Ismail Khalidi: A tragic lecture, justifiying a vicious occupation, with no awareness that we killed the two-state solution

Israel/Palestine
on 141 Comments

A great effect of the Obama speech: Americans are going to hear clear moral voices. We will be informed. Playwright Ismail Khalidi gains a platform in the Albany Times-Union:

The only conclusion to be drawn from the ongoing row over the Palestinian plan to gain full United Nations membership is that the Palestinians have absolutely no reason to heed the advice of the United States any longer…

After two decades overseeing a “peace process,” that saw the number of illegal settlers double to more than 500,000 and Israel’s occupation entrench itself more deeply, the continued American disregard for the Palestinians’ plight is less surprise than tragedy — not only for the Palestinians, but for Israel and the United States as well.

It is a tragedy because the Palestinians, who are in their 45th year under an illegal military occupation, are no closer to achieving a viable state. This reality is courtesy of successive Israeli governments and their blindly supportive patrons in Washington who oversaw Israel’s systematic theft of Palestinian land and resources following the 1993 Oslo accords.

It is a tragedy, too, because the United States is seemingly devoid of any power to hold its favorite ally, and biggest recipient of aid, accountable to international law. The power the United States does wield, however, is expertly directed against the occupied Palestinians, who are regularly lectured and threatened with further misery and a loss of aid funding at even the slightest hint of resistance. All the while, they watch their future state disappear.

On Wednesday, President Barack Obama lectured the world and the Palestinians at the U.N. about peace and justice without even the slightest hint that he or the U.S. government was aware that their policies amount to the death of the two-state solution.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

141 Responses

  1. Woody Tanaka
    September 22, 2011, 11:10 am

    It is about time that the Palestinians told the US to go jump in a lake. Untile we’re no longer hostages of the lobby, we can do no good.

    • seafoid
      September 22, 2011, 1:37 pm

      Akiva el dar, that well known Jihadi surrender monkey , writing in Ha’aretz

      http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/obama-s-passivity-could-lead-to-the-loss-of-a-palestinian-partner-1.385915

      Obama’s passivity could lead to the loss of a Palestinian partner
      Speeches like the one given by U.S. President Barack Obama to the UN General Assembly will not advance peace one iota.
      By Akiva Eldar Tags: Barack Obama UN Security Council

      The key statement in President Barack Obama’s address to the UN General Assembly was the distinction that peace between Israel and the Palestinians will not be attained by means of speeches and UN resolutions. Indeed, speeches like those presidential candidate Obama gave on Wednesday will not advance peace one iota. A resolution passed by the General Assembly to upgrade the status of the Palestinians a bit – after a blocking majority put together by Obama or an American veto thwarts them in the Security Council – is also not likely to improve the situation in the occupied territories.
      Worse yet, Obama’s passivity could pave the way to a civil uprising against Israel and its American patron, and/or lead to the loss of the Palestinian partner to the two-state solution.
      Obama’s graceless courting of the Israeli government is unlikely to attract Jewish votes or financing; those who believe in the perpetuation of the conflict will prefer a Republican candidate who recycles the hollow vow to bring the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. The photographer Spencer Tunik should have invited Obama to take part in his photograph in the lowest place on earth, since Obama’s speech presented the diplomacy of the (still ) strongest power in the world in all its nakedness.

      To realize the extent to which the lame-duck candidate has regressed from the positions of the new and promising President Obama, the speech to the United Nations in September 2011 should be compared to one he gave in Cairo in 2009. At that time he pledged to “personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires,” and said “… it is time for all of us to live up to our responsibilities.” Yesterday he sent the occupied and the occupier, the strong and the weak, to solve the core issues on their own.
      In Cairo he recalled, along with Jewish suffering in the Holocaust, the “daily humiliations … that come with the occupation.” And he added: “Let there be no doubt: The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable.” He even compared the struggle of the Palestinians for freedom to the struggle of black people in the United States for equal rights. On Wednesday, Obama paid pursed lip service to the legitimate aspirations and forgot to mention the occupation.

      In June 2009, Obama spoke of “the obligations that the parties have agreed to under the road map.” He meant, among other things, and perhaps mainly, Israel’s obligation to completely stop construction in the settlements and dismantle the outposts built after March 2001. To remove all doubt, he stated resolutely: “It is time for these settlements to stop.”
      On Wednesday, not one word of criticism was heard about Israel creating unilateral physical facts on the ground. To the 2011-model Obama, only the Palestinians’ approach to the United Nations is unilateral, objectionable and meriting the death penalty. Only the very best navigators of the endless maze of the “peace process” could find in yesterday’s address an indirect mention of Obama’s support for negotiations based on the 1967 borders and an exchange of territories – in a general reference to his speech last May.
      Obama forgot to mention that in July he demanded that the Quartet release a statement of support for the annexation of the settlement blocs to Israel and recognition of Israel’s Jewish character. Yesterday he was a bit more cautious and made do with the declaration that “Israel deserves recognition.” To whom exactly was the statement directed? To North Korea? To Iran? How many countries among those whose leaders were listening to his remarks do not recognize Israel? True, none of them, including the United States, recognize the occupation, nor the annexation of East Jerusalem.

      There is no doubt that Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman had many moments of pleasure on Wednesday. His great nemesis, the person who threatened to expel him from his home in the settlement of Nokdim in exchange for a diplomatic agreement with the Palestinians, and perhaps for a regional peace initiative as well, raised a white flag yesterday. In fact, how can one complain about a foreign leader who risks our existence for considerations that are foreign to us? Don’t we have one like that?

  2. eee
    September 22, 2011, 11:11 am

    Instead of “watching their future state disappear”, the Palestinians should negotiate in earnest since there is no other way to a peaceful solution. Given that there is no other strategy available except howling at the moon, it is the only reasonable thing to do. Or we can wait 20 years until everybody is convinced BDS does not work. How smart is that?

    • annie
      September 22, 2011, 11:29 am

      i think it is more likely in twenty years everyone will be convinced bds does work.

      • seafoid
        September 22, 2011, 11:41 am

        It’s going to unwind faster than that, Annie.
        Israel won’t be able to hold off sanctions for that long. So many people around the world were sickened yesterday. It was a victory for the lobby but a strategic loss for Israel in the battle for the wallet of the goy consumer.

      • annie
        September 22, 2011, 11:59 am

        i swear seafoid i had such clear visions in my dreams last night i had to do a double take to check if they were really dreams or not. SA jacked up the price of oil in my dreams, sometime around 2 am and then there were repercussions for hrs and hrs intermingled with sleep and awake-ness. we started sinking so fast due to that little bulldog of a state.

      • seafoid
        September 22, 2011, 12:41 pm

        I was dreaming about the Obama speech last night as well.

      • eee
        September 22, 2011, 2:05 pm

        Seafoid,

        For 63 years people like you have been saying the same thing, over and over. So how do you explain the fact that the “goy consumer” is buying more Israeli products after Cast Lead than before it and that Israel’s economy is so robust?

      • American
        September 22, 2011, 3:28 pm

        Oil embargo,oil embargo,oil embargo…..keep chanting.
        Short term pain for long term gain.

      • annie
        September 22, 2011, 3:38 pm

        oh please oh please oh please….remind america which alliances matter domestically and which tiny little one offers us…nothing in return..

      • Citizen
        September 22, 2011, 7:17 pm

        eee, Source?

      • llama lady
        September 22, 2011, 11:51 pm

        it took 15 years after the international Olympic committee’s sanctions to drag the US into seeing that apartheid was wrong. I surely wouldn’t expect anything quicker now, especially with all the money involved. I will be trying to educate as many people as I can in the meantime, though. The Occupation is sinful and must end. Now.

    • Chaos4700
      September 22, 2011, 11:34 am

      I mean, because South Africa is still an apartheid state and all the Africans were herded up into to Bantustans, like you’re doing with Palestinians. So I see your point about boycott not working.

      Do Israelis have anything like 401(k) accounts? How’s your Agrexco stock doing?

    • Chaos4700
      September 22, 2011, 11:39 am

      the Palestinians should negotiate in earnest since there is no other way to a peaceful solution.

      I suppose you had to type that, by the way. If you’d tried to say that, you would have sprayed your monitor with the debris of the five pieces of pizza you’ve crammed into your mouth. Metaphorically speaking.

    • Dan Crowther
      September 22, 2011, 11:48 am

      FAH-Q eee

      • eee
        September 22, 2011, 11:57 am

        Ok then, let’s wait. No side can be forced into an agreement it does not want.

        And by the way Dan, keep howling at the moon. You do not have one pragmatic bone in your body.

      • Dan Crowther
        September 22, 2011, 12:15 pm

        eee,

        pragmatism only applies when you are dealing with two sides with honorable intentions – I see no honor in Israel’s policies, or in the Israelis that defend them. Period.

      • justicewillprevail
        September 22, 2011, 12:28 pm

        eejit,
        You affect to be wholly ignorant of Israel’s role in torpedoing every single round of negotiations, whilst of course pretending otherwise. You also affect to be blithely ignorant of Israel’s refusal to countenance an independent Palestine. But you are always quick to blame the Palestinians for Israel’s hypocritical sham and its endless occupation and violence. What an act. Or maybe you are just utterly clueless.

      • seafoid
        September 22, 2011, 12:42 pm

        Bad faith and malfeasance are the hallmarks of Zionism. Oh, and whining.

      • eee
        September 22, 2011, 1:40 pm

        Dan,

        Yeah, we have heard that one before. Both sides deeply mistrust each other. I don’t trust the intentions of Abbas or Hamas at all and neither do most Israelis. But there is no alternative to negotiations except war and violence. When you are against negotiations without providing a realistic alternative, you are in fact for violence.

        You tried violence. No good results. You are trying BDS. Nothing so far. You call for mass non-violent protests. These have not materialized and many Palestinians say it is unlikely they will. And even if they did, it is not clear that it will help the Palestinians.

        So, how about negotiations?

      • mig
        September 22, 2011, 2:07 pm

        eee:

        “Both sides deeply mistrust each other. I don’t trust the intentions of Abbas or Hamas at all and neither do most Israelis.”

        ++++ Old tired story eee. Negotiations started 1991. If there is so deep mistrust among sides, they wouldnt entered even to negotiations in first place. Where did that mistrust go when Israel negotiated peace agreement with Egypt and Jordania ? Yes, that mistrust has been installed into your head, which is hype.

        ” But there is no alternative to negotiations except war and violence. ”

        ++++ There is alternative. That same old status quo which has been in use since 1967. War and violence is result from this, not vice versa.

        “You tried violence. No good results. You are trying BDS. Nothing so far. You call for mass non-violent protests. These have not materialized and many Palestinians say it is unlikely they will. And even if they did, it is not clear that it will help the Palestinians.”

        ++++ Something must try.

        “So, how about negotiations?”

        ++++ Again, negotiations started 1991 in Madrid. In which time more settlements and settlers. So you wanna start that cycle again ? Have those Israeli negotiators found that miracle Deux es machina finally which makes all clear ? Sorry but no evidence on ground. So keep on mumbling to yourself, and call it negotiations.

      • Dan Crowther
        September 22, 2011, 2:22 pm

        eee,

        You not trusting Abbas or Hamas is like the US’s policy to Cuba – which is fckin laughable. I also dont trust my dog to not sht on the rug, but I cant just keep him in his cage all day, hes gotta move around, ya know?

        As for me “trying violence” – the only violence I was involved in was a US Marine, if we had fought against Israel, I think you would have heard about it.

        The whole world, including me, is for negotiations – but not of the sort you are thinking of, where my government “acts as Israel’s lawyers”
        You are living off American largesse, you belong to the most coddled and entitled society on the planet, fully subsidized and protected by America. You can talk of Israel’s economy etc – that all goes away if the States give you the ol’ FAH-Q.

        So, does Israel want to exist at the pleasure of a waning Imperial power, or does it want to exist in peace among all the nations? The whole world community fully accepts Israel, even outside its mandated borders – for chrissakes, what the FCK ELSE DO YOU WANT?????

      • annie
        September 22, 2011, 2:52 pm

        what else does he want? i’m sure he’d love it if we all started blowing fuses and going out of our minds at his incessant yapping. i swear sometimes i would like to go off on him in ways that would get my comment deleted… if i hear ‘both sides’ even one more time. here’s hophmi trying to get a rise out of cliff Let’s establish one thing: you’re a hothead as cliff continues to completely decimate hop’s lame a** arguments. some days i just have to step back and let the pros handle this crap. one would think we could get a day off from them. just one. it’s not to be. they are shoving rock salt in our wounds today from their massive victory of obama on display as israel’s tool yesterday stabbing at the heart of palestine.

      • eee
        September 22, 2011, 3:31 pm

        Annie,

        Take it easy. Yesterday was not massive victory for anyone. It was a non-event in the course of this decades long conflict. It just confirmed what we are saying about the solution. It is time the Palestinians stopped building on Hail Mary’s and started negotiating seriously. It is time for being pragmatic, not hysterical.

      • American
        September 22, 2011, 3:32 pm

        “So, how about negotiations?”..ask eee.

        Why not give war a chance?
        Every thing else been tried.

      • annie
        September 22, 2011, 3:34 pm

        confirmed what you’ve been saying? eee, we already know the lobby’s talking points. all it confirms is obama knows how to take direction. hence, your driving it home. we know already eee, so why repeat it endlessly? hello.

      • eee
        September 22, 2011, 3:46 pm

        American,

        War? We tried that many times. Or maybe I am missing your point? How about trying for a negotiated peace agreement?

      • annie
        September 22, 2011, 3:51 pm

        pragmatism? i said i’m sure you’d love it if we all started blowing fuses and going out of our minds. i didn’t say i was going to do it. and as long as you keep shoveling that negotiating seriously bullcrap down our throats while israel keeps expanding settlement any rational person here is just going to consider it an more evidence of your blatant hypocrisy, nothing pragmatic whatsoever.

      • eee
        September 22, 2011, 3:53 pm

        Annie,

        What exactly do you know? You are jumping from high hopes to the pits of sorrow over events that clearly do not matter much. There is no miracle solution. Israel has slowly grown stronger over 63 years. The Palestinians pretty much stagnated. Everybody realizes that neither side can force a solution on the other side (except a few people that believe in miracles and think the international community can force a solution on Israel). Only negotiations will bring peace.

      • biorabbi
        September 22, 2011, 4:14 pm

        Don’t forget all the wars, conflicts, and acne. seafoid, do you work as a speechwriter for the head of Iran?

      • annie
        September 22, 2011, 4:42 pm

        i’m not in the pits of sorrow eee, i’m actually quite encouraged after listening to hillary mann leverett (great video) and reading erdogan’s UN address. the more people who drive home american’s craven pandering to israel the faster this mess will resolve itself and it does appear people all over the internet are taking one message away from his address, and it doesn’t echo what you are saying at all.

        see ya, take the last word.

      • American
        September 22, 2011, 4:52 pm

        Well eee I was being snarky…..

        But I think the phone is permanently off the hook at most ME capitals.
        No one wants to talk to y0u.

      • Real Jew
        September 22, 2011, 4:52 pm

        Annie, the solution to your frustration and anger is simple……ignore them. They are trolls looking for an emotional response. They make these outrageous comments to do just that, make you upset. Don’t let them win

      • eee
        September 22, 2011, 5:04 pm

        Annie,

        Instead of being encouraged by a video of an obscure analyst repeating what people in comments here already have written and by a transcript of a speech the likes of which have been repeated in the UN at least 100 times, isn’t it time you learned which things mattered and which didn’t?

        What matters is what Palestinians and Israelis do. Not what others comment about the issue.

      • Chaos4700
        September 22, 2011, 6:46 pm

        See? Listen to eee. Jews matter. We don’t.

      • Hostage
        September 22, 2011, 9:32 pm

        Why not give war a chance?
        Every thing else been tried.

        I believe that two years ago, when the Kings of Jordan and Saudi Arabia threw their support behind Fayyad’s plan to end the occupation and establish the State of Palestine, that both leaders told Obama another regional war was inevitable if it failed.

    • NorthOfFortyNine
      September 22, 2011, 3:10 pm

      the Palestinians should negotiate in earnest since there is no other way to a peaceful solution

      eee, What incentive is there for Israel to negotiate in good faith? If I were to assume your position and (amoral) belief system, I would string Palestinians along and keep building settlements. Right? As many facts on the ground as possible. If I were pursuing self-interest as you see it, that’s what I would do. Why would I give away land I did not have to? If I can steal something and get away with it, why wouldn’t I? I mean you say yourself Israel effectively stole land in ’47/’48 and that was a good thing. Why stop now? -N49.

      • eee
        September 22, 2011, 3:44 pm

        N49,

        The incentive is that Israelis do want peace and would prefer less war to more war. Peace is in the self-interest of Israel, but not at any price, just as this is the case for the Palestinians. That is why a persistent majority of Israelis support the 2 state solution.

        There is nothing not moral about my position that in negotiations one has to take care of one’s interests. That is just common sense. Of course, you have to compromise to reach an agreement in most cases. And you compromise because the benefits from the agreement outweigh the costs of your compromise. Otherwise, you don’t compromise.

        I hope you are not implying that Israelis are less moral on average than other people world wide. They are of course also not more moral. We are average. We have thieves and criminals just like any other society.

        Even if I could get away with it, I would not steal unless it was for a greater good such as feeding my starving kids. And that is what happened in 48. For the greater good of stopping a civil war and establishing a viable Jewish state, Arabs were not allowed to return to their land.

      • annie
        September 22, 2011, 3:59 pm

        The incentive is that Israelis do want peace and would prefer less war to more war.

        peace, wars and security are not on israel’s front burner, obviously. securing a larger state is. for that, they’d give up peace and opt for war as they have done many times and probably continue to do until borders are forced on them.

      • eee
        September 22, 2011, 4:17 pm

        “until borders are forced on them”

        Who will do the forcing? The UN that can’t get a resolution about Syria? Russia and China, your role models? The EU that needs a unanimous vote for doing anything of this nature? You think Cyprus or Germany or the Czech Republic would ever agree to this?

        Time to negotiate in earnest. And if the Israeli people come to believe that the Palestinians are serious and Bibi is not, we will kick him out.

      • Bumblebye
        September 22, 2011, 4:28 pm

        A government created on stolen land (cos those militant shtetlers have constituencies and the right to vote in Israeli elections), which will not ever address the issue of its debt to the refugees it has been creating (note – continuously) since before it became a state, and a population which is by and large in full support of this continuing is most assuredly less moral than many other countries. How individuals may behave between each other is moot. You support theft. You support dispossession, not just of privately owned land, but of the right to live in the country of their fathers, mothers, grandparents. You do steal when you vote for a government that pays its “nationals” to rob and build over Palestinian homes and farms. You support a racist state when you argue against implementing the right of return for Palestinians, but for return for peoples whose ancestors may never have set foot anywhere near Israel in 80000 years (Peruvian converts). You probably favor the bantustan solution so you and yours would be far less likely to have to mix with the people you haverobbed and will continue, to rob. What “morality” do you have?

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        September 22, 2011, 4:56 pm

        The incentive is that Israelis do want peace.

        But you have peace now. You have peace now and with every passing month you acquire more land. There is little or no short-term cost for you and your gains are considerable. Again, for someone with your belief structure, it does not pay for you to give away land that you don’t have to.

        There is nothing not moral about my position … For the greater good of stopping a civil war and establishing a viable Jewish state, Arabs were not allowed to return to their land.

        Part 1 of the quote above does not square with part 2. You have repeatedly shown to us, eee, that you are a moral relativist. It is morally ok for jews to kick palestinians out of their homes, but not vice versa. You have said (to paraphrase): “We took the land becuase we wanted it and we could. We won, they lost.”

        For someone with that belief structure, it makes no sense to sit down in good faith with the palestinians. Better to buy time by putting on a show of negotiations, all whilst squeezing your opponent into an evermore dire position. -N49.

      • eee
        September 22, 2011, 5:12 pm

        N49,

        You completely misunderstand what I believe. I never said it is morally ok for jews to kick palestinians out of their homes, but not vice versa. I am not a moral relativist. If the Palestinians can make a good argument that kicking out Jews serves a greater good so be it. I think there is a very good argument in the case of the Palestinians not being allowed to return. I do not expect Palestinians to agree with me.

        I have never said that we took the land because we wanted to. We took the land because Israelis believed that stopping the civil war and creating a viable Jewish state is a greater good that justifies the evil of not allowing the Palestinians to return. And of course, we would not have had this option if we would not have won.

        In the future, please portray my views accurately.

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        September 22, 2011, 6:29 pm

        I never said it is morally ok for jews to kick palestinians out of their homes, … I am not a moral relativist. … I think there is a very good argument in the case of the Palestinians not being allowed to return.

        You guys following this limbo act?

        We took the land because Israelis believed that …. creating a viable Jewish state is a greater good that justifies the evil of not allowing the Palestinians to return.

        That is the position of a moral relativist. And as such, were you the Israeli rep at the table, you wold string the Palestinians along for as long as you could. That is the only course of action consistent with your statements here. -N49.

      • libra
        September 22, 2011, 7:30 pm

        eee: “There is nothing not moral about my position that in negotiations one has to take care of one’s interests.”

        Interesting choice of words eee, because there is nothing moral either in your position.

        Given that N94 stated your belief system is amoral, it seems we are really all in agreement and can show the world what a successful negotiation looks like.

        That said, what I would like to know is whether this amoral outlook is typical of Israelis? And does it underpin Israel’s unique and uniquely fascinating “freier” culture?

      • kapok
        September 22, 2011, 11:31 pm

        China is an excellent choice to maintain security in the “Holy” Land. They are rich and powerful and have no dogs in this fight.

      • llama lady
        September 23, 2011, 12:00 am

        I see some Twister-like gyrations here. To believe that a greater sin would be to not create greater Israel and that the evil being done to the Palestinian people is less than the first is inexplicable. Is that what you have to do to justify the Israeli government’s actions?

      • Real Jew
        September 23, 2011, 12:01 am

        Eee, well it sounds so simple and logical doesn’t it. “why not negotiate?” Which is what the entire world has been trying to get the two sides to do, obviously. There’s just one little problem. Israel’s perception of “negotiations” amounts to saying NO to literally every single mandatory issue the Palestinians wish to “negotiate”.

        No to settlements, NO to ROR, NO to dividing Jerusalem, NO NO NO NO NO! I’m not a linguist by no stretch but that doesn’t sound like negotiations to me, the Palestinians, or the international community. So when Israel insists that negotiations is the ONLY way, and when Israel’s little lap dog (US) regergitates the same shit, what they are really saying is “IF THIS ISSUE IS LEFT TO US, YOU’RE NEVER GONNA HAVE A STATE OF YOUR OWN UNLESS WE DECIDE TO GIVE YOU ONE. SO UNTIL THEN YOU MIGHT AS WELL ACCEPT ISRAEL AS YOUR SLUMLORD MASTERS

      • eee
        September 23, 2011, 12:36 am

        N49,

        You can repeat as many times as you want that I am a moral relativist but I am not. Your attempt to change the meaning of what I say by quoting out of context is just low. Address what I wrote, not what you wrote. I believe that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If the Palestinians have an argument that kicking out Jews is a justified evil, let them present it. I see no problem with that and I am not saying that it is immoral for them to present such an argument.

      • eee
        September 23, 2011, 12:48 am

        Real Jew,

        Read what Clinton said today.
        http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/09/22/bill_clinton_netanyahu_killed_the_peace_process

        Clinton is saying that Bibi is making a mistake but he also clearly says that Arafat made a mistake in not accepting the 2000 Camp David deal. Negotiations can bring deals that at least Clinton thinks are reasonable, like the 2000 deal. Yes, Bibi is to the right of Barak. But negotiations can work and the Israeli public can be convinced to replace Bibi if he stands in the way of a reasonable deal. But that requires negotiations in earnest.

        The Palestinians have the advantage of being able to influence Israeli politics. Bibi does not accept a certain point and says no? The Palestinians should let the Israeli public know about this and explain why Bibi is wrong. That is the only peaceful way forward.

      • annie
        September 23, 2011, 1:15 am

        The Palestinians should let the Israeli public know

        maybe they are tired of jumping thru hoops. why don’t you let them know.

      • Hostage
        September 23, 2011, 1:40 am

        If the Palestinians have an argument that kicking out Jews is a justified evil, let them present it.

        There is nothing wrong with throwing out a bunch of claim jumping aliens who entered the country illegally in the first place.

        FYI, according to the USA Today clarification: In the headline and story, Palestinian Ambassador Maen Areikat says he was referring to Israelis, not Jews, when he stated that “it would be in the best interest of the two people to be separated first.” http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2011-09-13/palestinian-israeli-jews-future-state-israel-PLO/50394882/1

      • Hostage
        September 23, 2011, 1:49 am

        Clinton is saying that Bibi is making a mistake but he also clearly says that Arafat made a mistake in not accepting the 2000 Camp David deal.

        That’s a rather self-serving statement, since Barak subsequently claimed he hadn’t offered the Palestinians anything. In any event, Bibi won’t even accept previous agreements signed by Sharon and Olmert as the basis of a final settlement and we know he intentionally killed the Oslo agreement that he inherited from Rabin and Peres. Let’s face it, pacta sunt servanda isn’t Bibi’s or Israel’s motto.

      • Shingo
        September 23, 2011, 2:07 am

        Seriously eee,

        I get that you mean well, but I think even you are being a little naive here.

        Clinton is saying that Bibi is making a mistake but he also clearly says that Arafat made a mistake in not accepting the 2000 Camp David deal.

        Shlomo Ben Ami says otherwise.

        Remember that Bill’s wife is still SOS and thus he has to tow the Zionist line.

        As for Israel, they have no reason to replace Bibi for not being reasonable. If they were at all concerned about making peace, they wouldn’t have elected him in the first place – especially seeing as he campaigned on platform of rejections of the 2ss.

        The Palestinians have the advantage of being able to influence Israeli politics.

        The only extent of that influence has been how far to the right Israel votes.

      • RoHa
        September 23, 2011, 2:18 am

        It’s “toe the line”, Shmuel. Though I admit a good deal of pull is involved.

      • Shmuel
        September 23, 2011, 2:28 am

        It’s “toe the line”, Shmuel.

        You mean Shingo. I would never misspell toea.

      • Shingo
        September 23, 2011, 2:57 am

        Yes, my typos are the stuff of legend.

        Thanks guys

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        September 23, 2011, 4:03 am

        Address what I wrote, not what you wrote.

        Everyone saw what you wrote, eee.

        I believe that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

        No you don’t. You do not support the ROR. It is ok in your mind for Jews to seize Palestinian homes, but it is not ok for Palestinians to seize these same homes back. It really is that simple.

        With such a belief system, it is rational to expect you will go on unjustly seizing Palestinian homes. It is pointless to negotiate with a party such as this. -N49.

      • eee
        September 23, 2011, 10:12 am

        N49,

        Of course I don’t support the ROR because of very good reasons and not moral relativism.
        1) I think the ROR will lead to a civil war and the trashing of Israel
        2) I think it is impossible to implement given any democratic country’s laws. It takes years to evict one family in Israel, so imagine hundreds of thousands of cases going through the courts.
        3) I think that after 3 generations it is completely unfair to Israelis most who were born in Israel.

        In short I oppose the ROR because it will create more evil than good in my opinion. I don’t expect Palestinians to agree with me of course.

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        September 23, 2011, 1:08 pm

        In short I oppose the ROR because it will create more evil than good in my opinion. I don’t expect Palestinians to agree with me of course.

        eee believes it was ok for Jews to kick Palestinians out of their homes but it is not ok for Palestinians to recalim these very same homes.

        Put differently, eee believes it is morally justifiable for A to do X to B, but not ok for B to do X to A.

        That is very definition of moral relativism. -N49.

      • Bumblebye
        September 23, 2011, 1:43 pm

        eeeeee
        You are such a fool!
        RoR = Justice for Palestinians.
        Israeli “democracy” deliberately does not extend the same rights to non-Jews in order for theft from them to be acceptable to its Jewish nationals.
        Alternative laws will have to be put in place to achieve justice.
        “Return” of Jews seems to be ok to Israelis after 60 plus generations, so what’s so wrong with Palestinians returning after a mere 3?
        Israel’s current legal system needs to be “trashed” and replaced by genuinely democratic laws which treat all as equals! There will be a damn sight less hatred than you imagine, excepting perhaps from Zionist extremists.

      • Hostage
        September 23, 2011, 4:06 pm

        Of course I don’t support the ROR because of very good reasons and not moral relativism. . . . I think that after 3 generations it is completely unfair to Israelis most who were born in Israel.

        So you endorse the enforcement of Jewish Ottoman era property rights in Sheikh Jarrah, but not enforcing Israeli-Arab Ottoman era property rights. Why are we not surprised that you racists always reject equal rights and moral relativism for practical reasons?

      • MRW
        September 23, 2011, 4:27 pm

        But somehow eee thinks his 3 generations is supposed to trump the Palestinians’ 50.

      • Woody Tanaka
        September 23, 2011, 4:41 pm

        “But somehow eee thinks his 3 generations is supposed to trump the Palestinians’ 50.”

        I guess it’s the geneological equivalent to a Jewish fingernail.

      • eee
        September 23, 2011, 4:50 pm

        N49,

        Again, you are intent on misrepresenting me. Let me repeat. In certain cases it is ok for Jews to evict Palestinians. In certain cases it is ok for Palestinians to evict Jews (for example if evicting those Jews will save many lives). I am not a moral relativist. I can certainly imagine situations where evicting Jews is justified.

        Was evicting Arabs in 48 justified? Absolutely as it saved many lives by stopping a civil war and allowing for a viable Jewish state. Is evicting Jews today justified? If you can show me that doing so will save countless lives, I will have to say yes. You will also have to explain how the eviction will be done because it seems that in order to do it, a war will have to be fought and that means loss of life.

      • eee
        September 23, 2011, 5:03 pm

        “But somehow eee thinks his 3 generations is supposed to trump the Palestinians’ 50.”

        Yeah, right. The Jews should be given back their property in Spain from the 1492 forced exile. After some time, much less than 3 generations, people holding the land have a very strong claim to it and it really does not matter who lived there one hundred years before. Just as you don’t think that a Jew exiled by the Romans has any right to land ownership in Israel, why do you think that an exiled Palestinian does? They both obviously have no claim to ownership.

        The Jews immigrating to Palestine did not claim ownership over any piece of land. They bought or rented the properties they resided on. And this will have to be the route taken by Palestinians.

      • RoHa
        September 23, 2011, 6:48 pm

        Sorry, Shmuel. All you “Sh” guys look alike to me.

      • Real Jew
        September 23, 2011, 6:56 pm

        True, but that was a different time ruled by different leaders. Clinton also said:

        ” ….Israel is on the verge of being recognized by Arab nations adding that the “king of Saudi Arabia started lining up all the Arab countries to say to the Israelis, ‘if you work it out with the Palestinians … we will give you immediately not only recognition but a political, economic, and security partnership……This is huge…. It’s a heck of a deal,….That’s what happened. Every American needs to know this. That’s how we got to where we are.”………

        I agree that it was probably a mistake by Arafat not to accept that deal but you cant change the past. Clinton also said that the current Israeli govt does not want peace and is utterly incapable of offering such a deal, condemning Netanyahu particularly,

        ” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is responsible for the inability to reach a peace deal that would end the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians”

        So it works both ways

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        September 23, 2011, 7:01 pm

        They bought or rented the properties they resided on. And this will have to be the route taken by Palestinians.

        eee, This horsecrap and you know it. There are millions of people sitting in refugee camps with title to homes inside mandate Palestine that are now occupied by jews. These jews did not pay for the land — they stole it. Do you dispute this? Are you saying all these occupied homes were paid for? Really? Land deeds transferred with a notary’s signature at the bottom of every page?

        The record is clear: the Palestinians were driven out, the land considered “abandoned”, and newly arrived europeans were given the keys. That’s what happened and your belief system, eee, allows for this.

        So long as it is the jews doing the taking. -N49.

      • eljay
        September 23, 2011, 7:13 pm

        >> eee: I can certainly imagine situations where evicting Jews is justified.

        I happen to think that “evicting” (i.e., ethnically cleansing) Jews and Palestinians – anyone, actually – is wrong, but since you are able to “certainly imagine situations where evicting Jews is justified”, please list three such situations.

        Thank you.

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        September 23, 2011, 7:15 pm

        Again, you are intent on misrepresenting me.

        I don’t have to misrepresent you, eee, for you are doing a remarkably competent job impaling yourself as it is.

        Was evicting Arabs in 48 justified? Absolutely as it saved many lives by stopping a civil war

        The incursion of european jews into historical palestine created untold displacement, misery and death for 60+ years, conditions which persist through to this day. Cast Lead, for example, was a direct, if delayed, result of Israeli action in 47. If you truly wanted to save lives, your homies should have turned around and gone back to Minsk or New Jersey or wherever it is you are from.

        The only way to reconcile your statements here is to infer that you believe a jewish life is worth more than a non-jewish life, a point of view that would not be unique in your country.

        So what will it be: moral relativist? Or hardcore supremecist? You choose, we wait. -N49.

      • Shingo
        September 23, 2011, 7:43 pm

        1) I think the ROR will lead to a civil war and the trashing of Israel

        Why, because Arabs are sub human and uncivlized?

        2) I think it is impossible to implement given any democratic country’s laws. It takes years to evict one family in Israel, so imagine hundreds of thousands of cases going through the courts.

        It takes hours to evict a one family in East Jerusalem.

        3) I think that after 3 generations it is completely unfair to Israelis most who were born in Israel.

        Right, so it’s unfair to 3rd generation Israelis, but you consider it morally sound to have expelled Palestinians who were in Palestine for millenia?

        In short I oppose the ROR because it will create more evil than good in my opinion.

        More evil than we have now?

      • Shingo
        September 23, 2011, 7:47 pm

        Was evicting Arabs in 48 justified? Absolutely as it saved many lives by stopping a civil war and allowing for a viable Jewish state.

        No eee. The eviction of the Palestinians in 1947 is t what led to the civil war – though it wasn;t so much as war as a progrom. It didn’t save lives – in fact, a dozen massacres were carried out in the process.

      • Shingo
        September 23, 2011, 7:48 pm

        The Jews immigrating to Palestine did not claim ownership over any piece of land. They bought or rented the properties they resided on. And this will have to be the route taken by Palestinians.

        No eee, they claiemd ownership of 70% of Palestine by taking it. Only 7% of the land was owned as a result fo purchase.

    • Duscany
      September 22, 2011, 3:55 pm

      Instead of “watching their future state disappear”, the Palestinians should negotiate in earnest since there is no other way to a peaceful solution.

      The Palestinians would negotiate in earnest if the Israelis would quit building settlements on stolen Palestinian land.

    • tombishop
      September 22, 2011, 5:13 pm

      What is there to negotiate eee? When they should commit suicide?

  3. seafoid
    September 22, 2011, 11:39 am

    Obama gave the Manifest Destiny speech to the Palestinians. The sort of thing Custer would have said to to the Lakota.

    What a sad spectacle. What a sad day for Judaism.

  4. seafoid
    September 22, 2011, 11:48 am

    Of course the settlers are crowing . What a shower of low lives.

    http://myrightword.blogspot.com/2011/09/state-of-palestine-is-state-of-mind.html

    Obama told the Palestinians they have no rights in their own country
    This is indefensible . I don’t mean ethically. It’s just not going to be possible for Israel to defend this .

    Hollywood makes horror films but the ultimate horror would be to wake up one morning and find that your whole country had been scrubbed of rights in favour of an alien tribe working out some awful group trauma that happened 70 years ago.

  5. hophmi
    September 22, 2011, 11:58 am

    Again, it’s very nice to pretend the US doesn’t matter. You can surround yourselves with yes men all day. In the end, you’re not going to have a workable agreement without US support. It’s an old game to try and internationalize the conflict. Hasn’t worked yet, and will not work this time either.

    Get back to me in a year and let me know how relying on the French is working out for you.

    • justicewillprevail
      September 22, 2011, 12:30 pm

      What a weird idea.

    • stevieb
      September 22, 2011, 1:27 pm

      Oh, it matters, hophmi. Just not in the way you think it does.

      I think we’re on the brink of WW3 – like, very soon….

      • mig
        September 22, 2011, 2:16 pm

        hoph :

        ” In the end, you’re not going to have a workable agreement without US support.”

        ++++ Not true at all. In fact it has Israel who has been insisting that there has to be US in table. And we all know why. The “honest broker”, who is not honest and anything than broker.

    • Hostage
      September 22, 2011, 9:47 pm

      Again, it’s very nice to pretend the US doesn’t matter.

      If the Arab oil exporting states decide to stop trading their valuable oil for worthless dollars and stop bailing-out the US with production in excess of market demand, they’ll matter a whole lot more to our lawmakers than Israel or the Jewish donors. At some point all of these incumbent jackasses become unelectable.

  6. pabelmont
    September 22, 2011, 12:00 pm

    Palestinians have been practicing SUMUD (steadfastness) in face of absolutely dreadful conditions for 63 years now. They are not as bad, if you wish a comparison, as the condition of European Jews during the period 1939-1945, which (condition) had not yet been called illegal by the international community, but, by contrast, lasting 63 years during which the expulsions and non-re-admittance of 1948-50 were decried by the nations and for 44 years or more of which the expulsions and settlements and much else were clear violations of what is charmingly called “customary international law”.

    I doubt that many of us would have the intestinal fortitude to practice such SUMUD. I know that Americans and Europeans have not found a way to overcome the BIG-MONEY that directs their foreign ministries to side with Israel and against international law for such a long time and so grievously.

    As the capitalist system (with its assumption or premise or promise of healthy ROI now in doubt and its dependence on the burning of fossil fuels contradicted by global warming) appears to break down, beginning with banking scandals and now with sovereign debt crises, and cascading environmental and human rights problems almost everywhere, * * *

    * * * its a bit hard to convince world leaders that solving the Israel-Palestine conflict — by imposition of a just peace treaty, or else by requiring Israel to comply with the law by removing settlers, settlements, and wall — should occupy a high place in their TO-DO lists.

    BDS tries to correct this.

  7. annie
    September 22, 2011, 12:02 pm

    i swear some days i just can’t take listening to these hasbarists spew their collective glee all over these threads.

    • justicewillprevail
      September 22, 2011, 12:34 pm

      Ignore them. They never have anything to contribute. I wouldn’t mind an argument with someone who actually had an intellectually coherent position, but they never do. They just like trolling and baiting. They never read or understand the articles and endlessly repeat the same old manufactured tripe.It’s a game to them, they could care less about anybody except themselves. They always try to provoke and then disappear when detailed rebuttals appear.

      • annie
        September 22, 2011, 12:38 pm

        i know. thanks justice, i was just experiencing a weak moment.

      • eee
        September 22, 2011, 1:47 pm

        What you call “collective glee” is just the same things we have been saying all along.
        1) The US matters and will matter for many more decades
        2) Neither side can force a peaceful solution on the other side
        3) The only way a peaceful solution can be attained is by negotiations
        4) Just as in all cases of negotiations, the relative strengths of each side will influence the results of the negotiations

      • annie
        September 22, 2011, 1:49 pm

        wash rinse repeat wash rinse repeat

      • eee
        September 22, 2011, 2:09 pm

        Being correct and consistent is much better than claiming things like:
        1) The flotilla is a huge game changer
        2) Israel is doomed after the UN meeting in September
        3) Huge non-violent protests in Palestine are right around the corner
        4) The Arab spring is a huge game changer
        5) BDS is a wonder solution

      • mig
        September 22, 2011, 2:19 pm

        eee :

        “4) Just as in all cases of negotiations, the relative strengths of each side will influence the results of the negotiations”

        ++++ So thats why Israel will get most of……? Like Witty, who cares justice.

      • justicewillprevail
        September 22, 2011, 2:23 pm

        The only thing consistent and correct about eeejit’s sniping is his refusal to understand a thing about Israel’s bad faith and duplicitous behaviour. Apparently he thinks Israel is interested in meaningful negotiations, which tells you something about his ignorance, despite the availability of copious evidence on this website and others. And consistently claiming to know what ‘we’ want or think, despite posting such nonsense as above.

      • annie
        September 22, 2011, 2:38 pm

        i don’t think he’s ignorant justice, i think he’s trying to get a rise out of us today. he keeps repeating the same thing day in and day out as if it will make it any more believable. nobodies that stupid, not even eee.

      • john h
        September 22, 2011, 9:32 pm

        But, dear annie, you fail to get the message:

        Ignore all trolls; what justice wrote at 12.34 is exactly right.

        Their only value is to give an opening for someone like Hostage to reveal to us some more legal or other facts.

        Use them, just don’t waste your time and energy playing their useless word games. Priorities.

      • Hostage
        September 22, 2011, 10:01 pm

        The flotilla is a huge game changer

        Nah, the pledge of Turkish warships to escort future aid flotillas and to take Israel to the international court over its blockade and attack on previous flotillas is nothing new.

        Israel is doomed after the UN meeting in September

        It remains to be seen if Abbas will fail to go to the General Assembly or join the ICC. Obama and Netanyahu certainly can’t prevent either move.

      • Charon
        September 22, 2011, 11:09 pm

        As an American, I can assure you that the US does not matter. I am offended that you Zionists seem to think that this is true and important. That you have us on a leash and sic us on your enemies.

        The American middle class never came out of recession and is at its lowest point, corporations are doing business abroad like crazy, and China owns most of our debt. The only thing we have is a powerful military which is now weak after a decade of war and is having trouble recruiting because more people are aware that they aren’t fighting for their country but are rather (low) paid mercenaries for foreign interests. America is done. This special relationship with Israel has isolated us into a corner. I don’t want you Zionists to take us down with you but that is exactly what is happening. Good luck courting the next super power to do your bidding. I guess you’ll have to blackmail them too with your nuclear arsenal.

        You’re right that neither side can force peace. Because nobody can force peace on anyone. Negotiation is not the only peaceful solution. If Israel said “We want peace, let’s give all the Palestinians equal rights” it would be a peaceful situation without negotiation.

        You’re right about #4. Israel has the superior military as a strength. Their failing PR machine still convinces the useful idiots Christian Zionists over here. Palestine has your western wall though.

  8. clairseoir
    September 22, 2011, 12:16 pm

    I think people should take heart. In the longer term, yesterday’s nauseating display will prove to be a turning point in the struggle, and a very pyrrhic victory indeed for the zionists. All but the hopelessly deluded and the pathologically mendacious now realize that when the Israelis call for “negotiations,” it’s time to say goodbye to your olive trees at best, and hit the bomb shelters at worst. They have put the final nail in the coffin of the two-state solution, and this is something that should be applauded; it should add immense impetus internationally to BDS and to the anti-apartheid struggle. Let’s hope it’s also a nail in the coffin of the traitorous kapos of the PA, whose witless fumblings made this all possible.

    • seafoid
      September 22, 2011, 1:43 pm

      “Let’s hope it’s also a nail in the coffin of the traitorous kapos of the PA, whose witless fumblings made this all possible.”

      The PA are supposed to negotiate with an autistic sociopathic regime, clairseoir.

      What would you have done differently ? They spent 18 years fighting for the 2 state solution and Israel destroyed it. They built up the presence of the sha’ab al filisteeni on the international stage . They never gave up on the refugees or al quds. I think they should be applauded.

      Abu Ammar too.

      You can’t start the one state fight without exhausting the 2 state solution.
      This is a long game and the Palestinians are playing it better than the Jews right now.

      • clairseoir
        September 22, 2011, 2:34 pm

        A Sheafóide, I wish I were as sanguine as you about the integrity of Abu Ammar. Surely his tacit approval of Operation Cast Lead should give one pause, to say the least: as should his total reliance on U.S. and Israeli support for his kleptocratic hold on power; the joint security arrangements the PA observes with the Israelis – i.e., administering the Occupation for them; the near-universal contempt with which he is held by the people of the West Bank, whom he rules by oppression and torture; and his cringing and craven performance this week, wherein he seems determined to avoid embarrassing his American and Israeli sponsors, possibly by agreeing to have the vote stayed in the SC. Perhaps “Judenrat” would have been a more historically apt metaphor for the PA. Incidentally, I’d suggest you avoid characterizing the struggle as one between Palestinians and Jews, lest you give people what is, I hope, the wrong impression.

      • seafoid
        September 22, 2011, 3:12 pm

        It IS between Palestinians and Jews. There is no point in being coy about it. So a South African Jew can turn up at Ben Gurion and get citizenship and nobody in Sabra and Shatila will ever be allowed in. That is what it is about. Jewish suffering is supposed to justify it all.

        And what about the Sephardim who were smoking shisha in tripoli and Baghdad all through the pogroms in the north ?

        The PA went through all the hoops and what do they get for it? Nothing.

        And the Judenrat. Was it their fault to have to deal with a crowd of murderous psychopaths? What would you have done as a Jew in Lodz in 1942 ?

        What would you do today in Beit Liquia ?

        It’s easy talking from a comfortable Western perspective where you never have to make a choice in your whole life and you know you’ll never ever be shafted.

        BTW Abu Ammar was Arafat. Abu Mazen is ‘Abbas. Arafat was killed long before Cast Lead.

      • American
        September 22, 2011, 3:46 pm

        “Incidentally, I’d suggest you avoid characterizing the struggle as one between Palestinians and Jews, lest you give people what is, I hope, the wrong impression.”

        Of course it is. So absurd to say not.
        Jewish State against non Jew Palestines.
        Couldn’t be plainer.

      • clairseoir
        September 22, 2011, 4:16 pm

        I don’t think it’s being coy to point out that “the Jews” is an obnoxiously inaccurate characterization of the zionist enemy – I was merely being scrupulous – zionism being, sadly, merely one particularly pernicious variety of racism among many. After all, there are far more Christian zionists than Jewish ones, and the integration of the US and Israeli military-industrial complexes has little to do with blood kinship. I suspect Phil and Mooser, for instance, would be surprised to learn that they are on the wrong side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by dint of their heritage. Reducing the struggle to religio-ethnic terms is a trick of the zionists.
        As far as the poor old PA is concerned, it is precisely my empathy for the Palestinian people and the nobility of their struggle in the face of devastating odds that prompts me to bemoan the quisling leadership that has been imposed upon them, and continues to be propped up, by their very enemies – the Israeli and American governments (notice I didn’t say “Jews and Americans.”)
        I am, however, thoroughly abashed about having mixed up my Abus. Palestine abú!

      • biorabbi
        September 22, 2011, 5:31 pm

        Sea, I hope the Palestinians will use this moment to return to the negotiating table with the Israelis. I truly hope this conflict can be resolved with a just two-state solution. It does not look good for the Palestinians to appear bad-mouthing our President while he supplies 500 million in foreign aid. Food for thought. Just as I don’t believe the glee a few Palestinians showed on the morning of 9/11 on CNN reflect the values and heart of the Palestinians, I also don’t believe the Palestinian badmouthing our young President reflects the Palestinian heart in general. I can remember Arafat donating blood on the morning of 911, looking quite ashen. His was a voice for peace at the end.

      • Woody Tanaka
        September 22, 2011, 6:32 pm

        “I hope the Palestinians will use this moment to return to the negotiating table with the Israelis”

        And what, exactly, would be the point? I mean this sincerely. The Israelis have demonstrated no willingness to cease the explansion of the settlements, and negotiations doens’t accomplish anything. So, really, what is the point?

        “It does not look good for the Palestinians to appear bad-mouthing our President while he supplies 500 million in foreign aid.”

        The way I see it, the next step is to start the South Africa option and push the world to recognize Israel’s occupation of WB and Gaza as an annexation and demand equal rights, citizenship and the vote.

        “It does not look good for the Palestinians to appear bad-mouthing our President while he supplies 500 million in foreign aid.”

        Bah. Criticism isn’t badmouthing.

        And they don’t have to worry about the money. While Israel’s employees in Washington have taken the initiative to threaten to cut off the PA’s money, their Israeli employers stepped in to tell them that while they appreciate the initiative in attempting to destroy the lives of the Palestinians even further, the Israelis know that they’ll have hell on their hands if the Americans/employees do.

        So the congresscritters got a pat on the head, a scratch behind the ears and the PA’s check is now in the mail.

        ” our young President ”

        Young? He’s 50 and going gray. “Young” was a few years ago.

      • seafoid
        September 23, 2011, 7:51 am

        “Reducing the struggle to religio-ethnic terms is a trick of the zionists.”

        Have you ever pulled up at a West Bank roadblock that consists of a concrete block in the middle of the road , decorated with a graffiti of the Star of David ?

        I think this is a good summary of the jewish angle

        Les September 21, 2011 at 9:34 am
        Professor Lawrence Davidson has noted that Zionists insist that all Jews support Israel no matter what it does, while, with the same breath, charges that those who blame Jews for the crimes of Israel are anti-Semites.

        It’s a religious conflict, an economic conflict, a colonial struggle and a caste system all in one .

        What would you have done differently if you had been head of the PA on 12 September 2001 and you had a term of 10 years ?

        Measaim gur subhach don Mhumhain an fhuaim
        ‘S dá maireann go dubhach de chrú na mbua
        Torann na dtonn le sleasaibh na long
        Ag tarraingt go teann ‘n-ár gceann ar cuairt

        Tá lasadh sa ghréin gach lae go neoin
        Ní taise don ré, ní théann fé neoil
        Tá barra na gcraobh ag déanamh sceoil
        Nach fada bheidh Gaeil i ngéibheann bróin

        It took another 150 years

        http://chrsouchon.free.fr/rosccath.htm

      • annie
        September 23, 2011, 3:45 pm

        why should anyone negotiate with israel after reading the palestine papers. israel can try negotiating with the world because we’re sick of this shit. israel and her defenders just THRASHED OUR FIRST AMENDMENT so watch the backlash about THAT!

    • Hostage
      September 22, 2011, 10:30 pm

      Let’s hope it’s also a nail in the coffin of the traitorous kapos of the PA, whose witless fumblings made this all possible.

      After the first Gulf War, the Palestinians were treated as enemies by all of their Arab brethren just because they had supported the idea of linking Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait to Israeli withdrawal from Palestine. That actually meant they supported a complete and rapid withdrawal in both cases. Nonetheless, everyone blamed and persecuted the PLO and then kicked them while they were down for accepting such a crappy deal under the Oslo Accords. This despite the fact that the other Arab states and the US had deliberately put them into such an untenable position in the first place.

      Now people accuse them of treason for following the orders of the UN General Assembly. It conditioned its support for Palestine in the Wall case upon the PA ending the terror campaign that the Israelis used to excuse construction of the wall in the first place. Resolution ES-10/15 called upon both parties “to fulfil their obligations under relevant provisions of the road map, the Palestinian Authority to undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks, and the Government of Israel to take no actions undermining trust, including deportations and attacks on civilians and extrajudicial killings.”

      So the fact that they kept Palestinians from attacking the settlements and killed or jailed terrorists who refused to lay down their arms and pursue non-violent methods of resistance wasn’t treason, unless you endorse terror. The General Assembly will be guilty of betrayal if they don’t fulfill the UN’s obligations under the road map and recognize the State of Palestine within the 67 borders and they won’t be able to blame the Palestinian Authority.

  9. LeaNder
    September 22, 2011, 12:17 pm

    I wish, I could read the plays of this guy … Hmm? theatre circles?

    Just as the United States stood idly by a month ago as Israel brazenly announced more illegal settlements, it now promises a veto in the Security Council of any vote for Palestinian statehood. For months, the United States has feverishly mobilized to undermine the Palestinians diplomatically.

    But couldn’t it be argued that since the US will veto anyway, “the affair” can immediately be moved on to the GA without further delay?

  10. Dex
    September 22, 2011, 12:31 pm

    Has anyone noticed a tremendous spike in literature pronouncing the death of the two state solution and/or advocating binationalism?

    Seems like people are starting to accept the truth.

  11. rensanceman
    September 22, 2011, 1:14 pm

    I have also experienced the slow realization that the 2state solution is inherently a poor solution as it would affirm the legitimacy of a racist/bigoted Jewish state-all others accorded inferior status. Bi-nationalism (or the united states of Palestine ) seems more attractive and workable.
    And, if Israel would recognize the many U.N. Resolutions addressing the same issues that seem intractable e.g. Right of return, separation wall, land seizure by war, that this would obviate the need to have to negotiate them as demanded by the u.s. And Israel.

    • mig
      September 22, 2011, 2:22 pm

      ” if Israel would recognize the many U.N. Resolutions”

      ++++ Israel has wiped [email protected]@ with all of UN resolutions. Why change now ?

  12. Remax
    September 22, 2011, 2:23 pm

    No one in recorded history has hitherto succeeded in disappointing so many to favour so few.

  13. ToivoS
    September 22, 2011, 3:55 pm

    I am puzzled by the long faces of so many who support the Palestinians. I was fully expecting Obama to veto the Palestinian bid. What he did yesterday was to confirm that point in spades. He announced that the US is even more dedicated to Zionist goals than could have been imagined a few weeks back.

    But how is that a defeat for the the Palestinian movement. This act has made it even more difficult for Abbas and his cronies to continue to betray his people, indeed he is now forced to move forward with his motions. They will prevail in the GA. They will have new tools to pursue justice in international forums. It will then be up to the BDS movement to further isolate Israel from the rest of the world.

    It is hard to see how the 2s solution can survive this. There is now no way for them to return to negotiations as they were designed in the past. BDS is there only tool.

    • biorabbi
      September 22, 2011, 5:38 pm

      ToivoS. I agree. It was no victory for the Palestinian people nor a victory for the Israelis. After all, anti-semites will always have Durban III(and 4-138)too look forward to. It is important for zionists like myself who support the two state solution to not express Schaudenfreude at the Palestinians or their supporters. It is my hope that the economy, Israel, Libyia, whatever, does not cause us to forget the slaughter of well over three thousand Syrians at the hands of a true cowardly thug. My opinion on Syria has nothing to do with my zionist impulse or mosaic derivation. Truth be told, a replacement regime will only cause more problems for Israel, but he must be hold to account… like Libya’s thug and Iraq’s. Bring me the head of the Iranian killer as well!

      • Chaos4700
        September 22, 2011, 6:51 pm

        The best article I’ve read yet about what really happened at Durban. Back when I thought HuffPo was worth keeping track of.

      • DBG
        September 22, 2011, 11:22 pm

        Funny Chaos, because Israel boycotted Durban II

      • hophmi
        September 23, 2011, 4:10 am

        And Durban II was held in Geneva. If you’d like to learn what happened at Durban I, see

        http://www.jewishfederations.org/page.aspx?id=2279

        http://www.ajc.org/atf/cf/%7B42d75369-d582-4380-8395-d25925b85eaf%7D/THEDURBANDIARIES.PDF

      • Woody Tanaka
        September 23, 2011, 9:19 am

        If you’d like to learn what happened at Durban I, see
        link to jewishfederations.org
        link to ajc.org

        LOL. And no doubt these organizations are COMPLETELY objective when it comes to people rightly pointing out Israel’s crimes…

      • hophmi
        September 23, 2011, 10:01 am

        I guess you didn’t read it, and I guess you don’t care. Very well.

      • Woody Tanaka
        September 23, 2011, 3:38 pm

        “I guess you didn’t read it, and I guess you don’t care. Very well.”

        I did read it and to the extent that there was any actual antisemitism there, I would denounce that. (I would not, however, denounce people denouncing Israel, its apartheid and racist policies, nor any calls for the freedom of the Palestinian people from the Israeli jackboot.)

        But that brings up the point, if the world’s Zionists don’t care about Palestinian rights (and they clearly don’t, judging by the way they’ve shit on them for the last 150 years), then why should they expect that anyone else would care about the Zionists’ rights? If they’re not willing to denounce the anti-Palestinian policies and rampant racism in Israel, as well as the Arab-hatred and Islamophobia rampant in the world today, on what grounds do they expect anyone to denounce antisemitism? A grotesque example is the head of the ADL feeding the vilest form of bigotry concerning Park 51 project. If Abe Foxman isn’t willing to stand up against anti-Muslim bigotry, but, rather, choosing to wallow in it, why the hell should anyone listen to him and stand up against anti-Jewish bigotry?? When the Simon Weisenthal Center opposes that project, but is okay with building over a Muslim cemetary, why should anyone listen to their oppostion to antisemitism?

        Should they not practice what they preach? Haven’t they heard of the doctrine of unclean hands?

      • Chaos4700
        September 23, 2011, 8:06 pm

        You didn’t read the article I posted hophmi. Why should we read yours?

      • ToivoS
        September 22, 2011, 8:22 pm

        biorabbi you agree with what? I did not say it was either a victory or not for the Palestinian people. I said it was not a defeat for them. The “speech” has to a certain extent cleared the field, it allows the Palestinians to move more directly into confronting Israeli colonization of the WB at the international level. The numerous cobwebs created by the Oslo process have been swept away.

        Palestinian activists are, I am guessing, working overtime to take advantage of this new reality to advance their goal for justice. It could take the form of the 2s solution (less likely today) or it could take the form of equal civil rights for all citizens between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean. That is not necessarily a victory for the Palestinians but it does provide them with some well defined political targets that could very well result in demise of Zionism.

        Now that would be victory, but only time will tell.

      • kapok
        September 23, 2011, 12:12 am

        Laughable. Two states with contiguous borders, each with its own air force army and navy, functioning parliaments, diplomatic corps, seats on UN committees, the full apparatus of a modern state, cheek by jowl in the Middle East? Israel would never permit it. Nor their paymasters, the US.

    • Hostage
      September 22, 2011, 10:55 pm

      I am puzzled by the long faces of so many who support the Palestinians.

      Same here. Obama’s position was already well known after the last veto and the attempted F-35 bribe. He was supposed to hold the parties accountable for any failures of the short-lived indirect or direct talks. He’s just upset about the further embarrassment this episode has brought about. The veto doesn’t stop the Palestinians from obtaining recognition and joining the ICC.

  14. American
    September 22, 2011, 5:05 pm

    Speaking of the Christian zios…..

    September 20, 20118:14AM

    Evangelicals Call Christian Zionist Uncritical “Support” for Israel “Appalling” and “Intolerable

    (cutting thru the religious stuff in the Evangelicals letter to the Christian Zios here’s the last paragraph:)

    ”While in the Middle East we heard from Palestinian leaders a current commitment to pursue their cause nonviolently. We applaud that commitment. We see it as an extraordinary one under the circumstances. We fear that it cannot last forever, for no people will allow itself to be ground into the dust indefinitely. What are you doing to end their suffering and bring justice to them?

    We will leave it to God to sort out with the Jewish people of the modern state of Israel the very complex terms of his covenant with them. But we cannot remain silent about the vast array of American Christians who support the most repressive and unjust Israeli policies in the name of Holy Land and a Holy God. We charge that you bear grave responsibility for aiding and abetting obvious sin, and if Israel once again sees war, we suggest that you will bear part of the responsibility. Christians are called to be peacemakers (Mt 5:9), but by offering uncritical support of current Israeli policies you are actively inflaming the Middle East toward war—in the name of God. This is appalling; it is intolerable; it must stop!

    http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/5139/evangelicals_call_christian_zionist_uncritical_%22support%22_for_israel_%22appalling%22_and_%22intolerable%22/

    • john h
      September 22, 2011, 9:55 pm

      I support this clarion call and salute those who made it.

      However, they didn’t get this right:

      “We will leave it to God to sort out with the Jewish people of the modern state of Israel the very complex terms of his covenant with them.”

      That was clearly sorted out two thousand years ago. How is clearly spelled out in the Book of Hebrews. It tells of a new covenant and says of “his [first] covenant with them”:

      “In that he says ‘a new covenant’, he has made the first obsolete” Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away”.

      I repeat, that was 2000 years ago.

      • hophmi
        September 23, 2011, 4:00 am

        Thank you, pre-Vatican 2 Catholic. Didn’t know Mel Gibson was here.

      • Chaos4700
        September 23, 2011, 9:25 am

        So basically you hate anyone who’s not Jewish? You guys always trash Arabs of course, but now I see you going after Catholics, LGBT, anti-capital punishment activists, etc.

      • hophmi
        September 23, 2011, 10:04 am

        “So basically you hate anyone who’s not Jewish? You guys always trash Arabs of course, but now I see you going after Catholics, LGBT, anti-capital punishment activists, etc.”

        What are you blathering about? Didn’t you hear? Replacement theology is out of style.

      • john h
        September 23, 2011, 6:22 pm

        >> “Replacement theology is out of style.” <<

        Being in or out of style or having a guilt complex has nothing to do with truth.

      • Chaos4700
        September 23, 2011, 7:30 pm

        So tell us again, hophmi, how Jews like you have a so-called secular right to the land that you claim historically God gave you in the Middle East.

  15. tombishop
    September 22, 2011, 5:30 pm

    I for one am glad to see the two state solution die. There was always the danger that Palestine/Israel would become another India/Pakistan. Over one million people died in the ethnic cleansing needed for the partition of India/Pakistan in 1948, and they have had continuous military tension and four wars since.

    The settlers have made the death of the two state solution a fait accompli anyway. The governing elites of Israel and Palestine will not like the solution because it threatens their interests, but the only way forward is a democratic, secular state where everyone is equal regardless of religion or national origin.

    The concept of a nation based on religion is medieval in a global world. A leadership must be developed in Israel and Palestine ready to break with ethnic nationalism and build a nation which represents all of the people of the region equally?

  16. thetumta
    September 22, 2011, 6:39 pm

    This editorial was sourced from one of my local papers, I’m stunned. Couldn’t believe my eyes. The only point of view presented there in my experience is the Israeli Ministry of Propaganda. Something has seriously changed since I last visited it’s pages. Any ideas?

  17. American
    September 22, 2011, 7:43 pm

    Law suits are always interesting. A syndicate of Lloyd’s sues Saudi for 911 damages and then drops it? The suit claimed evidence to prove that the Saudi government was behind 911 attack on America.
    But the suit was only for 215 million, hardly worth going after considering the cost of suing a kingdom.

    Lloyd’s of London syndicate drops 9/11 lawsuit against Saudi groups
    Business Insurance – 1 day ago
    A Lloyd’s of London syndicate has dropped without explanation its suit … In it, Lloyd’s syndicate 3500 sought to recover the amount it says was paid on …

    I was trying to figure this out so I found syndicate 3500 and the law firm that filed it for them. Stephen Cozen of the firm of Cozen and O’Conner in Philadhpia filed the suit. Steve Cozen is, according to his bio on the law firm site:

    ” on numerous education boards, including The National Museum of American Jewish History and the University of Pennsylvania’s Law School Board of Overseers. He is a member of the USC Shoah Foundation Institute Board of Councilors.
    Steve is often awarded for his skills and leadership, both within the legal arena and in the community as a whole. In 2002, he was awarded The Anti-Defamation League’s (ADL) highest honor – The 25th Annual Americanism Award.

    Humm …so was this just the usual go after deep pockets type lawsuit or another zio inspired effort for some purpose? And why did they drop it?
    I doubt that Saudi made any secret settlement because even that would be too dangerously close to admitting guilt.
    I don’t get what Saudi’s motive for 911 would have been in the first place.
    Or what this law suit’s motive was.

    • Charon
      September 22, 2011, 11:17 pm

      That’s a strange lawsuit. Not as strange as those people trying to sue Iran for 911 (LOL!) but strange given these details. The Saudis had no motive for 911. The US is their biggest customer and they have no nuclear weapons. If they were responsible, the US could have easily removed the dictators via nuclear intimidation, instilled ‘democracy’ and then stole all the oil. Partition off Mecca and Medina to that foundation who runs the Temple Mount.

      The only reason why they are implicated is because most of the alleged hijackers had Saudi Arabian passports and that is about the best circumstantial evidence they have. There is far more circumstantial evidence pointing to you-know-who deserving of a lawsuit. Not sure what this lawsuit’s purpose was though.

    • kapok
      September 23, 2011, 12:25 am

      When the police are tried for a crime the DA usually appears for the defense; naturally, the cop walks.

      • hophmi
        September 23, 2011, 4:03 am

        Huh? I don’t think so. The DA tries and convicts cops accused of crimes all the time.

      • Chaos4700
        September 23, 2011, 9:26 am

        That looks pretty on paper, but most of us who, you know, ACTUALLY interact with the legal system know better about which side is buttered.

  18. gingershot
    September 22, 2011, 9:21 pm

    What Obama should have said in his speech;

    1 – ‘The Israeli Lobby’/AIPAC is hereby outlawed, as an agency of a foreign government that has usurped control of the American government from the electoral process itself to our freedom to formulate and control our own foreign policies
    2 — Any political contributions to political campaigns through agencies of Israel will be as illegal as contributions from China, Iran or Pakistan
    3 — Immediate cessation of our dangerously Pro-Israel policies around the ME– those supporting Israeli Apartheid itself as well as supporting Arab dictators then enlisted to support Israeli Apartheid. Previous policies generated by the Israeli Lobby/Neocons are null and void
    4- That I intend to teach the American people about why 911 really happened – using the information drawn from the 9/11 commission, the Iraq Study Group, OBL and KSM themselves, as well as our intelligence services – namely that is because of our very dangerous and illegal Pro-Israel policies drawn up by the Israeli Lobby that we were attacked on 911 in the first place
    5- Having set us up for 911 by the policies created by the Lobby – the Israeli Lobby then immediately coordinated with Israel to launch a ‘War Against Terror’ that was actually a generalized world war for Israel against Islam. The Israeli Lobby-generated ‘Clean Break Plan’ merging seamlessly with our ‘Global War on Terror Plan’ – the authors of both being the same people in Israeli Lobby
    6– Finally – there will be no American war on Iran for Israel

  19. kalithea
    September 23, 2011, 9:24 am

    Israel is an Apartheid State. The entire U.N. must walk out on Netanyahu’s speech.

Leave a Reply