth  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:26:02am

re: #43 Ward Cleaver

Isn't Krauthammer Canadian by birth?

He was born in NYC, but he did live in Montreal for a while.

86 ointmentfly  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:26:21am

Krauthammer is on the money, but one can't forget to look at the bigger picture in World politics and remember that Russia and China love the fact that we are tied up in the middle east. In every instance in the UN and elsewhere they have voted or acted to perpetuate chaos in the middle east.

87 Ward Cleaver  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:26:48am

re: #71 Alouette

the "Palestinians" could have been absorbed by their Arab brethren, just like Israel absorbed 800,000 Jews from Arab countries. Instead, they chose to keep them in misery in "refugee camps" in order to breed a generation of rabid attack dogs.

The Arabs don't want 'em. But then, the Palis are ingrates. Look what they in Jordan before King Hussein kicked them out.

88 Ben Hur  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:26:55am

re: #81 Joel

BROKAW: What can the Israelis learn from your visit to Buchenwald? And what should they be thinking about their treatment of Palestinians?

GTFOH.

That's outrageous.

89 [deleted]  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:27:04am
90 MandyManners  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:27:11am

re: #68 Kenneth

If the Arabs would have accepted the homeland offered to them by the UN some 60 years ago, none of them would have been dislocated and all these years of war would never have happened. Of course, the world would never would have heard of the invented ethnicity of the "Palestinians" either.

When was that ethnicity invented?

91 Capitalist Tool  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:27:11am

re: #81 Joel

From powerline blog

Brokaw is and always has been a dud.

92 pete(detroit)  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:27:20am

But the fact is that even if the settlements were to vanish completely, the underlying problem of rejectionism would remain. There can never be any real progress toward peace until the US and the world overcomes this obsessive denial of reality.

Couldn't agree more, Charles.
After all, who the HELL stays in "refugee camps" for 60 years? WTF is UP w/ THAT?

93 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:27:26am

re: #82 Walter L. Newton

Mine or the movie?

The movie, silly. NSFW!

94 Ward Cleaver  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:27:36am

re: #76 Kenneth

No, Krauthammer was born in NYC, but he grew up in Montreal.

Well, then he's good to go.

95 MJ  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:27:39am

On the other hand, Holocaust denier Pat Buchanan liked what he heard:

PJB: Breaking Bibi

"Though Obama’s address in Cairo broke no new ground, it confirmed to the world that a new day has arrived and a sea change has taken place. The Israel-centric Middle East policy of George W. Bush is dead. And with the policy change has come rhetorical change."

[Link: buchanan.org...]

96 n2stox  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:27:46am

Yesterday I posted that Obama made no policy utterances. Then, upon re-reading the speech, I realized the exact same thing as Krauthammer.

The only policy he noted was the the US rejects the settlements. Apparently we don't reject rocket firings and kidnappings, just the settlements.

How can one not notice that in a land with the same natural resources, the same geography, the same pretty much everything, that Israel is a beacon of development and progress for humankind? It is a center of civilization surrounded by a swamp of degenerates.

It's like the differences between N and S Korea, but possibly even more marked.

Palestinians don't even have a state and they are a failure. They've shown no ability to govern, no ability to live by a rule of law. Granted, there are other countries that have the same characteristics, but those are utter failures, too. Israel pulls out of Gaza, and what do they get in return? Over 7,000 rockets launched at them by Hamas.

Giving a state to such a regime would be giving a state to a culture of death and destruction.

97 sattv4u2  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:27:49am

re: #68 Kenneth

If the Arabs would have accepted the homeland offered to them by the UN some 60 years ago, none of them would have been dislocated and all these years of war would never have happened

Doubtful. As long as there would still have been an "Israel" there, one faction or another of Arabs or Persian would have a reson to wage war on them, either in real terms or rhetorical

98 Walter L. Newton  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:27:55am

re: #86 ointmentfly

Krauthammer is on the money, but one can't forget to look at the bigger picture in World politics and remember that Russia and China love the fact that we are tied up in the middle east. In every instance in the UN and elsewhere they have voted or acted to perpetuate chaos in the middle east.

And Ron Paul hasn't helped.

99 Ward Cleaver  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:28:18am

re: #91 Capitalist Tool

Brokaw is and always has been a dud.

He's a sure cure for insomnia.

Zzzzzzzzzz...

100 callahan23  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:28:20am

Here is Charles Krauthammer on FOX-News.

"Obama's Speech was Abstract, Vapid, and Self Absorbed."

101 _RememberTonyC  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:28:22am

re: #88 Ben Hur

GTFOH.

That's outrageous.


NBC ... a once good news organization that is now a piece of shit.

102 [deleted]  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:28:27am
103 pete(detroit)  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:28:35am

re: #7 Capitalist Tool

Bolton/Krauthammer '12

HAEL yeah I'd vote for that!

104 Joel  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:28:50am

re: #88 Ben Hur

GTFOH.

That's outrageous.

Brokaw whom I used to think had some intelligence is just another Peter Jennings.

105 MandyManners  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:28:53am

I remember an entry on the syllabus in my Arab-Israeli Conflict class that I thought was strange: The Citrus Groves.

106 doppelganglander  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:28:58am

re: #100 callahan23

Here is Charles Krauthammer on FOX-News.

"Obama's Speech was Abstract, Vapid, and Self Absorbed."


[Video]

In other words, like everything else the man says.

107 Kragar  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:29:15am

re: #90 MandyManners

When was that ethnicity invented?

1967, before that, they were Jordanians and Egyptians

108 Wyatt Earp  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:29:27am

re: #97 sattv4u2

If the Arabs would have accepted the homeland offered to them by the UN some 60 years ago, none of them would have been dislocated and all these years of war would never have happened

Doubtful. As long as there would still have been an "Israel" there, one faction or another of Arabs or Persian would have a reason to wage war on them, either in real terms or rhetorical

The Palestinians will only be happy when they achieve what the Nazis did not: Total extermination of every Jew on Earth. Simply moving people around will not work.

109 transient  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:29:28am

re: #81 Joel

BROKAW: What can the Israelis learn from your visit to Buchenwald? And what should they be thinking about their treatment of Palestinians?


Oh. My. God.
I can't believe he even asked that. (Or phrased it thus.)

110 FurryOldGuyJeans  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:29:45am

re: #33 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

On Yahoo...story about 0bama calls Ahmadinejad out on Holocaust. Read the story through twice and watched the video. I didn't see where he called him out by name.

Am I missing something?

I wouldn't be surprised if I missed something, but, am I missing something?

Obama didn't apologize, so for yahoo and the rest of the FMSM that is "calling out".

111 MandyManners  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:29:55am

re: #107 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

1967, before that, they were Jordanians and Egyptians

Jordyptians.

112 Ben Hur  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:30:00am

re: #100 callahan23

Here is Charles Krauthammer on FOX-News.

"Obama's Speech was Abstract, Vapid, and Self Absorbed."

For the record, I am NOT Charles Krauthammer.

(i was making the same "on the other hand" arguments yesterday)

113 debutaunt  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:30:00am

re: #43 Ward Cleaver

Isn't Krauthammer Canadian by birth?

Yet Krauthammer is so American.

114 unrealizedviewpoint  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:30:01am

re: #66 Capitalist Tool

re #1333, 1335, 1339, last thread-
Rush just called Obama at Buchenwald - narcissistic

Did you listen to Øbama at Buchenwald? He did quite poorly without the TOTUS.

115 _RememberTonyC  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:30:03am

When will the Washington Post fire Krauthammer? They can't be happy with his lack of insanity.

116 pete(detroit)  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:30:09am

re: #13 taxfreekiller

Up on a foundation of lies do the current lies lie.

Succinct, profound.
Well said, Sir / Madam!

117 MrSilverDragon  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:30:10am

re: #91 Capitalist Tool

Brokaw is and always has been a dud douchebag.

Granted, that slight change really insults douchebags.

No win.

118 realwest  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:30:17am

re: #75 Wyatt Earp
Hey, howdy Wyatt! I haven't seen you around for a while - how are you doing?

119 Kenneth  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:30:19am

re: #81 Joel

Un-fricken-believable:

BROKAW: What can the Israelis learn from your visit to Buchenwald? And what should they be thinking about their treatment of Palestinians?

Leaving aside the despicable notion of equivalence, the implication Brokaw is making is that the people of Israel know nothing about the holocaust and have been waiting all these years for Obama to visit Buchenwald so they could learn something from it!

That is stunning idiocy, even by msm standards.

120 Baier  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:30:19am

re: #85 Kenneth

He was born in NYC, but he did live in Montreal for a while.

Oh, that's good to know. I always thought he was Canadian (not that there is anything wrong with that). Does he he have any ambitions toward holding office, I wonder?

121 Vicious Babushka  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:30:21am

re: #81 Joel

BROKAW: What can the Israelis learn from your visit to Buchenwald? And what should they be thinking about their treatment of Palestinians?

Unbelievable. Obama, to his credit, squelched the analogy:

OBAMA: Well, look, there's no equivalency here.

ZOMG

122 JacksonTn  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:30:44am

Dear Islamic Gigolo … your dance card is filled …

You whispered in Egypt … you should have said more …

Were you afraid? …

How would you feel … if your daughters were …

Les yeux sans visage …

Image: knin82l.jpg

You say “their” prayers …
You say “their” prayers …
You say “their” prayers …

I spend so much time
Believing all the lies
To keep the dream alive
Now it makes me sad
It makes me mad at truth …

I’m all out of “Hope” … it’s easy to deceive …


/Obama was suppose to be a “Change” …

123 callahan23  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:30:46am

re: #106 doppelganglander

In other words, like everything else the man says.

Yeah, but it's nice to hear it from a respected widely known political analyst.

124 Ward Cleaver  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:31:08am

Brokaw is an asshole.

125 MJ  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:31:13am

Robert Satloff from The Washington Institute For Near East Policy has a very good assessment of Obama's speech:


President Obama Speaks to the World's Muslims: An Early Assessment

[Link: washingtoninstitute.org...]

126 _RememberTonyC  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:31:15am

re: #107 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

1967, before that, they were Jordanians and Egyptians


Here's when .... [Link: en.wikiquote.org...]

127 Joel  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:31:25am

re: #95 MJ

On the other hand, Holocaust denier Pat Buchanan liked what he heard:

PJB: Breaking Bibi

[Link: buchanan.org...]

There is soemthing about Buchanan that turns my stomach. He is obsessed with "Bibi".

128 Wyatt Earp  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:31:33am

re: #118 realwest

Hey, howdy Wyatt! I haven't seen you around for a while - how are you doing?

Very well, sir. Internet gone at work, so I can only stop by occasionally. How are you?

129 LGoPs  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:31:46am

re: #89 buzzsawmonkey

reposted from yesterday:

Israel as Prometheus

Prometheus, in the Greek myths, was the Titan who stole fire from the wheels of Zeus' chariot and gave it to mankind. In punishment, Zeus had him chained to a rock, where every day a vulture (some say, an eagle) would tear out his liver. Every night his liver would regenerate for the same to happen again the next day.

Israel is Prometheus. It did not bring fire to mankind, but it has brought democracy to the Middle East, and a homeland to the Jews, whence scientific, technical, and agricultural research have brought countless benefits to mankind.

Yet, like Prometheus, Israel has not reaped honor or comfort. Every day the "peace process" seeks to devour the nation, as the vulture devoured Prometheus' liver. Israel rises afresh each day--and each day the world again decries its existence, demands concessions, and seeks to aid and comfort those who would destroy it.

After many years, the hero Heracles slew the vulture and freed Prometheus from his chains. Who will be the hero who will slay the vulture of a bogus "peace process" and free the state of Israel?

I don't know but it will probably not be President Obi Won Kenyobi. The Farce runs too strong in him......
/

130 J.S.  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:31:52am

I believe that what nearly all U.S. administrations (dating back to the creation of the State of Israel) is a refusal to see Islamic rejectionism as one of the expressions of the religion of Islam...(meaning that for many in the Arab/Islamic world, it's a religious war -- and Israel's destruction is a religious requirement...) But, it's far easier to frame the "problem" in secular terms and blind oneself to the "religious" aspects...

131 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:32:03am

re: #115 _RememberTonyC

When will the Washington Post fire Krauthammer? They can't be happy with his lack of insanity.

They keep a token sane person on their staff, like the Boston Globe keeps Jeff Jacoby. (I wonder if the Globe makes him wear a yellow star.)

BTW, the Boston Herald reprints Krauthammer's column.

132 A Man for all Seasons  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:32:30am

re: #128 Wyatt Earp

Very well, sir. Internet gone at work, so I can only stop by occasionally. How are you?


Horray..Good seeing you wyatt!

133 Dianna  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:32:48am

re: #120 Baier

Oh, that's good to know. I always thought he was Canadian (not that there is anything wrong with that). Does he he have any ambitions toward holding office, I wonder?

I doubt his health would allow it.

134 FurryOldGuyJeans  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:32:51am

re: #127 Joel

There is soemthing about Buchanan that turns my stomach. He is obsessed with "Bibi".

He's obsessed with hating Jews, not just Bibi.

135 Ben Hur  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:32:55am

Arab Rejectionism.
Islamic Expansionism.

136 Capitalist Tool  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:32:58am

re: #103 pete(detroit)

HAEL yeah I'd vote for that!

they could appoint Mark Steyn as White House advisor...

137 kansas  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:32:58am

BROKAW: What can the Israelis Palestinians learn from your visit to Buchenwald? And what should they be thinking about their treatment of Palestinians Israelis?

138 callahan23  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:33:05am

re: #113 debutaunt

Yet Krauthammer is so American.

I wonder why two of my favorite political commentators Steyn and Krauthammer are both from Canada?

139 Ward Cleaver  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:33:09am

re: #95 MJ

On the other hand, Holocaust denier Pat Buchanan liked what he heard:

PJB: Breaking Bibi

[Link: buchanan.org...]

He's probably giggling like a little girl. Him and Filip DeWinter.

140 doppelganglander  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:33:25am

re: #127 Joel

There is something about Buchanan that turns my stomach. He is obsessed with "Bibi".

Being hated by Buchanan enhances one's stature, in my book.

141 Walter L. Newton  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:33:46am

re: #93 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

The movie, silly. NSFW!

Oh come on, the whole thing was a jerk on language. I think the whole movie was a spoof on the lowball teen movies that we see so much (Seth Rogen stuff for example).

It had none of the marvelous long winded street-wise, Jersey culture philosophy that normally is found in a Kevin Smith film.

No, the whole thing was Smith's dump on a certain style of filmmaking and as that, it was spot on.

Not my favorite Kevin Smith film, but better than Mallrats which I could not even finish watching.

142 Ben Hur  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:34:13am

Please be sure to click on the WHen Egypt Was in Gaza link above.

Very telling.

143 Son of the Black Dog  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:34:26am

re: #97 sattv4u2

If the Arabs would have accepted the homeland offered to them by the UN some 60 years ago, none of them would have been dislocated and all these years of war would never have happened

Doubtful. As long as there would still have been an "Israel" there, one faction or another of Arabs or Persian would have a reson to wage war on them, either in real terms or rhetorical

If Israel and the Palestinians did not exist, the Arabs would have to invent them.

144 Wyatt Earp  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:34:34am

re: #132 HoosierHoops

Horray..Good seeing you wyatt!

Thanks, HH.

145 Joel  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:35:14am

re: #109 transient

Oh. My. God.
I can't believe he even asked that. (Or phrased it thus.)

I can't believe Obama actually gave that response back. Good for him.

146 dhg4  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:35:20am

re: #96 n2stox

Yesterday I posted that Obama made no policy utterances. Then, upon re-reading the speech, I realized the exact same thing as Krauthammer.

The only policy he noted was the the US rejects the settlements. Apparently we don't reject rocket firings and kidnappings, just the settlements.

How can one not notice that in a land with the same natural resources, the same geography, the same pretty much everything, that Israel is a beacon of development and progress for humankind? It is a center of civilization surrounded by a swamp of degenerates.

It's like the differences between N and S Korea, but possibly even more marked.

Palestinians don't even have a state and they are a failure. They've shown no ability to govern, no ability to live by a rule of law. Granted, there are other countries that have the same characteristics, but those are utter failures, too. Israel pulls out of Gaza, and what do they get in return? Over 7,000 rockets launched at them by Hamas.

Giving a state to such a regime would be giving a state to a culture of death and destruction.

That's right.

One could argue that he tried to balance things out. He rebuked the Arab world for Holocaust denial and for evading reform behind a false show of solidarity for the Palestinians. But those rebukes were issued in a vacuum. There was no diplomacy on these issues leading up to the speech with a NYT reporter suggesting that if Egypt doesn't reform itself politically it may suffer a loss of aid. Holocaust denial and despotism may continue with no consequences.

But when it came to settlements there were two weeks of diplomacy with lots of leaks about possible consequences for Israel if Israel did not conform to President Obama's vision. So at the speech President Obama was basically saying "With the Arab world as my witness, this wasn't just maneuvering. I really mean to push Israel on this point."

147 _RememberTonyC  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:35:23am

re: #131 Kosh's Shadow

They keep a token sane person on their staff, like the Boston Globe keeps Jeff Jacoby. (I wonder if the Globe makes him wear a yellow star.)

BTW, the Boston Herald reprints Krauthammer's column.

Ah ... a "House Conservative." Luckily I get CK's column in the Hartford Courant. The GLOBE may soon be going under. I won't miss anything about it except for the sports page.

148 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:35:37am

re: #141 Walter L. Newton

My kids loved J&SB...did not like Mall Rats. Me? Meh...take or leave either.

149 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:36:13am

re: #144 Wyatt Earp

Still alive, I see. Good form there, pal!

150 captdiggs  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:36:17am

The "speech" is losing its luster in the light of examination.

151 Ward Cleaver  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:36:23am

re: #138 callahan23

I wonder why two of my favorite political commentators Steyn and Krauthammer are both from Canada?

Yup, Krauthammer is 'murrican.

152 kansas  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:36:33am

re: #125 MJ

Robert Satloff from The Washington Institute For Near East Policy has a very good assessment of Obama's speech:

President Obama Speaks to the World's Muslims: An Early Assessment

[Link: washingtoninstitute.org...]

If there is any meaning to the phrase "mutual interest and mutual respect," America can now rightfully expect to hear and see what Muslims -- leaders and peoples -- say and do in response.

Duck and cover perhaps?

153 doppelganglander  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:36:39am

re: #138 callahan23

I wonder why two of my favorite political commentators Steyn and Krauthammer are both from Canada?

They're two of my favorites as well. Maybe being outsiders, near but not of the U.S., gives them a certain combination of familiarity and foreignness that informs their perspective.

154 Kenneth  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:36:48am

re: #90 MandyManners

When was that ethnicity invented?

In 1954 Arafat founded FATAH as a "liberation" movement for "Palestine". He sold the idea to the Egyptians and they started to promote it. The concept of a "Palestinian" Arab identity was developed by political activists and intellectuals first. The Arab people didn't get into it until after the 1967 War.

155 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:36:57am

re: #133 Dianna

Howwzitgoin' today?

156 MandyManners  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:37:10am

re: #142 Ben Hur

Please be sure to click on the WHen Egypt Was in Gaza link above.

Very telling.


Thank you for posting it!

157 Ward Cleaver  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:37:12am

re: #150 captdiggs

The "speech" is losing its luster in the light of examination.

You can polish a turd (Mythbusters proved that), but it still stinks.

158 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:37:24am

re: #151 Ward Cleaver

C'mon! That's wiki. Where is his... uh... you know...

159 Wyatt Earp  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:37:36am

re: #152 kansas

If there is any meaning to the phrase "mutual interest and mutual respect," America can now rightfully expect to hear and see what Muslims -- leaders and peoples -- say and do in response.

Duck and cover perhaps?

Sit back and watch them create more centrifuges?

160 Capitalist Tool  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:37:43am

re: #136 Capitalist Tool

they could appoint Mark Steyn as White House advisor...

Make Rush the Press Secretary and...
Glenn Beck Secretary of the Interior- he could check at all the National Park locations suitable for mass evacuations during the end of the world...

161 Kenneth  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:37:50am

re: #120 Baier

I think he provides a better service doing what he does. Punditry and politics are two different professions.

162 Walter L. Newton  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:37:51am

re: #148 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

My kids loved J&SB...did not like Mall Rats. Me? Meh...take or leave either.

You must be f'n kidding me, you f'n jerk. What the F is better than a f'n Kevin Smith F'n film. Man, do you suck f'n d*k. You probably like F'n Matt d*khead Damon, f*off.
///

163 realwest  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:37:53am

re: #100 callahan23
Great, great pick-up and link. Thank you my friend.

164 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:38:05am

re: #147 _RememberTonyC

Ah ... a "House Conservative." Luckily I get CK's column in the Hartford Courant. The GLOBE may soon be going under. I won't miss anything about it except for the sports page.

I'll miss what the Globe was, long before the NY Slimes bought it.
I had kept a Sunday-only subscription until their coverage of Operation Cast Lead, and then got so disgusted with them I canceled, and don't even go to their website any more. I did send an explanation to their editors, but received no reply. (I had stopped receiving acknowledgments of my letters to the editor over Gaza; I think they put me on their spam list.)

165 BlueCanuck  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:38:34am

re: #138 callahan23

I wonder why two of my favorite political commentators Steyn and Krauthammer are both from Canada?

Because up here they would be voices in the wilderness.

166 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:38:52am

re: #20 Kosh's Shadow

The Obama administration does seem to be pushing the "settlement" issue harder than his predecessors, though; GWB had a written agreement with Israel that some of the "settlements" would be part of Israel after an agreement with the Palis, in return for other land. And they would be allowed to have "natural growth".
The Cairo speech was vague, but other statements, largely from Hillary Clinton, that any expansion of "settlements" is not supposed to be allowed.

Of course, the Palis won't be happy until all the "settlements" are removed, including "settlements" like Tel Aviv.

The natural growth thing is actually unclear to me--I read an article a couple days ago that said natural growth was not in the written agreements, but that the Israelis now say the Bush administration told them privately they could have it. An anonymous Bush official says it ain't so. Can someone clarify for me?

167 Ward Cleaver  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:39:08am

re: #154 Kenneth

In 1954 Arafat founded FATAH as a "liberation" movement for "Palestine". He sold the idea to the Egyptians and they started to promote it. The concept of a "Palestinian" Arab identity was developed by political activists and intellectuals first. The Arab people didn't get into it until after the 1967 War.

Yeah, how can you give a people a nation (actually, steal Israel) if they don't have an identity? Clever.

/in an evil way

168 funky chicken  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:39:10am

re: #48 itellu3times

They cannibalized a dam and caused a flood and sewage spill on themselves. They cannibalized a huge greenhouse farm and gave up the food and revenue it produced.

They cannibalize peace every day.

I didn't know about the dam. What a perfect metaphor for the "palestinian" people and their aspirations, though.

169 MandyManners  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:39:12am

re: #154 Kenneth

In 1954 Arafat founded FATAH as a "liberation" movement for "Palestine". He sold the idea to the Egyptians and they started to promote it. The concept of a "Palestinian" Arab identity was developed by political activists and intellectuals first. The Arab people didn't get into it until after the 1967 War.

That intellectual cottage industry grew quickly.

170 MJ  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:39:58am

Obama to Palestinians: "Deal With Incitement" Against Israel


"When it comes to the Palestinians, we know what they're supposed to be doing. They have to continue to make progress on security in the West Bank.

They have to deal with incitement issues. There's still a tendency, even within -- among Palestinians who say they are interested in peace with Israel, to engage in statements that are -- that incite a hatred of Israel or are not constructive to the peace process. Now I think, to his credit, President Abbas has made progress on this issue -- but not enough.

We still have not seen a firm commitment from the Palestinian Authority that they can control some of the border areas that Israel is going to be very concerned about if there were to be a two-state solution. There are still problems of corruption and mismanagement within the Authority that have to be addressed.

So there are going to be a whole set of things having to do with the Palestinians' ability to govern effectively and maintain security. And if they're not solved, Israelis are going to have trouble moving forward.

And the Arab states, what I'd like to see is indicators that they are willing, if Israel makes tough commitments, to also make some hard choices that will allow for an opening of commerce, diplomatic exchanges between Israel and its neighbors."

– Remarks by U.S. President Barack Obama Friday (June 5) at a press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel at Dresden Castle, Germany


[Link: www.whitehouse.gov...]

Better than nothing though Obama does not understand it's not merely a "tendency." It's part and parcel of the culture of hate not only within Palestinian society but Muslim society in general.

171 realwest  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:40:01am

re: #128 Wyatt Earp
I'm doing ok my friend - and sorry, you had mentioned that the Philly PD couldn't figure out why detectives could possibly need the Internet and I'd forgotten about it!

172 [deleted]  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:40:10am
173 callahan23  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:40:16am

re: #151 Ward Cleaver

Yup, Krauthammer is 'murrican.

Oops, thanks for that info, maybe I was confused because of this bit:

He was raised in Montreal, Canada
174 Dianna  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:40:23am

re: #155 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Howwzitgoin' today?

All right. I'm waiting for information.

175 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:40:29am

re: #26 subsailor68

Dr. Krauthammer's first opening paragraph is absolutely spot on. And here's just one example of what went on after Gaza was handed over:

Looters strip Gaza greenhouses

And that story is from 2005! Who could possibly think that these people are capable of running a successful state?

Hamas had no intention of letting people keep the greenhouses. People with an export business in tomatoes get uppity.

176 Wyatt Earp  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:40:40am

re: #171 realwest

I'm doing ok my friend - and sorry, you had mentioned that the Philly PD couldn't figure out why detectives could possibly need the Internet and I'd forgotten about it!

No worries. Just cuts down on my computer time. Probably a good thing for my ever-weakening eyes.

177 Lynn B.  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:40:41am

re: #55 dhg4

President Bush accepted that the "facts on the ground" had changed and Israel couldn't be expected to remove all Jewish communities from Judea and Samaria. Now President Obama and his administration are apparently abandoning that understanding.

(I think Krauthammer is wrong to feel that Israel must trade land for land. The PA's failed to negotiate in good faith. Getting less land than they would have gotten in 1993, is a reasonable payback for their unseriousness.)

I couldn't agree more.

178 Kenneth  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:41:39am

re: #88 Ben Hur

re: #81 Joel

BROKAW: What can the Israelis learn from your visit to Buchenwald? And what should they be thinking about their treatment of Palestinians?

GTFOH.

That's outrageous.

Gosh, Ben... speaking as a Jew, what have you learned from Obama's visit to Buchenwald?

179 Ward Cleaver  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:41:45am

re: #173 callahan23

I was confused, too.

180 subsailor68  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:41:58am

re: #175 SanFranciscoZionist

Hamas had no intention of letting people keep the greenhouses. People with an export business in tomatoes get uppity.

Yeah! Or olive oil. Just look at the Corleones!

;-)

181 [deleted]  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:42:00am
182 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:42:15am

re: #174 Dianna

All right. I'm waiting for information.

*fingers crossed* here

I've got carpet cleaners coming soon, so I'll be off-line for several hours.
I'll be thinking ....

183 Rancher  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:42:19am

The settlements provide jobs for the Palestinians, allowing a few to take care of themselves. Can't have that.

184 Hhar  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:42:27am

plus there's this little problem of the Israelis having to have some Palestinian organisation to negotiate with. I note that Obama kinda glossed over that little aspect of the situation.

185 Capitalist Tool  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:42:50am

re: #175 SanFranciscoZionist

Hamas had no intention of letting people keep the greenhouses. People with an export business in tomatoes get uppity.

The Pali leaders have no intention of allowing any sort of economic progress to flourish. They are sitting on a "Gold Coast" just ripe for development, among other things.

186 Joel  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:43:49am

re: #178 Kenneth

First off Buchenwald was a concentration camp not an extermination camp. All the extermination camps (6 of them) were in Poland and probalby most of the inmates at Buchenwald were not even Jewish.

187 Lynn B.  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:44:02am

re: #59 lawhawk

... Israel got peace in the Camp David Accords with Egypt, ...

It's been a very cold peace, though. Not at all what was envisioned (e.g., mutual tourism, economic cooperation, an end to virulent antisemitism in the Egyptian media, etc.)

188 MandyManners  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:44:26am

re: #181 buzzsawmonkey

If they'd kept the tomato business, they might have had a chance to ketchup to the current century.

I bet you relish the chance to post puns.

189 MrSilverDragon  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:44:54am

re: #188 MandyManners

I bet you relish the chance to post puns.

He really does cut the mustard when it comes to puns.

190 Ben Hur  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:44:58am

re: #178 Kenneth

Gosh, Ben... speaking as a Jew, what have you learned from Obama's visit to Buchenwald?

That South Africa was a democracy.

191 MandyManners  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:45:01am

Have the Hamas rockets stopped?

192 callahan23  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:45:15am

re: #163 realwest

Great, great pick-up and link. Thank you my friend.

Hi (Real), did you see my comment (translation) from the "Israeli Government Praises Obama Speech" thread?
How are you today?

193 Capitalist Tool  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:45:22am

re: #188 MandyManners

I bet you relish the chance to post puns.

You just never know what might turnip in these posts.

194 funky chicken  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:45:25am

re: #170 MJ

Obama to Palestinians: "Deal With Incitement" Against Israel


[Link: www.whitehouse.gov...]

Better than nothing though Obama does not understand it's not merely a "tendency." It's part and parcel of the culture of hate not only within Palestinian society but Muslim society in general.

How F'n sad that this statment sounds like a stronger rebuke of "palestinians" than anything I remember from GW Bush.

195 MandyManners  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:45:39am

re: #189 MrSilverDragon

He really does cut the mustard when it comes to puns.

I mayo or mayo not.

196 Eowyn2  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:45:53am

There is something terribly wrong with a government which will not build a road, a hospital, schools, etc.

Is it no wonder that they have to smuggle milk from Egypt?

197 MandyManners  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:46:04am

re: #193 Capitalist Tool

You just never know what might turnip in these posts.

Lettuce wait and see.

198 [deleted]  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:46:32am
199 Kenneth  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:46:37am

Any sign of fist unclenchment breaking out over the Muslim world?

200 Ben Hur  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:46:38am

re: #194 funky chicken

How F'n sad that this statment sounds like a stronger rebuke of "palestinians" than anything I remember from GW Bush.


Clinton, Bill and Hillary, have said it.

Bush said.

They all say it.

201 Capitalist Tool  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:46:41am

re: #195 MandyManners

I mayo or mayo not.


What a pickle you find yourself in...

202 Eowyn2  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:46:55am

re: #181 buzzsawmonkey

If they'd kept the tomato business, they might have had a chance to ketchup to the current century.

Not to mention the ability to cut and paste those tomatos

203 Kenneth  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:47:17am

re: #198 buzzsawmonkey

I'm finding it hard to ketchup to this thread.

204 apachegunner  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:47:19am

just got here have to catsup

205 subsailor68  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:47:21am

re: #201 Capitalist Tool

What a pickle you find yourself in...

Well, I just wish everyone would stop gherkin around.

206 Joel  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:47:25am

re: #200 Ben Hur

Clinton, Bill and Hillary, have said it.

Bush said.

They all say it.

The problem is rarely with the White House, the problem is with the State Departrment.

207 transient  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:47:27am

So far all I've heard is a lot of silly condiments.

208 Noam Sayin'  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:47:40am

My condiments on the puns, guys.

209 KenJen  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:47:47am

Perhaph Obama is confused. The word settelment may have a different meaning to him. He is a lawyer after all.

210 [deleted]  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:48:19am
211 Kenneth  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:48:25am

I thought Bush only spoke against new settlements, not against expanding existing settlements. Is this true or am I mistaken?

212 MandyManners  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:48:49am

You punsters have me beet. bbiab

213 BlueCanuck  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:49:36am

re: #199 Kenneth

Any sign of fist unclenchment breaking out over the Muslim world?

I think I see something over..... Oh wait, he was just tossing a grenade.

214 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:49:39am

re: #211 Kenneth

I thought Bush only spoke against new settlements, not against expanding existing settlements. Is this true or am I mistaken?

I'd like to know too.

215 [deleted]  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:49:47am
216 Lynn B.  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:49:52am

re: #96 n2stox

Yesterday I posted that Obama made no policy utterances. Then, upon re-reading the speech, I realized the exact same thing as Krauthammer.

The only policy he noted was the the US rejects the settlements. Apparently we don't reject rocket firings and kidnappings, just the settlements.

How can one not notice that in a land with the same natural resources, the same geography, the same pretty much everything, that Israel is a beacon of development and progress for humankind? It is a center of civilization surrounded by a swamp of degenerates.

It's like the differences between N and S Korea, but possibly even more marked.

...

And all that with no natural resources to speak of other than their own blood, sweat and tears. (No oil, no gas and very little water.)

217 MJ  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:50:20am

re: #194 funky chicken

How F'n sad that this statment sounds like a stronger rebuke of "palestinians" than anything I remember from GW Bush.

This is a stronger statement than Obama issued just last week when he used the word "sometimes" to talk about Palestinian incitement against Israel.
However, "sometimes" and "tendency" does not convey the reality of the Jew-hatred which spills forth on a daily basis from Arab and Palestinian media.

As for the rest of the statement, it's better than what Obama said in Cairo too when he ignored to whole issue of Palestinian institutions.

218 Ward Cleaver  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:50:50am

re: #209 KenJen

Perhaph Obama is confused. The word settelment may have a different meaning to him. He is a lawyer after all.

He wants 40% of any settlements.

/

219 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:50:51am

re: #215 buzzsawmonkey

As I said the other day, you'd think a community organizer would be all in favor of settlement houses.

And anyone from Chicago should be well acquainted with fences.

220 Ben Hur  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:51:06am

Ironic that he is from Hawaii.

221 MandyManners  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:51:11am

I never sausage a thread.

222 transient  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:52:17am

re: #211 Kenneth

I thought Bush only spoke against new settlements, not against expanding existing settlements. Is this true or am I mistaken?


Correct. Bush recognized there were 'facts on the ground' and that adjustments would have to be made. Obama is the first president in a long time who is apparently adopting a "zero tolerance" policy about settlements.

Too bad he isn't also adopting that zero tolerance policy about Palestinian violence.

Obama refers to the roadmap, but under that the Palestinians were required to stop the terrorism and maintain security. Currently, Abbas is dependent on Israel to ensure security in the West Bank, and Hamas obviously will have nothing to do with it. So we are back to the old paradigm of Israel having to "compromise" unilaterally. (I think the word for that is actually "capitulate.")

223 Earth56  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:52:34am

re: #193 Capitalist Tool

You just never know what might turnip in these posts.


You guys are just two peas in a pod

224 MandyManners  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:52:36am

re: #220 Ben Hur

Ironic that he is from Hawaii.

How so?

225 Ward Cleaver  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:53:30am

re: #203 Kenneth

I'm finding it hard to ketchup to this thread.

My kids used to tell a cute little joke:

Q: Why did Mustard lose the race?

A: Because he couldn't ketchup. Get it?

/they laughed at it, anyway

226 Rancher  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:53:34am

Has Obama come out against the settlements in the occupied American Southwest?

227 kansas  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:53:46am

In Pali speak, doesn't occupation mean the existence of Israel?

228 MJ  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:54:29am

re: #211 Kenneth

I thought Bush only spoke against new settlements, not against expanding existing settlements. Is this true or am I mistaken?

Since there is lots of confusion of what Bush agreed to, it's useful to read Elliot Abrams on what Bush agreed to and what he didn't agree to in this interview from last month:

The Settlement Freeze Fallacy

By Elliott Abrams
Wednesday, April 8, 2009; Page A17
Will Israel's new government face American demands for a settlement freeze? If so, we are headed for a needless confrontation with the Netanyahu cabinet...

[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

229 callahan23  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:54:30am

re: #227 kansas

In Pali speak, doesn't occupation mean the existence of Israel?

'xactly

230 Rancher  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:55:01am

re: #224 MandyManners

How so?

Also occupied territory.

231 ointmentfly  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:55:27am

re: #215 buzzsawmonkey

As I said the other day, you'd think a community organizer would be all in favor of settlement houses.

Obama is the pied piper for the "little guy". In this case, regardless of terrorist ties, the so-called palestinians are the "little guys" And this situation like others in the liberal handbook are zero sum, so the Israelis have to give something up. In this case it is the settlements.

232 realwest  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:56:38am

re: #121 Alouette
Did y'all read my #77 above, directed to your question?

233 KenJen  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:57:09am

re: #221 MandyManners

I never sausage a thread.

That's a weiner.

234 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:57:33am

re: #228 MJ

Since there is lots of confusion of what Bush agreed to, it's useful to read Elliot Abrams on what Bush agreed to and what he didn't agree to in this interview from last month:

The Settlement Freeze Fallacy

By Elliott Abrams
Wednesday, April 8, 2009; Page A17
Will Israel's new government face American demands for a settlement freeze? If so, we are headed for a needless confrontation with the Netanyahu cabinet...

[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

Bush to Sharon, 2004:

"In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities."

235 apachegunner  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:57:58am

re: #225 Ward Cleaver

My kids used to tell a cute little joke:

Q: Why did Mustard lose the race?

A: Because he couldn't ketchup. Get it?

/they laughed at it, anyway


I always heard the one of the momma tomato being followed by a baby tomato but the baby tomato was falling behind so the momma tomato walked back to the baby tomato and stomped on him and said "CATCHUP"!

236 Ward Cleaver  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:58:34am

re: #235 apachegunner

I always heard the one of the momma tomato being followed by a baby tomato but the baby tomato was falling behind so the momma tomato walked back to the baby tomato and stomped on him and said "CATCHUP"!

Murderer!

237 realwest  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:58:36am

re: #138 callahan23
Um, CK is an American citizen.

238 [deleted]  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:58:50am
239 John Neverbend  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:59:06am

re: #199 Kenneth

Any sign of fist unclenchment breaking out over the Muslim world?

Uzani, his army with fists open.

240 drcordell  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:59:40am

This obsession over Obama's statements regarding settlement activity is getting ridiculous. This is not a new U.S. policy. Ceasing settlement growth (including natural growth), was a key tenet of the "Road Map" created by Bush in 2003.
Source

The fact that Obama is choosing to actively pressure Israel to stop settlement growth is a contrast with Bush. But the official U.S. policy with regard to settlements has remained unchanged. Even within Israel a majority of the population believes that settlement growth should be frozen, 53% to 43%.
Source

Obama's stance on the issue is nearly identical to that of Tzipi Livni's. Yet Charles states that he has an "obsessive denial of reality." So 53% of Israelis are now separated from the reality in their own nation, according to the United States punditry? That's rich.

241 Kenneth  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:00:21am

Israelis Say Bush Agreed to West Bank Growth


Senior Israeli officials accused President Obama on Wednesday of failing to acknowledge what they called clear understandings with the Bush administration that allowed Israel to build West Bank settlement housing within certain guidelines while still publicly claiming to honor a settlement “freeze.”

... But a former senior official in the Bush administration disagreed, calling the Israeli characterization “an overstatement.”

“There was never an agreement to accept natural growth,” the official said Tuesday, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the matter. “There was an effort to explore what natural growth would mean, but we weren’t able to reach agreement on that.”

Clear as the Jordan river.

242 3 wood  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:00:24am

OT: The market may start jumping higher, but not for a real good reason.


Dollar Crisis Looming — Don't Short the Market: Jim Rogers

A currency crisis is imminent, so investors should avoid shorting the market, said Jim Rogers, chairman of Rogers Holdings.

"I’m afraid they're printing so much money that stocks could go to 20,000 or 30,000," Rogers said. "Of course it would be in worthless money, but it could happen and you could lose a lot of money being short."

243 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:00:37am
My only difference with Krauthammer is that these myths are not unique to Barack Obama; the Bush administration said the same things about settlements, and so has every US president for the past 20 years.

100% correct.

244 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:00:37am

re: #235 apachegunner

I always heard the one of the momma tomato being followed by a baby tomato but the baby tomato was falling behind so the momma tomato walked back to the baby tomato and stomped on him and said "CATCHUP"!

What did the mayonnaise say to the refrigerator door?

"Turn out the light. Can't you see I'm dressing?!"

245 Ward Cleaver  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:00:46am

OT -

Uh oh, here's something the anti-vaxxers will certainly seize on:

One in seven scientists say colleagues fake data

246 MJ  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:02:03am

re: #234 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Right. That's part of the letter from Pres. Bush to PM Sharon which the Obama administration hasn't said it honors.

Exchange of letters between PM Sharon and President Bush


14 Apr 2004
During their meeting in Washington, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and US President George Bush exchanged letters aimed at achieving a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians in the context of the Roadmap and the prime minister's Disengagement Plan.

[Link: www.mfa.gov.il...]

247 callahan23  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:02:33am

re: #237 realwest

Um, CK is an American citizen.

Yup, Ward Cleaver corrected that for me. Thanks

re: #151 Ward Cleaver

Yup, Krauthammer is 'murrican.

248 enoughalready  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:02:35am

At the same time - two wrongs do not make a right, regardless if one is much smaller than other or not. And the settlements ARE a huge issue as it is USED to fuel antisemitism in muslim countries.

Now - people can always argue about God-given rights and all that but if we disregard that we have to accept that perhaps the settlements are a pretty bad idea if we - against hope perhaps - hope that there will be a peaceful solution at some point and that the west bank will be transferred to some form of state (whether independent or as Benny Morris suggested a federation with Jordan which I am not really sure is a good idea but at least it's an idea).

Now, I am sure I will get downdinged into complete oblivion for even suggesting this but the settlements are a very real "public relations" issue and I think the general theory is that if the US can stop or even roll back settlements on the west bank this will generate sufficient goodwill that they can start pressuring (hard) other governments in the region (pretty much everyone except Iran, don't expect Iran to listen here because they will use the palestianian issue for political gain until it is resolved and this is perhaps the most important reason why it needs to be sorted out at some point) to completely acknowledge Israels right to exist, to publicly make peace and stop behaving like children.

Then again, I don't think that will happen.

And this is something that is deeply disturbing. My children, both born in recent years of the 21st century, will grow up and when they are my age the problem will still persist. Unless.
Unless what. I don't know.

249 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:02:40am

re: #244 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Ugh.

"Don't use Crisco as a lubricant...cause it's shortning!"

250 nyc redneck  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:03:01am

the way the palis tear stuff up is disgusting. all that money that they have received over the years and so little of it going to better themselves.
how can anyone respect them when their main purpose is murder and mayhem.
they could have had a 'state' by now, if they wanted one.
it is time to call them on this instead of making excuses for them.
they aren't victims they are aggressive thugs hell bent on destroying israel.

251 LatinGent  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:03:09am

I`ve had a Gulden opportunity to spread the word, but what I said did`nt cut the mustard. re: #233 KenJen

Had a Gulden opportunity to join in the punning, but I did`nt think I could cut the mustard.

252 Eowyn2  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:03:45am

re: #225 Ward Cleaver

My kids used to tell a cute little joke:

Q: Why did Mustard lose the race?

A: Because he couldn't ketchup. Get it?

/they laughed at it, anyway

You ever see Butterfly?

Well throw it out the window.

253 Sharmuta  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:04:32am

re: #240 drcordell

Do you deny that the premise is true? That it's not the settlements but Israel's very existence which is at the heart of this conflict on the part of the arabs?

254 realwest  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:04:43am

re: #192 callahan23
No, I didn't see it until just now - another excellent find. Keep up you're treasure hunting!

255 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:05:02am

heh

I think we've regressed into early elementary school.

256 Ben Hur  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:05:36am

re: #224 MandyManners

How so?

That's where his family is from.

257 Ward Cleaver  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:05:41am

re: #252 Eowyn2

You ever see Butterfly?

Well throw it out the window.

Telephone prank:

"Is your stove hot? Well, marry it!"

258 aRedPhishHead  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:05:57am
It’s a phenomenon that psychologists call “transferrence” — the real problem (Arab rejection of Israel’s right to exist) is so difficult and unworkable that blame is transferred to an easier target (the settlements).

But the fact is that even if the settlements were to vanish completely, the underlying problem of rejectionism would remain. There can never be any real progress toward peace until the US and the world overcomes this obsessive denial of reality.

Spot-freaking-on.

259 MandyManners  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:05:57am

re: #248 enoughalready

the settlements are a very real "public relations" issue and I think the general theory is that if the US can stop or even roll back settlements on the west bank this will generate sufficient goodwill that they can start pressuring (hard) other governments in the region (pretty much everyone except Iran, don't expect Iran to listen here because they will use the palestianian issue for political gain until it is resolved and this is perhaps the most important reason why it needs to be sorted out at some point) to completely acknowledge Israels right to exist, to publicly make peace and stop behaving like children.

The issue is not the settlements. The Jordyptians and their co-religionists want Israel GONE.

260 jcbunga  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:06:13am

Can anyone tell me how many UN resolutions were laid on Iraq between 1991 and 2003, when the "war of choice" began?

Is anyone making the case that the war of choice was enforcing the UN resolutions, which the Libs rate so highly?

Should we have simply ignored the wishes of the UN? /////

261 John Neverbend  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:06:51am

re: #107 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

1967, before that, they were Jordanians and Egyptians

My grandfather always referred to Israel as Palestine (he died in 1970), and referred to his Israeli relatives as Palestinians. The British equivalent of the UJA was known as the JPA (Joint Palestine Appeal) until the late 1960s (I don't remember exactly when the name was changed).

262 enoughalready  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:07:13am

re: #259 MandyManners

The issue is not the settlements. The Jordyptians and their co-religionists want Israel GONE.

Perhaps read it again? I wrote that the theory is that with the settlements gone they can put pressure on the governments of other nations in the region.

263 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:07:16am

re: #243 Spare O'Lake

"My only difference with Krauthammer is that these myths are not unique to Barack Obama; the Bush administration said the same things about settlements, and so has every US president for the past 20 years."


100% correct.

And furthermore since 1948, the USA, while supporting Israel with funds and arms, has repeatedly hamstrung and prevented Israel from completing the total military victories which it so richly deserved, including outright annexation of the West Bank and Gaza. Which US policies have kept Israel in a constant state of limbo and war with its neighbours. Sad but IMO true.

264 Liberal Classic  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:07:24am

There can never be any real progress toward peace until Muslim religious leaders stop teaching that Jews are the eternal enemy. No lasting peace can exist in such an environment.

265 [deleted]  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:07:49am
266 Eowyn2  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:08:11am

re: #250 nyc redneck

the way the palis tear stuff up is disgusting. all that money that they have received over the years and so little of it going to better themselves.
how can anyone respect them when their main purpose is murder and mayhem.
they could have had a 'state' by now, if they wanted one.
it is time to call them on this instead of making excuses for them.
they aren't victims they are aggressive thugs hell bent on destroying israel.

I am wondering what 'little they have used to better themselves'
did any?

267 KenJen  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:08:12am

re: #240 drcordell

How about this policy? For every rocket the Palis fire into Israel, the settlements get expanded by 1 acre.

268 Vicious Babushka  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:08:15am

re: #248 enoughalready

At the same time - two wrongs do not make a right, regardless if one is much smaller than other or not. And the settlements ARE a huge issue as it is USED to fuel antisemitism in muslim countries.

Jews living and breathing are USED to fuel anti-Semitism in the Muslim countries.

269 Vicious Babushka  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:08:42am

re: #262 enoughalready

Perhaps read it again? I wrote that the theory is that with the settlements gone they can put pressure on the governments of other nations in the region.

Yeah, how'd that work out in Gaza?

270 Eowyn2  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:09:02am

re: #257 Ward Cleaver

Telephone prank:

"Is your stove hot? Well, marry it!"

is John there
is John there
.....

Hi this is John are there any msgs for me.

271 callahan23  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:09:36am

Aww, shugs new thread and I gotta go 'n have dinner. BBL
(realwest)
re: #254 realwest --- Will do. ;-)

272 enoughalready  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:09:48am

re: #269 Alouette

Yeah, how'd that work out in Gaza?

I think I was pretty clear on the fact that I don't think that the theory is correct.

273 [deleted]  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:09:49am
274 Eowyn2  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:09:51am

re: #267 KenJen

How about this policy? For every rocket the Palis fire into Israel, the settlements get expanded by 1 acre.


hectares

275 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:10:22am

re: #248 enoughalready

Every time the Israelis withdraw from territory inhabited by the Palestinians, they get terrorism in return. Withdrawing from Gaza could have been reciprocated by the Arabs, but was not. Removing "settlements" has only increased the demands for further withdrawal.
The Arabs consider all of Israel "occupied territory" and will only stop making demands on Israel, and giving nothing in return, when there is no Israel to demand anything more from, or they are shown that that Israel isn't going to go away.

276 Kenneth  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:10:36am

re: #265 buzzsawmonkey

They believe Jerusalem is an illegal settlement in Al-Quds.

277 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:11:20am

re: #257 Ward Cleaver

Telephone prank:

"Is your stove hot? Well, marry it!"

Does your nose run? Do your feet smell?
You're built upside down!

278 drcordell  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:11:39am

re: #253 Sharmuta

The premise of Krauthammer's article, and Charles commentary is that Obama is forging some sort of new, radical stance with Israel with regard to settlements. And I am pointing out that that no, this is not a new policy with regard to settlements. Furthermore, it is a policy that is being pushed by political parties within Israel herself, and supported by 53% of the Israeli population.

If the settlement freeze was something being forced on Israel by the U.S. and international communities, both Krauthammer and Charles would have a strong point. But since this same policy is being pursued by mainstream Israeli political parties and supported by a majority of Israelis... I fail to see how anyone could describe it as "denial of reality."

279 Pianobuff  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:11:41am

The anti-Semites view the state of Israel as one giant settlement. That's the problem.

280 realwest  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:12:05am

Woops, gotta go now folks! Y'all have a good day and I hope I get the chance to see you all down the road!

281 Kenneth  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:12:19am

re: #273 buzzsawmonkey

How many "illegal Jewish settlements" were there in the West Bank before 1967?

Didn't seem to stop the Arabs from attacking Israel then & neither will it tomorrow.

282 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:12:32am

re: #262 enoughalready

Perhaps read it again? I wrote that the theory is that with the settlements gone they can put pressure on the governments of other nations in the region.

And with every Israeli concession, that theory has been shown to be false.

283 MacDuff  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:12:33am

There two sides in this conflict:

The Israelis have made consistent concessions in the cause of peace over the decades, embraced prosperity and democracy, allowed Arabs living in Israel the right to vote and even have Arabs serving in the Knesset.

The Arabs do not even recognize Israel's right to exist, consistently fund and launch terror attacks against Israel, solicit international funds for the "poor Palestinians", though doing nothing for them with their oil riches, while the Palestinians lift nary a finger toward their own advancement.

All the while, our President goes to the Middle East in an attempt to woo the "Arab Street", lauding them for the "Islamic contributions to humanity" as though a crazed rabid dog can be calmed and soothed by words spoken in dulcet tones. His abject refusal to accept the facts is breathtaking.

Such is the stuff of naivete, self delusion and egocentrism not seen in the American Presidency for some time, if ever.

284 Vicious Babushka  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:13:05am

re: #272 enoughalready

I think I was pretty clear on the fact that I don't think that the theory is correct.

You did not make that clear. If anything, you suggested that the theory is correct.

285 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:13:35am

re: #267 KenJen

How about this policy? For every rocket the Palis fire into Israel, the settlements get expanded by 1 acre.

That's been my flip side of "land for peace" - no peace, Israel gets the land.

286 enoughalready  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:13:38am

re: #273 buzzsawmonkey

There was war before Israel had the West Bank and Gaza. There was war when Israel gave up Gaza with no conditions whatsoever.

What the hell is "getting rid of (more) settlements" supposed to magically do, hmmmmmmmmmm? And what does your "theory" have to say about that?

Take a deep breath and read the post again.

287 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:13:53am

re: #281 Kenneth

How many "illegal Jewish settlements" were there in the West Bank before 1967?

Didn't seem to stop the Arabs from attacking Israel then & neither will it tomorrow.

(Rhetorically) How many illegal Jewish settlements were there before the 1920-something Hebron massacre?

288 [deleted]  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:14:34am
289 nyc redneck  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:14:39am

re: #273 buzzsawmonkey

There was war before Israel had the West Bank and Gaza. There was war when Israel gave up Gaza with no conditions whatsoever.

What the hell is "getting rid of (more) settlements" supposed to magically do, hmmmmmmmmmm? And what does your "theory" have to say about that?

giving up more land will only be bad for israel. it will just allow the enemy to encroach further. that is what it will accomplish.
when the palis were given gaza and then used it to launch more attacks, where was the world outrage at what they were doing? and the realization that pressuring israel should stop?

290 pete(detroit)  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:14:41am

re: #136 Capitalist Tool

they could appoint Mark Steyn as White House advisor...

Good Call!

291 Kenneth  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:14:49am

re: #282 Kosh's Shadow

And with every Israeli concession, that theory has been shown to be false.

The "theory" is if you weaken yourself and surrender territory to terrorists the terrorists will be shamed into being nice for a change.

292 Syrah  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:15:15am

Maybe the better negotiation tactic for Israel would be to declare that they will no longer consider returning to any previous border line, but to be more than willing to discuss how much of the land currently under Palestinian control the Israelis are willing to let the Palestinians to keep.

Turn the table.

It might help the Palestinians focus on Peace with Israel instead of obsessing over destroying it.

293 enoughalready  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:15:26am

re: #282 Kosh's Shadow

And with every Israeli concession, that theory has been shown to be false.

And like I said, I don't think the end result will be the one which they expect. I don't know how to be any clearer on the matter. I understand the thinking behind it but I don't subscribe to the viability of it.

294 [deleted]  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:15:32am
295 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:15:33am

re: #278 drcordell

The premise of Krauthammer's article, and Charles commentary is that Obama is forging some sort of new, radical stance with Israel with regard to settlements. And I am pointing out that that no, this is not a new policy with regard to settlements. Furthermore, it is a policy that is being pushed by political parties within Israel herself, and supported by 53% of the Israeli population.

If the settlement freeze was something being forced on Israel by the U.S. and international communities, both Krauthammer and Charles would have a strong point. But since this same policy is being pursued by mainstream Israeli political parties and supported by a majority of Israelis... I fail to see how anyone could describe it as "denial of reality."

Bullshit.
Israeli policy is "land for peace".
Ergo: no peace, no land.
And until the Arabs see the light, natural growth is only natural.

296 Annar  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:17:26am

In a few days Lebanon may take a giant step towards becoming a full blown Islamic state. Should Hesb'ullah win it will become an open Iranian client state and the minorites will start fleein in large numbers. There may be an intermediate civil war in which the outgunned christians and druze have little chance. The attack on Israel that will follow the consolidation of power will make the settlement issue seem lake a minor distraction.

297 enoughalready  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:17:29am

re: #294 buzzsawmonkey

I've read it several times. It still reads like nonsense.

Ok. In simple terms: "Here's how the thinking goes. I don't think it will work, I think the problem will persist well into the future and I don't have a good solution."

How is that nonsense?

298 John Neverbend  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:18:03am
299 Vicious Babushka  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:18:05am

re: #286 enoughalready

Take a deep breath and read the post again.

I read your post again, and the only message I get out of it is that you think it's just a peachy idea to remove Jews and that it will bring "peace."

300 dhg4  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:18:07am

re: #81 Joel

From powerline blog

This isn't really surprising. Do you remember 6 days + 20 years, the dream is dying?

301 aRedPhishHead  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:18:21am
If the settlement freeze was something being forced on Israel by the U.S. and international communities, both Krauthammer and Charles would have a strong point. But since this same policy is being pursued by mainstream Israeli political parties and supported by a majority of Israelis... I fail to see how anyone could describe it as "denial of reality."

Charles's point about this being a long-time, bipartisan error in policy is well taken and more or less a historical tradition.

I would characterize your assertion above, however, as a borderline logical fallacy (argumentum ad populam), meaning that just because mainstream political parties and/or a slim majority of voters support or pursue a particular policy, it still doesn't necessarily follow that their perception of reality then becomes the objective reality.

Most people in 1492 thought the world was flat. That didn't make it so.

302 [deleted]  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:18:52am
303 enoughalready  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:19:34am

re: #299 Alouette

I read your post again, and the only message I get out of it is that you think it's just a peachy idea to remove Jews and that it will bring "peace."

Again. I say "Here's what they are thinking. I don't think it will work."

I also noted that the settlements are being used for propaganda purposes in muslim nations to fuel antisemitism. Hardly a radical idea.

304 drcordell  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:20:03am

re: #288 buzzsawmonkey

Seeing as how our domestic whackjobs think Israel dictates US policy anyway, I think that Israel should demand that the US stop building suburban subdivisions--you know, "settlements."

Can you read? Are you capable of responding to a single comment without veering off-topic and posting nonsense? Read my comment again, and try contributing something of a substantive nature with regard to the topic at hand.

305 Lynn B.  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:20:11am

re: #238 buzzsawmonkey

Actually, towards the end of the Torah, Moses describes the Land, listing some of its attributes ("a land whose stones are iron, and from the hills of which you may dig brass").

The Land of Israel is home to widely varied topography; a coastline with beaches and ports, broad fertile plains, mountains, the lake of Kinneret, wetlands, the mineral-rich Negev and Dead Sea. It has hillsides for vineyards as well as areas for pasture and agriculture. It goes from the heights of Mount Hermon and Mount Carmel to one of the lowest spots on Earth--all in a very small area.

This widely variant topography and variety of resources is a great blessing. Some of nearly everything; not too much of anything. Israel is not dependent on a single product, so cannot fall into the one-crop trap of plantation agriculture or an economy dependent on a single mineral such as oil. If one thing fails, there is something else to keep the economy going; the fact that there is something of everything results in economic diversification and the need to exercise ingenuity to use to the fullest the small amounts of what there is.

Indeed it is. But the Kinneret is dangerously low and the Dead Sea is drying up (the two are connected). Anyway, my point was that with all the riches possessed by other areas in the region, Israel has excelled only because it has exercised the ingenuity necessary to use to the fullest the small amounts of what there is.

/leaving out the obvious Other possible reason ...

306 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:21:48am

re: #305 Lynn B.

Indeed it is. But the Kinneret is dangerously low and the Dead Sea is drying up (the two are connected). Anyway, my point was that with all the riches possessed by other areas in the region, Israel has excelled only because it has exercised the ingenuity necessary to use to the fullest the small amounts of what there is.

/leaving out the obvious Other possible reason ...

It is interesting that the land thrives only when Jews posses it.

307 Land Shark  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:21:58am

Charles said:

"It’s a phenomenon that psychologists call “transferrence” — the real problem (Arab rejection of Israel’s right to exist) is so difficult and unworkable that blame is transferred to an easier target (the settlements).

But the fact is that even if the settlements were to vanish completely, the underlying problem of rejectionism would remain. There can never be any real progress toward peace until the US and the world overcomes this obsessive denial of reality."

Talk about speaking truth to power! As clear and as concise a description of the Arab/Israeli conflict as I have ever read, Charles. And you are absolutely correct to point out that it isn't just Obama, the last 5 or 6 administrations have failed to confront this reality preferring instead the usual meaningless platitudes designed to appease, not confront the Arab side with the undeniable fact of their intransigence.

Until the US and the World starts confronting the truth I'm afraid this thing will go on until something really insane (read:nuclear) happens.

308 Mad Mullah  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:22:00am

The land for peace charade has been proven not to work, it is idiocy to even suggest such a foolish and naive idea. It didn't work when Israel turned over Gaza to the car swarming, Kassam launching rabid Arabs and it didn't work when the world willingly let Germany annex Checkoslovakia. You can't buy off a bunch of evil thugs and bullies by appeasing them, they will be back for more, that's for sure.

I'm fine with a zero state solution for the "Palestinians", and frankly, I don't really care if a bunch of terrorist loving Arabs who have adopted the name "Palestinian" solely for PR and propaganda purposes don't ever get their own state.

309 [deleted]  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:22:03am
310 itellu3times  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:22:14am

One might also point out that the Arabs were beastly to the Jewish settlers even before there was an Israel.

This makes it hard to believe that the Israelis ever had any more peaceful options than the ones that were forced on them.

The creation of the settlements must be considered defensive and reasonable.

If the Arabs object to them, they must be prepared to show why the defensive aspects, are no longer needed. And a prudent person will require far more than their word on the matter.

311 kansas  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:22:28am

re: #240 drcordell

This obsession over Obama's statements regarding settlement activity is getting ridiculous. This is not a new U.S. policy. Ceasing settlement growth (including natural growth), was a key tenet of the "Road Map" created by Bush in 2003.
Source

The fact that Obama is choosing to actively pressure Israel to stop settlement growth is a contrast with Bush. But the official U.S. policy with regard to settlements has remained unchanged. Even within Israel a majority of the population believes that settlement growth should be frozen, 53% to 43%.
Source

Obama's stance on the issue is nearly identical to that of Tzipi Livni's. Yet Charles states that he has an "obsessive denial of reality." So 53% of Israelis are now separated from the reality in their own nation, according to the United States punditry? That's rich.

What I understood Charles to say was, "the real problem (Arab rejection of Israel’s right to exist) is so difficult and unworkable that blame is transferred to an easier target (the settlements)."

It is this obsessive denial of reality that I thought he was referring to.

312 jamgarr  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:23:12am

re: #304 drcordell

Can you read? Are you capable of responding to a single comment without veering off-topic and posting nonsense? Read my comment again, and try contributing something of a substantive nature with regard to the topic at hand.

Don't you just love newbies with attitude!?

313 drcordell  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:23:37am

re: #295 Spare O'Lake

Again, EPIC FAIL of reading comprehension. Obama did not create the U.S. policy of pushing for a halt in settlement growth, Bush did. Mainstream Israeli political parties support freezing settlement growth, as well as 53% of the Israeli population in recent polls. Where is the detachment from reality?

314 kansas  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:23:53am

re: #312 jamgarr

Don't you just love newbies with attitude!?

No.

315 American Sabra  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:25:46am

We can argue till the cows come home how the Arabs teach Jewish hate, but you're never going to fix that. We have no control over any of that. The only thing Israel can do is act in their best interest.

Bush's Road Map was identical to what Obama expressed (The Forward, 2003):

In an interview to be published on Friday in the daily Jerusalem Post, Sharon dismissed any talk of American pressure on the issue of settlements, saying “the only pressure comes from Jews on themselves.” In private conversations, however, Israeli officials maintain that Sharon’s bravado masks a growing apprehension over the widening gap between Jerusalem and Washington on the matter of settlements. Despite Sharon’s protestations, the administration, from the president on down, continues to insist on a “total freeze” on settlements, in accordance with the road map, and rejects Israel’s insistence on continued expansion of the settlements within the limits of their “natural growth.”

The problem, as I see it, is that Obama has expressed this to the Arabs themselves, to Abbas. I do not think Bush ever met with Abbas and talked about this, but I could be wrong about that. If so, it's really not a small thing. It's one thing to discuss Israeli policy with Israel, but to discuss it unilaterally with the Palestinians is very wrong. Then you're not helping, you're meddling.

316 drcordell  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:26:41am

re: #311 kansas

Right, I would interpret Charles' statement to mean "considering settlement growth an obstacle to the peace process is a detachment from reality." In response, I stated that within the Israeli political realm, this is a mainstream stance that is supported by a majority of Israelis. Therefore, Charles seems to be implying that a majority of Israelis are somehow detached from the reality in their own nation. Which, seems rather ridiculous.

317 spirochete  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:26:50am

re: #267 KenJen

How about this policy? For every rocket the Palis fire into Israel, the settlements get expanded by 1 acre.

This has always been my opinion. Map it out in a grid. Label the squares one through whatever. One by one annex them as the rockets fall. Makes no difference what is on the square. It gets annexed and whatever is on it is destroyed, and the land becomes Israel territory until the end of time. Period.

318 nyc redneck  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:27:05am

re: #292 Syrah

Maybe the better negotiation tactic for Israel would be to declare that they will no longer consider returning to any previous border line, but to be more than willing to discuss how much of the land currently under Palestinian control the Israelis are willing to let the Palestinians to keep.

Turn the table.

It might help the Palestinians focus on Peace with Israel instead of obsessing over destroying it.

i agree, israel should turn the tables on them. put out their demands forcefully.
and respond forcefully to any aggression from the seething barbarians.
let them be put on notice at what is required for a peace.

israel needs to just focus on surviving now. take a look around and realize that it is coming down to that. ignore all the stupid meaningless talky talky from louts and fools who pretend that the palis can be dealt w/ rationally.
the palis have never shown they want peace.
they want israel wiped off the map.
it is not abt. land.

319 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:28:08am

*yawn*

320 drcordell  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:28:21am

re: #309 buzzsawmonkey

Bite me.

Don't get upset at me because you are incapable of challenging my comments on the basis of their merits. Your silence is deafening.

321 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:29:02am

Israel should offer to dismantle its West Bank settlements as soon as the Palestinians have dismantled their West Bank settlements.
Nablus for Gush Etzion.
Jenin for Bat Ayin.
Bethlehem for Maaleh Adumim.
Quid pro quo.

322 American Sabra  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:29:23am

re: #313 drcordell

Again, EPIC FAIL of reading comprehension. Obama did not create the U.S. policy of pushing for a halt in settlement growth, Bush did. Mainstream Israeli political parties support freezing settlement growth, as well as 53% of the Israeli population in recent polls. Where is the detachment from reality?

Can you show some of those polls? I find that hard to believe.

Freezing "settlement" (boy I hate that terminology) growth says that Jews cannot expand their communities. What does that mean? Eventually the communities will die out on their own. No new schools, no groceries, no housing, no infrastructure. Zip. Many Israeli MKs are taking this very hard and have gone as far to say it's anti-Semitic. And I think I must agree. Whether Bush or Obama says it.

323 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:31:15am

*yawwwwwwwwn*

There is the issue of the Bush/Sharon letters (links to quotes from them posted up-thread.)

/not that they'd make a difference if one's already decided that Bush is the Anti-Christ.

324 jamgarr  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:31:24am

Hey Doc: First, do no ad hominum

325 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:31:30am

re: #308 Mad Mullah

The land for peace charade has been proven not to work, it is idiocy to even suggest such a foolish and naive idea. It didn't work when Israel turned over Gaza to the car swarming, Kassam launching rabid Arabs and it didn't work when the world willingly let Germany annex Checkoslovakia. You can't buy off a bunch of evil thugs and bullies by appeasing them, they will be back for more, that's for sure.

I'm fine with a zero state solution for the "Palestinians", and frankly, I don't really care if a bunch of terrorist loving Arabs who have adopted the name "Palestinian" solely for PR and propaganda purposes don't ever get their own state.

Gaza was not "Land for Peace".
Gaza was a unilateral withdrawal.

326 Occasional Reader  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:32:34am

Speaking of the Epoch-Making Obama Cairo Speech:

I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

Wouldn't it be fun if at his next press conference, someone were to ask President Obama:

1) Do you consider Islam to be a "revealed" religion?

2) Does your Administration actually seek a "partnership" between the United States of America, and Islam? If so, do you also seek such partnerships with any other religions? And how do you reconcile this with the Establishment Clause?

3) Could you please point out the provision of Article II of the U.S. Constitution that describes one of the President's responsibilities as "fighting negative stereotypes about Islam"? Assuming it isn't there (hint: It's not), and you have instead decided to take on this responsibility of your own accord, how do you reconcile THAT with the Establisment Clause?


I'm dreaming, I know.

327 [deleted]  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:32:39am
328 kansas  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:33:01am

re: #316 drcordell

Right, I would interpret Charles' statement to mean "considering settlement growth an obstacle to the peace process is a detachment from reality." In response, I stated that within the Israeli political realm, this is a mainstream stance that is supported by a majority of Israelis. Therefore, Charles seems to be implying that a majority of Israelis are somehow detached from the reality in their own nation. Which, seems rather ridiculous.

Well since this is what he said, "There can never be any real progress toward peace until the US and the world overcomes this obsessive denial of reality" I have to ask with all due respect, what the fuck is your problem?.

329 Kenneth  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:33:55am

re: #316 drcordell

I think you are missing the distinction between expanding existing settlements and creating new settlements. Most Israelis support the former while a slim majority oppose the latter.

Bush's policy statements shifted around on the issue. He did accept existing settlements, opposed new ones and was vague of expanding existing settlements.

Where Obama has shifted policy is by coming out forcefully against any new settlements and being somewhat vague in accepting existing settlements. His language hints at rolling back existing Jewish communities.

So while it is not an entirely new policy from Bush's, it is a significant shift.

330 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:33:58am

re: #324 jamgarr

(just mentionin') ... see my slash/note in my 323.
He's made his belief system crystal clear in past threads.

331 Lynn B.  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:34:32am

re: #304 drcordell

That's rich. Considering that Buzz contributes more somethings of a substantive nature with regard to the topic at hand in his average one-liner than you've contributed in your entire ... 3 weeks here.

332 Orangutan  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:34:55am

Charles,

Your discussion of Krauthammer's article leaves me with nothing to add. Getting tough with the Arabs on this particular issue is simply getting honest. No need for war, just frank admission.

333 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:34:59am

re: #313 drcordell

Again, EPIC FAIL of reading comprehension. Obama did not create the U.S. policy of pushing for a halt in settlement growth, Bush did. Mainstream Israeli political parties support freezing settlement growth, as well as 53% of the Israeli population in recent polls. Where is the detachment from reality?

Guess what?
Netanyahu is the PM of Israel and government policy is natural expansion.
You have no clue.

334 drcordell  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:36:17am

re: #322 American Sabra

Source for the polls

Tzipi Livni and a majority of Israelis who support settlement freezes are now anti-semites? Please. Even if you challenge the findings of the polls, the fact remains that support for halting settlement growth is a mainstream political view within Israel. Crying "anti-semitism" over legitimate policy differences simply lessens the impact when actual anti-semitism is pointed out.

335 Occasional Reader  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:36:55am

re: #288 buzzsawmonkey

Seeing as how our domestic whackjobs think Israel dictates US policy anyway, I think that Israel should demand that the US stop building suburban subdivisions--you know, "settlements."

Al Gore already made that demand, several years ago.

336 [deleted]  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:37:23am
337 J.S.  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:38:10am

re: #326 Occasional Reader

wow...(favorited...but, yeah, we'll never, ever, ever hear such questions asked)... (David Frum has written, imo, an excellent column about how Obama's Cairo speech undercuts moderate Muslims...Frum writes: "For all the speech’s reasonable tone, it persistently treats the more traditionalist elements within Islamic societies – and the Islamic diaspora – as the more authentic and important.")

338 Lynn B.  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:38:39am

re: #315 American Sabra

We can argue till the cows come home how the Arabs teach Jewish hate, but you're never going to fix that. We have no control over any of that. The only thing Israel can do is act in their best interest.

Bush's Road Map was identical to what Obama expressed (The Forward, 2003):

But this changed in 2004. See MJ's link above.

339 nyc redneck  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:38:48am

re: #308 Mad Mullah

The land for peace charade has been proven not to work, it is idiocy to even suggest such a foolish and naive idea. It didn't work when Israel turned over Gaza to the car swarming, Kassam launching rabid Arabs and it didn't work when the world willingly let Germany annex Checkoslovakia. You can't buy off a bunch of evil thugs and bullies by appeasing them, they will be back for more, that's for sure.

I'm fine with a zero state solution for the "Palestinians", and frankly, I don't really care if a bunch of terrorist loving Arabs who have adopted the name "Palestinian" solely for PR and propaganda purposes don't ever get their own state.

they don't have a state yet because having a state is less important to them than annihilating israel. they can't be appeased w/ more land.
they want it all.

340 AZDave  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:38:49am

re: #10 latingent

This man is brilliant. But he left out the part where the Palestinians teach their children to hate while they are still in diapers, thus perpetuating their hate for generations to come.

THIS is the real problem.

341 Syrah  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:38:54am

re: #318 nyc redneck

i agree, israel should turn the tables on them. put out their demands forcefully.
and respond forcefully to any aggression from the seething barbarians.
let them be put on notice at what is required for a peace.

israel needs to just focus on surviving now. take a look around and realize that it is coming down to that. ignore all the stupid meaningless talky talky from louts and fools who pretend that the palis can be dealt w/ rationally.
the palis have never shown they want peace.
they want israel wiped off the map.
it is not abt. land.

In a proper negotiation, everything is always on the table and nothing is ever off limits or already settled until the last line is written AND signed.

I would like to see Israel be more aggressive in their diplomatic dealings with the Palestinians and everyone else.

342 Occasional Reader  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:39:30am

re: #334 drcordell

support for halting settlement growth is a mainstream political view within Israel.

Which, of course, is not the same thing as pretending that the "settlements" are the principle obstacle to peace, as Obama (and US liberals in general) insist is the case. Israelis can be opposed to "settlement growth" for purely practical reasons.

343 AZDave  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:40:23am

re: #15 Danny

It's probably too soon to tell for sure, but it's beginning to loo like Obama's Cairo speech will end up doing far more damage than good to the US.

Wasn't that his objective?

344 drcordell  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:41:48am

re: #333 Spare O'Lake

Guess what?
Netanyahu is the PM of Israel and government policy is natural expansion.
You have no clue.

Do you not understand that Israel has more than one political party, and that there is a rather vigorous debate within the country over what to do about settlements? Obama just laid out the government policy of the United States in speech yesterday. You think that means every American agrees with what he says? Jesus Christ.

345 drcordell  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:43:15am

re: #342 Occasional Reader

Where has Obama stated that the settlements are the principal obstacle to peace? If he has stated as much, I am not aware of it. Can Obama not be opposed to settlement growth for practical reasons, the same as Tzipi Livni and other moderate Israelis?

346 nyc redneck  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:43:46am

re: #341 Syrah

In a proper negotiation, everything is always on the table and nothing is ever off limits or already settled until the last line is written AND signed.

I would like to see Israel be more aggressive in their diplomatic dealings with the Palestinians and everyone else.

i would too. and be prepared to come down hard when they have to.

347 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:43:59am

re: #344 drcordell

Do you not understand that Israel has more than one political party, and that there is a rather vigorous debate within the country over what to do about settlements? Obama just laid out the government policy of the United States in speech yesterday. You think that means every American agrees with what he says? Jesus Christ.

There was a democratic election which Likud won and successfully formed a government.
Israeli government policy has changed.
Get with it, you fool.

348 Kenneth  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:44:33am

re: #344 drcordell

Please don't take Our Lord's name in vain. Many people here find that exceedingly offensive.

349 Vicious Babushka  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:44:56am

re: #303 enoughalready

Again. I say "Here's what they are thinking. I don't think it will work."

I also noted that the settlements are being used for propaganda purposes in muslim nations to fuel antisemitism. Hardly a radical idea.

The Muslim nations use "Jews put blood in the matzah" to fuel anti-Semitism. They have plenty of fuel for anti-Semitism without the settlements.

350 kansas  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:46:32am

re: #342 Occasional Reader

Which, of course, is not the same thing as pretending that the "settlements" are the principle obstacle to peace, as Obama (and US liberals in general) insist is the case. Israelis can be opposed to "settlement growth" for purely practical reasons.


A. "The occupation" is the major obstacle to peace.
B. "The occupation" means the existence of Israel.
C. Therefore the existence of Israel is the major obstacle to peace.

351 Occasional Reader  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:46:48am

re: #345 drcordell

Where has Obama stated that the settlements are the principal obstacle to peace? If he has stated as much, I am not aware of it. Can Obama not be opposed to settlement growth for practical reasons, the same as Tzipi Livni and other moderate Israelis?

Quote:

To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel’s right to exist.

At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine’s. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

Hamas blows people up on buses, and launches rockets; Israel builds settlements. Moral equivalence! And we'll have peace when both these (equally) bad things stop.

352 American Sabra  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:48:44am

re: #334 drcordell

Source for the polls

Tzipi Livni and a majority of Israelis who support settlement freezes are now anti-semites? Please. Even if you challenge the findings of the polls, the fact remains that support for halting settlement growth is a mainstream political view within Israel. Crying "anti-semitism" over legitimate policy differences simply lessens the impact when actual anti-semitism is pointed out.

Israeli MKs are saying this and the more I digest it, the more I have to agree with it.

[Link: www.israelnationalnews.com...]
[Link: www.israelnationalnews.com...]

Stopping Jewish settlements = stopping Jewish growth = exactly what Hitler wanted to do. We can talk about the loss of 6 million lives, but there have been 100s of millions more before that. Why should Jews in their own land be told they can't expand their neighborhoods? If someone said this to you, would you accept it? Sorry, you can't fix your roads, you can't build a new school, hospital, police dept. And don't think about having children either. We have no place to put them.

That poll is very telling. 501 people and who are they, I want to know.

Every Friday, the Israeli papers publish a national poll catching a snapshot of the public's mood. This week's poll is unequivocal in showing major public support for an end to the settlement foolery. This gives Bibi Netanyahu the political cover he needs, if he wants to transform, but as the Friday commentators also point out in the Israeli papers, whether his own personality and personal history trap him in the paradigm of the past is the question of the moment....as one top Israeli commentator says, if he doesn't respond to Obama's program, the current government is on a collision course that puts it on a trajectory for toppling and soon....the right politician in Israel (with help from Israel's friends) can capture the current mood and make progress --Here is the poll:

No biases here.

353 HighFlyingCrane  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:48:57am

I wonder when and why WaPo changed the headline from "Barack Obama's Israeli Settlements Canard" to "The Settlements Myth"?

P.s. Buzzsawmonkey #70 wins the thread.

354 drcordell  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:50:04am

re: #347 Spare O'Lake

Are you so fucking dense that you can't understand how a majority of the Israeli population can disagree with their PM's stance on a single issue? By definition Parliamentary governments are formed with coalitions. Kadima, the party which favors a freeze in settlements actually won a plurality of the vote. But because Likud was considered able to form a coalition, Netanyahu became PM even though Likud received a lesser percentage of the popular vote. Did I explain that slowly enough for you? Do you understand how everything the PM says does not speak directly for every citizen of Israel?

355 J.S.  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:51:30am

re: #352 American Sabra

there's also an interesting and enlightening article here..

356 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:51:45am

Arrested early-childhood development

*yawn*

357 AZDave  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:52:54am

Democracy. What Arab leader want democracy? The Saudi kings don't want it. Do you think the Jordanian king wants it? The schmuck in Egypt? The assholes in Iran? I think this is the last thing they want. It tantamount to poison. And any excuse (nasty Jews, for example) will be used to avoid it.

There will be no peace in the region until the Arabs stop (as noted above) teaching their children to hate the West and/or Jews.

Thank you. I'll now step down from my soap box.

358 drcordell  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:54:45am

re: #352 American Sabra

Yes, Jo-Ann Mort, Director of Communications at Jewish Funders Network, is a HUGE anti-semite. Bonus points for comparing the stopping of settlement growth to Hitler.

359 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:55:47am

re: #354 drcordell

Are you so fucking dense that you can't understand how a majority of the Israeli population can disagree with their PM's stance on a single issue? By definition Parliamentary governments are formed with coalitions. Kadima, the party which favors a freeze in settlements actually won a plurality of the vote. But because Likud was considered able to form a coalition, Netanyahu became PM even though Likud received a lesser percentage of the popular vote. Did I explain that slowly enough for you? Do you understand how everything the PM says does not speak directly for every citizen of Israel?

The Israeli system of government works that way.
Your contempt for the legitimacy of the democratically elected government of Israel is not surprising, considering your contempt for legitimate views expressed here.
You, my friend, are the one who is dense.
And by the way, you are not a good debater, either.

360 Kenneth  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:56:31am

Did anybody else notice how the Big Argument against Israel has suddenly changed?

A few months ago it was the "Apartheid Wall" that was the Main Obstacle to Peace™. Now all of a sudden it's the settlements that are the Main Obstacle to Peace™

This is no accident. The Obama administration realized the Israelis won the public relations war on the Security Wall. People get the threat from bombers and terrorists. So they searched for something else to beat up on Israel about and discovered that the settlements are now the Main Obstacle to Peace™.

361 VioletTiger  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:57:10am

But the fact is that even if the settlements were to vanish completely, the underlying problem of rejectionism would remain. There can never be any real progress toward peace until the US and the world overcomes this obsessive denial of reality.

Just a great post. It's the one reality everyone else just dances around.

362 capitalist piglet  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:57:56am

re: #354 drcordell

Are you so fucking dense that you can't understand how a majority of the Israeli population can disagree with their PM's stance on a single issue? By definition Parliamentary governments are formed with coalitions. Kadima, the party which favors a freeze in settlements actually won a plurality of the vote. But because Likud was considered able to form a coalition, Netanyahu became PM even though Likud received a lesser percentage of the popular vote. Did I explain that slowly enough for you? Do you understand how everything the PM says does not speak directly for every citizen of Israel?

Must you be a condescending prick?

Did I ask that slowly enough for you?

363 Ateam  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 12:00:12pm

"Not so PC to admit" May 28, 2008, Haarz (there, there)

"Hard to admit, but data is that thanks the Israeli occupation life improved highly within Gaza Strip. The life expectancy - 48 year old by 67' six days war - climbed up dramatically at this time - more than 72 years. higher then the life expectancy in Egypt, not tended benevolence in period of militaristic in Gaza. Input Israeli medicine systems to the strip, adoption of hospitals by the hands of medical Israeli institutions, and moving the very ill-ones to hospitalization & treatment in Israel, brought the sharp descent in the death rate. from old people to children."

(sorry for the poor quality of translation)

364 Lynn B.  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 12:01:04pm

re: #334 drcordell

Source for the polls

Tzipi Livni and a majority of Israelis who support settlement freezes are now anti-semites? Please. Even if you challenge the findings of the polls, the fact remains that support for halting settlement growth is a mainstream political view within Israel. Crying "anti-semitism" over legitimate policy differences simply lessens the impact when actual anti-semitism is pointed out.

First, you're misrepresenting the results of that poll (imagine my surprise). Second, there are other polls.

Should Israel say "no" now to the US of Obama and not make any concessions to the Palestinians until conditions of peace and security (on the ground) are reached?
Yes 54% No 33% No opinion 13%.

In return for a peace agreement with the Palestinians that will be good for
Israel would you support transferring a large portion of the territories in
Judea and Samaria to the Palestinians?
No 50% Yes 43% No opinion 7%

Prof. Degani noted on the program that the reply to the last question
reflected a shift to the Right in Israeli public opinion as compared to the
past.

Third, relying on polls to make your argument is generally a bad idea, as you can usually find a poll that will support just about any position you try to take. It's all in the wording.

365 American Sabra  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 12:01:40pm

re: #355 J.S.

there's also an interesting and enlightening article here..

Very good article. Thanks for sharing :)

The current brouhaha about natural growth is a smokescreen for the real dispute over Israel's borders. New construction doesn't enlarge the Israeli settlements, it just increases their population. Since the end of the 19th century, long before the United Nations Partition Plan of 1947, which paved the way for the modern state of Israel, the Arabs vociferously objected to Jews occupying (their word) ANY land in their midst. ....

366 Kenneth  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 12:01:50pm

Somebody please explain something to me...

Jews have lived continuously in the West Bank for more than 3000 years. So why should Israel not build communities in Judea and Samaria?

Why should their land be handed over to a another group of people who for 1310 years never considered themselves a "people" and never bothered to create a nation on that land?

367 drcordell  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 12:08:02pm

re: #364 Lynn B.

The initial point I was attempting to make is being misconstrued. The thrust of the article at the top of this post is that Obama is a radical for asking Israel to halt settlement growth. I used polls to rightfully point out that within Israel, there is clearly support for this very same position. Whether the 53% statistic is accurate or not is beside the point. The point is, Obama is hardly staking out a radical position on this issue. It's well within the political mainstream in Israel.

368 drcordell  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 12:09:37pm

re: #359 Spare O'Lake

You have repeatedly stated that simply because Netanyahu's position is pro-settlement, that this implies all of Israel feels the same way. Stating that any politician does not speak for every citizen of his nation is not showing contempt, it's reality.

369 Lynn B.  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 12:10:20pm

re: #366 Kenneth

Somebody please explain something to me...

Jews have lived continuously in the West Bank for more than 3000 years. So why should Israel not build communities in Judea and Samaria?

Why should their land be handed over to a another group of people who for 1310 years never considered themselves a "people" and never bothered to create a nation on that land?

Good question. And I keep wondering ... beyond the expansion of existing "settlements" for growth, why again is the building of new Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria an obstacle to peace? Assuming, of course, that they're built on land that doesn't belong to someone else (which is not always the case, I know).

Is the building of Arab communities in Israel considered an obstacle to peace? Of course not. Because it is assumed that when "peaces comes," Arabs will continue to live peacefully alongside Jews in Israel.

So why is it equally assumed that when "peace comes" there will not be a single Jew permitted to live in "Palestine?" And why is this assumption never ever questioned?

370 cartoonboy  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 12:14:08pm

Obama's pseudo-evenhandedness: hypnotic sugar words preface "on the other hand", the hand which holds the real agenda.

371 American Sabra  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 12:17:13pm

re: #368 drcordell

You have repeatedly stated that simply because Netanyahu's position is pro-settlement, that this implies all of Israel feels the same way. Stating that any politician does not speak for every citizen of his nation is not showing contempt, it's reality.

Well you are correct. There are politicians (and I'm assuming therefore citizens) who do want to stop the expansion. If you read through those Auretz Sheva links, you'll see those comments. I just don't think it's that large, which would indicate the majority. I do, however, feel that most Israelis are resigned to a "2 state solution" and I've recently come to agree with them.

But Charles seemed to be clear that this wasn't just Obama, but Bush too. The difference it seems to me is how and to whom Obama said it. It's one thing to discuss it with Israelis, but unilaterally with the Arab world when the leader of Israel himself disagrees? Not good at all.

372 Lynn B.  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 12:17:41pm

re: #367 drcordell

The initial point I was attempting to make is being misconstrued. The thrust of the article at the top of this post is that Obama is a radical for asking Israel to halt settlement growth. I used polls to rightfully point out that within Israel, there is clearly support for this very same position. Whether the 53% statistic is accurate or not is beside the point. The point is, Obama is hardly staking out a radical position on this issue. It's well within the political mainstream in Israel.

Ok, well taking you at your word, then, that's an odd argument because (a) Charles never said Obama is a radical for asking Israel to halt settlement growth. He said, and I quote:

the Bush administration said the same things about settlements, and so has every US president for the past 20 years

and (b) Charles' statement about "an obsessive denial of reality" had nothing to do with the point you say you were making. Again, since reading comprehension seems to be your thing, I quote:

But the fact is that even if the settlements were to vanish completely, the underlying problem of rejectionism would remain. There can never be any real progress toward peace until the US and the world overcomes this obsessive denial of reality.

Does that help?

373 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 12:19:14pm

re: #368 drcordell

You have repeatedly stated that simply because Netanyahu's position is pro-settlement, that this implies all of Israel feels the same way.

I have gone back up-thread, through Spare O'Lake's comments.

I find not even a single statement, much less repetitions, expressing that point of view.

Perhaps you can direct me to specific statements in specific comments where that is clearly expressed.

374 dhg4  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 12:19:57pm

re: #372 Lynn B.

Does that help?

This could help too:

So let me venture a guess: over time — and not much time — the beautiful and sweet words by Obama will be forgotten, and the only enduring thing to emerge will be what Obama said about Israel and the settlements. That will be what the Arab and Muslim world focuses on, and they will — along with the United Nations and European countries — insist that stopping settlements is the pre-requisite for peace in the Middle East. Obama made a good start, they will say, but what matters are the consequences following his address. And so all the pressure will be brought to bear on Israel.

375 califleftyb  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 12:22:27pm

For the last 60+ years the Arab world has been like a spoiled child screaming to get it's way. Now we have a new baby sitter in charge who thinks giving the child candy will work.

376 Rancher  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 12:22:52pm

re: #369 Lynn B.

So why is it equally assumed that when "peace comes" there will not be a single Jew permitted to live in "Palestine?" And why is this assumption never ever questioned?


Because everyone accepts this as true. I think your deeper question, and correct me if I'm wrong, I don't want to put words in your mouth, is why doesn't everyone question the morality of not allowing Jews in Palestine when they would howl like a banshee if Israel said no Muslims are allowed in Israel? Also along those lines why don't more people question the morality of displacing almost one million Jews from Arab and Muslim countries over the last 60 years? The answer is: because they are Jews.

377 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 12:22:58pm

For everyone's FYI, drcordell's fundamental starting-point is that Bush destroyed the Republican Party.

This is a necessary context for decyphering what he's about here.

378 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 12:24:07pm

re: #368 drcordell

You have repeatedly stated that simply because Netanyahu's position is pro-settlement, that this implies all of Israel feels the same way. Stating that any politician does not speak for every citizen of his nation is not showing contempt, it's reality.

Don't put words in my mouth - I neither said nor implied any such thing.
Netanyahu is the Prime Minister and his job is to set Israeli policy. Until he is defeated, his policies stand.
You claim that there is a poll which happens to contradict government policy, even if true, is totally irrelevant. Israeli is not governed by polls and your arguments are therefore contemptible and contemptuous.
You lost this debate early on, and as you were going down you lashed out at your opponents in a most ugly and ignorant fashion.
We are done.

379 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 12:24:19pm

re: #373 pre-Boomer Marine brat

I have gone back up-thread, through Spare O'Lake's comments.

I find not even a single statement, much less repetitions, expressing that point of view.

Perhaps you can direct me to specific statements in specific comments where that is clearly expressed.

I'm waiting, drcordell ... and you've been had, as surely as the last time.

380 [deleted]  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 12:25:00pm
381 Kenneth  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 12:25:26pm

re: #377 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Karma: -294
No. of comments posted: 130

That's a heck of a ratio! ...-2.26

382 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 12:26:33pm

re: #380 buzzsawmonkey

Strawmen he types with his fingers
Twisting replies with his words
Shilling on the threads in this blog
Shilling on the threads in this blog
Hoping to stir strife with his words
Shilling on the threads
In this blog...

--not Roberta Flack

but getting Flack for it, nonetheless

383 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 12:27:24pm

re: #381 Kenneth

That's a heck of a ratio! ...-2.26

He can be sane at times, until the subject turns to anything relating to BUsh

384 pingjockey  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 12:35:34pm

The damn Palis got Gaza and destroyed it. They build nothing, contibute nothing, unless you count homicide bombers and rocket launches.

385 Lynn B.  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 12:36:05pm

re: #376 Rancher

Because everyone accepts this as true. I think your deeper question, and correct me if I'm wrong, I don't want to put words in your mouth, is why doesn't everyone question the morality of not allowing Jews in Palestine when they would howl like a banshee if Israel said no Muslims are allowed in Israel? Also along those lines why don't more people question the morality of displacing almost one million Jews from Arab and Muslim countries over the last 60 years? The answer is: because they are Jews.

That is indeed the deeper issue and while I tend to agree that your answer is correct, I will never accept it. As Kenneth said above, Jews have been living in Judea and Samaria for the better part of 3000 years, much of that time under foreign "occupation," if you will. Many (though probably not most) of the Jews living there now would prefer to continue living there under foreign occupation again to living in Tel Aviv or Haifa under Israeli rule, as those places have historical and spiritual meaning to them that's been etched deep into their souls for millennia. Which is to say, they would prefer living there secure in their lives and their property and at peace with their neighbors. This is a part of the story that never gets told. It needs to get told.

386 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 12:37:14pm

BTW, the idea of all Israelis agreeing on anything is actually very funny.

387 Lynn B.  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 12:37:56pm

re: #383 pre-Boomer Marine brat

He can be sane at times, until the subject turns to anything relating to BUsh

Truth to tell, he does not seem too fond of "Zionists," either.

388 pingjockey  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 12:39:05pm

re: #386 Spare O'Lake
From what I have seen, the politics over there is very 'spirited'!

389 American Sabra  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 12:39:37pm

re: #385 Lynn B.

Hey Lynn. Just took a gander at your site. Very nice! You don't accept comments? That's a pity. Wanted to say Hello to you there heh

390 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 12:41:53pm

re: #369 Lynn B.

Good question. And I keep wondering ... beyond the expansion of existing "settlements" for growth, why again is the building of new Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria an obstacle to peace? Assuming, of course, that they're built on land that doesn't belong to someone else (which is not always the case, I know).

Is the building of Arab communities in Israel considered an obstacle to peace? Of course not. Because it is assumed that when "peaces comes," Arabs will continue to live peacefully alongside Jews in Israel.

So why is it equally assumed that when "peace comes" there will not be a single Jew permitted to live in "Palestine?" And why is this assumption never ever questioned?

And why is it accepted that the Palestinians can throw out Jews, but that Israel can't send all its Arabs to Palestine?
I'm not saying Israel should expel its Arabs, just asking why it is acceptable for "Palestine" to expel Jews but Israel isn't supposed to expel Arabs.

391 drcordell  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 12:47:03pm

re: #379 pre-Boomer Marine brat


#333 Spare O'Lake

Guess what?
Netanyahu is the PM of Israel and government policy is natural expansion.
You have no clue.

re: #378 Spare O'Lake

Netanyahu is the Prime Minister and his job is to set Israeli policy. Until he is defeated, his policies stand.
You claim that there is a poll which happens to contradict government policy, even if true, is totally irrelevant. Israeli is not governed by polls and your arguments are therefore contemptible and contemptuous.

This is what I am referring to. I have simply been stating that Obama's policies on settlement growth are in line with that of the Israeli center, supported by roughly 50% of the Israeli population as well as Tzipi Livni. Spare O' Lake has then repeatedly insisted that all of this is irrelevant because Netanyahu is the PM, and he sets Israeli policy. I don't dispute the fact that Netanyahu sets Israeli policy.

I'm not debating what Israel's official policy is. I am pointing out that within Israel there is a vigorous debate regarding settlements, and that many Israelis share Obama's perspective. Thus, labeling Obama's views radical and "anti-semitic" as some on this thread have done, is completely farcical.

392 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 12:47:27pm

re: #390 Kosh's Shadow

And why is it accepted that the Palestinians can throw out Jews, but that Israel can't send all its Arabs to Palestine?
I'm not saying Israel should expel its Arabs, just asking why it is acceptable for "Palestine" to expel Jews but Israel isn't supposed to expel Arabs.

Someone told me...

393 drcordell  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 12:51:23pm

re: #381 Kenneth

I really have given up on trying to build my karma at this point. Clearly my views are at odds with the majority of lizards. I just never expected to get hammered so fiercely for posting something that isn't exactly the same as every other comment on this thread. Yes, I occasionally use some spirited language, but for the most part I'd like to think my posts are substantive. I thought karma was down-dinged for posts that are contemptuous and rude, not simply outside the mainstream of thought.

394 American Sabra  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 12:58:30pm

MKs Respond: 'Zionist Vision is Stronger than Any President'
[Link: www.israelnationalnews.com...]

MK Aryeh Eldad (National Union): “Obama makes a shocking parallel between the destruction of European Jewry and the suffering that the Arabs of Israel brought upon themselves when they declared war on Israel. How dare Obama compare Arab refugee suffering to the six million Jews murdered in the Holocaust? If Obama does not understand the difference between them, perhaps he will understand it better when he visits the Buchenwald concentration camp in the comings days. And if he doesn’t understand it even there, then Islam will once again teach it to him, just as it taught his predecessor on 9/11.

MK Dr. Michael Ben-Ari (National Union) said: “The Zionist vision of the rebuilding of the Land of Israel is stronger than any president or government. We outlasted Pharaoh, and we will outlast Obama. Obama said, "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. It is time for these settlements to stop." Ben-Ari said, “Everyone can now see that Obama is not interested in Maoz Esther, but in Jerusalem.

Col. (ret.) Moti Yogev told Channel One television news, "Obama's speech was very professional and peace-seeking. But he quoted our Sages, which he attributed to the Quran, and the same Sages and sources have spoken of the Jewish People's right to this Land. Just as he said that the State of Israel will not disappear, the same is true about the settlements in Judea and Samaria. Though the speech was not inflammatory, I am sure that it will give a push to the settlement effort throughout Judea and Samaria, and we will grow even stronger than the five percent growth rate we already enjoy."

395 drcordell  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 12:58:49pm

re: #387 Lynn B.

I have no problem with Zionists or Zionism. Israel is a great ally to my nation, and I wish her nothing but peace and prosperity. Simply because I share different views on how Israel can best achieve that peace and prosperity doesn't make me anti-zionist or anti-semitic. Criticism of, and disagreement with Israeli political policies is simply that, criticism of political policies. Not a statement that Israel does not have a right to exist, or an attack on Judaism as a whole.

396 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 1:19:18pm

re: #391 drcordell

Charles (and not you) said the policy was nothing new. Here is Charles' statement:

My only difference with Krauthammer is that these myths are not unique to Barack Obama; the Bush administration said the same things about settlements, and so has every US president for the past 20 years.


Yet you dishonestly went on to claim that Charles had said the opposite, as follows:

The premise of ... Charles commentary is that Obama is forging some sort of new, radical stance with Israel with regard to settlements. And I am pointing out that that no, this is not a new policy with regard to settlements.

Then, you later claimed that Charles had said that Obama's position on the settlements was "a denial of reality"

If the settlement freeze was something being forced on Israel by the U.S. and international communities, both Krauthammer and Charles would have a strong point. But since this same policy is being pursued by mainstream Israeli political parties and supported by a majority of Israelis... I fail to see how anyone could describe it as "denial of reality."


when that is of course not what Charles stated. Here is what Charles said:

But the fact is that even if the settlements were to vanish completely, the underlying problem of rejectionism would remain. There can never be any real progress toward peace until the US and the world overcomes this obsessive denial of reality.

So you not only lost the argument and lashed out like a stuck pig, but it is clear that your position was based on intentionally misquoting Charles' position.
You are a real piece of work.

397 ReneeJoy  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 1:34:59pm

re: #16 MJ

Israel removed every single settlement from Gaza.

And what was the response from the Palestinians?

The issue is not settlements.

The issue isn't really lack of Palestinian institutions so that is a major problem as Netanyahu has said time and time again.

The issue is the continual rejection of the Right of Israel to exist as a Jewish State in the Middle East by the Arabs.

This bears repeating.

398 drcordell  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 1:42:22pm

re: #396 Spare O'Lake

I never lashed out at anyone besides you, after you repeatedly launched ad hominem attacks on me instead of furthering the discussion.

It’s a phenomenon that psychologists call “displacement” — the real problem (Arab rejection of Israel’s right to exist) is so difficult and unworkable that blame is displaced to an easier target (the settlements).

But the fact is that even if the settlements were to vanish completely, the underlying problem of rejectionism would remain. There can never be any real progress toward peace until the US and the world overcomes this obsessive denial of reality.

My interpretation of this paragraph was that the phrase "obsessive denial of reality" applied to the U.S. (and therefore Obama's) focus on Israeli settlements instead of Arab "rejectionism."

Construing this to mean Obama's stance on halting settlement growth is a "denial of reality" is hardly an intentional misquotation. Obama thinks halting settlement growth is important, Charles thinks that the reality is that settlement growth is irrelevant. You may disagree with me, but clearly my intent was not to grossly misconstrue what Charles said.

I agree with you that I was false to assert Charles stated that Obama is forging a radical new path with regard to settlement policy. I wrote Charles, when I should have written Charles Krauthammer. Too many Charles's.

399 mjwsatx  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 1:48:40pm

The angry Doctor lost the argument and was right about only one thing - there is vigorous debate within Israel about settlement building and settlement expansion. Too bad there is NO debate in the Arab world about anything for if there was ANY debate about ANYTHING - other then whether they should stone women to death or just whip them to death - then there would be a hint of a chance for peace. In the meantime I say that Israel should build where they need to build and the rest will be worked at when the Moshiach comes.

Shabbat Shalom.

Mike //////\///////

400 Joel  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 1:52:53pm

re: #300 dhg4

This isn't really surprising. Do you remember 6 days + 20 years, the dream is dying?

I remember that painfully like I remember having my tooth pulled as a child.

401 drcordell  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 1:54:07pm

re: #399 mjwsatx

The only real point I was trying to get across was that there is vigorous debate in Israel regarding settlement growth. A debate that right-wing idiots in the U.S. are completely unaware of when they refer to any anti-settlement stance as "anti-semitic." See several comments above to see this borne out firsthand.

Enjoy your stereotyping of Arabs, sounds like it's really working out for you quite well.

402 ihateronpaul  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 2:01:27pm

re: #401 drcordell

The only real point I was trying to get across was that there is vigorous debate in Israel regarding settlement growth. A debate that right-wing idiots in the U.S. are completely unaware of when they refer to any anti-settlement stance as "anti-semitic." See several comments above to see this borne out firsthand.

Enjoy your stereotyping of Arabs, sounds like it's really working out for you quite well.

Yeah I find it unfortunate how much blatant arab stereotyping I see in blog comments. I try to point it out once in a while.

403 Lynn B.  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 2:59:31pm

re: #395 drcordell

I have no problem with Zionists or Zionism. Israel is a great ally to my nation, and I wish her nothing but peace and prosperity. Simply because I share different views on how Israel can best achieve that peace and prosperity doesn't make me anti-zionist or anti-semitic. Criticism of, and disagreement with Israeli political policies is simply that, criticism of political policies. Not a statement that Israel does not have a right to exist, or an attack on Judaism as a whole.

Ok. Again, taking you at your word, I'm mighty glad to hear that. But I hope you can understand why comments like this might give a different impression.

Not really sure why so many zionist panties are in a twist over this speech.

404 Lynn B.  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 3:10:12pm

re: #389 American Sabra

Hey Lynn. Just took a gander at your site. Very nice! You don't accept comments? That's a pity. Wanted to say Hello to you there heh

Well many thanks AS, and hello back. I don't have the time or the stomach to monitor comments so I've never had them. Maybe once I get off the blogger site and back onto MT. Any day now ....

405 notutopia  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 3:34:55pm

....the real problem (Arab rejection of Israel’s right to exist) is so difficult and unworkable that blame is displaced to an easier target (the settlements).

YES!

...the fact is that even if the settlements were to vanish completely, the underlying problem of rejection would remain.
There can never be any real progress toward peace until the US and the world overcomes this obsessive denial of reality.

So very well said Charles, and so very spot on true!

406 Dom  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 6:20:52pm

I try to get my head around what a solution looks like. It is a struggle to see how the West Bank and Gaza can be a single state unless the Palestinians' hostility to Israel is controlled in the clear sense of having been excised from the charters of the political parties and the PA and any official political statement or educational text. Meanwhile it is only realistic to say any peace process is fairly incidental to any long-term developments on the ground. I also do not think Israel has made it known emphatically enough (and while bringing good ideas to the table) that certain settlements around Jerusalem are long established and large, have generally cost no actual Palestinian residencies, and cannot realistically be considered a part of the settlement. It is baffling if the Palestinians do not then consider a "fair compromise" on that particular issue. I believe that Israel will necessarily be intransigent on these points come what may in all future negotiations, so before the President goes scaring Israelis with absolute demands concerning the settlements, he ought to explain what he understands those to be.

407 tsionguy  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 6:32:44pm

Clearly, if a group of campers goes into the wilderness and builds a permanent camp, without government permission, then that government has a right to dismantle the camp, or not. It's for the government to decide, not the UN, not some foreign government, and not some NGO. As for the Fourth Geneva Convention, it simply does not apply here. Jordan captured the West Bank in 1948, annexed the West Bank in 1950, lost it in 1967, and formally handed it over to Israel in 1994. So Israel does not occupy Jordanian land. Article 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that an occupation ends when the occupier ceases to perform governmental functions. Since the Oslo Accords in 1993 and 1995, The PA has been the official government of the "Palestinian people." They exercise sovereignty over all Arab towns in the West Bank. Israeli troops have also withdrawn from these towns. Therefore, Israel does not "occupy" the PA governed towns, whether or not they are considered a "country." The land that is settled by Jews is truly disputed territory, a wilderness, that is under the control of the Israeli government. It is up for negotiations, but we can not assume it "belongs" to Arabs any more than it belongs to the Ottomans, the Byzantines, the Romans, or the ancient Kingdom of Judah.

408 pink freud  Fri, Jun 5, 2009 10:54:21pm

re: #399 mjwsatx

re: #399 mjwsatx

The angry Doctor lost the argument and was right about only one thing - there is vigorous debate within Israel about settlement building and settlement expansion. Too bad there is NO debate in the Arab world about anything for if there was ANY debate about ANYTHING - other then whether they should stone women to death or just whip them to death - then there would be a hint of a chance for peace. In the meantime I say that Israel should build where they need to build and the rest will be worked at when the Moshiach comes.

Shabbat Shalom.

Mike /////////////

The use of 'dr' in front of an obvious last name is not indicative of the title of 'doctor'. It may simply indicate the first letter of a first and second name.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Gateway Pundit, Sued by Election Workers, Declares BankruptcyA onetime favorite, now just pathetic figure around these parts, Jim Hoft aka SMOTI ("Stupidest Man On The Internet"), has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in response to the defamation lawsuits filed against him to the same election workers that ...
Khal Wimpo (free internal organs upon request!)
Yesterday
Views: 68 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
3 weeks ago
Views: 359 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1