Comments on: B+. A stirring speech by the world’s president–but nothin’ new on Israel/Palestine

By: MPO

MPO — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 09:16:51 +0000

"The "unipolar moment" is over, Phil." It's ending, but it's far from over, and what will take its place is a multipolar system in which the United States still retains roughly its previous relative power in most instances but sees nations such as China pulling into the parking lot of the ballpark.

By: MPO

MPO — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 09:13:14 +0000

"China while China is the biggest creditor of the US debtor nation" It's not. It's the largest foreign creditor. There is a tremendous difference. I am not surprised, however, that someone such as yourself – like many if not most others – is unaware of this tremendous difference.

By: MPO

MPO — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 09:11:35 +0000

I find it mind-boggling that people in these comments pin the blame on Israel's "right wing supporters" in America. It's absolutely flabbergasting to see the lengths to which people have either deluded themselves or are simply ignorant of the nature of Israeli "support" in the United States. How people can on one hand pretend to engage in detailed and complicated discussion on the Israeli-Palestine conflict, and on the other perpetuate claims based on such shallow if not flatly ignorant beliefs is beyond me.

By: David

David — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 14:56:24 +0000

Fan--Good observation. Phyllis Bennis has a great analysis of that framing, and how it effects policy work and the BDS movement. Check it out: " target="_blank">http://endtheoccupationblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/...

By: David

David — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 14:43:37 +0000

1) "My commitment to Palestinians is that I regard them (the civilians, not the murderers among them) as human beings" You don't consider people who commit violent acts to be human? Gosh, it's going to be tough to settle this thing, then. 2) In your formulation, Palestinians who commit violence against civilians are murderers, and inhuman to boot. Israelis who commit violence against civilians are simply carrying out ration policy. That's not balance. Don't pretend it is. 3) Ask anyone who's had a U.S.-made MK-80 bomb dropped on their house, a U.S. made and provided armored CAT D-9 bulldozer destroy their house or their agricultural land, had a relative shot with a U.S. made and provided small arms or tear gas canisters, etc., etc., whether they think that military aid is just important as "relationship." $3 billion represents half of Israeli military expenditure in the occupied Palestinian territories. 4) Are those foreign entities that provide or attempt to provide weapons to Hamas merely "maintaining a relationship"? If they made some rhetorical effort at accountability, would that excuse them for fueling conflict (as the Amnesty International report on arms transfers to Israel and Palestine was called)? So my point is this: stop using balanced language, when what you actually mean is that it's good to fund violent Israeli policy, bad to fund violent Palestinian actions; good to maintain a relationship with Israel by sending weapons and protecting them in the UN; bad to maintain a relationship with Palestinians by doing the same things. That's not balance. It's the opposite.

By: RichardWitty

RichardWitty — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 10:54:06 +0000

My commitment to Palestinians is that I regard them (the civilians, not the murderers among them) as human beings, and desire a peer relationship of good neighbor to good neighbor between Israel and Palestine. I don't diminish the very negative imprint of the Hamas decade of gruesome terror on civilians, and its continuance in the shelling of civilians in Sderot. The shelling of Sderot and neighboring towns is more irritation, salt on wounds, indicating a continuation of its willingness to brutalize for political ends on the part of Hamas. I'm glad that they are voluntarily restraining from shelling civilians now, but I'm not confident that it is founded on a recognition of the humanity of the Israeli residents, or in any acceptance of Israel's self-governance. I suspect that it could be political timed for other internal or international agendas. Its ok. Hopefully they are in a "we'll see" attitude, and that absences of provocation will result in absences of violence, which will result in normalization eventually. I do consider that Hamas is a peer player in the violence, including the assault on Gaza, if not the extent of it. The significance of the military aid is far less in the implied authorization for Israeli actions, and is NOW far more a means of relationship, a statement of mutual trust, that gives the current US administration a voice in Israel's actions. Absent that current moderating voice, Israel could easily devolve to some more desparate actions, say like bombing Iran. The relationship is whats important, BOTH the closeness and the accountability that Obama is exerting and that Bush failed to (the oppossite, he enabled).

By: andrew r

andrew r — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 06:17:33 +0000

Worth reposting, Ghassan Kanafani lays out in detail how the British prevented any other Palestinian leaders from emerging and preferred Mufti for an enemy: --- It had already gone some way in pursuing a policy of relying on the local Zionist force and handing over to it many of the tasks of repression, which were increasing. However, it did not destroy the bridge which it had always maintained with the class led by the Mufti, and it was in this field and at this time in particular that the British played a major role in maintaining the Mufti as the undisputed representative of the Palestinian Arabs. Their reserves of the leadership on the right of the Mufti were practically exhausted so that if the Mufti were no longer regarded as the sole leader, this would "leave no-one who can represent the Arabs except the leaders of the revolt in the mountains", as the British High Commissioner for Palestine said.89 " target="_blank">http://www.newjerseysolidarity.org/resources/kana...

By: carnas

carnas — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 06:10:57 +0000

Right, because Mr. Martillo made so many forceful "arguments". Like inciting violence and calling for murder. Talk about clowns…

By: carnas

carnas — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 05:40:53 +0000

"would like to see blown up by the Palestinian resistance.. " – more or less sums up your deranged worldview. What a piece of work.

By: Joshua

Joshua — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 01:30:06 +0000

My President made clear that the U.S. Israel alliance and friendship is unbreakable and strongly affirmed Israel's right to exist. I am proud of my President.