Blair says Israelis were in on pre-war planning

on 102 Comments

Remember when Mearsheimer and Walt were called deluded anti-Semites? A choice tidbit from Mehdi Hasan’s blog on the New Statesman’s website re: Tony Blair’s testimony in the Iraq War Inquiry:

The most unforgivable, outrageous and bizarre moment of the day occurred when Blair, for some inexplicable reason, volunteered the following revelation about his all-important meeting with George W Bush in Crawford, Texas, back in April 2002:

"As I recall that discussion, it was less to do with specifics about what we were going to do on Iraq or, indeed, the Middle East, because the Israel issue was a big, big issue at the time. I think, in fact, I remember, actually, there may have been conversations that we had even with Israelis, the two of us, whilst we were there. So that was a major part of all this."

Maybe Israel should just formally take over Blair’s role as envoy in the Quartet?

About Joseph

I am a Senior at Cal State Northridge, where I am the President and Co-Founder of Students for Justice in Palestine, and a Senior Reporter for the Daily Sundial campus newspaper.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

102 Responses

  1. potsherd
    February 6, 2010, 10:55 am

    I will point out that Blair is saying the warmakers were talking, not to the Lobby but directly to the Israelis.

    • zamaaz
      February 7, 2010, 10:40 pm

      ‘because the Israel issue was a big, big issue at the time.’

      Of course! Everyone knows that Israel is a favorite ‘escape issue’ of every conflict in the middle east whether Arabs against Turks, Arabs against Arabs, Arabs against Persians, or Arabs against the Kurds, etc. They must be’ idiots’ if they are not going to prepare for any eventuality of war whenever middle east conflicts arise.

  2. potsherd
    February 6, 2010, 10:58 am

    Rehmat, when you make statements like this, it just brings the antisemite hunters out of the woodwork and discredits the true parts.

  3. Taxi
    February 6, 2010, 11:11 am

    Man this Blair is so discredited by his own people that on the streets of the UK they call him a ‘fucking lying c–t’.

    Just imagine what the Palestinians and Lebanese call him.

    He must be the most mis-employed man in history! A war-criminal peddling a peace treaty – is this Alice in Wonderland politics or what?!

    The only people in the whole fucking world who like him are the Israelis. (That’s right that in itself tells you everything!)

    Only last month they awarded him some wacko award and paid him ONE MILLION DOLLARS for turning up to accept it!

    link to

    • potsherd
      February 6, 2010, 11:24 am

      More US taxpayer money squandered.

      I could never understand why the Brits didn’t turf Blair out of office a lot sooner.

      • gmeyers
        February 6, 2010, 2:35 pm

        It’s a mystery indeed. I can only attribute it too Blair’s ‘charisma’ [coughing fit follows] and the disarray the Tories were still in at that time…

    • Richard Parker
      February 6, 2010, 12:42 pm

      ‘K’sukhta ibn sharmuta’ is probably right. It means something like ‘Your mother’s c**t is diseased, you son of a whore’ .

      I once got into a great trouble for saying this when I really meant ‘Sakhtein’ – ‘Good Health’. The two phrases sound very similar.

      Strangely enough, it is Lebanese taxi-drivers who use such lurid language so often. Palestinians aren’t much into swearing. They merely knock on the roofs of their cars to show the other driver they think he’s an asshole, or maybe shout ‘Aywan! – Donkey!’ if they really get worked up.

      But then, Blair is certainly a donkey.

  4. Citizen
    February 6, 2010, 11:52 am

    Now Blair’s calling for war on Iran.
    link to

  5. kapok
    February 6, 2010, 12:00 pm

    I understand why Arabs might hate Jews; Netanyahu et al never miss an opportunity to protest their jewdihood. But this is just silly. It’s like the obverse(inverse?) pleading of your overwrought, ill-informed, knuckle-dragging tea-bagger.

    • kapok
      February 6, 2010, 6:22 pm

      Hey, what happened to Rehmat? My pearls were meant for him.

  6. Richard Parker
    February 6, 2010, 12:24 pm

    Blair’s performance at the Chilcot enquiry was typical of the man; effortlessly diverting difficult questions (there weren’t any), blathering about his relationship with GWB (holding hands at Crawford), etc

    “As I recall that discussion, it was less to do with specifics about what we were going to do on Iraq or, indeed, the Middle East, because the Israel issue was a big, big issue at the time. I think, in fact, I remember, actually, there may have been conversations that we had even with Israelis, the two of us, whilst we were there. So that was a major part of all this.”

    Just which Israelis were he and Georgie speaking to ? Were some of them there at Crawford?

    So were the Israelis agitating for war against Iraq, and was Israel a factor in the Bush administration’s decision to unilaterally and illegally invade Iraq in 2003? Opinion has always been split on the anti-war side.

    But Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, in their much-discussed London Review of Books essay “The Israel Lobby”, back in 2006, made a persuasive case for the argument that Israel, and the pro-Israeli lobby, were key players on the road to war

    link to

    Blair has been just as useless as Special Envoy to the ‘Quartet’. He stays at The American Colony hotel, where a room costs $400 to $700 a night.

    As envoy to the Quartet, Blair is under no formal oversight, as he would be as a United Nations envoy. Nonetheless, he has an enormous expense account, paid out of the millions of dollars in economic aid which keeps the Palestinian National Authority and its impoverished population on life support. While Palestinians are suffering the ravages of occupation, including unemployment, malnutrition, and the daily fear of death, the “Quartet Blair Mission,” as it is described in the lease, has rented no fewer than ten rooms in the American Colony Hotel, the only five-star hotel in East Jerusalem, at the annual cost of $1,334,082. This is in addition to Blair’s rented townhouse office in a swank section of London.

    Blair has cut down his visits to Jerusalem. He is making do with short stays: a week here, three weeks away. “Blair is like a movie star, one moment he is smiling at the cameras and the next moment he’s gone.”

    Blair’s wage and accomodation bill in Jerusalem is paid for by the Quartet. Blair’s only current (declared) income is a prime ministerial pension of £64,000.
    “No one takes him seriously. The Israelis think he is very convenient, because he will never blame them for anything, and the Palestinians have nothing but contempt for him.”

    After all, being an envoy for the so-called Quartet – the United Nations, United States, European Union and Russia – is unpaid, whereas a 90-minute speech to a Stateside audience can bring in up to £240,000, covering more than six months of mortgage repayments on Blair’s £11 million property empire.

    Questions are being asked: Who does Blair work for? The Quartet, which has been dysfunctional since its formation? Or the two major financial institutions which have just hired him as a consultant, JPMorgan Chase and Zürich Financial Services, the Swiss insurance corporation from which he reportedly receives £500,000 per year?

    By his actions, or lack thereof, he is serving the same British gamemasters who provoked the Iraq War. As economic aid czar for the Palestinians, Blair has accomplished nothing, at a time when all sane observers agree that improving the everyday living conditions of Palestinians is a key factor in creating the preconditions for peace.

    According to a Jan. 23 Times of London report, Abed Rabbo, chief Palestinian negotiator, gave Blair a “5% chance” of success, because Blair refuses to use what is seen as his enormous prestige to pressure Israel. One Palestinian businessman told the Times that Blair has done nothing to press Israel to lift the roadblocks in the Palestinian territories, or to stop Israel denying the Palestinians access to Israel’s sea and air ports. Instead, Blair has several pet projects for which he is trying to raise billions, including industrial parks which would do nothing for the Palestinians.

    Blair has done nothing to pressure the Israelis to lift the siege they have imposed on the 21st Century’s Warsaw Ghetto, also known as the Gaza Strip. Nor has he tried to convince the Israelis to allow cement to enter, for the completion of a desperately needed sewage treatment plant. Failure to complete the plant within the next three months will have disastrous consequences for Gaza’s already meagre and polluted water supply. In fact, neither Blair nor any of his team have stepped foot in Gaza since Blair took his position.

    Having been invisible during the first week of the Gaza conflict, Mr Blair was undermined by Gordon Brown’s erroneous suggestion that his old boss was “on holiday” while the violence raged.

    “To what extent have 40 years of occupation affected the ability of the Israeli Defense Forces to protect the country? Or, in other words, does the IDF train its soldiers to fight, or does it mainly teach them to oppress the Palestinian population?”

    The appointment of Tony Blair as George Bush’s Middle East peace envoy – well, technically, the US-UN-EU-Russian Quartet’s representative – was a masterful stroke of postmodern irony. And his interview on Tuesday morning’s BBC Today programme was a reminder of just how spectacularly unsuited for such a role he really is.

    In reality, far from being any kind of peacemaker, Tony Blair is effectively one of the architects of Israel’s war in the Gaza Strip. For months, he was telling anyone who would listen that Hamas had to be seriously weakened before there could be any progress in the region. In December, 2008, before the Israeli onslaught began, he made clear in an interview with the Israeli Ha’aretz, he believed the western-backed blockade wasn’t working and that Hamas would have to be dealt with, probably by force.

    As the one-time high priest of the “third way” put it on the radio this week, it was obvious in advance that a war in the overcrowded Gaza Strip would lead to a “humanitarian catastrophe”. After the stunning success of such policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, Tony Blair has now got what he wanted in Gaza.

    • Citizen
      February 6, 2010, 1:02 pm

      He should live in one of those replacement mud houses the Palestinians are making because they cannot get imports of cement and reinforcement rods due to the blockade.

  7. paola
    February 6, 2010, 12:35 pm

    What about keeping anti-Semitic comments, out of this valuable website?

    • Richard Parker
      February 6, 2010, 12:46 pm

      Just who has been making anti-Semitic comments here?

      Is any criticism of Israel’s very bad behaviour anti-Semitic?

      • potsherd
        February 6, 2010, 1:23 pm

        Rehmat’s first comment here included a blatant antisemitic cliche.

        Rehmat’s contributions here quite valuable, net, but he can get carried away. I tend to cut him slack as a person of non-European background, which I assume he is.

      • Citizen
        February 6, 2010, 2:15 pm

        I saw that word “distinction” too; of itself, the usage of the term itself may be praise or the contrary, depending on context. Rehmat’s now censored comment appeared to me at a glance
        as sneering at England for being taken in by the Poodle. There is such a thing as irony. I agree that Rehmat’s comments often are valuable. Unfortunately, I no
        longer remember the whole of what Rehmat said–was there any meat there? Was his whole comment just an anti-semitic canard?

      • Taxi
        February 6, 2010, 2:28 pm

        I read Rehmat’s use of the word ‘distinction’ as ironic, not as anti-semitic.

      • Citizen
        February 6, 2010, 2:47 pm

        Essentially, that’s how I read it too.

      • potsherd
        February 6, 2010, 2:54 pm

        The antisemitic aspect of Rehmat’s comment was the false claim that Jews have “ruled” the British.

      • Citizen
        February 7, 2010, 3:30 am

        Well yes that would be false as a generality. You should read up on the history of the jews in England. Truth is not always the exact contrary to a false generality.

    • Taxi
      February 6, 2010, 1:36 pm

      No thought-policing here please!

      • Cliff
        February 6, 2010, 2:02 pm

        I don’t mind a bit of thought policing. I can’t stand people who say ‘Islam is a death cult’ and that sort of thing, so the same standard should apply to inane insults slung at Jewishness.

        There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of these identities. No need to conflate.

      • Taxi
        February 6, 2010, 2:09 pm

        Fair enough Cliff.

        Me, I’d rather everyone show their true colors with no censorship.

        There are plenty of anti-zionists here who constantly critique anti-semites.

        No one gets away with no shit around here anyway,so i don’t see a problem in people speaking their minds.

      • Cliff
        February 6, 2010, 6:09 pm

        Yea I figure we will keep each other in check. That requires we be sincere. I think most of us are.

        The people who get banned are people like Baruch Rosen who spam the blog.

        Rehmat contributes to the blog but I’ve yet to see him address the concerns of some other commentators here.

        I have a bias, and that is I feel more outrage when people rag on Palestinians than Israelis. That doesn’t mean I don’t feel anything for the Israelis tho. And for Jews too, but I admit I feel more for the Palestinians. Arab/Islamic-whatever happen to be a big part of Palestinian identity so I defend that in the little way I can.

        So I can’t sit here and speak out against anti-[What I want to defend] and not do the same for Jewishness (within what I consider reasonable limits, obviously I’m not going to say Judaism is Zionism, hence anti-Zionism is antisemitism).

        I’m also not going to see antisemitism dripping everywhere either. I cited Lindemann in a reply to WJ on this issue in another thread (the one about Clarke). So yea…I think we’re ok here on Mondoweiss on free speech except the blatant stuff I guess.

  8. Philip Weiss
    February 6, 2010, 12:50 pm

    Paola, i agree with you, i find rehmat’s comment praising englands’ “distinction” in expelling Jews 350 years ago disturbing and i eliminated it. but it is a difficult line to draw some time and i have noticed that many sites that deal in delicate issues are hit by crude commenters… Phil

    • Richard Parker
      February 6, 2010, 1:06 pm

      Actually, in 1290, [700 years ago]. King Edward I issued an edict expelling all Jews from England. Lasting for the rest of the Middle Ages, it would be over 350 years until it was formally overturned in 1656. The edict was not an isolated incident but the culmination of over 200 years of conflict on the matters of usury

      The Jewish population in England at the time was relatively small. While population estimates vary, probably less than 1% of England was Jewish; perhaps 3,000 people

      The edict of expulsion was widely popular and met with little resistance, and the expulsion was quickly carried out.
      link to

      • Citizen
        February 6, 2010, 3:00 pm

        Although things have changed over the centuries since the Jews were expelled from
        England (and later, Spain), and the practice of usury and medicine are not left to the Jews by force of Gentile law and religion, somehow it seems the same pattern keeps repeating itself in that the Jews always end up occupying a position in (at least Western) society that places them above the Gentile masses, but, ultimately, below
        the Goy elite. In the English Middle Ages it took 10 Christians witnesses to overturn any Jew’s court testimony. Jews did not have to pay tolls to go across bridges or enter public roads–they were legally considered the King’s own. OTH, that also meant they were subject to the King’s whims–usually that hurt them when
        the King (or some minor goy noble) desired to get out of his debt to the Jews. So, back then, on the one hand, Jews were privileged (over the goy masses), but on the other hand, e.g., they were not protected by the Magna Carta. A key glue to this scheme seems to always have been that money has been both the blessing and bane
        of Jewish existence in the diaspora. Now, how does this historical pattern fit in today’s world, especially into, e.g., the Western world, and most especially the world of the USA and England? And, maybe we should consider France too. Germany and Japan are not really relevant and they know it–legacy of WW2.

      • Citizen
        February 6, 2010, 3:00 pm

        Here’s some historical context:

        link to

      • Citizen
        February 6, 2010, 3:05 pm

        And where does Palin fit in this historical pattern? Her easy use of the phrase
        “real American?”

        Have we really left the Middle Ages? Yes, to a degree; but is the current dress cut from the same old cotton cloth, but now its polyster? Will it shrink less or more when washed and hung out to dry? Something you’d want to wear?

    • paola
      February 6, 2010, 1:13 pm

      Thank you, Phil. I was just thinking about Rehmat, when I wrote that comment

      • MHughes976
        February 6, 2010, 3:37 pm

        I don’t know the chronological relationship between anti-Semitic ‘blood-libel’ popular ballads like ‘Hugh of Lincoln’ and the Expulsion, but there was obviously some connection.
        Thomas Aquinas had written a few decades earlier to the Duchess of Brabant, that dutiful feudal figure, urging the policy of punitive taxation on the Jews to compensate for their usurious habits. There was a great deal of bad faith and surreptitious racism behind the objection to usury.
        Cromwell in the 1650s did not make any grand break with the exclusion policy. He called a conference of lawyers, merchant and clerics. The lawyers seem to have taken the view that a royal edict issued before the period of constitutional government had not created a permanent law. The other two groups didn’t want Jews back, so Cromwell just told his Jewish contacts that everything had to be informal and low key. By 1664 the restored King Charles II, again in low key fashion, informed protesters that he would not take any action against increasing numbers of Jews, and this led to the foundation of the first London synagogue, Bevis Marks, in 1670. Part of the basis of all this was, I understand, that Jewish finance houses in Amsterdam had financed both sides in the Civil War, another part was the emergence of Christian Zionism. This may in part have been a form of enlightenment, in part a form of anti-Semitism: we don’t want them here, so we can send them there. But the first hint of British assistance in Jewish recolonisation of Palestine, with all its potential and terrible consequences, had been dropped.
        Convenient ways of mixing enlightenment and anti-Semitism continue to be found. As you may have noticed, I’m unconvinced by the standard replies that we – me very much included – who consider ourselves enlightened and humane anti-Zionists give to the accusations of anti-Semitism.

      • Shmuel
        February 6, 2010, 4:38 pm

        The letter of Menasseh Ben Israel (an important Dutch rabbi and leader of the Spanish-Portuguese Jewish community in Amsterdam) to Cromwell, To his Highnesse The Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland is fascinating in this context. One wonders how much of an effect this rather eloquent appeal may have had on Cromwell’s decision.

        Interestingly, one of Ben Israel’s arguments was the very same one cited recently on another thread, regarding the divine blessing that Jews bring to their host countries, and the divine wrath invoked against those who harm them:

        “For none hath ever afflicted them who hath not been by some ominous Exit, most heavily punished of God Almighty … And on the contrary, none ever was a Benefactor to that people, and cherished them in their countries, who thereupon hath not presently begun very much to flourish”

        The full text of Ben Israel’s letter can be found online at: link to

        The OCR version is pretty useless, but the scan itself is quite readable.

      • MHughes976
        February 6, 2010, 5:36 pm

        Antonia Fraser’s bio of Cromwell does as I remember attribute quite an influence to Ben Israel, though I think that Cromwell’s admirers (never really liked him myself) tend to overemphasise the idealistic or visionary element in what looks to me more like a politician’s effort to deal with a middle-sized problem without letting it have any big effects.
        Part of Ben Israel’s argument reappears in Freud on Moses (a favourite book of mine) with the religious ideas hovering to good literary effect in the background.

      • Shmuel
        February 6, 2010, 6:18 pm

        I had heard about Ben Israel’s influence, but couldn’t source it, so I left it out. Ben Israel took a four-pronged approach basically, and we can only guess which part influenced Cromwell the most – or more precisely how much of each argument was need to create precisely the right mixture. 1) Ben Israel honestly explains his own Messianic motivation, the belief that the Messiah will not come until the prophecy of the Jews being scattered throughout the earth is fulfilled (I believe the expression “corners of the earth” also helped to convince him that Jews must settle in England – Angle-Land). 2) He speaks highly of the noble English and emphasises that letting the Jews have synagogues is the right thing to do. 3) He explains, in great detail, the economic benefits that other states and sovereigns gain from the permanent presence of Jews in their Lands – benefits that could be England’s. 4) He debunks a few negative things Cromwell may have heard about Jews: loyalty, usury and the ritual killing of Christian children.

        I’ve only read bits of Freud’s Moses. Which arguments does he cite and in what context (if you recall offhand)?

    • aparisian
      February 6, 2010, 5:27 pm

      I don’t think censorship is the best answer, Rehmat is contributing constantly in this blog. I think maybe we needed to clarify the ambiguity behind his generalisations. I know so many middle eastern people who are unable to differentiate between Israel/Zionists and Judaism and i don’t really think that they are anti-semis but they just misuse the terms, education problem.

      • MHughes976
        February 6, 2010, 6:05 pm

        I think censorship is justified only when there’s a clear effort to disrupt the discussion or when there’s plain abuse – as if someone said to me ‘All you Brits are xxx***!*’ But perhaps if someone said ‘All you Brits are xxx-responsible for the situation in the Middle East’ I should live with that.
        I think hardline Zionists should have their say, offensive and cruel as I find every word they utter. The voice of the Muslims outraged by Israel really should be heard too. We can’t understand the situation if they can’t say what they think.
        It’s a rather different matter to say that the opinion that we cannot fully distinguish between contemporary Zionism and the wider and more historic forms of Jewish culture also needs to be heard. I must say that something to this effect comes across to me in some of Phil’s own remarks about his family and ‘tribe’ and also in some more academic work like Piterberg’s ‘Returns of Zionism’, which forges elaborate links between Sabatianism and Zionism.
        It’s this opinion expressed with raw Muslim anger, tinctured I admit with something like racism, that we find in rehmat. It’s better to correct him that silence him. Contrary to his opinion the United Kingdom has not fallen under Jewish control, though Zionism is held in far more respect than it deserves.

  9. DICKERSON3870
    February 6, 2010, 12:55 pm

    Abdul-Karim Khan
    06 February 2010 at 05:25
    Just before the American invasion of Iraq, the Israeli Prime Minister Sharon had met President Bush in D.C. While coming out of the meeting, Sharon casually told the reporters that Saddam must (or has to) go. I did not understand his comment at the time because the more immediate problems was between Arafat and Sharon. It was after the invasion started I understood what Sharon meant.

  10. DICKERSON3870
    February 6, 2010, 1:05 pm

    • RE: “Blair says Israelis were in on pre-war planning”
    • EXCERPT FROM London Review of Books essay “The Israel Lobby”, back in 2006 by Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt (via Hasan’s blog):
    …According to Philip Zelikow, a former member of the president’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and now a counsellor to Condoleezza Rice, the “real threat” from Iraq was not a threat to the United States.
    The “unstated threat” was the “threat against Israel”, Zelikow told an audience at the University of Virginia in September 2002. “The American government,” he added, “doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.”
    On 16 August 2002, 11 days before Dick Cheney kicked off the campaign for war with a hardline speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Washington Post reported that “Israel is urging US officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein”. By this point, according to Sharon, strategic co-ordination between Israel and the US had reached “unprecedented dimensions”, and Israeli intelligence officials had given Washington a variety of alarming reports about Iraq’s WMD programmes.
    As one retired Israeli general later put it, “Israeli intelligence was a full partner to the picture presented by American and British intelligence regarding Iraq’s non-conventional capabilities.”
    Israeli leaders were deeply distressed when Bush decided to seek Security Council authorisation for war, and even more worried when Saddam agreed to let UN inspectors back in. “The campaign against Saddam Hussein is a must,” Shimon Peres told reporters in September 2002. “Inspections and inspectors are good for decent people, but dishonest people can overcome easily inspections and inspectors.”
    At the same time, Ehud Barak wrote a New York Times op-ed warning that “the greatest risk now lies in inaction”. His predecessor as prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, published a similar piece in the Wall Street Journal, entitled: “The Case for Toppling Saddam”. “Today nothing less than dismantling his regime will do,” he declared. “I believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of Israelis in supporting a pre-emptive strike against Saddam’s regime.” Or as Ha’aretz reported in February 2003, “the military and political leadership yearns for war in Iraq”.
    • HASAN SOURCE – link to
    • London Review of Books essay “The Israel Lobby” – link to

    • Richard Parker
      February 6, 2010, 1:14 pm

      Thanks for those two detailed updates on the conspiracy.

    • potsherd
      February 6, 2010, 1:25 pm

      They’re playing that same record over again, except now the target is Iran, not Iraq.

      • Citizen
        February 6, 2010, 3:10 pm

        This is true–could anything be more frustrating to any American with even a modest interest in the survival of the USA as the USA?

      • Citizen
        February 6, 2010, 3:20 pm

        Tomorrow, the current USA will be watching the NFL super bowl. Bread and circuses. Never overestimate the intelligence of the USA masses–Barnum and Baily cliche. Rubes. It helps if the USA’s 4th Estate is propaganda arm of AIPAC, yes? All the news fit for yuze. We have Beck, Daily Show, O Reilly factor–the extremes of Wolf Blitzer, MSM to O Reilly, and in between, the pretend populist, Beck–why is it that all of these avenues for US citizenship to exercise their responsibility tow the same line when it comes to Israel? Why they even have the dreaded Talk Radio goose-stepping with them. Where do you have to go, to even read or hear one objective narration of the pros and cons of the praised special relationship the USA has with Israel? PBS? No.
        There is absolutely nowhere–except the internet. Well, that’s more than there was before…

  11. radii
    February 6, 2010, 2:19 pm

    Tony Blair is such a shameless whore it is hard to even watch him. If the man had any soul at all he certainly sold it when he started taking israel’s money because he in-artfully shills for them now

    • Citizen
      February 6, 2010, 3:21 pm

      Look at who is biggest funders have been. This says it all.

  12. Citizen
    February 6, 2010, 3:22 pm


    it’s always the same old story–from the Middle Ages right down to 2010.

    • Citizen
      February 6, 2010, 3:27 pm

      Perhaps, the response to “What’s good for the Jews?”
      should be “What’s good for the Gentiles?”

      The issue is real campaign finance and advertising reform here in the USA.
      Americans generally do not see the connection–they are much more interested in who’s going to win the Super Bowl.

      Children, still playing ball, while the real PTB are playing politics.
      Hopefully, after Iran is attacked, many more of those chumps will be killed off.

  13. hnorr
    February 6, 2010, 3:41 pm

    I don’t for a minute doubt that the Israelis were centrally involved in promoting and planning for the invasion of Iraq (though there’s evidence that even then they saw Iran as a more important target – remember the neocon slogan of that era: “Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran.”), but I’m not sure Hasan’s quote from Blair’s testimony really says what most of you are seeing in it. Remember that the Crawford conference he’s talking about took place on April 6-7, 2002. That was just a week after Israel launched an all-out military assault on the Palestinians (“Operation Defensive Shield”), and there was furious fighting going on across the West Bank, including right outside Arafat’s compound in Ramallah. In that context, it’s hardly surprising that Bush and Blair would have been talking about that situation. When Blair says “the Israel issue was a big, big issue at the time” and “there may have been conversations that we had even with Israelis,” I don’t think one can conclude that they were necessarily talking about Iraq.

    • John Smithson
      February 7, 2010, 9:20 pm

      Anyone else have thoughts on this comment – seems like a fairly central point has been raised – I’ve been off line for a day or so and thought I’d find many responses to this post…

    • Taxi
      February 7, 2010, 9:49 pm


      It was ALWAYS about the ‘Axis of Evil’ with Bush – that’s all he ever talked about to anyone who would listen. Blair listened. Israel cheered and provided intelligence to both countries re Saddam: Israel’s Major threat.

      It’s all in there – in that bizarrely volunteered Blair statement.

      I doubt they DIDN’T bring up the issue of Iraq.

      What the fuck else was there to talk about in those heady days?!

      Not the elusive Osama, that’s for sure. They didn’t wanna talk about him. But they did want to talk about Saddam, Saddam, and one more time: Saddam.

  14. MHughes976
    February 6, 2010, 3:46 pm

    I’d say that the attitudes of our former PM may be in small part due to taking Jerusalem gold but are in greater part due to the attitudes normal in those of his age, class, background and experience, at least of those who did not make their careers in universities. Jews were part of civilisation, Arabs were outsiders – formerly terrorists motivated by forms of Marxism that we didn’t take seriously, latterly religious maniacs.

  15. MHughes976
    February 6, 2010, 4:09 pm

    Just to add that Blair was fairly typical by British standards in his attitudes until he became Bush’s confidant and had heady experiences like being saluted as ‘America’s Ally!’ by Fox News. At the same time British middle class opinion moved the opposite way, against Bush – a movement which, along with ideas escaping from academia, made a serious critique of Zionism acceptable in this kingdom as it had never been before. An attack on Iran would be received with horror and fear.
    I can’t pretend that I was ahead of the curve or have any reason to feel personally righteous. I voted for Blair several time. It took the disaster of Iraq to open my eyes.

    • Citizen
      February 6, 2010, 4:22 pm

      Always look at the Jewish special interest. They do. Why shouldn’t you? OK, I get it, they can and you can’t. Just pay your lives and treasure to Israel. Did you love your Christian soldier brother fighting for Israel? Did you love your USA goy taxpayer paying for Israel? Great!

  16. Richard Parker
    February 6, 2010, 8:36 pm

    My, aren’t the anti-semitites out in force here today, with ‘Jewish special interests’, ‘goyim’, ‘Israelis’ and ‘Jews’.

    Arabs call Jews ‘yehudi’, and don’t much distinguish between them and ‘Isra-eelis’. Why should they? They see the very worst of Israeli/Jewish behaviour every day, on Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya TV, and many of them have personal experiences; of dispossession, discrimination, and they see the worst of the Israeli settler and IDF violence against Palestinian farmers and urbanites, and the violence of the Haredim, in Jerusalem on Sundays, both constantly highlighted.

    I noticed the general prejudice against Hasidim/Haredim in the comments following the Yvette Clark post, and even in Phil’s own comments. ‘Ooga booga!, indeed; about men in funny hats sitting around a table with very serious expressions. Representing just 7% of the population of her Crown Heights constituency. Only two niggers there.

    So, the terms ‘Jew’ and ‘Israeli’ get conflated. Not surprising.

    Israeli television is available in many Arab countries, and most Arabs can at least understand Hebrew, if not speak it. They don’t appreciate Jewish Culture very much.

    But then Israeli TV is just as inane as most Western TV. It doesn’t feature the giants of Jewish culture (Einstein, Freud, etc), a lot; any more than the BBC features Newton and Darwin.

    • Taxi
      February 6, 2010, 9:03 pm


      Arabs must get very frustrated not being able to full-on cuss the ‘yehudis’ without someone calling out anti-semite.

      So what are the Arabs who are under the jack-boot of the Israelis supposed to do? Censor their words when expressing how they feel about their murderers and land-thieves just because the criminals, Jews in this case, had ancestors who had a holocaust sixty years ago?

      Let the victims express their verbal grievance in whichever way they need to, I say. After all, in the case of the Palestinians, it is their oppressor who consistently has the microphone and center stage to boot.

      • wondering jew
        February 6, 2010, 9:18 pm

        I hope people do not read certain posts and take them as authoritative: Most Arabs do not understand Hebrew. (Unless we are referring to Palestinian citizens of Israel.)

      • Richard Parker
        February 6, 2010, 10:20 pm

        Both Arabic and Hebrew are Semitic languages, coming from the same linguistic backgound, and sharing the same words and grammar.

        Much more than French/German/English, where many words are incomprehensible. (French: guerre, German: Krieg, English: war).

        I can assure you, from very long experience, that many, or most Arabs (and not just Arab-Israelis) do understand the basics of Hebrew, and can understand most of it.

    • syvanen
      February 6, 2010, 9:41 pm

      Richard, you should avoid using the N word. It is very offensive, at least here in the US. This is true even if you do not have a racist bone in your body. It marks you as someone who is insensitive to what is acceptable as polite discourse.

    • potsherd
      February 6, 2010, 10:33 pm

      Israelis refer to themselves in Arabic as “Yahud.” It is no wonder that the Arabs refer to them as such.

      • Shmuel
        February 7, 2010, 4:16 am

        potsherd: Israelis refer to themselves in Arabic as “Yahud.” It is no wonder that the Arabs refer to them as such.

        Not that I’ve heard. Israeli TV in Arabic uses the word isra’eeli. As others have explained, Arabs and particularly Palestinians have their own reasons to call Israelis yahudi.

        On the subject of Arabs understanding Hebrew, tr is right. I have tried to commuincate with Arabic-speakers in Hebrew, and it is absolutely impossible, unless they have some specific knowledge of Hebrew. It is the same the other way around. The words I recognise in Arabic are usually words I know in Arabic. If I hear a new word and am told the meaning, I can often relate it to a Hebrew word, but that is not the same as understanding it in the first place.

      • potsherd
        February 7, 2010, 9:47 am

        You are more personally familiar with the facts than I am.

        But I have read that the settlers will call themselves “Yahud” when abusing Palestinians, as well as IDF troops.

      • Taxi
        February 7, 2010, 10:14 am

        Yahud is simply the Arabic plural for Jew.

        The Arabs, post 1948, started using it in a derogatory way because of their fear of the Zionist massacres. They would utter it with a mixture of fear and loathing; they still do – though with more loathing than fear nowadays.

        The settlers know this and are more than happy to be referred to in such a light – you know, as the bogey-man – it makes them feel like a mighty and fierce force to be reckoned with.

        Hey Nazis too enjoyed it that their name, even the sound of it, inspired such terror and hate.

      • Shmuel
        February 7, 2010, 1:39 pm

        Yahud is one of the few Arabic words that all Israelis know – as part of the terrifying phrase drilled into Israeli consciousness: itbah al-yahud (slaughter the Jews). It is supposed to be what Arab terrorists cry before they go on a murderous rampage. It is closely related in the Israeli imagination to that other vicious cry, allahu akbar, which actually means “God is great”, but most Israelis associate it with Islamic (well, Arab, since all Arabs are Islamic fundamentalists, as everyone knows) terrorism.

        After the Goldstein Massacre in Hebron/Khalil, I heard an interview with a Jewish Israeli on the radio, who tried to defend Goldstein by insisting that the men he had killed were not innocent, but bloodthirsty terrorists, who were saying allahu akbar (God is great – at prayer, in a mosque, imagine that)!

    • DICKERSON3870
      February 7, 2010, 2:37 pm

      • RE: “So, the terms ‘Jew’ and ‘Israeli’ get conflated. Not surprising.”
      • MY COMMENT: The Netanyahu government insists that Israel be referred to as “the Jewish state of Israel”. Netanyahu apparently claims to speak not only for Israelis but for all Jews. It appears to me that they (or perhaps Dr. Frank Luntz*) see it as being in their interests to conflate ‘Jews’ with ‘Israel’. By doing so, they make it easier to respond to criticism of the Israeli government by merely dismissing it as being “anti-Semitic” (or the product of anti-Semites). I believe the government of Israel (and some pro-Israel groups in the U.S. and Europe) have made a conscious decision promote said conflation.

      * DR. FRANK LUNTZ:
      • The Israel Project’s Global Language Dictionary (article) – link to
      • THE ISRAEL PROJECT’S SECRET HASBARA HANDBOOK EXPOSED, by Richard Silverstein, 07/10/09 – link to
      • The Israel Project’s 2009 Global Language Dictionary, (PDF, 116 pages) – link to

  17. Richard Parker
    February 6, 2010, 9:13 pm

    Arab watchers certainly don’t understand American Jewish ‘Mea culpa‘ attitudes, like Phil’s, because they are simply not genuine.

    Israel has fucked up enough Arab countries to earn suspicion, about whatever Israelis say.

    American Jewish apologists like Phil speak from an American perspective (and that is, in itself, suspect) to a bunch of wogs, who ‘simply don’t understand’

    • Donald
      February 6, 2010, 9:30 pm

      What the hell are you talking about?

      • Richard Parker
        February 6, 2010, 10:33 pm

        I am talking about Jewish-Americans who constantly prate on about ‘Goldstone”, ‘Naomi Chazan’, etc.

        They are totally useless in resolving the I/P question, because they target American Jews instead of Middle East Palestinians (diaspora as well as resident in Greater Israel).

      • potsherd
        February 6, 2010, 10:35 pm

        Jewish-Americans are absolutely the key to the I/P problem, because it is through their influence alone that the US keeps propping up the Israeli government.

      • dalybean
        February 6, 2010, 11:59 pm

        Mr. Parker:

        I’m interested in why you think Phil should target Palestinians in trying to resolve the I/P question rather than Jewish-Americans. Don’t they already know the whole thing sucks whereas it’s the Americans who are the ones who are mislead about the nature of the situation? I’m really curious what you’re thinking.

      • John Smithson
        February 7, 2010, 9:30 pm

        You sure? I figure this site and folks like Weiss are trying to level the ‘informational disadvantage’ of Americans (breaking the matrix, popping the bubble, whatever you call it). Maybe the assumption that by changing attitudes in the US by spreading knowledge might change US foreign policy – and that US foreign policy would likely dictate outcomes/peace deals/long-term armistices, etc – is wrong. You figure Israel can go it alone without the US’s support?

        Also I would question your assumption that this blog targets American Jews. Rest assured pieces of this site are emailed off to friends and family regularly – many of whom are non-jewish folks. In a dark room, even a small crack of light is easily seen…

      • Cliff
        February 7, 2010, 9:41 pm

        Just take a look around the more mainstream websites, news/blogs/other (websites not focused on politics, but that have a lively political discussion forum), and you see a lot of middle-school level intellectualism.

        You can’t debate people who lie constantly, behave schizophrenically or are just generally insincere. Who won’t admit when they are wrong. People who are obviously racists – and not simply ‘racist’ because you don’t like their politics (antisemitism card).

        My only real complaints….I kind of wish we could post pictures and overall – had a forum-like commenting system.

  18. Richard Parker
    February 6, 2010, 9:54 pm

    On November 2, 1948, an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) patrol visited the campsite of a small Bedouin subtribe, Arab al Mawasa, just west of the Sea of Galilee in northern Israel. The area, along with the rest of upper central Galilee, had been conquered by the IDF three to four days before in an armored offensive code-named Operation Hiram.

    The patrol, in search of arms, scoured the area. On nearby “Hill 213” the troops found the decapitated remains of two Israeli soldiers who had been missing since a skirmish one month before. According to the 103rd Battalion’s patrol report, “The men [then] torched the Arabs’ homes [tents?]. The men returned to base with 19 Arab males. At the base the males were sorted out and those who had taken part in enemy operations against our army were identified and then taken under Haim [Hayun]’s command to a designated place and there . The rest are being transferred to a prisoner of war camp.”

    link to

    Benny Morris did indeed catalogue Israel’ crimes in 1948-9 but he has since become a very rightwing Zionist, and his view shouldn’t be trusted anymore.

  19. tr
    February 6, 2010, 11:56 pm

    Richard Parker says: “I can assure you, from very long experience, that many, or most Arabs (and not just Arab-Israelis) do understand the basics of Hebrew, and can understand most of it.”

    This is just incorrect, except for the special case of Palestinian citizens of Israel and to a limited extent Palestinians in the OT. Most Arabs I know who have studied Hebrew say knowledge of Arabic is helpful in that process, since the languages are related, but that’s very different from being able to understand the language without such formal study. In fact, quite apart from Hebrew, most Arabs have some trouble understanding Arabic dialects from parts of the Arab world that are far from home – e.g. I’ve seen an al-Jazeera host ask a guest to please stop using Lebanese colloquial Arabic and to switch to modern standard Arabic “because some people won’t be able to understand you”.

  20. radii
    February 7, 2010, 12:35 am

    I don’t think the participants on this blog’s comments section need to self-censor … it is a high-level and informative discussion and those who come here are grown-ups.

    I’m personally in favor of letting all words be used. If someone is hateful and seeks to use their words to wound it stands as obvious and that is not what goes on here. Someone like that will simply be ignored.

    People come here full of passion – mostly about the horrors committed by the zionist monsters running the show in israel and parts here-and-there in the good ‘ole USA and sometimes the words are a bit out-of-bounds in terms of political correctness but so what? Haters not welcome but someone who is passionate should not have to check what they really believe even if language limitations or it is offensive to someone. Intent does matter.

    When I was growing up in Hawaii no local had a problem calling me Haole (for white person) and being violently racist in some cases against me, and most jews I know have no problem pointing out that I am not one or talking about others in relation to whether they are a jew or not, and many black people I know have no problem openly discussing race and calling something “white” or “black” … and on it goes, in my travels around various parts of the world many people are very up-front about differences and sometimes they are overtly racist, intolerant or even hostile. You deal with those situations. It is part of life.

    I don’t think people should be so thin-skinned here – the occasional misstep over the PC line that happens here is usually not overtly hostile but rather illuminates a point of view or life experience of someone posting.

    • Taxi
      February 7, 2010, 1:08 am

      I’ll second the sentiment of your last paragraph, radii.

  21. bob
    February 7, 2010, 1:31 am

    Oct 12, 2001
    Linking Iraq in general to terrorism can be difficult. As the State Department “Patterns of Global Terrorism Report of 2000” pointed out, Iraq planned and sponsored international terrorism last year. But [Saddam Hussein]’s regime has not been directly linked to an anti- Western terrorist plot since its failed attempt to assassinate former President [George W. Bush] in 1993 in Kuwait.

    For now, Israeli officials have not engaged the Bush administration on the Iraq question, but rather have lobbied in general for a broader definition of terrorism that includes groups and states bent on Israel’s destruction. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, in his two visits to the US to meet with Bush, focused most of his chat time on the issue of long-range, existential threats to Israel emanating from Iraq and Iran. The Bush administration knows the risks. The question officials are confronting is whether a threat of weapons of mass destruction should be part of the war on terrorism.

    • Citizen
      February 7, 2010, 4:22 am

      Anybody got an historical list of the changing states/entities named as terrorist?
      Is there a terrorist list issued by any multi-state agency? Do any non-Western states have their own official terrorist list? Does the UN have one? Or only economic-military powerhouse states get to put other states and groups on the shit list? I apologize in advance for the stupidity of this line of thought, questioning.

      • Citizen
        February 7, 2010, 4:26 am

        This is a list available in Canadian libraries:
        link to

      • Citizen
        February 7, 2010, 4:53 am

        Here’s some stuff on terrorist lists worldwide. What is clear is that there is a fast-growing trend to put people and groups on terrorist lists, and this is being done
        by Executive fiat with congressional rubber-stamping. In the USA, American Muslims
        are being deprived of their civil rights without much recourse, especially their charitable giving is being cut off, and they are being jailed for long terms. The ACLU
        has recently issued a pdf report on this.
        link to

      • Citizen
        February 7, 2010, 5:06 am

        Here’s the ACLU report on anti-muslim US government actions against its own muslim american citizens:
        link to

        OTH, jewish american citizens have no problem donating via charity NGOs–to the Israeli settlers violating US policy against the settlements.

  22. Walid
    February 7, 2010, 3:54 am

    Richard Parker’s view of Arabs tripping on the use of “yehudi” and “Israeli” is incorrect. He is probably thinking of the terms “Israeli” and “Zionist” that are erroneously often put in the same bag by Arabs. It’s the Israeli-Zionist cocktail that Arabs find poisonous. Richard would be happy to learn that Beirut’s largest synagogue is currently being renovated with the blessing of all Lebanese and although the number of Yehudis living there is very minimal, the Yehudi is still one of the official religions recognized by the Lebanese Constititution. For information and pictures about work underway at Beirut’s Maghen Avraham Synagogue:

    link to;

    • Taxi
      February 7, 2010, 3:51 pm

      Even though they appreciate the difference between zionist and jew, still I’ve heard so many Arabs use the word ‘yahudi’ in a derogotary way, for instance: Hayda kalb yahudi etc etc.

      I don’t blame them in the slightest and i don’t find it racist either. I find it an expression of anger at a bunch of murderers and land thieves.

  23. RoHa
    February 7, 2010, 5:42 am

    This will be no surprise to those who have read Sniegoski, either here

    link to

    or in “Neoconned”.

    (That book, and “Neoconned again” should be compulsory reading for everyone.)

  24. Richard Parker
    February 7, 2010, 6:29 am

    From Bob

    For now, Israeli officials have not engaged the Bush administration on the Iraq question, but rather have lobbied in general for a broader definition of terrorism that includes groups and states bent on Israel’s destruction.

    Which tells you where the ‘terrorlist’ motivation is coming from.

    “State Sponsors of Terrorism” is a designation applied by the United States Department of State to nations which are designated by the Secretary of State “to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism.” Inclusion on the list imposes strict sanctions.
    The list began on December 29, 1979 with Libya, Iraq, South Yemen and Syria.
    1 Countries currently on the list
    1.1 Cuba
    1.2 Iran
    1.3 Sudan
    1.4 Syria
    2 Countries that have been removed
    2.1 Iraq
    2.2 Libya
    2.3 North Korea
    2.4 South Yemen

    So yes, they have changed, quite radically.
    And please note that the United States, Britain, and Israel are conspicuously absent from the list. Obviously, drone attacks on other countries and invading your neighbour countries are not considered terrorist attacks.

    This is a travel advisory re Sudan from Australia:

    •We strongly advise you not to travel to Sudan because of the extremely dangerous security situation, the risk of armed conflict, high level of violent crime and the high threat of terrorist attack.
    •If you are in Sudan, you should consider leaving if it is safe to do so. Australians who decide to stay should ensure they have personal security measures in place and contingency plans to depart Sudan.
    The US Embassy in Khartoum, Sudan issued a warning on 8 January 2010 of a potential threat against commercial aviation transiting between Juba, Sudan and Kampala, Uganda/.
    •Conflict can escalate and curfews can be imposed with little or no warning.
    •There is a risk of kidnapping in Sudan. A number of foreign aid workers were kidnapped in Darfur in March, April and July 2009.
    •Landmines have been laid in rural areas in many parts of the country.
    •Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 has spread throughout the world. The World Health Organization (WHO) provides useful information for individuals and travellers on its website. For further information and advice to Australians, including on possible quarantine measures overseas, see our travel bulletin on Pandemic (H1N1) 2009.
    •Australia does not have an embassy or consulate in Sudan. The Australian Embassy in Cairo, Egypt provides consular assistance to Australians in Sudan. The provision of consular services to Australians, particularly outside the capital Khartoum, may be severely limited.
    •Given the high threat of terrorist attack and uncertain security situation in Sudan, we strongly recommend Australians in Sudan register their presence with the British Embassy in Khartoum, keep in regular contact with the embassy through its warden network and also register their travel and contact details with the Australian Government, so we can contact you in an emergency.

    And this is a travel advisory re The Philippines from Australia:.

    •We advise you to exercise a high degree of caution in the Philippines because of the high threat of terrorist attack and the high level of serious crime.
    •Pay close attention to your personal security at all times and monitor the media for information about possible new safety or security risks.
    •Terrorist attacks could occur at any time, anywhere in the Philippines, including in Manila. We continue to receive credible reports indicating terrorists are planning attacks against a range of targets in a variety of locations, including places frequented by foreigners. You should avoid places known to be terrorist targets (see the Terrorism section below).
    •On 23 November 2009, at least 57 people were abducted and killed in the province of Maguindanao on the island of Mindanao in what appears to have been a politically-motivated attack.
    •Violent crime is a significant problem in the Philippines (see the Crime Section below).
    We strongly advise you not to travel to Mindanao, including mainland Mindanao, the Zamboanga Peninsula and the Sulu Archipelago, due to the very high threat of terrorist attack, including kidnapping, and related counter-terrorism operations. Armed clashes between Philippine security forces and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front could occur without warning, including in central Mindanao. Attacks occurred in mid-2009 against military and civilian targets. Further attacks cannot be ruled out.
    •There is a danger of kidnapping throughout the Philippines, particularly in the southern Philippines including coastal and island tourist resorts and dive sites. Terrorists have kidnapped foreigners from these areas in the past.
    •The typhoon season normally runs from late May to early December. This is also the rainy season when tropical storms, flooding and landslides may occur.

    The impressive aspect of these travel advisories is how goddam ignorant they are.
    I have been living, very peacefully, in Mindanao for 12 years, although we did once have a shooting attack on the local police station and CAFGU (Local Special Forces) camp from the NPA (New People’s Army) one night. The NPA is a wholly local leftist group, who have been fighting the Philippine government and, especially, the military, for 40 years. It is labelled ‘international terrorist’ by the EU and US, but not by Canada or Australia, who know it is nothing of the sort.

    The rainy season here in the South, is from December to March. It is pissing down outside, right now.

  25. Richard Parker
    February 7, 2010, 6:59 am

    Syvanen and others: There is another N-word that I sometimes use, sparingly – NATIVE which can be translated as ‘little brown wog’. It’s as offensive around the world as ‘nigger’ , which, worldwide, everyone outside the US still uses for a conspicuously black person. Only in the US is it a taboo word.

    • Chaos4700
      February 7, 2010, 8:51 am

      Heh. I suppose this possibly makes sense. I remember feeling chagrined after berating a British guy for using the word “fag” and then he explained the context in which it actually gets used (and in which he used in in coversation) — a cigarette, or more generally a stick that gets lit on one end.

      Then again, just be mindful that it does have a strong emotional context for Americans that you’re not intending, Mr. Parker. This is going to sound silly but I can’t even say the n-word allowed in real life — and I’m not keen about typing it, either. It’s mostly a conscious, deliberate choice on my part but there is the same barrier I have for that, as I used to have against swearing at all.

    • MHughes976
      February 7, 2010, 10:46 am

      Not ‘everyone ex-US’: I assure you that ‘nigger’ would not go down at all well in many middle class areas in England. The childhood phrase ‘nigger in the woodpile’ once came to me during a workplace discussion and drew a reprimand.

  26. Rehmat
    February 7, 2010, 7:48 am

    Well – Blair could be receiving the honrary degree of “Anti-Semite” if he doesn’t shut-up.

    Israeli movie “Lebanon” has its Hasbras narrative of the 34-day Lebanese genocide in Summer 2006.

    link to

  27. Julian
    February 7, 2010, 7:51 am

    “As I recall that discussion, it was less to do with specifics about what we were going to do on Iraq or, indeed, the Middle East, because the Israel issue was a big, big issue at the time. I think, in fact, I remember, actually, there may have been conversations that we had even with Israelis, the two of us, whilst we were there. So that was a major part of all this.”

    Smoking gun. Clearly the Israelis were running the meeting and Bush and Blair were taking orders from them. I believe a paragraph was left out where Blair was sent out for sandwiches by the Israelis and was slapped around by Sharon for pocketing the tip.
    That Mehdi Hasan is one desperate loser. He is going to have to try harder than this.

    • Chaos4700
      February 7, 2010, 8:44 am

      You neocons just love your straw men. I’m getting the same creepy feeling I might get if I were forced to read an icky Wizard of Oz fanfic about the Scarecrow and the Tin Man.

    • potsherd
      February 7, 2010, 9:40 am

      “When you have no substance with which to reply, resort to raw nastiness.”


      • Julian
        February 7, 2010, 10:37 am

        Glatzer and Hasan really have to try harder. The really big Israel issue was the on going terror attacks on Israeli civilians during that period, not the Iraq war which Blair clearly states they didn’t go into specifics on.
        I have to compliment Glatzer for trying to prove his point by highlighting disjointed sections of the quote. Though the effort is really laughable.
        You guys just can’t get anything right.

  28. Citizen
    February 7, 2010, 9:41 am

    Just for fun–apparently the least liked governments in the world are Iran, Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea.

    • Taxi
      February 7, 2010, 9:50 am

      Thanks citizen. We need some ‘fun’ in our blog-life.

      Got any more? It’s sunday morning and raining here in california :-(

  29. Walid
    February 7, 2010, 5:17 pm

    Taxi, as you have ignorants misusing the words “Islamists, “jihadists” and the rest, you also have ignorant Arabs misusing the word “Yehudi” for all kinds of evil sauces concocted by the Zionists since they can’t distinguish the difference between the two. Listening to the Hizbulah TV station on a given day, you’d probably hear the word “Zionists” mentioned about 50 times but you’d never hear the word “Yehudi” mentioned in an irreverrent way. What you heard was probably the Arab version of the “XXX- Jew” you hear all the time in the States by people that don’t really mean it.

    To get back to the Blair discussion, for non-pro-US thinking Arabs, the inspiration for the Iraq invasion has always been attributed to Israeli Zionists and the PNAC neocons composed in good part of American ones. The part about Bush. Blair, Sharon or whatever other Israeli joining the pow-wow is detail. At the end of the day, Arabs still want to think of Americans as the good guys that have been led down the road to hell by the Zionists; Rehmat wasn’t that far off the mark but he could have made the distinction between regular good-guy Jews and Zionists. Nothing wrong with Jews controlling lots of things, they’re doing a great job at it and all more power to them but when this control has a Zionist flavoring, it takes on a different meaning.

    • Taxi
      February 7, 2010, 7:45 pm

      Yes you’re right regarding the use of the word ‘yahudi’. But when do you think, at which point, does an oppressed Arab cussing a Jew become anti-semitic?

      Also, I do appreciate your even-handedness but I do disagree with you that the “Jews controlling lots of things, they’re doing a great job….”. I have one word for you: Madoff. I have more words than that – the list is long I assure you. The presence of entrenched nepotism within the careers of the ‘tribe’ is no secret. Yes, some of them do a good job – and others just don’t. I’m not bothered with how well they’re doing. I’m bothered with Israeli mass murder of children (Gaza) and the ongoing land-theft and thuggery.

      I do hold utter contempt for anyone, whatever religion they are, who aids and abets the criminal zionist goverment in any capacity as it continues on its diabolical path of occupation, murder and oppression of the Palestinian people.

      And don’t get me started on their wars against the Lebanon now, Walid. Cos that too in an unhealed stab and slash to my heart.

  30. Walid
    February 8, 2010, 2:22 am

    Taxi, I agree with you on what was done to the Gazans and the Lebanese make the Nazis look like amateurs. In comparison, the Israeli concentration-torture camps maintained during the occupation at Ansar, where even UN employees were held and at Khiam in Lebanon were mini-Auschwitzes.

    As to Madoff, being Jewish had nothing to do with it. You surely know about the Lebanese Madoff knock-off, Izzedine that ponzied the Lebanese Shia out of $400 million and he wasn’t Jewish. Neither was Arafat. I wasn’t tooting the Jews’ horn since they do it themselves all the time but simply saying that while all Zionists are Jews, not all Jews are Zionists and this must be kept in mind when we see the suffering of the Palestinians. Prince Turki isn’t Jewish and neither is Mubarak.

  31. Taxi
    February 8, 2010, 10:13 am

    “I wasn’t tooting the Jews’ horn…”

    Maybe just a little – but that’s your prerogative.

    Fact is, in the middle east, zionism and Judaism ARE conflated by BOTH sides when it comes to political discourse. You do know that the word ‘Arab’ in Israel is used like the ‘N’ word in America, right? And all of us on this site know that not all Jews but MOST Jews are zionists. Now the minority who are not, are impotent to change the reckless political course that the rest of their ‘tribe’ are on. They too are victims by association. However, the bulk of my attention and empathy is usually reserved for those who truly, truly suffer UNDER zionism, not alongside it.

    Walid, again I appreciate your even-handedness, I actually learned a thing or two from you and this only from a brief exchange.

    Any thoughts on how you think a peace process can be started? We seem to spend so much time talking about what’s broken in the I/P conflict that we forget we’re supposed to be looking for solutions.

  32. Walid
    February 8, 2010, 11:40 am

    Taxi, I know how Palestinians are treated in Israel and in the occupied territories, about the “N”word there as well as the “A” word. It would be futile to look for solutions until Israel’s lust for land has been satiated but I doubt that Israel as we know it today would still be around by then. About 40 years back, Arabs concluded that they would never be able to lick Israel militarily and that the only thing that could end it, would be its desintegration from within. I think we are begining to see the start of this but this is not for tomorrow and there is more suffering ahead for the Palestinians. Solutions are possible when both parties have a sincere desire to achieve it and so far, the Israeli partner is not interested. I’m not as even-handed as I appear but I do have respect and admiration for good Jews and those have to be set apart those from the piranhas that have turned the Palestinians’ lives into a hell.

    • Taxi
      February 8, 2010, 12:07 pm


      “About 40 years back, Arabs concluded that they would never be able to lick Israel militarily…”

      I don’t believe Arabs think this way anymore, post Hizbollah’s victory in both 2000 and 2006 (I know the cost was high etc). Israel’s deterrence has never been weaker and the likelihood of them regaining it any time soon is not on the cards. It matters not that they have nukes: The Afghan Mujahideen kicked ass against the nuclear soviet union after all.

      I think these days, even though Israeli society is indeed disintegrating right before our appalled eyes, Arabs aren’t waiting around for this to fully happen.

      There is a definite collective understanding and will that a military solution to the Israeli problem is the only one left. It’s just a question of (short) time.

Leave a Reply