Comments on: Olmert op-ed uses the word ‘Jewish’ only once (and hints at one-state)

By: ThorsProvoni

ThorsProvoni — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 08:44:52 +0000

Here is the text:

Don’t talk about religion. Americans who see the bible as their sourcebook on foreign affairs are already supporters of Israel. Religious fundamentalists are Israel’s “Amen Choir” and they make up approximately one-fourth of the American public and Israel’s strongest friends in the world. However, some of those who are most likely to believe that Israel is a religious state are most hostile towards Israel (“they’re just as extreme as those religious Arab countries they criticize”). Unfortunately, virtually any discussion of religion will only reinforce this perception. Therefore, even the mention of the word “Jew” is many Israel contexts is going to elicit a negative reaction—and the defense of Israel as a “Jewish State” or “Zionist State” will be received quite poorly. This may be hard for the Jewish community to accept but this is how most Americans and Europeans feel.

Olmert's text probably came from The Israel Project, and I would not be surprised if Frank Luntz wrote it.

By: ThorsProvoni

ThorsProvoni — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 08:44:13 +0000

Olmert is just writing the sort of mendacious op-ed that Martha Minow writes (Moral Turpitude at Harvard L-School). Just as Minow's lies were coming straight from the IDF, Olmert's were coming straight from The Israel Project (p. 12).

By: stevieb

stevieb — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 07:00:47 +0000

They wouldn't be refugees – they would live in Israel. Not a big deal really. Makes sense too. Alot of settlers are quite wealthy in fact – some are also the Israeli poor subsidized by the Israeli government to live there. There would be no refugee problem. I'm sure there has been resolutions in the past that carry on today for Israel to remove settlements as soon as possible, something to that effect. Look it up- shouldn't be to hard to find if you're that interested. But we both know there would be no refugee problem….

By: annie

annie — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 04:08:39 +0000

I'm using the term "ethnic cleansing," mainly to point out how removal would be perceived by many Israelis and for the hard line Zionists in the US did you think we would NOT notice it was a theme of the luntz propaganda 09 israel dictionary? nobody said this until about 2 weeks ago, and it was heavily covered in the press and the blogs. it is your own credibility that comes into play when you use these 'fresh' and paid for rtwing zionist talking pts. anyway it totally cheapens the meaning of what ethnic cleansing is. removing an occuaption and its appendages is not ethnic cleansing.

By: Yoni C.

Yoni C. — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 20:20:48 +0000

"Conditions for the Palestinians are the worst they've ever been." under Israeli occupation possibly but its a cake walk compared to the Egyptians and Jordanians whose occupation was far more brutal…..

By: Citizen

Citizen — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:46:40 +0000

Sorry, I meant "do's and don'ts" Is=its as in "it's occupation of various lands to the East."

By: Citizen

Citizen — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:43:47 +0000

stevieb is correct in that occupation responsibilities and do's and do's don't under all the relevant post 1945 international documents intend to prevent any repeats of what Nazi Germany did and the no longer acceptable whys therefore, during is occupation of various lands to the East. Three months after the Six-Day War when Theodor Meron, legal counsel for the Foreign Ministry, sent a memo to Foreign Minister Abba Eban, a copy of which he forwarded to Prime Minister Levi Eshkol: "My conclusion," Meron wrote, "is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention." Meron himself was a survivor and eye-witness to the Nazi occupation. Those who argue against Geneva, 242, etc, base their theory on the Balfour Declaration, highlighting the rights given the Jews in that seminal document–but ignoring the conditional restrictions completely, all those equally expressed or implied protecting the Palestinians. It's an international lawyer's playground. What is unchallenged is that Europe and the US have consistently in official policy viewed the settlements as as a giant roadblock to peace and they do not favor any of them. The (Israel Lobby) reality of course has allowed them to spread, and since Israel always only honors UN resolutions rubber-stamping its goals, while otherwise thumbing its nose at the UN, we are in our present condition.

By: WishOnStar

WishOnStar — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:18:00 +0000

High hope for Obama calculating he can do this once he wins a second term; after that, he can ignore his own party and the bipartisan AIPAC whore congress. Meanwhile he can keep working towards such a set up.

By: history buff

history buff — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:00:10 +0000

Truth is various tiny country leaders were phoned, and a Jew pretending he was speaking for Truman, said Truman would not give them any foreign aid of any kind unless the tiny country voted for Partition. This is revealed in the Truman Library Archives. Truman was really annoyed when he was so informed. But he still unilaterally recognized Israel (not a "Jewish state"–he crossed out those words in his prepared letter statement) because he needed zionist money for his whistle stop campaign and the Jewish block vote in NY, and 3 other states. He rushed to it to get all the credit, a most practical insurance policy for his continuing in POTUS office.

By: justasking

justasking — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:53:41 +0000

Considering it was never moral for the UN (by what 3 swing votes? Ethiopia's, Philipina, and Micronesia's?)to simply give native land away in the first place, or allow it to be taken, how "morally absolutist" is it to demand uprooting of merely all settlements?"