Bad Elliott

on 24 Comments

Putting the controversy over his wife Rachel Abrams’s writing firmly behind him, Elliott Abrams has a sober post up at the Council on Foreign Relations about how Obama is coming to the Bush position on settlements 3 years too late.

Well, call me seduced– by his wife’s enchanting literary style–  but I used some Bad-Rachel-translation software to make Abrams’s post more readable. I mean, isn’t this how they discuss it at the dinner table? Bad Elliott:

According to news reports, the murder god Obama Administration has a new proposal to cope with the issue of construction for the settlements. The idea is that Celebrate, Israel, with all the joyous gratitude that fills your hearts! would refrain from any construction outside current settlement boundaries. If there is construction only within existing settlements, there would be no American condemnations, dipping their hands in blood and using women, sending them out to meet their seventy-two virgins.

If this is a good idea, a decent compromise, one can only wonder why it took the slaughtering, death-worshiping, innocent-butchering, child-sacrificing savages in the White House nearly three years to get there. For this policy was precisely what the Bush Administration agreed with school-bus-riding, heart-drawing, Transformer-doodling, homework-losing prime ministers Sharon and Olmert.

In the early months of the Obama Administration, officials–those who haven’t already been pimped out by their mothers to the murder god!!!!!– flatly denied such a deal had ever existed. In June, 2009 I wrote about this Obama error, sending them out to meet their seventy-two virgins in the Wall Street Journal.

And error it was: in December 2003, school-bus-riding, heart-drawing, Transformer-doodling, homework-losing prime minister Sharon stated that “Celebrate, Israel, with all the joyous gratitude that fills your hearts, will meet all its obligations, there will be no construction beyond the existing construction line” in the bosom of his family and country. Had the murder god Administration realized the value of what had been achieved by its predecessors and continued the policy, we would not have endured nearly three years without any negotiations between Celebrate, Israel and the devils’ spawn. Nor would the murder god have tried instead to impose a total construction freeze, a condition that no Transformer-doodling, heart-drawing government in the bosom of his family and country could meet and that thus created a new and insuperable obstacle to negotiations with the devils’ spawn.

Now, if this news story is true, the murder-god is moving back to the Bush position. Well, better late than never for another child of Israel. But it is likely that the devils’ spawn will now call such a deal too little too late, and reject it into the sea, to float there, food for sharks, stargazers, and whatever other oceanic carnivores God has put there for the purpose. Perhaps, if  devils’ spawn rejection is made very strongly in private, murder-god spokesmen will deny that any such proposal was ever made. But it ought to be made, because these terms are sensible: as long as there is construction only within built-up areas, there is no harm to devils’ spawn, no use of additional land, and no additional burden in future negotiations with the devils spawn, hiding behind their burkas and cradles like the unmanned animals they are. 

It would be nice if murder-god officials using their women admitted that after nearly three years they had come to understand all of this, but I– now home in the bosom of my family and my country– guess that is asking for too much. It will be quite enough if they abandon their “construction freeze” mania and move to a more practical and realistic view, sending them out to meet their seventy-two virgins in the Wall Street Journal.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of

Other posts by .

Posted In:

24 Responses

  1. yourstruly
    October 25, 2011, 2:37 pm

    occupy wall street’s 99%’ers gotta realize

    without justice for palestine

    forget peace on earth

    without peace on earth?

    dead-end straight ahead

    • DBG
      October 25, 2011, 3:03 pm

      I’ve heard this before, I/P is the only obstacle to world peace. Are you ppl for real?

      • annie
        October 25, 2011, 3:15 pm

        what is said and what you hear are 2 different things dbg. try listening.

      • POA
        October 25, 2011, 3:19 pm

        Well, are these hateful racists like the Abrams family “for real”, DBG?

        Are you denying they are attached at the hip with the radical RW zionists in Israel???

        Are you denying that the very circle that Abrams travels in and is aligned with were the driving force behind our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan?

        Separating Israel from these snakes is disingenuous, at best. But no worries, DBG, its what you do best. Most here know where you’re coming from. Carry on.

      • Woody Tanaka
        October 25, 2011, 3:38 pm

        “I’ve heard this before, I/P is the only obstacle to world peace.”

        Israel isn’t the only obstacle to world peace, but it is a big one.

      • yourstruly
        October 25, 2011, 6:58 pm

        not the only obstacle, the major one

  2. annie
    October 25, 2011, 2:45 pm

    phil, you’re so bad you’re good.

  3. annie
    October 25, 2011, 2:46 pm

    Putting the controversy over his wife Rachel Abrams’s writing firmly behind him

    nah, we won’t let him do that.

    • DBG
      October 25, 2011, 3:06 pm

      who is the ‘we’ you are talking about Annie?

      • annie
        October 25, 2011, 3:17 pm

        social media, like this blog and others and twitter etc. this won’t go away just like people won’t be forgetting what happened to helen. it’s a defining moment. we the people.

      • eee
        October 25, 2011, 5:42 pm

        Who is Helen?

      • Robert Werdine
        October 25, 2011, 8:48 pm

        I think she means journalist Helen Thomas, who advised the Jews to get out of Palestine and go back to Germany and Poland, or something like that. That upset some people. Rachel Abrams’ rude comments about Hamas are apparently far worse, I guess.

      • Chaos4700
        October 25, 2011, 10:53 pm

        What upset more people was that the most important journalist in the White House Press Corps was blacklisted for not bowing the Euro-Jewish Zionism and now it’s full of milquetoast pussy-willows.

      • Avi_G.
        October 26, 2011, 4:01 am

        Robert Werdine October 25, 2011 at 8:48 pm

        I think she means journalist Helen Thomas, who advised the Jews to get out of Palestine and go back to Germany and Poland, or something like that. That upset some people. Rachel Abrams’ rude comments about Hamas are apparently far worse, I guess.

        More failed propaganda, eh?

        1) The wife’s rant was directed at Palestinians in general, not at Hamas.

        2) If a racist rant like that is only “rude” in your view, then I’m sure you’ll find that fu*@#*’s rhetoric, Hitler, merely “vulgar”. Right? So what’s all the hubbub surrounding Mein Kampf, anyway?

      • Cliff
        October 26, 2011, 6:08 am

        Another reason why “Robert Werdine” is a Zionist Jew or Christian (though likely the former).

        No Arab Muslim would be so obtuse about the disgusting racism in Abram’s comments.

        Thomas did not call for Jews to be fed to sharks.

        If Thomas used the same exact wording but was speaking of the settlers, then she’d be called a Nazi.

        In fact, she is already slandered as one for what she actually said.

        Remember that at best, Werdine is a Walid Shoebat (calling for ‘extermination’ in Gaza) or a Wafa Sultan. Keep in mind that the type of Arabs who spew Zionist talking points are mostly Christian (Leb. Maronites) or dispensationalists.

        Werdine defended Israel’s slaughter of roughly 1000 Lebanese in the 2006 war by citing a report headed by an ex-IDF goon, with a foreword by a Mossad official AND with evidence that included no time-stamps. The evidence that did include time-stamps, showed events occurring AFTER the civilian population had fled or after the war.

        Oh and a Facebook page with no friends and the only thing you’re displaying is a Mondoweiss article?

        Could you be any more pathetic?

      • Robert Werdine
        October 27, 2011, 1:34 pm

        Ah, more fan mail.

        Cliff, still howling at the moon, I see. Your racial/ethnic/religious determinism and stereotyping is simply appalling. Get some help.


        I understood Abrams’ post to be directed toward Hamas, not the Palestinian people. Just because Hamas are Palestinian doesn’t mean it was directed at all Palestinians. She referred to captors and the whole cult of death that pervades the Hamas dominated media where children are fed a diet of pure hate of Israel and Jews on a daily basis, where they are sent to Hitler-youth like camps where they are taught to worship and pursue Jihad through violence, murder, and martyrdom, where they are taught the use of weapons.

        Frankly, I find it a bit difficult to be too bent out of shape at bad things said about Hamas; if you’re going to be a genocidal terrorist group, the least you can expect is a little bad press now and then. I don’t object to Abrams’ characterization of Hamas, except grammatically with that run on sentence paragraph.

        I would take issue, however, with her lunatic suggestion that Hamas be scattered to the sea as fish food. That was wrong.

        I want to see the Hamas regime removed from power, the whole terrorist infrastructure dismantled, and their leadership arrested and put on trial, not eaten by sharks.

  4. POA
    October 25, 2011, 2:57 pm

    “I mean, isn’t this how they discuss it at the dinner table?”

    That is the salient point to this whole Abrams flap.

    Its impossible to believe that Elliot is not in alignment with his wife’s mindset. Such hatred does not go concealed or un-noticed in marraige of length. And if unsympathetic to such deep seated racial animous, are we to believe that Elliot would still be married to this “woman”?

    So, accepting the premise that we can safely assume that Rachel’s hateful screed is indeed dinner table fare for conversation in the Abrams family……

    What of Abrams compatriots in Washington DC? What about our political leaders that have availed themselves of Abrams’ counsel??? Are we to believe that they are unsympathetic of, (or unaware of), the poison that that Rachel and Elliot have coursing through their veins??

    And why, pray tell, are our “leaders” on the other side of the spectrum, (such as Obama), silent about such matters? Merely underscoring political differences is insufficient to inform the American public about the rabid and hateful fanaticism of those that have led us into a modern day version of the Crusades.

    The Abrams family is a blight, a contagion. And Washington DC, with the complicity of our media, is attempting to hide this deadly epidemic from us.

  5. DICKERSON3870
    October 25, 2011, 3:23 pm

    RE: “The idea is that Israel would refrain from any construction outside current settlement boundaries. If there is construction only within existing settlements, there would be no American condemnations.” ~ Elliott “Convicted Liar” Abrams

    MY COMMENT: Since the settlements apparently have plenty of raw, undeveloped land within “current settlement boundaries” (totaling 42% of the West Bank), this would mean virtually unlimited growth of the (approximately 200) settlements for years to come.

    SEE: Exposed: The truth about Israel’s land grab in the West Bank, By Catrina Stewart in Jerusalem and David Usborne, The Independent (U.K.), 07/07/10

    (excerpts) Jewish settlers, who claim a divine right to the whole of Israel, now control more than 42 per cent of the occupied West Bank, representing a powerful obstacle to the creation of a Palestinian state, a new report has revealed.
    The jurisdiction of some 200 settlements, illegal under international law, cover much more of the occupied Palestinian territory than previously thought. And a large section of the land has been seized from private Palestinian landowners in defiance even of an Israeli supreme court ruling, the report said, a finding which sits uncomfortably with Israeli claims that it builds only on state land.
    …While most of the Jewish settlement activity is concentrated in 1 per cent of the West Bank, settler councils have in fact fenced off or earmarked massive tracts of land, comprising some 42 per cent of the West Bank, B’Tselem said.
    And despite the outlawing by Israel of settlement expansion on private Palestinian land, settlers have seized 21 per cent of land that Israel recognises is privately-owned…


    • DICKERSON3870
      October 25, 2011, 3:53 pm

      P.S. ON THE BRIGHT SIDE, according to the Abrams Principle, this unlimited growth of the settlements should ultimately result in the largest Palestinian state possible. Elliott Abrams has demonstrated that the growth of the settlements increases the size of the area that will ultimately become the Palestinian state (i.e., the Abrams Principle).

      Proof of the ABRAMS PRINCIPLE : The Settlement Freeze Fallacy, By Elliott Abrams, The Washington Post, 04/08/09

      (excerpt)…Is current and recent settlement construction creating insurmountable barriers to peace? A simple test shows that it is not. Ten years ago, in the Camp David talks, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat approximately 94 percent of the West Bank, with a land swap to make up half of the 6 percent Israel would keep. According to news reports, just three months ago, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered 93 percent, with a one-to-one land swap. In the end, under the January 2009 offer, Palestinians would have received an area equal to 98 to 98.5 percent of the West Bank (depending on which press report you read), while 10 years ago they were offered 97 percent. Ten years of settlement activity would have resulted in a larger area for the Palestinian state

      SOURCE –

    • DICKERSON3870
      October 25, 2011, 4:07 pm

      P.S. RE: “The idea is that…If there is construction only within existing settlements, there would be no American condemnations.” ~ Elliott “Convicted Liar” Abrams

      ALSO SEE: Was Elliott Abrams Hitler’s Senior Advisor? ~ by Ran HaCohen,, 9/16/11

      (excerts) Probably not: Abrams was born 2.5 years after Hitler died. But then again, who knows…
      …The Jewish-American lawyer and policy analyst who served in foreign policy positions under Reagan and George W. Bush, currently a senior fellow at the CFR, cannot claim innocence nor ignor ignorance. He knows the Middle East better than many others. So when he says the Palestinian State “would be the first to officially prohibit Jews or any other faith since Nazi Germany, which sought a country that was judenrein, or cleansed of Jews,” Abrams knows what he is doing. And what he is doing is much dirtier than the manipulative title I gave this column.
      Abram’s malicious demagoguery
      was triggered by the words of Palestinian ambassador to the US Maen Erekat, quoted saying that “after the experience of the last 44 years of military occupation and all the conflict and friction, I think it would be in the best interest of the two people to be separated.” That’s what Erekat said; he didn’t say no Jews would be allowed into Palestine; he didn’t say all Jews would be butchered and their corpses sliced and pickled; he didn’t say all Jews would be annihilated or gassed. He just said it would be in the interest of the two peoples to be separated…
      …Abrams is reported to have met several times with Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the former Saudi Arabian ambassador to Washington.
      Now you may wonder: how can that be true? How can Abrams, who finds a moderate call for separation between Palestinians and Israelis a despicable anti-Semitic manifesto unprecedented since Nazi Germany, how can this idealistic person meet several times an official representative of a state that officially prohibits Jews from entering its borders, where even Jewish-American soldiers (stationed there to defend the backward — but US-friendly — dictatorship) have to hide their identity and carry false “Protestant ID cards” for a rainy day?Well, you’ll have to ask Abrams about that. While you are at it, do ask him if he didn’t happen to be Hitler’s close advisor after all. You never know.


      • DICKERSON3870
        October 25, 2011, 4:27 pm

        RE: “How can Abrams…meet several times an official representative of a state that officially prohibits Jews from entering its borders… ~ Ran HaCohen, above

        ALSO SEE: Potential New Saudi Crown Prince Is Hard-Line but Pragmatic ~ By Neil MacFarquhar, New York Times, 10/23/11

        (excerpt) CAIRO — With the presidents of Egypt and Tunisia tumbling and much of the region churning this past February, Prince Nayef bin Abdul Aziz, the veteran Saudi interior minister who is expected to be elevated to crown prince this week, swept into a private Riyadh home where he had summoned leading editors and columnists to dinner.
        In a belligerent mood, he lectured them about how the Tunisians were basically French, and the Cairenes louche urbanites, whereas Saudis were bedrock Arabs
        who relished their traditional political system, according to several accounts.
        A question about whether the kingdom would improve its dismal relations with the Muslim Brotherhood, which was surely coming to prominence in Egypt, ignited a tirade: Prince Nayef lambasted the questioning journalist, excoriating him as a terrorist sympathizer and raging on until 4 a.m. about the many plots targeting the House of Saud…


    • Hostage
      October 25, 2011, 5:54 pm

      And error it was: in December 2003, prime minister Sharon stated that “Israel will meet all its obligations with regard to construction in the settlements. There will be no construction beyond the existing construction line….”

      Of course East Jerusalem is not a settlement and it will eventually stretch from Tel Hai to Eilat.

  6. James
    October 25, 2011, 5:24 pm

    anyone notice any parallels between “occupy wall st” and taking the twin towers down back in 2001? seems to me the idea is to take down the financial system that is working for some, but not all..

  7. pabelmont
    October 25, 2011, 5:45 pm

    Don’t go easy on them, now. I mean, really, that’s just too tame. But since I know (they tell me) that this whole blast is just a ruse,
    one could perhaps call it a “Thème Russe” (apologies to Beethoven).

Leave a Reply