When Benjamin Netanyahu came to Washington last month, Israeli media reported he was quite shocked at the reception he received in his closed-door meetings with Congress. It appeared the Obama administration had lined up fellow Democrats to make sure Netanyahu heard the same message as Obama had conveyed with respect to Israeli settlements and support for the two-state solution.
By last Monday, however, reports of cracks in the Democratic solidarity started to appear. Politico's Ben Smith filed a report under the headline "Democrats pressure Barack Obama on Israel." Smith's article suggested Israeli supporters in the Congress were pushing back against the administration's tough talk. Smith began with Rep. Shelley Berkley, the Democrat from Nevada, who manages to represent libertine, if not liberal, Las Vegas, while at the same time serving as the strongest ally in Congress of the right-wing Zionist Organization of America.
“My concern is that we are applying pressure to the wrong party in this dispute. I think it would serve America’s interest better if we were pressuring the Iranians to eliminate the potential of a nuclear threat from Iran, and less time pressuring our allies and the only democracy in the Middle East to stop the natural growth of their settlements.”
“When Congress gets back into session the administration is going to hear from many more members than just me.”
It is not surprising that Berkley was among the first to spring to the Netanyahu government's defense. According to Ha'aretz's Akiva Eldar, Berkley once reprimanded Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat for using the term "occupation." After all "this [Israel] is our country" and "we" won the war. When Erekat responded, "So what am I, if I am not a person living under occupation?" Berkley answered, "War booty."
More disconcerting was Smith's second source, Robert Wexler (D-Fla), an early and strong supporter of President Obama. He told Smith that he "is seeking to narrow the administration's definition of 'settlement' to take pressure off Obama." In Wexler's view,
"... the settlement freeze should apply only to settlements outside Israel’s security fence, or wall, and should exclude territory that appears likely to ultimately remain part of Israel."
“To expect Israel to have the same policy outside the security fence as inside the security fence is unrealistic; it’s counterproductive. I don’t think [the administration’s] public statements have been specific enough” to resolve the question of whether they were referring to all settlements or only settlements outside the barrier.
The problem with Wexler's proposal is that it pre-supposes what is supposed to be negotiated, the boundaries of Israel. Even the Bush administration had insisted that the Sharon government explicitly agree to the security barrier being just that, and not a political boundary. Should Obama adopt the Wexler specifications for settlement expansion, it would be publicly accepting the recently-revealed secret understanding between Elliott Abrams of Bush's NSC and the Israelis, a policy which led to an acceleration of settlement expansion far exceeding the growth rate in Israel proper. Wexler's interpretation would also sanction current Israeli plans for East Jerusalem, the most worrisome concern from the Palestinian perspective.
Moreover, Wexler demands a price for his very limited settlement freeze, even though the Israelis already agreed to such a freeze five years ago. The Arabs must take steps to normalize relations with Israel. If the Arabs refuse, “Bibi Netanyahu can’t be expected to perform his obligations if the broader Arab world is not willing to take serious steps toward normalizing relations with Israel.”
In both business and diplomatic circles (and I did my share of business in Israel) Israelis are well known for endlessly negotiating until they are absolutely convinced nothing further can be extracted. For this reason, Wexler's interference can only hinder the Obama initiative (unless that is what the White House really wants). William Daroff, the chief Washington lobbyist for the United Jewish Communities, said as much to the Jerusalem Post,
"... the haziness on the definition of natural growth noted by some members of Congress - particularly, Wexler, one of Obama's closest allies in the legislature - offers possible wiggle-room for resolving the situation, as it would be politically more tenable for Netanyahu to freeze natural growth outside the barrier and still allow Obama to claim a concession."
"To the extent that all parties can agree on the size, scope and location of natural growth of settlements, that would be a way out of this burgeoning disagreement."
Smith of Politico interviewed other Democrats, and "while few will defend illegal Jewish outposts on land they hope will be part of a Palestinian state, they question putting public pressure on Israel while - so far - paying less public attention to Palestinian terrorism and other Arab states' hostility to Israel."
Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY) informed Smith he had already heard complaints from constituents during the congressional recess.
"There's a line between articulating U.S. policy and seeming to be pressuring a democracy on what are their domestic policies, and the President is tiptoeing right up to that line. I would like to hear the president talk more about the Palestinian obligation to cut down terrorism."
For Congressman Weiner, Israelis settlements in the occupied West Bank are a domestic Israeli affair.
Perhaps, more important are the views of Representive Gary Ackerman (D-NY), chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia. He told Smith, “I don’t think anybody wants to dictate to an ally what they have to do in their own national security interests,” leaving unexplained what is to happen if the national security interests of our ally conflicts with our own interests? When it comes to "settlement" and "natural growth", Ackerman remarked, “I have to hear specifically from the administration exactly how they define their terms and is there room for defining the terms." Ackerman believed there is “room for compromise.” Sounds like more wiggle-room for the Israelis.
With his speech in Egypt on Thursday, Obama appeared to have bought himself some time from his potential Democratic critics. AFP put out on its wire that House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer had provided support for Obama, saying the president had simply "reiterated the policy of the United States against the expansion of settlements." Hoyer also told the AFP that when Netanayhu was in Washington, Democratic and Republican leaders "reiterated that the settlements were an issue that he needed to address and he needed to constrain."
Wexler had already admitted to the Jerusalem Post that "the distinction he was making on natural growth was not necessarily shared by the White House, since "the administration statements are not specific enough to know with 100 percent certainty where the administration will ultimately land." The White House proved unwilling to respond to the Post's request for a clarification.
Having faced criticism from Matthew Yglesias at the liberal Think Progress and from others, Congressman Ackerman issued a new statement to Americans for Peace Now shortly after Obama's Egyptian speech entitled, "Ackerman Urges Freeze on Settlement Construction, Not Growing Families." According to Peace Now,
Chairman Ackerman is not saying families shouldn’t grow, or that people should not have babies, but he is saying that settlement construction must stop, period. This is the view that the Chairman, clearly and unequivocally, has articulated today.
That same day a Jerusalem Post article from their Washington correspondent, Hilary Leila Kreiger, had a headline the opposite of Politico's only four days earlier, "Congress not backing Netanyahu on settlements."
By Thursday evening, the dispute between Israel and the US over settlements seemed to be escalating. Ha'aretz reported, "Sources in the prime minister's bureau also said that the tensions with the U.S. over settlements had been aggravated by the Cairo speech."
"There will be no agreement on this unless the Americans soften their stance," a source close to Netanyahu said.
In a clearly provocative move, the new Interior Minister of Israel, Eli Yishai, who also is Chairman of Shas, the party of religious Sephardic Jews, ordered that all the resources of his ministry, "its branches and its influences over local government" be exploited to expand the settlements in the territories. Thus, fulfilling an earlier promise made to the Settlers Council.
Haaretz has learned that Yishai has instructed officials at the Interior Ministry to come up with ways to help the settlers, by allowing continued construction within the major West Bank settlement blocs where building has stopped as a result of American pressure.
Yishai wants to include additional built-up areas within the city limits of towns in the major settlement blocs, effectively expanding those cities' boundaries. Adjustment of the city limits, which is within the purview of the Interior Ministry, can mean the addition of several square kilometers to a locale's jurisdiction - or the subtraction of said amount of land.
Yishai thus plans to ensure that city limits will be calculated in as liberal a way as possible, so that construction can eventually take place in the few additional square kilometers, to accommodate the "natural increase" of the population.
In addition, Yishai is hoping to allocate funding from the "interior minister's reserves" to benefit settlements in the West Bank. These funds, amounting to several tens of millions of shekels, are distributed at the discretion of the minister without having to meet certain usual criteria.
Despite these Israeli provocations, the White House tried to tone down the conflict by week's end. A senior White House official told Ha'aretz that "there is no crisis with Israel. We are working together with the Israelis in order to reach agreements and understandings regarding settlement construction and we will succeed in doing so." Speaking to the same official, The Jerusalem Post was led to believe that "the US recognizes [that] some wiggle room in defining a 'settlement freeze' is called for."
If these latest reports from the Israeli media are true, the Obama administration may not realize the situation it has created, but Aluf Benn of Ha'aretz is more prescient. He wrote over the weekend:
Obama knows what the solution is: the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. He is not prepared to hear any other ideas. He demands that Israel stop expanding the settlements: "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements," he said, adding that this phenomenon violates previous agreements and undermines peace efforts.
Having proclaimed this loud and clear, there is no way that Obama can still agree to "natural growth" and other tricks designed to increase construction in the settlements. Now his credibility is on the line. It's his word against Israel's resolve to keep building. And this means that if Obama does exhibit the patience with which he promised to deal with the conflict, Israel will be facing a political crisis and a serious internal rift.
With George Mitchell returning to the region tomorrow, we should soon have some further clarification whether the Obama administration is going to meet the expectations set in the Cairo speech. The settlement freeze will be on top of his agenda, along with a call for renewed negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Clearly, elements in Israel are ready for a fight.
This is just outstanding reporting! I sense the presence of Rahm Emanuel, advising and guiding the President, anticipating Israel's moves and interpreting its statements, guiding both his countries toward the resolution. "In both business and diplomatic circles (and I did a lot of business in Israel) Israelis are well known for endlessly negotiating until they are absolutely convinced nothing further can be extracted." Perhaps the conundrum of the Middle East is this simple: it has until now or since the Clean Break been advantageous for Israel to continue negotiating, and there was never the will nor the insight from the other parties at the table to match its bargaining skill, cleverness, stubbornness or patience. For once the news, at least as reported on Mondoweiss, is starting to be comprehensible to an old realist.
Thank you Bruce thank you Phil for keeping us up on what is going on in Congress in regard to the I/P conflict. Folks need to get to the phones and apply pressure on their Reps. Let them know that there are millions of people out here who do not support Israel's unwillingness to abide by Internationally recognized borders. Call Check out what George Galloway is up to Check Out What George Galloway Is Up To/ Our Convoy to Gaza By: Leen Tuesday June 9, 2009 5:46 am 0 diggs digg it When I first heard former Member of the British Parliament George Galloway speak out against the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq I was stunned by his clear, powerful stance against a war based on a "pack of lies" From his ass whooping of Former Senator Norm Coleman to his articulate, clear headed stance against the radical policies of the U.S. and Israeli governments,,,this man's principles and all the folks he unites is a power to be reckoned with. Look what Galloway is up to now. Spread the word! http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/5671
Zionist Dems in Congress (the legion of Jewish Zionist Dems, like those Hasbara quoted above in particular) are the Trojan Horse for the Israel lobby, and its ace in the hole. Until recently, they’ve been able to escape accountability for their treachery the same way the Democrats in general have: by scapegoating the Right for the Iraq war and other epic Mideast crimes and blunders, even as they’ve been enthusiastic partners to GOP policy and done Israel’s bidding for years behind a spoon full of progressive sugar. No more. The layers of obfuscation are being steadily peeled away, and the guiltiest and most intellectually dishonest are slowly coming into relief — the two-faced secret operatives, the back-biters, the ill-intentioned. And in that rotting wood pile hide more than a few Jewish Zionist Dems.
This is nothing new…but important to shed the light on this and try to let those members of congress that there are other people who think differently about the crimes being committed by the Israeli government and how our aid to Israel supports those crimes. This is the issue where the so called liberals take a hard turn to the right (wrong). This is where they have to kow tow to the Israeli lobby or turn into Israeli firsters…no matter how much this illegal strategy continues to not only hurt the Palestinians but the state of Israel
Bruce, I have to second Doppler's opinion; you are doing fantatstic reporting here. Mondoweiss is just getting better and better with the addition of your comments, Max's reporting, and Adam's work. I can sense that more and more people are depending on this blog for the unvarnished truth on the Middle East situation, and how American politics continues to be manipulated to allow the right in Israel to continue its oppression. On a different note, check out what I call, "Spinning the hate, before it's too late" I linked to it from the Drudge report, unsurprisingly. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=124437... PM
Yes, but don't you think justice, fairness, and both USA & Israel long term interest involves uprooting additional to stopping expansion of settlements? Obama has said (in a Q & A immediately after his Cairo speech) that he realizes some settlers have been there living for a while (like since 1967)…. How does Obama think he can use the small stubborn wiggle room caused by the USA's tremendous aid to israel in all its formations, to get to a point that a Palestinian state would actually be so, that is, a real sovereign state? I don't think Obama is there yet in his thoughts, but we will see by the end of this year.
Oh yeah. Will Obama get one chess move ahead of his gate keeper?
RE: "The battle over what a 'settlement freeze' means" FROM J STREET: Following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's rejection of a full settlement freeze, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said yesterday that President Obama "wants to see a stop to settlements – not some settlements, not outposts, not natural-growth exceptions." This is exactly the sort of leadership we need from the President and Secretary of State if we are going to achieve a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – the only way to truly secure Israel's future as a Jewish, democratic homeland. You can bet the Obama Administration is already hearing from hawkish voices on Israel – urging him to make exceptions, allow for more settlement growth, and to go slow. No way – a freeze means a freeze. We've got to make sure the President knows pro-Israel, pro-peace Americans support his strong line on settlements, for both Israel's and America's sake and security. Please send the President a message telling him you support his "Freeze means Freeze" approach to Israeli settlements. * TO SEND MESSAGE - http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/2747/t/3251/pet...
"I would like to hear the president talk more about the Palestinian obligation to cut down terrorism." I would like to hear Wexler and his ilk talk more about the substantial reduction in terrorist operations aimed at Israeli civilians – there hasn't been a suicide bombing in years (o.k the illegal Wall has something do to with this but it is clear that Hamas is holding back in this regard). It's a tired old strategy of denying the Palestinians their humanity – the insistence on the demilitarization of the Palestinians despite the fact that they have every legal and moral right to arm themselves and resist the Zionist military juggernaut. Here's hoping that the Democrats in question are swamped with emails and calls telling them how anti-American their views and actions are, and that there is a political price to pay for such dishonest skullduggery..
No doubt about it, the video Feel The Hate exposed the public (actually inquiring Americans, so few) to zionazis, appropriately coming from the higher socio-economic class of Americans. Talk about mental compartmentalizing. Then again, that's never been a big challenge to such types.
The appropriate response to an attempt to debate settlement growth would be an immediate demand to begin removing Zionist interlopers from all post-1967 developments on occupied territories.
very good, Bruce, I'll join Doppler, paul malfara. Good work and important.
I find it ironic that these Jewish Zionist members of Congress wouldn’t mind proselytizing for gentile votes, but when it comes to religion, they don’t want to give the goy the time of day. The Jewish Zionist kid in the Blumenthal video asked Obama: “What are we, chopped liver?” Well, what are we goy, chopped liver? Sorry, but I can’t trust the state of mind of those who cling to a religion that at its core does not want to proselytize due to racism. It’s the kind characteristic that inevitably produced an ideology like Zionism. I also can’t trust the hypocritical state of mind of Judeo-Christian Zionists or secular Judeophile liberal elites who would glorify such a people. It’s anti-Christian, un-American. A refusal to proselytize born of racism sends a message: we don’t want your kind. We want your votes, your money, but not your kind. Groups who want to be clannish shouldn’t constantly have their hand in the goy’s pocket to subsidize their racist ways. They’re just asking for trouble.
Superb work. After all "this [Israel] is our country" and "we" won the war. When Erekat responded, "So what am I, if I am not a person living under occupation?" Berkley answered, "War booty." This came from a serving United States Congressional Representative?!?! Are there any fools left who doubt the existence of the Lobby and the problem of dual loyalty? [Israel, including the Occupied Palestinian Territories] is our country. We won the [1967] war [that conquered the OPT]. [Palestinians] are [our] war booty. Her loyalty is not to the United States of America. Is this not enough for FBI counterintelligence to get a warrant to tap her? I don't think Rep. Berkley and fellow travelers will be very effective in disrupting Pres. Obama's slow but steady forward progress. Admonishments made behind closed doors can be ignored. What else can they do, spew this claptrap in public to try to undermine his base or attempt to deny him the Democratic nomination to run for a second term? Good luck with that. I hope they try. Awareness is spreading through the electorate, and I suspect thoroughly through the national security establishment, that a suspension of Israeli colonization and a durable and just final-status agreement are critical US interests. The Lobby's counterattack will not only fail, but leave them in a weaker position. It's not as if the President didn't see the inevitable counterattack by bitterenders coming a long, long time ago.
has anybody seen this, http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=124437... it was posted on the jerusalempost website. I think your president obama should be carefull and anticipate on the possible blow back from israel, due to his more evenhanded approach towards the Mid east conflict. I am suprised that the mean stream media ignores this news coming out of israel. Not even the huffingtonpost posted on their website, but i guess that doesn"t suprise me anymore after max video beeing refused. My excuses for my bad english i am not a natieve speaker Mondoweiss keep up the goed work
I agree that Rahm appears to be whispering in Obama's ear. having been with israelis, Rahm knows that the only way to negotiate with israelis and have any hope of walking away without being fleeced, is an opening gambit of "take no prisoners", which then must be adhered to for sufficient length of time to convince the israelis that you are a "tough guy". That's the only way to earn the respect of israelis and is indeed, the only approach that works in the face of the endless stalling tactics they are so good at cultivating. The trick is, of course, that one must be willing to mount a full, convincing show of "walking away". That's when israelis will finally concede to a compromise and even then, they'll try to undo the compromise and undermine it at every turn, so it's never over even when papers are signed. I agree with the statement above about having business dealings with israelis – which many, many in the business, finance and technology communities will tell you. Israelis have a reputation of being difficult customers and even more difficult partners. poor nice wasps with their "silly" win-win attitudes stand no chance against a mindset that refuses to recognize the other side as anything other than someone or something to use and win over. I am speaking now not about individuals – who can perfectly excellent humans, israelis including – but the adversarial approach cultivated among collective entities, be they business, military or political, to which individuals, even nice ones, become beholden. Here's my guess; Rahm is enjoying himself immensely right now. Probably working hard on the congressional zionists too. It's Obama I'm not sure is up to the task, being his community-organizing self. Obama probably believes there's actually a rational entity to talk to there. I can only hope that both rahm and axelrod are busy disabusing him of the notion. Oh well, should Rahm not turn out to be up to the task (and one should never underestimate family pressure! Phil doesn't), I could offer myself. Got my own bag of tricks to reduce aggressive israelis to a lumpy liquid state (did I say something already about fluid dynamics? – maybe someday there'll be time to elaborate. Please don't ask now…).
Wow. Unbelievable. ‘Likud minister proposes Israeli sanctions on US’ "the minister suggests reconsidering military and civilian purchases from the US, selling sensitive equipment that the Washington opposes distributing internationally, and allowing other countries that compete with the US to get involved with the peace process and be given a foothold for their military forces and intelligence agencies." So it's come to this. The Jewish Zionists extorting us with our own money and technology, threatening to sell the advanced military hardware that we provided them to our enemies and competitors, possibly to be used against the very US troops that American Jewish Zionists and their collaborators arranged to be sent to the Mideast on Israel’s behalf. They are now actually physically threatening Americans. Let’s just cut these people loose before they get us all killed. Now.
The only negotiations about Israel's borders should be whether is keeps all of its territory from the UN Mandate of 1947 or only 97% of it. Israel should cede 3% of its territory to be used to connect Gaza with the West Bank.
Oh please God, please do let the Israelis keep babbling about imposing sanctions on the U.S. It's funny, I always thought that Zionists were masters of PR… in reality those little bastards couldn't be more stupid.
oh please please please…let's have even more reasons to cut off aid to Israel
"Let me spell out what it implies: any partition of Palestine, any “green line,” any accord or treaty that shuts off any part whatsoever of the “Land of Israel” to Jewish colonization is from the viewpoint of Zionism at best a transient accommodation—accepted temporarily for tactical or pragmatic reasons, but never regarded as final. Of course, this does not mean that the expansion of Zionist colonization is unstoppable. What it does mean is that it will be pursued — as a matter of highest priority — so long as the balance of power makes it possible." [my emphasis] – Moshé Machover
And this: "In what may be his most controversial suggestion, Peled [the minister] recommends intervening in American congressional races to weaken Obama and asking American Jewish donors not to contribute to Democratic congressional candidates. He predicted that this would result in Democratic candidates pressuring Obama to become more pro-Israel." "Peled called for the formation of a new body intended to influence American public opinion. The groups he suggests courting include Hispanic Americans and Labor unions in industries that benefit from Israeli military acquisitions." He means the Israeli military "acquisitions" paid for by the American taxpayer out of aid to Israel and put on the national credit card debt of future generations of Americans. Why would American Hispanics or Labor unions want to collaborate with a racist parasite like that? In fact, why would any member of Congress that isn't a traitor to the American people and American interests?
"In both business and diplomatic circles (and I did my share of business in Israel) Israelis are well known for endlessly negotiating until they are absolutely convinced nothing further can be extracted." I find it kind of amusing how much this sounds like old cliches about Jews being greedy and miserly. I'm not saying it's incorrect, mind you; there's just something ironic about the way people (in general, not just Jews) sometimes tend to internalize and eventually embody the worst things other people believe about them.
Those machinations bring to mind something that Shlomo Ben-Ami wrote in a column recently: “So far, Obama has been careful not to depart from any of the traditional American positions pertaining to Israel’s security. He has accepted the logic of Israel’s special nuclear status and its position as a major recipient of American military aid. Moreover, the watchdog of Israel’s interests, the US Congress, remains vigilant.” – Link
have you ever had to negotiate with an israeli company? have you had a company as a customer or provider? I did, and i know many others who did (and lived to tell the tale!) and I can confirm the above. Also please note that this comment really applies to ISRAELIS and not to jews, and as such i seconded it (see above). American jews are like any other Americans when it comes to business and generally understand perfectly well what "win-win" means. To israelis your win is their loss, and that makes for very difficult transactions. Now why would israelis want to confirm old stereotypes is beyond me. But they sure try their darndest.
Oh, I understand the concern about stereotypes and etc. but c'mon Craig. Many if not most people on the earth see themselves as part of a certain culture that they like because they see it as being different in some way from others. And different cultures have different styles and practices and values and etc.; that's what makes 'em a culture. And what is one culture's "sharp bargaining" is another's mere *intelligent* bargaining, just as what appears "steadfast" to one culture seems to be "hidebound" to another, and what appears "casual" to another appears "sloppy" or etc. to everyone else, and on and on. Otherwise to avoid being racist or etc. we supposedly are to believe that every characteristic of every culture is only and everlastingly good, always, when in fact it's just a matter of circumstances and one's choice of adjectives. I don't recall where but somewhere Henry Kissinger related his perception of the Israeli bargaining style which, as I reacall, was along the lines of saying that essence of their method, after extracting everything possible from you, was to leave you with only so much sanity or health as would allow you to sign the final document. Now if Henry the K can say it…. Besides, there's more than enough negative *self*-identifying stuff being said by Israelis or etc. for this business about bargaining style to mean much. You seen that piece by that Chabad rebbe from Minneapolis saying he didn't believe in Western morality and instead advocated what he called the "jewish" way of war which is to kill not just the adult males of your enemies, but the women, children and cattle of those who you are fighting too? Said it himself, and designated this the "jewish" way expressly. And this from a guy not known to be a radical at all, and indeed known as a warm and fuzzy kind who mentored or inspired Bob Dylan or something. Now, c'mon, are we to believe this rabbi is an anti-semite too?
I think you missed my point. I'm not accusing anyone of anti-Semitism or of promoting unfair stereotypes; I'm saying it's sad that people often come to embody the stereotypes that other people believe about them. If you get told often enough that you are a certain way, you may start believing it yourself and begin to act accordingly. At that point, the statement changes from being a malicious stereotype to simply being the truth.
I'm quite uncomfortable with essentialism, but here I went ahead and made a generalization about business culture in Israel. Through a technology start-up, I worked in eight different European countries, two Asian and the United States. What I can say is each had a different culture of doing business. For me, I ended up seeing it as each is different rather than one is better than another. They each had their plusses and minuses. While, for whatever reason, Israeli business can be rough, I also found Israelis can be very pragmatic once the power relations are clear. This implies agreements can be reached without worrying that pride or shame might get in the way. My own view is that a US President that was very clear about what was acceptable would quickly get Israeli acceptance. As an aside, Israeli technology companies have done quite well. Some suggest the early military training makes it easy to build the kind of cooperative teams which seem to work in hi-tech development.
Those cliches about being intransigent negotiators were used to describe the Japanese in the 1980's. Soon, they will be used to describe Chinese. Originally, in America, cliches about being miserly and greedy were used to describe the Scots.
I added my reply here, but I want to agree with dana here. Because of the very high defense expenditures, life in Israel was very rough and financially challenging for a long time. I believe the business culture grew out-of-this hand-to-mouth existence that so many Israelis experienced for so long.
talk about biting that hand that feeds you. how ungrateful.
It's embarassing to watch my dad negotiate with companies for prices. They say, "sir, our prices are set, we can't go lower than this." dad will hammer and hammer (and embarass me) until he gets what he wants. That's how it is in Pakistani bazaars too. Anyway, I locked myself out of ROOM, not my home, my room and I called a locksmith. He was a young Israeli and he freaking charged me $200.00 dollars to break it and then install a new one. I nearly fainted but got a grip on myself and paid him. I went to Home Depot and bought myself a hammer. Next time I get locked out I will break the lock myself and request my brother to put a new one the next day. I learned my lesson.
I don't think anyone's talking about essentialism here. You made a generalization about Israeli business practices and I noted the irony that your description (the accuracy of which I do not dispute) seemed awfully similar to the old cliches about Jews (ref. the old expression about "jewing" somebody, meaning to cheat them or to negotiate so harshly that the other party ends up feeling cheated). One can debate the reasons for this, but the irony remains, nevertheless. I've been involved in software development in California for over 20 years, the last 16 in Silicon Valley, and I don't see that the shortage of military training among American engineers has made it any more difficult to build "the kind of cooperative teams which seem to work in hi-tech development." I don't think military service is compulsory in India either, and that's another up-and-coming power in technology. Of course, every culture is a bit different, and I suppose there may be something about Israelis that makes their compulsory military service beneficial to them in this regard.
The reality is sadistic pornography. No dummy like an American dummy. Play that white guilt whitey, we will give you better than bones off the table.
By the tenets of doctrinaire Western left-wing multiculturalism (as opposed to American style melting-pot multiculturalism) the Jews and Zionists of America should be able to behave however they truly are, they should be able to actualize their own essence and no one should object. To object to their natural behavior is anti-semitic. To object to natural behavior is racist. This even includes allowing them to proceed uninhibited when their natural orientation is towards ethnic racketeering, monopolistic control and warmongering against the goy that they deem so threatening to their existence. Of course, according to Leftists doctrine, non of this self-actualization applies to Christians, although the Left is coming around to allowing it for Muslims (and catching hell from a lot of Jews for doing so). American style melting pot multiculturalism is more in line with the Christian ethic, while doctrinaire Leftist multi-culturalism that builds firewalls between the races and enforces double standards is more consistent with the Jewish agenda and ethic.
I laughed when I read this. At first I thought they got the wording mixed up. The irony.
"Shelley Berkley, the Democrat from Nevada, who manages to represent libertine, if not liberal, Las Vegas, while at the same time serving as the strongest ally in Congress of the right-wing Zionist Organization of America." And one more thing. In Vegas, it's best not to find yourself on Sheldon Adelson's bad side.
No, when people do not think they win in negotiations, they disparage their negotiating partners. All peoples and religions, regardless of their economic ideology, do this.
Nor should the occupants be allowed to simply return to israel proper after the horror and suffering they've caused. They should be put on trial en masse and spend the rest of their despicable lives behind bars.
This Likud loser is helping the people see the light. Don't announce it, just call AIPAC. -They take care of this already. Much thanks to Yossi Peled for your honesty and candor.
The filth of Israel and their supporters are going to eat Obama for breakfast if he moves slowly and makes half measures. This is war and he is giving the Nazis time to prepare–to marshall their resources, both in the States and in Israel. Obama needs to move VERY swiftly and deliberately. He should be meeting with the UN WITHOUT Israel's presence to plan full investigations of their atrocities, and coordinate extraditions of their leadership by the Hague to face war crimes trials. He needs to blindside these fuckers and come down on them with the entire weight of the US backed by the world community, or he's toast. They'll make mincemeat of him.
Israel has given to the Arabs well in excess of 90% of the land it took in 1967. Sinai Peninsula (entirety), Gaza Strip (entirety), West Bank (largely). What has Israel received in return? Peace?????????
When 100 Arab families live together, it's called a village. When 100 Jewish families live together, it's called a settlement. Even when the Arabs live INSIDE WHAT EVERYONE AGREES IS ISRAEL, it's called a village. But Jews? They are only settlers, right? No matter where they live, right? You have one rule for Jews, another for Arabs. Antisemitic, moronic, hypocritical MondoBigots. As usual.
Hey! You're still here. And after threatening to leave. Who'd've thunk it.
Don't you have some settlements to build?
"War booty." My. god.
RE: "please do let the Israelis keep babbling about imposing sanctions on the U.S.." A RELATED POST: "BIBI AND YVET’S ARAB-HATRED: BRING IT ON!", by Richard Silverstein, 05/31/09 (EXCERPT) So I say let them vote to ban Nakba. Let them vote to compel a loyalty oath. Let them ban Palestinian students from studying in Israel. Let them rant about Iran being Amalek and toppling the mad mullahs. Let them do their worst. I say: “Knock yourself out.” Give it your wingnut all. ENTIRE POST – http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2009...
I'd like to mention that with the insane ethnic scrutiny of Sonia Sotomayor why don't people question the judgement and conflict of interest issues of the Congress Members and Senators as regards Israel! These conflicts of interest to the U.S.A. are many, they lead to judgements which aren't in the best interest of our country, politicians decisions are swayed by religious beliefs, political ideologies, financial gains, arms profiteering, ethnic identity agendas, etc. They are counter productive to peace in the middle east and U.S. foreign policy.
When you say that "the Arabs" have been given land back, you are using a very racist construct. That would be like giving Northern Ireland back to the rest of Ireland and saying that in doing so that means the land was given back to the people of Canada because they all speak English. There is no monolithic entity that you can refer to as "the Arabs" when discussing land or anything else. Arabs are people whose native language is Arabic. There are many nationalities and ethnicities among the people in the world whose native language is Arabic. The Sinai Peninsula was given back to Egypt, not the Palestinians. The West Bank and Gaza have not been given back to anyone, since they are still entirely under Israeli control. So in reality, Israel has given nothing back.
So, Jews are actually cheats and misers now, because everyone has told them for so long that they were? Give a dog a bad name…
It wasn't me who said so. It was the UN. Land for Peace (a stupid formula, in my opinion) was also Bill Clinton's mantra. Also racist? Bottom line: Israel has given up well over 90% of it's land and received almost no peace from the Arabs – at all. This is why Netanyahu has been demanding a final agreement that includes an end to further claims by Islam and the Arab world. Israel only gives and gives – and still has almost no peace to show for it's efforts. Even Shimon Peres is getting tired of this…
I see that none of the MondoBigots has a reasoned response. Just the usual insults. Typical MondoConversation.
Well Jake, to get a reasoned response you need to make a reasonable point. Generally, I haven't heard too many Jewish communities within the 1967 borders called settlements of late. Usually that term is reserved for the Jewish housing over the Green Line. Of course, the immigration of Jews to Palestine before the establishment of the State of Israel has also been called "settlement" in the past. In fact, as I understand it, Yishuv literally means "settlement" in Hebrew. So what's your beef? I've been respectful this time and replied with a reasoned response. But if you are going to call us anti-semitic, moronic, hypocritical and bigots, I don't understand how you expect the courtesy of a discussion.
Show me the language used by the UN that you reference. Israel has given up nothing. The Sinai was never Israel's in the first place, and it still controls all of Gaza and the West Bank. When you discuss "land for peace", in order for it not to be racist, the land has to be given back to the people whose it was originally. So that would mean giving Palestine back to the Palestinians, the Golan Heights back to the Syrians, and Shebaa Farms back to Lebanon. Each of these is a separate people, and cannot all be lumped into one category just based on their common language. Islam has made no claims on any land that Israel now holds. That's another racist construct. Palestinians are Christians as well as Muslims. Same is true of Lebanon and Syria. The reason Israel doesn't have peace is because it is still illegally occupying land that is outside its internationally recognized borders. And because it is committing ethnic cleansing and genocide on the Palestinians. And it wages wars of aggression against its neighbors. All of the countries of the Arab part of the world have agreed to recognize Israel and to make peace with it if it will withdraw to its internationally recognized borders and comply with all of the UN resolutions that apply to it. If Netanyahu wanted a final status agreement, he's already got one that he can sign. But that's not what he wants. He also doesn't want peace. What he and most of the rest of Israelis want is more land, and they don't care a fig if taking more land means they don't have peace. The government of Israel will never agree to a final status agreement unless they are forced to because they have no intention of ever declaring any borders. That would mean putting limits in Zionist aspirations, something Zionists will never do unless forced to.
I thought it was political humor at first. I don't know that it's not funnier being real.