The real question is: Does Netanyahu lie?

Israel/Palestine
on 55 Comments

Republicans are outraged. The Anti-Defamation League is “deeply disappointed.” President Obama’s apparent agreement with French leader Nicolas Sarkozy that Israel’s prime minister is a “liar” has struck a nerve among hardline supporters of Israel in the U.S. But the exchange should raise this important question: is Benjamin Netanyahu truly a “liar?”

The answer is, well, yes. (This is not to let Obama and Sarkozy off the hook; as politicians, by definition they lie and obfuscate). 

To take one example of many, let’s examine parts of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s May 2011 speech to Congress, where rapturous applause greeted him.

1. Netanyahu:

Israel fully supports the desire of Arab peoples in our region to live freely.

This is false. Israel was a close ally of Hosni Mubarak’s dictatorship in Egypt–a dictatorship that brutally suppressed its own people. One week into the Egyptian uprising that overthrew Mubarak, Barak Ravid reported in Haaretz that Israel was calling “on the United States and a number of European countries…to curb their criticism of President Hosni Mubarak to preserve stability in the region.”

2. Netanyahu:

[Iran] subjugates Lebanon and Gaza.                                                                                                     

This lie is almost too ridiculous to merit a response. Israel, not Iran, is blockading Gaza. Israel, not Iran, subjugates the people of Gaza so that they remain in an open-air prison, not allowed to travel or trade freely with the rest of the world.

3. Netanyahu:

In recent years, the Palestinians twice refused generous offers by Israeli prime ministers to establish a Palestinian state on virtually all the territory won by Israel in the Six Day War

Another distortion. Israel’s “proposals” to the Palestinian leadership in recent years consisted of plans to establish a non-contiguous, disconnected and toothless Palestinian state.

4. Netanyahu:

As for Jerusalem, only a democratic Israel has protected the freedom of worship for all faiths in the city.

Israel’s policy on Jerusalem and religious freedom privileges Judaism over other religion. Even the U.S. State Department knows it:

The 1967 Protection of Holy Sites Law applies to holy sites of all religious groups within the country and in all of Jerusalem, but the Government implements regulations only for Jewish sites. Non-Jewish holy sites do not enjoy legal protection under it because the Government does not recognize them as official holy sites. At the end of 2008, there were 137 designated holy sites, all of which were Jewish. Furthermore, the Government has drafted regulations to identify, protect, and fund only Jewish holy sites. While well-known sites have de facto protection as a result of their international importance, many Muslim and Christian sites are neglected, inaccessible, or threatened by property developers and municipalities. The Christian pilgrimage sites around the Sea of Galilee face periodic threats of encroachment from district planners who want to use parts of their properties for recreation

5. Netanyahu:

Israel withdrew from south Lebanon and from Gaza

South Lebanon? Sure (minus Shebaa Farms). But not Gaza. While Israel withdrew its illegal settlements and military from Gaza in 2005, they continue to exercise “effective control” over Gaza. Under international law, Israel remains the occupying power in Gaza.

Netanyahu is no truth-teller. Sarkozy got it exactly right.

Alex Kane is a freelance journalist and blogger based in New York. Follow him on Twitter @alexbkane.

About Alex Kane

Alex Kane is a freelance journalist and graduate student at New York University's Near East Studies and Journalism programs. Follow him on Twitter @alexbkane.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

55 Responses

  1. eljay
    November 9, 2011, 7:34 pm
  2. Dan Crowther
    November 9, 2011, 8:07 pm

    Great post Alex.

    Abe Foxman really sent that out as an official ADL statement? WOW. hahaa.

  3. Mayhem
    November 9, 2011, 8:29 pm

    I see no debate about whether Abbas is a liar. Everything here is one-sided. Or maybe it is generally accepted as fact and not to be discussed.

    From his UN speech:
    “We have to negotiate with the Israelis peacefully,” he (Mahmoud Abbas) explained. “This is our ideology. This is our mentality. This is the culture of the Palestinians. We are not ready to turn back to violence.”

    • Taxi
      November 10, 2011, 12:05 am

      STFU mayhem! We ain’t talking about Abbas here!

      What’s unfortunate is Sarkosy didn’t say the FULL truth which is: Benjamin Natanyahu, like ALL Apartheid israeli leaders before him, is a frigging liar, a THIEF, an ethnic cleanser and HE AIN’T EVEN FROM THE MIDDLE EAST!!!!

      Just like you Mayhem: you ain’t from Palestine so buzz off with your Abbas this and Abbas that!

      • Mayhem
        November 10, 2011, 8:40 pm

        This website claims to deal with ‘The War of Ideas in the Middle East’. If so then pertinent remarks that are made by Abbas are germane to any discussion.

    • Shingo
      November 10, 2011, 3:02 am

      Everything here is one-sided.

      Yes it is. One sides doing all the occupying, all the killing and all the settlement building.

      And by all means Mayhem, feel free to provide a reference to that quote.

    • tod
      November 10, 2011, 6:51 am

      It’s one sided because it refers to a specific event.
      As an analogy, do you expect in a discussion about Martin Luther King to also talk about white people, Indian people and Chinese people?
      But hey, don’t let common sense stop your propaganda.

  4. proudzionist777
    November 9, 2011, 8:31 pm

    Israel signed a peace treaty with Egypt in 1979 and was in no responsible for Egypt’s corrupt, brutal regimes. In fact, the Egyptian governments condoned, aided and fostered virulent anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism among the Egyptian masses.

    • Avi_G.
      November 9, 2011, 11:47 pm


      Surprise! Netanyahu is not the only Zionist liar.

    • Chaos4700
      November 10, 2011, 2:10 am

      “I did not get in bed with that dictator.” To whom the US was obligated to shell out money, along with for Israel, as stipulated by the Camp David Accords. (Because grafting US tax money was the only way to bring Israel to the table.) And then you guys defended Mubarak against a DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENT.

      The cut-rate fuel deal that Israel got under Mubarak? TOTALLY a coincidence.

  5. mudder
    November 9, 2011, 8:34 pm

    I think Juan Cole confirmed this yesterday. link to juancole.com

  6. Larry
    November 9, 2011, 9:20 pm

    When doesn’t Netanyahu lie?….

  7. Abu Malia
    November 9, 2011, 9:25 pm

    Lying to Goys doesn’t count – or does it?

    • RoHa
      November 9, 2011, 9:52 pm

      Naaah. And I bet Hostage can find some Talmudic ruling that says exactly that.

      • Citizen
        November 10, 2011, 4:47 am

        How about this?
        Baba Kamma 113a. Jews may use lies (“subterfuges”) to circumvent a Gentile.

      • Shmuel
        November 10, 2011, 6:32 am

        How about this?

        A minority opinion rejected by the majority as the equivalent of theft, and theft from a non-Jew is as prohibited as theft from a Jew. The majority opinion is considered law, codified as follows in Maimonides, Yad Hazakah, Laws of Theft, 1.1: “It is the same if one steals from a Jew or a gentile.” Or as Rabbi Yehiel of Paris put it (Paris Disputation; 1240): “It is written ‘You shall not steal’, not ‘You shall not steal from a Jew'”.

        Halakhah does not permit theft from a non-Jew, although Netanyahu wouldn’t know a page of Talmud or Maimonides if it walked up to his desk (the one with the signet ring on it) and introduced itself.

        Talmud – even when quoted correctly and in context – is a dubious source of information regarding the behaviour of individual Jews (especially secular, ignorant and vile Jews like Netanyahu). You wouldn’t attribute Mubarak’s behaviour to the Quran; no reason to attribute Netanyahu’s to the Talmud.

      • RoHa
        November 10, 2011, 10:08 pm

        “no reason to attribute Netanyahu’s to the Talmud.”

        I wasn’t thinking that N would either be inspired by or even check with the Talmud. Just that some bit of that colossal work would have a ruling (probably a minority opinion) that says lying to non-Jews is OK, in case N wanted Talmudic approval.

  8. Mayhem
    November 9, 2011, 9:30 pm

    Alex Kane is practising selective demonization.
    With reference to his assertion that non-Jewish holy sites do not enjoy legal protection he has only referred to those the Israeli Government has OFFICIALLY recognized as holy sites.
    The PROTECTION OF HOLY PLACES LAW, 1967 states:
    The Holy Places shall be protected from desecration and any other violation and from anything likely to violate the freedom of access of the members of the different religions to the places sacred to them or their feelings with regard to those places.
    a. Whosoever desecrates or otherwise violates a Holy Place shall be liable to imprisonment for a term of seven years.
    b. Whosoever does anything likely to violate the freedom of access of the members of the different religions to the places sacred to them or their feelings with regard to those places shall be liable to imprisonment for a term of five years.
    Netanyahu’s statement “As for Jerusalem, only a democratic Israel has protected the freedom of worship for all faiths in the city.” is not a lie per se just because there might be special protection of Jewish sites.
    The key point is to compare to the desecration of holy sites that occurred when Jordan controlled East Jerusalem and the West Bank before 1967. Since then Israel has done incredibly well to protect religious diversity within its borders. Refer to this article at link to theisraelproject.org
    for a comprehensive list of incidents demonstrating Palestinian and Jordanian Failure to protect holy sites.

    • Mooser
      November 9, 2011, 11:29 pm

      Why, thank you for offering us links to such disinterested and objective sources, Mayhem. I’m sure any reporting from “The Israel Project” will be fair and balanced.

      • Mayhem
        November 10, 2011, 5:10 pm

        How about taking on board what is said there instead of choosing the lazy mindless dismissive approach?

      • annie
        November 10, 2011, 5:43 pm

        seriously? it’s a propaganda outfit mayhem. their priority is not truth, it’s subterfuge. why would i bother even reading it?

        ok, i glanced up just now. here’s how easy this is:

        Whosoever does anything likely to violate the freedom of access of the members of the different religions to the places sacred to them or their feelings with regard to those places shall be liable to imprisonment for a term of five years.

        your kidding me right? are you even serious? even on holy days most palestinians are not free to visit their holy places. or aren’t they people too?

        here. i have something right up your alley, better than the israeli project but psy-ops just the same.

        The top 10 military ‘psy-ops’ corporations admit to using against Americans

        enjoy

      • Sumud
        November 10, 2011, 5:55 pm

        seriously? it’s a propaganda outfit mayhem. their priority is not truth, it’s subterfuge. why would i bother even reading it?

        hell yes it’s a propaganda outfit. Let us recall THE ISRAEL PROJECT’S SECRET HASBARA HANDBOOK EXPOSED

        In fact Silverstein has a tag specifically for ‘the israel project’, an illuminating read over time, and more than enough evidence about what a dodgy organisation TIP is:

        link to richardsilverstein.com

      • Mayhem
        November 10, 2011, 9:01 pm

        What does this psy-ops link have to do with the discussion her. The quote I mentioned is straight from the PROTECTION OF HOLY PLACES LAW, 1967. I gave the pointer to the comprehensive list of incidents demonstrating Palestinian and Jordanian failure to protect holy sites to illustrate what could happen again if we took Jerusalem away from Israeli control.
        There are no permanent provisions in place to prevent Palestinians from visiting their holy places – closure policies can lead to this from time to times as part of Israeli security measures.
        On the other hand Palestinian violence against Israeli settlers has prevented Israelis from reaching Jewish holy sites in the Occupied Territories, such as Joseph’s Tomb near Nablus. Since early 2001, following the outbreak of the Intifada, the Israeli Government has prohibited Israeli citizens in unofficial capacities from traveling to the parts of the West Bank under the civil and security control of the PA. This full-time restriction has prevented Israeli Arabs from visiting Muslim and Christian holy sites in the West Bank, and Jewish Israelis from visiting other sites, including an ancient synagogue in Jericho. These visits have been severely curtailed as a result of disagreements between Israel and the PA over security arrangements i.e. the PA could not and would not adequately guarantee the safety of such visitors.

      • annie
        November 10, 2011, 9:12 pm

        the next time you copy directly from wiki and/or the jewishvirtuallibrary i hope the mods catch it an ban your comment. give credit where credit is do or try harder to diguise your plagiarism.

      • Mayhem
        November 11, 2011, 5:22 pm

        My sincere and humble apology for not having revealed that 50% of my post came from wikipedia – doesn’t change the point I would like to re-emphasize. Israel gets criticized for not doing enough to ensure access and preservation of non-Jewish holy sites but take Israel away from the helm and you will get rampant sacrilege like this recent event where Palestinians demonstrated their contempt for Jews by burning their religious books. See link to liveleak.com

      • Woody Tanaka
        November 11, 2011, 6:21 pm

        “…this recent event…”

        These settler pigs are stealing Palestinians land and all you care about is that someone burned up some stupid books? Are you mad?

      • Hostage
        November 11, 2011, 8:27 pm

        take Israel away from the helm and you will get rampant sacrilege like this recent event where Palestinians demonstrated their contempt for Jews by burning their religious books.

        So, you’ve not heard about all of the settler price tag arson attacks, like this one that targeted mosques and destroyed dozens of copies of the Quran? How about the mosque in Beersheba that the State of Israel has simply expropriated for use as a museum? How about Orthodox Jews set fire to hundreds of copies of the New Testament in the latest act of violence against Christian missionaries in the Holy Land? That account mentions that Ultra-Orthodox Jews had burned down a church used by a Messianic Christian congregation.

        Are you really that clueless?

    • Avi_G.
      November 10, 2011, 12:01 am

      Wow, a link to the Israel project no less.

      I guess Hasbara Central is now outsourcing the Megaphone/Giyus job.

      A quick look at reality shows the following:

      1. Before 1967, Jordan did not allow Israelis into East Jerusalem. The reason is quite obvious. Israel was at war with Jordan. Heck, the 1967 Israeli attack on Jordan proved that. Non-Israeli Jews, however, were allowed access to East Jerusalem.

      2. Israel has not only desecrated Moslem religious sites in Jerusalem, it has destroyed them. The Mamilla cemetery is but one glaring example.

      3. Israel, not only prevents Palestinian Moslems access to holy sites in Jerusalem, but it also arbitrarily prevents its own Moslem citizens from visiting those holy sites.

      4. And to top it off, Israel has prevented — and continues to prevent — Christian Palestinians from visiting Christian sites in BOTH Jerusalem and Bethlehem.

      Note to readers:
      Do not trust me. Instead, trust the guy who goes by the name “Mayhem” and the other sap who is proud to subscribe to a racist ideology — imagine if someone went by the name ProudNeoNazi.

      It’s as though Zionism turns its adherents into zombies or drones who are incapable of taking off their blinders, even if to have the sense to comprehend a little irony.

      • Citizen
        November 10, 2011, 5:02 am

        Those adherents remind me of teen-age punks from trailer parks who get the SS flash bolts inked on their scrawny bodies. What happened to the “light to the world?” Has it really come down to the likes of Mayhem & proudzionist777? SNL needs some new scripts populated with these guys. Or at least, with Pamela Geller & Eric Cantor.

      • Mayhem
        November 10, 2011, 5:19 pm

        Avi, you’ll have to do a lot better that the Mamilla cemetery if you are trying the tit for tat approach. How about some consideration of what histroical information the link points to instead of the weak trick of labelling pro-Israel remarks as hasbara (= out of order?)

        This time referring to Wikipedia you can read:
        “In 1929, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, the Mufti of Jerusalem, decided to build the Palace Hotel on what was assumed to be outside the border of the cemetery. While the foundations were being laid, Arab workers uncovered Muslim graves. Baruch Katinka, a Jewish contractor hired to oversee the project, wrote in his memoirs that when the Mufti was informed of the discovery, he said to quietly rebury the bones elsewhere, as he feared Raghib al-Nashashibi, his political rival and the mayor of Jerusalem, would issue a cease work order. As Shari’a law permits the transfer of graves in special cases with the approval of a qadi (Muslim judge), Husayni, acting as head of the Supreme Muslim Council, the highest body in charge of Muslim community affairs in Mandate Palestine, authorized the disinterment. When it was discovered what had happened, rival factions filed a suit against Husayni in the Muslim courts, arguing that he had desecrated ancient graves.”

        A November 1945 article in The Palestine Post reported on plans of the Supreme Muslim Council (SMC) and the Government Town Planning Adviser to build a commercial center on cemetery grounds and to transfer remains buried in the areas to be developed to a “40 dunams walled reserve” centered around the tomb of al Sayid al Kurashi, ancestor of the Dajani family. A member of the SMC told the newspaper that, “the use of Muslim cemeteries in the public interest had many precedents both in Palestine and elsewhere.” The SMC’s plan, however, was never implemented.”

        So much for the cemetery being a valued holy site – you use it as a propaganda piece. Like those who screamed blue murder when the Hurva synagogue was rebuilt after being destroyed by the Jordanians in the War of Independence. It opened recently in Old Jerusalem. Its timing offended the delicate sensibilities of the Palestinians who said it demonstrated Israel’s unwillingness to hold back from ‘settlement’ activity.

      • Hostage
        November 11, 2011, 12:08 am

        Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, the Mufti of Jerusalem

        The Mufti’s deceitfulness wouldn’t constitute a waiver of the rights of the Palestinian people. FYI, it’s important to keep in mind that the Muslim Committee responsible for voting on the list of candidates in the run-off elections for the position of Mufti awarded the most votes to Jaralla, followed by Khalidi and Budayri.

        Since British High Commissioner, Herbert Samuel, was only supposed to consider the top three candidates, Al-Hajj Amin Al-Husayni was legally shut-out. However, Samuel appointed Husayuni as Grand Mufti despite his election loss. See Philip Mattar, The Mufti of Jerusalem: Al-Hajj Amin al-Husayni and the Palestinian National Movement, Columbia University Press, 1988, page 25.

        The other example you cited is only a report about the existence of a proposal that was never adopted. So, it couldn’t possibly support a claim that the cemetery should not be protected as a cultural, historical, or Waqf property.

        I’ll repost this information again: The Mamilla Cemetery was not state property prior to the 1948 War. It was an Islamic endowment property, or waqf in Jerusalem. So, its immunities were guaranteed under Article 13 of the Mandate and the UN Partition Plan. It was taken over by the Israeli Custodian for Absentee Property. The US government has always stated that Jerusalem’s final status must be negotiated. No other country recognizes Israel’s sovereignty over Jerusalem. The use of abandoned or absentee property laws to confiscate the properties of inhabitants or their communities as a result of a change of sovereignty has long been considered a violation of the laws of nations and international law. See for example Article 144 of the Treaty of Sèvres or United States v. Percheman, 32 U.S. 7 Pet. 51 51 (1832).
        The Simon Wiesenthal Center is headquartered in Los Angeles. This appears to be a violation of the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 956 regarding damage to religious or cultural property in a foreign country:

        (b) Whoever, within the jurisdiction of the United States, conspires with one or more persons, regardless of where such other person or persons are located, to damage or destroy specific property situated within a foreign country and belonging to a foreign government or to any political subdivision thereof with which the United States is at peace, or any railroad, canal, bridge, airport, airfield, or other public utility, public conveyance, or public structure, or any religious, educational, or cultural property so situated, shall, if any of the conspirators commits an act within the jurisdiction of the United States to effect any object of the conspiracy, be imprisoned not more than 25 years.

    • Shingo
      November 10, 2011, 4:11 am

      Yes Mayhem,

      Was citing the israelproject supposed to be some kind of joke?

  9. dumvitaestspesest
    November 9, 2011, 9:40 pm

    Ouch, two presidents of some major countries got on the ADL”s the “Most Wanted” list.
    Watch out Mr President #1 ,and Mr President # 2, Abe Foxman is “deeply disappointed”.

  10. Hostage
    November 9, 2011, 10:40 pm

    The real question is: Does Netanyahu lie?

    Don’t be silly. Netanyahu tells lies, even when the truth would serve him better. That’s necessary just to maintain his current [crappy] level of proficiency.

    • Charon
      November 9, 2011, 11:35 pm

      He is incapable of telling the truth. The man is a psychopath. How ironic that he said he was going to tell the ‘truth’ at the UN and told nothing but lies. I cannot stand the man. He is a vile, disgusting, and repulsive creature. His bald spot, his face, his skin. Everything about the man bothers me.

      The old YouTube video of Ben ‘Nitay’ repeating that same tired rhetoric…. He was quite cunning back then. Now he can be debunked with every vile word that comes out of his mouth. I cannot believe that a country would elect him to represent them. Worse than the worst American presidents, Dubya included. I pray that bad things happen to him and his family and everybody who supports him

      • Citizen
        November 10, 2011, 5:03 am

        He should go sell aluminum siding in Detroit.

      • Antidote
        November 10, 2011, 4:16 pm

        “I pray that bad things happen to him and his family and everybody who supports him”

        Who’s the psychopath? Doesn’t strike me as a legitimate use of prayer. Why don’t you go do some bad things to Bibi and his family, and deal with the consequences, rather than seek assistance from the Allmighty?

        Wilson was one of the worst American presidents. Talked about nothing but peace and the rights of small nations, while invading, occupying subjecting small nations on an unprecedented scale. Mexico, Haiti etc etc. Germany, Austria and Hungary were small nations compared to the US. Wilson helped destroy them, cheered by the god of the neocons, Churchill. ‘Self-determination’ was nothing but false advertising, and the League of Nations nothing but a power tool and farce, as is the UN today. Keynes saw right through it:

        “The politics of power are inevitable, and there is nothing very new
        to learn about this war or the end it was fought for; England had
        destroyed, as in each preceding century, a trade rival; a mighty
        chapter had been closed in the secular struggle between the
        glories of Germany and of France. Prudence required some measure
        of lip service to the ‘ideals’ of foolish Americans and
        hypocritical Englishmen; but it would be stupid to believe that
        there is much room in the world, as it really is, for such
        affairs as the League of Nations, or any sense in the principle
        of self-determination except as an ingenious formula for
        rearranging the balance of power in one’s own interests.”

        “The President’s attitude to his colleagues had now become: I
        want to meet you so far as I can; I see your difficulties and I
        should like to be able to agree to what you propose; but I can do
        nothing that is not just and right, and you must first of all
        show me that what you want does really fall within the words of
        the pronouncements which are binding on me. Then began the
        weaving of that web of sophistry and Jesuitical exegesis that was
        finally to clothe with insincerity the language and substance of
        the whole treaty. The word was issued to the witches of all
        Paris:

        Fair is foul, and foul is fair,
        Hover through the fog and filthy air.

        The subtlest sophisters and most hypocritical draftsmen were
        set to work, and produced many ingenious exercises which might
        have deceived for more than an hour a cleverer man than the
        President.
        Thus instead of saying that German Austria is prohibited from
        uniting with Germany except by leave of France (which would be
        inconsistent with the principle of self-determination), the
        treaty, with delicate draftsmanship, states that ‘Germany
        acknowledges and will respect strictly the independence of
        Austria, within the frontiers which may be fixed in a treaty
        between that state and the principal Allied and Associated
        Powers; she agrees that this independence shall be inalienable,
        except with the consent of the council of the League of Nations’,
        which sounds, but is not, quite different. And who knows but that
        the President forgot that another part of the treaty provides
        that for this purpose the council of the League must be
        unanimous.
        Instead of giving Danzig to Poland, the treaty establishes
        Danzig as a ‘free’ city, but includes this ‘free’ city within the
        Polish customs frontier, entrusts to Poland the control of the
        river and railway system, and provides that ‘the Polish
        government shall undertake the conduct of the foreign relations
        of the free city of Danzig as well as the diplomatic protection
        of citizens of that city when abroad.’
        In placing the river system of Germany under foreign control,
        the treaty speaks of declaring international those ‘river systems
        which naturally provide more than one state with access to the
        sea, with or without transhipment from one vessel to another’.
        Such instances could be multiplied. The honest and
        intelligible purpose of French policy, to limit the population of
        Germany and weaken her economic system, is clothed, for the
        President’s sake, in the august language of freedom and
        international equality.
        But perhaps the most decisive moment in the disintegration of
        the President’s moral position and the clouding of his mind was
        when at last, to the dismay of his advisers, he allowed himself
        to be persuaded that the expenditure of the Allied governments on
        pensions and separation allowances could be fairly regarded as
        ‘damage done to the civilian population of the Allied and
        Associated Powers by German aggression by land, by sea, and from
        the air’, in a sense in which the other expenses of the war could
        not be so regarded. It was a long theological struggle in which,
        after the rejection of many different arguments, the President
        finally capitulated before a masterpiece of the sophist’s art.
        At last the work was finished; and the President’s conscience
        was still intact. In spite of everything, I believe that his
        temperament allowed him to leave Paris a really sincere man; and
        it is probable that to this day he is genuinely convinced that
        the treaty contains practically nothing inconsistent with his
        former professions.
        But the work was too complete, and to this was due the last
        tragic episode of the drama. The reply of Brockdorff-Rantzau
        inevitably took the line that Germany had laid down her arms on
        the basis of certain assurances, and that the treaty in many
        particulars was not consistent with these assurances. But this
        was exactly what the President could not admit; in the sweat of
        solitary contemplation and with prayers to God he had done
        nothing that was not just and right; for the President to admit
        that the German reply had force in it was to destroy his
        self-respect and to disrupt the inner equipoise of his soul; and
        every instinct of his stubborn nature rose in self-protection. In
        the language of medical psychology, to suggest to the President
        that the treaty was an abandonment of his professions was to
        touch on the raw a Freudian complex. It was a subject intolerable
        to discuss, and every subconscious instinct plotted to defeat its
        further exploration.”

        link to socserv2.mcmaster.ca

        Makes Wilson sound like a psychopath and liar, doesn’t it? More frequently, he is portrayed as an idealist.

      • Citizen
        November 10, 2011, 5:48 pm

        Just take what Antidote’s long comment, and juxtipose Willson’s 14 points, which the Germans thought they were getting since they had laid down their arms without defeat & with none of WW1 fought on German soil (the war caused by Germany’s increasing competition with England, which had formerly been master of the seas): link to wwi.lib.byu.edu

        In Mein Kampf, AH laid out how Germany had been wronged when it had gone to peace based on the promises of the Allies.

        It’s actually not only the Jews who will remember how they got fucked by someone, and carry a response back in triplicate.

      • Hostage
        November 10, 2011, 7:59 pm

        Who’s the psychopath? Doesn’t strike me as a legitimate use of prayer.

        Murderers are supposed to be punished by death from the Heavens. –Maimonides, Mishna Torah, The Laws of a Murderer, chapter 2, halacha 11

      • Hostage
        November 11, 2011, 7:02 am

        P.S. A number of the Psalms are devoted to petitions requesting that God punish wrongdoers, sinners, and settle old scores. The scriptures obviously weren’t written by or for secular humanists;-)

  11. ToivoS
    November 9, 2011, 11:01 pm

    This headline immediately brought to mind that old question: Does a bear shit in the woods?

  12. Charon
    November 9, 2011, 11:28 pm

    Bibi’s signet ring story comes to mind.. Any suckers who bought that better do the human race gene pool all a favor and jump off a cliff. Netanyahu is not his family name, his dad changed it during the Hebrew craze back in the day. So if I changed my name to Netanyahu, I would have just as much right to live there as him.

  13. Kate
    November 9, 2011, 11:30 pm

    See Dr. Mazin Qumsiyeh’s article on the subject of Netanyahu’s lies (in Today in Palestine list for today, Wednesday); has link to interesting video.

    “Sarkozy called Netanyahu a liar. So what’s all the fuss about? Netanyahu has admitted this publicly. The question now is whether or not his lies will pull the region into a war with Iran–a conflict that some Arab leaders support behind closed doors.

    “I do not know why people are surprised at what Sarkozy and Obama said to each other in private about Netanyahu as a liar. This is, after all, the same Netanyahu who gave a speech to dozens of Likud Party members in Eilat in which he admitted this is his strategy. According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz (15 July 2001): “…giving his audience a bit of advice on how to deal with foreign interviewers (Netanyahu said): ‘Always, irrespective of whether you’re right or not, you must always present your side as right.'” So Netanyahu admitted to lying and Sarkozy and Obama merely agreed with Netenyahu, and most of the Israeli public, that the current Israeli prime minister is a perpetual liar.

    “And here is Netanyahu, thinking cameras are off, bragging about how easy it is to manipulate the US and go around the Oslo commitments:
    link to youtube.com (make sure to click CC for English subtitles.)

  14. ToivoS
    November 10, 2011, 1:35 am

    I think it is a mistake to focus on Netanhayu as a liar. It should be obvious to any sentient being on this planet that any Zionist that claims they support “peace” with the Arabs or that they support a “two state solution” is a liar. What is clear from the last 20 years of negotiations that what the Zionist call “peace” or a “two state solution” is nothing less than apartheid — namely what can only be described as concentration camps inside Israeli controlled territory. Freedom and justice for the Palestinians is not possible in that environment.

    Netanyahu has achieved state power because he has convinced a majority of Israeli Jews that he is able to achieve that goal. Those Israelis will not hold it against him that he succeeded just because he fooled dumb goyim he was seeking peace.

  15. Walid
    November 10, 2011, 1:52 am

    Alex, Israel was founded on a big lie, so why would you expect any of its leaders to be anything other than liars? In your #2 above about Iran’s supposed subjugation of Lebanon, not many know that Iran spent over $400 million rebuilding part of Lebanon’s housing that Israel had destroyed in 2006 and another $500 million replenishing Hizbullah’s stock of 50,000 missiles that are now aimed at TA. It was Iranian-supplied missiles that immobilized the 80 “invincible” Merkavas and that downed a couple of helicopters and crippled the Hanit that was out 10 km in the Med in 2006. Lebanon is very grateful to Iran. Israel destroys and Iran rebuilds.

    As to your #5, it’s not only the Shebaa hamlets that are still occupied, but also the northern half of the village of Ghajjar both from which Israel is stealing water and the barren cliffs of Kfarshouba, strategic observatories from which a good part of Lebanon is visible, but occupied nonetheless.

  16. Brewer
    November 10, 2011, 2:02 am

    Forgive my cynicism.
    Post Libya, Unesco vote, Sarkozy and Obama needed to distance themselves. Both are up for re-election. Nothing happens by accident in politics – especially “I forgot the mike was on”.
    Strong possibility this little stunt was cleared with Netanyahu beforehand.

  17. Shingo
    November 10, 2011, 4:09 am

    Hey Alex,

    There are countless other lies. How about insisting that the claim that Abbasa refuses to negotiate in good faith even though it was Iseael that violated the Road Map and continued to build settlements.

  18. upsidedownism
    November 10, 2011, 7:17 am

    Shame on Obama: You’d think he would defend the deceptions necessary for an american spy like prime minister Netanyahu, aka, Miliukovsky, aka. Benjamin Nitai, John Jay Sullivan and John Jay Sullivan Jr.
    link to alisonweir.org
    Sarkozy and Obama are like 2 dogs complaining about being wagged by their tails.
    Don’t delude yourself by blaming it all on Bibi. Israeli professor ilan pappe has warned against thinking that any other israeli prime would be any better:

  19. dumvitaestspesest
    November 10, 2011, 8:48 am

    The real question is ,why do we tolerate liers, cowards, traitors, opportunists, psychopaths in our governments??
    Why do we think it is ok for them to do, what they are doing??
    “Oh, all politicians lie, that’s their job,nothing can be done about it”.
    So they do lie,manipulate, do some shady businessess, start wars, abuse and steal public money. They do so ,because they can.
    We are giving them our permission , they just take adventage of it.
    Now they have the chance of doing it on a mass, global scale, so the effects are global.
    And this is scary for all of us.
    WE let our “democratically chosen” politicians cut the branches, on which the whole planet Earth sits in. The fall will not be pretty. For anybody.
    Out of those 99%, how many are just willing, oftentimes unaware, participants in their Evil??

    Ancient Greeks took pride in being interested, actively participating in a public life of their cities (polis/politicos). Those ,who chose not to be involved, were labeled by them “IDIOTES” (deprived of public life) .
    How many ” Idiotes” do we encounter in our everyday life??

    • MRW
      November 10, 2011, 10:05 pm

      dumvitaestspesest,

      Thank you for this. Fabulous!

      Ancient Greeks took pride in being interested, actively participating in a public life of their cities (polis/politicos). Those ,who chose not to be involved, were labeled by them “IDIOTES” (deprived of public life) .

    • RoHa
      November 10, 2011, 10:27 pm

      “Ancient Greeks took pride in being interested, actively participating in a public life of their cities (polis/politicos).”

      That was ancient Greek free male citizens. Slaves and women didn’t count.

      And of course there was much greater chance of a citizen being able to influence a tiny Greek city-state than a full-sized modern country. Now the influence of one citizen depends on whether he has control of newspapers, TV stations, or big banks. Without such control, there is usually not a lot of point in getting worked up about things.

      • dumvitaestspesest
        November 11, 2011, 12:00 pm

        By definition ,slaves do not have too many rights.
        It is not only about the size of the country, it is mostly about if we care. And we/majority do not…..care.
        Condsidering the fact the we do live in modern societies, with almost immediate access to many , valuable info via bookstores, libraries, internet , trips , museums etc. what do we choose??
        News about what lady Gaga is wearing, or how many kids Angelina J .adopoted, or who is currently sleeping with whom?
        That’s , more or less, the level of the interest that the average Joe or Joelina exibit towards “participating in public life”.
        The right to vote should be a privilege.
        By becoming a right that every (, even the biggest “idiotes”, who completely has no idea of what is going on around him), has ,it lost its power and meaning. Wrong people has been chosen for the most important, vital positions in many countries.
        The effects of it, we see it all over.

      • RoHa
        November 11, 2011, 11:25 pm

        “It is not only about the size of the country, it is mostly about if we care.”

        Caring is not enough. The power to make a change also counts, and in a large country an individual has very little power to make a change unless he he has control of newspapers, TV stations, or big banks.

        Those with that power fill the rest with images of Lady Gaga and a huge steaming heap of sport which they pretend is important.

        Individuals who care cannot compete with that power. They give up, or try to band together with like minded people and get beaten up by the police.

  20. justicewillprevail
    November 10, 2011, 9:01 am

    O what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive

    All of the myriad lies necessary to support the bigger lie – that some people from all parts of the globe have more right to a Palestinian farmer’s property than the farmer himself, whose family have been there for generations.

Leave a Reply