Bruce Wolman writes:
President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority came to Washington yesterday to meet President Obama. As a warm-up for his big event at the White House, he sat down for an interview with the two editors of the Washington Post Editorial Page, Fred Hiatt and Jackson Diehl. After reading the result, one has to wonder who manages Palestinian media affairs. The Israeli Embassy?
Was there nobody in the Palestinian entourage aware that Abbas was meeting with two of the more notorious neo-Conservatives in the American media? Were Hiatt & Diehl a suitable channel for communicating with the American public (or even the inside-the-Beltway crowd)? Wouldn't it have made more sense to hook up with more sympathetic interlocuters?
While Hiatt has the reputation of not even letting his own newspaper's reporting get in the way of his pontificating, Diehl is a street fighter who clearly had his knives ready for the Palestinians. It was Diehl who relayed the interview in his op-ed column this morning. The reverberations hit the Israeli media before Washington even went to work.
According to Diehl, "Abbas insisted that his only role was to wait. He will wait for Hamas to capitulate to his demand that any Palestinian unity government recognize Israel and swear off any violence. And he will wait for the Obama administration to force a recalcitrant Netanyahu to freeze Israeli settlement construction and publicly accept the two-state formula."
Clearly unhappy with Abbas' passive strategy, Diehl paints Abbas as unyielding, "Until Israel meets his demands, the Palestinian president says, he will refuse to begin negotiations." To Diehl's annoyance, Abbas "won't even agree to help Obama's envoy, George J. Mitchell, persuade Arab states to take small confidence-building measures." So what if Netanyahu can't bring himself to even mouth the words "two-state solution"? Diehl still expects Abbas to act as if a peace process is possible with Netanyahu at the helm.
To Diehl, Abbas' behavior is just another example of dysfunctional Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. "Both sides invariably begin by arguing they cannot act until the other side offers far-reaching concessions." In Diehl's world, Abbas' insistence that the Netanyahu government acknowledge its acceptance of two states is a call for a major concession, even though both of Netanyahu's predecessors, Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, already accepted two states years ago. Diehl seems to believe it is only reasonable that Abbas and the Palestinians return to square one with Netanyahu, and re-negotiate once again for the right to their own state. At the same time the United States is insisting that Hamas recognize all previous agreements before the US will even meet with its representatives.
The freezing of settlement construction is Abbas' second "far-reaching" demand in WaPo land. Diehl apparently has amnesia that this has long been a part of the Road Map, which Israel accepted in 2003. Israel is once again offering to remove the same twenty illegal outposts that it has been promising to eliminate for years. The Bush Administration enabled this shell game throughout its two terms, but the Obama administration has had enough. It is insisting that Israel adhere to its Road Map obligations much to Diehl's discomfort.
Diehl equates Abbas' demand for the acceptance of previous commitments with Netanyahu's demand that the "Palestinians should start by recognizing Israel as a Jewish state." Besides the question of what a "Jewish state" means, especially to the Arab minority within Israel, this is a new element to the negotiations not previously put on the table by the Israelis.
In a description that surely will be repeated, Diehl calls Abbas' position "hardline", and he attributes this new Palestinian assertiveness to the Obama administration. The Bushies "made it clear that the onus for change in the Middle East was on the Palestinians: Until they put an end to terrorism, established a democratic government and accepted the basic parameters [as dictated by the US and Israel we presume] for a settlement, the United States was not going to expect major concessions from Israel." Diehl has always agreed with the Bush approach.
"Obama, in contrast, has repeatedly and publicly stressed the need for a West Bank settlement freeze, with no exceptions. In so doing he has shifted the focus to Israel." Diehl ominously sees this as reviving a "long-dormant Palestinian fantasy: that the United States will simply force Israel to make critical concessions, whether or not its democratic government agrees, while Arabs passively watch and applaud." Diehl may be right in calling this a fantasy, but this is the only option the United States has provided Abbas.
As demanded by Israel and the United States, Abbas has forsworn any path towards Palestinian self-determination other than peacefully negotiating with Israel and the United States. Aware that the Israelis will never give his people a fair deal without some pressure applied, Abbas' strategy has over time narrowed to doing whatever the American's tell him, while hoping at some point the US will broker a deal that the Palestinians can accept. No other outside powers – neither the Arab moderates, the Europeans, the Russians or Chinese – have offered any alternative base of support from which Abbas could build momentum for a Palestinian state. The only alternative pressure on the Israelis comes from Hamas and its external supporters. Abbas' erstwhile allies have all left him at the mercy of the Americans, as they calculate it is not in their own self-interest to defy the United States.
Having made no progress for his people so far, Abbas at this point is kept in office by his US-supported security forces, the Israeli military and intelligence, European and Arab funding, and his Fatah cronies who live off the foreign largesse. He was elected President in the last election only because the US threatened to withhold all support should he be replaced. The Palestinians complied only to find out that the Americans were not going to deliver anyway, so they voted for Hamas in the next round. Even the WaPo newbie reporter in Israel, Howard Schneider, realizes that Abbas has a credibility problem and that his latest government is viewed as a US proxy by the Palestinians.
Diehl admits that Netanyahu's Likud party "has not yet reconciled to the idea that Israel will have to give up most of the West Bank and evacuate tens of thousands of settlers," but then he goes on to make some rather absurd charges about Palestinian unwillingness to accept reality. As if the ghost of Arafat was still among us, Diehl concludes that Abbas doomed the former Israeli PM Ehud Olmert, "by rejecting a generous outline for Palestinian statehood." The matter of Olmert being indicted apparently had no effect on his having to resign, not to mention the disastrous war in Lebanon which sank Olmert's popularity to below Cheney levels.
Diehl mentions 97 percent of the West Bank, the "acceptance of the principle" of the "right of return" of Palestinian refugees, and the resettlement of thousands, and then insists that "Olmert's peace offer was more generous to the Palestinians than either that of Bush or Bill Clinton; it's almost impossible to imagine Obama, or any Israeli government, going further."
Why did Abbas turn Olmert down? "The gaps are wide," Abbas explained. Diehl either didn't ask – or didn't consider it necessary – to tell us what those gaps are. Just trust WaPo, it was a generous deal. However, nothing in Diehl's report indicates the offer went beyond the terms agreed between Palestinians and Israelis in Taba just before Sharon won election as Israeli prime minister.
Showing clear-eyed realism Abbas and his team told Diehl that "Netanyahu will never agree to the full settlement freeze – if he did, the center-right coalition would almost certainly collapse." According to Diehl, the Palestinians told him their plan is "to sit back and watch while U.S. pressure slowly squeezes the Israeli prime minister from office." They expect that will take a couple of years.
Diehl reiterates that the Palestinians should concede to Netanyahu's latest demand and recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, which in Diehl's mind "would imply renunciation of any large-scale resettlement of refugees." Here Diehl has his own problem swallowing reality. Does he really expect granting such a concession will commit Netanyahu to a viable Palestinian state?
Diehl ends his piece with the line, "In the Obama administration, so far, it's easy being Palestinian." And he doesn't appear happy about that. Would he prefer that the West Bank suffer more like Gaza?
The Jerusalem Post immediately picked up on Diehl's op-ed in an article titled, 'Abbas wants US to push out Netanyahu.' Expect to hear this refrain from Jerusalem for some time to come.
This morning Diehl's op-ed was headlined as a Plus in the Opinions box. More responsible folks at the Post might have had second thoughts. For the moment, Diehl's piece is no longer mentioned among the Op-Eds on the Home Page.
Related Posts
- Abbas meets with Obama today, but does it matter?
- Why isn’t Obama dickering with Abbas on settlements? (Cherchez la puissance)
- ‘The Hill’ covers Obama-Abbas meeting with a Likudnik spin
- Obama gave the dirty work to Abbas and now both are soiled
- Olmert tries a Hail Mary in the WaPo by resuscitating the ‘generous offer’ Predictably, he fumbles.
{ 94 comments }
"In Diehl's world, Abbas' insistence that the Netanyahu government acknowledge its acceptance of two states is a call for a major concession, even though both of Netanyahu's predecessors, Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, already accepted two states years ago" This is how Jewish Zionists think, operate and "negotiate." There isn't an iota of good will involved. They agree to general goals without committing anything to paper, and then later use some pretext to get out of their former verbal commitments. In the interim, they have continued to grab more and more of whatever was under negotiation, only to later demand negotiations start at square one — and what they have grabbed is no longer under negotiation. No wonder the Palestinians are forced to resort to violence. But when they do, the Jewish Zionists play the victim and use the violence as a pretext to grab ever more. It's not too hard to see how diplomacy inevitably deteriorates into wars whenever these people are at the table.
I am very glad that PW is making his pilgrimage to Egypt and Gaza. That is a very important personal event. But I am even more pleased to read this piece which decodes the media-journalistic world inside the Beltway. There are many who can give us eye witness reports from the ground in the Neareast. But Phil's real calling is reporting how the story gets told by the MSM and who the players are in this world. Thanks, Phil.
This piece really needs to be up at Talking Points Memo…
It's easy for our pundits to have amnesia regarding Israeli obligations under The Roadmap agreement. The original link to the text is no longer operative on the US State Department web site: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1088211.html comes up with a message "We're sorry. That page can't be found and may have moved." My search of the State Department site failed to find the text. The Roadmap text can be found at the BBC: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1088211.html and, ironically, on the Israeli Foreign Ministry site: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1088211.html Of course a quick reading shows that Phase 1 of the Roadmap requires calls for dismantling settlement outposts established since March 2001 and freezing "all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements)" as well as halting "confiscation and/or demolition of Palestinian homes and property" and "easing restrictions on movement of persons and goods" in the West Bank and Gaza. None of this has happened, naturally. Israeli journalist Nehemia Shtrasler pointed out the hypocrisy in the outpost game: "The Never-Ending Evacuation” http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1088211.html
Should Abbas offer Israel 97% of the original 1947 Mandate establishing Israel's legal territory, then he might be considered a hardliner.
Right on, Sand! Adam, how does this happen? Which Mondo pieces are picked up by TPM?
But Abbas has no right to offer anything that he hasn't got on hand. Israel is asking for words and action. Abbas wants land. Israel is not asking for land because it is already their's for the taking.
Here are some quotes from "Examples of Hate Speech." http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/palesti... 1. "There is a huge gap between us (Jews) and our enemies not just in ability but in morality, culture, sanctity of life, and conscience. They are our neighbors here, but it seems as if at a distance of a few hundred meters away, there are people who do not belong to our continent, to our world, but actually belong to a different galaxy." Israeli president Moshe Katsav. The Jerusalem Post, May 10, 2001 2. "The Palestinians are like crocodiles, the more you give them meat, they want more"…. Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel at the time – August 28, 2000. Reported in the Jerusalem Post August 30, 2000 3. " [The Palestinians are] beasts walking on two legs." Menahim Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the Beasts". New Statesman, 25 June 1982.
4. "The Palestinians" would be crushed like grasshoppers … heads smashed against the boulders and walls." " Isreali Prime Minister (at the time) in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988 5. "When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle." Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces, New York Times, 14 April 1983. 6. "How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to." Golda Maier, March 8, 1969. 7. "There was no such thing as Palestinians, they never existed." Golda Maier Israeli Prime Minister June 15, 1969
8. "The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war." Israeli General Matityahu Peled, Ha'aretz, 19 March 1972. 9. David Ben Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti – Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?" Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp121. 10. Ben Gurion also warned in 1948 : "We must do everything to insure they ( the Palestinians) never do return." Assuring his fellow Zionists that Palestinians will never come back to their homes. "The old will die and the young will forget."
11. "We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves." Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October 1983. 12. "Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." – Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio. (Certainly the FBI's cover-up of the Israeli spy ring/phone tap scandal suggests that Mr. Sharon may not have been joking.) 13. "We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel… Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours." Rafael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces – Gad Becker, Yediot Ahronot 13 April 1983, New York Times 14 April 1983.
Thanks for the posting. There is however much truth to Abass' passivity and his detachment from the people (related to the lack of credibility). If he really said, "Until then, in the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life," which I believe he did, it just shows how disconnected he is from life there. He has not had to wait at a checkpoint, face gunfire, or attack by settlers, and struggle to make ends meet. The idea that life is normal in the West Bank is absurd and cruel, and frankly further indicative of their ridiculously incompetent press people, to follow on a point in the post. Instead of being a political unifier or forwarding an empowering vision, Abbas tries to navigate the flotsam of power politics, waiting for his historical break. The is a disgraceful mockery of everyone who gave their lives for Palestinian liberation. It is a strategy doomed to fail. He may get his state, but it will be unearned, and in all likelihood, will fail miserably.
14. "We must do everything to ensure they [the Palestinian refugees] never do return" David Ben-Gurion, in his diary, 18 July 1948, quoted in Michael Bar Zohar's Ben-Gurion: the Armed Prophet, Prentice-Hall, 1967, p. 157. 15. " … we should prepare to go over to the offensive with the aim of smashing Lebanon, Trans-jordan and Syria… The weak point in the Arab coalition is Lebanon [for] the Moslem regime is artificial and easy to undermine. A Christian state should be established… When we smash the [Arab] Legions strength and bomb Amman, we will eliminate Transjordan, too, and then Syria will fall. If Egypt still dares to fight on, we shall bomb Port Said, Alexandria, and Cairo." " David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978.
Hey, really, Bruce, does WashPo have ANY credibility left with the beltway crowd? I mean, we're talking about Fred Hiatt?! This guy makes Marty Peretz look like he's borderline Israel-first. As for Diehl, seems to me a lot of the tone was dictated by Freddie. I think the positive takeaway is that JeruPo freaked out about the concept that Obama may be pushing Bibi out by destroying the "special relationship" with the US. Serves him right. Immediately after his contentious meeting with Obama, his aides were telling the Israeli press that Obama's push for a two-state solution was "childish." It's a real possibility that if Bibi is between a rock and a hard place, there could be an effort to push him out and restore Tvizi. Isn't that why Bill Clinton sent James Carville over to Israel? To push Bibi out? Deja vu all over again.
yes, the Israelis can take what they want, so long as they have USA dumb goy animals to bleed 4 them.
Abbaswhole , obama, and the newest teorrist occupying government could not of changed the definition of GENOCIDE Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide: 1) the mental element, meaning the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and 2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called "genocide." Article III described five punishable forms of the crime of genocide: genocide; conspiracy, incitement, attempt and complicity. Abbasswhole and every branch of a government that has turned their back on the genocide is complicite in crimes against humanity
Article IV: Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THREE BRANCHES OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND PAST AND PRESENT ARE GUILTY AS CHARGED. THE ICC AND THE UN AS WELL FOR ALLOWING THE CONTINUOUS 55+ YEARS OF ONGOING GENOCIDE, AND TRYING TO BLAME RESISTING THE GENOCIDE WITH WHATEVER MEANS POSSIBLE MAKES A LOT MORE COMPLICITE, MEDIA PEOPLE, WHO FAILED TO REALLY INVESTIGATE ANY ASSUMPTIONS OF THE OCCUPIERS. THEY ARE OCCUPIERS NOT A STATE EVEN IF IT IS WRITTEN BY ZIONIST PRIEST HUNDREDS OF YEARS AGO DOES NOT MAKE IT CORRECT.
What a shame. Jackson Diehl, as an African-American who has the privilege of writing for one of the most influential newspapers in the world, unloads his Fred-Hiatt-inspired venom on Abbas, and ignores the South African-like apartheid in Palestine. Gee, Jackson, the Knesset is seeking to pass racist laws that make the old Jim Crow regime seem tame. Calling Israel a "Jewish state" smacks of the old South calling for white supremacy. Great quote: "It would be sad indeed if the first African-American president of the United States were to defend in Israel exactly the kind of institutionalized bigotry the civil rights movement defeated in this country, a victory that made his election possible." As an African-American, Jax shouldn't be a Zionist puppet either. Source: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090615/abunimah
Yeah, checkitout is right. the goyim are "useful idiots" to fight the wars for the neo-cons, the Israel-firsters and the end-of-times-rapture-wishers. It kills me every day to know that American soldiers are dying daily to fulfill the "Clean Break" manifesto put forth by Feith and crew. Time to shift the paradigm. Let's take the white phosphorus and DIME toys away from the IDF!
It is Israel that has no rights to offer territory outside of the UN 1947 Mandated borders. None. Every time Israel wants more than what has already been generously given, the logical negotiating response should be to reduce what has already been given to them, or at least make the opportunity costs high.
I wonder how close in ideas and conclusions Phil Weiss and TPMs MJ Rosenberg are? Mr. Rosenberg's ideas have been developing, too.
I didn't realize Diehl was African American. I assumed from his logic and thinking that he was a Zionist, and probably Jewish. This just goes to show how dangerous and virulent the Zionist ideology truly is, and how it seems to impact people's entire world view, thought patterns and sympathies for institutionalized supremacism — even blacks! We know, of course, that one not need to be Jewish to be a Zionist (witness the legion of Judeo-Christian Zionists in the Statist Right and Judephile Left-liberal Zionists in the Democratic Party) but I guess I incorrectly assumed that the most fiercely dedicated and rhetorically underhanded of them were Jewish. Jackson Diehl (and now that I think about it, a lot of other gentile Zionists in media) prove me wrong. People, we have a fledgling civil war on our hands. Time to cowboy up. These racist Zionists could be under any rock and of any color or creed.
"…It's a real possibility that if Bibi is between a rock and a hard place, there could be an effort to push him out and restore Tvizi…" However, even if they could get rid of Lieberman as well — wouldn't she have the same problem of who she would have to work with? Police could charge Lieberman with corruption within weeks http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1088685.html
Didn't 'President' Abbas' term end in January? Maybe self-knowledge of his own illegitimacy and previous collaboration has engendered a need to prove himself worthy of his office. Maybe his choice of neoconservative interviewers was deliberate, with full awareness that he would be maximally spun as intransigent. His words passed through their voice give a kind of imprimatur of sincerity the objective of which might be to convey to the Israelis that they should be taken seriously, and are not merely political posturing. His pre-conditions for resumption of talks with the Israelis send a message to the Palestinian people that he is no longer willing to compromise their fundamental, reasonable, and valid rights. He hopes that it will increase their perception of his legitimacy, and hence give him credibility with Pres. Obama and the Israelis that the Palestinian political establishment can be counted on to maintain continuity of any agreement struck with him. It also lets Pres. Obama and the Israelis know that he will no longer play the Israeli game of endless negotiations accompanied by increased Jewish colonization of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. He sends additional messages by distancing himself so completely from compromise with Hamas, who fairly won the last election and subsequently chose the last Prime Minister whom Abbas illegally dismissed. This may be designed to show Pres. Obama and others with interest in a successful outcome of final-status negotiations that he will not tolerate extremists, and to convince the Israelis that they will get no negotiator from the Palestinian side more willing to make reasonable compromises than he. It also may be a message to the Palestinian people attempting to set the boundaries of expectations, and what political activity would not be acceptable after a final-status agreement. Pres. Abbas' plan is a Hail-Mary thrown at the impending demise of his career. One problem is that the majority of Palestinians don't view his government as legitimately representing their people. He is gambling that a successful agreement would bring him and the Palestinian Authority that prestige. Any such gain of prestige, and there would be a lot from an agreement fair to Palestinians, would be transitory. The fundamental problem of financial and political corruption in the Fatah-controlled PA, the former from essentially unaccountable Quartet-sponsored handouts and the latter from the acquiescence to Israeli interests required to keep the handouts coming, will not recede without true democratization. This requires several radical departures from past practice. Fatah cannot just annul elections that it loses, and the international community must recognize fairly elected governments whether they like them or not. The PA and any successor organization must be able to handle transition of power from competing parties. This requires that outside parties, especially the United States, truly be neutral. There can be no more Dennis Ross'es on the American diplomatic team acting as Israel's lawyer. Israel must also cease interference in Palestinian internal affairs. There are no indications that any of these prerequisites are likely to happen. The fundamental roadblock is Israeli intransigence. The Israeli government will not voluntarily change its policies. They have hitherto been successful in fragmenting Palestinian political unity and, through the Lobby, its representative in America, undermining American political will to put American interests first. There can be neither a fair final-status agreement nor changes in Palestinian governance necessary to ensure its longevity until genuine and adamant pressure is brought upon Israel, including determined ultimatums of a complete cutoff of American financial, political, and military subsidization of the Israeli state. Pres. Obama has inherited the most powerful presidency in American history, and he has the power to do this unilaterally, but to succeed and still have enough Congressional support to achieve his other domestic and international objectives will require the political defeat of the pro-colonization Zionists who still dominate the Lobby. Inevitably this means confrontation with Congress aggressive enough to force our Senators and Representatives into making a public stand, choosing between serving Israeli or American interests. Does Pres. Obama have the political courage to take on this enormous task that other Presidents have avoided? Will the timing of changes in the international and domestic political environments be conducive to a good beginning of such a struggle? I don't think so, but time will tell.
"This just goes to show how dangerous and virulent the Zionist ideology truly is" Go down, Moses! Way down in Egypt Land. Tell old Pharoah: Let My People Go
Gosh, Jacob, you don't believe in Jewish supremacism, do you? Look here, Jacob, I've been screeching all the time about stuff Ed says, claiming he's going too far. You wouldn't make a liar out of me, Jacob, as one Jew to another. So you believe all men are brothers, right (or at worst, fifth cousins, actually. Amazing but true) and Jews are but one, oh, style of men among a common sea of humanity, right? And of course, this common humanity is the key to solving the problems of the Middle East? Would that be hard for you to say, Jacob? Gosh, Jacob, you just don't know how it would hurt me to have to admit that some of what Ed is saying might be true. I know you can agree with those principles, Jacob. Right?
Oscar, I am sure jacobwolfen catagorically rejects every one of those hateful statements. He will disavow them any minute now. In fact, I'm so sure he will, I am going to hold my breath until he does so. Hmm, maybe that's where that shade of blue comes from.
Mooser, you are a liar. You made one out of you. And it would seem you believe every word Ed vomits.
Can you print a little bigger? It is hard to distinguish your bullshit from your horseshit.
we will not crawl,will not forget and for damn sure will never admit that we are a defeated people.Choke on that jacob.
I hear the plans are for Obama to tell The shitty little country to stop settlement activity and to ask the Jarab governments to offer something in return to israel.Settlements are ILLEGAL,HELLO,how can you reward a theif?I sure hope i dont hear this.LAW.UN RRSOLUTIONS,TREATIES.FUCK,THAT DONT COUNT.THE SHITTY LITTLE ASURPING ENTITY IS speciaaaaal.
As a PALESTINIAN, I hope he will be having tea with arafat in hell ,served by dahlan.erakat.abed rabbo and the rest of the security gangsters.
RE: Update from New Profile: Israel 'is very far from the democracy [it] claims to be.' MY COMMENT: Jackson Diehl = Elliott Abrams = 'evil incarnate'
RE: "how close in ideas and conclusions Phil Weiss and TPMs MJ Rosenberg are" MY COMMENT: I would say MJ Rosenberg is closer to Rabbi Michael Lerner or perhaps Richard Silverstein. I would characterize them as rejecting the more extreme Revisionist Zionism (developed originally by Ze'ev Jabotinsky). Phil appears to be significantly to the "left" of them in that he seems to reject altogether the notion of Zionism (including practical Zionism). WIKIPEDIA REFERENCE – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionist_Zionism
RE: "Mooser, you are a liar. You made one out of you. And it would seem you believe every word Ed vomits." MY COMMENT: Excellent cross-examination, Barrister Mooser! You managed to get the witness to confess right in front of the jury. Notwithstanding Perry Mason and "A Few Good Men", that very seldom occurs in real life (even with the most aberrant of witnesses). "A FEW GOOD MEN" (AT IMDB) – http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104257/
14. BIBI NETANYAHU'S ÜBER RACIST FATHER: “The Bible finds no worse image than this of the man from the desert. And why? Because he has no respect for any law. Because in the desert he can do as he pleases. The tendency towards conflict is in the essence of the Arab. He is an enemy by essence. His personality won’t allow him any compromise or agreement. It doesn’t matter what kind of resistance he will meet, what price he will pay. His existence is one of perpetuate war.”… …."The two states solution doesn’t exist. There are no two people here. There is a Jewish people and an Arab population… there is no Palestinian people, so you don’t create a state for an imaginary nation… they only call themselves a people in order to fight the Jews." – Benzion Netanyahu, 2009 interview SOURCE OF NETANYAHU'S FATHER'S WORDS – http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2009...
MJ Rosenberg is an anti-Christian, lefti-wing Jewish supremacist racist of the highest order. Recent quote: “Take the Jews and the Catholics. When a Pope goes to Israel, he invariably expresses regret about the Holocaust and/or the church's role in perpetuating anti-semitism since its creation. He must tread very carefully. Jews, on the other hand, need express no special sensitivity toward the church. In fact, they often express contempt for it. And they can because they never persecuted Catholics; Catholics persecuted Jews.” http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/28/n...
No? What about Jewish Bolshevik mass murder of millions of Christians in the Soviet Union, targeted for their Christian religion? What about Jewish Zionists lying Christian Americans into the Iraq war? What about Jewish persecution and murder of early Christians? What about Jewish Zionist murder of Palestinian Christians? Give these Jewish-Leftist dogs an inch of daylight, they think they have permission to rule the world. Now they want to dismantle Israel because it is in the way of their Jewish narcissist megalomania. Ironically, authentic Christians (not Judeo-Christian Zionists) are about the only ones who are able to maintain their perspective on this issue. Fat slob left-wing Jewish narcissists like Rosenberg remind me of fat slob narcissist Christian Zionists like John Hagee…who reminds me of left-liberal fat slob Jewish Zionist Barnery Frank. Degenerates all.
Ed, we are not generally too enthusastic about white Christian supremacist views here. You should try posting them at David Duke's site instead.
"The Palestinians are like crocodiles, the more you give them meat, they want more" These mirror blame games are absolutely astonishing. Thanks, Bruce, interesting
Palaprop again. Trouble is Begin didn't say what you quote. The "beasts" quote comes from a Begin speech in 1982: "The children of Israel will happily go to school and joyfully return home, just like the children in Washington, in Moscow, and in Peking, in Paris and in Rome, in Oslo, in Stockholm and in Copenhagen. The fate of… Jewish children has been different from all the children of the world throughout the generations. No more. We will defend our children. If the hand of any two-footed animal is raised against them, that hand will be cut off, and our children will grow up in joy in the homes of their parents." http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x... Most of the quotes coming out of you fringe nuts are fakes. you just keep quoting each other and think that makes it real.
4. Fake http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Randyqs 5. fake "When we have settled the land, all the Jews will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroackes in a bottle." -Raphael el-Baradei, Chief of Staff of the Syrian Defence Forces 1983 6.Fake http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Randyqs 7. Fake "There was no such thing as Palestinians, they never existed." -Golda Meir, Israeli PM 1969 And she was Correct. Until the early 60's if you said 'Palestinian' you meant 'Jew'. Keep up the Palaprop. someday you will get something right.
Not only does Israel have the right, it has the ability. And there is nothing you or your ilk can do about it.
The one I picked is from Jerusalem Post, September 10, 2000 http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ehud_Barak I remember it well, and it is not the first time i have read or heard this or similar statements. Again: I still think the image of greedy Palestinians is plainly astonishing, this is the prime minister and not some simple nitwit. So its rather safe to assume the meme is Israeli mainstream.
I've never expressed even an inkling of white supremacy, and you know it, Rowan. It is that kind of intellectual dishonesty from the Left that prevents this issue from being properly addressed. The Left would rather end up in WWIII against Islam than admit the huge role it has played in enabling Zionism and partnering with Political Judaism to undermine Christian moral authority because that reality undermines its own moral authority and ideological certitude. For the Left, government and ideology are their church and moral universe, and unlike modern Christianity, it doesn't believe in separation. It seeks to use government to impose its own moral universe upon mankind at the point of a gun. That's Leftist supremacism. You're no better than the Zionists.
DICKERSON, I am seeing MJ Rosenberg's ideas devoloping and changing rapidly. He may have been closer to Rabbi Lerner at one time, but now? I think Rosenberg got tired of "winning the debate, but losing the arguement" a little while back.
Rowan, there's no point. He's like a mechanical toy or something. Wind him up, and away he goes. Oh, and Ed, what is this "Christian moral authourity" you are talking about. It sure seemed eager to embrace Zionism. Or were there Jewish moles at all the major denominations. And please don't call Jews "dogs". Jews are members of the human race, and there's not much worse you can say about them. If you can call a Jew a "dog", you can call a Palestinian a "cockroach", too.
Thanks for posting this Abbas quote. I could not believe it when I read it. Talk about having a tin ear. Maybe he did not really say it. I do, however, agree that Abbas has little support among his constituents and is increasingly perceived as a puppet of the Americans. I am a bit surprised that this foot-in-mouth utterance has not been more widely discussed.
Why, Rowan, do you characterize Ed's views as "white Christian supremacist?" Why do you equate him with David Duke? Bolsheviks, led very disproportionately by secular Jews, did indeed wage a war on Christians in the name of Communism. Ed's not making the facts up. Much more recently, many zionists have spoken in terms of Israel First as the "secular religion of Jews." Don't you see a pattern here? I am not a Christian, although I am white, and I'm identified as such whether I like it or not.
Yes, and from you we get only milk and honey, Jacob.
Be nice, dummy, or we'll cut off your military aid.
Yes, this is a really obvious issue that Obama has not really addressed–He's now talking about stopping the expansion of settlements in any form, but what about all those decades the expansion has continued despite USA official policy against them? I have yet to see any MSM USA discuss this–not even on C-SPAN….
If you say the Palestinians never existed, how can you say the Jewish nation ever existed?
Did the jews call themselves a people in order to fight the NAZIS? Didn't Judea call for a boycott of NAZI Germany? They had no state of Israel at the time. They were all living in Goy lands.
A great comment to instill in us the desire to cut off all aid to Israel in the name of humanity and USA First. Thanks, Jacobwolfen, for your obvious Jew First & uber alles identity.
Ed, black Christians (African, African-American, Caribbean, European, etc.) will never be more than an internal or external auxiliary of the existing, white Christian colonial empires. Even in Asia (in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Iran, India, Pakistan, south-east Asia, etc.) the role of Christian communities is debatable… um… 'delicate' — if they don't have direct and explicit ex-colonial links, they have latent ones which can be reactivated so that they become imperial pawns. This is really a major area in post-colonial studies, now I think about it.
You'd see the results fast in Seattle, Mooser. The military aid is US corporate welfare. I would've built the Lavi and have been done with it.
Will we, the average USA citizen, ever free ourselves from the Jewish Zionists in our midst? We need to use the internet even more to upset their zionist apple cart, hauled all the way at our expense. We have too many jews who sit here as USA citizens and direct our money and our blood for Israel uber alles. You can discover them. They never enlist in the USA military, although they always beat the drums for more USA military force in the Middle East. They argue for saving the USA Fed Reserve system and Wall St–they love the no usury cap on credit cards. They created the USA Office Of Special Plans; they've been going with N's plan for continued domination of the Middle East since 1996. Their next step is bombing Iran, after Obama goes through his D Ross charade to put a fig leaf on Goering might makes rights.
When the witness is higher than a kite on ziocaine, it's easy. Would you advise a defendant to go into court stoned or drunk? Especially if he has something to hide? I mean, you get your lowered inhibitions combined with that ol' grandiosity and there's no telling what they might say. You can just be sure it'll be agressive, and avoid the point. And everybody here can see how much I believe Ed.
Well, I am definitely not letting Ehud Barak take care of "Golda" while I'm on vacation! You can kill a crocodile by overfeeding!
Choke on that jacob Careful! Remember what I said about overfeeding crocdiles!
"You'd see the results fast in Seattle, Mooser." Yes, you're right. The positive results of lessening the region's dependence on and involvement with the military would be appreciated by many.
RE: "MJ Rosenberg is an anti-Christian, lefti-wing Jewish supremacist racist of the highest order. " MY COMMENT: I think that you are mistaken. Is it possible that you are 'projecting'? I think MJ Rosenberg would readily admit that Jews (like all humans) are far from perfect. M.J. ROSENBERG'S EXCELLENT COMMENTS IN CONTEXT: "No, Newt, "Reverse Racism" Doesn't Exist And, If It Does, It Isn't Racism" – by M.J. Rosenberg, TPM The crazy right is now charging that Judge Sonia Sotomayor is a racist because she has said that as a Latina woman, she brings something to the bench that a white man might not. Newt Gingrich, the GOP's 2012 nominee (I'd put money on that) says that this is racism, pure and simple…[snip]…Newt is full of it and he knows it. Here's why. We do not, and should not, apply the same standard to the historic victims of hate that we do to those (usually the powerful) who have never suffered from it. Take the Jews and the Catholics. When a Pope goes to Israel, he invariably expresses regret about the Holocaust and/or the church's role in perpetuating anti-semitism since its creation. He must tread very carefully. Jews, on the other hand, need express no special sensitivity toward the church. In fact, they often express contempt for it. And they can because they never persecuted Catholics; Catholics persecuted Jews In Europe recently, I was meeting at the EU with various diplomats on how the EU can help advance the peace process. I learned very quickly that the Germans are the most reluctant of all Europeans to even consider pressuring Israel. The reason is obvious. Germans have to be especially sensitive toward Jews. Jews, on the other hand, need show no special sensitivity toward Germans. And they don't. There are many many examples of this phenomenon. It would apply (and should) to Mississippi whites and Mississippi blacks. Gays and straights. Men and women. In fact, it applies to any situation where one group has held the upper hand and used it to hold down the other. That is why nobody should care when Newt Gingrich and others of his pale male group argue that their kinsmen have suffered from discrimination against white men. There is no such thing and there never was.
Yes, I agree. MJ Rosenberg is probably now much closer to Richard Silverstein than to Rabbi Lerner. Phil appears (to me) to be a bit to the "left" of Rosenberg and Silverstein.
RE: "Would you advise a defendant to go into court stoned or drunk?" FROM WIKIPEDIA: "…There are at least three ways people leave a cult. These are 1.) On their own decision (walkaways); 2.) Through expulsion (castaways); and 3.) By intervention (Exit counseling, deprogramming)…" SOURCE – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult
RE: "These mirror blame games are absolutely astonishing." MY COMMENT: mirror blame games = psychological projection FROM WIKIPEDIA: In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism where a person's personal attributes, unacceptable or unwanted thoughts, and/or emotions are ascribed onto another person or people. According to Wade, Tavris (2000) projection occurs when a person's own unacceptable or threatening feelings are repressed and then attributed to someone else.[1] An example of this behavior might be blaming another for one's own failure. The mind may avoid the discomfort of consciously admitting personal faults by keeping those feelings unconscious, and redirect their libidinal satisfaction by attaching, or "projecting," those same faults onto another. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them. The theory was developed by Sigmund Freud and further refined by his daughter Anna Freud; for this reason, it is sometimes referred to as "Freudian Projection"[2] [3]…… SOURCE – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projection_(psycholo...
RE: "These mirror blame games are absolutely astonishing." SEE ALSO – Open Left:: "Conservatism As Predation" – by Paul Rosenberg (EXCERPT) …Taking a step back, however, something else stands out: there is no such confusion or complication around the issue of equality–conservatives repeatedly have opposed it throuhgout history, and continue to do so today. What's more, their opposition to equality carries with it a natural corollary: they are far more prone to see the world in us-them terms, which in turn allow them to view those who are not "us" as "fair game" to preyed upon in one way or another. It is in this sense that there is a natural connection between conservatism and predation. Not only does conservatives opposition to equality render it difficult at best to negotiate "win-win" policy solutions with them, as President Obama hopes to do. Their predatory inclinations led them to see such solutions as a trick or a trap, intended to make them the victims of the same predatory instincts that figure so prominently in their own psychologies. Social scientists have discovered two main types of authoritarianism, rightwing authoritarianism (RWA), which applies particularly to authoritarian followers, and social dominance orientation (SDO), which applies to authoritarian leaders. Together they account for the majority of group prejudice, whether racial, ethnic, religious, gender or sexual-orientation based. They also both are significantly correlated with political conservatism, a correlation that grows stronger the more deeply involved they are in organized politics…. ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://www.openleft.com/diary/12904/conservatism-...
Nearly every advanced country on the face of the earth has a history of colonialism, not just “white” and “Christian” ones. Rowan (and Mooser), take a look here at what your Chinese Communist brethren are doing to Africa not in the colonialist era, but in the current era. It's as bad or worse than what the colonialists did a century ago, only it is being done NOW. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article... Man you lefties are a backward bunch of head cases, aren’t you? You’d happily see the entire world enslaved just to satisfy your quest for “permanent revolution” (aka political tantrums) and the institutionalization of your ideological infantile narcissism.
Yes, the collapse of the American aerospace industry that counts on Israel's hundreds of plane purchases for its corporate welfare. Israeli arms industry wanted a great deal more independence, and the US prevented that as corporate welfare, and to keep Israel on a leash.
Peter Hitchens writes what he's paid to write, but in that article anyway, he does not go so far as to claim that the Chinese are worse than the Europeans. I wish you would avoid McCarthyesque garbage like "your Chinese Communist brethren."
Jewish nation exists right now. Palestinian nation never existed.
Genocide of who, Arabs? There is about a billion of them.
"In our meeting Wednesday, Abbas acknowledged that Olmert had shown him a map proposing a Palestinian state on 97 percent of the West Bank — though he complained that the Israeli leader refused to give him a copy of the plan. He confirmed that Olmert "accepted the principle" of the "right of return" of Palestinian refugees — something no previous Israeli prime minister had done — and offered to resettle thousands in Israel. In all, Olmert's peace offer was more generous to the Palestinians than either that of Bush or Bill Clinton; it's almost impossible to imagine Obama, or any Israeli government, going further. Abbas turned it down. "The gaps were wide," he said." Abbas demanded full right of return of millions of Palestinians, which was a non starter.
Wow! Not only stereotyping: "Jewish-Leftist". But dehumanizing: "dogs", "degenerates". C'mon, Ed – you lose your connection with thoughtful readers when you do this.
It is simply incorrect to say that Abbas demanded "the full right of return of millions of Palestinians." Abbas demands "recognition of the right-of-return", but to use Obama's favorite word, is quite "pragmatic" about how that the right will be implemented, i.e., no return of millions of Palestinians to Israel proper. To argue otherwise is to show a gaping ignorance of all discussions since 1999.
I noticed that bullying works quite well on a lot of the Wiki sites. NPOV seems to be out of the question when one is talking about Israel, Zionism, etc. The few struggle for a while, then give up.
That's right, for you the people who call themselves Palestinians don't exist, so how could they be dieing, etc. One understands now your insistence that there is no such thing as a Palestinian. FAIL.
Thanks for supporting my argument, Eurosabra: it's about profit, with a trickle down effect. But enabling the killing of others in order to buy food, etc. is not morally justifiable, no matter how many hoops Israel contorts itself through to make it appear so. People don't realize the connection. I do believe that once knowledge of that connection is better understood, change will go much faster.
Do Jewish Israelis (and diaspora Jews ?) have to be especially sensitive towards Palestinians? Just asking since they are not. If not, why not?
CAMERA is a notoriously biased enterprise.
user Randyqs is a well-known hasbara agent. No. Historically going back many centuries Palestinian meant a non-Jew descendant even when the area was ruled by Rome..
The Israeli arms industry has been given much more independence that the USA has given or allowed anyone else–and Israel is the only country that gets to pay the US back with the USA's own tax dollars. Everybody else pays through the nose, and with their own tax dollars.
Wow. Thanks Bruce for providing us with a blow-by-blow exposition of the Diehl editorial that's easily accessible for all to read themselves. In other words, Wolman didn't really add much. Perhaps this, from his introduction: Was there nobody in the Palestinian entourage aware that Abbas was meeting with two of the more notorious neo-Conservatives in the American media? Were Hiatt & Diehl a suitable channel for communicating with the American public (or even the inside-the-Beltway crowd)? Wouldn't it have made more sense to hook up with more sympathetic interlocuters? Guess they're just stupid Bruce. Or perhaps they really mean what they say and Diehl is a better reporter than you are? And then I found this highly simplistic interpretation of events: Abbas at this point is kept in office by his US-supported security forces, the Israeli military and intelligence, European and Arab funding, and his Fatah cronies who live off the foreign largesse. He was elected President in the last election only because the US threatened to withhold all support should he be replaced. The Palestinians complied only to find out that the Americans were not going to deliver anyway, so they voted for Hamas in the next round. It's worth reminding Bruce that Abbas was elected with 62% of the vote. A year later, Hamas received approximately 44% of the vote. But then, perhaps that's just a sign of how fickle the Palestinian voters are?
If the jewish nation existed without land for centuries, than why not the palestinian nation, what's left of it on the land of its forefathers, and the dispossessed? You make no sense at all. The palestinians have at least, if not much more, claim to a state than Israel has, or ever had. You sure are a dim bulb, dhimmi.
Pretty hard to bless jewish right of return with full rights over arabs who have lived there for centuries until they were booted out or occupied, yet get all upset when palestinians demand right of return. Do we have a one-sided version of affirmative action here? Whites can't do it the USA, so why should Israel, our welfare client bar none?
No. Just a reminder of who has the power, both over there, and over here. Let's all work to change this by informing the USA public of just what has gone down in the I-P conflict for over a century. I admit it is a big task since your career hangs in the balance for honest people.
I agree. You're right, of course. Something about that paragraph I cited that Rosenberg wrote really set me off. It's a victim entitlement mindset, the kind that was the basis for Zionism, and it's spreading.
Whenever Ed feels threatened in an argument, he begins to assign membership to all kinds of groups. First, of course, he goes with "left". And from admitting one might be somewhat leftish, it is, of course. only a teensi-weenie-little-baby step to full member ship in the Polibureau or Supreme Soviet and Chinese Communist Party Central Committee. I've never been promoted so far in one comment. Does he really think that "if you disagree with me you must be a Commie" is a devastating reply? Does it show, unlike Mel Gibson, insufficient "reverence for the Cross". I get worried, what with Ed's connections to that shadowy group, "the rest of us"!
No, Ed, the only thing that's spreading is your bottom, if you spend too much time poring over 1950's John Birch Society tracts. Sorry, Ed, for all I know your buns are the talk of the neighborhood, and ostensibly moderate Christian women just about lose their "moral authority" when you jog by in your Capt. America spandex jogging suit. I can only lag behind, holding your winbreaker, the label reading: MADE IN CHINA.
I don't know if they have to be all that sensitive, but they could stop the four-decade military occupation complete with collective punishment, and/or their support for it.
They are all changing and growing rapidly, Phil, Adam, MJ, Roger Cohen, many more (Do I have the right Cohen?) I look for, and it's pretty plain after so many years, whether they exhibit in their writing (I don't know 'em personally) a basic sense that the only equivalence between the two sides is that they are both human beings. Events are forcing people to make clear their stands. And many people are clarifying their stands for themselves, and having to explicate them for the first time.
RE: "Roger Cohen…(Do I have the right Cohen?)" MY COMMENT: Roger that! (in CB lingo) Roger Cohen of the"'NYT". Definitely not Richard Cohen of the "Washington Post".
RE: "Do Jewish Israelis (and diaspora Jews ?) have to be especially sensitive towards Palestinians?" MY OPINION: Jewish Israelis – Yes, to be consistent. diaspora Jews – debatable Americans (U.S.) – probably
Hei JES49, I didn't claim to be doing original reporting. It was a critique of an op-ed. Mondoweiss is a blog not a newspaper. I wouldn't call the Abbas entourage stupid, but it wouldn't take much effort to improve their communications strategy for the United States. Almost any of the young Palestinians in America could do a better job of getting the Palestinian message across to the American public. If the PA leaders meant what they said, it didn't last the weekend. I am not a reporter, but I would have asked Abbas what the gaps were between him and Olmert, and then I would have let the readers decide their significance. But glad to hear there is at least one reader of the Post who considers Diehl a capable reporter rather than a propagandist. You might try calling up Colby King to get him to confirm your judgement. If you had done your own research, you might understand the 2005 Palestinian Presidential election better: The United States had put tremendous pressure on the Palestinians to name Mahmoud Abbas Prime Minister during Arafat's last years. Having little popular support, he was not the most likely choice to succeed Arafat. From Time Magazine, 12/17/2004: [Marwan] Barghouti, a former moderate who now represents the radical wing of Fatah, has much greater support among ordinary Palestinians than the more moderate–and more aloof–Abbas does. At 45, Barghouti also has the backing of younger Fatah leaders who are pressing for longtime Arafat confidants like Abbas, 69, to reform the corrupt regime. Barghouti's candidacy threatens to produce a major split in Fatah that might lead to violence if an election loser challenges the results. From Wikipedia: Opinion polls before Marwan Barghouti withdrew his candidacy suggested that the contest would largely be a two-horse race between him and Mahmoud Abbas. Details of some of these polls are as follows: Abbas 44% / Marwan Barghouti 46% (±3%) (Development Studies Program, Bir Zeit University) Abbas 40% / Marwan Barghouti 38% (±3%) (Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research) Abbas 40% / Marwan Barghouti 22% (±3%) (Palestinian Center for Public Opinion) [As later shown in other elections, Palestinian polling overestimated Fatah's strength. Hamas did not even put up a candidate for the 2005 Presidential election.] The election campaign faced problems due to the widespread blockade of the Palestinian territories by the Israel Defense Forces. Despite Israel's assurances that it would do what it could to ensure that the election took place, in many instances Israeli forces actively interfered in the campaign. Among reported incidents was the arrest of Mustafa Barghouti by Israeli forces and his subsequent expulsion from East Jerusalem when he was going to hold an election speech there. He was also prevented from entering Nablus and Gaza. Bassam al-Salhi, candidate for the socialist Palestinian People's Party, was also prevented from visiting East Jerusalem. Many of Abbas' opponents claimed that they were unfairly treated as Israel denied them entry to areas Abbas was allowed to visit during the election campaign. Abbas was the only candidate allowed access to Gaza. Abbas' term was up in January. Yet, no election is in sight. Abbas lost public support long ago. This is not a sign of how fickle the Palestinian voters are. It's a rational response to the disappointing policies of the United States and Israel and Abbas' inability to alter those policies, even though the United States and Israel supported Abbas' election.
Comments on this entry are closed.