Dubious Charlie Rose asks Ehud Barak why not one state?

on 57 Comments
Charlie Rose

Last night, Charlie Rose asked Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak what would be so bad about a one-state solution. 34:00 or so. The dialogue (partial transcript below) is not in itself that remarkable, but it followed on Rose expressing great discomfort with the Gaza onslaught of 2008-2009– “was it the appropriate response in your judgment?” Barak came off as rigid and a bit high-handed. I sense Rose is reflecting growing establishment impatience with Israel’s actions, cf. David Remnick saying, “I can’t take the occupation any more.” 

Rose: Is a one-state solution the worst thing that could happen to Israel?

Barak: …It’s extremely bad for Israel.

Rose: Because?

Barak: Because Israel has been established to become a Zionist democratic Jewish state… The only solution is to delineate a certain line within which we would have a solid Jewish majority for generations to come….

Note Barak’s racial demographics.  He despaired that the alternative is “two communities bleeding into one another” in a Belfast or Bosnia-like situation. I can’t imagine that sits well with Rose, who grew up in Jim Crow North Carolina.

About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .

Posted In:

57 Responses

  1. pabelmont
    November 16, 2011, 4:21 pm

    Some Zionists (not the fundis) want a [1] Jewish State AND [2] Democratic State (that is, for ME, without permanent transfer and without non-democratic apartheid). Almost all also want a [3] Large-State.

    These three are incompatible.

    You can have Jewish-State and Democratic-State (i.e., without transfer or apartheid) in a small state (the size of NYC, 1/20 the size of pre-1967 Israel. In such a mini-state, even with FULL RETURN for 1948 refugees, so few refugees would return to the mini-state that Jewish large-majority would be assured.

    You can have Jewish-State and Large-State, which is not a Democratic-State (as today — with apartheid and also with permanent transfer (1948)).

    You can have Large-State and Democratic-State if it is not “Jewish” : (the One-State envisaged by so many, Judah Magnes, most Palestinians.

    Israelis, having the power to dictate the choice (in the abject refusal of the nations to enforce international law), have chosen Large & Jewish and sacrificed Democratic.

    As history marches on, even the pseudo democracy within pre-1967 Israel is dwindling, even for Jews. (Land restrictions and continuing confiscation of land from Palestinian Israelis shows that it was never democractic w.r.t. the latter.)

    • kapok
      November 16, 2011, 10:49 pm

      I like the mini-state. It could be the Jewish Vatican with a ceremonial army centered around the wailing wall or a reasonable facsimile.

  2. DBG
    November 16, 2011, 4:44 pm

    I tried to watch this one, but couldn’t. Barak’s accent is one of the most painful I have ever heard.

  3. Ramzi Jaber
    November 16, 2011, 4:48 pm

    “Zionist democratic Jewish state”? Not really sure what this really means… is it achievable? If so, what happens to the over 25% non Jews? How does Barak propose to ensure a “solid Jewish majority for generations to come”? Force non-Jews not to have more than X children per family? per village? per city? This seems like a non-starter…

    • seafoid
      November 16, 2011, 5:55 pm

      When the Orthodox complete the takeover most of the lefty Zionists will wish the Palestinians could replace them.

      • RoHa
        November 16, 2011, 7:46 pm

        Indeed. Palestinians are prepared to work for their living.

  4. iamuglow
    November 16, 2011, 4:55 pm

    I hope Americans are paying attention. This is not democracy by any stretch.

    “The only solution is to delineate a certain line within which we would have a solid Jewish majority for generations to come….”

    • seafoid
      November 16, 2011, 5:58 pm

      That is gerrymandering
      If they insist on an area where they can have a solid Jewish majority it will be 10 miles wide and the distance from Tel Aviv to Haifa.

    • proudzionist777
      November 16, 2011, 6:58 pm

      It may be worth noting that the Jews have been thrown out, or forced out, of nearly every Arab (a nationality) country in the Middle East.

      • Potsherd2
        November 16, 2011, 7:28 pm

        The Zionists should have taken this into account when they threw out half of the Palestinian population. The Arab Jews have had to pay for Israel’s sins.

      • proudzionist777
        November 16, 2011, 8:26 pm

        The Palestinian population lost a civil war in ‘Palestine’ and the Arab States had no cause no expel their Jews.

        In the 1940’s, Jews in Baghdad, Libya and Yemen were murdered in pogroms while the British Mandate was still in effect in Palestine and no State of Israel existed.

        Why not just admit that the Arabs had treated Jews very badly for centuries before Zionism existed as a concept, much less a reality.

        Admit it, and we can move on.

      • proudzionist777
        November 16, 2011, 8:28 pm

        “The Arab Jews have had to pay for Israel’s sins.”

        Okay. So the Arabs of Palestine had to pay for their Nazi loving Mufti of Jerusalem’s sins.

      • Charon
        November 16, 2011, 9:52 pm

        Centuries? What are you talking about? This happened in modern history starting with the UN partition plan. This particular ‘pogrom’ gets brought up a lot by Zionists:


        Notice the complete lack of academic sources? The sources that are included are unreliable and significantly biased. There is no other information other than these unreliable sources. Did this even happen?

        Non-Jewish Arabs have not been treating Jewish Arabs ‘badly’ for centuries. People of different religions don’t always get along (even today) and there were certainly periods of religious discrimination in the ME, but it wasn’t limited to just Jews. The Ottomans may have favored Islam, but they were more religiously tolerant than any of the classic empires. After WWI, different religions clashed in newly-independent countries which led to expulsion and violence among Assyrians, Armenians, etc. It was not just Jews.

        Muslims and Jews not only got along, they migrated together across North Africa all the way to Spain before being expelled in the Spanish Inquisition. During the Crusades, the Muslims and Jews fought together against the Crusaders. And lastly, the ‘Old Yishuv’ indigenous Palestinian Jews clashed with the colonial land stealing Europeans too before Zionism ‘absorbed’ them.

        Zionists like to say ‘expelled form Arab countries’ when it was more like pressured to leave with Zionists often doing the pressuring as in the case of your Yemen example. Essentially, this is an exaggerated and irrelevant argument based on mythology much like everything else in Israel’s history.

      • Charon
        November 16, 2011, 10:21 pm

        One last thing, you put Palestine in parenthesis. You must be one of those “There never was a Palestine, no such thing as a Palestinian” people.

        Ironically, Zionists in British Palestine originally considered themselves Palestinians. The Jerusalem Post was once called the Palestinian Post. The ‘old Yishuv’ were Palestinian Arab Jews.

        When the Romans merged the providences of Judaea and Syria, they called it Syria Palaestina. Palaestina being prounounced with an “F” as in Falestina. Arabic has no “P” sound and even today it is pronounced “Falestine” as in “Philistine” which has long been the name associated with the region. The Philistines are ‘mortal enemies’ of the Israelites in the bible which is probably one of the reasons Palestinians get treated the way they do.

        It became Palestine under British mandate along with Jordan (Cisjordan and Transjordan) and even said Palestine on the currency. It was extremists and terrorists like Irgun calling it “Eretz Israel” (which included Jordan in their minds).

        When the nationalist bug bit the Palestinians, they began to call themselves that. So your arguments are there was never a Palestinian state based on the modern UN variety despite there being a Palestine in that same place for 2,000 years. And there never were Palestinians even though there were people who lived in Palestine (why can’t we retroactively call them that?). Palestine had it’s own culture and costumes and food which were largely destroyed by Zionism. It was not empty land.

        Ironically, there never was an Israel. At least there is no historical proof of one. Even if you believe there was, it only lasted 70 years at its ‘largest’ and spent most of it’s thousands of years of history belonging to somebody else. Modern Judaism is based on the old religion of Judaea, created in Diaspora. Christianity is also based on the old religion of Judaea. There was a time when Christians were Jews and the lines between the two were not clear. Almost half of the Palestinians prior to Zionism were Christian. DNA proves they are the descendants of all the people who lived there with the expulsions of Jews mostly confined to Jewish leaders which is normal when a country was conquered. So who’s homeland is it? Certainly not colonial nutjobs from Europe.

      • Cliff
        November 17, 2011, 12:13 am

        The Mufti was a marginal figure who was not supported by the Palestinian people at the time. He is a useful idiot for Zionist mental midgets like you though.

      • Genie
        November 17, 2011, 3:49 am

        “In the 1940′s, Jews in Baghdad, Libya and Yemen were murdered in pogroms while the British Mandate was still in effect in Palestine and no State of Israel existed.”

        That’s an interesting topic indeed. Here is a well done historical account of what happened with those Jews by Mohamed Ben-Ghalbon of the Libyan Constitutional Union.

      • seafoid
        November 17, 2011, 4:31 am

        Israel treats poor Jews very badly

        “We just cannot believe that our youngest boy is turning Bar Mitzvah next week… We feel, as all parents do that he should have the best of everything. He should feel the uniqueness of this stage in his life.

        My husband and I have been trying to figure out how to cut back on our basic household expenses in order to afford the Bar Mitzvah. The day that we hoped wouldn’t come – came, it was the day we realized that we will not be able to buy our son Tefillin. Today is Wednesday, the Bar Mitzvah is this Sunday and we dont have the money to pay for his Tefillin. My husband seemed broken and I just walked around hiding my tears.
        The situation seemed helpless.”

      • justicewillprevail
        November 16, 2011, 9:01 pm

        No, it’s not worth noting, because it is hasbara distortion of the facts, as usual. Anything bad that is inflicted on people, Israelis can trump it in their litany of victimhood, even if it is part of their ever expanding mythology.

      • Genie
        November 17, 2011, 3:57 am

        “No, it’s not worth noting, because it is hasbara distortion of the facts, as usual. Anything bad that is inflicted on people, Israelis can trump it in their litany of victimhood, even if it is part of their ever expanding mythology.”

        you’re right justicewillprevail, you will be interested to read about it.
        http://www.lcu-libya.co.uk/libjews.htm#lzn by Mohamed Ben-Ghalbon of the Libyan Constitutional Union….in case you miss the link I dropped previously. Should have given it to you anyway.

      • Charon
        November 16, 2011, 9:24 pm

        proudzionist777, your comment has nothing to do with the article. That’s the same as blaming China for something Japan did.

        Arab as a nationality is confined to the Arabian Peninsula. For example, the majority of North Africa is part of the Arab league and historically was conquered by Arabs so yeah there is some assimilation of culture, language, etc. But North Africa is made up of several nationalities speaking different languages with cultures of their own.

        If you want to get picky, Palestinians are not of the Arab nationality. . Palestinians are called Arabs because they are Arabized linguistically, culturally (to an extent), and partially genetically due to Arab conquest and assimilation. Since most of them are Muslims, you could say religiously, however, prior to Zionist colonization almost half were Christian and some were Jewish.

        Their ‘nationality’ is Palestinian, the indigenous Levantine people of the fertile crescent and the descendants of all those people who have ever lived in that area.

        By your logic, nearly half of Israel’s Jewish population is Arab. Genetically speaking anyways. The Mizrahi Jews you’re talking about are technically more Arab than the Palestinians. Zionism and Israeli behavior is the reason for any expulsion of these Arab Jews who previously got along just fine same as the Sephardi Jews in North Africa. In the case of those ‘forced out’ in Egypt, many were recent Zionist colonists living in Cairo (that part is usually left out by you guys).

        When you lump groups of people like that into a single label, you’re being a racist bigot.

      • annie
        November 16, 2011, 9:51 pm

        great comment charon. thatnks

      • Inanna
        November 16, 2011, 10:00 pm

        Arab is a linguistic category, not an ethnic or nationalist one. Otherwise, how do you make sense of the fact that Jews living in the Arab world spoke Arabic?

        As for your simplistic view about Arab Jews, you’ll note that the process of Jews leaving the Arab countries was a long-drawn out one, a product of Jews heeding the call of Zion, Israeli operations to scare reluctant Jews into leaving as well as reprisals by Arab regimes against the Jewish population they conflated with Israel. Many of those who left did not go directly to Israel – in fact, Lebanon’s Jewish population rose after 1948 and only declined in response to wars in the country.

        In fact, the whole meme of Arab expulsion of Jews did not really move into hasbara until the 1970s when Ashkenazi Jews decided to appropriate Arab Jewish history in 1948, in the same way they had already tried to quash Arab Jewish social, cultural and historical memory prior to that date and replace Arab Jewish experience with Ashkenazi Jewish experience.

      • proudzionist777
        November 17, 2011, 7:35 am

        Linguistic category? So Assyrians, Berbers and Tuaregs are Arabs because they speak arabic? Or, are these ethnic groups different from their Arab neighbors, who one might presume, originated in Arabia?

      • Emma
        November 17, 2011, 12:05 pm

        Berbers and Tuaregs do not speak Arabic. Or they might but their native language is Berber. And Assyrians? Apparently they spoke Akkadian, which is extinct, along with the Assyrians themselves.


      • Inanna
        November 20, 2011, 10:58 pm

        Yes it’s a linguistic category. Arabs come from the Arabian peninsula and conquered many non-Arab peoples who then became identified as Arabs due to sharing a common language.

      • kapok
        November 16, 2011, 10:51 pm

        If you’re anything to go by they had cause.

      • Hostage
        November 17, 2011, 8:35 am

        It may be worth noting that the Jews have been thrown out, or forced out, of nearly every Arab (a nationality) country in the Middle East.

        Wrong! It is worth pointing out that the only country on Earth where an Arab nationality is recognized or employed for official purposes happens to be the Jewish state. It has registered its own citizens using 120+ other officially recognized nationalities, but refuses to recognize a “Palestinian” one. The international community defines many of Israel’s practices, including that one, as a form of apartheid:

        c. Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognized trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association;


      • proudzionist777
        November 18, 2011, 4:54 pm

        The Destruction of the Arab World’s Jewry.


      • Darcha
        November 17, 2011, 8:41 am

        I understand the admirable idea of allowing knucklewalkers like you freedom of speech; however, going through your comments record, I can only find regurgitation, not thought. As such, you waste my time. I, for one, would vote to ban you.

  5. Joseph Glatzer
    November 16, 2011, 5:44 pm

    Phil: I think you may be wrong about your assessment of Rose’s discomfort. If you turn the volume up and listen closely, after Barak says his thing about Bosnia and Belfast Rose clearly says “Exactly”. It seems like that means he is in agreement with Barak as to why the partition along ethnic lines is crucial.

  6. seafoid
    November 16, 2011, 5:44 pm

    Awesome poem

    Only as equals
    by Remi Kanazi

    Every time I think of 9/11
    I see burning flesh
    dripping off the bones of Iraqi children in Fallujah
    Now Gaza
    I tend to memorialize the forgotten
    The collateral damage
    eclipsing america’s unpunished crimes

    Maybe it’s because I’m a numbers guy
    Because if I had a dollar
    for every time
    an Iraqi died since 2003
    I’d be a millionaire

    And don’t get me wrong
    Sometimes I don’t know
    who to hate more
    The governments in the West
    Or the politicians in the East
    Who sell their souls quicker than the oil they export
    Straw men who use Palestine
    as a tool to line their pockets
    And don’t give a nickel to their people
    Quisling governments
    Who stitch mouths shut for a check
    from Washington and AIPAC
    How can they be Israel’s prototypical anti-Semite
    If you are signing peace accords
    to oppress your own people?

    And then Orientalists and hypocrites
    talk about how democracy can’t be allowed the Middle East
    Because of what happened in Gaza
    A Hamas boogyman
    wrapped in democratic elections
    Rahm Emanuel wants to educate me
    and my people
    about democracy gone wrong
    Why doesn’t try implementing one in Israel first?
    Instead of bowing down to terrorists
    like his father and the IDF
    Lauding a third rate, racist, European society
    that’s imploding faster
    Than its moral standing in the world
    Enlightened like 1950s Afrikaners
    and slave traders
    Just because the house is beautiful
    Doesn’t mean the bones you built it on
    have fully decomposed

    The Israeli left
    is about as alive as Ariel Sharon
    I’m sick and tired of asking for permission to resist
    From antiquated leftists and progressives
    Who care more about keeping it Kosher
    than moving things forward

    I put down my pen and waving fist
    to resist with college kids and Palestinians
    Boycott and divest!
    Because who cares about
    preserving a living
    when governments are killing civilians

    We’ll boycott Lev Leviev,
    Caterpillar and your apartheid companies
    We’re taking back the right of return
    and the keys to our country
    Because we never asked you
    to go back to Europe
    or sit in open air prisons
    I’m not asking for your advice
    I’m explaining the decision
    You can stay here
    with us
    but only as equals
    It’s not that you’re Israeli
    it’s that you’re wrong
    That’s why I fight for my people!

  7. annie
    November 16, 2011, 6:35 pm

    this interview was undoubtedly booked before the IAEA came out. it opened w/talk about iran and the nukes. of course barak comes out claiming the IAEA was right, and then claimed it supported the notion iran is on the verge of nuke capability which the report provided no evidence of the sort.

    have not gotten to the one state part yet.

  8. jewishgoyim
    November 16, 2011, 6:42 pm

    Is Rose a Jewish name? I think in some cases it is. Phil talked of a Rose who was Jewish not so long ago. Any clue as to whether Charlie Rose is Jewish?

    • john h
      November 16, 2011, 8:00 pm

      I did a brief check. Absolutely no indication anywhere that he is.

    • Charon
      November 16, 2011, 8:46 pm

      Charlie Rose isn’t Jewish but Shlomo Sand once accused the show of being pro-Zionist. I think I read that in an article that Phil wrote.


      “The surname Rose can be of English, Scottish, French, and German origin”

      When surnames became a requirement in the Holy Roman (German) Empire, you could choose a free surname of a common metal or animal, or pay a premium for flowers and precious metals. If I remember right, many of the people who lacked a surname were Jewish.

      • jewishgoyim
        November 18, 2011, 11:37 pm

        Charlie markets himself as this ever thoughtful humanist. The way he leads interview lets one think he has a grasp of the situation in Palestine. Also he decided to interview people from Hamas which I haven’t seen done by many in the US media. He seems to have a “human” relationship with Mahmoud ahmadinejad whom he interviews almost each year.

        Now when all said and done, Charlie is mostly the embodiment of the US establishment although in a gentler subtler manner. At the end of the day he always toes the party line. He goes to Bilderberg meetings and maybe others. No dissent there. It would not be polite.

    • Dan Crowther
      November 16, 2011, 9:18 pm

      He does call himself the “fourth emanuel brother”…. :)

  9. Charon
    November 16, 2011, 8:34 pm

    “Because Israel has been established to become a Zionist democratic Jewish state… The only solution is to delineate a certain line within which we would have a solid Jewish majority for generations to come….”

    It’s never going to be a solid line unless they swap Israeli Arab communities. They can’t do that, the majority Arab areas in Northern Israel are surrounded by Jewish areas like “Afula” not to mention it would enclave part of Israel

    The two “triangle” areas are separated from the WB by the seam zone and have settlements between them that Israel intends to keep. There is just no line you can draw which makes a contiguous Palestinian state without create Bantustan-style enclaves in Oslo’s area A and B. There are already Palestinian enclaves in the seam zone.

    The settlements are strategically placed, proof Israel was never serious about peace. Outside of Jerusalem there are only 300k settlers. And 200k in EJ. What’s the big deal? That isn’t a lot of people. Wikipedia’s articles on the dismantled settlements in Sinai, Gaza, and the WB make it sound like it’s some sort of horrible brutal crime. We’re not even talking about a lot of people! The settlers certainly don’t add much to Barak’s desired Jewish majority, they just sabotage the two state solution.

    What about the nutters in “Samaria” who want to declare independence or all the extremists in the Jordan Valley who would rather die then leave?

    I’m sorry Barak, but drawing such a line is impossible. A one-state solution is the ONLY solution. There is no other way! They’ll make any excuse to prevent the inevitability from happening and when it does, Zionists will be a demographic minority signaling the end of Zionism once and for all.

    • kapok
      November 16, 2011, 11:03 pm

      The Israeli strategy seems to be stall, make war, pick up more territory, rinse and repeat until they have the whole thing; and as long as it takes make up lies about two states. Sarkozy was right.

  10. RoHa
    November 16, 2011, 9:51 pm

    OT, but I am not sure where else to put this.

    Yesterday Obama said “The United States of America has no stronger ally than Australia.”

    Isn’t it anti-Semitic to suggest that a non-Jewish state could be America’s strongest ally? (Even that state actually sends troops in support of US military actions.)

    • kapok
      November 16, 2011, 10:56 pm

      Words mean nothing to the Reptilian Order. Their public pronouncements are meant to induce a psychotic state in the listener.

  11. Richard Witty
    November 16, 2011, 10:38 pm

    Listen to the interview again Phil. You are “wishful” thinking.

    • Chaos4700
      November 17, 2011, 2:52 am

      Witty and proudracist — besides being on the same page, what a shocker — are very probably right.

      Ho hum, another American journalist who kisses Israeli ass. That’s pretty much the “mainstream” in mainstream journalism. Remember who’s responsible for where the paychecks come from, after all.

      • Richard Witty
        November 17, 2011, 5:18 am

        I don’t think that Rose kisses Israel’s ass in the slightest, but just that he is a journalist, he asks probing questions.

        Not a partisan one way or another.

      • Chaos4700
        November 17, 2011, 9:17 am

        If he was asking deep, probing questions, why didn’t he ask about the regular pogroms that the Israeli settlers commit?

  12. ahhiyawa
    November 16, 2011, 11:12 pm

    You heard it right Phil, and your remark of a “growing establishment impatience with Israel’s actions” is dead on.

  13. Tristan
    November 17, 2011, 1:34 am

    Zionist. And democratic. And Jewish. If Ehud insists that the State be characterized by a single political philosophy, then how can it still be a democracy? The competition of ideologies is inherent to a democracy.

    • seafoid
      November 17, 2011, 9:07 am

      Barak: …It’s extremely bad for Israel.
      Rose: Because?
      Barak: Because Israel has been established to become a Zionist democratic Jewish state…

      Because South Africa is a White state
      Because Northern Ireland is a Protestant State
      Because Lebanon is a Maronite State

      • eljay
        November 17, 2011, 10:19 am

        >> Because Israel has been established to become a Zionist [pseudo-]democratic [and religion-supremacist] Jewish state…

  14. upsidedownism
    November 17, 2011, 9:03 am

    Barak is pretty much in agreement with the sentiments expressed by Zionist founding father Theodore Herzl’s views a century ago in the “A Jewish State: An Attempt at a Modern Solution of the Jewish Question” The only thing that’s change is that what was universally referred to before WW2 as Palestine is now called ‘Israel’, and that the “Jewish Question” or the “Jewish Problem” is now called the “Palestinian Problem.”:

    Herzl: “Palestine is our ever-memorable historic home. The very name of Palestine would attract our people with a force of marvellous potency”

    “An infiltration (of Jews) is bound to end in disaster. It continues till the inevitable moment whent he native population feels itself threatened, and forces the Government to stop the further influx of Jews. Immigration is consequently futile unless based on an assured supremacy.”

    At the end of Zionist spectrum are later writers like Jabotinsky (of whom Netanyhu’s father was a student and admirer). Jabotinsky specifically explained that Zionism is a colonial project. Neither he (not Barak in the interview) didn’t use the phrase “assured supremacy” but they both absolutely agree that their must be maintained a Jewish majority by one means or another.

    The present situation is a compromise between these zionist streams of thought. The Israeli government rules over lands in which Jews are in the minority. The Palestinians in the occupied territories do not have a say in the selection of the Israeli cabinet in Tel Aviv which makes the ultimate decisions over their lives. Endless and meaningless promises that this is only a temporary situation which is not israel’s fault disguise the fact that historic Palestine – within which resides the state of Israel -is now ruled as an oligarchy or ethnotheocracy but which has been rigged or gerrymandered to maintain the pretense that the State of Israel is a democracy.

  15. Kathleen
    November 17, 2011, 11:49 am

    Interesting interview.: Hope Phil, Adam, Lizzy, Annie go point by point and dissect and expose one lie after the next.
    Barak “settlements are not a problem” “Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map” “we are building on Jewish land in E Jerusalem” The possibility for a two state solution seems more and more less likely when you listen to this interview. He is another Israeli racist asking “what would you do if your family was attacked” Incapable of applying that same standard to the Palestinians.

    Within the first minute Barak completely undermines the former head of the IAEA El Baradei saying that he had not told the “truth” about Iran.

    Barak moves into how all countries around the world should agree to isolate Iran’s banking system. That is not happening

    Move into nuclear weapons nations and Charlie nails Barak down on Israel having nuclear weapons and why it would be understandable in many ways that Iran would want nuclear weapons. Although Charlie does not go as far as talking about how Israel threatens to attack Iran almost every day.

    Barak ” India nuclear weapons, Pakistan nuclear weapons, Chinese nuclear weapons, South Korea, Russia”

    Charlie “Israel” has nuclear weapons. Refuses to sign the NPT
    This part of the conversation is totally based on assuming that Iran has a nuclear weapons program.

    If Israel pre-emptively attacks Iran (although according to Seymour Hersh Israel has had forces on the ground in Iran for quite some time) And Israel has all ready attacked Iran via Stuxnet. An act of war
    Rose “what happens on day 2” “Will the middle east go up in flames”

    Barak states that the thing that Hamas and Iran have in common is that they both want “Israel to dissapear” Charlie does not challenge.
    We know that Professor Juan Cole debunked the mistranslated and often repeated by the Iraq/Iran warmongers “Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map”
    Prof Cole
    The phrase he then used as I read it is “The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] from the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).”

    Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope– that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah’s government.

    Whatever this quotation from a decades-old speech of Khomeini may have meant, Ahmadinejad did not say that “Israel must be wiped off the map” with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time.

    22:16: Rose ask Barak “was the invasion of the Gaza appropriate” Barak does not answer at all. Charlie allows him to get away with it

    Barak “when the Palestinians tell you that Israeli’s are building in the settlements, it is propaganda”
    Rose: Wait, wait. “Your not building in E Jerusalem” Sure wish Charlie would have mentioned the illegal Israeli settlements by name.

    Then Barak goes into Jerusalem is the Jewish capital and we are only building on Jewish land and empty land.

    Huge huge lie! What a liar Barak is

    “The World Likud movement held a cornerstone-laying ceremony yesterday for the expansion of the neighborhood of Nof Zion, despite – or possibly because of – American pressure against building in East Jerusalem. The Jewish settlement is in the middle of the Arab village of Jabal Mukkaber. Meanwhile, the Jerusalem municipality razed two Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem yesterday.”

    When you listen to interviews like this the one state solution seems to be the only solution.

  16. Richard Witty
    November 17, 2011, 12:44 pm

    One point that Barak made emphatically was that Barak Obama was a confident friend of Israel.

    Your post today of “proudzionist” (indirectly inferring that our “proudzionist” was the same person), stated that they regarded Barak Obama as an enemy of Israel.

    Its an interesting dichotomy between different friends of Israel.

    • Kathleen
      November 17, 2011, 2:57 pm

      Barak did repeat that Obama was a friend of Israel especially in regard to national security

Leave a Reply