Today Israeli P.M. Olmert said that the "outpost" settlements in the West Bank are a "disgrace." This after our president, George Bush, said the other day that these settlements "ought to go."
It shows 1, how powerful America is. If George Bush had said angrily, all the settlements have to go, get back to the '49 armistice line now, what would have been the response? And it shows, 2, how impoverished American politics are on this issue. Why is P.M. Olmert making the strongest statements in the discourse about these hateful arrangments? Where is Elliot Engel, author of the Syria Accountability Act? Where is Susan Sarandon, patroness of Leviev, a little bit o' the settlements on Madison Avenue? Where is Obama? Where is Edwards? No, our politicians are hogtied by the Israel lobby (there--isn't that better than "stranglehold," Walt and Mearsheimer's formulation?) and none of them has the guts to say what an Israeli P.M. is saying. Do you have any idea how much influence the U.S. could have over this colonialist folly if it chose to? When is the U.S. going to show leadership?
Here is the problem…now appearing throughout the internet
Is AIPAC Making a Monkey Out of YOU?
1.Why does America forsake 1.3 billion Muslims with most of the worlds oil reserves and their limitless manpower for 5 million Apartheid Israelis and their….and their…and their… old testament?
2.Why does 30 percent of America's foreign policy budget go to a country with zero percent of the worlds population (rounded)?
3.Why [is] the Holocaust museum in Washington DC paid for with American tax dollars? Why did the money for the World War II museum honoring those freeing holocaust survivors have to be funded privately without government assistance?
4.Why is there such a dearth of news coverage concerning a trial involving treason charges against two high ranking AIPAC (Apartheid Israel's) lobby officials?
5.Why did the Vichy Democratic congress exempt the treasonous AIPAC organization from newly enacted lobby reform legislation?
6.Why was the media plug pulled after about 48 hours concerning discussion of an academic paper critical of Apartheid Israel's lobby in America and [its] extraordinary influence on American foreign policy?
7.Why is the nuclear stock pile of a country with the itchiest trigger finger in the Middle East completely ignored by the United States?
8.Why did the media not challenge the lies advanced by the Likud-o-con treasonists in the Bush administration as justification for war in Iraq?
9.Why did our Vichy Democratic congress drop the Iran war authorization language from its recent war funding bill when lobbied by the treasonous AIPAC organization to do so?
10.Why has the American Press ignored the hideous oppression of the Palestinian people for almost 40 years?
11.Why do Europeans regard Apartheid Israel as the greatest threat to world peace? Isn't their news filtered like ours?
12.Why does America not support its troops from the USS Liberty?
13.Why did the Bush Administration stop the FBI investigation of the Mossad Goons who were caught video-taping themselves dancing and high-fiving at Liberty Park New Jersey while the Twin Towers burned across the river? Did no one in our government think it was odd that the Goons lived next door to the terrorist hijackers? Why are those video tapes now classified by our government?
The answer: Ooh Ooh Ah Ah Ooh Ooh Ah Ah.
http://homo-sapien-underground.blogspot.com/2007/02/is-aip
Defense Minister Ehud Barak has reached an agreement with leaders of the
settlement movement for the peaceful evacuation of 18 outposts in the West Bank, sources close to the minister told Haaretz. They warned that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's "rash" intention of forcefully uprooting an outpost near Ramallah may jeopardize the deal. The prime minister's associates said that the accusations against him were "intolerable."
Olmert himself said Sunday that not evacuating outposts was "disgraceful."
Barak's associates claim the defense minister was angered by an article in Yedioth Ahronoth, last Friday, quoting sources close to Olmert as saying that the prime minister is distrustful of the understanding between Barak and the settlers. The paper said Olmert is determined to evacuate Migron.
"Olmert is acting with the same frivolousness that characterized his behavior in the Second Lebanon War," Barak's aides said, adding that Olmert was "endangering efforts to achieve an evacuation without violence."
The agreement between Barak and the Yesha Council, which represents the settlers in the West Bank, was struck after long months of deliberations. The talks were organized by Barak's adviser on settlements, Eitan Broshi, and the minister's chief of staff, Brigadier General Mike Herzog.
Barak's office says the negotiations involved 26 outposts which were set up since March, 2001. Israel has consented to evacuate them as set out in the United States' road map plan, authored by the administration of President George W. Bush.
Sources close to the defense minister said Barak had on three occasions presented Olmert with a compromise for the consensual eviction of 18 of the outposts. Olmert opted to postpone the deal each time, claiming the timing wasn't right, the sources said.
The settlers from the 18 outposts would, under the agreement, move to existing, neighboring communities. However, Barak's negotiators did not agree to allow the settlers from the various outposts to move to other outposts.
In exchange for moving to preexisting settlements, the settlers stand to receive building concessions. Additionally, Barak offered to grant them permits for infrastructure projects which the government has shelved for some time.
Barak's associates said he thought that an agreement could also be reached on the evacuation of Migron, which is located near Ramallah and is the largest outpost on the list. Barak's people said the settlers realized that evacuation of the contested outpost was inevitable, as it is located on privately owned Palestinian land.
"The settler leaders know that the High Court of Justice will ultimately order the evacuation," sources from Barak's office explained. They added that the minister was aware of reports by the Shin Bet security service's so-called "Jewish department," which deals with terrorism by Jews and predicted that evacuation of the outpost would be "extremely violent." They said Barak was trying to avoid such bloodshed.
"It seems as though the prime minister is actually seeking a violent confrontation with the settlers for political gain. This sort of frivolity could end in violence," Barak's aides warned.
Olmert's office rejected the allegations: "After four years of little progress on the unauthorized outposts, it can hardly be argued that the prime minister is acting frivolously," they said in response. "Such a statement cannot be tolerated." They added that Olmert's comments at the weekly cabinet meeting in Jerusalem, to the effect that refraining from evacuating outposts is disgraceful, should not be seen as criticism aimed at Barak, "who assumed office only last June."
As for the prime minister's attitude toward the result of Barak's negotiations with the settlers, one source from Olmert's office said that it "does not meet any of the standards of real agreements." The official went on to say that the settlers' leaders are seeking to arrange a deal involving something the settlers do not legally own.
Other sources from Olmert's office said that President Bush's visit last week in Israel served to spotlight the illegal outposts. "Olmert has given the negotiations plenty of time to progress. But there's a limit," one of the prime minister's associates said.
Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Ahmed Qurei, head of the Palestinian Authority's negotiating team, are scheduled to meet Monday in Jerusalem to discuss for the first time the core issues for a permanent peace agreement.
Oh I almost forgot see "Count Aipacula and the Axis of Weasels…link to homo-sapien-underground.blogspot.com
and "The Disgrace of Harvard"…link to homo-sapien-underground.blogspot.com
Israel is a secondary issue in American politics.
That Edwards or Obama don't speak of it often or not definitively, is a good thing. It reflects the importance of domestic and LARGER foreign policy issues.
Only those that are fixated on Israel would conclude that the Iraq war was fought for Israel. It was fought for oil (and unsuccessfully so far).
Phil,
You cheat yourself by agitating that a candidate express an opinion before they've been informed sufficiently to form one.
I share negative feelings about Hillary. I find her to be primarily politically calculating, nakedly "entitled", patronizing, and at least partially spineless. And I too voted for Nader in 2000 (in a safe democratic state). I did not in 2004.
I would vote for Hillary over any of the republicans running though, and definitely over Nader.
My intention is stronger than my revulsion. I DON'T vote or act from reaction.
It applies to Israel. I object to MANY things about Israel, but I love it.
I think you err in your self-assessment that "America is your spiritual home". I don't believe that you feel that in earnest.
I expect that you feel as tentatively accepted here as I do, and more accepted among those that you agree with or even among Jewish community (liberal New York and family), than among evangelical or libertarians.
"If George Bush had said angrily, all the settlements have to go, get back to the '49 armistice line now, what would have been the response?"
A rhetorical question, to be sure. But, not being a candidate, I'll take on that hypothetical. First, absolutely nothing would have happened on the ground. Rather, Israel would have been regretfully obliged to have The Lobby play the anti-semitic card against Bush II, just as they did in 1991 when Bush I took a stand against loan guarantees that were being used to fund settlements.
Second, Israel — through its Kurdish and Turkish connections — is capable of stirring up just as much mischief in Iraq as the Iranians can, if not more. An anamolous increase in troop casualties would send an unmistakable message to the White House, from those whose spiritual home is in Jerusalem.
There is an active debate in American politics as to whether the "Israel Lobby" even exists. I am waiting until all the evidence is in to pass judgment, but up until now, I have seen no conclusive evidence of its existance.
I read your blog every day, Phil, but very little of what you write actually penetrates my temples. I begin reading your posts and usually by the 4th or 5th word I have begun preparing my response.
Israel is not an issue in American politics, and the Israel Lobby does not exist. Accepting those two facts as given, we can see that Philip is truly a deranged and mean-spirited individual, who must be over-compensating for his own alienation as a Jew in a land where Jews are heavily persecuted and a pogrom just might be launched any day now.
My sons have been to Israel and although it is not perfect, it certainly wouldn't improve any by granting full human rights to Palestinians. Therefore I reject the argument that Israel is a racist or Jewish supremacist state, and affirm that it is purely the spiritual home of my chosen people.
Surely the Palestinians have their own spiritual home. I think it is somewhere in Uganda.
If Philip, with his well-known biases against certain tribes, continues to criticize Hillary Clinton, I may have no choice but to vote for her. She is a disingenuous, calculating, and corrupt politician. But on the other hand, I know who cuts her campaign checks, so I'm pretty certain she will be nice to those working so hard to make my spiritual home a little bit bigger.
My physical home, in the United States, doesn't concern me much, what happens to it. As long as I have my spiritual home to flee to when the next pogroms come, which as I said before, could be any day now…
Basically I am going in to this next presidential election thinking, "Who cares what happens to the U.S.?"
That's funny Joshua.
"Is AIPAC Making a Monkey Out of YOU?"
Yes, sure! who else?!
A careful observer would spot me hidding from the big aipackers selling tickets to the next aipac antimonkey forum "a world without monkey". Look out for Count Aipacula himself cleaning his fangs with a handkerchief while hidding from the photographer, and Witty, as usual, seeing nothing, hearing nothing and walking aloof in the background while murmuring "poor, starving, anorexic aipackers, so elusive I just cannot find them anywhere."
http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x153/Martina_Fayme/Hatsu%202008%20tag%201/DSC_00920022.jpg
Ridicule instead of content, is itself a statement of ridiculousness.
Satire would have to capture the original, not misrepresent it.
Like what did the USA ever do to be worthy of being anyone's spiritual home? Historically, it's nothing but an animal farm. We need to keep all of recorded history in mind to know the difference between right and wrong, yes?
Satire never captures the original; it merely skews things the other way. That's why fragging was invented.
Richard, obviously I could never out-do you.
Tell me though, one thing: Where is the Palestinians' spiritual home?
Thanks.
What can you do when someone steals your spiritual home?
Change the spiritual locks?
Anything else?
Reptiles have "spiritual" homes.
Mammals have community.
Humans have humankind.
Fully humans have the earth itself.
Jews' need is for safety, A land that has meaning for them/us. We need enough.
Palestine similarly.
ALL boundaries are temporary and ultimately arbitrary. They are only necessary to institute jurisdictional power arrangements.
The prohibitions against Jews residing in Palestine is a compromise of humanity. The prohibitions against Palestinians residing where they will is a compromise of humanity.
Similarly, the attempt to make the boundaries of the US, some sort of "spiritual" home, is a lie.
It should be a place where residents feel comfortable, all of us. If you want to call that a spiritual home, fine.
I think that is an exagerated term. If Phil doesn't, then I'll have something to argue with him about the next time we meet at a Bar Mitzvah.
My son just returned from a visit to Israel. He loved the place, as I did when I visited.
The contempt that many Jews are thrashed with, over an extended time in too many damn situations historically, compels us to seek a safer home, than assimilation.
The two-state solution is a way to resolve that in the short term. I don't know long-term.
I've recently read much of the Koran, and observe in it, a permanence of contempt, by being recorded into scripture, similar to the works of the early Christian church.
There is also admiration and recognition of the Jewish law and Jewish community, but sadly, it also includes "prophetic" presentation of frankly trivial and malevolent misrepresentations.
Acceptance in practise is low on the list.
Muslims and Christians just wanna kill Jews.
Witty, you always said it, and I doubted you. Shame on me. You are indeed a man of -nuance-.
Irrational Jew-hatred is a permanent, indefatigable, omnipresent force, but Jews must combat it, by not assimilating into American culture [that's for the rest of us immigrant schmucks!], and by pre-emptively stealing Palestine.
What can I say, a real vision of hope and monument of logic.
MM – You are a total weiner. Stop twisting people words into what you want them to say so you can batter them over the head with words they didn't say.
How would you like it if I repeatedly called you a Nazi who wishes to kill Jewish children based on some of the things you have written here? Sure I'm taking a few liberties in intent and wording, but no more than you do with Witty.
Please try to control yourself MM. You can't be that much of jerk all the time. Try to reach down for the part of you that's decent and let it shine.
We still need enough (land) and acceptance.
We now reject the permanent walking apology.
Its a good thing that that occurred. Its a great tragedy that it took the holocaust to suggest it strongly enough to be commonly applied.
Some Muslims and some Christians just want to persecute Jews, and some Muslims and some Christians just want to kill Jews.
The generalization is yours. I never said it.
The suggestion for distrust IS in the scriptures though. It would take a universalistic read of them to note it, as obvious as it is.
I share some of the perspectives of each in ways, but I wouldn't grant that perspective authority, nor exagerate it to its orchestrated political form. (jihad and pogrom)
"Sure I'm taking a few liberties in intent and wording"
Not at all, you would be doing the usual zionazi commentator procedure used aplenty through the blogosphere. Don't be so shy.
And Witty, you should thank the sarmatian for reading your comment and trying to extract some meaning from it. As for myself I have developed a mental wittyometer which allows me to detect a Witty comment in the first three words (with an embeded recursive Steve detector based on the word "ayatollah"), and then I skip past all the rest as fast as I say "they are taking the hobbits to Isengard." In fact quite a bit faster than that.
I am a fairly typical liberal Jew.
I love Israel and criticize it. In loving it, I get to talk to those Jews that don't criticize it.
I also love the Jewish community, and criticize it.
Its a prerequisite to the validity of criticism.
Its clear that I wish it to improve, with no prospect at all that I wish it to disappear or just contort.
I wish it to be healthy.
I similarly wish Palestinian society to be healthy.
As the REALITY is that Israelis are there to stay, and that Palestinians are there to stay, reconciliation based on acceptance of the other, is the path.
Any repititive complaint only, is an obstacle to either's health.
I'm surprised that Phil used the term "spiritual home" in talking about America. My sense is that his politics is the opposite of dogmatism, that if America were North America (rather than just the US), or New England (rather than the whole US), that he would just as much feel at home. Or, if he resided in France, or Canada, his existential life would be no different from currently.
I respect that Mr. Witty uses his actual name. I googled him to see that it is legit. That gives him a lot of credibility in my mind in comparison to those of you who attempt to cut down his character and don't have the courage to even identify who you are.
I would say more, but I'm fairly confident I would just be wasting key presses.
David, why would I even want your approval? I am not running for office here in Mondoweiss comments. I am not interviewing for a position. Not selling anything. I am not interested in recognition. I am here only to exchange ideas about the Israel Lobby and the Zionism which have poisoned our country's foreign policy and led to the holocaust in Iraq. I am here to expose the hypocrisy of windbags who would deny the right of return to Palestinians because they don't play for team Chosen, and then bald-facedly purport to champion the Palestinian cause.
I really don't give a goddamn if I have your respect–rest assured you've said and done nothing to gain mine.
Witty, I vastly prefer the incoherent existentialist babbling of your post above to your constant guilt-tripping of Phil Weiss because he has enough integrity and conscience to struggle against the Lobby's pernicious influence, and against the enormous tribal blindspot that allows people like you to sit aside quietly, contentedly reciting Zionist creation myths and anti-Semitic canards against Muslims as if you were telling the wisest and most enlightened truths, all to justify Zionist colonial brutality, and all while the Palestinian population continues to have its land and resources stolen, its homes bulldozed, its politicians kidnapped, its peoplehood erased, and its basic human rights denied. Shame on you. Go, Phil, go.
Another David! This place should be called Mondodavid.
Indeed Witty is legit in his name, fake in his feelings. If you care about brand names, I would suggest you Arie's, one of our best combinations of real name with real personal courage (and grace to forgive my pun, I hope).
As for me I will do without credibility, thanks. My comments stand by themselves or perish by themselves, they have no authority behind them, for they are nothing but the expression of a most irrelevant being. There is no money behind them, no country, no politics, no community, no family, no friends, no names, only a person with a very limited perception of reality trying to convey the worries of his non-american mind to the citizens of empire.
As to all the commenters above, I sense a sincerity. Keep posting, all of you. At least I get a sense of the problem more than in most places.