White House edits photo caption, taking Jerusalem out of Israel

on 66 Comments

Good catch by the unreconstructed neocons at the Weekly Standard: two hours after Daniel Halper posted a White House caption from more than a year ago that characterized Jerusalem as part of Israel–

Vice President Joe Biden laughs with Israeli President Shimon Peres in Jerusalem, Israel, March 9, 2010.

–the White House removed the word Israel from the caption.

Halper was posting the photo to argue that even the White House knows that Jerusalem is in Israel (he’s evidently a Zionist, engaged in our politics on matters that are helping to destroy the American image in the Middle East). A bit of spine on the White House’s part, huh? I think Obama hates Netanyahu and can’t wait for a second term to sock it to him.

66 Responses

  1. Exiled At Home
    August 10, 2011, 11:40 am

    I think Obama hates Netanyahu and can’t wait for a second term to sock it to him.

    Ha! Sure he will, sure he will…

    I’m sure he does hate Netanyahu. Who doesn’t? But if he so much as gives him a dirty look, Congress will shut down his Presidency. Can’t really have an effective second term if 99.9% of the American Congress is willing to block your every move. He’ll be blacklisted.

    If you look at American political history since the post-Kennedy era, there is a general theme of extreme American deference to Israel’s agenda. However, on occasion, the rare Congressman stands out as a voice of reason. He is never re-elected. Then, on occasion, you have a naive executive that doesn’t fully grasp the power of the Israeli lobby. Bush Sr. tried to pull the reigns on Israel a bit, not fully understanding the venomous response his actions would illicit from Congress. After issuing probably the harshest public condemnation of Israeli intransigence and arrogance on the eve of the Madrid Peace Conference, President Bush Sr. received a scathing letter with deafening unanimity from our Congress. Realizing the ubiquitous wall he was up against, Bush Sr. toned it down, reigned himself in instead of Israel, and still lost re-election. Bush Jr. received one of these letters as well, after pushing Sharon too hard on the settlement issue. Clinton. Carter. Ford. All the same. Few executives are as pro-Israel when they enter office as they are when they leave. Obama has had time to see just how futile his efforts are. There will be no second-term backlash against Israel from this President or likely any other in the near future. Wishful thinking, Wiess, wishful thinking.

    • Walid
      August 10, 2011, 11:59 am

      I still don’t get it; where is Jerusalem located, at least its western part?

      • annie
        August 10, 2011, 12:05 pm

        walid, jerusalem is an international city. special status as the home of 3 major religions. resolution 181

        Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948. The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as described in Parts II and III below.


        The UNGA has stated that the international community, through the United Nations has a legitimate interest, regarding the protection of Jerusalem’s unique spiritual, religious and cultural dimensions.[15] Its position on the question of Jerusalem is based upon General Assembly resolution 181 (II) November 29, 1947, which provides for the full territorial internationalisation of Jerusalem: “The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations.”[16] This position was restated in the wake of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War in UN General Assembly Resolution 303(IV) of 1949. According to a 1979 report prepared for and under the guidance of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, it would appear that the UN has maintained that until the final status of the city is agreed by the parties involved, the legal status of the city remains a corpus separatum.[17]

        The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) does not recognise Israel’s proclamation of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, which is, for example, reflected in the wording of General Assembly Resolution 63/30 of 2009 which states that “any actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem are illegal and therefore null and void and have no validity whatsoever, and calls upon Israel to cease all such illegal and unilateral measures.”[15]

        A total of six UN Security Council resolutions on Israel have denounced or declared invalid Israel’s control of the city, including UNSC resolution 478 which affirmed that the enactment of the 1980 Basic Jerusalem Law declaring unified Jerusalem as Israel’s “eternal and indivisible” capital, was a violation of international law. The resolution advised member states to withdraw their diplomatic representation from the city.

        this is why the US doesn’t have their embassy there (or any other country as far as i know). the only government body who considers jerusalem in israel is the goi.

      • DICKERSON3870
        August 10, 2011, 12:41 pm

        RE: “jerusalem is an international city. special status as the home of 3 major religions. resolution 181” ~ annie

        MY COMMENT: By allowing the Simon Wiesenthal Center to build its so-called Museum of Tolerance on the site of Jerusalem’s ancient Mamilla cemetery, the government of Israel has very clearly demonstrated that it cannot be entrusted with the care of Jerusalem. Among other reasons, Israel lacks the requisite degree of “tolerance” and good judgement.
        The city should be given international status and protected from this type of pernicious development/desecration. It can still serve as the capital of both Israel and Palestine.

        P.S. Also see Olmert chief suspect in Holyland scandal

      • annie
        August 10, 2011, 12:41 pm

        agreed dickerson

      • Walid
        August 10, 2011, 1:43 pm

        Dickerson, another museum to help the Jews visiting Jerusalem feel even more sorry for themselves is ridiculous and to build it atop a Muslim cemetery is obscene as is with mostly everything else that Israel does.

        On the other hand, there are some records from way back that the Palestinians were considering putting up a commercial building atop the same cemetery so we shouldn’t be stirring up a storm over it for the sake of making an issue out of it. It would be worthwhile to make some kind of parallel between what is proposed for Mamilla and what is actually happening to Jewish cemeteries in Arab countries. You can’t have a discussion about Muslim cemeteries without discussing the Jewish ones.

      • annie
        August 10, 2011, 2:11 pm

        walid, about that commercial building. would that have been the same guy as this, or someone in a similar position?

        Regarding the Judgment of the Qadi of Yaffo in 1964 which is intended to be the legal judgment of the Muslim Court, it seems that there is no choice but to clarify the matter as follows:

        a) The procedure was defective in that it stood completely against the Sharia’ procedures and against the substantive law of the Waqf. The procedure was opened by someone who has no standing before the Court (the Mayor) and who was not a trustee of the Waqf.

        b) No one was present at the procedure as a “side” to the case, not even the one who petitioned or someone in his place. The side (Mayor) did not but send a letter, which is is completely against the procedures of the Sharia’ Courts.

        c) The petition did not, nor did the decision show the benefits to the Waqf, which is essential and obligatory regarding any change in the status of any property of the waqf.

        d) Even the basic assumption on which the conclusion of the above Qadi’s decision was made regarding that the bones that disintegrated and that the remains had begun ashes (dust) – only 16 years after the last burials in the place, it is clear even today, 42 years later, as completely false. Now it is clear to all that whole skeletons have been uncovered as was publicized and photographed in the Haaretz newspaper. It should also be indicated that the representative of the Antiquities Authority announced to the Interior Committee of the Knesset that more than 200 graves have been dug up and the bones placed in boxes!

        e) The decision of the above Qadi (of Yaffo from 1964) that the graves have been disintegrated by time was not based on anything real, and as appears in his decision, he didn’t bother to check the area. Therefore, and for other reasons which are too detailed to explain, it is clear that the former procedure is completely null and void.

        f) It is especially sad to say that we have been informed that the former Qadi was convicted of felonious acts of fraud against the public. The Tel Aviv District Court’s sentence was upheld by the High Court (see judgment 822/64 and 22/66 of the High Court). It should be indicated that the criminal process of these accusations were at the same time as his judgment regarding the cemetery.

      • annie
        August 10, 2011, 2:18 pm

        also, someone posted something recently about funds set aside thru the US government to preserve graveyards and all of it has gone towards jewish graveyards. i think our country supports this graveyard protection even in countries with arab populations.

      • Walid
        August 10, 2011, 4:18 pm

        Annie, the story of the Palestinians wanting to put up a multi-use commercial building goes back to 1945 as reported in the Palestine Post (that later became the J Post) and now archived at TAU. The project evidently did not materialize but my point is that for the Palestinians to have even planned on doing it, it somehow puts a damper on all the brouhaha today abut the Jews wanting to do the same thing.

        I don’t know if the 1964 story is about the same guy that was involved in the 1945 plan to build the commercial building but I can advance that these “qadis” of the religious high court are prone to bending the rules if the price is right. According to Khalidi, the 1945 project died because of public opposition. There was a thread on this subject on Mondo back in March 2010.

        link to jewishjournal.com

      • American
        August 10, 2011, 10:58 pm

        Yea I posted that…the US agency that does that is called US Heritage Abroad of something like that…a misleading name for what it does.
        If you look at their ‘projects’ 99.9% are for Jewish graves. The odd part is these aren’t graves of US Jews who died abroad or US military graves, they are just Jewish graves and cemeteries in various countries around the world.
        How it has anything to do with US heritage is beyond me.
        I guess the zios in congress thought calling it ‘US Heritage’ would not attract the attention of snoops looking for special Jewish related agencies funded by taxpayers.

      • annie
        August 10, 2011, 11:11 pm

        very very strange. thanks american. i love your name. how did you think of that! ;)

      • American
        August 11, 2011, 12:15 am

        I guess cause I’m not very creative…. LOL
        And when forced to choose some posting ‘handle’ on the net I choose that because rightly or wrongly I tend to think of America as having stood for some universal principles once upon a time…..long ago and far away now.

      • annie
        August 11, 2011, 2:30 am

        well, i like it. and your voice merges well w/it.

      • CigarGod
        August 11, 2011, 8:35 am

        “the Palestinians” or a Palestinian or a Palestinian company?

      • Exiled At Home
        August 10, 2011, 12:08 pm

        Is that sarcasm, Walid?

      • Exiled At Home
        August 10, 2011, 12:24 pm


        Jerusalem geographically is located in the center of historic Palestine, along the border of the UN recognized state of Israel and Palestinian West Bank. The city, as expressed in the UN Resolution 181, is an international zone not to be administered by any country. In the 1948 war, Israel took control of the western portion of the city, heavily populated by Jews, while Jordan took control of the eastern portion of the city, including the Old City, which houses Al-Aqsa Mosque. In 1967, Israel overtook all of Jerusalem, annexing the entire city and proclaiming it to be the undivided capital of Israel. It has remained under unilateral Israeli control since 1967.

      • Walid
        August 10, 2011, 12:46 pm

        Thanks, Annie, and no, Exiled, that wasn’t sarcasm. I’m not happy with what’s happening to Jerusalem and I’m not happy to see the Palestinians being gradually moved out but I don’t get why we are making an issue out of the misuse of one word and not with what the the rest of the UN resolution was about.

        It took me back a few decades when it was a capital sin and a crime in most Arab countries to pronounce the word “Israel” as if by not doing so would make it go away. It was absurd. Today, most of these countries are hypocritically chummy with Israel with only Lebanon and Syria still holding out. The WH and the State Dept are doing much worse things to the Palestinians than misusing a word on a photo.

      • Exiled At Home
        August 10, 2011, 1:12 pm

        Those are very good points. But, I do think it is still very important to not cede ground to Israel on the issue of Jerusalem. The United States should not refer to Jerusalem as being part of Israel, nor should it locate its embassy there. Maybe it’s an ultimately inconsequential point, however, Israel should be rebuffed whenever possible.

      • Walid
        August 10, 2011, 1:19 pm

        Exiled, long before Israel learned how to write the word, Jordan illegally annexed the WB and East Jerusalem and the Arab League put Jordan in the dog house for a couple of years because of it but eventually kissed and made up. I know where Jerusalem is located; I’ve been there.

      • Graber
        August 10, 2011, 1:22 pm

        Walid, that one word in the photo is the White House telling Israel to go ahead in Sheikh Jarrah – get rid of all of the Arab homes. Because if Jerusalem is classified as in Israel, then it’s in the Jewish, Democratic State of Israel, in which Palestinians are second-class citizens, if they are able to stay at all.

        And this is why Hamas refuses to recognize the Israeli government, and why it was a “capital sin” in “most Arab countries” to pronounce the word, “Israel.” It is an act of collusion with the occupier and ethnic cleanser, white washing the crimes of the past.

      • Exiled At Home
        August 10, 2011, 1:46 pm

        I know where Jerusalem is located; I’ve been there.

        Pardonne moi.

      • Walid
        August 10, 2011, 3:51 pm

        Grabber, Israelis aren’t in any need of encouragement from the US or from an other country to do what they’re doing in Sheikh Jarrah; it comes naturally for them.

        Hamas cannot recognize Israel because to do so would validate the Israeli theft that has been going on for decades. Israel has already been either forgiven or forgotten about by the majority of Arab states and the Palestinians are now really on their own. Getting rid of Assad is a dream come true for Israel as it blows away and forever Syria’s claim to the Golan. The last 3 hurdles remaining for Israel are Assad, Hamas, and Hizbullah.

      • tellmeall
        August 10, 2011, 4:18 pm

        @Walid: Just in case you’re not being sarcastic, Jerusalem is in Occupied Palestinian Territory.
        In ’67 I believe Israel proclaimed & annexed Jerusalem to Israel, no east or west only Jewish. Zionists immediately commenced to changing facts on the ground & are continuing today.

        However under international law Jerusalem is Occupied Palestinian Territory, in other words it belongs to Palestine and for many centuries the Muslim & Christian Palestinians shared Jerusalem with all peoples,tolerance and graciousness reigned.

        You can no longer even follow in Christ’s footsteps on his route to Calvary due to Apartheid wall.

        In the Road Map & other time consuming, fruitless negotiations, it is almost taboo to discuss Jerusalem’s final status. Always saved for last because the Palestinians have given over 80% of their rights to the area of the Mandate. And the Zionists will not share, will not cooperate.

        Made the desert bloom? Au contraire, salted the earth with d.u., white phosphorous, d.i.m.e.,who knows what cancer causes lurk in the earth around Dimona?

        What will the zionists ask for next? Every Palestinian couple’s first born?

      • Walid
        August 10, 2011, 4:31 pm

        “Pardonne moi”

        No pardons necessary, Exiled, it was long long ago due to a forced landing of an old (York) cargo plane on which I had hitched a ride to get to Kuwait. Was there for only the 3 hours it took to repair the engine so I didn’t really see anything but still had the great thrill of breathing the air there.

      • Walid
        August 10, 2011, 5:04 pm

        tellmeall, most of today’s Israel is occupied territory.

      • Exiled At Home
        August 10, 2011, 5:39 pm

        …the great thrill of breathing the air there.

        I know exactly what you mean. I visited the Holy City in the summer of 2006, and while for obvious reason there was the distinct sense of suspense and anxiety in the air, there was something altogether calming about being at the epicenter of Abrahamic religion.

        I cannot say how much I enjoyed traversing those historic streets, taking in the warm summer air while walking past the Buraq/Western wall, Al-Aqsa, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and so many other storied locations…

        Navigating the chaotic bazaar if the Old City was something extraordinary, fighting off groups of children looking to sell small trinkets or catch the odd coin thrown their way, the vendors relentlessly luring you into their shops only to offer the most exorbitant prices, the haggling and theatrics you must go through to get the price down to more reasonable costs, the smells of hookah, dates, jallab, coffee and fresh-grilling lamb, chicken, and goat wafting through the streets, the excitement, the bustle, the liveliness of it all. It stood in such stark contrast to the quiescence of the Jewish Quarter of the Old City…

        There is something intangible about that city that is simply intoxicating.

      • annie
        August 10, 2011, 5:47 pm

        fighting off groups of children looking to sell small trinkets or catch the odd coin thrown their way


      • Exiled At Home
        August 10, 2011, 5:50 pm


      • annie
        August 10, 2011, 5:55 pm

        I don’t get why we are making an issue out of the misuse of one word

        it isn’t a word it is a place. and besides words mean something. first they call them settlements then they call then neighborhoods. first they say jerusalem is theirs then we say it then they say jerusalem isn’t within it’s municipality it encompasses a huge area incorporating the surrounding settlements which are actually neighborhood of jerusalem. it just keeps getting expanded. i’m not going to use their framing, i’m just not . it is illegal.

      • annie
        August 10, 2011, 5:58 pm

        it just read strange to me. i don’t throw coins at children. it didn’t match my experience of jerusalem. or this

        vendors relentlessly luring you into their shops only to offer the most exorbitant prices, the haggling and theatrics you must go through to get the price down to more reasonable costs.

        maybe we were in different areas.

      • Exiled At Home
        August 10, 2011, 6:58 pm

        I was referring to the bazaar in the Old City, not all of Jerusalem. There were a lot of kids in the street selling things and some would follow you and keep trying to offer to show you around, etc. I saw several tourists paying them just to go away. Perhaps a bit condescending, I didn’t do it, but I saw it.

        As for the shopkeepers, they love to bargain. I bought a hand-carved chess set made from olive wood with a stone-topped finish. I walked out with it for about 200 sheckels or 50 USD. Not bad considering the shopkeeper asked me for 1200 sheckels to begin with. I walked out on him twice, and twice he came running out pleading with me to come back in. It was all a show, on both our parts, and we both thoroughly enjoyed the exchange.

      • American
        August 10, 2011, 11:11 pm

        “Israel has already been either forgiven or forgotten about by the majority of Arab states ”

        Er… I do believe you are blowing a bit of smoke there.
        Doesn’t appear to me–from all reports– that Egypt or Jordon or Syria or the Muslim population of Turkey or even Saudi, not to mention Iran and Iraq have forgotten about Palestine or eager to embrace Israel. The Arab League still, at least formally, boycotts Israel last time I looked.

      • Walid
        August 11, 2011, 1:43 am

        “The Arab League still, at least formally, boycotts Israel last time I looked.”

        American, I was referring to Arab states and not to the general Arab population, which of course still hates Israel because Israel does nothing to be loved. On record, the Arab League may still boycott Israel but the boycott all but fizzed out in the early 80s. Today, the Israeli passport is accepted in almost half the Arab countries. Saudi Arabia lifted all restrictions on all Israeli goods because of its WTO membership and Israel has diplomatic relationships or direct and indirect dealings with countries representing about 95% of the total Arab population, the remaining 5% population outside that group is that of Syria and Lebanon. A couple of years back, it was reported that over 500 Israeli companies were doing business in Iraq. You could update your information about where Israel stands with Arab governments.

      • talknic
        August 10, 2011, 1:20 pm

        Jerusalem was a part of the Provisional State of Palestine. (Palestine was recognized as a Provisional State under the LoN Charter, acknowledged by the LoN Mandate for Palestine) link to wp.me

        Jerusalem was not declared as Israeli May 15th 1948. “the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947”

        The Israeli Government proclaimed it occupied 12th Aug 1948

        Occupied territories are to be protected by the Occupying Power on behalf of the occupied according to the Laws of War.

        Non self governing territories are to be protected under the UN Charter Chapt XI.

        The proposed corpus separatum was not instituted.

        Jerusalem’s legal status has not changed from being a part of what remains of the Provisional State of Palestine after Israel was declared independent of Palestine.

        link to wp.me

      • pjdude
        August 11, 2011, 3:30 am

        it is located in illegally annexed ouccupied palestine

      • Hostage
        August 11, 2011, 6:43 am

        I still don’t get it; where is Jerusalem located, at least its western part?

        The US used to list Palestine as the place of birth until Israel complained. The United States did not recognize the annexation of Jerusalem by either of the successor states, Israel or Jordan. See “Corpus Separatum §33 Jerusalem” Marjorie M. Whiteman editor, US State Department ”Digest of International Law”, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963) pages 593-4;

        The Israelis want to eat their cake and still have it too, i.e. the armistice borders are irrelevant and the status of East Jerusalem can only be determined by negotiations – but not West Jerusalem. In reality the status of all of the territory is disputed until a final settlement is accepted by the parties concerned – and that has to include West Jerusalem.

        The US was a state party to the Treaty of Lausanne and the Anglo-American Palestine Mandate Convention of 1925 which provided that Ottoman subjects would become citizens of the States which acquired territory from the Ottoman Empire. The United States established a nationality quota for “Palestine (with Trans-Jordan) (British mandate)” See for example Proclamation #1872 – Limiting the Immigration of Aliens Into the United States on the Basis of National Origin, March 22, 1929. In addition, the US formally recognized the State of Palestine in its treaties of commerce.
        link to presidency.ucsb.edu
        link to dc.findacase.com

        In 1995 the State Department published a Memorandum of Conversation between William Crawford Jr. and Mr. Shaul Bar-Haim from the Israeli Embassy (February 7, 1963) regarding Jerusalem. Bar-Haim said “The use of the term “Palestine” is historical fiction; it encourages the Palestine entity concept; its “revived usage enrages” individual Israelis”. Crawford said “It is difficult to see how it “enrages” Israeli opinion. The practice is consistent with the fact that, ”in a de jure sense”, Jerusalem was part of Palestine and has not since become part of any other sovereignty. That it was not a simple matter since there was a ”quota nationality”, in regard to which U.S. legislation and regulation continue to employ the term Palestine. See Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961-1963, Vol. Xviii, Near East, United States. Dept. of State, G.P.O., 1995, ISBN 0160451590, page 341.

        US immigration law, U.S. Title 8, Chapter 12, § 1101. Definitions still says “(a) As used in this chapter— (14) The term “foreign state” includes outlying possessions of a foreign state, but self-governing dominions or territories under mandate or trusteeship shall be regarded as separate foreign states.

        So immigrant aliens living in the US today, that came here during the mandate era, are still considered Palestinian nationals.

      • CigarGod
        August 11, 2011, 8:42 am

        Interesting. Thanks.

    • jewishgoyim
      August 11, 2011, 7:02 pm

      I have to agree. I mean anyone who says at this point that Obama will do anything meaningful ever hasn’t been paying attention. Sorry Phil but if you’re gonna be that obamaniac in the coming year, the blog is gonna get more and more painful to read. Obama is a tool. He may have “inner thoughts and feelings” but we now know they are irrelevant to anything he might do.

      Obama is Bush with vaseline.

  2. Oklahoma farmer
    August 10, 2011, 12:56 pm

    MW… I’m like you….hope O., if he gets a second term, will sock it to Net. But am low scared he won’t.

    I mean….. let’s face it…. O. hasn’t shown guts yet…. but????

    Remember? Jimmy Carter was years out of office before he began to act Presidential, and talked Apartheid.

    But then, Carter folded like a cheap umbrella.

    By the way…..is Carter still alive? I haven’t heard anything from him since….

    Gotta give him credit tho….his apartheid thingy showed spunk.

    (momentary spunk)

    • annie
      August 10, 2011, 2:01 pm

      nothing about carter is cheap. get your story straight.

      • jewishgoyim
        August 11, 2011, 7:05 pm

        Fair enough but last time I heard about Carter, he was backing down on everything he had ever said about Israel in order to get his son elected to some perk.

      • annie
        August 11, 2011, 7:34 pm

        i guess i didn’t hear about that jg. here’s carter from may of this year. The Unchanged Path to Mideast Peace

      • jewishgoyim
        August 11, 2011, 8:07 pm

        Ok. I may have been pushing it a little as he stands his ground in this NYT oped. Yet my bitterness was a result of how much trust people on our side had vested in Carter. He is a courageous fellow I’d love to be wrong about that but I remember something a year ago or so along the lines I described. I’m gonna try to find it and post it.

        So before I find the thing about Carter, I’m sure the issue of children is very difficult for people who decide to take on the lobby in a meaningful way. Walt and Mearsheimer for instance. Larry Summers told Walt it’s too bad because after writing that he’ll never work in government. Fair enough. Now did Walt think about diminishing his children prospects? So my point may be exaggerated about Carter (I’m gonna verify) but I think there is an issue there anyway.

        I mean that’s why people fighting the lobby tend to have non-mainstream personalities and lifestyle. Otherwise they would stay put.

        I wondered that about Phil. Would he write Mondoweiss in the same manner if he had children?

      • jewishgoyim
        August 11, 2011, 8:33 pm

        There you go Annie. This thing from MJ Rosenberg is not very explicit but there is a link you can follow. And that’s probably what I read at the time.

        link to huffingtonpost.com

        It was supposedly for his grandson’s electoral prospects that Carter made the move. Rosenberg says: if you criticize the lobby there may be a price to pay unto the 3rd generation.

      • annie
        August 11, 2011, 9:19 pm

        Carter does not specifically retract anything he has previously said or written. Even love for a grandson will not allow Carter to retract facts. He just apologizes for any hurt he may have caused

        As for the peace wing of the pro-Israel community, we owe him our deep appreciation. Over the last few years it was the combination of Jimmy Carter, Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer who did more to undermine support for Israel’s suicidal policies in the West Bank and Gaza than any one else.

        i think mjrosenberg is very explicit.

  3. PissedOffAmerican
    August 10, 2011, 1:43 pm

    You gotta be kidding me! I’m amazed seeing Weiss make such a ridiculous statement as “I think Obama hates Netanyahu and can’t wait for a second term to sock it to him”

    Mr.Weiss would be well advised to examine the REASONS behind the premise that “Obama hates Netanyahu”, and then ask himself the feasability of such a spineless and inept President having thje ability to “sock it to” anyone, much less this arrogant intransigent bigot Netanyahu.

    Of course Obama feels ill will towards Netanyahu. Because Netanyahu has exposed the Obama Presidency as effectively neutered in regards to Isr/Pal. When was the last time you’ve seen this sack of of shit Obama get standing ovations from his coterie of Democrat sluts? Who in his Administration has worked to support Obama’s past “hardline” on the settlement issue? Netanyahu cut Obama’s balls off, and he sure as hell ain’t going to grow them back with a second term in office. The man is utterly spineless on a wide range of fronts, and has virtually NO support from his own party in regards to ISR/PAL, so he can’t even use someone else’s balls to go after Netanyahu.

    Its inexplicable to me why Weiss would opine such a baseless and unrealistic dingleberry of optimism in regards to this posturing wimp, Obama. Inept, lacking anything even vaguely resembling political courage, and totally unsupported in any attempt to change the dynamics of the Isr/Pal saga. This is the “man” that is going to “sock it to” Netanyahu???

    Gads, what’s Weiss been smoking?

    • eljay
      August 10, 2011, 1:52 pm

      >> PissedOffAmerican August 10, 2011 at 1:43 pm

      You sound so…I dunno, pissed off. ;-)

      • annie
        August 10, 2011, 1:59 pm

        yeah, neutered/sluts/cut his balls off…. i could have done w/out reading any of that.

      • Philip Munger
        August 10, 2011, 2:24 pm

        me too, to a certain degree, but I respect POA’s passion.


        However, on occasion, the rare Congressman stands out as a voice of reason. He is never re-elected.

        A certain amount of truth in that. Rep. Donna Edwards is still there, though. She is the only out-of-state politician in office I have financially supported. I’ll be doing it again in 2012. Others should too.

      • Exiled At Home
        August 10, 2011, 4:05 pm

        Donna Edwards voted “Present” for House Resolution 268. Hardly an act of “standing out as a voice of reason.”

        H.R. 268: Reaffirming US commitment to a negotiated settlement, demanding Palestinians drop their bid for UN recognition of statehood, and demanding that President Obama veto any such bid.

        407 Representatives voted in favor of this bill, 5 did not vote, and 13 chose to not take a stand by voting ‘Present.”

        6 Representatives (Walter Jones (R) NC-3; Ron Paul (R) TX-14; Justin Amash (R) MI-3; Nick Rahall (D) WV-3; Earl Blumenauer (D) OR-3; Dennis Kucinich (D) OH-10) were brave enough to resoundingly vote “NO” on this bill.

        Also, in January 2009, Rep. Edwards voted “Present” on House Resolution 34, affirming the United States support for Israel’s military offense in the Gaza Strip. The bill passed 390-5, with 22 voting “Present” and 16 not voting.

        If there were ever a moment to take a stand and vote “No” it was at that moment.

        I’m sorry, Philip Munger, but I can think of more important places for my money to go than to the lady from Maryland who seems incapable of taking a position on matters of life, death, and principle.

      • ToivoS
        August 10, 2011, 4:12 pm

        As usual perpetually POed has a good point. But heck, Phil is an optimist and a dreamer — it is his schtick to pronounce unrealistic dreams.

    • Exiled At Home
      August 10, 2011, 1:54 pm

      Unfortunately, far too many people view everything in shades of black and white.

      For example, Israel and the US are opposing the Palestinian bid for recognition of statehood. So, pro-Palestinian activists understandably assume that this UN bid is a positive move for Palestinians. Not so. Recognition of this fractured, useless, ineffectual state will only seal the fate of Palestinian aspirations for actual sovereignty and self-determination. Israel will not respect this state, yet it will absolve herself of all of the ills of Palestine, characterizing everything as a purely Palestinian problem, completely distinct from Israel’s decades of occupation.

      In reference to Mr. Obama, again, because Israelis speak of him in far from glowing terms and Netanyahu publicly shamed him, the idealists in the pro-Palestinian camp assume that he is their darling. For if the Israelis are not for him, certainly he must be the man we need. Bollocks. As you pointed out, he’s a spineless, ineffectual and uninspiring individual in regard to the I-P issue. History has time and time again shown the inability of the executive to accomplish anything positive for Palestine so long as Congress’s pockets are lined with AIPAC cash.

      Oh, the optimism, the idealism, the naivety. How very damaging to the future of Palestinians. We need serious activists, with the cynical perspectives necessary to wade into this morass. This is no subject for schoolboys, Mr. Wiess.

    • American
      August 10, 2011, 11:54 pm

      I think it’s safe to say Obama doesn’t like Netanyahu.
      Look at the pictures of him and Netanyahu together…his repulsion shows in his face.

    • CigarGod
      August 11, 2011, 8:47 am

      Well, now we see the true value of freedom of speech.
      No way I could understood POA’s point or have become an even bigger fan without his unique use of our language.

  4. PissedOffAmerican
    August 10, 2011, 3:35 pm

    What really shines through in these threads is the inanity of the debate.

    So, the White House excises a word, and hearts go all aflutter. Never mind that the same White House has stood mutely by while Israel maimed and murdered American citizens ebngaged in peaceful protest. Assisted Israel in demonizing and burying the Goldstone Report, and reads the Israeli script on Iran religiously, working towards yet one more war largely justified by Israeli fabrications.

    As if these clowns in the Obama Administration will do anything other than offer cowardice in the face of further Israeli annexation of Jerusalem? At best, all this Administration has offered in response to Israeli policies, actions, and apartment building in Jerusalem has been mild and tepid criticism, brief, and never revisited.

    Annie is distressed by my semantics. What SHOULD distress her is Weiss’s ridiculous optimism for an Obama second term. One hopes that Weiss does not use such naive and unfounded optimism to lobby for an Obama second term, because anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together, and a decent memory that allows the recollection of Obama’s performance thus far, would surely recognize how absurd such a lobbying effort would be.

    • CigarGod
      August 11, 2011, 8:55 am

      I must have some version of Stockholm Syndrome.
      In spite of the great disappoint and feeling of lose, all his failures, back peddling, fence sitting…I’m still seduced by his smile and seemingly great speeches. How can that smiling and articulate package…not contain the realization of the “hope” we all long for?

  5. gamal
    August 10, 2011, 5:24 pm

    Ah museum of tolerance, but Mamilla does have an interesting history, all documented by ronny reich who has since done a benny morris re:excavations at the haram-as-sharif and the awfulness awqaf.

    “Completely overlooked in the current media frenzy about building the Museum of Tolerance atop the millennium-old Ma’amun Allah Cemetery is the site’s forgotten history as the killing field of 614.
    Once Jerusalem was in Persian hands a terrible massacre of Christians took place, and the Jews are accused of having taken the lead in this massacre.
    How many Christian prisoners of war were murdered by the Mamilla Pool? A precise number is of course now impossible to verify, but Israeli archaeologist Ronny Reich puts the tally at 60,000 before the Persian military stopped the carnage.
    One eyewitness, Strategius of St. Sabas, wrote: “Jews ransomed the Christians from the hands of the Persian soldiers for good money, and slaughtered them with great joy at Mamilla Pool, and it ran with blood.”

    Israel Shamir wrote an article on it but i wont link in case you may be offended, some people really dont like mr. shamir got the above from atheist news. travelling so sorry about sloppiness of post. just thought it may add a little interest, we do have a history and some of us know a little of it.
    best wishes to all posters, even the crazed lying bigots perhaps especially them, but i will always have a tender place in my heart for Musa (mooser), you consistently crack me up.

    • Walid
      August 11, 2011, 2:09 am

      Gamal, thanks for the new info on the Persians/Christians/Jews and Mamilla. I looked up Shamir’s interesting article about it and other historical events we don’t read much about like the massacres by the Armenians of the Azeris and their uprooting of 800,000 non-Armenians. Most interesting was the Washington Post article of April 21, 2oo1 described by Shamir:

      “…Another prominent Jewish newspaper, The Washington Post, published an equally passionate call to genocide by Charles Krauthammer[viii]. This adept of King Saul cannot rely upon his audience’s knowledge of the Bible, so he refers to General Powell’s slaughter of routed Iraqi troops at the end of the Gulf war. He quotes Colin Powell saying of the Iraqi army: “First we’re going to cut it off, then we’re going to kill it”. For Krauthammer with his carefully chosen quotes, multitudes of slain Arabs do not qualify for the human pronoun ‘them’. They are an ‘it’. In the last stage of the war in the Gulf, immense numbers of retreating and disarmed Iraqis were slaughtered in cold blood by the US Air Force, their bodies buried by bulldozers in the desert sand in huge and nameless mass graves. The number of victims of this hecatomb is estimated from one hundred thousand to half a million. God alone knows their names.

      Krauthammer wants to repeat this feat in Palestine. ‘It’ is already cut off, divided by the Israeli army into seventy pieces. Now it is ready for the great kill. ‘Kill it!’ he calls with great passion. He must be worried that the Persians will again stop the bloodbath before the Mamilla Pool fills up. His worries are our hopes. ”

      link to israelshamir.net

  6. Taxi
    August 10, 2011, 5:27 pm

    I will hands down vote for any man or woman who declares the following:
    My fellow Americans
    Ask not what you can do for israel
    Ask what you can do for YOUR country.

    • lobewyper
      August 10, 2011, 8:08 pm

      Funny! But it won’t happen in my lifetime…

    • anonymouscomments
      August 10, 2011, 10:22 pm

      Hmmm, not that they would win, but hypothetically, if so, I bet they would get shot.

      But your dream candidate has my vote.

      I think Kucinich or Ron Paul would show, respectively, pressure or disinterest in Israel. Too bad both are “unelectable”, well, cause the MSM says so, which makes it so! Plus there would still be congress… not even a president can do much, lest he decide to loose the majority of congress, and become a premature lame duck.

  7. American
    August 10, 2011, 11:40 pm

    Obama is not a leader. He may have believed what he said in Cairo but he lacks the self confidence and the sense of urgency necessary for a leader. The 0ld saying ‘he who hesitates is lost” fits Obama to a T.
    Here he has had the biggest bully pulpit in the universe and has never used it except to give his flowery preachy speeches.
    He missed his opportunity right off the bat by playing Mr. Bipartisan and thinking he could massage congress like some kind of neighborhood back in the days when was a community organizer.
    The tide was with him when he took office and he could have used it to bring them all to heel but he let it pass by and blew his chance…and ours.
    I’d be surprised if he develops any true grit if he is re elected.

    The only person even mentioned or speculated about during the last election that I would even cross the street for was Chuck Hagle but he decided not to run.

  8. mtorres
    August 11, 2011, 9:34 am

    Obama socking it to Netanyahu in his second term? Phil, please! Even if he was inclined (though how he’s going to have any more spine next term than he did this is a puzzle – the man is what he is), the Democratic party would not allow it.

    Without the Democratic party’s strong and consistent support of all of Israel’s crimes since at least the 70’s, the situation would look very different today. Since 9/11, of course, the Republicans have hopped into that leaking, sinking boat as well.

    No, this president will not be showing any more courage, principle or integrity than he has to date. That is, none. Exiled at Home hit it on the head. Even without the Party coming down on his head, Congress would finish him.

    • Hostage
      August 11, 2011, 9:59 am

      I’ve noted here before that Obama might eventually be motivated by the desire for political revenge. The elections are in November and the loser remains President until January. A lame duck President would have nothing whatever to loose if he decided to punish AIPAC and establish his legacy by recognizing the State of Palestine within the 67 borders. Unlike diplomatic recognition, recognition of statehood is customarily considered irrevocable. That practice is reflected in Article 6 of the Montevideo Convention, a treaty that the US State Departments still lists in its publication on Treaties in Force.

      Unless the Supreme Court reverses its landmark decision in US v. Belmont as a result of the upcoming Jerusalem passport case, then the President will continue to possess the exclusive constitutional authority to recognize sovereignty over foreign territory.

      §204 “Recognition and Maintaining Diplomatic Relations: Law of the United States”, in “The Restatement of the Law (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States” explains that under the Constitution of the United States the President has exclusive authority to recognize or not to recognize a foreign state or government and to recognize foreign sovereignty over territory. The President has the constitutional authority to conclude international agreements related to recognition without authorization from Congress or consent of the Senate. See United States v Belmont, 301, US 324, 57 S Ct. 758, 81 L.Ed. 1134 (1937); or §204 “Recognition and Maintaining Diplomatic Relations: Law of the United States”, Volume 1, page 89; and §303 Reporters Note 11 “Sole Executive Agreements”, Volume 1, page 167, in “The Restatement of the Law (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States”, American Law Institute, 1986, ISBN 0314301380.

      link to supreme.justia.com

      • Exiled At Home
        August 11, 2011, 10:27 am


        This is not a matter of what is legally plausible. The United States, its Congress, and its Presidents, have always had the right to recognize Palestine as a sovereign nation, the right to sever financial and military aid to the pariah state Israel, the right to withdrawal “obligatory” diplomatic cover for Israeli war-crimes, etcetera. This is not a matter of what Mr. Obama can or cannot do in accordance with US law. This comes down to the fundamental issue of what political and personal repercussions he -or anyone else- would face if he were to do something morally drastic. The suspicion that Obama loathes Netanyahu is simply not enough reason to believe that anything will change. I understand that optimistic idealism sustains some people, so, by all means, if holding to this rosy belief keeps you sane, I’d hate to be the one to send you off to the asylum. But, the simple fact remains, most US Presidents have been angered and enraged by Israeli actions. Many of have been publicly or personally put in their place. Yet we’ve never seen the type of last-ditch-effort you describe in which an American president with nothing left to lose, finally comes down decisively on the right side of the issue on the waning days of his Presidency.

        Bush Sr. gave an impassioned speech about American soldiers dying in Iraq for Israel while Israeli leadership arrogantly demands unconditional loans for settlements jeopardizing the Madrid Peace Conference. These were not the words of a man who had much love for Israeli intransigence. In fact, I’d say they were the harshest words from a sitting US President since Kennedy’s anti-nuclear proliferation efforts against Israel. Yet, despite Bush’s untethered outrage at Israeli leadership, we never saw a peep from him again after that. Not even in his last days as President, when he could have pulled off something similar to what you suggest here. Why would Mr. Obama be any different? What has he done or said that indicates that he is anything other than a ineffectual pragmatist?

      • Hostage
        August 11, 2011, 7:05 pm

        This is not a matter of what is legally plausible.

        I was writing about something that is politically very likely. AIPAC, Bibi, and Dennis Ross will eventually piss-off the wrong politically powerful person. A lame duck President is still the President. Obama will have no reason to cave-in on his way out of office and every reason to get even with the Israel Lobby.

Leave a Reply