Comments on: Shocker: Haaretz Editor Urged Sec’y Rice to ‘Rape’ Israel

By: Charles Keating

Charles Keating — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

So it is.

By: Klaus Bloemker, Frankfurt, Germany

Klaus Bloemker, Frankfurt, Germany — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

I read it in the Jerusalem Post
__________________________

As it happened, my girlfriend was in Israel in end of December and brought me the Jerusalem Post Dec. 28, 2007 copy that carried this article, page 7: 'Ha'aretz' editor told Rice that Isarel 'wants to be raped'. The J.Post refers to the New York Jewish Week's website as the source for its article.

By: Richard Witty

Richard Witty — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

What specifically do you think is wrong?

The vagueness is difficult.

By: Richard Witty

Richard Witty — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

I guess you didn't get the jist of Sneh's appeal when he was in the US.

It was that Israel NEEDS the US to hold it to the road map, AND to hold Palestine to the road map, so that progress becomes possible.

Absent international mediation that has teeth, bi-lateral and multi-lateral negotiations are too complex with too many violently opportunistic factions committed to their own factions' stature (moreso than any peace).

It is part and parcel of the urge for a real peace, not advantage and not disadvantage.

Support it already.

The fantasy of a single-state will not occur in your lifetime, Phil.

It is an enormous gamble, with horrific consequences if approached rhetorically, rather than pragmatically.

The pragmatic approach would be to do EVERYTHING that one could to establish confident, comprehensive and wide relations between Palestinians and Israelis.

That would be real work.

By: liberal white boy

liberal white boy — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Speaking of Condi, what is going on with the Rosen and Weissman espionage trial. Wasn't that scheduled for trial this month. Was there a development that MSM didn't tell us about? Of course there was.

“>link to MILF.com<

I could use the traffic just as much as these other pathetic spammers.

By: liberal white boy

liberal white boy — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Although your wife is kinda cute please try to stay on topic Pathetic.

By: Ed.

Ed. — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

What struck me about the language of "rape" that Landau used, and what I think he was trying to suggest, is that Israel is like a frustrated, wicked hussy that is well-aware of her own provocative power, but is sick of acting like she doesn't need a real man to take control of her fate and is ready to be "taken." Unfortunately, spineless, impotent Washington is unwilling to do the taking that needs to be done because it is frightened of the hussy's warped, bitter, wealthy, vindictive, decrepit and possibly incestuous father (the Israel lobby/wealthy US Jewish Zionists.) Cut the degenerate old man out at the knees, and believe me, the hussy will get “taken” lickity split. And she'll enjoy it, too.

By: ANON

ANON — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Oh Ed, you made me wet with your words.

By: Mencius

Mencius — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

"Anywhere else in the world?"

Are you aware of what happened to the Jewish populations of Egypt, Morocco, Syria, Yemen and Iraq? Are you aware of what would happen if a Jew tried to move back to one of these countries?

Lucette Lagnado, a WSJ reporter, recently published a book in which she describes how her family was expelled from Egypt for being Jewish. Jews (and Europeans) were allowed to take no more than $100 with them. They had to sell their wedding rings.

Did Lagnado's family organize a terrorist liberation front? Hell, no. They got on with their lives. Shit happens. Did the Germans who were expelled from Eastern Europe organize a terrorist liberation front? Shit, no. And how do you think the Times or Haaretz would have treated them if they had?

When was the last time you saw Haaretz or the New York Times agonizing about the North African Jews? Never. Why not? Because Arab nationalists are "progressive." Like you. And so are these fine institutions.

If you really believed in "peace," you would believe in an immediate cease-fire based on the current military border. People who really believe in peace want bygones to be bygones. People who want to adjust de-facto borders to right ancient historical wrongs are called irredentists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irredentism). What you call "peace" is not peace, but victory.

If you really believed in "peace," you would be the first to want to bury the hatchet in the ancient quarrel between Zionists and assimilationists. Instead, what I see on this blog is hate.

I've never been to Israel. I don't give a crap about Israel. I am only half Jewish and it's the wrong half. What disturbs me is the sight of intelligent Americans, like you, who invest so much mental energy in destroying their enemies, and call it peace, love and progress.

Amos Oz is right: "make peace, not love." The first thing Israelis and Arabs need to do is leave the border exactly where it is right now, build a big wall on both sides, forget each other's existence for ten or twenty years, live their lives and forget about politics and war and hate and death. After that there can be hugs and kisses. But if you think irredentism has ever led to hugs and kisses, anywhere in the world, any time in history, perhaps you need to read a little more widely.