Comments on: Olmert tries a Hail Mary in the WaPo by resuscitating the ‘generous offer’ Predictably, he fumbles.

By: Margaret

Margaret — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 04:31:03 +0000

To be more precise: what is this about. "It came before long-range exercises by the Israeli air force in America later this month and the test of a missile defence shield at a US missile range in the Pacific Ocean." Why is the Israeli air force doing long range exercises in the US? Why are they testing the Pacific missile defense shield?

By: Margaret

Margaret — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 04:25:47 +0000

"The deployment into the Red Sea, confirmed by Israeli officials, was a clear signal that Israel was able to put its strike force within range of Iran at short notice. It came before long-range exercises by the Israeli air force in America later this month and the test of a missile defence shield at a US missile range in the Pacific Ocean." What is that about?

By: P Smith

P Smith — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 02:00:15 +0000

My comment was removed/censored despite containing nothing more strenuous than saying Israelis living illegally on Palestinian land are squatters, that they should be deported to Israel and their "homes" be given to Palestinians whose homes were destroyed. How charming.

By: eitanbenshlomo

eitanbenshlomo — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 01:14:26 +0000

The user lovelyisraelis has proven an anti-semite time and again. First Jews as animals, now Jews are dehumanized as a county, a "sewer". You all act like you have respect for the Jewish people and many people on this forum are Jews. Why do you not purge this user "lovelyisraelis" from your ranks and make this an honest debate? Also the president of Israel is Shimon Peres

By: Sin Nombre

Sin Nombre — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 00:28:24 +0000

Adam Horowitz wrote: "Olmert ends with 'The time to deal with such important matters is running out. We cannot waste what time we do have on non-priority issues.' He doesn't seem to understand that Israeli settlements have become a key matter to the US administration." Well Olmert and this editorial of his seem to me to present an even deeper mystery. When he came out and openly mentioned the danger (to him) of a one-state solution it seemed to me that at least here was a guy who could look down the road a bit, and it scared him. But now what's he doing? Saying the settlements aren't important when not only the U.S. thinks they are—as Adam notes—but when the PA says it won't negotiate at *all* while they continue growing. So who does he think he's going to make peace with to avoid that one-state solution? Seems to me because the U.S. has been so intimately involved with Israel for so long and that relationship is so important to Israel and has been relied on in so many ways Israel's politicians (who have been especially close to and involved with same) have developed a kind of extreme U.S.-centric viewpoint, and blindspot. I mean … here's Olmert directing his energies not at the PA trying to persuade them that the settlements that are expanding aren't important for this or that reason (because Israel will compensate the PA for them by trading other lands or whatever), but instead trying to persuade the U.S. of same. Really doesn't make any sense otherwise. Unless they think that somehow the U.S. has a magic wand that it will wave when *it* is convinced some Israeli offer is fair that will then magically make the Palestinians jump for joy too. I don't understand it otherwise, and thus suspect that if it isn't a U.S.-centric blindspot it probably has something to do with the intricacies of Israeli politics and Olmert's position and motives. Maybe someone close to the Israeli political scene can explain.

By: lovelyisraeis

lovelyisraeis — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:54:46 +0000

citizen well…that's tough to answer. I think the best we can do is to try to design a strategy we think has the best chance of success, even if the chance seems slight. For Chomsky, Finkelstein and others I enormously admire, the answer is to stick unshakably to the two-state resolution of the conflict based on the june 67 borders. I have however, encountered very powerful arguments that eventually persuaded me that pursuit of two state at this stage is probably doing more harm than good and seems more and more impossible to fulfill, even on paper, much less, in practice. Beyond the other advantages of one state, I think the power of the message becomes enormously more potent. Americans haven't got the time to wade through the history of the conflict. Balfour? Partition? The Ottoman empire? Green line? Count Bernadotte? Irgun? Mandate? huh? Who? But if the entire movement can say to the American people (and to the world) "here is an Arab family. The people in the house across the street are Jews. Will you deny the Arab family the same rights? Are they not human beings in your eyes?" I think that has a power and immediacy that would greatly help the movement. It makes Witty-esque obfuscation of the real issues, much harder. And it better resonates with this country's history More American black leaders (including you know who) making a clear connection with the plight of the Palestinians, as well as many more Jews on the front lines will help. Maybe there is some tipping point. I don't know. …my two cents.

By: Citizen

Citizen — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:11:22 +0000

Gotta agree, if average Americans ever actually get the truth about the I-P affair, and their own taxpayer dollars loaded on one side of it, they will come down hard on Israel. How long can the PC MSM keep up their blackout of reality on this issue? And congress? Seems they can do so forever as it's been so far–Americans don't know why anyone would draw parallels with Nazi Germany regarding Israel, but they have a vague feel for the Jim Crow analogy. All they need in the latter case is some real objective news reporting , and in the former case, a smart and courageous MSM pundit. Do you, lovelyisraselis, see either on the horizon?

By: Citizen

Citizen — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:04:14 +0000

Yeah, that's a good question in light of your observation. Speaking only for myself, I say that if Obama does not take a stand and continually make that stand public, beginning with what he said in Cairo about freezing the settlements and working from there, then it's all over for the Palestinians, and a WW3 is assured. Only the timing of same is open to debate.

By: Onlooker

Onlooker — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:00:13 +0000

I agree with you. Witty would say you are a "solidarity dissenter" who is not moving forward with a balanced approach.

By: Patrick Cummins

Patrick Cummins — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 20:14:01 +0000

"If you regard the establishment of reliable legal institutions (police, courts, judiciary) as a bad outcome, then we are in different universes." I wonder then what universe Olmert is inhabiting? Recall that his campaign in Gaza specifically targeted the police. One of the first air strikes was against a class of young police cadets during their graduation ceremony. According to the NYT 15 people were killed in the attack. " target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/world/middleeas...