Washington ‘sits shiva’ for the 2-state solution

US Politics
on 75 Comments

Israeli PM Netanyahu’s dismissal of the two-state solution in the last days of the election campaign in Israel is having a huge and beneficial effect on the discussion of the conflict inside the United States. Yesterday President Obama leaped on the PM’s comments at a press conference, stating severely that the two-state solution is not going to happen in the next “several” years, and we have to deal with that reality, and no one’s going to get anywhere by singing “kumbaya.”

Obama seems to be doing what many on the US left are doing: preparing Americans to think about what one state looks like.

But Obama’s open reassessment of the relationship is panicking the U.S. establishment. He is getting pushback from odd places. The New York Times has a somewhat-condescending piece out of Jerusalem warning Obama that he is speaking disrespectfully to Israeli voters (the Jews anyway) and unnecessarily aggravating the tensions between the countries. While last night on MSNBC“No two-state solution for next several years?”--Bob Woodward and Ron Fournier of National Journal both urged Obama to be a big boy and make up with Israel, because Israel needs us and the U.S. needs Israel (we need to be allied with a “democracy” in the Middle East, Woodward said). Chris Matthews wondered why Obama is doubling down.

Here is a roundup of official statements and comments about the crisis of the two-state solution.

At his press conference yesterday, Obama said this, answering several questions:

Prime Minister Netanyahu in the election runup stated that a Palestinian state would not occur while he was Prime Minister, and I took him at his word that that’s what he meant, and I think that a lot of voters inside of Israel understood him to be saying that fairly unequivocally…

Even if you accept it, I think– the correctives of Prime Minister Netanyahu in subsequent days– there still does not appear to be a prospect of a meaningful framework established that would lead to a Palestinian state even if there were a whole range of conditions and security requirements that might be phased in over a long period of time, which was always the presumption…

But I am required to evaluate honestly how we manage Israeli Palestinian relations over the next several years…

What we can’t do is pretend that there’s the possibility of something that’s not there, and we can’t continue to premise our public diplomacy based on something everyone knows is not going to happen at least in the next several years… This can’t be reduced to a matter of somehow, ‘Let’s all hold hands and sing Kumbaya.’ …

I have a very businesslike relationship with the Prime Minister, I’ve met with him more than any other world leader. I talk to him all the time. The issue is not one of relationships between leaders, the issue is a very clear substantive challenge.

The issue has never been do you create a Palestinian state overnight, the question is: Do you create a process and a framework that gives the Palestinians hope?

Nedra Pickler of AP said that “businesslike” is how Obama describes his relationship with Vladimir Putin (appearing on MSNBC last night).

Next, here is White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough speaking on Monday to the liberal Zionist lobby J Street in Washington. He also refuses to accept Netanyahu’s post-election effort to claim he is for a two-state solution, and describes the “occupation” as illegal and inhumane.

In 2009, Prime Minister Netanyahu publicly endorsed a two-state solution.  Over the course of President Obama’s administration, most recently with the tireless efforts of Secretary Kerry, the United States has expended tremendous energy in pursuit of this goal.  That is why the Prime Minister’s comments on the eve of the election-in which he first intimated and then made very clear in response to a follow up question that a Palestinian state will not be established while he is prime minister-were so troubling.

After the election, the Prime Minister said that he had not changed his position, but for many in Israel and in the international community, such contradictory comments call into question his commitment to a two-state solution, as did his suggestion that the construction of settlements has a strategic purpose of dividing Palestinian communities and his claim that conditions in the larger Middle East must be more stable before a Palestinian state can be established.  We cannot simply pretend that those comments were never made, or that they don’t raise questions about the Prime Minister’s commitment to achieving peace through direct negotiations.

In recent days, some have suggested our reaction to this issue is a matter of personal pique.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  America’s commitment to a two-state solution is fundamental to U.S. foreign policy.  It’s been the goal of both Republican and Democratic presidents, and it remains our goal today.  Because it is the only way to secure Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state.

That is why President Obama has said that we need to re-evaluate our approach to the peace process and how we pursue the cause of peace – because, like all of you, we care deeply about Israel and its future.  We will look to the next Israeli government to match words with actions and policies that demonstrate a genuine commitment to a two-state solution.  And, like every administration since President Johnson, we will continue to oppose Israeli settlement activity since it undermines the prospects for peace. …

An occupation that has lasted for almost 50 years must end, and the Palestinian people must have the right to live in and govern themselves in their own sovereign state….

Israel cannot maintain military control of another people indefinitely.  That’s the truth.  And as President Obama has said, neither occupation nor expulsion of Palestinians is the answer.  Anything less than true peace will only worsen the situation.  A “one-state solution” would effectively end Israel’s nature as a Jewish and democratic state.  Unilateral annexation of the West Bank territories would be both wrong and illegal.  The United States would never support it, and it’s unlikely Israel’s other friends would either.  It would only contribute to Israel’s isolation.

Peace is also undeniably just.  Palestinian children deserve the same right to be free in their own land as Israeli children in their land.  A two-state solution will finally bring Israelis the security and normalcy to which they are entitled, and Palestinians the sovereignty and dignity they deserve.

The White House’s reassessment of the relationship has panicked New York Times Jerusalem bureau chief Jodi Rudoren, who avers in a story called “Rebukes from White House Risk Buoying Netanyahu” that the Prime Minister’s statements during the election mean nothing, he’s all for the two state solution. Her piece begins with Israelis lecturing Obama:

“Everybody understands this is part of the political campaign,” [former national security adviser Giora] Eiland said of Mr. Netanyahu’s pre-election comments promising that a Palestinian state would not be established on his watch. “To try and say: ‘I caught you; I heard you say something. Since that’s what you said, I’m going to make a reassessment,’ it sounds like, ‘Well, I have been waiting until you make such a mistake, and now I’m going to exploit it.’ ”

By the way, Eiland called for slaughtering civilians during the Gaza war last summer (“they are to blame for this situation just like Germany’s residents were to blame for electing Hitler as their leader and paid a heavy price for that, and rightfully so”).

Rudoren really is inside rightwing Zionist opinion, fighting any pressure on Israel:

Israeli analysts are now suggesting that Mr. Obama and his aides might be overplaying their hand, inviting a backlash of sympathy for Mr. Netanyahu, and that they may not have clearly defined what they expected to gain diplomatically by continuing to pressure the Israeli leader.

The president’s harsh words have been deemed by some to be patronizing and disrespectful not only to Mr. Netanyahu but also to the voters who rewarded his uncompromising stances with a resounding mandate for a fourth term.

Several Israeli analysts said the administration’s criticism of Mr. Netanyahu seemed like a pretext for a longstanding plan to change the United States’ policy of protecting Israel in international forums, which the administration has said it will reassess. Others suspect a ploy to undermine Israel’s lobbying efforts against the American negotiations for a nuclear accord with Iran.

By the way, that is just what J Street wants: the president to shift slightly in international fora to put pressure on Israel. But not to cut off any military aid to the illegal occupier. No; Denis McDonough assured J Street that would not happen.

On Democracy Now! yesterday, Yousef Munayyer explained that rhetoric without sanctions will produce nothing:

I think the big problem with J Street is that it advocates for an outcome, but does not advocate for any concrete steps towards actually realizing that outcome… And what we’ve seen from J Street is advocacy for continued negotiations, which have only acted as a cover for the very settlement expansion that they deplore. So, because of the sort of the precarious position that they’re in, in trying to be both pro-Israel and pro-peace, even though the Israeli state has its entrenched interests focused on maintaining the occupation, put it in such a place so that it can’t effectively do what it says it wants to do. And so it’s become something of a transitory state for people who are overcoming their previous affinity with the state of Israel and Zionism as they progress along a spectrum that is increasingly critical. And to the extent that it plays that role as a transitory step, I think it’s fine. Beyond that, though, I don’t think it’s doing much of anything effective.

AARON MATÉ: You’re the director of the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation. At this moment when U.S.-Israeli ties are so low, what happens next for activism here in the U.S.?

MUNAYYER: I think there’s really only one answer to that question. And that is, in every way possible, the costs of occupation to the Israeli state have to increase. For many years they have decreased, and it’s become very easy for Israel to consider a future where perpetual occupation—

Munayyer is wise to speak of the transitory step that J Street is providing for American Jews. (That’s why I’ve always clapped for J Street with one hand.) Lisa Goldman of the New America Foundation joins in the paradigm collapse, stating on Democracy Now! that the two-state solution has passed its sell-by date and everyone at J Street knows that, consciously or not.

J Street this year was very, very interesting, for a couple of reasons. I think the main reason was, one of my friends, actually, an Arab friend of mine who was there, said it sounds like the liberal Zionists are sitting shiva for their ideology. I wouldn’t go quite that far; he was joking, of course. But there was a sense, like J Street is an organization—it’s an NGO. It’s a liberal Jewish NGO—well, not just Jewish, but their slogan is pro-Israel and pro-peace, and they advocate for a two-state solution. They sort of are—by many, are regarded as a liberal-left version of AIPAC. And they’ve had some interesting successes. I think that they’re—you know, they’re a very interesting organization in the sense that they try very hard to bring disparate voices under a single umbrella to talk about alternative solutions.

But there are a lot of people who were at J Street who said, “Look, you know, with all due respect, the two-state solution is a wonderful idea, but it’s a bit late.” And I’m actually one of those people. And I don’t advocate ideologically one state. I don’t think it’s, you know, going to be the best outcome, just for pragmatic reasons. But I just think that at this point, talking about a two-state solution, negotiating it—you know, we’re 20 years after the Oslo agreement, we have 500,000 Jewish settlers—I think it’s just a bit too late.

Chris Matthews ought to host Munayyer and Goldman. Last night he puzzled over Obama’s anger. We are pro-Israeli in this country, that’s not going to change, he said. But Obama is “not going to quit this fight. Why has he decided to keep this fight going?” The answer is that he is trying to break the news to America that the two-state solution is dead and that Israel’s intransigence is hurting the U.S. in the Middle East.

Matthews said, “In the Democratic Party, we always think of Israel as the Jewish community’s biggest interest, and it is.” For religious reasons, and because of the Holocaust, he said. Goldman and Munayyer are saying that it’s time American Jews let all that mythology go. That’s what Obama is also nudging us towards. The most disputed territory in the Middle East is between American Jews’ ears; once American Jews give up the idea of a two-state solution, and of a Jewish state, we can proceed (calmly, I pray) to the next phase.

And that’s why Jodi Rudoren at the NYT is so important: coming out of a pro-Israel background herself, she seems bent on blocking any awareness in the U.S. Jewish community that it’s one state right now and 4 million people have no rights.

Yonatan Amir at +972 is doing the exact opposite, trying to foster awareness. He has a piece titled, “It’s time for a one-state solution” that explains the reality. He says the burden is on the Israeli left to abandon its Zionist roots. Obama ought to read this.

Every time I say that the two-state solution is no longer realistic, and that we need to think about new approaches to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, center-left voters respond with anger, condescension and pity. They claim that this is a far-fetched idea, not to mention dangerous and cruel (!) — an idea that proves the desire to destroy the State of Israel, and is disconnected from the will of the “sane Jewish majority.”

Let’s start with a reminder: the new Knesset includes 107 members belonging to Jewish parties. Seventy-eight of them oppose the two-state solution, and are divided between those who have no qualms about their stances (Likud, Jewish Home, Kulanu, Shas, United Torah Judaism and Yisrael Beiteinu), and a minority that talks about a solution but creates obstacles to ever achieving one (Yesh Atid). On the other side we have the supporters of two states: five MKs from Meretz and 24 from the Zionist Camp. All in all, 29 versus 78….

Instead of trying to sell the Right on fantasies of dividing the land, which are destined to fail, [the Left] must work with it to bring about one state with equal rights for all residents on both sides of the Green Line.

This move will not abrogate Palestinian national aspirations. It will not put an end to either Jewish or Arab terror and will not solve all of Israel’s essential problems. But it will help build a more stable and fair infrastructure based on democracy and equality, which so crucial for the existence of a healthy society.

Finally speaking of discursive changes, Bill Kristol is determined to marginalize himself, and that’s a good thing. Notice how explicitly he pushes for an American war with Iran because they’re Nazis. This man is deluded.

Thanks to Max Blumenthal.

About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

75 Responses

  1. lysias
    March 25, 2015, 10:20 am

    Winston Churchill is overdue for a reassessment.

    Churchill’s Secret War: The British Empire and the Ravaging of India during World War II.

    Churchill’s Empire: The World That Made Him and the World He Made.

    Churchill’s Folly: How Winston Churchill Created Modern Iraq.

    And this one I have not read, but have just ordered on Kindle: Churchill and Empire: A Portrait of an Imperialist.

    Speaking of Churchill and imperialism, it is well to remember that Churchill was ultimately responsible for the 1953 coup against Mossadegh. Newly returned to the prime minister’s office, he unsuccessfully pressured Truman to participate in such a coup, but then succeeded in getting the help of the new Eisenhower administration.

    • ziusudra
      March 25, 2015, 11:24 am

      Greetings lysias,
      When a target is in the interest of the US, it moves immediately to secure all possibilities, as in the 40s & 50s with the criminal Dulles Bros. & the Grandson of Pres. Terry Roosevelt, Kermit ‘the conniver’ Roosevelt in toppling Moosadegh. In their hubris & vile arrogance, they lost Iran again in 79 as the old holy man in Paris shrugged.
      Look how quickly they moved into Kiev in support of the Ukranians.
      They have yet to shrug for the Palestinians since 67!
      ziusudra

      • Pixel
        March 25, 2015, 6:31 pm

        Terry Roosevelt…typo –> Teddy Roosevelt

        The Teddy Bear

        “Developed apparently simultaneously by toymakers Morris Michtom in the US and Richard Steiff in Germany in the early years of the 20th century, and named after President Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt, Jr.

        Teddy bears are among the most popular gifts for children and are often given to adults to signify love, congratulations, or sympathy.”

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teddy_bear

    • marc b.
      March 25, 2015, 1:15 pm

      lysias, Nicholson Baker’s ‘Human Smoke’ provides a neat, not so flattering chronology of the Allies’ bellicose maneuvering leading up to WWII. Portraits of Churchill and FDR painted in their own words are not a pretty picture.

      Which is the best in the lot on Churchill, in your opinion?

    • Hostage
      March 25, 2015, 4:24 pm

      Winston Churchill is overdue for a reassessment.

      Here’s a short article on that subject by Robert Fisk that I’d add to your list : http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/ukip-couldnt-better-what-winston-churchill-had-to-say-about-muslims-10016880.html

      • marc b.
        March 28, 2015, 5:32 pm

        There is no question Churchill wanted America to get into the war early on the side of the allies. There is no smoking memo from Churchill to whomever saying “Let’s let the Lusitania get into trouble.” What you have is a lot of evidence that makes you wonder: why was the Lusitania allowed to travel this route, in this way, without protection?

        I quote Churchill in a footnote, a letter he wrote to Violet Asquith, saying “I know this war is smashing and shattering the lives of thousands every moment – and yet – I cannot help it – I enjoy every second I live.”

  2. just
    March 25, 2015, 10:45 am

    Phil~ Thanks for this good analysis.

    Beinart responds to the criticism leveled at him.

    “I learned this week that I hate democracy. “So much for Peter Beinart believing in democracy,” wrote Rabbi Shmuley Boteach. I advocate, wrote Rabbi Gideon Sylvester, “an anti-democratic approach.” According to Commentary’s Jonathan Tobin, I exhibit “contempt for democracy” and oppose “the principle of democratic rule.”

    All this because I argued that American Jews should publicly protest when Israeli officials, hostile to the two-state solution, come to the United States. And that the United States should propose a two-state solution – along the lines of the 2000 Clinton Parameters – and make it clear there will be consequences if Israel’s rejects it. (I’m happy for the United States to punish Palestinians for rejecting it too, although such a statement would be almost redundant since Congress punishes, or threatens to punish, Palestinians all the time.)

    Let’s pause to consider whether these suggestions betray the principle of democracy. First, respect for democracy does not require that one support the policies of a democratically elected government. It does not even require that one speak softly and politely, taking care not to offend the officials of a democratically elected government. One would think Rabbi Boteach would understand that, given that he recently accused Susan Rice of “callous disregard for genocide” in a full-page ad that featured the national security advisor surrounded by skulls.

    Second, respect for democracy does not require one government to support the policies of another government, even if that government is democratically elected………..”

    http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.648803?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

    He still has a long, long way to go imho.

  3. pabelmont
    March 25, 2015, 10:45 am

    Munayyer is so right to say there will be no progress to peace without pressure on Israel. (There is already quite a bit of pressure on Palestine — let no-one deny it!) The pro-peace camp would do well to talk a lot about [1] the need for pressure and [2] available forms of pressure that we could militate in favor of.

    We could press for an end to the use of the USA veto in UNSC, and that might allow another symbolic advance — full Palestinian membership in UN. But it could also allow some sort of UNSC demand upon Israel (such as UNSC-465: remove settlers and dismantle settlements) but this time with sanctions, especially if the USA were the author of the draft resolution.

    We should no doubt stress that Fourth Geneva Convention and other international law do not permit Israel to “have its cake” (endless occupation) “and eat it too” (land grabs in occupied territory). If Israel wants some of the land it must make a peace with Palestine that delivers that land; it cannot take the land before it makes the peace.

    We should also stress that the settlements (all illegal) have no benefit to Israel of a security nature whatever, and that Israel’s security is already and legally achieved by its army (without any settlements), which the law would allow.

    We should also say, while keeping a straight face, that those who believed until now that the settlement project was merely a “bargaining chip” to speed Palestinian acceptance of Israeli peace proposals must now admit that they were never that — but were always a land grab without any intention of negotiating a fair or a just-and-lasting peace. (We need the straight face because we cannot believe that anyone ever actually entertained that view, and certainly not within recent years.)

    • Blownaway
      March 25, 2015, 1:48 pm

      Its hysterical that Washington just figured out its all been BS. Or is it just that now its become impossible to pretend?

      • justicewillprevail
        March 25, 2015, 5:37 pm

        They’ve been saying it behind closed doors for years, whilst toeing the PR line public. There are a certain amount of people who will be relieved that the conversation can take place in public for once.

  4. Maximus Decimus Meridius
    March 25, 2015, 10:52 am

    As often, I think Phill is being a bit too over optimistic and too easy on Obama.

    Nothint in his words indicates any substantive change on America’s love in with Israel. The welfare cheques will keep being written, Samantha Power’s hand will keep flying up to veto UN resolutions, a blind eye will continue to be turned to the deaths and mistreatment of Palestinians.

    A few words mean nothing to people in Gaza or Jenin.

    • ziusudra
      March 25, 2015, 11:39 am

      Greetings MDM,
      1S or 2S ? 1S should interest all Palestinians if they up for Israeli Citizenship pledging allegience to the Jewish State, as Iranian Jews do. I see no problems here. They receive full Citizenship & benefits.
      The Terror of the Dhimmi concept stops along with usurpation, annexation & crimeless prison terms expire, theft, murder of their people & remain Muslims.
      ziusudra
      PS Play the zio game to your advantage.
      Naivete, perhaps? Livable Life conditions with better circumstance. Now the Palestinians are only living with the worst circumstances.

    • ziusudra
      March 25, 2015, 11:41 am

      Greetings MDM,
      1S or 2S ? 1S should interest all Palestinians if they up for Israeli Citizenship pledging allegience to the Jewish State, as Iranian Jews do. I see no problems here. They receive full Citizenship & benefits.
      The Terror of the Dhimmi concept stops along with usurpation, annexation & crimeless prison terms expire, theft, murder of their people & remain Muslims.
      ziusudra
      PS Play the zio game to your advantage.
      Naivete, perhaps? Livable Life conditions before circumstance. Now the Palestinians are only living with the worst circumstances.

  5. MHughes976
    March 25, 2015, 11:06 am

    Obama is nudging us in the right direction, says Phil. I’m pretty sure this is true but Obama has always seemed to have an invincible belief in nudge and nuance even after that technique has failed time and again

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      March 25, 2015, 11:10 am

      Yes. We don’t need nudge and nuance. We need sanctions and international isolation.

      • just
        March 25, 2015, 11:26 am

        +1!!!

      • seafoid
        March 25, 2015, 11:54 am

        It has to hurt before reality breaks through into the Hebrew bubble.
        No pain, no change.

  6. David Doppler
    March 25, 2015, 11:20 am

    What angers the Center-Left is the prospect of a One State Reality run by Likudniks and points further to the right, who will inevitably find an excuse to slaughter and ethnically cleanse every inch of the promised land, all the while blaming the victims, labeled as terrorists crawling up out of the ground, vermin-like. A one-state solution does not offer Palestinians or Arab Israelis a future with their inalienable rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and self-determination.

    A one-state solution led by the Right will be a nightmare chapter in the book of Nakba, a remake of the genocide in the Book of Deuteronomy.

    What also angers us is the dishonesty shown clearly by Netanyahu’s panicked election disavowal of the two-state solution, followed by quick lies to walk it back, but which has always been visible to the discerning eye: it has been dishonest to pursue peace talks without intention to consummate them, with intention instead to build settlements in order to change facts on the ground; it was dishonest to submarine the recent round of peace talks, “the threat of peace,” then pick a fight with Hamas in order to “mow the grass” another time; it was dishonest to destroy Iraq on pretense of 9/11 complicity and supposed WMD, when the real reason was to create chaos where organized hostility to Israel existed; it is dishonest to seek to do to Iran what was done to Iraq, on the basis again of its organized opposition to Israel’s expansive and repressive ambitions.

    Israel could exist in peace if it settled for some version of the facts on the ground, and going forward dealt fairly and from a basis of mutual respect, if always cautiously and prudently, with its neighbors and its Arab citizens. But the Netanyahu-Likud-Neocon trajectory is a growing, enduring clash of civilizations, a hundred years war, during which Israel will grow and become cleansed, and the rest of the world will be damned to repeating the Crusades. Terror is necessary to sustain Netanyahu’s trajectory, as is dishonesty about its sources and solutions.

    As expressed in the US, the Neocon trajectory means coming to live with a still-effective AIPAC (see grossly under-reported March 20 letter from 367 Congresspersons demanding approval rights of the Iran deal http://news.antiwar.com/2015/03/23/367-house-members-warn-obama-against-iran-deal/) closely aligned with Ted Cruz and Sheldon Adelson, strings pulled by Ron Dermer, the public lectured to about its duties by Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, surely a new Dark Age. That should anger every person for whom liberalism is more than one side in a televised political mud-wrestling match.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      March 25, 2015, 11:43 am

      ”What also angers us is the dishonesty shown clearly by Netanyahu’s panicked election disavowal of the two-state solution,”

      You gotta love the Israeli ‘centre left’.

      They were not angered by the massacre of 2OOO civilians in Gaza

      They were not angered when their dear leader, Tzipi Livni, did something similar a few years ago.

      They have never been angered by the relentless theft of Palestinian land, continued with enthusiasm by another of their leaders, ex Housing Minister Isaac Herzog.

      But no, they are ‘angered’ by Bibi’s ‘dishonesty’. Priorities, priorities.

      The ‘centre left’ have never advanced the cause of justice for Palestine by one milimetere. Quite the contrary, they have been up there with the best of them in killing, harassing and theiving from Palestinians. The ‘centre left’ have had their chance, many times. And they have failed. Enough of that. One state, one person, one vote. There is no other way.

      • Kay24
        March 25, 2015, 12:13 pm

        Well said MDM, you hit the nail on the head. Not a murmur from this crowd, nor outrage, when civilians were being brutally slaughtered, even in UN shelters. They seem very selective in how they choose to show their “anger”.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        March 25, 2015, 12:17 pm

        This highly selective outrage is the essence of ‘liberal Zionism’. If they devoted one fraction of the anger they express at Bibi’s ‘betrayal of the soul of Israel’ to getting enraged about murder and land theft, them maybe their precious ‘2 state solution’ just might have been possible. But no, they sat back and made excuses while Israel bombed civilians from the sky and stole their land day by day, dunam by dunam. And they think we didn’t notice?

        They had their chance and they blew it, time and time again. There will be no ‘2 state solution’. Tough.

      • David Doppler
        March 25, 2015, 1:44 pm
    • Pixel
      March 25, 2015, 6:49 pm

      @DD

      My greatest fear is that Zionists will determine that there’s only one option left …a final round of ethnic cleansing.

      A pretext for it could easily be created.

  7. Sycamores
    March 25, 2015, 12:38 pm

    in relation to who might be hosting Yousef Munayyer.

    Tweeting on monday Ali Abunimah calls out Peter Beinart for rarely debating with Palestinians.

    Peter Beinart claims he does including Yousef Munayyer

    Peter Beinart ‏@PeterBeinart Mar 22

    @AliAbunimah @ronnie_barkan @ianmastersmedia others too-rashid khalidi, yousef munayyer. point is u lied + won’t apologize. goodbye

    https://twitter.com/PeterBeinart/status/579963126080253953?lang=en

    Ali Abunimah tweeted back

    Ali Abunimah‏@AliAbunimah·Mar 22
    Who’s the liar @PeterBeinart? You claimed you debated @YousefMunayyer. Yousef denies it: https://twitter.com/yousefmunayyer/status/579844606004752384

    Yousef Munayyer tweeted “we never did”
    https://twitter.com/yousefmunayyer/status/579844606004752384

    which led to Yousef Munayyer and Peter Beinart setting up a meeting

    https://twitter.com/YousefMunayyer/status/579964496791400448

    wonders of twitter.

    (of late i can’t embed tweets on MW, trying to figure out is the problem on my end)

    • Memphis
      March 25, 2015, 12:59 pm

      I was following that little back and forth. Good to see something came of it.

    • Pixel
      March 25, 2015, 6:53 pm

      That whole thing is wild.

    • just
      March 25, 2015, 7:34 pm

      Great. I can’t wait to see Yousef do what he does so well~ tell the truth!

      Perhaps Peter merely got very confused~ the names of Palestinians (and all those “others”) are so “foreign” to him, for crying out loud!

      Related to “they all look alike”…

      “Why do ‘they all look alike’?

      It’s not that people can’t perceive subtle differences among those who belong to other racial groups. Rather, they code race first, then don’t explore a person’s more distinguishing features, a new study suggests.”

      http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec00/lookalike.aspx

  8. Memphis
    March 25, 2015, 1:00 pm

    pardon my ignorance. Can someone explain what ‘sit shiva’ means?

    • just
      March 25, 2015, 1:50 pm

      “Shiva (Hebrew: שבעה‎) (literally “seven”) is the week-long mourning period in Judaism for first-degree relatives: father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, and spouse. The ritual is referred to as “sitting shiva.” Immediately after burial, people[1] assume the halakhic status of “avel” (Hebrew: אבל ; “mourner”). This state lasts for seven days, during which family members traditionally gather in one home (preferably the home of the deceased) and receive visitors. At the funeral, mourners traditionally tear an outer garment, a ritual known as keriah. This garment is worn throughout shiva.”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva_(Judaism)

      • Mooser
        March 25, 2015, 5:23 pm

        “Shiva (Hebrew: שבעה‎) (literally “seven”) is the week-long mourning period in Judaism for first-degree relatives”

        Is that how it works? I asked my Dad who my “first-degree relatives” were and he said :” The ones who couldn’t plead it down to manslaughter”.

      • seafoid
        March 25, 2015, 5:26 pm

        Mooser

        First degree relatives provide 3rd degree burnt offerings at Masada during the whole week.

    • Bornajoo
      March 25, 2015, 1:58 pm

      “pardon my ignorance. Can someone explain what ‘sit shiva’ means?”

      When a family member dies the rest of the family sit in mourning for a full 7 days. They usually sit (either on the floor or on low stools) and receive guests and visitors who usually bring food with them.

      I’d like to sit shiva for zionism!

      • just
        March 25, 2015, 2:01 pm

        “I’d like to sit shiva for zionism!”

        +1!!!

        I’ll happily sit down beside you, Bornajoo!

      • Bornajoo
        March 25, 2015, 2:06 pm

        Thank you Just. It would be an honour to sit with you. Let’s hope we can really do it one day

      • seafoid
        March 25, 2015, 2:27 pm

        I’d like to have Shiva sit on Zionism

        http://assets.ganeshaspeaks.com/img/1G/shiva.jpg

        Shiva is the destroyer of evil

      • Bornajoo
        March 25, 2015, 2:29 pm

        “Shiva is the destroyer of evil”

        Excellent Seafoid!

      • bintbiba
        March 25, 2015, 4:25 pm

        Just & Bornajoo……. may I join in, pretty pretty please ? :))
        I’ll bake a cake ,too !!

        { That is if I’m still around !! } :(

      • just
        March 25, 2015, 4:31 pm

        But of course, bintbiba! We’ll have a big old, swell old time!

        Inshallah, we’ll all be around to celebrate with millions!

    • JLewisDickerson
      March 29, 2015, 3:06 pm

      RE: “Can someone explain what ‘sit shiva’ means?” ~ Memphis

      WIKIPEDIA: Shiva (Judaism)
      Shiva (Hebrew: שבעה‎) (literally “seven”) is the week-long mourning period in Judaism for first-degree relatives: father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, and spouse. The ritual is referred to as “sitting shiva.” Immediately after burial, people[1] assume the halakhic status of “avel” (Hebrew: אבל ; “mourner”). This state lasts for seven days, during which family members traditionally gather in one home (preferably the home of the deceased) and receive visitors. At the funeral, mourners traditionally tear an outer garment, a ritual known as keriah. This garment is worn throughout shiva. . .
      CONTINUED AT – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva_(Judaism)

      P.S.
      Sitting Shiva | Shiva, Jewish Mourning
      http://www.shiva.com › Learning Center
      ‘Sitting shiva’ is a term used to describe the action of Jewish mourners participating in the traditional rituals of observing a shiva. During the period of shiva, mourners sometimes sit on low stools or boxes while they receive condolence calls. This is where the phrase “sitting shiva” comes from, and it is a practice that symbolizes the mourner being “brought low” following the loss of a loved one. For seven days, the family members of the deceased gather in one location – typically their own home or the home of the deceased – and mourns the loss in a variety of ways.
      SOURCE – http://www.shiva.com/learning-center/sitting-shiva/

      P.P.S. GRAMMARLY:
      shiva
      1.Judaism – A weeklong period of formal mourning for a close relative.

      TO DOWNLOAD GRAMMARLY (allows you to double click on words on internet sites and get a definition) – https://www.grammarly.com

  9. John O
    March 25, 2015, 1:29 pm

    @Bill Kristol

    Churchill also said (I paraphrase): “America always does the right thing – after exhausting all the other options first.”

  10. just
    March 25, 2015, 2:38 pm

    +1 seafoid!

    “In his remarks tasking Netanyahu with forming the coalition, Rivlin noted three tasks that must stand at the forefront of the next government: Stabilizing relations with the United States, Israel’s most important ally; resuming the stability of the political system; and healing the “wounds” dividing Israeli society, which he said worsened during the election period.”

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.648856

    Well the top of my agenda is making sure that “stabilizing relations with the United States” doesn’t happen until and unless the status quo changes completely and immediately!

    We need to disabuse Washington/citizens of the US that Israel is any ally at all. The US was “Israel’s most important ally” ($$$, veto, wmds) for all these years, and it should stop now. They’ve lied to us for years. Worse yet, they’ve lied to all of the Palestinians with the west’s blessing.

    No more.

    • seafoid
      March 25, 2015, 3:21 pm

      Lying but most of all eternal bad faith.
      Never trust a Zio junkie.
      And now loyal robots like Freedland and the anti BDS ers are understanding that.

      • just
        March 25, 2015, 3:48 pm

        Yes to all of your post, seafoid.

      • seafoid
        March 25, 2015, 4:41 pm

        You lied
        You faked
        You cheated …

    • bintbiba
      March 25, 2015, 5:04 pm

      Thank you , ‘Just’ ……
      It might be a while before we can do that, I imagine (?) …..
      If i can’t be there with you, I’ll be swinging from a star and naming it ” JustBorn ” in both of your honour(s). : ))

      • just
        March 25, 2015, 5:25 pm

        You’re so kind, bintbiba.

        We’re in this together with so many great people now, nobody will be alone!

      • Bornajoo
        March 26, 2015, 2:57 am

        Thank you Bintbiba!

    • MoCHo
      March 26, 2015, 3:09 pm

      I have been hosting a discussion group here in Oregon on the Palestinian occupation and human rights violations — just grassroots trying to let more people know what’s really happening. One of the women asked a very pointed question: WHY do we believe Israel is such a great ally? I cavalierly responded because they say they are — just more Zionist propaganda. But I’m wondering if any of you have a better response to the question of why the US insists that Israel is such an important ally that we are willing to protect all their horrible crimes? Obviously the propaganda is part of that, but is there a valid reason?

      Oh, and I want to come Sit Shiva when Zionism dies, too!!

      • just
        March 26, 2015, 6:13 pm

        MoCHo~ if you find the answer to that lady’s question please promise me that you’ll let me know asap! It’s a question that I’ve asked myself so many times…

        Kudos on your discussion group~ “just grassroots” is how you make things take root, bloom, and grow!

        “Oh, and I want to come Sit Shiva when Zionism dies, too!!”

        btw, welcome to this place of sanity. There’s plenty of room!

      • Bornajoo
        March 26, 2015, 6:39 pm

        “Oh, and I want to come Sit Shiva when Zionism dies, too!!”

        You will be more than welcome MoCho. We will save a seat at the shiva for you.

        Sounds like you are doing amazing work over there!

        You have actually asked a huge question here. There is no real concensus or agreement on how to answer this question. First you have to either believe that the dog wags the tail or the tail wags the dog before you can really begin to answer that question properly in my opinion. I’m not very qualified to answer it but I’m sure some others more learned commentators will help out

        If you run with dog wags tail (as laid out by Chomsky and others) then Israel is an important ally of the USA because it serves the purposes of the American empire and of the American elite/oligarchy. What is that purpose? Well I suppose it’s to have a so called Western style country (supposedly), an American vassal/satellite state right in the middle of the region, a country that shares ‘American values’. So in return for unlimited and seemingly unwavering support and protection, the ally works with and does the bidding of the empire. And most of the time they have common goals and common interests. And a number of these elites in the empire are also zionists, both Jewish and Christian. So there is a religious dimension to it as well as a geopolitical one.

        If you run with the tail wags the dog then you go with the belief that Israel actually controls American foreign policy (as outlined in the book “the lobby” by Walt and Mearsheimer). If this really is the case then the question becomes somewhat redundant because israel isn’t really an ally, israel is actually influencing American foreign policy decisions for its own benefit. It means that aipac and some other very rich and powerful zionists are really in control

        Personally I don’t buy the theory about the lobby. Yes it’s powerful and yes it can and does influence some foreign policy decisions but I’m definitely one who firmly believes that Israel is part of the American empire and will continue to be while israel is useful to this empire. What complicates and strengthens this relationship is of course the lobby as well as zionist elites in the USA who over the course of the past few decades have worked to strengthen the relationship from within. And that’s why it’s a tough one to crack. And that’s why Netanyahu can pop over there and insult the president of the USA.

        In my opinion Israel is very much a part of the American empire and very entrenched in the American military and high tech industries. Unfortunately the Palestinians are just a side story whom nobody really cares about. But they pretend to once in a while

        That’s my take but I’m no expert

      • just
        March 26, 2015, 7:19 pm

        Bornajoo~ a very worthy effort, indeed!

        Bravo.

  11. Rusty Pipes
    March 25, 2015, 3:16 pm

    Taken together, Obama’s and McDonough’s statement do not indicate a distinct shift to support for a 1SS. Rather, they indicate an abandonment of a 2SS through negotiations, because Netanyahu has stated clearly that he is not a serious negotiating partner for peace (and was rewarded for that clarification by a strong mandate from Israeli voters). Negotiations with Netanyahu regarding Palestine are no longer a productive use of our State Department resources. The Administration has not clarified which of the tools in the Executive branch it plans to employ to facilitate Palestinians’ right for their children “to be free in their own land as Israeli children in their land. ”

    I’ll be interested to see what resolutions come before the UNSC and how the IRS treats donations to Zionist organizations in occupied Palestine.

  12. John Douglas
    March 25, 2015, 3:48 pm

    What must we say about Jodi Rudoen’s honesty and journalistic professionalism when she uses the words “… Netanyahu’s momentary …” rejection of a Palestinian state? Momentary? Can an entire career be momentary?

    And what about the concern the US might cease “…protecting …” Israel at the UN? Protecting Israel against what? As if the UN was a threat needing protecting against.

    I always take it personally when someone lies to me through clever and mendacious word choices.

  13. JLewisDickerson
    March 25, 2015, 6:21 pm

    RE: “Washington ‘sits shiva’ for the 2-state solution”

    WIKIPEDIA: Shiva (Judaism)
    Shiva (Hebrew: שבעה‎) (literally “seven”) is the week-long mourning period in Judaism for first-degree relatives: father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, and spouse. The ritual is referred to as “sitting shiva.” Immediately after burial, people[1] assume the halakhic status of “avel” (Hebrew: אבל ; “mourner”). This state lasts for seven days, during which family members traditionally gather in one home (preferably the home of the deceased) and receive visitors. At the funeral, mourners traditionally tear an outer garment, a ritual known as keriah. This garment is worn throughout shiva. . .
    CONTINUED AT – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva_(Judaism)

    P.S.
    Sitting Shiva | Shiva, Jewish Mourning
    http://www.shiva.com › Learning Center
    ‘Sitting shiva’ is a term used to describe the action of Jewish mourners participating in the traditional rituals of observing a shiva. During the period of shiva, mourners sometimes sit on low stools or boxes while they receive condolence calls. This is where the phrase “sitting shiva” comes from, and it is a practice that symbolizes the mourner being “brought low” following the loss of a loved one. For seven days, the family members of the deceased gather in one location – typically their own home or the home of the deceased – and mourns the loss in a variety of ways.
    SOURCE – http://www.shiva.com/learning-center/sitting-shiva/

  14. JLewisDickerson
    March 25, 2015, 6:47 pm

    RE: “The White House’s reassessment of the relationship has panicked New York Times Jerusalem bureau chief Jodi Rudoren, who avers in a story called ‘Rebukes from White House Risk Buoying Netanyahu’ that the Prime Minister’s statements during the election mean nothing, he’s all for the two state solution. ~ Weiss

    MY COMMENT: I think Joel Kovel understands Likudnik Israelis far better than Jodi Rudoren ever will!*

    * JOEL KOVEL (1-20-13):

    [EXCERPT] . . . As with everyone I know of in official political culture, [Thomas] Friedman assumes that Israel is a rational actor on the international stage who will obey the calculus of reward and punishment that regulates the conduct of normal states.
    The presumption is that if you tell it the truth, and even pull back US support, it will get the message, reflect, and change its ways. But Israel is not a normal state, except superficially. It will make adjustments, pulling back here, co-operating there, making nice when necessary, crafting its message using a powerful propaganda apparatus employing the most up-to-date social science. But this is simply tactical and no more predicts or explains the behavior of the Zionist state than an individual sociopath can be explained by the fact that he obeys traffic signals while driving to the scene of his crime. . .

    SOURCE – http://mondoweiss.net/2013/01/israel-nominaton-hagel.html

  15. Pixel
    March 25, 2015, 6:58 pm

    @just

    We’re in this together with so many great people now, nobody will be alone!

    “We are going to link up, hold hands, and walk out of hell together.”

    – William Pepper

  16. JLewisDickerson
    March 25, 2015, 7:03 pm

    RE: “Lisa Goldman of the New America Foundation joins in the paradigm collapse, stating on Democracy Now! that the two-state solution has passed its sell-by date and everyone at J Street knows that, consciously or not.” ~ Weiss

    LISA GOLDMAN ON SAM SEDER’S MAJORITY REPORT:
    Audio – 3/18 Lisa Goldman: The Grim Results of Israel’s Election

    Lisa Goldman, a Contributing Editor at 972 Magazine, explains why Benjamin Netanyahu was always likely to win reelection as Israeli Prime Minister. Why the elections are a big win for the Right in Israel. The importance of the Joint List and Israeli Arab politics. The failure of Yair Lapid’s centrist politics. Will Israel’s next coalition government will be even more far right? Israel is a right wing society. Netanyahu and the permanence of the oppression of the Palestinians. Why the Occupation isn’t hurting Israelis but inequality is. Will Israel finally face pressure from its European and American partners? Also will the Jewish community in America get fed up with Israel?

    LINK FOR AUDIO – http://majority.fm/2015/03/18/318-lisa-goldman-the-grim-results-of-israels-election/

    P.S. The consummate truth-telling podcaster Sam Seder has an Indiegogo campaign to help sustain and grow his excellent Majority Report!
    ✔ You can contribute here. – https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/keep-the-majority-report-independent

  17. yonah fredman
    March 25, 2015, 7:11 pm

    If the talks with Iran fall apart, then Obama will be free to create a policy he feels will resolve the Palestinian Israel conflict in the future. But if the talks with Iran hang in the balance, the legacy of a rapprochement with Iran will be much greater than dubious future resolutions of an intractable conflict and then all the Obama negative energy towards Bibi will be focused on protecting the Iran rapprochement from being messed up by Israel supporters.

    • Mooser
      March 26, 2015, 5:11 pm

      Yonah, you are clarity itself.

      And it’s not an “intractable conflict” the correct term is “Israel’s intransigence”. That term, “intransigence” can take most of it in.
      An adjective like “unmitigated” can be thrown in, if you like.

  18. JLewisDickerson
    March 25, 2015, 7:35 pm

    RE: “You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.” Winston Churchill, after Munich, 1938. ~ Bill Kristol’s tweet

    ■ SOME CHOICE QUOTES FROM ÜBER-RACIST SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL:

    When Britain lost control of Egypt in 1956, Prime Minister Anthony Eden said he wanted the nationalist president Gamal Abdel Nasser “destroyed, murdered, I don’t give a damn if there’s anarchy and chaos in Egypt.” Those insolent Arabs, Winston Churchill had urged in 1951, should be driven “into the gutter from which they should never have emerged.”

    SOURCE – http://www.nlpwessex.org/docs/BBCSuez.htm

    I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of American or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.” ~ To the Peel Commission (1937) on a Jewish Homeland in Palestine

    SOURCE – http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill

    What about Gandhi’s nemesis, Winston Churchill? Today we only remember his heroic opposition to Nazism. But while he was against gassing and tyranny in Europe, he was passionately in favour of it for “uncivilised” human beings whose riches he wanted to seize. In the 1920s, Iraqis rose up against British imperial rule, and Churchill as Colonial Secretary thought of a good solution: gas them. He wrote: “I do not understand this squeamishness… I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes.” It would “spread a lively terror”. He was quite clear about why Britain should do this. He explained: “We have engrossed to ourselves an altogether disproportionate share of the wealth and traffic of the world… mainly acquired by violence, largely maintained by force.”

    SOURCE – http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/26/9915

    P.S. ALSO SEE: “The Churchill you didn’t know”, TheGuardian.com, 27 November 2002
    Thousands voted him the greatest Briton – but did they know about his views on Gandhi, gassing and Jews…
    LINK – http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2002/nov/28/features11.g21

    • JLewisDickerson
      March 25, 2015, 7:38 pm

      P.P.S. ALSO SEE: “Zionism versus Bolshevism”, by Winston Churchill, Illustrated Sunday Herald (London), February 8, 1920, pg. 5

      [EXCERPT] . . . The National Russian Jews, in spite of the disabilities under which they have suffered, have managed to play an honourable and useful part in the national life even of Russia. As bankers and industrialists they have strenuously promoted the development of Russia’s economic resources and they were foremost in the creation of those remarkable organisations, the Russian Co-operative Societies. In politics their support has been given, for the most part, to liberal and progressive movements, and they have been among the staunchest upholders of friendship with France and Great Britain.

      International Jews.

      In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.

      Terrorist Jews.

      There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek – all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing. . .

      CHURCHILL’S ENTIRE ANTI-SEMITIC SCREED – http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Zionism_versus_Bolshevism

  19. JWalters
    March 25, 2015, 8:39 pm

    Thanks for these articles bringing together comments from the spectrum of reactions to the latest developments. They provide a unique and useful service.

    I agree that Obama is directing a serious re-evaluation of U.S. policy toward Israel and its occupation. I suspect he has long seen a need for such a re-evaluation, but was waiting for an opportune moment. His chief-of-staff’s statements to the J Street conference are unambiguous in this regard. I believe he is absolutely committed to the physical security of the individuals in Israel. But he is not committed to their bigotry, and is not moved by the various hand-waving excuses for that bigotry and its concomitant cruelty.

    I too see the financial powers pushing back through their control of the media. On MSNBC there is now a push to characterize the difference between Obama and Netanyahu as merely a personal distaste for one another, thus trivializing and burying the profound difference in perspectives and analyses they offer. Perhaps the right-wing owners at Comcast are exerting their power over their employees. Bob Woodward and Ron Fournier were disgracefully intellectually dishonest in the discussion you noted.

    Fournier argued that Obama should be an “adult” and make up with Netanyahu with the following logic. Because (1) the U.S. – Israel relationship needs to be preserved (presumably in its current form), and (2) Netanyahu is not an adult, therefore (3) Obama needs to be the “adult” and preserve the relationship.

    This was scraping through the bottom of the barrel to criticize Obama. We can all agree that Netanyahu is not being a rational adult, even if we disagree on exactly what his motives are (religious delusion, paranoia, war profits). But his assumption that the U.S. – Israel relation needs to be preserved in its current form is something he would like viewers to assume, rather than discuss. The efforts are now underway to direct attention away from such a discussion. That effort needs to be blown up in their faces.

  20. just
    March 26, 2015, 9:09 am

    (via Ali Abunimah)

    Dan Simpson has some ideas:

    “Dan Simpson: Retaliate against Israel for sucker punching us
    The United States should not let Netanyahu derail its policies

    ……..First, the United States should expel from Washington Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer, a former Republican Party operative, as persona non grata. He helped organize with House Speaker John Boehner the March 2 Netanyahu speech to Congress. He was born in the United States. It would be educational for him to go live in Israel. A country can “png” another’s ambassador without breaking relations.

    The U.S. government also could simply isolate Mr. Dermer, granting him no appointments with U.S. officials. Let him talk to his friend Mr. Boehner, which should be a real treat.

    Second, the United States should eliminate its $3 billion in annual aid to Israel, a prosperous, developed country in any case.

    Third, the next time Israel gets into a war, with Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon or whomever, as is its wont, and asks for more U.S. arms, remind it of its March 2015 madness and sit on the request.

    Neither people nor countries respond well when their bad behavior turns out not to have consequences for them. Mr. Netanyahu’s attack in Washington on U.S. and international negotiations with Iran, his promise to the Israeli people that there would be no Palestinian state if he were re-elected and the racist tactic he employed against Israel’s Arab voters were all bad behavior in terms of U.S.-Israeli relations. It is time to strike back, hard.”

    more @ http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/2015/03/25/Dan-Simpson-Retaliate-against-Israel-for-sucker-punching-us/stories/201503240047

    (fyi, from wiki: Daniel Howard Simpson is an American former Foreign Service Officer. He was the United States Ambassador to the Central African Republic, Special Envoy to Somalia and the United States Ambassador to the Democratic Republic of the Congo as well as undertaking other overseas assignments in Burundi, South Africa, Zaire Iceland, Lebanon and Bosnia-Herzegovina. He also served as the Deputy Commandant of the United States Army War College and on the Board of directors as the Vice President of the National Defense University for the United States Institute of Peace.)

    Of course, there’s much more that can and should be done~ for the Palestinians!!!

    Citizens’ pique should also be directed at the “leaders” that have either quiescently or actively gone along with this “peace charade”. What Israel has done to the Palestinians is beyond shattering and criminal, and these decades and the victims will never be forgotten. The west’s complicity with Israel’s crimes will not be forgotten, either.

  21. hophmi
    March 26, 2015, 10:03 am

    I think that the way things are going in the Middle East, the President will have very little political capital if he doesn’t build public support for a deal with Iran. The flaw with Obama is that he has big ideas, but lacks the ability to build solid public support for them. This Iran deal is typical. Making a deal with a country that finances terrorism all over the Middle East, and is basically at war with US allies, seems less and less logical with every passing day. You can’t make foreign policy based on wishful thinking; that was the error Chamberlain made in Europe; he thought Hitler’s aggression could be wished away. Obama may be making the same mistake here; if Iran is bent on establishing control over the Middle East through Shia proxies, we should not be cutting a deal with them; it’s simply not in our national interest.

    • Keith
      March 26, 2015, 4:46 pm

      HOPHMI- “Making a deal with a country that finances terrorism all over the Middle East, and is basically at war with US allies….”

      So nice of you to acknowledge that Saudi Arabia and the rest of the fundamentalist Gulf Monarchies are US/Israel allies to be defended. Middle East terrorism is overwhelmingly the consequence of US/Israel actions, including ISIS, all of which you defend as befits your status as self-selected empire Jew.

    • Mooser
      March 26, 2015, 5:14 pm

      ” if Iran is bent on establishing control over the Middle East through Shia proxies,”

      Of course! That’s it! Oh, those bad Iranians. How long have they been plotting and raising armies to “take over the Middle East”? Since forever hasn’t it been, Hophmi?

      What a load of crap you try and sell.

    • just
      March 26, 2015, 5:25 pm

      “Making a deal with a country that finances terrorism all over the Middle East, and is basically at war with US allies,”

      hophmi~ you are showing your extremism. Just ’cause your PM does, doesn’t mean you have to follow suit! KSA finances terrorism and so does Israel. Who has Iran attacked? Nobody in over 200 years.

      “Arab coalition fights Yemen rebels, but the real battle is against Iran

      Even Sudan, a traditional ally of Tehran, has joined the Sunni axis assembled by the Saudi king in a feverish effort to halt Iranian influence in the region.”

      http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/.premium-1.649082?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

    • Citizen
      March 26, 2015, 6:36 pm

      It’s not in US interests to attack Iran, and Iran is not Hitler’s Germany. Here’s an expert on the subject, for starters: http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=549

  22. Kathleen
    March 26, 2015, 10:05 am

    Why Chris Matthews has Iraq warmongers like Bob Woodward on to talk about middle east policy is beyond anyone who followed the run up to the invasion. On top of that Woodward referred to the Plame outing as “much ado about nothing.” He has made every effort to distract Americans on both of these issues. Why not have accurate middle east analyst on the program?

    Jodi Ruderon very much part of the come on Obama get back on the drag your feet while Israel builds more illegal settlements bandwagon that has flourished for decades. Obama, Kerry, Biden etc are making a much needed realistic stand. Not going to play Israel and the I lobbies game any longer.

    Phil Chris Matthews has been stepping out a bit on this issue but really think if you go and listen to some of Mika Brzezinski’s challenging comments and questions this week you will find she is sticking her neck out much more than Matthews on this issue.

    • Citizen
      March 26, 2015, 5:11 pm

      Not to worry, NPR will gives us the scoop. ROFL Our main media is leading us to war & more war, including nukes it seems–I guess we are experiencing how one channels Joseph Goebbels in 21st Century America. At lot of it is not having real expert pundits on (unless they channel hasbara), & a lot more is what is never said, no context–get it? Nuclear Israel has a history of state military assault & is not subject to NNPT–yet that’s how our media paints Iran, which has no such contemporary history and IS a member of NNPT, subject to inspection. Brutal long occupation, illegal settlements, heavy institutionalized discrimination, who? Naw, just Palestinian jew-hater babies with bombs strapped on them. A good look at how our media and politicians & pundits paint Muslims–reminds me of The Poison Mushroom

      • Kathleen
        March 28, 2015, 11:50 am

        Yep Diane Rehm on Friday once again repeated the fear mongering about Iran. She has done so for a long time and has allowed guest to help build the bad bad bad Iran stage.

      • just
        March 28, 2015, 12:49 pm

        She’s such an enabler of propagandists.

        I guess she doesn’t remember Iraq at all. You know, the “shock and awe” that continues with vicious ferocity and has engulfed the region.

        “President Barack Obama traced the origins of Islamic State militants back to the presidency of George W. Bush and the invasion of Iraq back in 2003, arguing that its growth was an “unintended consequence” of the war.

        In an interview with Vice News, President Obama said the rise of Islamic State (IS, also known as ISIS/ISIL) can be directly linked to America’s excursion into Iraq under Bush.

        “Two things: One is, ISIL is a direct outgrowth of Al-Qaeda in Iraq that grew out of our invasion,” Obama said in an interview with VICE News. “Which is an example of unintended consequences. Which is why we should generally aim before we shoot.””

        http://rt.com/usa/241325-obama-isis-iraq-bush/

        If folks think that Iraq was a success, legal, and warranted, then they’ll LOVE launching a war with Iran. (Iran has not launched a war for >200 years, has no nukes, has done NOTHING to warrant such aggression nor sanctions, btw.)

  23. Pixel
    March 27, 2015, 4:12 pm

    By the way, Phil, another GREAT title!

  24. Sulphurdunn
    March 27, 2015, 8:04 pm

    What does Bill Kristol know about war or honor?

Leave a Reply