Ron Kampeas has a good piece on JTA "clear"-ing Rashid Khalidi of the charge that he was a PLO spokesman. Kampeas points out that the PLO has been the internationally-accepted representative of the Palestinians since 1988, and that Khalidi wasn't their spokesman anyway:
Starting in 1988, intermittently at first and then routinely from the launch of the Oslo talks in 1993, U.S. presidents have waived bans on contacts with the Palestine Liberation Organization. What everyone acknowledges is that Khalidi was an adviser to the
Palestinian delegation to the 1991 Madrid talks. That delegation – to a
person – could not have had any formal affiliation with the PLO. Israel
regarded the group as terrorist and its laws banned contact with its
members; then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir made NOT being affiliated with the PLO it a condition of Israel’s agreement to participate. The names of the Palestinian team would have been vetted by Israeli intelligence.
I must say I find this whole argument disgusting. Yitzhak Shamir was a former terrorist. His Stern gang killed Count Bernadotte in Jerusalem in 1948 and before that helped to ethnically cleanse Palestine. Who is he to tell us who we can talk to? And who is anyone to smear Khalidi, a historian who has tried to bring Palestinian suffering to the attention of the world, as a neo-Nazi?
The bigger picture here is obvious. The fact that McCain can smear Khalidi, purely because he's Palestinian, and Obama does not rush to defend him–these political facts are the achievement of the Israel lobby in the U.S. Why does Kosovo have a Muslim state in Europe, a few years after a bloody war with tons of atrocities committed by Kosovars? Why do India and Pakistan both have states, 61 years after their partition and ethnic cleansing? And why are Palestinians again and again disqualified from political self-determination, 61 years after the U.N. said they were to get a state? The answer to all these questions is today reflected in the fact that a distinguished Arab-American professor is smeared and Democrats won't lift a finger for him.
What's Obama say about his one-time friend: "We gotta be careful about guilt by association."
Here's how one outsider sees Jewish power in the U.S.:
Jews hold stunningly powerful positions and clout in the United States. The combination of the American state's power and the Jewish power in the areas of legislation, administration, media, law, business, culture, and entertainment have made the Jews a defining factor of contemporary America. Because Israel is inseparable from the identity of American Jews, Israel is inseparable from the American experience….American Jews today are no longer part of the minority coalition with African Americans and Hispanics and the rest of the domestic coalition in the struggle for American justice and liberties. Too many of my Jewish American brothers and sisters have become the beating heart of neoconservatism. They are part of the white, right-wing, nationalist, and powerful establishment…[my emphasis]
That's Avraham Burg, in the new book, The Holocaust Is Over; We Must Rise From Its Ashes. Beautiful. I guess he can say that because he doesn't live here. He's talking about the Israel lobby as a living part of the establishment. The marginalization of honorable Palestinians and the denial of their right of self-determination for decades are its achievements.
Beautiful Phil. Now I have tears flowing.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/30/AR2008103003244.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Washington Post LEAD editorial
An 'Idiot Wind'
John McCain's latest attempt to link Barack Obama to extremism
…
For the record, Mr. Khalidi is an American born in New York who graduated from Yale a couple of years after George W. Bush. For much of his long academic career, he taught at the University of Chicago, where he and his wife became friends with Barack and Michelle Obama. In the early 1990s, he worked as an adviser to the Palestinian delegation at peace talks in Madrid and Washington sponsored by the first Bush administration. We don't agree with a lot of what Mr. Khalidi has had to say about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over the years, and Mr. Obama has made clear that he doesn't, either. But to compare the professor to neo-Nazis — or even to Mr. Ayers — is a vile smear.
…
Our sense is that Mr. Obama is a man of considerable intellectual curiosity who can hear out a smart, if militant, advocate for the Palestinians without compromising his own position. To suggest, as Mr. McCain has, that there is something reprehensible about associating with Mr. Khalidi is itself condemnable — especially during a campaign in which Arab ancestry has been the subject of insults. To further argue that the Times, which obtained the tape from a source in exchange for a promise not to publicly release it, is trying to hide something is simply ludicrous, as Mr. McCain surely knows.
…
We did ask Mr. Khalidi whether he wanted to respond to the campaign charges against him. He answered, via e-mail, that "I will stick to my policy of letting this idiot wind blow over."
Why don't you as well, Phil?
I want the LA Times to release the tape. Please release the tape– this issue is so much more important than the Presidential election. Only good can come of publishing it, because at least the issue will be out in the open.
Even if it kills Obama's chances to be president, release the tape. Air out everyone's dirty laundry. And if Obama loses, the backlash against the Zionist neocons will be excruciating for them.
Ok, I got it. Khalidi is God's gift to humanity and just a grat human being. And if the Zio-Nazi lobby wasn't using the jackbbot to intimidate the world I guess, Then the American public could see what kind of happy, tip toe through the tulips kind of people that the Arabs are. So, RELEASE THE FUCKING TAPE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is absolutely amazing that even in an apparently sympathetic piece toward a Palestinian, as Richard has posted above from The Washington Post, there seems to always be something written in such a manner so as to belittle the Palestinian (or Muslim or Arab, as the case may be). In this case, it is contained in the following sentence:
"Our sense is that Mr. Obama is a man of considerable intellectual curiosity who can hear out a smart, IF MILITANT, advocate for the Palestinians without compromising his own position."
Now I realize that one of the definitions of "militant" is "aggressively active (as in a cause)." But the leading definition of "militant" is "engaged in warfare or combat." More importantly, however, is the image the use of such words creates in the reader's mind. Is this a coincidence? Why does The Post insist on using such militaristic terms when describing Palestinians or Muslims or Arabs? To say that Mr. Khalidi is an "aggressively active advocate" for Palestinian rights would surely suffice. Any number of other words come immediately to mind before "militant." Enthusiastic. Assertive. Bold. Forceful. All have more positive connotations than "militant." I can't believe that such choice of words, in this and myriad other instances, is anything other than deliberate.
It is absolutely amazing that even in an apparently sympathetic piece toward a Palestinian, as Richard has posted above from The Washington Post, there seems to always be something written in such a manner so as to belittle the Palestinian (or Muslim or Arab, as the case may be). In this case, it is contained in the following sentence:
"Our sense is that Mr. Obama is a man of considerable intellectual curiosity who can hear out a smart, IF MILITANT, advocate for the Palestinians without compromising his own position."
Now I realize that one of the definitions of "militant" is "aggressively active (as in a cause)." But the leading definition of "militant" is "engaged in warfare or combat." More importantly, however, is the image the use of such words creates in the reader's mind. Is this a coincidence? Why does The Post insist on using such militaristic terms when describing Palestinians or Muslims or Arabs? To say that Mr. Khalidi is an "aggressively active advocate" for Palestinian rights would surely suffice. Any number of other words come immediately to mind before "militant." Enthusiastic. Assertive. Bold. Forceful. All have more positive connotations than "militant." I can't believe that such choice of words, in this and myriad other instances, is anything other than deliberate.
It is absolutely amazing that even in an apparently sympathetic piece toward a Palestinian, as Richard has posted above from The Washington Post, there seems to always be something written in such a manner so as to belittle the Palestinian (or Muslim or Arab, as the case may be). In this case, it is contained in the following sentence:
"Our sense is that Mr. Obama is a man of considerable intellectual curiosity who can hear out a smart, IF MILITANT, advocate for the Palestinians without compromising his own position."
Now I realize that one of the definitions of "militant" is "aggressively active (as in a cause)." But the leading definition of "militant" is "engaged in warfare or combat." More importantly, however, is the image the use of such words creates in the reader's mind. Is this a coincidence? Why does The Post insist on using such militaristic terms when describing Palestinians or Muslims or Arabs? To say that Mr. Khalidi is an "aggressively active advocate" for Palestinian rights would surely suffice. Any number of other words come immediately to mind before "militant." Enthusiastic. Assertive. Bold. Forceful. All have more positive connotations than "militant." I can't believe that such choice of words, in this and myriad other instances, is anything other than deliberate.
It is absolutely amazing that even in an apparently sympathetic piece toward a Palestinian, as Richard has posted above from The Washington Post, there seems to always be something written in such a manner so as to belittle the Palestinian (or Muslim or Arab, as the case may be). In this case, it is contained in the following sentence:
"Our sense is that Mr. Obama is a man of considerable intellectual curiosity who can hear out a smart, IF MILITANT, advocate for the Palestinians without compromising his own position."
Now I realize that one of the definitions of "militant" is "aggressively active (as in a cause)." But the leading definition of "militant" is "engaged in warfare or combat." More importantly, however, is the image the use of such words creates in the reader's mind. Is this a coincidence? Why does The Post insist on using such militaristic terms when describing Palestinians or Muslims or Arabs? To say that Mr. Khalidi is an "aggressively active advocate" for Palestinian rights would surely suffice. Any number of other words come immediately to mind before "militant." Enthusiastic. Assertive. Bold. Forceful. All have more positive connotations than "militant." I can't believe that such choice of words, in this and myriad other instances, is anything other than deliberate.
It's amazing that even in an apparently sympathetic article such as the one from The Washington Post posted above by Richard, there almost always seems to be a negative associated with Palestinians (or Arabs or Muslims, as the case may be). In this case, it's found in the following sentence:
"Our sense is that Mr. Obama is a man of considerable intellectual curiosity who can hear out a smart, IF MILITANT, advocate for the Palestinians without compromising his own position."
Now I realize that one of the definitions of the word "militant" is "aggressively active (as in a cause)." But the leading definition of "militant" is "engaged in warfare or combat." More important, however, is the image created in the reader's mind by the use of such words. Is this is a coincidence? Surely, to say that Mr. Khalidi is an "aggressive advocate for the Palestinians" is sufficient. In fact, many words come to mind before "militant." Strong. Emphatic. Forceful. Assertive. All these words have a more positive connotation than does "militant." I see this all the time. It's shameful, and it's impossible to believe it's anything other than deliberate.
phil youre a breath of fresh air in the stale room of jewish zionism in america….you have a voice and know your culture inside and out.
in america it"s tough for anyone to stand up for palestinians, why? because you jews rule the media and have the american goying trained to believe the racist bullshit you have fed them for lo these forty years.
the lies your people (the zionist) have fed the goyim in america are despicable…
what else is new in the good old u.s.a?
It's amazing that even in an apparently sympathetic article such as the one from The Washington Post posted above by Richard, there almost always seems to be a negative associated with Palestinians (or Arabs or Muslims, as the case may be). In this case, it's found in the following sentence:
"Our sense is that Mr. Obama is a man of considerable intellectual curiosity who can hear out a smart, IF MILITANT, advocate for the Palestinians without compromising his own position."
Now I realize that one of the definitions of the word "militant" is "aggressively active (as in a cause)." But the leading definition of "militant" is "engaged in warfare or combat." More important, however, is the image created in the reader's mind by the use of such words. Is this is a coincidence? Surely, to say that Mr. Khalidi is an "aggressive advocate for the Palestinians" is sufficient. In fact, many words come to mind before "militant." Strong. Emphatic. Forceful. Assertive. All these words have a more positive connotation than does "militant." I see this all the time. It's shameful, and it's impossible to believe it's anything other than deliberate.
It's amazing that even in an apparently sympathetic article such as the one from The Washington Post posted above by Richard, there almost always seems to be a negative associated with Palestinians (or Arabs or Muslims, as the case may be). In this case, it's found in the following sentence:
"Our sense is that Mr. Obama is a man of considerable intellectual curiosity who can hear out a smart, IF MILITANT, advocate for the Palestinians without compromising his own position."
Now I realize that one of the definitions of the word "militant" is "aggressively active (as in a cause)." But the leading definition of "militant" is "engaged in warfare or combat." More important, however, is the image created in the reader's mind by the use of such words. Is this is a coincidence? Surely, to say that Mr. Khalidi is an "aggressive advocate for the Palestinians" is sufficient. In fact, many words come to mind before "militant." Strong. Emphatic. Forceful. Assertive. All these words have a more positive connotation than does "militant." I see this all the time. It's shameful, and it's impossible to believe it's anything other than deliberate.
Phil, youre a breath of fresh air in a room full of stale american zionist jewish thinking.
let them have it with both barrels, the racism that zionist jews express against the palestinians is despicable.
who can stand up for palestinians in america in the face of the suffocating oppression of the israeli zionist lobby which keeps the press in check and politicians under watch.
It's amazing that even in an apparently sympathetic article such as the one from The Washington Post posted above by Richard, there almost always seems to be a negative associated with Palestinians (or Arabs or Muslims, as the case may be). In this case, it's found in the following sentence:
"Our sense is that Mr. Obama is a man of considerable intellectual curiosity who can hear out a smart, IF MILITANT, advocate for the Palestinians without compromising his own position."
Now I realize that one of the definitions of the word "militant" is "aggressively active (as in a cause)." But the leading definition of "militant" is "engaged in warfare or combat." More important, however, is the image created in the reader's mind by the use of such words. Is this is a coincidence? Surely, to say that Mr. Khalidi is an "aggressive advocate for the Palestinians" is sufficient. In fact, many words come to mind before "militant." Strong. Emphatic. Forceful. Assertive. All these words have a more positive connotation than does "militant." I see this all the time. It's shameful, and it's impossible to believe it's anything other than deliberate.
It's amazing that even in an apparently sympathetic article such as the one from The Washington Post posted above by Richard, there almost always seems to be a negative associated with Palestinians (or Arabs or Muslims, as the case may be). In this case, it's found in the following sentence:
"Our sense is that Mr. Obama is a man of considerable intellectual curiosity who can hear out a smart, IF MILITANT, advocate for the Palestinians without compromising his own position."
Now I realize that one of the definitions of the word "militant" is "aggressively active (as in a cause)." But the leading definition of "militant" is "engaged in warfare or combat." More important, however, is the image created in the reader's mind by the use of such words. Is this is a coincidence? Surely, to say that Mr. Khalidi is an "aggressive advocate for the Palestinians" is sufficient. In fact, many words come to mind before "militant." Strong. Emphatic. Forceful. Assertive. All these words have a more positive connotation than does "militant." I see this all the time. It's shameful, and it's impossible to believe it's anything other than deliberate.
"We don't agree with a lot of what Mr. Khalidi has had to say about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict …"
BTW, the "we" in the WaPo editorial is Fred Hiatt, the Op-ed editor, who happens to be Jewish (not that that matters).
Sorry about the repeats. My bad.
In the national interest and as a responsible Fourth Estate mandate, couldn't the tape be released without disclosing the source, and as edited to hide any physical images that might reveal the source?
What about at least releasing a transcript of the tape's audio?
Dan, first good comment.
But concerning your doubles, triples, multiple problems: What browser are you using? I noticed on Firefox that if you move back on the browser, AFTER you have verified and thus sent a comment, no second verification is needed. The back-movement-routine on the browser seems to repeat the whole procedure without your interference needed again resulting in publishing your comment again. No second verification of you is needed for this to happen.
That was the reason behind my doubles. If you have many taps open in your browser. The best thing to do is reload the whole page after the send action. Then, and only then, you can move back on this tap too to your hearts delight without causing doubles, or triples or any number of multiples.
Could this be part of your problem?
Why don't you as well, Phil?
Posted by: Richard Witty | October 30, 2008 at 09:21 PM
I mean really, why talk about zionist shenanigans at all?
Or if you must, try to restrict it to f2f format, not in activist AGITATION, but constructive, nor the either/or, and against the right-left, not overly naked emperor-looking fashion.
LeaNder, thank you, and yes, I am using Firefox. I'm not exactly sure if what you're describing is what happened, but it may well be. I think in this instance there was a problem with Typepad, because none of the comments were showing up at all until like 2 hours later. Thanks again :)
You're welcome, Dan.