Trending Topics:

‘This is awful,’ Bush said, coming into Bethlehem

Israel/PalestineUS Politics
on 37 Comments
Welcome to Bethlehem
Welcome to Bethlehem

A piece in the New York Review of Books on Condoleezza Rice’s new memoir is weirdly absent the word neoconservative when author Joseph Lelyveld tries to explain why we invaded Iraq–we were seeking to establish a “foothold” in an Arab land with oil. But it does offer some gems about George Bush’s Israelophilia:

[Secy of State Colin] Powell wanted early on to resolve gaping differences with the White House over Israel and the Palestinians at a time of suicide bombings and severe reprisals and plans to augment settlements, which the State Department thought excessive. She was “sympathetic to him because he was on the front line every day.” But, she goes on, “I talked to the President every day, and I knew where he stood.” If there were a policy showdown, she suggests, Powell would have lost. The result “would be so pro-Israeli as to inflame an already bad situation.” The kind of clarity to which the President was given, she seems to be saying, served no one’s interest in that and other cases….

[Later Rice is herself secretary of state, and:] The secretary, who calls her approach “transformational diplomacy,” is hoping for a breakthrough also with the Israelis and Palestinians. Considering that she served the friendliest administration the Israelis will probably ever see, it’s instructive to compare her complaints about Israeli trickiness and maneuvering to those that have seeped out of the embattled Obama White House. Israel was a close ally and a democracy but its leaders were “sometimes a nightmare to deal with”; they had to be warned not to lobby Congress; in any conversation “there was a ‘but’”; they “always seem to overreach”; getting the Israelis “to actually carry through on promises relating to the Palestinians” was a continuing frustration, particularly promises involving Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

On a presidential visit to Israel in 2008, Bush travels to Bethlehem by car rather than helicopter against the wishes of the Israelis because Rice wants him to see “the ugliness of the occupation, including the checkpoints and the security wall…for himself and [because] it would have been an insult to the Palestinians if he didn’t.” The barriers were taken down, the convoy traveled at speed, but Bush got the point, according to Rice: “‘This is awful,’ he said quietly.”

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of

Other posts by .

Posted In:

37 Responses

  1. Krauss
    December 23, 2011, 11:31 am

    If Bush had displayed a scintilla of intellectual curiosity he wouldn’t have to be dragged – almost literally – by his secretary of state to see the situation. He could have -gasp – picked up a book by a non-neocon, which includes a lot of liberal Israeli Jewish intellectuals, which would explain the situation to him.

    Nontheless, for all the talk from likes like Abe Foxman and others about the supposed ‘horrors’ of the occupation, they always fight back when Israel has to give even an inch away. They are simply pro-settlements and what Bush stated as horrible is actually the result of careful and dedicated toil over several decades of major Jewish organizations. The Christian Zionist lobby is merely a few years old, even if the debate in the MSM sometimes gives the impression that they’ve been around forever and are omnipotent.

    This is the legacy of Zionism and it’s why Israel can not fight the delegitimization no matter how many PR firms it hires or how many lobby-sympathetic journalists in the media it can count on.

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka
      December 23, 2011, 12:55 pm

      “If Bush had displayed a scintilla of intellectual curiosity he wouldn’t have to be dragged – almost literally – by his secretary of state to see the situation. He could have -gasp – picked up a book by a non-neocon, which includes a lot of liberal Israeli Jewish intellectuals, which would explain the situation to him.”

      This is why certain kinds of religious people and philosophers shouldn’t be trusted with making policy. Anyone who believes that “knowledge” can be obtained without the hard work of actually going out and looking for it will eventually rely solely on “inspiration” (i.e., whatever pops into his or her head.)

    • patm
      December 23, 2011, 3:20 pm

      The Christian Zionist lobby is merely a few years old, even if the debate in the MSM sometimes gives the impression that they’ve been around forever and are omnipotent.

      Krauss, I’d like to know exactly what you mean by your statement.

      We know, for instance, it was British Christians who were the first Zionists, way back in the 1830’s, and that there were four or so Christian Zionists in Lord Balfour’s war cabinet when the fateful Balfour Declaration came into being.

      We know too it was the Michigan born Cyrus Scofield who in 1909 produced the popular Scofield Reference Bible which became the bible of Christian Zionists.

      Can you, for instance, date the year that the Christian Zionist Lobby came into existence?

      • MRW
        December 23, 2011, 4:26 pm

        patm’s right, Krauss. Menachem Begin was so pissed at Jimmy Carter making him sign the treaty with Sadat, that he called up Jerry Falwell–not exactly one of his great pals–and worked out a deal. The argument used with Falwell was that both the Likud and the Christian Right hated homosexuals, and wouldn’t it be great if they could work together to end this scourge, all other religious differences notwithstanding. Falwell fell for it.

        At that time, Falwell, et al, were Sunday morning broadcast preachers, not political powerhouses.

        So Begin/Shamir only talked to Reagan through Falwell. And Reagan had to respond back through Falwell, because Begin wouldn’t take R’s call until he learned the drill.

        The Christian Right, as they were called then and had been for decades, became a powerful voting bloc with White House access. They weren’t men with a sophisticated education. They knew nothing about historical European or Ottoman Empire political intrigue, power politics, or political Trojan Horses. The only thing they knew was that they could reach the Oval Office in a nanosecond; Reagan was courting them–how Reagan’s reputation grew among them and it lasts even until today–because Begin gave them the phone number initially. Israel politicians massaged it from afar with the help of US sayanim.

        It started the entire family values and social engineering campaign on their part, because it kept them occupied with what was important to them, while Begin sought money, weapons, planes, the first US free-trade agreement (under Shamir), and influence…and his land grab in the WB.

      • patm
        December 23, 2011, 6:33 pm

        Interesting, MRW. This was the question I asked Krauss, but as he doesn’t appear to be an American he was clearly the wrong man to ask.

        So, here’s Wiki telling us that, “On June 20, 1977, Mr. Menachem Begin, head of the Likud party – after having won the Knesset elections (17 May 1977) – presented the new Government to the Knesset and became Prime Minister of Israel.” And more Wiki: “The 1979 Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty”.

        So, it was in the early 1980’s that Begin and Jerry Falwell made a deal because “both the Likud and the Christian Right hated homosexuals, and wouldn’t it be great if they could work together to end this scourge, all other religious differences notwithstanding. Falwell fell for it.”

        And the rest is history!

        Crazy crazy world, huh. Humans….just a bunch of chattering monkeys.

      • Krauss
        December 23, 2011, 4:47 pm

        Pat M, there are several inaccuruacies in your comment.

        The first being that the Balfour Declaration came into being in 1917, not 1830(you’re off by almost 100 years, well done).
        The second part is that while he was once a PM, when the Declaration was made, he was not PM. He was the Foreign Minister.
        Again, well done for getting your basic history right.

        Third is that he was relentlessly lobbied by various Israel lobbyists(at that time little else than a few interconnected yishuvs), almost all of them coming from Jewish organisations.

        Finally, there was and continues to be a Christian Zionism, but it is not and was never merely as organized as it’s Jewish big brother, which is far larger and totally eclipses the Christian Zionist lobby.

        Only in recent years have it grown, and grown explosively, but the people who lobbied Balfour and Truman(that was Chaim Weizmann, a true Christian Zionist. Remember him?) were not exactly Christian Zionists in an organised form, which is the distinction I make. There was and remains a broad strain inside Christianity supportive of Zionism, but it has historically been passive. Again, if the Christian Zionists were so zealous inside the British cabinet, then why did they stop Jewish immigration to Palestine at the outbreak of WWII?

        Because they had a different national interest. Yet this is one of the prime reasons why organizations like Irgun even got any traction at all within the wider Jewish society at the time. Christian Zionism has been a passive force for most of history, and when it has been useful to Israel, like the Balfour decleration, you have strong efforts by Jewish Zionists who have toiled for years, often tirelessly and with little pay or public appreciation, to have gotten to that point.

        One final thing, if you even get the most basic history wrong it’s hard to take you seriously. But this post is useful for me as a reference to quote in the future whenever this topic comes about. It’s a keeper.

      • patm
        December 23, 2011, 5:45 pm

        “The first being that the Balfour Declaration came into being in 1917, not 1830 (you’re off by almost 100 years, well done).”


        I did indeed forget to put in the 1917 date, but if you re-read my sentence you will see that I was NOT implying that the Balfour Declaration came into effect in 1830. And yes, David Lloyd George was PM from 1916-1922.

        You are certainly quick to take offense and to be offensive.

        Whether you like it or not, Christian Zionists were a major force in getting Israel going. And they are today a major force in keeping it going.

        I’ve not read enough of your comments to know whether you are an Israeli apologist or not. But I’m beginning to suspect you are.

        Your final paragraph is most peculiar, sad even. You seem so anxious to dismiss me for getting “the most basic history wrong”.

        Perhaps there is a language problem. I gather English is not your first language.

      • December 23, 2011, 5:12 pm

        What does term “British Christians” mean??
        It is such a vague, undefined term that should not be used.
        As I mentioned before ,Christianity IS divided into a 3 main groups,
        ( catholics, protestants and orthodox) ,which ARE further divided into smaller groups.
        Anglican/protestant church , in the XVI century heavily persecuted catholics , and many of them died as martyrs ( st Thomas More eg.).
        So speaking about “British Christians” does not say ANYTHING.
        Such generalizations don’t do anybody any favour, just aggreviate some.

      • W.Jones
        December 23, 2011, 6:25 pm

        The paragraphs on this thread do a good job showing how C.Zionism developed the most as a group especially in the 1980’s around the time Reagan was president. I went to a large evangelical middle school in the 90’s and I don’t remember talk equating the State today with the tribe then and saying we must follow it or something. They mentioned the Star of David and portrayed it positively as a religious symbol, but what political importance they gave, I can only guess, as it didn’t seem particularly important to me at the time.

        Mainly they cared about Creationism and being born again, but I don’t specifically remember C.Zionism. I have an acquaintance who went to Liberty and he saw posters for a talk on C.Zionism there, but it wasn’t a major focus at the school, he said.

        My impression is that among evangelicals it is generally something they like, but a big minority of them at least don’t have a real strong opinion and recognize problems when they see them.

        If it wasn’t for the IP conflict I would probably be a mild myself- and not really being stimulated to find out the traditional Christian theology on the question- as I was before I heard a talk about the Pals’ difficulties by Christian volunteers 10 years ago.

      • patm
        December 23, 2011, 6:55 pm

        So speaking about “British Christians” does not say ANYTHING.

        Mm… Christians living in Britain? Mostly Anglicans, but other sects as well.

        I don’t quite get your point, dumvita.

        What is more interesting to me about the word “British” is that it seems to be on its way to oblivion. Slowly, mind you. But with Scotland about to secede from the Union, and Ireland gone except for Ulster, the term ‘Great Britain’ is losing its punch. Soon we’ll be just saying English and Ulster-ish. Doesn’t have quite the same ring, don’t you think?

      • December 23, 2011, 7:28 pm

        What do you mean by “other sects”??? Be more precise??
        What do you mean by “sects”?? Christianity is not regarded as “a sect”.
        I have no idea what is your point.
        Anglicans do vary a lot from other Christians groups, almost the same like night differs from a day, and winter from summer.
        The world is not that simple like you would like it to be.

      • patm
        December 23, 2011, 7:44 pm

        Major divisions within Christianity. From Wiki

        1 Catholicism
        1.1 Catholic Church
        1.2 Other churches
        2 Eastern Orthodoxy
        2.1 Eastern Orthodox Church
        2.2 Other churches
        3 Oriental Orthodoxy
        4 Church of the East
        5 Protestantism
        5.1 Pre-Lutheran Protestants
        5.2 Lutheranism
        5.3 Anglicanism
        5.4 Reformed Churches
        5.5 Presbyterianism
        5.6 Congregationalist Churches
        5.7 Anabaptists
        5.8 Brethren
        5.9 Methodists
        5.10 Pietists and Holiness Churches
        5.11 Baptists
        5.12 Apostolic Churches – Irvingites
        5.13 Pentecostalism
        5.14 Charismatics
        5.15 African Initiated Churches
        5.16 United and uniting churches
        5.17 Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
        5.18 Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement
        5.19 Southcottites
        5.20 Millerites and comparable groups
        5.21 British-Israelism
        5.22 Miscellaneous/Other
        5.23 Christian Revival Church
        6 Latter Day Saints
        6.1 Original denomination
        6.2 “Prairie Saint” denominations
        6.3 Rocky Mountains denominations
        6.4 Other denominations
        7 Nontrinitarian groups
        7.1 Oneness Pentecostalism
        7.2 Unitarianism and Universalism
        7.3 Bible Student groups
        7.4 Swedenborgianism
        7.5 Other non-Trinitarians
        8 New Thought
        9 Messianic Judaism / Jewish Christians
        10 Esoteric Christianity
        11 Syncretistic religions incorporating elements of Christianity
        12 See also
        13 References

      • December 23, 2011, 7:56 pm

        What do you mean by saying “sects” ,and why are you putting all different Christian, oftentimes ,very different denominations and groups into one big bag with a name: British Christians??
        You have to be more specifc.
        In America ,the major driving forces behind Christian Zionizm are protestant groups ( evengelical, mormons etc) .
        Not all cats are white.

      • December 23, 2011, 8:05 pm

        Clifford Kiracofe, who blogs from time to time at SicSemperTyrannis, wrote Dark Crusade: Christian Zionism and US Foreign Policy. He opens his book with the explanation that British Christians were the handmaidens of Britain’s imperial policy. When British foreign policy involved the Middle East, British Christians were called upon to support it as a patrio-Christian act, much as Americans are told that smashing Iraq to smithereens is spreading democracy & JudeoChristian values to the heathen.

        Lord Shaftesbury, Palmerston, Disraeli”> and other British leaders led the religio-political movement.

        The Bible was considered “the national epic of Britain very early on, and Brit who were pilgrimage-oriented from very early days were romantically drawn to pilgrimage to the Holy Land, the locus of “their” national epic.

        In short, the relationship between biblicism, the physical holy land, and the British people has a long history.

        In 1831, the Earl of Shaftesbury, a devout Christian whose loveless life was touched by his Christian nanny, argued for the restoration of Jews to the Holy Land “because of what he saw as the political and economic advantages to England and because he believed that it was God’s will.”
        In 1839, Shaftesbury wrote:

        The soil and climate of Palestine are singularly adapted to the growth of produce required for the exigencies of Great Britain; the finest cotton may be obtained in almost unlimited abundance; silk and madder are the staple of the country, and olive oil is now, as it ever was, the very fatness of the land. Capital and skill are alone required: the presence of a British officer, and the increased security of property which his presence will confer, may invite them from these islands to the cultivation of Palestine; and the Jews’, who will betake themselves to agriculture in no other land, having found, in the English consul, a mediator between their people and the Pacha, will probably return in yet greater numbers, and become once more the husbandmen of Judaea and Galilee.


        Napoleon knew well the value of an Hebrew alliance; and endeavoured to reproduce, in the capital of France, the spectacle of the ancient Sanhedrin, which, basking in the sunshine of imperial favour, might give laws to the whole body of the Jews throughout the habitable world, and aid him, no doubt, in his audacious plans against Poland and the East. His scheme, it is true, proved abortive; for the mass of the Israelites were by no means inclined to merge their hopes in the destinies of the Empire—exchange Zion for Montmartre, and Jerusalem for Paris. . . .

        Lord Balfour was about as pious — and as intellectually astute — as George Bush. An anecdote related in Niall Fergusson’s biography of the Rothschilds provides an insight into how the ember of British religious and romantic support for the restoration of Jews to Palestine was fanned into a blaze by the attentions of Lord Edmond Rothschild. Fergusson quotes Dorothy Pinto, who later married James Rothschild:

        “as a child I though Lord Rothschild lived at the Foreign Office, because from my schoolroom window I used to watch his carriage standing outside every afternoon–while in reality of course he was closeted with Arthur Balfour.”

        The Scofield bible, produced about 1909, was directly influenced by Samuel Untermyer, who is, coincidentally, a native of Lynchburg, Virginia, home of Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University. Untermyer’s father was involved in supplying troops in the US Civil war. I don’t recall the details, whether his father went bankrupt or died; in any event, young Sam left Lynchburg for New York City, where he apprenticed himself to learn law, and later practiced with the Guggenheims, who made their money trading copper and other metals.
        Untermyer was a passionate zionist who was involved in numerous ways in promoting zionism in the United States, from influencing the Scofield bible, which became the teaching text most of the Protestant seminaries; to arranging the financing for the Warner Brothers studio that propelled it to the premier propaganda — and revenue — producing studio in the United States; to acting like an Aubrey Chernick to organize and propagandize hatred of “the Hun.”

      • john h
        john h
        December 23, 2011, 8:45 pm

        Thanks teta mother me, for this and other posts.

        Discovery, then dissemination and full disclosure of facts and reality, is the first part of making the truth known, and the truth shall make you free.

      • patm
        December 24, 2011, 7:33 am

        Thanks very much for this informative post, teta.

        I was especially interested to hear the anecdote from Niall Fergusson’s biography of the Rothschilds.

      • MHughes976
        December 24, 2011, 2:03 pm

        Balfour was highly educated and had intellectual tastes. His colleague Curzon refers to his ‘extraordinary intellectual distinction’ which, because he never bothered to read his official papers or study the facts, ‘created lamentable ignorance’. It’s true that he was a committed Christian Zionist, as was his boss Lloyd George. LlG affected a certain contempt for Balfour but was really using his talent for looking like a languid, ineffectual aristocrat who would do nothing much whilst actually doing the ruthless deed to which they were both committed because both thought that God had commanded it. The Anglican Balfour, the Calvinist Lloyd George and until his untimely death the Catholic Sykes formed a powerful CZ trio.
        Zionism has always had enormous power to appeal across a wide spectrum of opinion. In the early days ignorant reactionaries like Scofield stood shoulder to shoulder, in a way, with ultra-educated ultra-progressives like George Eliot.

      • patm
        December 24, 2011, 4:56 pm

        Thanks, MH. This information is most helpful.

        How much better it would have been for the entire world if Balfour had stuck to reading his official papers and studying the facts!

        You will agree, I’m sure, that Lloyd George and Balfour were committed to the Zionist project in Palestine not just because God commanded it; there was after all the not insignificant matter of Empire.

        George Eliot, as you know, was an English woman novelist whose real name was Mary Anne (Mary Ann, Marian) Evans. She was born on 22 November 1819 and died on 22 December 1880, according to Wiki.

        One thing that puzzles me (and it came up again in my run-in with Krauss up-thread) is why Jews are not keen to hear that Christians had a big hand in the Zionist Project. You would think they would be all too happy to share the blame for the abomination that Israel has become. Do you have any thoughts on this?

      • mudder
        December 23, 2011, 8:42 pm

        The key figure in the creation of Christian Zionism is Hal Lindsey, now ranting on I read his books 35 years ago when I wasn’t reading my Scofield KJV Bible. His bestseller the Late Great Planet Earth influenced countless charlatans later, including Falwell, Robertson, LaHaye, Van Impe, and Hagee. But Hal Lindsey is the chief villain.

    • December 23, 2011, 6:57 pm

      absolutely, Krauss.

      “which includes a lot of liberal Israeli Jewish intellectuals, which would explain the situation to him.”

      because there are no non-Jewish intellectuals, like Chas Freeman or Fr. John Dear, SJ; John Mueller from Ohio State; John Entelis from Fordham; Andrew Bacevich from Boston U; Giandomenico Picco, who negotiated the treaty settling the Iraq war in 1988.
      Nope, nobody around who has an ‘intellectual’ grasp of the situation.

  2. Bill in Maryland
    Bill in Maryland
    December 23, 2011, 11:36 am

    Obama should visit “Greater Israel”, mingle with the populace west of the Green Line sans handlers, where he might well be jeered and called the N-word, then go east of the Green Line where, if he went by car and on foot and mingled with Occupied Palestinians, he would be cheered.

  3. justicewillprevail
    December 23, 2011, 2:00 pm

    If even a dork like Bush was horrified at the reality of the Occupation, then imagine the effect if mainstream America was informed regularly about the horrendous destruction of the Holy Land and its inhabitants by Israel’s brutal regime. And if they got a whiff of the arrogance of the entitlement Israel demands from the US, while conceding absolutely nothing in return, they would be further repelled. And that is why Israel is entirely uninterested in the effects of its subjugation and dispossession of innocent people, and obsessed by ensuring this message never gets out. It also why Israel is on a loser, as the truth gradually dawns on people, yes even people as challenged as GW Bush. And if it can hit them…

  4. lobewyper
    December 23, 2011, 2:25 pm

    “On a presidential visit to Israel in 2008, Bush travels to Bethlehem by car rather than helicopter against the wishes of the Israelis because Rice wants him to see “the ugliness of the occupation, including the checkpoints and the security wall…for himself and [because] it would have been an insult to the Palestinians if he didn’t.”

    OMG–and all these years I’ve been dissing Rice…

    • Charon
      December 23, 2011, 3:06 pm

      No reason to stop dissing Rice. Her words today are empty compared to her actions of the past. Clearly these politicians know the reality of the situation. They know the Israeli leaders are hawks, trixsters, and liars. They know the Palestinian people are suffering under occupation, why they resist, and quite possibly even sympathize with them. But they don’t even try to do anything about it. They’re puppets and suckers. I don’t expect heroism from any of them. By heroism I mean to risk the consequences of telling the truth regardless of any threats from the other side.

      President-wise, from Carter on nearly every US President has criticized Israel post-presidency (in memoirs and interviews) with words that no sitting president dare ever say. If memory serves, Reagan is the only one who didn’t and took Israel’s side. That says a lot about Reagan. Well that and the fact that he already had symptoms of Alzheimer’s while in office.. and his staff knew it and nobody did anything. Not that it matters anyway if you’re just a puppet I guess.

      • seafoid
        December 23, 2011, 3:45 pm

        Puppets. Faces. Cheney and Rummy decided everything.

      • mymarkx
        December 24, 2011, 11:02 pm

        “Puppets. Faces. Cheney and Rummy decided everything.” –seafoid

        Cheney & Rummy worked for Poppy Bush. Poppy was a Rockefeller man. And when people say “Rockefeller/Rothschild interests,” as if Rockefeller-Rothschild was a hyphenated surname, there’s probably a reason.

        They have their courtiers and viziers, but the 1% make the decisions, dictate those decisions to their appropriately named “policy-making bodies,” like the Trilateral Commission and the CFR, and the candidates present themselves before these bodies to bid for their rulers’ approval.

        Decisions are not made at the level of puppets and advisors. A Kissinger can ingratiate himself and be well-rewarded by the 1% for helping them continue to expand their rule, but advisors, consultants, and puppets never have the final say.

        And 1% is inaccurate. There are only two or three countries left that don’t have a central bank, a private corporation owned by the Rockefeller-Rothschilds, that controls their economy, and therefore controls their politicians and their military. An accurate assessment of who owns, controls, and runs the world would probably have to put a string of zeroes between a decimal point and the one in 1%. All I can deduce is that they are wealthy and racist beyond anyone’s imagination or comprehension.

      • American
        December 23, 2011, 7:07 pm

        “Clearly these politicians know the reality of the situation”

        Of course they do, they’ve always known what the situation is.
        The Israeli congresspeople in particular that regularly go to Israel 6 or 7 times a year know exactly what the situation is…..and make up lies about why it is the way it is….we’ve heard them all…the lies, the excuses a million times.

      • December 23, 2011, 8:12 pm

        American, when I was listening to C Span this morning as Rose Goetemoeller, Assistant Secy of State for Disarmament (she’s not a media person, she’s a State Department executive/negotiator), spin her yarn about how bad Iran is, while also carefully protecting Israel, the impression was that she really believed what she was saying.
        I’m not sure which is worse — that they know they are lying or that they don’t know they are lying.

      • john h
        john h
        December 23, 2011, 8:24 pm

        No, the only reality they know is what is fed to them, and what they choose to cherry-pick.

        That is, the Israeli narrative hook, line and sinker, complete with Palestinian terrorists as the imperative necessity for Israeli security.

        They can never face why it is the way it is, not that that ever crosses their mind.

        Their visits to Israel are carefully programmed the same way as North Korea does, and the same way any cult would do.

        They are in the Glen Beck mold.

        A dose of what dumvita suggests is the bare minimum required to make any inroads into their mind and heart, and that’s just for starters.

      • American
        December 24, 2011, 12:24 pm

        No they do know…..have you not seen the floor speeches by Dennis and Baird and a few others who have described what Israel does….did you not see the senate testiminoy of those like Mitchell, Jones Scheuer and others who have decribed what goes on In I/P?
        Do you not think they knew what Cast Lead was doing or the attack and cluster bombs and destruction of Lebanon…..there was a international uproar they couldn’t have missed. And what did they do?….issue total support for what Israel was doing. Don’t tell me this garbage doesn’t know exactly what Israel is doing and exactly what they are supporting.
        Even my local newpaper front paged Cast Lead with pictures of dead Gaza children and an editorial condemning Israel.
        They know.

      • john h
        john h
        December 24, 2011, 1:44 pm

        Don’t tell me this garbage doesn’t know exactly what Israel is doing and exactly what they are supporting.

        I’m not sure which is worse — that they know they are lying or that they don’t know they are lying.

        They know in much the same way as all Israeli and most other Zionists know, including such as RW, eee, and those others here.

        It’s all an act of self-deception and self-justification. Somehow they fool themselves enough to be able to sleep at night. In their eyes two wrongs do make a right. They become very good at lying to themselves.

        They can never face [the real reason] why it is the way it is, not that that ever crosses their mind.

      • Charltonr
        December 24, 2011, 10:52 pm

        It’s to become aware that these people with blinders about Israel that you mention, and, alas of many other Americans who see only mainstream media, including the New York Times:

        They haven’t known and don’t know what’s going on. Worse, they don’t know that they don’t know. Even worse, they don’t care that they don’t know that they don’t know.

  5. December 23, 2011, 2:43 pm

    Bush should cross the checkpoint on his feet, dresssed as an Arab man, waiting for hours in the long line, in the rain,snow and mud, humiliated by the IDF forces, who would tell him just to shut up and listen, and do what he is required to do, or else…
    Then , he would expercience what “an awful” is.
    And Rice, in her “memoir” wants to ease her guilt, clear her dirty consciousness???

  6. patm
    December 23, 2011, 3:15 pm
  7. seafoid
    December 23, 2011, 3:42 pm

    “This is awful” Bethlehem said as it saw Bush

  8. gazacalling
    December 23, 2011, 6:25 pm

    Wow, that’s an amazing post.

    When I took students through this checkpoint a couple years ago the reaction of one of them summed it up: “That’s the most racist thing I’ve ever seen.”

Leave a Reply