‘Obama Would Put Thru a Peace Deal Tomorrow If Not for the American Jewish Community’–MJ Rosenberg

Today's conference at New York's Central Synagogue on Jews uniting against the
war
—six years after it matters—was remarkable for two things: the soulsearching over the Israel/Palestine issue, which represents real progress after
years of denial that the occupation had anything to do with the Iraq war, and indeed denial that there
is an Israel lobby and we're part of it, and secondly for fine speeches by Elizabeth Holtzman and MJ Rosenberg. I'll leave
till tomorrow a report on the conferees’ sometimes-honorable efforts to come to their senses
about the wicked occupation of Palestine. For tonight, the news: Elizabeth Holtzman, MJ
Rosenberg.

Former Congresswoman Holtzman spoke in the morning inside the Synagogue's Beir Chapel. At first I thought we were in for the
good old time persecution. She talked about the czar in Russia and her
grandfather, she talked about sponsoring legislation to get Nazis when she got
into congress. But then came Iraq, and out of nowhere she seized the bull by the horns. "Jews played a critical role in bringing the war about." She spoke of "top level"
administration officials and members of Congress. And: “Why was the only country in the
world that would welcome George Bush Israel?”

There was none of the Jeffrey Goldberg prevarication we usually get, that these Jews just happened to be there. No: They had acted as Jews, and they had made a terrible mistake, Holtzman said, of allowing the
ends to justify the means. They thought, “Is this good for the Jews, is this
good for Israel ….
Is this good for me?" Instead of thinking, "What is the good for society?… What is the good for
democracy?"

And so at last a prominent Jewish political figure has
squarely put PART of the blame for the Iraq
war
where it belongs: in Zionist feeling within the Jewish community. A deep bow to Elizabeth Holtzman.

Rosenberg is the policy guy for the Israel Policy Forum, a pro-Oslo group. On a panel about American
policy in the Middle East he said the
following:

The best metaphor for the Jewish effect in Washington
is when Rosenberg looks out of the little office that he shares with Brit Tzedek and the
view is dominated by an eight story building being built “by a despicable
billionaire named Sheldon Adelson from Las
Vegas .” This is the AIPAC building. “It is well and
good that the polls of the Jewish community are what they are [on Iraq war, and Iran
war] We are represented in Washington
by AIPAC.”

Rosenberg
worked on the Hill for 20 years. “ You go to any congressman and ask who
represents the Jews, he will say, AIPAC. And that is a fact.”

AIPAC’s one issue now is Iran . “I think Israel for them
became old hat.” Dramatizing the Iranian threat is everything for AIPAC right now. “The whole organization is dedicated to ramping up sanctions against Iran.” One of
the things no one says on the Hill is AIPAC wrote this bill. Well they write a
bill, and then give it to someone they like to sponsor. They recently got 386
sponsors for a bill that would have imposed a virtual naval blockade on Iran’s ports (which a coalition of groups including IPF and J Street and National Iranian American Council got shelved, for the time being). Guess what folks, that’s the Cuban missile crisis gone wrong. And all
your favorite liberals signed it.” Oh yes, they’re liberals. But “They all get a
pass on Israel/Palestine and on Iran
too.”

He said that leading senators, many of them Jewish, “mouth the neocon line on Israel Palestine.” And your congressman may be the
“bravest person on the rights of gay people to get married. But ask them about
Israel Palestine some time and you’ll get BS. Pure BS. We give them a pass. 90 percent of the members of Congress stink on this issue."

And the liberals are even worse. Because they serve as the “enforcers on the issue.
.. Non-Jewish members look to the great Jewish liberals some of you think are
terrific." Rosenberg said some of these congressmen have a "stance on Arabs and Palestinians [that is] pure
venomous hatred." And these people are influential. Who's good? Maybe
Maurice Hinchey, the antiwar Dem from Kingston, NY, area. (Liberal Catholic, with great hair.)

Then MJ laid it on the feet of the Jewish community. “The
American Jewish community is not a progressive force in the country… we are a
regressive force on any issue that touches on Israel/Palestine… Barack Obama
would put through a peace deal tomorrow if it wasn’t for the American Jewish
community.” That is what it’s all about for Obama, Rosenberg said. “This is close to his heart.”

 At this point an old lady in the audience had had enough. She
squawked, “Whare are you about?”

Rosenberg
said, “What am I about?” He is about the two state solution, for a peace deal
that ends the “40 year occupation that is destroying Israel.” And against a war with Iran.

“Watch out. Sanctions. Sanctions. They want the sanctions to
be so tough we wind up with a war. Don’t let them BS you. That is what they do.
I worked [in Congress] for 20 years.”

During the Q-and-A a tall lean Europeanish guy of 55 asked MJ
Rosenberg a scary question. He said, What happens when Americans who have lost blood and treasure in Iraq discover "that Jews pushed America into
a war” for Israel’s benefit. The Elizabeth Holtzman point.

This was the most upsetting question asked in the conference
in the 5 hours I was there. It is the question that has been knocking at the door of the Jewish world since 2002.

To his overwhelming credit, Rosenberg answered honestly and calmly.

“I’m 61. I’ve never experienced anti-Semitism. There is very
little anti-Semitism in this country.” Then he said that
within the “international community” –among thinkers, academics, intellectuals,
“there is a real resentment of the neocons.” But this community does not
realize “that there’s such an overlap between the neocons and the lobby.
Theyr’e basically the same people. I do share the worry.”

The answer is that when we think about these things, we
should think abut them first as Americans, not as Jews who support Israel.  Because, Rosenberg
said, by and large it’s not our children who are dying. (I need the exact qote, sorry
it’s a paraphrase). And we should think this way “both because it’s right and
to avoid the kind of backlash that this gentleman referred to.”

What can I add to this? Holtzman and Rosenberg were honest and brilliant. And after years of denial, the truths of Walt and Mearsheimer are finally being uttered in the Jewish house, and it staggered the hall, and it was pure American candor unrefracted by dual loyalty, a
truly great tradition that Jews have participated in fully. 

Jeremy Ben-Ami, the head of J Street , who is far more diplomatic than
MJ Rosenberg then filled in what Rosenberg
was saying in comments I will quote tomorrow.

I went up to shake Rosenberg ’s
hand. There was a big crowd surrounding him, some angry. Later I saw him rushing
out of the building to catch a train home. Anyone who ever thinks about
backlashing against the Jews, do me this favor–remember Rosenberg and Holtzman, forceful, humble, honest, and patriotic. And, let me say clearly, closer to the ends of their careers than the
beginnings. 

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Beyondoweiss, Neocons, US Policy in the Middle East, US Politics

{ 38 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. doug says:

    Impressive!

  2. anon says:

    Is there a transcript of video available?

  3. tomwhite says:

    Phillip:
    Wonderfully comforting to read this. Rachel Corrie at last. Never expected to live so long. I have long felt that either the Jews lighten up their grip on us (the great apathetic, sports-worshipping, dopey American public, the dumkopf hoi polloi, Mencken's booboisie) and lead us out of the present wilderness or we all are set to go up in a great kaboom. You, Phillip are, I do believe, a light to the gentiles. Keep going. Best, Tom White

  4. Colin Murray says:

    This is fantastic news. The ball REALLY IS rolling! Woot!

  5. I think you let the cat out of the bag at the end, by more or less admitting M J is retiring soon anyway.

  6. Michael W says:

    "During the Q-and-A a tall lean Europeanish guy of 55 asked MJ Rosenberg a scary question. He said, What happens when Americans who have lost blood and treasure in Iraq discover "that Jews pushed America into a war” for Israel’s benefit."

    —— There are so many things with that question. First, he's generalizing the will of a few as the will of an entire community. Second, the war was started by the Bush administration which very few Jews voted for in both elections. Take a poll of how many Jews support this war and compare it with other groups in America.

  7. otto says:

    MJ Rosenberg wants to keep 100,000s of settlers on the land Israel conquered in 1967. So he's a bigot along with the rest. I agree MJ is more open about jewish politics in the US than many others, but he accommodates jewish colonial chauvinism in and around Jerusalem in an entirely mainstream form of bigotry.

  8. David F. says:

    "There are so many things with that question. First, he's generalizing the will of a few as the will of an entire community. Second, the war was started by the Bush administration which very few Jews voted for in both elections. Take a poll of how many Jews support this war and compare it with other groups in America."

    Your point is well-made.

    "Jewish power" does not lie in the votes of a small minority, but in money, media, and political influence. Those resources are controlled by a relatively small elite. That is what politicians seek when they appease the Israel lobby.

    This conversation is heartening, because for some time I have felt that the major Jewish organizations in this country were playing a dangrous game by claiming to speak for American Jews when they can only justly claim to speak for their donors.

    Presenting Jewish interests as a monolith, backed with massive financial and media power, amounts to singing from a songsheet written by David Duke.

  9. John says:

    Otto, show me where MJ supports all the settlements built around Jerusalem since '67. He supports the Arab peace plan, which does NOT allow for the expanded borders of Jerusalem that annex land captured in '67. That's the deal.

    I'm to the left of MJ on Israel-Palestine, but what exactly is the point of demonizing him — as you're doing — when he's doing important work. Remember that the great is the enemy of the good. It's nice to at least have good.

  10. Robin says:

    Holy Guacamole Batman – You mean that there is a variety of opinions within the Jewish community about these issues? You mean the Jews argue with themselves about these things? Jews, argue? Who'd a thunk it?

    Dastardly Jews are simply trying to confuse us brave and pure seekers of justice by not behaving as a monolith. Don't let them get away with it I beseech you! Force them to all be members of AIPAC! Force them to all vote for Bush Cheney and the Neocon gang!!
    I can't stand it that 78% of them voted for Obama and not John "bomb-bomb-bomb" McCain.

    Does this mean I'm not allowed to discriminate against them?

  11. observer says:

    Impeachment anyone?

    Too bad there's no way to impeach the long-complicit MSM.

    Never parsed the slogans "Pro-Israel" and "Anti-American."

    And "anti-semitic."

    Nor laid out the conflicts of interest of government actors and
    big campaign funders.

    You don't have to be an isolationist to know which way the
    endless "war on terror" blows.

    Krupp was a pigmy.

  12. BLG says:

    In the world of explanation for Iraq and war, the twin issues of "oil" or "Israel" often come up. Making a case for "war for oil" is severely flawed, myopic, but meets very little resistance in the world. "War for Israel" on the other hand, is a bulky term that tends to inaccurately combine people who pushed for war, with those who quietly stood on the sidelines.

    The oil issue managed to exist despite serious flaws. It didn't matter that oil company after oil company were against sanctions and wanted to trade with Saddam's regime. It didn't matter that prominent oil men like G.H.W.Bush and James Baker advocated against invasion in the first war, and oil men like Phillip Carrol and James Baker pushed against invasion in the second. It also didn't seem to matter that G.W. Bush and Dick Cheney advocated against invasion before Sept 11.

    The only thing that seemed to matter was that there was some effort to control Iraqi oil. Whats often left out is that this plan was drafted up by Ariel Cohen and other neoconservatives to crush OPEC. The Iraqi oil plan that was drafted up by the neoconservatives, who were openly advocating for an Iraqi invasion since the 1990's, failed spectacularly in this as oil prices went up, Iraqi production stalled at pre-invasion (and highly sanctioned)levels, and the Chinese gained the rights to the first long term oil contracts. The Chinese – not the U.S.

    Despite these massive issues with "war for oil," people once and a while trot out this explanation, and with very little resistance.

    In "war for Israel," people are making a similar amalgamation and confusion. Israeli officials certainly went to great lengths to demonstrate how Iraq was an "existential threat" to the US, but it wasn't capable of forcing the US to war by itself. Again, people often leave out neoconservatives, and in this case for the article, other influential members of the U.S. Jewish community pushing for war.

    What is lost in the effort to point out things like a majority of American Jews were against the war, while a majority of Israelis were for it, is that these competing voices were practically silent in a time where Neoconservatives were pushing out cooler heads in the State Department and others were working to move us into war, of which AIPAC, now made famous, is only one part of a larger picture.

  13. atheo says:

    BLG,

    "The Iraqi oil plan that was drafted up by the neoconservatives"

    Could you be more specific? Perhaps a link to the document and an example of the text which might support your claim.

    Several comments above conflate Jews with Zionists, who cares which Zionist dominated candidate the Jews voted for.

  14. MRW. says:

    Posted by: Michael W | November 24, 2008 at 02:22 AM

    Michael:

    IRAQ: War Launched to Protect Israel – Bush Adviser
    WASHINGTON, Mar 29 (IPS)
    – IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 — the 9/11 commission — in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East.
    [...]
    Zelikow made his statements about ”the unstated threat” during his tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president.

    He served on the board between 2001 and 2003.

    ”Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 — it's the threat against Israel,” Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation.

    ”And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell,” said Zelikow.

    link to ipsnews.net
    link to lrb.co.uk
    link to atimes.com

  15. American says:

    "During the Q-and-A a tall lean Europeanish guy of 55 asked MJ Rosenberg a scary question. He said, What happens when Americans who have lost blood and treasure in Iraq discover "that Jews pushed America into a war” for Israel’s benefit."

    Same thing I have been asking. What will happen?

    And MJ is wrong about one thing…many Americans, as evidenced by everything you see on the net, know the connections between neo's, the jews and the Lobby. The bread crumb trail of the neo's and the zio-neos and the Lobby has been spread out before us regarding Iraq and now in regard to Iran.

    I don't think anyone can honestly say that the neos alone or a few zionist were the only ones behind Iraq. The jewish community as a whole seems to have been pushing a war for the benefit of Israel…I say this because when you google for any tidbit of info on Iraq or Iran you get hundreds of links to Jewish chapter's publications….the Greater NJ Jewish, the Miami Jewish Chapter, etc.,etc., all over the country…. all hawkish, all urged war on Iraq, all now urging war on Iran.

    The Jews in the US think they have right to demand the US act for Israel's benefit even if it hurts America and the American people. That's just a fact. The Jews who are willing to call a spade a spade are in the minority.

    The plan for the US to war for Israel was laid out in the "Clean Break' and piggy backed the PNAC plan. The jews in the Bush adm and in the tanks and orgs were the driving force and they found some neo bedfellows with agendas of their own to throw in with to bring it all about. Anyone who had something to gain like our war profiteers joined the crusade for war.

    No one can miss the jewish crusade now to bomb Iran..it's up front and loud. I remember when Netanyaho toured the US visiting Jewish groups and telling them Hilter was in Iran and to demand the US bomb Iran. That's quite something…a foreign official touring the US telling US jews to pressure for an attack by the US on Iran…even more telling is that is exactly what the jews and their orgs are doing.

    Something has to be done about this "nation within a nation' (sorry about the 'old carnard' but that's exactly what is going on), what will be done if anything I don't know.

    I use to think if Isr or the US attacked Iran that would bring things to a head but I am not so sure….Orwellington DC congress lives on another planet, they have not the foggiest idea how much the public knows or how it would react to another war in the midst of our bankruptacy. One thing is for sure, a war on Iran would finish the US off and in that upheaval anything could happen for better or worse.

    One thing for sure, when someone like myself and many others who never gave a thought to jews except as a religious group of people like any other religion, never though about them as some kind of political party or 'seperate movement' within America, now veiws them with suspicion you know they have pretty much fouled their nest here.

    I say this often…they are stupid, stupid, stupid….they keep on and on destroying themselves no matter how good they have it where ever they live they manage to mess it up.

  16. otto says:

    "Otto, show me where MJ supports all the settlements built around Jerusalem since '67"

    The real problem with your statement is the 'all'. MJ doesn't want to keep all, he wants to keep *lots*, well into the 100,000s. Much of this debate is obfuscated by sometimes referring to settlements, sometimes to settlers, and using different definitions of 'Jerusalem' etc, talking about 'minor adjustments' which are anything but minor, and various chauvinism-under-guise-of-compromise euphemisms, to obscure the extent and demands of Jewish colonialism.

    MJ doesn't support a return to the exact 1967 borders, but requires arab accomodation of jewish colonialism since then as part of the deal. As such, he's on the side of the jewish bigots in many ways. Not a single Jewish settler should stay anywhere at all in the land conquered in 1967. Its a very simple rule, but MJ can't stick to it, and thus rightly deserves to be called for the colonial bigotry he attempts to normalise and allow.

    It's part of a much wider problem here. Lots of people talking from the jewish side about how they should treat arabs are only 'liberal' by contrast with the explicit ethnic cleansers and frank haters. In any other context, the policies they describe would be accurately characterised as blood-and-soil nationalist racism. In this game, it makes sense to distinguish between the merely less-bigoted-than-others, like MJ, and the actual liberals and anti-colonials.

  17. Commitee for Historical Truth (hijack) says:

    Israeli officials certainly went to great lengths to demonstrate how Iraq was an "existential threat" to the US, but it wasn't capable of forcing the US to war by itself.

    Next stop, Baghdad?
    [Daily Edition]
    Jerusalem Post – Jerusalem
    Author: Janine Zacharia
    Date: Oct 12, 2001

    …For now, Israeli officials have not engaged the Bush administration on the Iraq question, but rather have lobbied in general for a broader definition of terrorism that includes groups and states bent on Israel's destruction. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, in his two visits to the US to meet with Bush, focused most of his chat time on the issue of long-range, existential threats to Israel emanating from Iraq and Iran. The Bush administration knows the risks. The question officials are confronting is whether a threat of weapons of mass destruction should be part of the war on terrorism.

    others were working to move us into war, of which AIPAC, now made famous, is only one part of a larger picture.

    For Israel Lobby Group, War Is Topic A, Quietly
    At Meeting, Jerusalem's Contributions Are Highlighted

    By Dana Milbank
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Tuesday, April 1, 2003; Page A25

    This week's meeting in Washington of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee has put a spotlight on the Bush administration's delicate dance with Israel and the Jewish state's friends over the attack on Iraq.

    Officially, Israel is not one of the 49 countries the administration has identified as members of the "Coalition of the Willing." Officially, AIPAC had no position on the merits of a war against Iraq before it started. Officially, Iraq is not the subject of the pro-Israel lobby's three-day meeting here.

    Now, for the unofficial part:

  18. bar_kochba132 says:

    Transport MJ back 80 years in a time machine and across an ocean:

    MJ: It's not us, its them, its THEM they don't like, the Ostjuden! They are the dirty uncivilized people. We are loyal, we a clean shaven, we speak proper German, we showed our loyalty in the Great War. It's THEM they don't like. Don't confuse us with THEM, those filty Ostjuden. When they come for THEM, they'll leave us alone, they know we are loyal, yes loyal, we are "progressive", we are good Germans, yes, please, please, please don't confuse us with THEM! It's them you don't like and I don't blame you. Don't confuse me with THEM!

  19. MJ Rosenberg says:

    For the record, I do not favor one more settler living in occupied territories than the Palestinians will agree to.
    It's their land. Whatever they work out with the Israelis is fine with me, obviously. But I start with the assumption that any peace deal will amount to 78% of historic Palestine going to Israel (i.e pre-'67 Israel) and 22$ (all the rest) going to Palestine.

  20. otto says:

    Any comparisons between the Germans and the Palestinians shows the nut-jobbery of the person making the comparison. The Palestinians have been colonised and ethnically cleansed for a hundred years by jews in an explicitly jewish project, and have the same basic cause as the black south africans or – closer to home – the algerians colonised by the french. Of course they oppose israel, for the same basic reasons.

  21. otto says:

    MJ

    Nice to see you here. I'm not sure that statement coincides with all your earlier statements about what the Palestians should accept, but I'll take your word for it to save myself some internet searching.

    We can start with this however: the statement "Whatever they work out with the Israelis is fine with me, obviously." without difficulties, because the 'agreement' that the Israelis may extort out of the occupied Palestinians is not in any sense an 'agreement' if it accomodates jewish settler chauvinism, any more than there is an 'agreement' between you and me for you to give me your money, if you are standing on my head. The point is that the Palestinians need to be able to get rid of the occupation without having to 'agree' to accept jewish colonial bigotry. Indeed any form of chauvinism can be 'agreed' in this manner, and there's a certain normalising of that chauvinism by presenting the possibility of such 'agreement'.

  22. otto says:

    If you translate MJ's statement into the Iraqi context "I do not favor one more American settler living in Iraq than the Iraqis will agree to." you can see the underlying chauvinism. Everyone would accept that it would be madness and hatred to try to force the Iraqis to accommodate 100,000s of American settlers 'by agreement'. Of course, there would be no 'agreement' even if the Iraqis or the Iraqi government could be brought to 'agree'. But making the Palestinian arabs accept such an 'agreement' is part of MJ's conversation, because he thinks the Palestinians should and can be colonised and ethnically cleansed, 'by agreement'.

    Jews colonising Palestinians appears normal, although Americans colonising Iraqis are (obviously) not, even though the situation is exactly the same in both cases. That is the chauvinism in MJ's approach.

  23. BLG says:

    The above should be addressed to "Atheo"

    More
    Secret US plans for Iraq's oil

  24. LD says:

    I remember seeing an Israeli documentary film about a former IDF soldier. The soldier was initially tasked with making a propaganda film for the IDF. The footage he shot (during the first Intifida I believe) was never used and he instead began compiling more towards making the documentary.

    It was basically an anti-war piece. Anti-Occupation too I suppose. Although, it was very restrained and felt overwhelmingly pretentious.

    I think this is the Israeli mentality, much like the American mentality towards Vietnam. Noble pursuit gone wrong, or something like that.

    The entire formation of Israel was unfair to the indigenous population. Now, you won't be able to simply set things back to 1948. The Arabs have to accept Israel as it is.

    This doesn't mean they have to allow Israel to keep fragmenting it's population though. They don't have to put up with a single settler on their land, pre-1967. All settlers should go. Follow international law. Follow the UN.

    We can't go back in time but we can stop this colonization while it's taking place.

    I was at first inspired by MJ's candidness but then I realized he's basically just less a bigot than a true advocate of human rights/fairness.

    The entire debate has very narrow parameters when it comes to the Jewish community and the mainstream American dialogue.

    The so-called radicals, like Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein, are the only ones who are being truthful and talking any sense.

    People quickly forget history and how it could just so easily be THEM as the oppressed rather than the oppressors. The past 8 years have been a colossal regression for America because of Iraq and all the consequences. Israel has been regressing every since it's birth.

    I can't imagine how anyone in that country can see what they are doing and be proud. It's grotesque and everything that's happening will be written in history.

  25. observer says:

    LD is right. The average American thinks the whole country is occupied by a government that couldn't cares less about him or her, most especially in the last eight years. Three biggies are Immigration,
    Iraq, next Iran War, and trade policy. A fourth is Banker bailouts.

    Only the young think Obama will change much of anything about this basic situation, this sense we are killing ourselves, paying reparations for this suicide to the elite and moneybags who rule us
    with cheap slogans while our kids become Hessians for lack of a
    better job, shipped home without fanfare in cheap coffins, a tape-recorded bugle listened to only by their buddies standing there on fake legs, all of us lining up to get aboard the Manpower Inc
    truck but its not coming anymore…

  26. Seriously says:

    No offense to MJ, but you haven't ever lived there or visited the occupied territories.

    http://desertpeace.wordpress.com

    If you had, you would see just how wrong and out of touch with reality AIPAC is. AIPAC wants this 'my way' or the highway mentality, hence their authorization of the use of torture. Torture of so-called terrorists, syria citizens, palestinians, U.S. citizens, U.N. officials and even outright murders of countless iraqis & arabs who aren't even part of Israel.

    AIPAC is becoming a colonial power, which demands that all of Palestine belong to them. Ethnic cleansing in other words!

    What you are saying as "I don't want any other settlers on there then they will allow" is only tacit approval for AIPAC to continue this madness.

    There shouldn't be any settlers, they ought to be arrested and OUT of the occupied territories. The war criminals put on trial for indiscriminately beating/killing palestinians.

    And the Israeli military which is outright Zionist vs Jewish, should be forced to flat leave Palestine immediately.

    That is a disaster area. The Human Rights abuses are worse than GERMANY!!!! To allow anybody to occupy Palestine is just going to produce ethnic cleansing.

    Let the P.A. be dissolved & Abbas get signed onto the agreement so that Israel *HAS* to follow international law and recognize the Geneva Conventions. Then get the Israel military the heck out of there, so the United States doesn't have to run in and be the peace-keeper all year long.

    The biggest issue is the occupation, until the military occupation plain gets out of there giving Palestine its own home state the Arabs will not stop being trouble over there and people will not stop losing freedom here & abroad.

  27. Rockwell says:

    Israel does need to get the fuck out of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, but your comment that this worst than Nazi Germany makes you look like a serious moron Seriously.

  28. His comment is spot on target. Israel has done things worse than Nazi Germany if you actually visit there, or see the real face of Israel.

    http://thisiszionism.blogspot.com

    Israel shot and killed more than 400 Palestinians and also beat many of them to death. They're behaving no better than the Nazi reich did. In fact for every Israeli who is killed or "kidnapped", they turn around and slaughter 200+ Palestinians!!!!

    And the only time you know about it, is when it inconveniently leaks into the press and they report on the massacres thanks to Btselem. http://whatreallyhappened.com

    Israel is very MUCH worse, and needs to be restrained by getting the military occupation gone. This state is engaged in ethnic cleansing. Only when this blatant fact is admitted, will Israel reconcile with the Palestinians.

  29. "Israel shot and killed more than 400 Palestinians and also beat many of them to death. They're behaving no better than the Nazi reich did. In fact for every Israeli who is killed or "kidnapped", they turn around and slaughter 200+ Palestinians!!!!"

    I don't condone Israeli policy or actions towards the Palestinians. In fact I condemn them. But you are an indeed a person dearly in need of opening up a history book if you believe that what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians is the equivalent of the Nazi's genocide against the Jews of Europe. No offense crazy guy, but it's people like you who make right wing zionists look somewhat sane. Are you a Mossad plant?

  30. atheo says:

    BLG,

    "The Iraqi oil plan that was drafted up by the neoconservatives"

    I think if you examine your sources you will find that they niether identify a document nor quote one. In other words the cited sources are disinformation typical of BBC.

  31. atheo says:

    BLG,

    "The Iraqi oil plan that was drafted up by the neoconservatives"

    I think if you examine your sources you will find that they niether identify a document nor quote one. In other words the cited sources are disinformation typical of BBC.

  32. BLG says:

    "I think if you examine your sources"

    Your reading comprehension is poor.

    See atimes link above

    Oil as a geostrategic factor also figured in the neo-conservative mission to unseat Saddam as the first step of politically transforming the Middle East. Removal of his regime was seen as crucial to undermining the other established oil powers in the region, Saudi Arabia and Iran. These states are, respectively, the largest and second-largest oil producers in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), a group dominated by Middle East oil exporters.

    A US-friendly Iraq that abandoned OPEC and pumped more oil would, some neo-conservatives argued, weaken Saudi Arabia and Iran and break the grip of OPEC on the global oil market. In this way, so the theory went, the petrodollars that strengthen the grip on power of the House of Saud and Iran's mullahs and fund terrorist networks in the Middle East would dry up. The mission to remake the Middle East could be done by flooding the market with Iraqi oil.

    The oil factor in the plan for a regional transformation in the Middle East was pushed by some conservative journals and think-tanks in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. The National Review, for example, wrote in January 2002, "There are two principal sources of power for Middle Eastern states and terrorist groups hostile to the West: weapons of mass destruction and oil. Therefore, the war on terrorism should also seek to diminish the influence of – and perhaps destroy – OPEC." In November that year the National Review also claimed, "Iraqis could withdraw from OPEC [after Saddam's ouster] and begin fully pumping oil into the world market, thus reducing Saudi market power and one of the incentives for the US to appease the [Saudi] regime."

    In March 2003 the Washington, DC-based Heritage Foundation released a paper on Iraq's oil that recommended privatization of its oil industry and Iraq's departure from OPEC. It wrote, "Iraq's restructuring and privatization of its oil-and-gas sector could become a model for oil-industry privatizations in other OPEC states as well, weakening the cartel's influence over global energy markets … and depending on the dynamics of global economic growth and world oil output, Iraq's increase in oil-production capacity could bring lower oil prices in the long term." The report also claimed, "An Iraq outside of OPEC would find available from its oil trade an ample cash flow for the country's rehabilitation."

  33. Nobody seems to have mentioned this interesting little squib by MJ that appeared at Talking Points Memo on the same day this thread started:
    link to tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com

  34. Margaret says:

    Mondoweiss'article was cheering, but then came MJR's comment starting with the assumption of a 78%/22% split. That's a "peace deal." No settlers on occupied territory. Same old story: the Palestinians aren't really people, are they? Not real people, the kind one would consider cheated by a 'deal' like that. No, they're something other than 'real' people, and whatever it is they are considered to be, they should consider themselves lucky to get 22%, I'm sure.

    How very disappointing that my fellowmen actually think in that way. And how very disappointing it will be for our nation to support such a 'solution'. However, I expect that the greatest disappointment will be experienced by those who do consider this a "peace deal": it's not going to result in peace. Inequity is inherently unpeaceful.

    I suppose it seems easy for those of us in the US to live with such a plan. Except the OT will continue to be a destabilizing force within the global dynamic if so configured. We don't see the citizens of Gaza and the West Bank being shot down like the Mumbai but that doesn't mean it isn't happening. Such lack of vision seems likely to provoke ever increasing terror here, too, until people start translating the grotesque mortality and trauma statistics daily increasing in Palestine into a reality they do see and, in recognition of the devastation represented by a 78%/22% split, begin to consider the Palestinians as human, too, as people, like the Israeli (and us), deserving of property, water and the freedom to live unconstrained lives.

    How has it come to pass that already we have forgotten?

  35. They're spot on target.

    Israel's actions resemble Nazi Germany, and it is total ethnic cleansing based on color of skin & no double standard needed:

    http://desertpeace.wordpress.com

    Until people have seen up close what the Israelis do to Palestinians over there, and the resulting backlash they should not speak for the community on the issue. A 78% / 22% split won't solve the problem, it will give it window dressing until the ethnic cleansing is stopped.

  36. They're spot on target.

    Israel's actions resemble Nazi Germany, and it is total ethnic cleansing based on color of skin & no double standard needed:

    http://desertpeace.wordpress.com

    Until people have seen up close what the Israelis do to Palestinians over there, and the resulting backlash they should not speak for the community on the issue. A 78% / 22% split won't solve the problem, it will give it window dressing until the ethnic cleansing is stopped.

  37. this is so crazy to even think about. Obama you have to do what you have to do.

    Oilfield drilling rigs equipment

    oilfield equipment and products