Trending Topics:

Medal of Freedom for Shimon Peres maintains White House blind spot on Israel

on 79 Comments
shimon peres
Shimon Peres

The Presidential Medal of Freedom is awarded by the President of the United States ”for especially meritorious contribution to (1) the security or national interests of the United States, or (2) world peace, or (3) cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.” Among its recipients over the years were Norman Rockwell, Georgia O’Keeffe, Maya Angelou, Toni Morrison, Marian Anderson, Cesar Chavez, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr.  Consequently, the news that Shimon Peres is receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom today is jarring. He deserves no such honor when he has done so much to deny Palestinians their freedom.

On September 7, 1997 I stood right next to Peres as we both looked down at the open grave of my 13-year-old niece Smadar. Smadar was killed in a suicide attack in Jerusalem and Peres had asked if he might come to the funeral to express his sorrow.  The family agreed and he came.  Smadar was laid to rest near my father’s grave and in his comments Peres mentioned my father, a general and later a champion of peace.

But Peres is no champion of peace.  His policies have brought about many innocent deaths and the entrenching of Israeli control over Palestinian lives.

As deputy defense minister in the early 1960s, Peres was behind the successful move to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East.  He helped establish the Israeli nuclear arsenal.

In the aftermath of the conquest of the West Bank in June of 1967 he championed the establishment of Jewish settlements in the West Bank.  Then, in 1985 as prime minister, he initiated an anti-democratic law to outlaw any contact between Israelis and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). This was an ill-conceived attempt to end the Israeli-Palestinian dialogue begun nearly 10 years earlier.

Peres is also known for being a major decision maker in the Israeli defense apparatus, an apparatus whose hallmark is the long-running oppression of the Palestinian people and the killing of thousands of unarmed civilians in Palestine and Lebanon.

Peres’ one contribution to peace, the one for which he was given the Nobel Prize, was his work on the Oslo Accords. These accords were expected to lead to peace but only served to maintain the Israeli domination of Palestinians and solidify exclusivist, Jewish-only settlements. 

Today, Peres is the President of Israel, a post which is little more than a sinecure. He is Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s “peace” fig leaf.  Officially, Peres oversees a state which under his watch has held thousands of political prisoners; a state where people are governed by different laws based on their ethnic and religious background or, in other words, an apartheid state; a state where some children are denied food, medicine, school and freedom because they were not born Jewish but rather Muslim or Christian; a state where the army can drop hundreds of tons of bombs on a civilian population and where a soldier can take aim and shoot a little girl because she is Palestinian and never be brought to justice.

Peres is the head of a state where water is distributed based on a person’s national identity: Israelis, on average, get an estimated 300 cubic meters of water per year, while Palestinians, depending on where they reside in the West Bank, receive between 35-85 cubic meters of water per year. Israelis who agree to settle on stolen Palestinian land receive 1,500 cubic meters of water per year.

Peres heads a state that in the West Bank routinely kidnaps children from bed in the middle of the night. Subjected to beatings and psychological terror, the child’s “testimony” is then used against other Palestinian defendants. The child, his family and the defendant against whom the charges are brought have no recourse. The Israeli justice system is stacked against Palestinians receiving a fair day in court.

With the decision to award the Medal of Freedom to Peres, the White House continues to maintain a blind spot regarding Israel. The Obama administration, just like its predecessors, has chosen to ignore Israeli brutality, human rights abuses and a discriminatory system of laws.

Peres represents so much that is wrong with the state of Israel. It is a tragic day when a man like Shimon Peres is honored by the President of the United States with the Medal of Freedom.

Miko Peled

Miko Peled is an Israeli writer and activist living in San Diego. His book “The General’s Son: Journey of an Israeli in Palestine” (Just World Books) was published in 2012.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

79 Responses

  1. lysias on June 13, 2012, 3:26 pm

    Miko, can you cast any light on Peres’s real role in the Lavon Affair of 1954?

    The fact that Lavon was eventually exonerated would seem to indicate that Peres was one of the guilty parties in that particular piece of skullduggery (which was directed against, among others, the United States).

  2. ahadhaadam on June 13, 2012, 4:08 pm

    Let Count Dracula earn the Medal of Vegetarianism.

  3. justicewillprevail on June 13, 2012, 4:36 pm

    Mentioning Peres and freedom in the same sentence is a sick joke. Yet America falls for it every time. Peres has done more than most to restrict and destroy the freedom of millions of indigenous people who have not harmed anyone. He should be in the dock, not the White House.

    • Daniel Rich on June 13, 2012, 8:14 pm

      @ justicewillprevail,

      Q: Mentioning Peres and freedom in the same sentence is a sick joke.

      R: Another sick joke is Obomber having received the Nobel peace price.

      “Dracula did a praiseworthy job, because he saved the lives of so many leaches.” — the oracle of Delphi.

    • Sin Nombre on June 13, 2012, 10:38 pm

      “Mentioning Peres and freedom in the same sentence is a sick joke.”

      Well, not only that but tying his name to the actual standard supposed to be used which is “world peace.”

      Forget everything else people have raised here, and forget even whether Peres is responsible or not, but it’s a symptom of how corrupt we’ve become with language when nobody even blinks tying this guy to “world peace. Damn near constant warfare by his state during his entire adult life … and we are to associate his name with “peace”?

      And of course it’s worse than that; it’s Obama just trying to suck himself further up jewish voters’ backsides.

      Indeed that, rather than Peres’s merits or demerits, seems to me to be the huge issue which, with good reason, we seem to only be able to talk about in fits and starts, like the inability to stare too long at the sun.

      Time’s up for Obama, it seems to me, at least in terms of coming to some pretty final, solid measurements of the man. Unfortunately there seems nothing solid about him himself. Is there any issue upon which he hasn’t bent like a piece of rubber under the slightest pressure? Is there any picture of him one has other than a guy constantly sitting and calculating how to give in or bend on this or that? Or a guy who really has some core principles that he won’t bend on and really believes in?

      Indeed he doesn’t even seem to have his heart in the game anymore; like a guy who never found out the liberating sensation of just simply fighting for something right even if you lose. Instead all he can seem to care about is “losing” in some way.

      Not the way to write your name deeply in the history books. Hard to imagine *anyone* being vulnerable to a Mitt Romney, much less a Mitt Romney who promises to return the country to Bushism, much less an *incumbent* losing to that Mitt Romney.

      Nor is it pretty listening to the whispering campaign Obama’s people are putting out to the effect that after he wins oh gee *then* he’ll be unleashed. Hows’ that different from admitting that he’s been doing nothing but selling out so far, and thinks that’s a perfectly okay thing to do when under the slightest zephyr of pressure?

      A wasted four years we’ve had, at best.

  4. Daniel Rich on June 13, 2012, 5:24 pm

    Blind spot?

    I see nothing but gaping eye sockets.

  5. Avi_G. on June 13, 2012, 5:38 pm

    First, Miko, thanks for the article.

    Second, clearly, the White House’s motives are entirely based on the simple fact that this is an election year.

    What else could Obama possibly do to heap praise on Israel and kiss up to the Israel Lobby remains to be seen.

    • biorabbi on June 13, 2012, 7:45 pm

      Is it possible, Avi, that President Obama is a liberal zionist? How many liberal Jews are among President Obama’s closest circle of friends from Chicago(perhaps almost all of them)?

      You contribute WH motives to be entirely based on the simple fact that this is an election year, but I think you are projecting your point of view onto Obama. You remind me of many right wing zionists(my crowd)who denigrate Edrogan of Turkey for “using the flotilla” as a method to destroy Israeli-Turkish relations, but perhaps the truth is he, Edrogan, actually deeply cares about Palestinians and their rights.

      Why is so difficult for the far left and the far right to accept Obama is not only a zionist, but he is also the first Jewish President. Finkelstein brings this up in a recent video. Obama is a left-wing Jew with a liberal zionist bent.

      The tea party says he’s a secret Muslim, and the left appears to imply this as well but it is only the election year politics which explains all. I think a second Obama term will be very good for Israel and the US-Israeli alliance, perhaps more so than Romney.

      My problem with Obama stems from the fact I think he’s been terrible for America. I guess I’m an American Firster after all=)

      • Avi_G. on June 14, 2012, 12:41 am

        There are facts and then there are hallucinations.

        Whether Obama is Moslem, Jewish or a Scientologist has no bearing on the simple fact that the Israel Lobby has a lot of sway in Washington.

        Was Bush, Jewish, too?

        Was Clinton, Jewish?

      • Daniel Rich on June 14, 2012, 4:06 am

        @ Avi_G,

        side note: part of the president/cy was in Jewish hands at one point.

      • traintosiberia on June 14, 2012, 9:33 am

        Why are we seeking a reason and why we are trying to find the justification of Obamas behvaior in remote periphery of the endless field of the possibilities?
        A position of antiwar stance ,anti captialistic satnce in 2008 was necessarry to throw sand at the eyes of the desperate people wanting to beleive in the arrival of a messiah ,even when the messiah was not promising war free foreign policy.The depserate wanted to believe and the belief was supplied.
        Today that desepearte mass is confused and betrayed and is blaming themselves.It has lost its enthusiasm and has abolished any hopes of similar enthusiam among others for the fear of failures and re-betrayal.
        Today they dont count. Obama knows what count is the active pro war,pro Israeli,anti immigrant,anti arab segemnst of population He is trying to capture their votes. Thats what he is doing. He is not a moslem ( Though Daniel Pipes the Peace envoy ,preached that and supplied that misinformation to the Tea Baggers) and he is not a zionist or libarl Jews. he is just trying to saty in power .

      • American on June 14, 2012, 12:10 pm

        “Is it possible, Avi, that President Obama is a liberal zionist?”

        I don’t think so. He’s just a “politician” in the worse sense of the word, which is as bad if not worse than a liberal zionist.

  6. Les on June 13, 2012, 6:35 pm

    It’s impossible that the imaginary power of a handful of wealthy Jews matches reality. Our media encourages our politicians as well as the public to believe that such is the case. I fully expect that as the election campaign gets further underway and Obama becomes more and more aware of the growing disillusion of so many who worked for his first election, he will start a war against Iran solely because he believes such a war will make more secure his re-election. He imagines he will thus be apppreciated “for especially meritorious contribution to (1) the security or national interests of the United States, or (2) world peace, or (3) cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.”

  7. piotr on June 13, 2012, 7:05 pm

    There is little confusion here, I guess. I think that this is Medal of Freedom (R). Basically, the world is divided into Dar-al-Freedom and Dar-al-Slavery (possibly also Dar-al-Who Knows? and Dar-al-Who Cares?), and the valiant champions in the fight for Dar-al-Freedom were sometimes affectionately called “our bastards”. When I was a wee lad, the main action was in Latin America while the specter of Communism threatened right at our door, and our valiant bastards sometimes had to exterminate all villages full of enemies of Freedom. Some veterans of those struggles are still alive and they should get some medals too.

  8. DaveS on June 13, 2012, 7:49 pm

    If I can add just one thing, Peres was PM in 1996 for Operation Grapes of Wrath, which killed a few hundred civilians in Lebanon, including over 100 in Qana. Unfortunately, while it is “tragic” for him to win the Medal of Freedom, it’s entirely unsurprising.

    • Avi_G. on June 14, 2012, 12:37 am

      Just to add:

      The massacre in 1996 Qana, Lebanon took place at a UN camp where civilians, including women and children, had taken refuge from the bombings Israel was carrying out.

      Tragically, Israel bombed Qana in 2006, as well, killing at once more than 16 children (To the best of my recollection).

    • Stateless American on June 14, 2012, 11:28 am

      Two boys from Dearborn, MI, Abdul-Muhsen Abboud, 9, and his brother Hadi, 8, who were visiting their grandmother in Qana, were killed in the 1996 attack. So Obama awarded the Medal of Freedom to a foreigner who is responsible for the deaths of two American children.

  9. Talkback on June 13, 2012, 9:00 pm

    And by the “freedom” they mean not to be bound by ethics, honesty, humanity or international law and to kill without impunity, start one war after another and veto or ignore the security council.

  10. Charon on June 13, 2012, 9:36 pm

    Medal of freedom? Did they change the definition of freedom? I know these folks like to play off the alternate definition of words in order to truthfully tell a lie, but this is pretty low. Handing out medals? He has a Nobel prize too. So does Obama even though he didn’t do anything to get it. Doesn’t say much for the Nobel Prize. They gave one of those to Menachem Begin despite his terrorism

  11. Sumud on June 13, 2012, 9:47 pm

    Test your hasbara spotting skills by watching Peres at the Doha Debates in 2007:

    Peres is a slimy liar, nothing more.

    And Obama is just craven, *so* corrupt for him to do this. He deserves to have his Nobel Peace Prize stripped from him.

    • seafoid on June 14, 2012, 8:41 am

      Peres is a slimy liar

      You can’t climb to the top of Zionism otherwise. They all are.

      He also appears have a role as the eminence grise of Israel
      “Peres says” is a very common Ha’aretz headline

      • lysias on June 14, 2012, 10:17 am

        Sharett and Eshkol were reasonably honest. But look at what happened to them.

      • seafoid on June 14, 2012, 4:29 pm

        They are all sociopaths. Zionism would collapse if it was run by decent people . Eshkol was involved in 1948. And in governments who voted for martial law for the Palestinians who stayed behind. And the border campaigns pre 67 that involved all those massacres. The current madness has its genesis in the decisions made by his generation.

  12. Taxi on June 13, 2012, 11:15 pm

    Why the heck would you give a Medal of Freedom to an occupation gangbanger?!

    Oh I almost forgot! There’s an election in five month’s time.

  13. Graber on June 13, 2012, 11:38 pm

    When Netanyahu when’s the Nobel Prize, I’m checking out of this joint.

  14. Peter in SF on June 14, 2012, 2:10 am

    As deputy defense minister in the early 1960s, Peres was behind the successful move to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East.

    This is important, because he was one of the Israelis who broke their promise to the United States on an issue to which JFK at least gave a high priority.
    And this phrasing, of course, is the Israelis’ own. If we go back to 1965, we see a reassurance to the Americans that “The Government of Israel has reaffirmed that Israel will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the Arab-Israel area.” The latest reaffirmation that I heard was just last week from Ambassador Michael Oren (listen at the 45-minute mark): “Israel has said now for more than half a century that it will not be the first nation to introduce nuclear weaponry into the Middle East. It was our position in the 1960s; it’s our position today. And back in the early ’60s, there were inspectors sent by the United States to view our peaceful nuclear facilities, and they came back with a clean bill of health.” So give their deputy defense minister a medal for that clean bill of health on their peaceful nuclear facilities!

  15. Sin Nombre on June 14, 2012, 5:41 am

    Peter in SF:

    Ah my (probably young) friend, you need a lesson in Israeli.

    I know, I know, when they said they would not be the first to “introduce” nuclear weapons into the Mideast the ordinary shmuck would consider this to mean, since Israel is in the ME, that Israel wouldn’t be hosting the things first.

    In Israeli-speak however, no no no: While that understanding may well have been intended now that the truth’s out what it means is that Israel won’t be the first to introduce such weapons as in … “hello, please meet our *exploding* nuclear weaponry over your ME heads.”

    (Which “position,” as Oren himself puts it, is operative … until it no longer is.)

    And you should further learn that Israelis never break their promises; any such construction is ipso facto an anti-semitic canard.

    Don’t worry though, it’ll only take a very short time reading or watching this stuff and you’ll pick it up, no matter how head-snappingly false it will no doubt seem to you at first.

    If damn near every American news person understands most if not all of the special rules of language and even language rules that apply to this subject matter area, despite their incredible multiplicity, you can too….

  16. ddi on June 14, 2012, 9:25 am

    Unbelievable! what a sick, sick joke…

    • seafoid on June 14, 2012, 12:09 pm

      You have to look twice these days to make sure it isn’t satire.

  17. MarkF on June 14, 2012, 9:49 am

    His company is “slam-dunk” Tenet and “known-unknowns” Rumsfeld.

  18. Taxi on June 14, 2012, 9:55 am

    I don’t trust old men who wear dollops of foundation on their face.

    Does that make me a pancakist?

  19. Taxi on June 14, 2012, 10:08 am

    I wanna know who suggested this to Obama in the first place – wanna know their name and their political vital statistics.

    Some meeting they musta had at the Oval Office ’bout Peres’ peace-talking butchery.

    P.S. We should really start calling it the ‘offal’ office, don’tya think?!

    • lysias on June 14, 2012, 10:20 am

      At the same time, Obama also awarded a posthumous Medal of Freedom to Jan Karski, and somebody wrote into Obama’s script for the award to Karski that language about a “Polish death camp”.

      • lysias on June 14, 2012, 12:02 pm

        White House press release: President Obama Honors Israeli President Shimon Peres:

        President Bill Clinton, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (another honoree of the Medal of Freedom in 2012), and Elie Wiesel (another winner of the Nobel Peace Prize) were among those in attendance for the presentation.

      • Talkback on June 14, 2012, 5:45 pm

        lysias quotes: “State Madeleine Albright (another honoree of the Medal of Freedom in 2012)”

        She deserved the medal for this kind of freedom:
        “On May 12, 1996, Albright defended UN sanctions against Iraq on a 60 Minutes segment in which Lesley Stahl asked her “We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?” and Albright replied “we think the price is worth it.””

      • biorabbi on June 14, 2012, 3:26 pm

        Jan Karski was a great man who richly deserved this award. Obama’s statement about “Polish death camps” was taken out of context. He was obviously referring to death camps in Poland. He meant no insult. Poland has the largest number of righteous gentiles recognized by Israel for rescuing Jews, but the numbers are much larger than commonly recognized. Bush certainly made more ludicrous misstatements than Obama ever did.

      • annie on June 14, 2012, 4:25 pm

        don’t you mean misspoke? taken out of context implies the phrasing is correct and the meaning was thwarted. i think people are well aware what was implied. but he shouldn’t have used those words because they are not polish death camps. would you support calling them jewish death camps? after all, people would know what you meant. or would you excuse that as merely taken out of context?

      • lysias on June 14, 2012, 4:32 pm

        I’m sure Obama meant no insult. But what about whoever put those words in Obama’s script?

      • annie on June 14, 2012, 4:37 pm

        exactly lysias, it was no mistake.

      • biorabbi on June 14, 2012, 4:42 pm

        Karski visited the ghetto, but also visited a concentration camp which held many polish Catholics, including many priests. Poland was upset for numerous, complex reasons.

        1. The fact that three million Catholic Poles died, coupled with 3 million Jewish Catholics raised the anger of the Polish people.
        2. History usually recognized the Warsaw Ghetto revolt of 1943 by Polish Jews, but ignores The Rising where the Poles battled against the Germans in 1944. Second, after the war, Soviet and Stalinst governments ignored ‘The Rising’ as they hated true democrats. Stalin’s troops did not lift a finger to help the 1944 Rising. He let the Germans ‘finish’ the work of eliminating potential opposition. I believe Roman Polanski’s Pianist is the only Western big budget film that tangentially looks at The Rising although the Warsaw Ghetto Rising and The Polish ’44 Rising are kind of telescoped together as the focus is on the Pianist.

        I guess my point is he misspoke, but not with any malice. He meant the geographic location, not the culprits being Poland. But I understand very well the deep, proud passion of the Polish people.

        Yes, your point about my being upset at him calling him Jewish death camps is well taken. I can see why Polish passions were so inflamed. Why the hell would anybody want to be President? You just get hated by your friends and foes. If I were Obama, I’d be toking up constantly.

      • biorabbi on June 14, 2012, 4:54 pm

        Annie, really? There are no mistakes? So, he intentionally maligned the Polish people? because of a zionist writer? Is this what you are implying? Is there no end to the duplicity of devious zionist mind? LOL. Talk about satire.

        Maybe Abe Foxman and Axelrod had it inserted or some neoconservative think tank.

        You guys go nuts over this, but 14000 Syrians are killed by non-zionists and it’s moving right along, nothing much to see here, it’s all opaque and maybe there is a zionist hand there too, or am I making a mistake?

      • annie on June 14, 2012, 5:01 pm

        answer me first. would you support calling them jewish death camps?

        edit. i see you addressed it already.

        So, he intentionally maligned the Polish people?

        i posit he kowtowed to a narrative to please a certain constituency knowing he would inadvertently would be offending others, yes. not that different than gingrich blathering about the invention of palestinians to suck up to the adelson millions.

        was his intent and motivation to maligned the Polish people? no, of course not. merely an side effect he was able to accept to appease somebody.

      • biorabbi on June 14, 2012, 5:22 pm

        Annie, would Obama appease somebody to win Florida and get funds, yes. Will he legalize pot in October, also probably yes. But, I simply find it hard to believe the zionist thought police inserted this particular comment into his speech. I winced when I first head it, but thought he misspoke. Didn’t he do that in a speech about raising taxes on janitors saying Jews by mistake? Was that the anti-zionist thought police making him say Jew for janitor to appease the voters in Dearborn as opposed to big-money donors in NYC?

        Can’t a cigar just be a cigar sometimes. I guess that’s my point. I understand your point, but I think the President gets tired sometimes and makes mistakes. Is he calculating and a politician. Yes, like all the rest of the successful pols. Where I differ on this issue with you, is he made a glitch or misspoke as opposed to appeasing somebody. I understand how praising Peres as being appeasing somebody, I fail to see how insulting modern-day Poland, which by the way has excellent relations with Israel, appeases somebody as you put it since the Israel Lobby writ large would only try to praise Poland because of their stance on Israel. So, even the idea of appeasing the Israeli lobby doesn’t make sense due to Poland’s relationship with Israel today.

        If Obama wanted to go out of his way to appease the lobby, he would slam Edrogan and ‘misspoke’ about some Turkish issue, but he, Obama, has outstanding relations with Edrogan and their friendship is a source of derision and concern in Israel and with Israeli supporters.

        So, he, Obama, denigrates Poland and their history to appease zionists/Lobby and win the Jewish vote and big-money donors, but then befriends Edrogan and cultivates US-Turkey relations to lose Jewish voters and big-money donors? This doesn’t make any sense.

      • American on June 14, 2012, 5:27 pm

        Well since this has been a all Jews award event it stands to reason it was a Jewish promotion suggested by a big Jewish promoter or it was the work of a Dem political operative who convinced Obama these awards would help him get more $$$ and Jewish votes in the election or at the very least show them he really does love them more then Romney does.
        Can anyone think of any other reason for Peres?

      • biorabbi on June 14, 2012, 5:28 pm

        No, with Gingrich sucking up to a party of one… Sheldon Adelson. Yes, Gingrich said there was no Palestinian People was ridiculous pandering, especially with those old videos of Nutter Gingrich laughing it up with Arafat some years back. There is zero relationship between Gingrich’ obvious pandering to his sugar daddy and Obama’s statement about Poland. And if there was some duplicitous, nefarious agenda at work to malign the Poles by slamming their history, why honor Mr. Karski in the first place? I watched Obama’s entire clip honoring Karski and he was quite eloquent, except for this glitch.

      • American on June 14, 2012, 5:33 pm

        “Is there no end to the duplicity of devious zionist mind? “…biorabbi

        No, actually there isn’t any end to the duplicity of the devious zionist mind.
        The reason we know this is… devious yes, but not smart enough to conceal it.

      • American on June 14, 2012, 5:47 pm

        Geller, Spence & All and and this Schlussel junk yard dog have been doing a number on Poland for awhile….for some reason the stuff Schlussel wrote originally about Poles being all Nazis has been erased from her site or won’t come up for me…but here’s an after the fact posting about it. This zio gestapo group is a sight to behold, they have a hate campaign going on against everybody. What is disgusting is from the complaints being made a lot of Poles are associating this zio [email protected] with “American” opinion. Which brings me back to my argument about publicly shunning, naming and shaming and denouncing these cretins as not part of ‘us’. And I don’t mean by the usual mealy mouth “not helpful’ cop out.

      • ToivoS on June 14, 2012, 5:53 pm

        Biorabbi misinforms with Stalin’s troops did not lift a finger to help the 1944 Rising

        They didn’t help because the Soviet troops near Warsaw were exhausted having just completed the two month operation Bagration where they moved their front by 500 miles, killed 400,000 Germans and lost 200,000 of their own. Germany had reestablished a defensive line on the Vistula while the Soviet forces were forced into their own defensive positions and warded off multiple German counter-attacks through the fall.

        The Soviets did not encourage the Rising because they knew they could not help. You are repeating a common right wing lie.

      • lysias on June 14, 2012, 6:42 pm

        One of the things the Soviets did was not to allow Allied bombers to land on Soviet territory for refueling. This made it very difficult for the Western Allies to give air support to the Polish rebels in Warsaw. One reads this in history books, but I was also told that it happened by someone who was a U.S. Army staff officer in Europe at the time.

        Allowing those Allied bombers to land and take off on Soviet territory would not have made much of a demand on Soviet logistics.

      • Woody Tanaka on June 14, 2012, 7:06 pm

        “You are repeating a common right wing lie.”

        BS. You, your mouthing BS Stalinist propaganda.

        The plain fact is that during the 63 days of the uprising, the Soviets were 5 air minutes from the fighting and did nothing. And as a result, it just so happened that the only force in Poland capable of upsetting Stalin’s plans for the Soviet domination in Poland was eliminated and his commie stooges could destroy the country for the next fifty years.

        Because the single biggest fact that shows that the Stalinist propaganda you’re pushing here is just that — propaganda — is the fact that the damned Soviets didn’t let the Allies use the Soviet air bases, so they forced to fly from the UK and Italy. Warsaw was destroyed because of that Soviet trash.

      • Woody Tanaka on June 14, 2012, 7:07 pm

        “Obama’s statement about ‘Polish death camps’ was taken out of context.”

        No, it wasn’t. It may have been a gaffe, and perhaps not intended as an insult (but I wouldn’t put it past Obama) and it demonstrates the tin ear that this administration has for some aspects of foreign policy, but it was not “out of context” precisely because there is no “context” in which that expression is legitimate.

      • RoHa on June 14, 2012, 7:25 pm

        “Biorabbi misinforms with Stalin’s troops did not lift a finger to help the 1944 Rising. …they knew they could not help. ”

        That’s a feeble excuse, ToivoS.

        When Jews need help, Gentiles should to do whatever is needed, even if it’s impossible. That’s what Gentiles are for.

        When they don’t, it is just another manifestation of their innate anti-Semitism.

      • annie on June 14, 2012, 7:46 pm

        with Gingrich sucking up to a party of one… Sheldon Adelson. …There is zero relationship between Gingrich’ obvious pandering to his sugar daddy and Obama’s statement about Poland.

        you do not know that. and you do not know if it wasn’t merely one person he was appeasing either, just like gingrich. your guess is no better than mine and as others have pointed out there has been a wel orchastrated campaign to smear polish people. anyone on the hasbara trail would have to be an idiot not to notice. even here on this site i heard it awhile back.

        so no, i do not think it just happens to be a coincidence.

        and low and behold it did not go unnoticed, was not able to slip into the dicourse benignly for the record, it was denounced and denounced loudly and now this aghast insistence it just had to have been a mistake.

        yada yada yada..i don’t think so!!!!!

        just a leeeetle itty bitty coincidence he just happens to say polish death camps when the ziofreaks are all over that like flies on sheet? spare us!

      • RoHa on June 14, 2012, 8:14 pm

        Whoops! Reading too hastily, I confused the 1944 Rising with the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. (Of which we hear far more.)

        Thus, my comment was inappropriate for that context.

      • Daniel Rich on June 14, 2012, 8:36 pm

        @ Woody Tanaka,

        I think this might be of interest @

        Nobody knows what happened to the politicians who returned from the UK to form a ‘new government’ in Poland. It’s also noteworthy to remember what happened to Stalin’s best and most famous WWII commanders after it ended. Ahh … history…

      • biorabbi on June 14, 2012, 10:57 pm

        It is the truth. The destruction of the Polish Home Army by the Nazis was deliberately ignored by Stalin’s forces. This was not a military decision. It was a political decision. In the WW II Soviet Forces, even the generals had a political minder sleeping in the same room. The decision to let democratic Poland die was made in Moscow. It was not a low level decision. It was not a matter of exhaustion. The Polish spirit did not die. It survived the communists and lives on. Their was also a communist show trial of Polish democratic activists in ’46. The Russians had their lists. In this same spirit, Raoul Wallenberg was arrested and murdered because Wallenberg was viewed as a threat to communism in Hungary.

      • ToivoS on June 15, 2012, 12:30 am

        Woody accuses me of mouthing Stalinist propaganda. I am quite aware of and willing to acknowledge many of Stalin’s crimes. The point I made is that the Soviets were not able to help the Warsaw uprising in August of 1944. That is a fact of military logistics. The operational goal of Bagration was the city of Minsk. They achieved that within 4 weeks and the operational plans were changed to go into Eastern Poland. By the time they reached the Vistula their front line troops were exhausted and they were at the end of their logistical lines. It took the Soviets another six months to move up their rear area storage areas and establish sufficient forces to confront the Germans in another attack. After August 1944 the Soviets used their existing forces to protect the bridgeheads over the Vistula from German counter attacks until they had moved up enough forces to continue the assault into Western Poland and Germany.

        Woody I find your comments quite offensive. They are part of right wing complaints of the Soviet efforts in their war against the NAZIs. Just because you hate Israel does not make you a progressive. Many of us are very worried that Israel’s current behavior has encouraged good old fashioned western fascist types to join the struggle for Palestinian liberation. I have been worried for some time where you are coming from.

      • Woody Tanaka on June 15, 2012, 3:33 am

        “Woody accuses me of mouthing Stalinist propaganda.”

        Well, yeah, because you are.

        “I am quite aware of and willing to acknowledge many of Stalin’s crimes.”

        Only “many”? Who in his right mind wouldn’t acknowledge all of them? It’s not like the paranoid psychopath didn’t leave a trail of bloody bodies behind him.

        “The point I made is that the Soviets were not able to help the Warsaw uprising in August of 1944. That is a fact of military logistics.”

        And the failure had nothing to do with logistics but had everything to do with the butchers of Katyn wanting to install a puppet traitorous government which would be loyal to the USSR and not to the Polish people. It was politics. There were many things that the Soviets could have done, even considering the military situation at the time, not the least of which was simply to let the Allies who were trying to help the Poles, use the Soviet air bases. It could have made a great difference, but the bastards didn’t even do that. I guess Stalin was still steamed over the Poles kicking his ass in 1921.

        “Woody I find your comments quite offensive.”

        BFD. I really don’t give a damn. I find your excuses for a beast like Stalin to be offensive.

        “They are part of right wing complaints of the Soviet efforts in their war against the NAZIs.”

        Oh, my complaints against those bastards date from well before their war against the Nazis, and include when those Red bastards helped their fellow reactionaries, the Nazis, in attacking and destroying Poland in 1939.

        And the complaints that Stalin didn’t help the Poles is the plain truth. For some twisted reason, you seem to be an apologist for a regime that was, if not as bad as the Nazis, a very close second. That’s twisted by any definition.

        “Just because you hate Israel does not make you a progressive.”

        LOL. No, I am a progressive because I believe in progressive ideas.

        “Many of us are very worried that Israel’s current behavior has encouraged good old fashioned western fascist types to join the struggle for Palestinian liberation.”

        Well, if you’re really interested in the liberation of any people, then you need to stop defending the bastards that enslaved half of Europe for fifty years and who, when the had the opportunity to actually help liberate Warsaw, let their old allies destroy it.

        “I have been worried for some time where you are coming from.”

        Well I guess you can always rat me out to the KGB… And if you think that I’m a fascist, well that just means that you are a moron.

      • Woody Tanaka on June 15, 2012, 3:51 am


        Thanks for the link. I’ll have to set aside some time to watch it.

      • Talkback on June 15, 2012, 8:36 am

        ToivoS says: “Many of us are very worried that Israel’s current behavior has encouraged good old fashioned western fascist types to join the struggle for Palestinian liberation.”

        No need to worry. They prefer whitewashing their history by supporting Israel’s aquivalent crimes. Settling in occupied territories, collective punishment, racist version of a state, etc.

        Most of the streets in Israel are named after the good old fascist Jabotinsky, Likud’s political ancestor. Followed by Menachem Begin, member of the Lehi terrorist organisation which tried to ally with the Nazis and proposed a totalitarian state in Palestine.

      • on June 15, 2012, 12:00 pm

        One more note on Poland, Buchenwald and Obama’s script writers. –

        I am quoting from Peter Novick, The Holocaust in American Life. (I have to translate from the German edition back into English). Novick writes in chap.4:

        – “The talk of an ‘American encounter with the Holocaust’ is misleading.”
        – “In Murrow’s radio programs on Buchenwald, the terms ‘Jew’ or ‘Jewish’ do not appear; also, not in Margaret Bourk-White’s report on her photography of the camps.”
        How come Obama’s script writers got it wrong with the “Polish death camps” and with Buchenwald? – Maybe, because the Holocaust and WW II are fading out as a point of reference. It’s getting irrelevant. So why care about the facts.

    • American on June 14, 2012, 12:31 pm

      “I wanna know who suggested this to Obama in the first place – wanna know their name and their political vital statistics.”..Taxi

      Jewish political donors and probably some urging/suggestion by Schumer. Schumer is the go to guy for elevating Jewish reputation. I still can’t get over that bill he wrote that commands a study to find Jews who served in the military in WWII for recommendations for the medal of honor. I would be fine with reviewing service records, though it’s a long time ago and military peers who witnessed/ recommended medals for acts of bravery are mostly dead now, to see if someone was actually recommended and didn’t get one for some reason, but a review ONLY for Jews?…that’s just too obvious. Self promotion and creating myths goes on and on.

  20. lysias on June 14, 2012, 10:23 am

    Peres advisor: Door not slammed on Pollard release:

    US President Barack Obama has not slammed the door on the possibility of releasing imprisoned Israeli agent Jonathan Pollard, diplomatic advisor to President Shimon Peres, Nadav Tamir said Thursday morning.

    Speaking with Army Radio following a meeting between Peres and his US counterpart, Tamir said, “it was not a decisive no.”

    “If people are expecting Pollard to return home now with Peres on a plane, that won’t happen, but the door hasn’t been slammed,” the advisor said.

    His comments came following White House Spokesman Jay Carney’s statement Wednesday that the US position on the issue “has not changed and will not change today.”

    • Denis on June 14, 2012, 11:31 pm

      Thank you, lysias, this is the only issue that matters here. The MoF is bogus and next week no one will remember that Peres ever received one. BFD. The only story here is Pollard.

      Obama was under enormous, blistering pressure to let that Pollard freak go, and I was one of the ones speculating on this blog that this MoF bs was just a pretense for doing that. Once the word was out that it wasn’t going to happen the pressure only increased — MK Ariel of the Israeli National Union party publicly called on Peres to refuse the MoF if Obama was not going to release Pollard.

      I take this as a very, very good sign, assuming Obama doesn’t do a 180 on us. Maybe Obama is still planning a release and he has a different idea of the ideal timing, but I now have my doubts. We’re only 5 months out, and the hardest stink to get off of a president is a controversial pardon, particularly of a spy. I think Jon-boy will have to sit tight for a while longer.

      If Obama is pushing back against the free-Pollard pressure, we should all be expressing some pride in him that he is doing the right thing. I’ll be the first to blow through the roof if he lets Pollard go, but I’ll sure support him for making the hard decision not to.

      • Citizen on June 15, 2012, 9:02 am

        Obama should watch these two videos before he caves in and frees Pollard:
        Those pushing for release obviously don’t give a crap about the fact Israel has never given back all the documents Pollard stole, which was a condition of his light sentence wrought by Derhsie. Further, Pollard never revealed who his spy boss (inter alia) was in our government, nor has he ever apologized. The first video reflects revelations from the Israeli ambassador, the second, an interview with the guy who captured Pollard.

  21. LanceThruster on June 14, 2012, 12:34 pm

    Saw Hillary Clinton blowing smoke up Peres’ skirt on C-Span a couple of nights ago. It was truly nausea inducing.

  22. American on June 14, 2012, 2:52 pm

    I don’t think most Nobels, or Medals of Freedom or any international or government awards have much if any credibility any more and haven’t had for some time now.
    They are mostly political or subject to some group’s influence all too often.
    Further dumbing down and making recognition of excellence a joke.
    No wonder so many of us are cynics.

  23. justicewillprevail on June 14, 2012, 5:21 pm

    The politicians and their cronies live in a reality distortion field, a bubble where they imagine that the backslapping and honorary titles are somehow applauded by the poor people standing outside looking in. These gongs are utterly meaningless baubles designed to make them feel important and to reinforce the illusion that these people care in any way about ‘freedom’ or human rights. It is Orwellian, as the endless war is pursued at no personal cost to these buffoons, as ordinary people suffer horribly thanks to their decisions and venal ambition, they award themselves medals for peace, like third world dictators with christmas tree decorations on their faux military uniforms. Laughable.

  24. atime forpeace on June 14, 2012, 8:23 pm

    A: A Republic is a great choice.

    The story goes that as Benjamin Franklin emerged from Independence Hall at the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a woman asked him, “Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”.

    Mr. Franklin replied, “A republic, madam – if you can keep it.”

  25. yourstruly on June 14, 2012, 9:04 pm

    In awarding the Medal of Freedom to Israel’s Shimon Peres, President Barack Obama is emulating President Ronald Reagan’s infamous 1985 honoring of Nazi SS soldiers buried in Germany’s Bitburg Cemetary. What next, a U.S. president honoring Osama bin Laden posthumously for the role he played in chasing soviet troops out of Afghanistan?

  26. DICKERSON3870 on June 14, 2012, 10:17 pm

    If I have to look at that photo of Shimon Peres for much longer I’m going to come totally unhinged! Totally unhinged! Totally unhinged!
    It’s even worse torture than the way the “worst of the worst” detainees at Guantanamo were forced by our heroic soldiers to listen to music from AC/DC, Britney Spears, the Bee Gees, Marilyn Manson and Sesamie Street over and over at ear-spitting levels for days and days on end.
    SEE: Songs of War (VIDEO, 47:51) –
    Songs of War is also on YouTube (VIDEO, 47:51) –
    P.S. Music in psychological operations –
    P.P.S. Mommy make the picture of that scarey-looking man go away! Please, Mommy! Now, Mommy! NOW! Or I’ll regress to the “terrible twos”! I swear I will!
    For cryin’ out loud, it’s really creeping me out!

    • MHughes976 on June 15, 2012, 6:48 pm

      I wonder why that face is so deeply terrifying. The deep eyes seem to say ‘I have more memories than a thousand might have; you might hate them but that’s because you don’t understand’.

      • Taxi on June 16, 2012, 2:41 am

        LOL MHughes!

  27. gingershot on June 15, 2012, 8:30 am

    Shimon Peres is the Bernie Madoff of Israel, the con-man around which the whole Ponzi Scheme of Israel has been erected.

    He has been the indispensible man

    • seafoid on June 15, 2012, 8:41 am

      + 1

      He’s the Jew you can trust, who outperforms all the goys, who is secretive, who runs an invitation only scheme that is impossible to get into , who is the darling of the Hamptons , who can do no wrong

      Until TSHTF

    • talknic on June 16, 2012, 4:17 am

      The last man standing at the moment

      • Taxi on June 16, 2012, 5:31 am

        Hahahaha good one talknic!

Leave a Reply