It's not like knowledge of those particular settlements hasn't been known publically for quite some time. Boo, hiss hill. Try something else to get attention. Bibi did the right thing apologizing for his lame committee's mistake but that won't stop the renovations.

I can't see anything wrong with what Hillary Clinton said. She's right. It was a deliberate insult.

re: #2 Charles

And it was internacine strife, intended to put Netanyahu in an awkward situation.

I am often confused by hearing criticism for Obama for following what has been US policy for a long time.

re: #3 Obdicut

And it was internacine strife, intended to put Netanyahu in an awkward situation.

I am often confused by hearing criticism for Obama for following what has been US policy for a long time.

Then some heads need to roll at the Interior Ministry.

re: #3 Obdicut

And it was internacine strife, intended to put Netanyahu in an awkward situation.

I am often confused by hearing criticism for Obama for following what has been US policy for a long time.

Some of it sometimes motivated by ignorance-- not knowing that something has been policy.
Lots of it is motivated by Obama Derangement.

None of the facts will stop the memes in play, alas.

So we beat on, dolts against teh current, born back ceaselessly into the past.

Some history.

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary - President George W. Bush
January 10, 2008

Press Briefing by National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley on Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process
Dan Panorama Hotel
Jerusalem

Q Yesterday, Prime Minister Olmert made a distinction about East Jerusalem and settlements, and I assume he was talking about Har Homa. Does the President make such a distinction when he wants the road map followed? Is East Jerusalem different? Is Har Homa different? Do they have to stop that?

MR. HADLEY: What we've done is said, and what the President did yesterday, and you've heard from Secretary Rice and from me as well, yesterday -- we go back to the road map. And the road map says that there needs to be a halt to settlement expansion. That's what the road map says. The road map also says that unlawful outposts should be dismantled. And the President made very clear last night, road map obligations are road map obligations; they need to be carried out.

As you know, the parties have agreed that they are going to be moving forward with carrying out the road map obligations, in parallel with their negotiations and the building of Palestinian institutions. We have a monitoring mechanism that the President just announced that General Frasier will be, a Air Force three-star, will be heading that effort.

So our position is the road map obligations are clear. Both sides, Israelis and Palestinians, need to be going forward on those road map obligations. Obviously the Prime Minister has talked about his views about how to approach the road map issues and to approach the settlement issues. Our view is the settlement expansion should halt. The Prime Minister expressed his views about how Israel is going to undertake that point. The other thing I would say -- as you know, this whole issue of settlements gets a lot easier once there is an understanding between Israel and the Palestinians as to what the territory of a new state is going to look like.

re: #4 Dark_Falcon

Well, I'm not an Israeli, and frankly the most worrisome part about this is it shows the far right in Israel punching at Netanyahu. A lot of Israel's enemies would like nothing more than to see an ugly fight get started the the Israeli right.

Waiting for the Netanyahu coalition to break down in 5...4...3...2...

I support the right for Israelis to live wherever they want, but it is cynical to kick Palestinians out just to move into an area nobody wants you in. There is more to Zionism than populating land.

Actually, Bush was different.

While the timing of this was clearly meant as an insult, the Obama administration picked this fight at the beginning of his term, with its silly demand for an immediate cease to all natural growth of settlements.

The bottom line is that the Israelis simply don't trust him. Forward articles claiming otherwise aside, he has not visited Israel, nor do Israelis feel his administration is doing enough to stop the Iranian nuclear threat.

re: #8 jordash1212

Waiting for the Netanyahu coalition to break down in 5...4...3...2...

I support the right for Israelis to live wherever they want, but it is cynical to kick Palestinians out just to move into an area nobody wants you in. There is more to Zionism than populating land.

Quite Concur, though I hope Netanyahu can hold things together.

re: #9 davesax

Did you read #6?

While this has been consistent US policy, I do give the Obama Admin credit for standing up for that policy position more vocally than the previous one. (That may be an illusion due to different reactions from Israel and their more vocal supporters here - it's hard for me to tell.)

On the other hand, I have yet to see meaningful action taken in response to continuing Israeli intransigence on the settlements issue. Frankly, it's probably too late - this bus needed to be turned around in the 1980's. But if there are never going to be any consequences, then the problem will never end.

re: #2 Charles

I can't see anything wrong with what Hillary Clinton said. She's right. It was a deliberate insult.

Do you know the hill personally? I do (from working in local campaigns); she is insulting re two-faced about Israel. We disagree on the lady's words and intent. 'nuff said.

This is more enlightening: [Link: rubinreports.blogspot.com...]

I've got to go to the bank. BBL

Why Bibi Humiliated Biden

Netanyahu sensed a political advantage, and he's pressing it. Martin Indyk, former American ambassador to Israel, explains Netanyahu's remarkable decision to taunt his country's most important ally.

What happened to Vice President Biden this week in Jerusalem was egregious but hardly new. Right-wing governments in Israel have regularly embarrassed high-level U.S. officials by making announcements about new settlement activity during or just after their visits. But it usually happens to secretaries of state. It infuriated James Baker, confounded Condoleezza Rice, and appalled Madeleine Albright.

When I served as Albright's ambassador in Israel, during Bibi Netanyahu's first term as Prime Minister, he announced a major extension to an existing West Bank settlement as she departed Israel after one of her efforts to move the peace process forward. When she heard the news, she called me on an open line and shouted: "You tell Bibi that he needs to stop worrying about his right wing and start worrying about the United States."

It was good advice, but it went unheeded. Antagonizing the Clinton administration eventually contributed to Netanyahu's downfall. Israeli voters punished him for mishandling the relationship with Israel's only true ally.

The second time around, one might have expected Netanyahu to be more circumspect about his relations with the Obama administration, especially because Israel is now so dependent on the United States to deal with the growing threat from Iran.

[snip]

President Bush - Berlin, Germany
May 23, 2002

Israel also has a large stake in the success of a democratic Palestine. Permanent occupation threatens Israel’s identity and democracy. So the United States continues to challenge Israeli leaders to take concrete steps to support the emergence of a viable, credible Palestinian state. As there is progress towards security, Israel forces need to withdraw fully to positions they held prior to September 28, 2000. And consistent with the recommendations of the Mitchell Committee, Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories must stop. As violence subsides, freedom of movement should be restored, permitting innocent Palestinians to resume work and normal life. The United States can play a crucial role but, ultimately, lasting peace can only come when Israelis and Palestinians resolve the issues and end the conflict between them.

re: #9 davesax

Yes, Obdicut, I did.

And I stand by what I said.

The Bush administration did not start out its term by saying there should be a start to all natural growth of settlements.

And as I said, the context of this for Israelis is very different. They did not doubt Bush's commitment to Israel's security. They do doubt Obama's.

And additionally, this Israeli "settlement" is building in a part of Jerusalem that Abbas accepted last year, in Olmert's offer, would be in a part of Jerusalem that would stay in Israel in any final status agreement.

re: #16 Gus 802

Doesn't matter. I'm sure people will find some way to claim it was good when Bush did it and bad when Obama does it. The slightly more subtle version is to seize on some small feature and claim that makes it OMG SO TOTALLY DIFFERENT DON'T YOU SEE.

re: #10 Dark_Falcon

I would also like to see the coalition sustain itself, but Netanyahu finds himself in a political mess. He cannot allow for Israel to start a big fight with the United States (hence the moratorium he imposed earlier), but he cannot alienate the far right who wield disproportionate power to their numbers (hence the subsequent agreement to allow East Jerusalem building).

This really does make me consider the consequences of the Obama administration turning its priorities inward and letting Israel finds it way to peace. I don't like the idea of completely cutting off diplomatic relations and American involvement in a peace agreement, but it seems like both countries have some internal orders to sort out. Perhaps its a bit precocious to attempt a peace solution before we get our ducks in a row.

We would joke about that overlooking the wall from Mt. Scopus about why anyone who has a choice want to live in East Jerusalem or the West Bank? That area of Jerusalem is unsightly, especially East Jerusalem and the recently contested Sheikh Jarrah area. You can get a pretty clear picture from up there on Mt. Scopus.

It’s been the position of the US government that Israel should stop building new settlements since Ronald Reagan was president, and George W. Bush was no different from Barack Obama on this issue, either.

RINOs!!!11eleventy

re: #18 iceweasel

Doesn't matter. I'm sure people will find some way to claim it was good when Bush did it and bad when Obama does it. The slightly more subtle version is to seize on some small feature and claim that makes it OMG SO TOTALLY DIFFERENT DON'T YOU SEE.

It's simple, they'll say Bush was lying and Obama isn't, and that this makes Obama untrustworthy.

Cognitive dissonance, it's what's for dinner.

re: #18 iceweasel

Doesn't matter. I'm sure people will find some way to claim it was good when Bush did it and bad when Obama does it. The slightly more subtle version is to seize on some small feature and claim that makes it OMG SO TOTALLY DIFFERENT DON'T YOU SEE.

I know. It's always different and "we seem to be missing the nuances." There's always the rationalization process that follows whenever these things are brought up. Perhaps there is a difference in style since Rice tended to be a little more soft spoken. Bush also tended not to make his comments directly and instead used his Press Office to do the talking for him. Essentially, there isn't much difference in policy.

East Jerusalem is not a disputed territory. It has been annexed by Israel, and this annexation has been recognized by the U.S.A. We have been waiting for some time now for the US Embassy to move there, BTW.

AFAIK this calling East Jerusalem an "occupied territory" was not US official policy a couple of years ago.

re: #21 goddamnedfrank

It's simple, they'll say Bush was lying and Obama isn't, and that this makes Obama untrustworthy.

Cognitive dissonance, it's what's for dinner.

Tastes like burning. :(

Teh Stupid, it always burns.

re: #16 Gus 802

Thank you. I am a Zionist Jew who supports Magen David Adom, but I refuse to see support for these settlements as a yardstick as to whether or not someone is pro-Israel. Your mileage may vary.

Lots of statements here about Bush vs. Obama.

What about how Israelis feel, as per the Israeli press, and some of its most respected writers like Ari Shavit?

The bottom line is that Israelis themselves, the majority, do not trust Obama. And they don't trust him because he has made repeated outreach to the Muslim world, personally, and very little to Israel.

He came into office and one of the first things he did was issue a demand that all natural growth of settlements must stop.

This is in the context of Iran threatening to annihilate Israel, and Abbas having walked away from another peace offer.

His policy on the mideast seems to be to reach out to dictators, like Syria and Iran, and ignore pro-democracy forces while excoriate Israel over settlement building.

Whatever Ronald Reagan or George Bush said in 2002 really is not what concerns Israelis, and Lebanese proponents of democracy like Michael Young, right now.

re: #23 Caton

East Jerusalem is not a disputed territory. It has been annexed by Israel, and this annexation has been recognized by the U.S.A. We have been waiting for some time now for the US Embassy to move there, BTW.

AFAIK this calling East Jerusalem an "occupied territory" was not US official policy a couple of years ago.

Why bother researching it, just spout out what you want to be true:

The United States views as desirable the establishing of an international regime for the city.[24] Its final status must be resolved through negotiations[25] and it does not recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

The Congress has adopted a number of concurrent resolutions which support recognition of a united Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and urging Jerusalem as the site of the U.S. embassy. The resolutions expressed the "sense" of the House or Senate but had no binding effect. The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 stated that "Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999". The Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the provisions of the bill invade exclusive presidential authorities in the field of foreign affairs and are unconstitutional.[46] The fact that a U.S. embassy is located in a particular city, like Tel Aviv, does not legally mean that the U.S. recognizes that city as a capital. Experts in the field of foreign relations law have said that, faced with congressional force majeure, the State Department could simply construct another embassy in Jerusalem, and continue to argue that the U.S. doesn't recognize Jerusalem as the capital."[47] The U.S. Consulate is building an expansion in the neighborhood of Talpiot to provide visa and other consular services to residents of Jerusalem and the Palestinian Territories. The construction site is often mistaken as a site for the future US Embassy; however there are currently no plans to use this location in this manner.

It's a lot easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) says it is shocked by the harsh public criticism recently directed at Israel by the US Administration.

"We are shocked and stunned at the Administration’s tone and public dressing down of Israel on the issue of future building in Jerusalem," Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, said in a statement.

Israel had been publicly reprimanded in recent days by several US officials, in wake of the announcement that 1,600 new housing units will be built in east Jerusalem. The Americans were especially upset as the announcement coincided with Vice President Joe Biden's visit to Israel.

However, ADL said the unprecedented criticism leveled by the US was aimed at placating the Palestinians.

"We cannot remember an instance when such harsh language was directed at a friend and ally of the United States," ADL's statement said. "One can only wonder how far the US is prepared to go in distancing itself from Israel in order to placate the Palestinians in the hope they see it is in their interest to return to the negotiating table."

Foxman's statement noted that the US criticism was "especially troubling" as PM Benjamin Netanyahu made sure to offer clear explanations of the announcement mishap both publically and privately.

"Biden accepted the prime minister's apology," ADL said. "Therefore, to raise the issue again in this way is a gross overreaction to a point of policy difference among friends."

SNIP

re: #25 bratwurst

Thank you. I am a Zionist Jew who supports Magen David Adom, but I refuse to see support for these settlements as a yardstick as to whether or not someone is pro-Israel. Your mileage may vary.

YW and you are right. My point of course is to illustrate that these settlements were a bone of contention with the previous administration and as Charles points out, the Reagan administration and I'm sure all those in between.

Also during Biden's visit,...

Dozens of Palestinian students from the youth division of Fatah, the mainstream party led by President Mahmoud Abbas, gathered here on Thursday to dedicate a public square to the memory of a woman who in 1978 helped carry out the deadliest terrorist attack in Israel’s history.

Though one senior Fatah leader and a Palestinian Authority security official joined the gathering in this town abutting Ramallah, the administrative center of the authority, the relatively low key nature of the event, timed to the 32d anniversary of the attack, was a kind of compromise. An official ceremony was put off by the Palestinian Authority as a result of Israeli protests and to avoid an unnecessary embarrassment during a visit to the region by the American vice president, Joseph R. Biden Jr., who came partly to promote new Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

The woman being honored, Dalal Mughrabi, was the 19-year-old leader of a Palestinian squad that sailed from Lebanon and landed on a beach between Haifa and Tel Aviv. They killed an American photojournalist, hijacked a bus and commandeered another, embarking on a bloody rampage that left 38 Israeli civilians dead, 13 of them children, according to official Israeli figures. Ms. Mughrabi and several other attackers were killed.

SNIP

re: #31 MandyManners

Exactly, Mandy.

Is Hillary going to dress down Abbas about this?

Of course not.

re: #29 MandyManners

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) says it is shocked by the harsh public criticism recently directed at Israel by the US Administration.

SNIP

Since you posted this downstairs earlier, I'll take the liberty of reposting simoon's response to you there.

ADL's Abraham Foxman, who is offering the criticisms in the above article, wrote this on Thursday:
[[Link: www.huffingtonpost.com...]

The stage was set therefore for the most successful effort for strengthening U.S.-Israel relations since the new administration entered office. And then came the announcement of plans for building 1,200 new apartments in East Jerusalem.

One doesn't have to accept the most cynical interpretation of that announcement, and I surely don't, that the prime minister knew about it, to recognize what a disaster it was. Whatever the motivation and whoever the responsible party, it is the government of Israel that justifiably is held accountable for converting an optimal moment in U.S.-Israel relations into a moment of crisis. The crucial point is that the government had an obligation to anticipate what might go wrong during the vice president's visit and to give firm instruction to all cabinet members about avoiding such pitfalls, particularly on the subjects of settlements and East Jerusalem.

That the administration was angry was not surprising. First was the sense of personal embarrassment to Mr. Biden, especially since part of his mission was to enhance the relationship. Second was the need to separate itself from the Israeli actions, lest it be perceived that the coincidence of the Biden presence and the building announcement be linked in the minds of the Palestinians and Arab world. And third, with the proximity talks in the works, the administration undoubtedly saw a vociferous reaction as necessary to mitigate Palestinian anger so that the talks would proceed.

While much of this is understandable, there needs to be some stepping back so that there are no long-term deleterious results from this contretemps. The vice president's comments in his Tel Aviv University address softening the U.S. response was helpful. Less helpful were his comments that Israel's announcement on building in East Jerusalem was endangering American troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

re: #32 davesax

Exactly, Mandy.

Is Hillary going to dress down Abbas about this?

Of course not.

Spot on.

Oh, for crying out loud.

re: #31 MandyManners

Also during Biden's visit,...

Dozens of Palestinian students from the youth division of Fatah, the mainstream party led by President Mahmoud Abbas, gathered here on Thursday to dedicate a public square to the memory of a woman who in 1978 helped carry out the deadliest terrorist attack in Israel’s history.

SNIP

sickening ... there is no moral equivalence between those who honor mass murdering terrorists and Israelis trying to defend their homeland from such palestinian "heroines."

re: #36 _RememberTonyC

sickening ... there is no moral equivalence between those who honor mass murdering terrorists and Israelis trying to defend their homeland from such palestinian "heroines."

As if building houses is the same as killing civilians.

The settlements have never really been the defining issue that have precluded a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians. I that were the case, peace would have been achieved a long time ago, before the settlements were ever built.

I have noted before, "Have you ever wondered why there were never any demonstrations against the building of the now infamous settlements? Can you imagine the PR value of a hundred little school girls, sitting in the road and blocking a bulldozer? The reason for the marked lack of protest against settlement building in the West Bank is because PA ministers own the construction companies that build those settlements. It’s been going on for years and only recently, has the matter been discussed in the Arab press. Sadly, ‘Cementgate,’ (cement for Palestinian public projects was diverted to PA owned companies) as the story was called is no longer on the Arab press agenda. Israeli settlements are being built by Palestinian companies, owned by PA ministers and big wigs. That is another reason the Palestinian at the top are in no rush for a peace deal- the Israelis pay. Arab nations that promise money do not. Besides, other Arabs might make unreasonable demands- such as accountability and transparency.

When it comes to money and aid to the Palestinians, the words of Charles De Gaulle come to mind in understanding the Palestinian attitude- ‘We shall stun them with our ingratitude.‘

Notwithstanding that reality, Israel is in no position to display their ingratitude to her closest ally. The American rebuke was well warranted and Israel's apology was in order.

re: #37 MandyManners

As if building houses is the same as killing civilians.

Is this what you believe the Obama admin thinks?

Sometimes you can live next to people for years and not know exactly what they think. I gave an interview to a local paper in my town recently in which I said that in exchange for real peace with the Palestinians, Israel should give up the West Bank and dismantle its settlements. When the interview appeared, my neighbor stopped me on the street to complain. "How could you say such a thing?" he wanted to know. "This is a betrayal." It stands to reason that he would be surprised. After all, he and I are both residents of Maale Adumim in the West Bank—and Maale Adumim is a Jewish settlement.

re: #23 Caton

East Jerusalem is not a disputed territory. It has been annexed by Israel, and this annexation has been recognized by the U.S.A. We have been waiting for some time now for the US Embassy to move there, BTW.

AFAIK this calling East Jerusalem an "occupied territory" was not US official policy a couple of years ago.

Your facts are off base here. Our embassy is in Tel Aviv because that is, and will remain, the recognized capital of Israel despite the location of the Knesset. Israel has claimed annexation but the US has not recognized it. We abstained in the UN vote condemning it but it was a Security Council Vote and we could have vetoed it. I dont' know of any official recognition of that annexation by the US and we certainly won't be building our Embassy in one of the two settlements there. That being said, it's widely assumed that those two settlements will be incorporated into Israel in a two-State solution with a land swap.

Regardless, this was a really stupid move by Israel making this announcement when they did.

re: #37 MandyManners

regardless of other news stories, do you think an intentional insult to the US government is OK?

The kind of activity in this story is exactly what I've been trying to get at for lo' these many months.

The United States, United Nations, Russia and European Union condemned Israel on Friday for approving 1,600 new homes in east Jerusalem, which the Palestinians want as their future capital.

A statement from the so-called Quartet of Mideast peacemakers reaffirmed that unilateral action by the Israelis or Palestinians "cannot prejudge the outcome of (peace) negotiations and will not be recognized by the international community."

"The Quartet will take full stock of the situation at its meeting in Moscow on March 19," the statement said.

"The Quartet condemns Israel's decision to advance planning for new housing units in east Jerusalem," the statement said. "The Quartet has agreed to closely monitor developments in Jerusalem and to keep under consideration additional steps that may be required to address the situation on the ground."

SNIP

re: #29 MandyManners

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) says it is shocked by the harsh public criticism recently directed at Israel by the US Administration.

SNIP

Marjorie had a nice response to you downstairs too. Here it is again:

So did George Bush. And he was very verbal about it too.

[[Link: www.pbs.org...]

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I've been very clear about Israel has an obligation under the road map. That's no expansion of settlements. I look forward to continuing to work and dialogue with Israel on this subject.

ARIEL SHARON: It is the Israeli position that the major Israeli population centers will remain in Israel's hands under any future final status agreement.

MARGARET WARNER: President Bush agreed that some major West Bank population centers would likely remain under Israeli control as part of final status negotiations with the Palestinians.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: But there is a road map, there is a process, and we've all agreed to it. And part of that process is no expansion of settlements.

re: #39 Varek Raith

Is this what you believe the Obama admin thinks?

Guess we can't say anything from this point on. Given the recent events regarding the ceremony for Dalal Mughrabi. I mean, why even negotiate at all?

If you know what I mean.

re: #26 davesax

Lots of statements here about Bush vs. Obama.

What about how Israelis feel, as per the Israeli press, and some of its most respected writers like Ari Shavit?

The bottom line is that Israelis themselves, the majority, do not trust Obama. And they don't trust him because he has made repeated outreach to the Muslim world, personally, and very little to Israel.

He came into office and one of the first things he did was issue a demand that all natural growth of settlements must stop.

This is in the context of Iran threatening to annihilate Israel, and Abbas having walked away from another peace offer.

His policy on the mideast seems to be to reach out to dictators, like Syria and Iran, and ignore pro-democracy forces while excoriate Israel over settlement building.

Whatever Ronald Reagan or George Bush said in 2002 really is not what concerns Israelis, and Lebanese proponents of democracy like Michael Young, right now.

These are such classic red-herring arguments.

What on earth does Israel expanding settlement building have to do with Iranian threats. They are entirely different issues regarding the same region. Ahmadinejad will hate Israel even if the settlements don't expand and Israel will be under threat even if they DO expand.

And what pro-democracy forces has he ignored?

re: #17 davesax

Yes, Obdicut, I did.

The Bush administration did not start out its term by saying there should be a start to all natural growth of settlements.

And as I said, the context of this for Israelis is very different. They did not doubt Bush's commitment to Israel's security. They do doubt Obama's.

So Obama's big mistake was that he didn't wait long enough to reiterate what has been US policy since Reagan? Sounds like you're splitting hairs to have something to criticize.

As for the Israelis' impression of Obama's commitment, are their doubts legitimate? I would argue that the Obama admin. has not done anything to suggest they aren't committed to Israel's security. So what if Israelis liked Bush more than Obama--that's their problem, not ours.

Can this thread suddenly and arbitrarily stop being about Israeli politics and start being about Sarah Silverman, Lisa Edelstein, and Natalie Portman? Thanks, that would be great.

Like for example, which one of them would win in a three-way fight? Especially if said fight involved lots of mineral oil and Herbie Mann's "Push Push" as the soundtrack.

re: #27 goddamnedfrank

well put

re: #48 negativ

But Israeli politics are utterly fascinating, well, if people can keep their emotions out of it :p

re: #47 palomino

So Obama's big mistake was that he didn't wait long enough to reiterate what has been US policy since Reagan? Sounds like you're splitting hairs to have something to criticize.

Palomino, thanks for response. I have no idea what you're saying, as it obviously doesn't reflect what I wrote.

As for the Israelis' impression of Obama's commitment, are their doubts legitimate?

Sure they are. Who's to say they aren't?

re: #37 MandyManners

As if building houses is the same as killing civilians.

for societies such as those that are trying to exterminate the Jews of Israel, the emphasis has always been on destruction as opposed to construction.

Well Charles, I have to admit the dearth items on Israel has been a bit of a disappointment to me of late but nice to see it back where it belongs. I personally never doubted your support for Israel for a second.

I suppose one HAS to be a card carrying antisemite to also be in the left, which is why I left it, but one doesn't have to support lunacy on the right to be proIsrael either.

I heard a fascinating story n NPR, in between blaring front headlines about the settlements, about efforts to reclaim and stabilize the Sahara desert and the author glowingly referred to "Israelification" of the Sahara as synonymous with reclaiming the desert and how many lessons can be taken from Israel. The contrast was startling.

re: #53 Judith

I suppose one HAS to be a card carrying antisemite to also be in the left

What?

re: #53 Judith

One word.
Paulians.

re: #54 iceweasel

yeah I was trying to think of a response to that, maybe its supposed to be sarcasm?

OT: Stanley, new avatar again, don't say this one is a cat!

re: #53 Judith

I suppose one HAS to be a card carrying antisemite to also be in the left,

Get a clue. Start here - [Link: www.hurryupharry.org...]

re: #57 windsagio

OT: Stanley, new avatar again, don't say this one is a cat!

I like it!

A New Low

It is hard to imagine that U.S.-Israeli relations could have reached this point. But they have. The Washington Post aptly described where we stand: “Ties Plunge To A New Low.” In short, “relations with Israel have been strained almost since the start of the Obama administration. Now they have plunged to their lowest ebb since the administration of George H.W. Bush...”

[Link: www.commentarymagazine.com...]

Are America and Israel drifting apart?

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

Clinton rebukes Israel over East Jerusalem plans, cites damage to bilateral ties
[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

re: #57 windsagio

OT: Stanley, new avatar again, don't say this one is a cat!

I saw it. Nice! I chuckled when you included a cat though.

re: #61 Stanley Sea

I saw it. Nice! I chuckled when you included a cat though.

Could've been a catgirl with a gun...

OT : Marco Rubio's lavish rise to the top

[Link: www.tampabay.com...]

i wonder if this will effect his tea party cred.

re: #53 Judith

I suppose one HAS to be a card carrying antisemite to also be in the left

That's was pretty dickish, now wasn't it?

re: #57 windsagio

OT: Stanley, new avatar again, don't say this one is a cat!

It's scary... it looks like an anime version of Sarah Palin.

re: #65 Walter L. Newton

It's scary... it looks like an anime version of Sarah Palin.

Rofl...

re: #64 goddamnedfrank

That's was pretty dickish, now wasn't it?

ya' think? /

re: #53 Judith

Well Charles, I have to admit the dearth items on Israel has been a bit of a disappointment to me of late but nice to see it back where it belongs. I personally never doubted your support for Israel for a second.

I suppose one HAS to be a card carrying antisemite to also be in the left, which is why I left it, but one doesn't have to support lunacy on the right to be proIsrael either.

I heard a fascinating story n NPR, in between blaring front headlines about the settlements, about efforts to reclaim and stabilize the Sahara desert and the author glowingly referred to "Israelification" of the Sahara as synonymous with reclaiming the desert and how many lessons can be taken from Israel. The contrast was startling.

if you're talking about the extreme radical left, you will find your share of antisemites. but if you're talking about moderates who happen to be left of center, I disagree with you. Most American Jews fall into that category, and if everyone "on the left" were antisemites, most American Jews would not inhabit that political ground. Right now I see more antisemitism on the extreme radical right within the ranks of ron paul's followers.

'EU may push Israel into peace talks'

The European Union might use its trade ties with Israel as leverage to pressure it into renewing peace talks with the Palestinians, Catherine Ashton, the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy at the EU said on Saturday.

Ashton was speaking at an EU foreign minister conference held in Finland. Swedish Foreign Minister, Carl Bildt, said that Israel’s announcement on building in east Jerusalem during United States Vice President Joe Biden’s visit last week was intentional and not coincidental.

Bildt said there were “no guarantees” that Israel was committed to peace.

Ashton is on the verge of a Middle East tour where she will visit Egypt, Israel, Syria and Lebanon.

re: #60 MJ

I think that the Israeli government has gotten the idea that they can do whatever they want, up to a reasonable point, without repercussions from the US.

It kind of makes relations hard in the short term, but we always fold so it seems to work out ;)

It as kind of sacrastic, I don't hear the same kind of continuous bleeding heart crap from the right that I hear all the time from the left which seems to thrive on "if Israel just tried being nice I'm sure the Palestinians would stop trying to kill them." And I hear that a lot more from he just left of center than I do from just right of center.

And yes there are some on the right who are antisemities. There is a lot fo antisemitism on both the extreme left and right luatic fringes. It just seems you need to go a lot further right to get there than left.

The person who wrote to Charles assumed if Charles had swung to the left left he must have also turned on Israel. Hence my comment "I suppose one HAS to be a card carrying antisemite to also be in the left". Charles does not swing right or left. He stays on the common sense path.

re: #64 goddamnedfrank

That's was pretty dickish, now wasn't it?

Ingenuously disingenuous trollcat.

re: #71 Judith

D'oh!

OK, now I'm confused.

re: #3 Obdicut

I am often confused by hearing criticism for Obama for following what has been US policy for a long time.

Because it's Obama. Or because there's a Democrat in the White House. Or both.

re: #71 Judith

I
The person who wrote to Charles assumed if Charles had swung to the left left he must have also turned on Israel. Hence my comment "I suppose one HAS to be a card carrying antisemite to also be in the left".

Nice backpedalling there. You also added "which is why I left it".

Doesn't look like sarcasm to me.

re: #51 davesax

You contend that Obama made a mistake by "starting" his admin. with calls to halt settlements. If and end to settlements was already US policy going back to Reagan, then what's the problem other than timing?

As for the legitimacy of Israel's doubts re America's commitment, please give examples of the Obama admin. working to undermine US-Israeli relations. (Giving a speech in Cairo doesn't cut it.) Ultimately, why should we care that the right wingers in Israel don't like Obama. That's their problem, not ours.

If Charles had a date of when you arrived godamned Frank, you'd see I've been around a long long long time, a whole lot longer than you, and I'm not a "trollcat".

Taking the US For Granted

This is a crosspost by Kenneth Bandler of AJC.

The propensity of some Israeli political leaders to speak publicly or take action before thinking clearly of the consequences hit a new low this week during Vice President Joe Biden’s visit.

If Israelis were looking for reassurance that the United States is genuinely the Jewish state’s number one ally, the vice president couldn’t have been clearer. “The bond between the U.S. and Israel has been and will remain unshakable,” declared Biden. “Progress occurs in the Middle East when everyone knows there is simply no space between the United States and Israel.” But, alas, there is a significant gap, on settlements, and it was an Israeli Cabinet Minister who decided to remind all with international media focused on every step of Biden’s visit.

continued...

[Link: www.hurryupharry.org...]

And Im not backpeddling, I stand by statement. If you don't like it tough.

re: #78 Judith

Uh oh, the "I've been here longer than you" card.
Seniority is irrelevant.

re: #71 Judith

There's no equivalence tho', the right (ala stormfront and friends) still have a pretty good lock on anti-semitism.

Its a mistake to automatically associate anti-Israel sentiment with anti-semitism. People can differentiate the race from the nation.

re: #53 Judith

I suppose one HAS to be a card carrying antisemite to also be in the left

What's it like to be you? Seriously.

[snip]

1. Are you aware that the Disputed Territories never belonged to the “Palestinians” and only came into Israeli possession as a result of the 1967 six day war in which Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon all massed forces at Israel’s border in order to “push the Jews into the sea”. The Arabs lost and Israel took control of the land. Do you agree that if the [bigoted word]s don’t want to lose territory to Israel, then they shouldn’t start wars? Do you agree that there is justice that Israel, who as far back as 1948 has always sought peace with her far larger neighbors, should live in prosperity - making the desert bloom - while the residents of 19 adjacent Arab countries who are blessed with far more land as well as oil wealth live in their own feces?

re: #78 Judith

Ya made me look. Your stats are not exemplary.

re: #78 Judith

If Charles had a date of when you arrived godamned Frank, you'd see I've been around a long long long time, a whole lot longer than you, and I'm not a "trollcat".

When you click on a person's avatar, you can see when they joined. Sadly, those who joined in 2004 are now more suspect of being trolls than those who joined in any other year. Even more sadly, that suspicion has been earned by our classmates.

re: #81 Varek Raith

Uh oh, the "I've been here longer than you" card.
Seniority is irrelevant.

So, Judith, if seniority matters, should one's karma?
;)

re: #81 Varek Raith

I think we should have a standing rule now: #of posts is more important than 'number of years I've been around'. Seniority is still crap, but at leats that means SOMETHING.

re: #71 Judith

But one can oppose Israeli policies and still not be an anti-semite which I believe is the position of many on the center-left. I have spent a great deal of time in Israel, have Israeli family members, worked in Israel but I still think this was a f*cking moronic thing to announce and, frankly, I think expanding those settlements to appease the far right in Israel is ridiculous. It's pandering to people who by-and-large don't pay taxes, don't participate in the military and have their education and life-style subsidized so they can "pray for the Jewish people". All of my friends in Israel (who are generally younger people under 40) loathe the religious far right (the Jerusalem settlements) - the nut jobs who take a campervan and settle a hilltop in the middle of the west bank are largely Americans from Borough Park who everyone hates.

Bibi made the same devil's bargain he has his entire career. To put together a coalition he had to pander to the black hats and shas. Tzipi won the election but couldn't form a government and, rather than build a center coaltion that would have been strong but without him as PM, Bibi went to the right and personally sits to the left of much of his coalition. This announcement was a sting at him to remind him that if he wants to retain power and not got back to the job of Finance Minister (which he was exceedingly good at) that he had better not get too chummy with the center/left.

re: #88 windsagio

I think we should have a standing rule now: #of posts is more important than 'number of years I've been around'. Seniority is still crap, but at leats that means SOMETHING.

# of posts can also be amazingly irrelevant. As in one's character, content is all that counts.

Its a mistake to automatically associate anti-Israel sentiment with anti-semitism. People can differentiate the race from the nation.

I have yet to find honest antiIsrael sentiment not steeped in anti Semiticism as soon as you scratch a bit deeper. Easy to spot, double standards applied only to Israel. Which does not mean you can't criticize specific Israeli policies or activities, I do myself, but in general antiIsrael=antiSemitic.

I've played enough in the pigpen for one day.

re: #88 windsagio

I think we should have a standing rule now: #of posts is more important than 'number of years I've been around'. Seniority is still crap, but at leats that means SOMETHING.

Doesn't differentiate spam posts from substantive ones though.

I vote we're all equal and all comments stand or fall on their own merits. Every time. Regardless of how long you've been around or what your karma is or how much you post.

re: #91 Judith

Was that a flounce???

re: #90 wrenchwench

re: #92 iceweasel

yeah yeah :p

It was a poor attempt :(

re: #91 Judith

pigpen

WTF?

re: #95 wrenchwench

WTF?

I believe she just referred to LGF as a pigpen, yes.

re: #91 Judith

That's... just... terrible.

Most intriguing...

I don't understand. What unilateral concession is the hatemail referring to? It reads more like Israel was taking something, not giving something away. There HAVE been at times where Israel made unilateral concessions that were met with rockets, but this is not one of those situations...

re: #91 Judith

I have yet to find honest antiIsrael sentiment not steeped in anti Semiticism as soon as you scratch a bit deeper. Easy to spot, double standards applied only to Israel. Which does not mean you can't criticize specific Israeli policies or activities, I do myself, but in general antiIsrael=antiSemitic.

I've played enough in the pigpen for one day.

That is such a bullshit statement. And it's use all the time is infuriating and weak.

March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member Zahir Muhsein who said:

The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

re: #77 palomino

Hi Palomino:

Obama's initial call for all "natural growth" of settlements to stop was not "US Policy". For proof of this, simply check out MJ's links to today's Washington Post.

And I'm not sure what you mean about "right wingers" in Israel. I never said anything about "right wingers". I'm talking about the Israeli public across the board. Again, proof of this tenfold, including an op-ed Ari Shavit, one of Israel's most respected columnists wrote, for the New York Times.

And as far as this administration undermining Israeli-US relations, again, MJ just responded links to the Washington Post that show just that.

But really, I'm not here to school you on the facts by pointing you to sources that most serious people who are concerned with the state of US-Israel relations read.

The point you really seem to be making is, "Ultimately, why should we care that the right wingers in Israel don't like Obama. That's their problem, not ours."

And you made it.

Well done.

It does speak to something tho', whenever the subject comes up, anybody who dares be critical of Israel at all starts getting these 'hints' thrown about them... Sometimes outright accusations.

I honestly don't know if they really believe that any criticism of Israel is antisemitic, or if they're just trying to shut down dissension.

re: #99 Teh Flowah

I don't understand. What unilateral concession is the hatemail referring to? It reads more like Israel was taking something, not giving something away. There HAVE been at times where Israel made unilateral concessions that were met with rockets, but this is not one of those situations...

The position for many on the rabid expansionist site is that giving up the right to expand settlements is a concession. It's twisted logic, but that's how they view it.

re: #78 Judith

If Charles had a date of when you arrived godamned Frank, you'd see I've been around a long long long time, a whole lot longer than you, and I'm not a "trollcat".

Long enough to have known Ploome, huh? Miss her much?

re: #103 windsagio

It does speak to something tho', whenever the subject comes up, anybody who dares be critical of Israel at all starts getting these 'hints' thrown about them... Sometimes outright accusations.

I honestly don't know if they really believe that any criticism of Israel is antisemitic, or if they're just trying to shut down dissension.

This is why I keep my mouth shut about my policy differences with Israel.
Too much playing of the "anti-Semite" card.

re: #106 Varek Raith

You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din.

re: #104 Cineaste

The position for many on the rabid expansionist site SIDE is that giving up the right to expand settlements is a concession. It's twisted logic, but that's how they view it.

PIMF!

gonna hit the treadmill for awhile ... later folks

re: #86 wrenchwench

Sadly, those who joined in 2004 are now more suspect of being trolls than those who joined in any other year.

Bite me.

re: #110 Mich-again

Bite me.

Right after I bite myself.

re: #110 Mich-again

Bite me.

so hard not to say 'case in point...'

~oh crap.

[Link: www.theatlantic.com...]

A Smart and Necessary Move by Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton has apparently chewed-out Bibi Netanyahu for allowing his rogue coalition partner, the Shas Party, to subvert Joe Biden's trip to Israel, and more importantly, for creating conditions on the ground that subvert the moderate Palestinian government in Ramallah, and subvert any hopes for negotiations, direct or indirect. Hillary has picked a smart fight, which is to say, a fight that is not about Iran, a subject on which Israelis are unified, but a fight about East Jerusalem housing growth, a subject on which the majority of Israelis are ambivalent, or worse...

I haven't gone through the entire thread yet to see if it has been mentioned, but I want to point out the problem, in my view.

First, the location of the "new settlement expansion" is critical. The neighbourhood in which the new apartments were planned are in Jerusalem, just North of the Green Line, making them "East Jerusalem". The neighbourhood itself is an orthodox Jewish neighbourhood, so it is not like this is encroaching on Arab land.

Second, this is in no way goes against Netanyahu's Settlement Freeze that he declared throughout the West Bank, and explicitly excluded Jerusalem.

Third, the whole excuse given for the past year and a bit for why the Palestinians have refused to negotiate is because of building in Jerusalem. As soon as Obama made it a public spat between Israel & the US (later to accept the Bibi's moratorium in the West Bank only), the Mahmoud Abbas could not come to the negotiating table with anything less than the complete freeze of everything, INCLUDING Jerusalem.

As a result, the start of "proximity talks" was a big deal, because this was FINALLY a [minor] concession from the Palestinians to at least come back to the table.

Now, because of this diplomatic spat, and I agree that the issue of timing was obviously unfortunate, the effect that the US condemnation is having is two-fold. It not only provides diplomatic cover for the Palestinians to walk away yet again at what SHOULD BE a non-issue for anyone serious about peace, but it also effectively ignores the last 6 months (and remaining 4 months) of settlement freeze in the West Bank as any sort of gesture and puts the onus back on Israel to make yet another unilateral concession. This concession (being a freeze of construction in "East Jerusalem") is completely unacceptable to the vast majority of Israelis (over 90%). If the US wants to put the screws to Israel and leave the PA licking their chops, this can easily grow into a far more serious diplomatic row.

It's interesting to note how little coverage has been devoted to the dedication of a public square in Ramallah to the terrorist Dalal Mughrabi who a female terrorist involved in the '78 coastal road massacre... which is also a move that "destroys trust" between the parties. In fact, I would say the honoring of a terrorist who killed 37 civilians is significantly more provocative than building in a neighbourhood which would undoubtedly be in Israeli possession EVEN IF Jerusalem were split. (I can't help but feel like this sort of detail is something that would have been noted on LGF in the past).

re: #91 Judith

snort

Remember what Samantha Power said about pulling all support from Israel and giving it to the Jordyptians?

Quod erat demonstrandum

re: #100 Stanley Sea

The basic principals on which Israel is based is democracy, free trade, freedom or religion freedom of the press. Israel as a nation may not always meet the high standard set by those principals but they remain the principals.

You can be critical of specific polices and actions of Israel, but any blanket antiIsrael attitude always has it roots in antisemitism. Call bullshit it you like, you won't change my mind.

Try describing what antiIsraelis don't like about Israel, and see how long they can go without hitting a double standard being applied only to Jews or to the Jewish nation. They never get far.

re: #91 Judith

Wow! Where did that come from?
Another voice from the class of 2004 pipes up this week...When you guys say shit you just let it out... Stop by again next year.. We'll have coffee and donuts waiting..

re: #114 Joo-LiZ

See my No. 31, please.

I don't remember what Samantha Power said about pulling all support from Israel and giving it to the Jordyptians.

re: #113 zora

[Link: www.theatlantic.com...]

A Smart and Necessary Move by Hillary Clinton

Thanks for posting that. Just read it. Others should too, I think:

It has been a truism that no Israeli prime minister can survive long in the job after having angered America; Bibi had been proving this truism wrong, because Israelis are more frightened of Iran's nuclear program than they are of alienating the Obama Administration. But the majority of Israelis see settlements as a possible impediment to peace (to the degree that they even believe peace is possible), and they certainly don't see a settlement freeze as an existential threat to their country. So Hillary has picked the right fight, and the Obama Administration has picked the right person to pick the fight: A former senator from New York who is married to one of Israel's favorite ex-presidents. I might be over-optimistic here, but maybe this scolding will help Bibi focus on what's important: Keeping Israel in America's good graces so that the two countries can together figure out a way to neutralize the Iranian threat.

Some of you may dig on this - PBS/NPR's Intelligence Squared just did a big debate on whether the US should step back from its "special" relationship with Israel. I'm halfway through it on the iPod, and it's also on iTunes (for free). Specifically, they're arguing a "normal" or "special" relationship. They have a very clever means of determining who is the winner, which I will let them describe in the link.

It was recorded 2 weeks before our VP got slapped in the face, but it puts more meat on the bones of this issue.

re: #121 windsagio

I don't remember what Samantha Power said about pulling all support from Israel and giving it to the Jordyptians.

I don't remember Samantha Power being Secretary of State, either.

re: #8 jordash1212

Waiting for the Netanyahu coalition to break down in 5...4...3...2...

I support the right for Israelis to live wherever they want, but it is cynical to kick Palestinians out just to move into an area nobody wants you in. There is more to Zionism than populating land.

Nobody is kicking anybody out. This isn't what one would normally think of as a settlement. It is a very Jewish neighbourhood, just North of Jerusalem, JUST across the Green Line. Nobody needs to kick anybody out for this planned construction to occur.

This is precisely the problem with the reaction given by Biden and Clinton. They could have stated that they disagree with the decision to approve this construction just before negotiations began, but they should have also stated unequivocally that this is no reason for the PA to walk out on negotiations.

re: #124 iceweasel

dammit you used 'reply' and broke the chain :p

Two of BHO's advisers during the campaign were Robert Malley and Samantha Power. I don't know what Malley's up to nowadays but, Power is in State.

re: #71 Judith

It as kind of sacrastic, I don't hear the same kind of continuous bleeding heart crap from the right that I hear all the time from the left which seems to thrive on "if Israel just tried being nice I'm sure the Palestinians would stop trying to kill them." And I hear that a lot more from he just left of center than I do from just right of center.

Imagine how HORRIBLE it would be if people all suddenly started perceiving other people as actual human beings not terribly different from themselves. Imagine how fucked up the world would be if the Osama bin Ladens and Joseph Stalins of the world took 30 seconds to consider that their "enemies" are just other people who get hungry, have memories of their childhood, get stupid songs that they really hate stuck in their head, fall in and out of love, fart at embarrassingly inconvenient times, and have looked at the same moon that Brittney Spears, Charles Manson, Albert Einstein, Adolph Hitler, Thomas Jefferson, Jesus of Nazareth, Alexander the Great, and the first ape that ever experienced curiosity also looked at - and wondered, even if only for a second.

Yes, what we should do is seek to perpetually demonize and antagonize The Other, and never BLINK. Heaven for-fucking-fend we ever try to reduce the amount of animosity in the world. War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.

re: #118 Judith

Do you think anyone's comments here are anti Israeli?

re: #128 negativ

You know what would be another revolutionary concept? "All nations are pretty much the same, and equally valid when you get down to it. They all have a right to exist."

re: #120 MandyManners

thanks for pointing it out! =)

Charles' links on Malley.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

re: #131 Joo-LiZ

thanks for pointing it out! =)

You're welcome!

re: #129 Varek Raith

Do you think anyone's comments here are anti Israeli?

Mandy, same question to you.

re: #118 Judith

The basic principals on which Israel is based is democracy, free trade, freedom or religion freedom of the press. Israel as a nation may not always meet the high standard set by those principals but they remain the principals.

You can be critical of specific polices and actions of Israel, but any blanket antiIsrael attitude always has it roots in antisemitism. Call bullshit it you like, you won't change my mind.

Try describing what antiIsraelis don't like about Israel, and see how long they can go without hitting a double standard being applied only to Jews or to the Jewish nation. They never get far.

While true I don't see how that applies to the settlements, the administration, or the people and the discussion here. If one could be described as being against the settlements that does not mean they're anti-Israeli or anti-Semitic.

You'll find Israelis that also hold this view. There are also varying degrees of policy one can agree with or not. For instance one can see settlements as useful in certain instances but not as a matter of continual or aggressive policy. There are gray areas.

re: #126 windsagio

dammit you used 'reply' and broke the chain :p

Sorry! :p
Apparently we're now playing six degrees of separation from something or other. Maybe Kevin Bacon.

re: #136 iceweasel

It's not very fair to play a game but not tell you the rules :P

re: #122 iceweasel

The issue here is that this is taken from a very American viewpoint. The fight she is picking is not over "Settlements" in the traditional obstacle-to-peace sense. She is fighting with Israel over construction in a Jewish neighbourhood of Jerusalem. This is NOT something Israelis will support Clinton in. It is instead, more likely to be a rallying point around Netanyahu against the US and the PA.

The distinction of building in Jerusalem and building elsewhere MUST be made to understand how this will play out for the Israeli public.

That being said, Bibi will get a lot of flack for allowing this to happen in the first place -- giving the US a reason to show the Palestinians they can be on their side sometimes too.

re: #137 windsagio

It's not very fair to play a game but not tell you the rules :P

I thought that was life...
;)

re: #118 Judith

You can be critical of specific polices and actions of Israel, but any blanket antiIsrael attitude always has it roots in antisemitism. Call bullshit it you like, you won't change my mind.

That's a nice little straw man you've built yourself there. I've known a number of people on the far left and the far right all of whom had many harsh criticisms of Israel. All had some foundation in policy. None hated Israel qua Israel with no other reasons. You're correct. That would in fact be an anti-Semitic position to take. It would also be flat out loony.

re: #138 Joo-LiZ

so in canada you have clearer vision than people down here in the states? :p

A Google on Malley and Hussein Agha is instructive.

Sigh, how I detest lectures in a discussion forum.

re: #141 windsagio

so in canada you have clearer vision than people down here in the states? :p

No, not what I mean. But I do read the Israeli papers and have been following Israeli commentary for a number of years. So I see what they say as opposed to what outlets like the Atlantic say.

But I appreciate your point =P

re: #143 Varek Raith

heh in fairness it depends. Some of the science lectures we've gotten have been very interesting.

re: #145 windsagio

heh in fairness it depends. Some of the science lectures we've gotten have been very interesting.

D'oh, you're very right!

Beck: Pearl Harbor bombed "because Woodrow Wilson told England, 'You need to align yourself with us and not Japan' "

glenn beck is batshit crazy. see, there are things most of us can agree on.

re: #144 Joo-LiZ

I'd try to find it but I'm lazy, someone upthread has a post about how alot of their friends in Israel are taking a largely divergent position from what you posted :p

re: #146 Varek Raith

but I suppose that the point is you should only lecture if you're pretty damn and empirically sure that you're right.

So that kicks political lectures out the back door right away.

re: #147 zora

Beck: Pearl Harbor bombed "because Woodrow Wilson told England, 'You need to align yourself with us and not Japan' "

[Link: mediamatters.org...]

glenn beck is batshit crazy. see, there are things most of us can agree on.

Err...uh...huh...uh...I..uhhh...
WHAT

re: #150 Varek Raith

exactly. history, dates, facts, reality, be damned. beck knows the real deal.

//

And yes I agree with Netanyahu (and others) here:

At a cabinet meeting in January, the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, said “Whoever sponsors and supports naming a square in Ramallah after a terrorist who murdered dozens of Israelis on the coastal road encourages terrorism.”

Addressing the Palestinian president he added: “Stop the incitement. This is not how peace is made.”

The Israeli government is in the process of establishing a mechanism for monitoring Palestinian incitement and plans to issue periodic reports.

Mark Regev, a spokesman for Mr. Netanyahu, said that turning Ms. Mughrabi “from a murderer into a martyr” and “putting her on a pedestal as a role model for young Palestinians is a message that is problematic in the extreme.”

Can someone explain to me the Woodrow Wilson hate with Beck/TPers?

Biden refused interviews with all media except for AlJazeera.

re: #153 Varek Raith

Big internationalist, essentially gave his life to form the League of Nations.

re: #150 Varek Raith

Err...uh...huh...uh...I..uhhh...
WHAT

I watch watching some TIVO of Beck's show last week..
He was accusing FDR of being a commie in a clip...
I used to laugh at Beck and call him a clown...Not anymore
I'll ignore him

re: #154 MandyManners

As you appear to not want to discuss with the rest of us..
:(

re: #153 Varek Raith

Can someone explain to me the Woodrow Wilson hate with Beck/TPers?

He was President when the Fed was established perhaps?

re: #156 HoosierHoops

I watch was watching some TIVO of Beck's show last week..
He was accusing FDR of being a commie in a clip...
I used to laugh at Beck and call him a clown...Not anymore
I'll ignore him

Sorry

re: #147 zora

Beck: Pearl Harbor bombed "because Woodrow Wilson told England, 'You need to align yourself with us and not Japan' "

[Link: mediamatters.org...]

glenn beck is batshit crazy. see, there are things most of us can agree on.

Why would England . . .

Oh nevermind

I don't see why the issue of the settlements has to be a zero-sum game. With hundreds of thousands there I just can't see massive abandonment ala Gaza in the cards. Question: If Jewish settlers were allowed to stay as citizens of the new State of Palestine (with of course guarantees in law as to proportional Parliamentary representation, freedom of religion, movement, education and language) it seems to me they would be an asset to the new Palestinian state, yes? Too naive?

re: #152 Gus 802

I think everyone around here agrees that the square-naming thing is awful, which makes it largly a nonissue as far as LGF is concerned, because we're all in sync, and the story is a bit old now.

I'll say 'stop the incitement' should go both ways. I'm looking at you, Minister of the Interior!

re: #125 Joo-LiZ

I'm pretty sure East Jerusalem is predominantly Muslim. I walked around Sheikh Jarrah just 2 months ago, and I see no reason other than religious spite why a Jew would want to live there.

re: #153 Varek Raith

Can someone explain to me the Woodrow Wilson hate with Beck/TPers?

He was a progressive ya see.

re: #164 Conservative Moonbat

He was a progressive ya see.

Oh...I see...
OOGA BOOGA!

re: #137 windsagio

It's not very fair to play a game but not tell you the rules :P

Some Czech dude named Franz Kafka wrote a book about that; it was called "The Trial" or something. In the early 1960s, Orson Welles made it into an amazingly fantastic movie starring Anthony Hopkins. For some reason, the movie is always overlooked, and lots of people don't even know it exists.

(Insert Texas SBOE rant here)

re: #153 Varek Raith

Can someone explain to me the Woodrow Wilson hate with Beck/TPers?

OLIGARHY

//

re: #153 Varek Raith

Can someone explain to me the Woodrow Wilson hate with Beck/TPers?

It's a Birch Society thing. Woodrow Wilson was a progressive, started the Federal reserve, started the League of Nations (Later to become the UN), participated in a war in Europe, etc. He pretty much embodies everything they imagine.

Malley's with ICG now.

re: #163 jordash1212

I'm not an expert so I have to be careful, but it seems like there's a branch of extremist Judaism that believes that Israel has a divine right to the entirity of the West bank, and especially to Jerusalem. I always had kind of a feeling that a large part of the impetus behind the settlements was that anyways, especially as I've read that a large % of the settlers are fundamentalists.

re: #127 MandyManners

I don't know what Malley's up to nowadays but, Power is in State.

Sam Power was in the State Dept. transition team, in 2008, now she sits on the National Security Council. Do try to keep your head from exploding.

re: #102 davesax

Sorry, Davey, you're not entitled to your own facts. MJ's links, while not dispositive of anything, refute more of your contentions than you realize.

US presidents since Reagan have called for an end to settlements. But somehow Obama's call constitutes a threat to Israel's integrity? Can you explain how? Don't just point me to a link posted by someone else. You're semi-informed and semi-articulate, so use your semi-skills to enlighten others--formulate an actual thought of your own.

Opposition to Obama is "across the board" in Israel? Is that a Gallup or Rasmussen poll you're citing? Not very scientific, or accurate. What about all those "liberal" Israelis who actually want the settlements to end and a two-state solution to move forward?

re: #161 califleftyb

I don't see why the issue of the settlements has to be a zero-sum game. With hundreds of thousands there I just can't see massive abandonment ala Gaza in the cards. Question: If Jewish settlers were allowed to stay as citizens of the new State of Palestine (with of course guarantees in law as to proportional Parliamentary representation, freedom of religion, movement, education and language) it seems to me they would be an asset to the new Palestinian state, yes? Too naive?

The problem there is that it opens the "right of return" question which Israel doesn't want. If Israel has to take in large numbers of Palestinians and make them citizens it has a problem. Palestinians have more kids than Israelis and their population is growing much faster. If Israel wants to maintain a Democracy and a Jewish identity then it has to limit the number of non-Jewish citizens.

It's a tough conundrum it faces as a state. It's one of the reasons it doesn't have a constitution.

re: #166 negativ

"Vor dem Gesetz" was in The Trial, and is one of my favorite pieces of writing ever.

Perhaps I should be more clear. I see no reason other than religious spite why an Israeli Jew would want to kick an Arab or Palestinian out of their house in East Jerusalem. East Jerusalem is overwhelmingly Arab-Israeli (57% according to a Haaretz article I found form 2007, and that number has indefinitely risen since then). As I said earlier, there is more to Zionism than accumulating land, and I don't have a problem with Israelis setting where they want within the land. However, this episode we have of demolitions in Sheikh Jarrah, where the owners of the house don't even own the land around it. This kind of religious spite and animosity isn't productive.

[Link: www.haaretz.com...]

re: #165 Varek Raith

Oh...I see...
OOGA BOOGA!

Bandwagon.

It's the new pink. George Will wrote a piece comparing Obama to Wilson on Thursday.

re: #169 MandyManners

I shall ask, nicely, again. Is anyone's comments on this very thread anti Israeli?

BHO's campaign advisers.

re: #177 Varek Raith

That's not how it works man, you need to do generic unaddressed posts. Protects you from response that way ;)

re: #179 windsagio

Now that's freaking timing!

re: #171 goddamnedfrank

Sam Power was in the State Dept. transition team, in 2008, now she sits on the National Security Council. Do try to keep your head from exploding.

She got fired from that, didn't she?

re: #171 goddamnedfrank

Sam Power was in the State Dept. transition team, in 2008, now she sits on the National Security Council. Do try to keep your head from exploding.

Wasn't she the one who had to resign for the campaign during the primaries because she called Hillary a monster in a press interview?

re: #173 Cineaste

The problem there is that it opens the "right of return" question which Israel doesn't want. If Israel has to take in large numbers of Palestinians and make them citizens it has a problem. Palestinians have more kids than Israelis and their population is growing much faster. If Israel wants to maintain a Democracy and a Jewish identity then it has to limit the number of non-Jewish citizens.

It's a tough conundrum it faces as a state. It's one of the reasons it doesn't have a constitution.

I think you answered a different question. Califleftyb asked why not let Jews stay in a Palestinian State. And then inquired whether that was naive, to which I must say, "Yes."

re: #170 windsagio

I'm not an expert so I have to be careful, but it seems like there's a branch of extremist Judaism that believes that Israel has a divine right to the entirity of the West bank, and especially to Jerusalem. I always had kind of a feeling that a large part of the impetus behind the settlements was that anyways, especially as I've read that a large % of the settlers are fundamentalists.

It's important to parse the settlers though. There are the residents of East Jerusalem who are largely black hat ultra-orthodox who want to be near the Western Wall and don't view themselves so much as "settlers". Then there are the gun-toting, knit-yarmulke "settlers" who take a couple mobile homes, park them on a ridge in the West Bank and go looking for a fight to claim the land. They are different issues with different solutions. The former will likely stay where they are in a final status agreement while the latter will have to be pulled out (and were most of who got yanked out of Gaza by Sharon). It was one of the latter that shot Rabin.

re: #160 Conservative Moonbat

Why would England . . .

Oh nevermind

You're trying to find logic in something Glenn Beck said. You might as well try to turn Lindsay Lohan into a sober, productive member of society.

I think there are four issues on this thread, and all three are getting tangled up.

1. Was the announcement a diplomatic insult? Yes. Was it deliberate? Tough call. Israeli internal politics is chaotic at best, more so that US politics. So any discussion of deliberateness versus one hand not paying attention or giving two cents what the other is doing is speculation at this point. Bibi apologized, but it's going to happen again at some point.

2. Are the settlements and building additions really a roadblock to peace? No. How about the insistence that Palestinian territory, which has yet to be determined since 1948, is predicated on that eventual territory being Judenrein? Yes.

3. Does this recent kerfuffle have any impact on Netenyahu's coalition? No.

4. Has the Obama administration been more antagonistic to Israel than previous administrations? The present administration felt that the Bush administration had botched the US' role as an impartial mediator in the Middle East and tried to restore that role. Unfortunately, in order to reclaim that impartiality, diplomats must turn the other way in the face of continual attempts both in documents and practice of the Arab world's continual attempts at trying to annihilate the Jewish people in Israel.

And there is no way out of this double-bind as long as it is attached to the world's oil supply.

re: #175 jordash1212

I don't know about that.. I am so jealous you were walking around Jerusalem 2 weeks ago...
I know I'll never get a chance to visit the Holy Lands...The Politics are really messed up there...

re: #184 Cineaste

yeah exactly, that's why I was so wishy-washy in my post. Reality, as always, is complex, and some of the people in there have legitimate reasons.

ALSO:

A translation of the Kafka thing I like so much.

re: #178 MandyManners

BHO's campaign advisers.

Still having trouble getting over those 2008 election results, huh?

Keep it up with the Ayers connection...that's a winner for the GOP.

re: #176 Gus 802

Bandwagon.

It's the new pink. George Will wrote a piece comparing Obama to Wilson on Thursday.

You can note that these same wing nuts don't like you bringing up the colossal screw-ups of Hoover's policies because he was a Republican and it doesn't fit the narrative...

re: #154 MandyManners

Biden refused interviews with all media except for AlJazeera.

They're 1/2 an hour daily on Link TV now. They seem to have cleaned up their act. I catch it occasionally, and it's really not the bogeyman people like to describe it as. In regions where there is no Jewish/Muslim/US dog in the fight, they're better than any American media outlet e.g. Myanmar, the unrest in Chad, coverage of Haiti and Chile, the China/Tibet thing etc.

Oh one other thing, there are many squatter websites full of conspiratorial nonsense. Misspell their name online and you're in for a big steaming pile of crazy.

re: #189 palomino

/I shouldn't but

That's why he's so soft on Palestinian Terrorists! He thinks they're like his mentor/father figure Ayers!

re: #183 wrenchwench

I think you answered a different question. Califleftyb asked why not let Jews stay in a Palestinian State. And then inquired whether that was naive, to which I must say, "Yes."

well I was implying that it was naive but using this argument as one of the reasons. The argument that they wouldn't be protected is also an obvious one.

re: #189 palomino

Still having trouble getting over those 2008 election results, huh?

Keep it up with the Ayers connection...that's a winner for the GOP.

One name out of how many? How many anti-Semites/anti-Isaelis?

re: #181 MandyManners

She got fired from that, didn't she?

No, she did not, she got promoted. She had gotten fired earlier from the Obama presidential campaign for calling Hillary a "monster." Everyone got over it after he won the election and became President-Elect. Hence the term "transition team."

re: #191 keloyd

They're 1/2 an hour daily on Link TV now. They seem to have cleaned up their act. I catch it occasionally, and it's really not the bogeyman people like to describe it as. In regions where there is no Jewish/Muslim/US dog in the fight, they're better than any American media outlet e.g. Myanmar, the unrest in Chad, coverage of Haiti and Chile, the China/Tibet thing etc.

Oh one other thing, there are many squatter websites full of conspiratorial nonsense. Misspell their name online and you're in for a big steaming pile of crazy.

Al Jazeera is a Jew-hating spokesmouth for terrorists. Don't try to sugar coat it.

Oh, yeah. Malley was fired when it became public that he was holding talkis with Hamas.

re: #193 Cineaste

well I was implying that it was naive but using this argument as one of the reasons. The argument that they wouldn't be protected is also an obvious one.

OK, I see what you were saying.

I do believe I have my answer. Consider it dropped.

re: #190 Cineaste

You can note that these same wing nuts don't like you bringing up the colossal screw-ups of Hoover's policies because he was a Republican and it doesn't fit the narrative...

Some do. Howver, they've been abandoning Hoover's legacy as of late with Jonah Goldberg and Glenn Beck now calling Hoover a Progressive. It's odd how a once revered Republican (revered by Republicans) has suddenly been reformed into a Progressive. But, that's how historical revisionism works -- something Goldberg is an expert on.

re: #174 windsagio

"Vor dem Gesetz" was in The Trial, and is one of my favorite pieces of writing ever.

This door has always been yours, and now I'm going to close it.

re: #148 windsagio

I'd try to find it but I'm lazy, someone upthread has a post about how alot of their friends in Israel are taking a largely divergent position from what you posted :p

Another perspective that most people probably wouldn't know...

Last year I heard Jacques Gauthier come to speak at my University. He is currently embroiled in a bit of a controversy at a Canadian NGO (Rights & Democracy -- and yeah, I see the irony in calling it a "Canadian NGO" but that is part of the whole controversy). Anyway, he spent 20 years in Geneva doing his doctorate thesis on who has legal rights to Jerusalem. He is neither Jewish nor Muslim.

His thesis is just under 2000 pages, and he successfully defended it against a supposedly very tough panel (including an international lawyer who is well known for defending Palestinians). He argues a strictly legal case that following from WW1 and based upon the various treaties signed thereafter, "World Jewry" technically has the rights to Jerusalem, and the government could be considered "World Jewry's" legal representative. I don't want to get into the nitty-grittys because it was a year ago, so I don't remember a lot of the details. (I should also note, that while following from WW1, Jews once had a right to Jordan and the West Bank as well, they gave up that right to Jordan very early on in the '20s and that there is a legal case to be made that they have also given up their rights to the West Bank)

He said that he hasn't had the time to rework his thesis into a book yet, but he does know that Netanyahu has seen his thesis. The most important implication of it being that until Israel publicly gives up it's rights to Jerusalem, it has a legal case to it. This is another reason for the government of Israel NOT to accept a moratorium or anything of the sort in Jerusalem, because that would amount to Israel giving up Jewish rights to it.

re: #196 NJDhockeyfan

It's really matured as a news source, actually. In some area's its still not to be counted on, but in others it's great.

Separate your emotional response from the organization, and look at their coverage in areas other than Israel.

re: #199 Varek Raith

I do believe I have my answer. Consider it dropped.

If only. I suppose we should be grateful it isn't Lee Greenwood videos. I think those usually break out at night, though.

re: #163 jordash1212

Ramat Shlomo is not Sheik Jarrah. Also, "East Jerusalem" is not geographically East Jerusalem. It is all of the territory in Jerusalem that was occupied by Jordan after '48. It includes north and south Jerusalem and the old city (all fall beyond the "Green Line"). Ramar Shlomo is North of Jerusalem and is Jewish.

I don't really know enough about the situation in Sheikh Jarrah to take a stance one way or the other. I don't have an opinion yet on the protests going on there. I will however cite the Muqata blog about the history of that neighbourhood (I have no clue if this is accurate or not, but it at least provides a perspective beyond strict "religious spite")

Shimon HaTzaddik was a Tanna (Jewish sage of the Mishnaic period) and a Kohen Gadol (High Priest), who lived approximately 2300 years ago in Jerusalem. The neighborhood in question is named for Shimon HaTzaddik because his tomb is located there.

The neighborhood was built and settled by Jews in 1876. A community of poor Sefardic Jews lived there, until they were driven out during the Arab massacres of 1936, but they returned shortly afterward. In December 1947, the community came under attack once again by the Arabs, who drove them out.

Jordan did not allow the Jews to return to Shimon HaTzaddik after the war. The armistice agreement stipulated that Jordan would permit Jews to visit their holy sites, and the tomb of Shimon HaTzaddik was mentioned explicitly. However, Jordan did not abide by this agreement, and in fact shot dead any Jew who approached the border. (Similarly, Jordan did not allow Jews to come to the Western Wall, or to the ancient Mount of Olives cemetary, whose tombstones they desecrated and turned into latrines.) In addition, Jordan changed the name of the neighborhood to "Sheikh Jarrah", and populated the Jewish-owned homes with Arab settlers.

After Israel captured eastern Jerusalem during the 1967 war, the illegal Arab settlers were permitted to remain on the property, with the stipulation that they pay rent to the legal Sefardic Jewish owners. The Arabs refused to pay rent, however, and eventually the Jewish owners filed suit for the squatters' eviction. Several months ago, the Jews won their (rather open-and-shut) case in Israel's Supreme Court, and two illegal Arab settler families were ordered to vacate the premises. After they refused, they were evicted. Jewish families then returned to the Jewish-owned homes of Shimon HaTzaddik, for the first time since they were attacked and driven out in 1947.

From that point onward, radical Israeli leftists have been holding anti-Jewish demonstrations in "Sheikh Jarrah" every Friday.

re: #186 Bob Levin

I think there are four issues on this thread, and all three are getting tangled up.

1. Was the announcement a diplomatic insult? Yes. Was it deliberate? Tough call. Israeli internal politics is chaotic at best, more so that US politics. So any discussion of deliberateness versus one hand not paying attention or giving two cents what the other is doing is speculation at this point. Bibi apologized, but it's going to happen again at some point.

Tough call? No. It was deliberate by somebody. It may not have been Bibi, but it was a calculated move. When the US Vice President is in Israel every politician knows he's there.

2. Are the settlements and building additions really a roadblock to peace? No. How about the insistence that Palestinian territory, which has yet to be determined since 1948, is predicated on that eventual territory being Judenrein? Yes.

Are some settlements... there are some that are a roadblock and others that can be negotiated. I believe these (East Jerusalem) can be negotiated. Others will have to go, full stop.

3. Does this recent kerfuffle have any impact on Netenyahu's coalition? No.

Too soon to tell. This may have been a shot across the bow from Shas and Israeli politics are way too complex and fast-moving to see how this is going to play out. I wouldn't be as definitive as you.

re: #187 HoosierHoops

I know I'll never get a chance to visit the Holy Lands...The Politics are really messed up there...

huh?

Gus I'm so glad to see your Avatar. The other one was humerous but I like this one better.

I believe the only two remaining wingnut approved former Republican presidents are Ronald Reagan and Calvin Coolidge. There's even a movement afoot to abandon Abraham Lincoln as we all heard in the XPAC seminars at CPAC.

re: #196 NJDhockeyfan

Al Jazeera is a Jew-hating spokesmouth for terrorists. Don't try to sugar coat it.

Well, when they aren't doing that they do some pretty good journalism on the side.

re: #202 Joo-LiZ

I know that a lot of people probably won't buy into this argument, and there are plenty of valid arguments to be made about this... including political considerations and the need for peace, etc.

But I think it IS an important factor when considering what Israel can/should/will do.

Temporarily freezing construction in East Jerusalem is not as benign as it sounds at first. Actions do have consequences.

re: #208 Escaped Hillbilly

Gus I'm so glad to see your Avatar. The other one was humerous but I like this one better.

Thanks. Those are the Flatirons in the background.

re: #209 Gus 802

I believe the only two remaining wingnut approved former Republican presidents are Ronald Reagan and Calvin Coolidge. There's even a movement afoot to abandon Abraham Lincoln as we all heard in the XPAC seminars at CPAC.

Zombie Reagan in 2012!///

re: #82 windsagio

There's no equivalence tho', the right (ala stormfront and friends) still have a pretty good lock on anti-semitism.

Its a mistake to automatically associate anti-Israel sentiment with anti-semitism. People can differentiate the race from the nation.

Being Jewish is not a race, we are a religion encompassing all "races".

re: #213 iceweasel

Zombie Reagan in 2012!///

Haras Nilap in 2012!!!11!

re: #194 MandyManners

One name out of how many? How many anti-Semites/anti-Isaelis?

Oh come on. Rahm Emmanuel, the son of Israeli parents runs his office. David Axelrod, Tony Blinken, and on and on and on... This is not an anti-semitic or anti-Israeli administration.

re: #214 bj

Depends on your definition, dunnit? Lets not get all pedantic.

OT:

San Patricio
The Chieftains Ry Cooder

FTF them. It has to be good!

re: #213 iceweasel

/bomb.

reagan was the most overrated US president EVER

//bomb.

re: #196 NJDhockeyfan

Al Jazeera is a Jew-hating spokesmouth for terrorists. Don't try to sugar coat it.

I see none of that in their English language service, but I've seen some pretty damning clips with subtitles. Also, I'm not talking about 1996, I mean today, when they're hiring British and Jewish staff and trying to be mainstream, not in a sneaky way, but in a professional way, as car as I can see. Then again, take the nuttiest guest of the nuttiest pundit on MSNBC or Fox News, then 20 seconds without context, then portray it as typical, and you have about the same thing.

I have seen Fox News people showing screen captures of squatter websites that are NOT al Jazeera, so we have to be careful whose 2nd hand information we believe.

OTOH, I have been naive before, so show me links and I will take a look.

re: #207 Cineaste

huh?

What?
I love Israel with all my heart...I said the politics are messed up in holy lands..
If I am wrong..please correct me.
Regards

re: #170 windsagio

I'm not an expert so I have to be careful, but it seems like there's a branch of extremist Judaism that believes that Israel has a divine right to the entirity of the West bank, and especially to Jerusalem. I always had kind of a feeling that a large part of the impetus behind the settlements was that anyways, especially as I've read that a large % of the settlers are fundamentalists.

You are certainly no expert, in fact, you are ignorant of history.

What you call the "West Bank", Judea and Samaria, is the region where Jews have lived uninterrupted for thousands of years. Ponder for a moment the word Judah and Judea and the word Judaism. This region, and Jerusalem, are central to Jewish history, beliefs and aspirations for several millennia. This is hardly an example of "extremist Judaism" or the views of "fundamentalists."

re: #200 Gus 802

Some do. Howver, they've been abandoning Hoover's legacy as of late with Jonah Goldberg and Glenn Beck now calling Hoover a Progressive. It's odd how a once revered Republican (revered by Republicans) has suddenly been reformed into a Progressive. But, that's how historical revisionism works -- something Goldberg is an expert on.

It's like how they forget that it was Democrats who led the US into WWII and Vietnam and the Cuban blockade and... and... and...

re: #216 Cineaste

Oh come on. Rahm Emmanuel, the son of Israeli parents runs his office. David Axelrod, Tony Blinken, and on and on and on... This is not an anti-semitic or anti-Israeli administration.

DOES NOT FIT WINGNUT NARRATIVE. CIRCUITS OVERLOADING. IGNORE DATA IGNORE DATA IGNORE DATA

re: #194 MandyManners

First, those people aren't his advisers; many are just his acquaintances, with whom he only has a tenuous connection.

Second, yes, a few of those people are anti-Semitic, or at least hold questionable views. But using that to smear Obama is ludicrous, particularly in the context of Rahm Emanuel, Hillary, Biden, Gates--all strong supporters of Israel.

Finally, you're fighting yesterday's battle, which was already lost. As a nation, we've fully litigated the Ayers/Rezko/Wright connections. It's a dead end for your side.

re: #206 Cineaste

The "tough call" is because while it was the ministry of the interior, the announcement didn't come from a politician, it came from a planning committee. This construction has been going through the normal municipal construction approval channels, and it is POSSIBLE (not necessarily though), that the initial approval just happened to come up now. Just because the US Vice-President is in town, doesn't mean every committee responsible for running Israel stops in its tracks.

Obviously, if this WAS the case, I doubt it will remain the case in the future because of the political damage caused, and there will be some more centralization of Jerusalem construction.

Point is, it was not NECESSARILY some Israeli politician wielding it as an attack on the US/Bibi.

re: #223 Cineaste

It's like how they forget that it was Democrats who led the US into WWII and Vietnam and the Cuban blockade and... and... and...

I think it's a little frustrating for some people when they think about how WWII was led by a Democratic administration.

re: #219 windsagio

/bomb.

reagan was the most overrated US president EVER

//bomb.

Reagan would be a RINO today.

re: #220 keloyd

Great avatar.

re: #228 iceweasel

His symbolism is more important than his actual policies at this point, so that'll never come up :)

re: #216 Cineaste

Oh come on. Rahm Emmanuel, the son of Israeli parents runs his office. David Axelrod, Tony Blinken, and on and on and on... This is not an anti-semitic or anti-Israeli administration.

Here's a list at the Jewish Virtual Library.

re: #206 Cineaste

Too soon to tell. This may have been a shot across the bow from Shas and Israeli politics are way too complex and fast-moving to see how this is going to play out. I wouldn't be as definitive as you.

That's what I meant. It had to be deliberate, but who made the decision and why. Don't rule out incompetence.

Are some settlements... there are some that are a roadblock and others that can be negotiated. I believe these (East Jerusalem) can be negotiated. Others will have to go, full stop

That's not my area of expertise. But some here know the specific geography much better. However, I think the idea of Judenrein is very real and cannot be ignored no matter which area you talk about.

Too soon to tell. This may have been a shot across the bow from Shas and Israeli politics are way too complex and fast-moving to see how this is going to play out. I wouldn't be as definitive as you.

I think we agree on the chaos and pace of Israeli politics. That's what I meant, that within the chaos it's hard to spot a trend or sea change. I tend to think that Israelis see Bibi as the person for the job right now.

re: #187 HoosierHoops

I don't know about that.. I am so jealous you were walking around Jerusalem 2 weeks ago...

I know I'll never get a chance to visit the Holy Lands...The Politics are really messed up there...

Why? It is as simple as purchasing a ticket and having a week or two for a splendid trip. It is a wonderful and fascinating place to visit.

re: #9 davesax

The bottom line is that the Israelis simply don't trust him.

I haven't seen recent polling, but Obama's numbers weren't terrible in Israel late last year:
[Link: thecable.foreignpolicy.com...]
[Link: asp.newamerica.net...] (the raw poll results - PDF)

Q.20 Now, I'd like to rate your feelings toward some people, with one hundred meaning a VERY WARM, FAVORABLE feeling; zero meaning a VERY COLD, UNFAVORABLE feeling; and fifty meaning not particularly warm or cold. You can use any number from zero to one hundred, the higher the number the more favorable your feelings are toward that person or organization. If you have no opinion or never heard of that person, please say so.

Mean%P%Warm%P%Cold
20 Benjamin Netanyahu...55.0 51 30
21 Ehud Barak...41.4 30 46
22 Tzippi Livni...46.9 40 36
23 Avigdor Lieberman...45.2 38 42
24 Barack Obama...48.7 41 37
25 The United States...60.4 56 18
26 Bill Clinton...62.2 59 19
27 George W. Bush...51.5 48 33 97
28 Hillary Clinton...55.9 48 23
29 Abu Mazen...26.7 16 64

Q.30 Now let me ask you about President Barack Obama. Thinking about United States President Barack Obama and the role America plays in the world, do you think the election of Obama to the presidency is good or bad for addressing the problems facing the world?

Very good...13
Somewhat good...39
Somewhat bad ...26
Very bad...13
(Don't know/Refused) ...9
Total Good ...52
Total Bad..39
Good - Bad ...13

Here's where it was more of a mixed bag:

Q.38 Now, I am going to read you a list of words and phrases which people use to describe political figures. For each word or phrase, please tell me whether it describes Barack Obama very well, well, not too well, or not well at all.

VeryWell%P%Well%P%NotToWell%P%NotWellAtAll%P%Don'tKnow%P%TotalWell%P%TotalNotWell%P%(Well - Not)
38 Strong leader ...14 34 27 19 6 48 46 2
39 Honest and trustworthy...16 38 21 15 10 55 36 19
40 Supports Israel ...10 32 35 20 3 42 55 -13
41 Shares my values...9 27 23 31 10 36 54 -18
42 Will strengthen America's standing in
the world ...17 35 24 18 5 52 42 10
43 Naive...15 28 27 24 7 43 51 -8
44 Muslim...15 24 22 27 12 39 49 -10
45 Weak on terrorism...19 31 28 15 8 50 42 8

The formatting is a mess but just focus on the end of each line, that's the total Well, the total Not Well, and finally the total Well minus the total Not Well.

So on the positive side: 55 to 36 "Honest and trustworthy"; 52 to 44 "Will strengthen America's standing in the world"; 48 to 46 a "Strong Leader"; 42 to 51 "Naive".

And on the negative: 42 to 55 "Supports Israel"; 36 to 54 "Shares my values"; and 50 to 42 "Weak on terrorism".

Also the 39% "Total Well" for the phrase "Muslim" describing the President seems quite a bit higher than that rumor / myth polls even in the States. That's something Obama can't do much about that must skew everything else.

re: #224 iceweasel

DOES NOT FIT WINGNUT NARRATIVE. CIRCUITS OVERLOADING. IGNORE DATA IGNORE DATA IGNORE DATA

Look Dave, I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over.

/from one malfunctioning AI to another

re: #209 Gus 802

I believe the only two remaining wingnut approved former Republican presidents are Ronald Reagan and Calvin Coolidge. There's even a movement afoot to abandon Abraham Lincoln as we all heard in the XPAC seminars at CPAC.

Reagan would be abandoned in a flash if it became widely known (or widely remembered) that when he went to Geneva to have his summit with Gorbachev, he stayed in the house of a Muslim Imam - the Aga Khan!

Oh yeah, and wasn't Reagan the head of a labor union in California?

Labor unions are evil! /

shhh... don't tell them... they don't read history anyway so they'll never find out!

re: #170 windsagio

That is the most fundamental versions of Zionism. I happen to consider myself a Zionist, but I don't subscribe to that literal definition.

re: #194 MandyManners

One name out of how many? How many anti-Semites/anti-Isaelis?

Rookie mistake, you're never supposed to drink the bong water.

Releated:

Walter Russell Mead has been a writing an excellent series of columns on
"The Israel Lobby" as well as American Jewish political support for Israel. Well worth reading:

Don’t Blame The Jews
[Link: blogs.the-american-interest.com...]

The Israel Lobby and Gentile Power
[Link: blogs.the-american-interest.com...]

Is This Lobby Different From All Others?
[Link: blogs.the-american-interest.com...]

re: #172 palomino

Davey?

What's up with the pillow talk?

I included a link that shows a Washington Post article, where Elliot Abrams explains that Obama's demand for all natural growth to stop on settlements was unprecedented, and by making such demands without building Israeli trust, was a big mistake. The same links include an article that says Israeli-U.S. ties are at the worst they've been since Bush Senior was in office. And, those links also include commentary by Aaron David Miller - advisor to James Baker and Bush senior and hardly a right winger - asserting that the Obami have not offered the Israelis the mixture of toughness and reassurance that they need to trust him so he can really move forward.

None of this refutes anything I've said.

As far as poles, again, you obviously don't read the Israeli press. At all. Or, talk to Israelis. At all. Obama has very low approval with the Israeli public.

If you're interested in finding out more about it, you know how to do searches, I'm sure. Haartez, Jpost, Ynet, all have English additions that are available on the internet. And, again, like I said, Ari Shavitz's New York Times op-ed explains all this in Google search.

You obviously haven't read it.

As far as liberal Israelis wanting the settlements to end. It's not even about liberal vs. conservative, etc. MOST Israelis want the settlements to end. I want to the settlements to end.

But, again, you're not even willing to acknowledge basic facts, here, so I'm not sure what you want from me.

I made a post outlining what I think is wrong with Obama's approach to Israel. I stand by what I said.

Now, Obama's people can keep fuming about Israel's settlements while they dither on Iran, send an ambassador to Syria, stay silent on The Green Movement, Lebanon's continued decent into control by Islamic radicals, etc. It will not lead to a Palestinian - Israeli peace agreement, nor will it bring stability to the middle east.

That's my opinion.

re: #213 iceweasel

Zombie Reagan in 2012!///

You can tell which Republicans are running for president by how often they invoke Reagan. It's as if he were the last GOP president, both Bushes just forgotten.

Examples include Romney's responses to anything on any issue: "Just like Ronald Reagan, I..."

re: #186 Bob Levin

Good post, Bob!

re: #221 HoosierHoops

What?
I love Israel with all my heart...I said the politics are messed up in holy lands..
If I am wrong..please correct me.
Regards

I was wondering if you were saying that you would never visit the holy lands (plural?) because their politics are messed up.

There's no doubting they are messed up, just not a reason not to go!

Ok gonna go prepare my first of several meals of soup for today, bbiab :p

re: #237 jordash1212

oops this came up while I was typing.

Yeah of course. The point I'm making is that such people exist, and they're a real barrier to peace in the whole region. I specifically don't want to associate anyone on here with that philosophy.

OK poof! (stupid tooth!)

... It rhymes!

Ah, a witch hunt of questionable Presidential Advisers...

When do we get to the previous Presidents?

Tu quoque on my part, or double standard on thiers?
Hmmm.

re: #241 palomino

"The last time we had any good ideas was 25 years ago."

Hearts and minds.

re: #175 jordash1212

Didn't see this post when I made mine... like I've said, I still don't know enough about the nuances in that neighbourhood to have any opinion. I'm gonna read the article you linked now.

re: #226 Joo-LiZ

The "tough call" is because while it was the ministry of the interior, the announcement didn't come from a politician, it came from a planning committee. This construction has been going through the normal municipal construction approval channels, and it is POSSIBLE (not necessarily though), that the initial approval just happened to come up now. Just because the US Vice-President is in town, doesn't mean every committee responsible for running Israel stops in its tracks.

Obviously, if this WAS the case, I doubt it will remain the case in the future because of the political damage caused, and there will be some more centralization of Jerusalem construction.

Point is, it was not NECESSARILY some Israeli politician wielding it as an attack on the US/Bibi.

I think you are being very naive. The decisions about announcing construction permits in these areas is DEEPLY political and everyone involved is fully aware of the consequences. This was released on that day not because some random committee in some random classroom happened to post it on the bulletin board in the hall. This was a political move, 100%.

re: #236 Cineaste

Reagan would be abandoned in a flash if it became widely known (or widely remembered) that when he went to Geneva to have his summit with Gorbachev, he stayed in the house of a Muslim Imam - the Aga Khan!

You can't be serious.

Do you know anything about him?

re: #227 Gus 802

I think it's a little insanely frustrating for some people when they think about how WWII was led by a Democratic administration.

FTFY

;)

re: #234 simoom

Don't confuse davey with facts. The only important thing is what's in your gut, and his gut tells him that all Israelis dislike Obama.

Furthermore, he contends we should be very concerned about this lack of affection. Why? Because his gut tells him.

re: #228 iceweasel

Reagan would be a RINO today.

Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 - Signed by President Ronald Reagan

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), also Simpson-Mazzoli Act (Pub.L. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359, signed by President Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986) is an Act of Congress which reformed United States immigration law. The Act made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants (immigrants who do not possess lawful work authorization), required employers to attest to their employees' immigration status, and granted amnesty to certain illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously. The Act also granted a path towards legalization to certain agricultural seasonal workers and immigrants who had been continuously and illegally present in the United States since January 1, 1982.

Amnesty by any other name. The estimates are that 2,684,892 were granted amnesty thanks to President Reagan. Sure enough the wingnuts have and "exit strategy." Edwin Meese wrote a piece at Human Events called, "Reagan Would Not Repeat Amnesty Mistake."

Revisionist history -- apply liberally when needed. /

re: #249 ryannon

You can't be serious.

Do you know anything about him?

If you would've told me that the wingnuts would throw Abraham FREAKING Lincoln under the bus, I'd not believe it... Yet, here we are...
:(