Comments on: What Obama Told Goldberg, Behind Closed Doors http://mondoweiss.net/2008/05/what-obama-said.html The War of Ideas in the Middle East Mon, 13 Feb 2012 19:39:54 +0000 hourly 1 By: Todd http://mondoweiss.net/2008/05/what-obama-said.html/comment-page-1#comment-59324 Todd Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000 http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/05/19/what-obama-said.html#comment-59324 <p>More of the same. Israel and Jews first, and then a token minority to hide behind. I think it's time to realize that the Jewish and minority interests are in direct opposition to what is best for the rest of the nation, no matter how good the triangulation, and be done with the issues.</p> More of the same. Israel and Jews first, and then a token minority to hide behind. I think it's time to realize that the Jewish and minority interests are in direct opposition to what is best for the rest of the nation, no matter how good the triangulation, and be done with the issues.

]]> By: Oarwell http://mondoweiss.net/2008/05/what-obama-said.html/comment-page-1#comment-59325 Oarwell Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000 http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/05/19/what-obama-said.html#comment-59325 <p>Or was Goldberg's meeting with Obama a catalyst for a heart-changing afflatus? The 80,000 in Oregon, walls tumbling down...what does Barack Obama's name mean again?</p> <p>"Barack is a Semitic word meaning "to bless" as a verb or "blessing" as a noun. In its Hebrew form, barak, it is found all through the Bible. It first occurs in Genesis 1:22: "And God blessed (ḇāreḵə ) them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth." "</p> <p>(from the Juan Cole article, which went on to point out that Omar Bradley had an Arabic-derived first name--another traitor lacking the proper genes? Is that why he put the brakes on good George Patton?)</p> <p>'Obama' seems to mean "true vision," which has been amplified by various hopeful hagiographers to "righteous foresight," or "visionary." I suppose "prophet" can't be too far behind.</p> <p>Over the weekend an LRC blog post by Buffalo attorney James Ostrowski (a Ron Paulist, like me) hilighted Obama's statement about SUVs, thermostats, and gluttony. LRC (Lew Rockwell's website, for the non-adept) has been generally favorable to Obama, because of the hope that he will end war, maybe end Empire. This is the first ugly thing I've seen said about Obama on the blog. Ostrowski's piece was picked up by Drudge and a few others, trying to push the aburd idea that Obama will institute Pol Pot-style reforms such as food rationing and "starve your fat bourgeois ass" (SYFBA). No more will Taco Bell rule the night! White fright takes on new dimensions as White Castles are shuttered, powdered white donuts are removed from the shelves, and the Burger King, He Who fueled many a little-league rally, is toppled from his oleaginous throne.</p> <p><br /> </p> Or was Goldberg's meeting with Obama a catalyst for a heart-changing afflatus? The 80,000 in Oregon, walls tumbling down…what does Barack Obama's name mean again?

"Barack is a Semitic word meaning "to bless" as a verb or "blessing" as a noun. In its Hebrew form, barak, it is found all through the Bible. It first occurs in Genesis 1:22: "And God blessed (ḇāreḵə ) them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth." "

(from the Juan Cole article, which went on to point out that Omar Bradley had an Arabic-derived first name–another traitor lacking the proper genes? Is that why he put the brakes on good George Patton?)

'Obama' seems to mean "true vision," which has been amplified by various hopeful hagiographers to "righteous foresight," or "visionary." I suppose "prophet" can't be too far behind.

Over the weekend an LRC blog post by Buffalo attorney James Ostrowski (a Ron Paulist, like me) hilighted Obama's statement about SUVs, thermostats, and gluttony. LRC (Lew Rockwell's website, for the non-adept) has been generally favorable to Obama, because of the hope that he will end war, maybe end Empire. This is the first ugly thing I've seen said about Obama on the blog. Ostrowski's piece was picked up by Drudge and a few others, trying to push the aburd idea that Obama will institute Pol Pot-style reforms such as food rationing and "starve your fat bourgeois ass" (SYFBA). No more will Taco Bell rule the night! White fright takes on new dimensions as White Castles are shuttered, powdered white donuts are removed from the shelves, and the Burger King, He Who fueled many a little-league rally, is toppled from his oleaginous throne.

]]> By: Lysander http://mondoweiss.net/2008/05/what-obama-said.html/comment-page-1#comment-59326 Lysander Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000 http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/05/19/what-obama-said.html#comment-59326 <p>Interesting analysis. I think, however, their will be many among the Jewish 'leadership' that fear the floodgates will be opened by such a move. If its ok to criticize the settlements, then why not criticize the bombing of Lebanon? Or the starvation in Gaza? Or the Nakba itself? There is too much leeway here.</p> <p>And then there is within Israel itself a dilemma. Who is going to force I don't know how many settlers off the West Bank? Who in Israel wants to give up water resources? The Jordan valley? is there a political force that can compel such concessions on that? Will Obama or any U.S. president be prepared to link U.S. aid to good behavior?</p> <p>If Olmerts government falls tomorrow, who takes over? The "very generous" Ehud Barak, or the not so generous Netanyahu and his sidekick, the most ungenerous Lieberman?</p> <p>So I would conclude that, while its worth a try, the 2 state solution has been made impossible. The whole purpose of settlements was to make it impossible and it worked.</p> <p>I'm afraid that most will conclude that apartheid isn't so bad. That the dehumanisation of Palestinians has gone far enough so that the argument will be that they are unworthy of equal rights, and that people will buy that. Gaza is being deliberately malnurished, and forced to live in sewage, and hardly anyone notices. What's a little apartheid going to do?</p> <p>And I haven't even discussed AIPAC's tag team partner, the Christian Zionists, who make Abe Foxman seem like a Peace Now spokesman. That bunch has both money AND voting numbers.</p> <p>Great Blog, BTW</p> Interesting analysis. I think, however, their will be many among the Jewish 'leadership' that fear the floodgates will be opened by such a move. If its ok to criticize the settlements, then why not criticize the bombing of Lebanon? Or the starvation in Gaza? Or the Nakba itself? There is too much leeway here.

And then there is within Israel itself a dilemma. Who is going to force I don't know how many settlers off the West Bank? Who in Israel wants to give up water resources? The Jordan valley? is there a political force that can compel such concessions on that? Will Obama or any U.S. president be prepared to link U.S. aid to good behavior?

If Olmerts government falls tomorrow, who takes over? The "very generous" Ehud Barak, or the not so generous Netanyahu and his sidekick, the most ungenerous Lieberman?

So I would conclude that, while its worth a try, the 2 state solution has been made impossible. The whole purpose of settlements was to make it impossible and it worked.

I'm afraid that most will conclude that apartheid isn't so bad. That the dehumanisation of Palestinians has gone far enough so that the argument will be that they are unworthy of equal rights, and that people will buy that. Gaza is being deliberately malnurished, and forced to live in sewage, and hardly anyone notices. What's a little apartheid going to do?

And I haven't even discussed AIPAC's tag team partner, the Christian Zionists, who make Abe Foxman seem like a Peace Now spokesman. That bunch has both money AND voting numbers.

Great Blog, BTW

]]> By: Lysander http://mondoweiss.net/2008/05/what-obama-said.html/comment-page-1#comment-59327 Lysander Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000 http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/05/19/what-obama-said.html#comment-59327 <p>Interesting analysis. I think, however, their will be many among the Jewish 'leadership' that fear the floodgates will be opened by such a move. If its ok to criticize the settlements, then why not criticize the bombing of Lebanon? Or the starvation in Gaza? Or the Nakba itself? There is too much leeway here.</p> <p>And then there is within Israel itself a dilemma. Who is going to force I don't know how many settlers off the West Bank? Who in Israel wants to give up water resources? The Jordan valley? is there a political force that can compel such concessions on that? Will Obama or any U.S. president be prepared to link U.S. aid to good behavior?</p> <p>If Olmerts government falls tomorrow, who takes over? The "very generous" Ehud Barak, or the not so generous Netanyahu and his sidekick, the most ungenerous Lieberman?</p> <p>So I would conclude that, while its worth a try, the 2 state solution has been made impossible. The whole purpose of settlements was to make it impossible and it worked.</p> <p>I'm afraid that most will conclude that apartheid isn't so bad. That the dehumanisation of Palestinians has gone far enough so that the argument will be that they are unworthy of equal rights, and that people will buy that. Gaza is being deliberately malnurished, and forced to live in sewage, and hardly anyone notices. What's a little apartheid going to do?</p> <p>And I haven't even discussed AIPAC's tag team partner, the Christian Zionists, who make Abe Foxman seem like a Peace Now spokesman. That bunch has both money AND voting numbers.</p> <p>Great Blog, BTW</p> Interesting analysis. I think, however, their will be many among the Jewish 'leadership' that fear the floodgates will be opened by such a move. If its ok to criticize the settlements, then why not criticize the bombing of Lebanon? Or the starvation in Gaza? Or the Nakba itself? There is too much leeway here.

And then there is within Israel itself a dilemma. Who is going to force I don't know how many settlers off the West Bank? Who in Israel wants to give up water resources? The Jordan valley? is there a political force that can compel such concessions on that? Will Obama or any U.S. president be prepared to link U.S. aid to good behavior?

If Olmerts government falls tomorrow, who takes over? The "very generous" Ehud Barak, or the not so generous Netanyahu and his sidekick, the most ungenerous Lieberman?

So I would conclude that, while its worth a try, the 2 state solution has been made impossible. The whole purpose of settlements was to make it impossible and it worked.

I'm afraid that most will conclude that apartheid isn't so bad. That the dehumanisation of Palestinians has gone far enough so that the argument will be that they are unworthy of equal rights, and that people will buy that. Gaza is being deliberately malnurished, and forced to live in sewage, and hardly anyone notices. What's a little apartheid going to do?

And I haven't even discussed AIPAC's tag team partner, the Christian Zionists, who make Abe Foxman seem like a Peace Now spokesman. That bunch has both money AND voting numbers.

Great Blog, BTW

]]> By: Lysander http://mondoweiss.net/2008/05/what-obama-said.html/comment-page-1#comment-59328 Lysander Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000 http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/05/19/what-obama-said.html#comment-59328 <p>Interesting analysis. I think, however, their will be many among the Jewish 'leadership' that fear the floodgates will be opened by such a move. If its ok to criticize the settlements, then why not criticize the bombing of Lebanon? Or the starvation in Gaza? Or the Nakba itself? There is too much leeway here.</p> <p>And then there is within Israel itself a dilemma. Who is going to force I don't know how many settlers off the West Bank? Who in Israel wants to give up water resources? The Jordan valley? is there a political force that can compel such concessions on that? Will Obama or any U.S. president be prepared to link U.S. aid to good behavior?</p> <p>If Olmerts government falls tomorrow, who takes over? The "very generous" Ehud Barak, or the not so generous Netanyahu and his sidekick, the most ungenerous Lieberman?</p> <p>So I would conclude that, while its worth a try, the 2 state solution has been made impossible. The whole purpose of settlements was to make it impossible and it worked.</p> <p>I'm afraid that most will conclude that apartheid isn't so bad. That the dehumanisation of Palestinians has gone far enough so that the argument will be that they are unworthy of equal rights, and that people will buy that. Gaza is being deliberately malnurished, and forced to live in sewage, and hardly anyone notices. What's a little apartheid going to do?</p> <p>And I haven't even discussed AIPAC's tag team partner, the Christian Zionists, who make Abe Foxman seem like a Peace Now spokesman. That bunch has both money AND voting numbers.</p> <p>Great Blog, BTW</p> Interesting analysis. I think, however, their will be many among the Jewish 'leadership' that fear the floodgates will be opened by such a move. If its ok to criticize the settlements, then why not criticize the bombing of Lebanon? Or the starvation in Gaza? Or the Nakba itself? There is too much leeway here.

And then there is within Israel itself a dilemma. Who is going to force I don't know how many settlers off the West Bank? Who in Israel wants to give up water resources? The Jordan valley? is there a political force that can compel such concessions on that? Will Obama or any U.S. president be prepared to link U.S. aid to good behavior?

If Olmerts government falls tomorrow, who takes over? The "very generous" Ehud Barak, or the not so generous Netanyahu and his sidekick, the most ungenerous Lieberman?

So I would conclude that, while its worth a try, the 2 state solution has been made impossible. The whole purpose of settlements was to make it impossible and it worked.

I'm afraid that most will conclude that apartheid isn't so bad. That the dehumanisation of Palestinians has gone far enough so that the argument will be that they are unworthy of equal rights, and that people will buy that. Gaza is being deliberately malnurished, and forced to live in sewage, and hardly anyone notices. What's a little apartheid going to do?

And I haven't even discussed AIPAC's tag team partner, the Christian Zionists, who make Abe Foxman seem like a Peace Now spokesman. That bunch has both money AND voting numbers.

Great Blog, BTW

]]> By: Phil Weiss http://mondoweiss.net/2008/05/what-obama-said.html/comment-page-1#comment-59329 Phil Weiss Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000 http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/05/19/what-obama-said.html#comment-59329 <p>Oarwell that is very funny, esp the White Castle oleaginous bit and analysis of LRC, which in the end will be important part of Obama coalition.<br /> Lysander: I agree with you, mostly; I think that the time of the 2-state solution may have passed, that idea so pushed by the left for 30 years without a hearing, as the Israelis gobbled land. But it is not dead in the eyes of Jewish leadership, the centrist branch of it, and it's now or never as Olmert says, and Bush and Obama and others are all for it. And to Goldberg, who thinks a Jewish state is necessary for the safety of the Jews, he must throw himself into action, now</p> Oarwell that is very funny, esp the White Castle oleaginous bit and analysis of LRC, which in the end will be important part of Obama coalition.
Lysander: I agree with you, mostly; I think that the time of the 2-state solution may have passed, that idea so pushed by the left for 30 years without a hearing, as the Israelis gobbled land. But it is not dead in the eyes of Jewish leadership, the centrist branch of it, and it's now or never as Olmert says, and Bush and Obama and others are all for it. And to Goldberg, who thinks a Jewish state is necessary for the safety of the Jews, he must throw himself into action, now

]]> By: Charles Keating http://mondoweiss.net/2008/05/what-obama-said.html/comment-page-1#comment-59330 Charles Keating Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000 http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/05/19/what-obama-said.html#comment-59330 <p>Jeffrey Goldberg says "John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, in their polemical work “The Israel Lobby,” have it wrong: They argue, unpersuasively, that American support for Israel hurts America. It doesn’t. But unthinking American support does hurt Israel."</p> <p>M & W's book clearily states and shows that unconditional support for Israel's conduct has been, and is the fundamental error. The book demonstrates many instances where this Israel Right Or Wrong approach has hurt US interests--and Israel's.</p> <p>Since Goldberg agrees "unthinking American support hurts Israel," given the "special relationship," recognized by the world over in terms of very unbalanced power politics, how happens it to be that "American support for Israel does not hurt America?" </p> <p>Goldberg simply dismisses M & W's book as a mere polemic. Then, by cleverly dropping the adjective "unthinking" (unconditional) regarding American support for Israel in terms of its hurting America, he erases the elephant from the room. </p> <p>The American public has been continually sold on the idea that America's interests and Israel's interests are the same. No contrary information is ever given by our politicians. Now Goldberg simply asserts that's not really the case. The USA has not been harmed but only Israel has been harmed by unthinking American support of Israel. Goldberg should write fantasy books, about Fourth Dimensions where the laws of cause and effect don't exist.</p> <p> </p> Jeffrey Goldberg says "John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, in their polemical work “The Israel Lobby,” have it wrong: They argue, unpersuasively, that American support for Israel hurts America. It doesn’t. But unthinking American support does hurt Israel."

M & W's book clearily states and shows that unconditional support for Israel's conduct has been, and is the fundamental error. The book demonstrates many instances where this Israel Right Or Wrong approach has hurt US interests–and Israel's.

Since Goldberg agrees "unthinking American support hurts Israel," given the "special relationship," recognized by the world over in terms of very unbalanced power politics, how happens it to be that "American support for Israel does not hurt America?"

Goldberg simply dismisses M & W's book as a mere polemic. Then, by cleverly dropping the adjective "unthinking" (unconditional) regarding American support for Israel in terms of its hurting America, he erases the elephant from the room.

The American public has been continually sold on the idea that America's interests and Israel's interests are the same. No contrary information is ever given by our politicians. Now Goldberg simply asserts that's not really the case. The USA has not been harmed but only Israel has been harmed by unthinking American support of Israel. Goldberg should write fantasy books, about Fourth Dimensions where the laws of cause and effect don't exist.

]]> By: Oarwell http://mondoweiss.net/2008/05/what-obama-said.html/comment-page-1#comment-59331 Oarwell Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000 http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/05/19/what-obama-said.html#comment-59331 <p>This Ostrowski thing is multiplying like weevils:</p> <p>http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&safe=off&q=obama%20%22eat%20as%20much%20as%20we%20want%20%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=nb</p> <p>-or-</p> <p>http://tinyurl.com/4bynkd.</p> <p>I am disappointed that Ostrowski did this. But, as is always salutary, let's get it out in the open and talk about it.</p> <p>Phil, many thanks to you for taking the road less traveled. Your writing these past few months has been amazingly prolific and frighteningly perceptive (are you free-basing Modafinil?). The heat and light you generate redound to your honor.</p> <p>PS. "I love Mondoweiss, but he's way off the reservation." Shameless mythopoeisis.</p> This Ostrowski thing is multiplying like weevils:

http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&safe=off&q=obama%20%22eat%20as%20much%20as%20we%20want%20%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=nb

-or-

http://tinyurl.com/4bynkd.

I am disappointed that Ostrowski did this. But, as is always salutary, let's get it out in the open and talk about it.

Phil, many thanks to you for taking the road less traveled. Your writing these past few months has been amazingly prolific and frighteningly perceptive (are you free-basing Modafinil?). The heat and light you generate redound to your honor.

PS. "I love Mondoweiss, but he's way off the reservation." Shameless mythopoeisis.

]]> By: Charles Keating http://mondoweiss.net/2008/05/what-obama-said.html/comment-page-1#comment-59332 Charles Keating Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000 http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/05/19/what-obama-said.html#comment-59332 <p>Naw, no harm to the USA. The 9/11 Commission's early drafts<br /> included motive, and the I-P conflict was originally given as a very significant cause; this was reduced in the final report to a footnote. You can go to YouTube and watch C-SPAN's coverage<br /> of congressional questions to the 9/11 inquiry panel. You will watch the panel all looking at each other in stunned silence when they are asked about motive for the 9/11 attack. Finally, one courageous soul gulps and says Palestinian suffering was key, though not the only cause. Other YouTube videos show how a few press knights tried to address this in the aftermath, but<br /> were quickly brushed aside, both in congress, and with a mike stuck in their face out on in public.</p> Naw, no harm to the USA. The 9/11 Commission's early drafts
included motive, and the I-P conflict was originally given as a very significant cause; this was reduced in the final report to a footnote. You can go to YouTube and watch C-SPAN's coverage
of congressional questions to the 9/11 inquiry panel. You will watch the panel all looking at each other in stunned silence when they are asked about motive for the 9/11 attack. Finally, one courageous soul gulps and says Palestinian suffering was key, though not the only cause. Other YouTube videos show how a few press knights tried to address this in the aftermath, but
were quickly brushed aside, both in congress, and with a mike stuck in their face out on in public.

]]> By: bondo http://mondoweiss.net/2008/05/what-obama-said.html/comment-page-1#comment-59333 bondo Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000 http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/05/19/what-obama-said.html#comment-59333 <p>2-states possible if palestinians are willing to accept a half dozen prison cells as a state. they will have walls and armed guards and overflying drones and f16s for security. and spies.</p> <p>who would reject this "state"?</p> <p>how does one engage sociopaths, psychopaths, psychotics in robust debate? those are the jews. then we have the rapture, monkey-"christians". to speak with them, first their heads need to be lopped off.</p> <p>for there to be peace in the ME, israel needs to be removed as a state of for and by the jews. palestine needs to return and jews can be citizens not the insane, greedy overlords. the crimes that the jews have committed against the land(lousy buildings, roads, walls) have to be addressed. all zionits have to be chopped at the neck.</p> 2-states possible if palestinians are willing to accept a half dozen prison cells as a state. they will have walls and armed guards and overflying drones and f16s for security. and spies.

who would reject this "state"?

how does one engage sociopaths, psychopaths, psychotics in robust debate? those are the jews. then we have the rapture, monkey-"christians". to speak with them, first their heads need to be lopped off.

for there to be peace in the ME, israel needs to be removed as a state of for and by the jews. palestine needs to return and jews can be citizens not the insane, greedy overlords. the crimes that the jews have committed against the land(lousy buildings, roads, walls) have to be addressed. all zionits have to be chopped at the neck.

]]>