Trending Topics:

Obama warns Israel about delegitimization, and Oren suggests annexation

Israel/Palestine
on 93 Comments
Obama with Jeffrey Goldberg, photo by Pete Souza of White House

Obama with Jeffrey Goldberg, photo by Pete Souza of White House

As President Obama meets with Prime Minister Netanyahu in the White House today, here are two points to chew on.

Last Thursday Obama told Jeffrey Goldberg that if Israel doesn’t make a deal now it will face international “fallout,” i.e., delegitimization, and the U.S. will have limited ability to protect Israel from that process. We’ve already lost Europe, Obama says darkly.

And if Netanyahu thinks he has the “right” alternative to the two-state solution, he should tell us, Obama says almost challengingly.

But then you have Michael Oren, Netanyahu’s former ambassador, speaking to the Times of Israel last week in the most sanguine manner about the likely failure of the two-state solution and saying, The Palestinians have a fallback plan– a binational state– and We also have a fallback plan, annexation.

Taken together, these assertions suggest a collision course (and to cite the polling that Joy Reid just mentioned on MSNBC, Americans would support one democratic state over continued occupation).

First, here’s the president talking to Jeffrey Goldberg of Bloomberg last week about a future without the two-state paradigm:

What we also know is that Israel has become more isolated internationally. We had to stand up in the Security Council in ways that 20 years ago would have involved far more European support, far more support from other parts of the world when it comes to Israel’s position. And that’s a reflection of a genuine sense on the part of a lot of countries out there that this issue continues to fester, is not getting resolved, and that nobody is willing to take the leap to bring it to closure.

In that kind of environment, where you’ve got a partner on the other side who is prepared to negotiate seriously, who does not engage in some of the wild rhetoric that so often you see in the Arab world when it comes to Israel, who has shown himself committed to maintaining order within the West Bank and the Palestinian Authority and to cooperate with Israelis around their security concerns — for us to not seize this moment I think would be a great mistake. I’ve said directly to Prime Minister Netanyahu he has an opportunity to solidify, to lock in, a democratic, Jewish state of Israel that is at peace with its neighbors and… with permanent borders. …

[As to what Obama has told Netanyahu:]

What I’ve said to him privately is the same thing that I say publicly, which is the situation will not improve or resolve itself. This is not a situation where you wait and the problem goes away. There are going to be more Palestinians, not fewer Palestinians, as time goes on. There are going to be more Arab-Israelis, not fewer Arab-Israelis, as time goes on.

And for Bibi to seize the moment in a way that perhaps only he can, precisely because of the political tradition that he comes out of and the credibility he has with the right inside of Israel, for him to seize this moment is perhaps the greatest gift he could give to future generations of Israelis….

I have not yet heard, however, a persuasive vision of how Israel survives as a democracy and a Jewish state at peace with its neighbors in the absence of a peace deal with the Palestinians and a two-state solution. Nobody has presented me a credible scenario….

It’s maintenance of a chronic situation. And my assessment, which is shared by a number of Israeli observers, I think, is there comes a point where you can’t manage this anymore, and then you start having to make very difficult choices. Do you resign yourself to what amounts to a permanent occupation of the West Bank? Is that the character of Israel as a state for a long period of time? …

I am being honest that nobody has provided me with a clear picture of how this works in the absence of a peace deal. …

I believe that Bibi is strong enough that if he decided this was the right thing to do for Israel, that he could do it. If he does not believe that a peace deal with the Palestinians is the right thing to do for Israel, then he needs to articulate an alternative approach. And as I said before, it’s hard to come up with one that’s plausible….

[W]hat I do believe is that if you see no peace deal and continued aggressive settlement construction — and we have seen more aggressive settlement construction over the last couple years than we’ve seen in a very long time — if Palestinians come to believe that the possibility of a contiguous sovereign Palestinian state is no longer within reach, then our ability to manage the international fallout is going to be limited.

[GOLDBERG: Willingness, or ability?]

Not necessarily willingness, but ability to manage international fallout is going to be limited. And that has consequences.

Look, sometimes people are dismissive of multilateral institutions and the United Nations and the EU [European Union] and the high commissioner of such and such. And sometimes there’s good reason to be dismissive. There’s a lot of hot air and rhetoric and posturing that may not always mean much. But in today’s world, where power is much more diffuse, where the threats that any state or peoples face can come from non-state actors and asymmetrical threats, and where international cooperation is needed in order to deal with those threats, the absence of international goodwill makes you less safe. The condemnation of the international community can translate into a lack of cooperation when it comes to key security interests. It means reduced influence for us, the United States, in issues that are of interest to Israel. It’s survivable, but it is not preferable.

Now here’s Oren glibly discussing Israel’s response to a two-state collapse:

“However, the Palestinians have intimated that if they can’t reach a negotiated solution with us they then have a Plan B, and their Plan B is a binational state. And I think it’s important that we also have a Plan B…

“[G]oing to international institutions is only the beginning of their Plan B, we have to understand that…. Their Plan B includes international sanctions, targeting our economy, completely delegitimizing us in the world.”

Therefore, Israelis would be ill advised to sit around and wait for the Palestinians to corner them. “If we declare our borders, that creates a de-facto situation of two nation states recognized by the UN — we may not recognize one another, but they’re already recognized by the UN — that have a border dispute. And we would be one of dozens of pairs of countries in the world that have a border dispute.”

Oren won’t say what the borders look like, but “the principle is maximum number of Israelis [Jews] within the State of Israel and maximum protection of Israel’s security.” Devouring the West Bank obviously:

“[W]hat are [Israel’s] defensible borders, what are the borders that encompass the maximum number of Israeli settlers? What would enable us to reduce, to the greatest possible extent, our control over the Palestinians? In any such move, Israel would of course maintain its military presence in crucial areas. And it would also ensure the continued unity of Jerusalem.”

Thanks to Annie Robbins.

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

93 Responses

  1. Hostage
    Hostage
    March 3, 2014, 3:39 pm

    It’s a good article, but you left out this part:
    * BRUSSELS – The European Union said on Thursday it will not recognize any unilateral change in Israel’s borders from before the 1967 Six Day War. http://www.haaretz.com/news/eu-won-t-recognize-changes-in-israel-s-1967-border-1.118010
    * US takes EU line on Israel borders
    http://euobserver.com/foreign/32367
    * The signatories stress that the guidelines reflect the EU’s long-held position that the European Union will not recognize unilateral changes to Israel’s pre-1967 borders and that the EU, under its own legislation, is obligated to prevent the application of agreements with Israel to illegal settlements. – Letter by European dignitaries to EU Foreign Ministers on Israeli settlement funding – http://ecfr.eu/blog/entry/letter_by_european_dignitaries_to_eu_foreign_ministers_on_israeli_settlemen

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka
      March 3, 2014, 3:45 pm

      I think that that’s a good start, but the EU has to put some teeth in it, and refuse to deal with pre-1967 israel, as long as the zios occupy anything beyond the green line. Ultimately, the only hope is that there is a strong enough state (which may need to be a nuclear-powered state) who is willing to push these criminals back.

      • Krauss
        Krauss
        March 3, 2014, 5:35 pm

        Forget the EU. It can’t even keep its own backyard in order, we saw that in the 1990s with Serbia and we see it now with Ukraine. They all talk about soft power because that’s all they have: tourists in Rome or Paris.

        For any genuine change you need America. And that will not happen from a political level, it must come from a democratic base.

        The question is not what side the American people will side on as the 2SS dies officially, not just informally as it already has.
        We already know that, it’s in the polling.

        The question is how fast the grassroots can get the official conversation to shift to a realization that the 2SS is indeed dead and has been for the get-go(it was designed to be a mirage, a pretext for further colonization).

        And in this area, progress has been much faster than I think even most optimists would have predicted even 10 years ago. Cast Lead was the catalyst.

        Remember, AIPAC seemed invincible just a few years ago.
        This seems to be the pattern on these issues. For a very long time there is literally nothing, then you have a significant and rapid change seemingly out of nowhere.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        March 3, 2014, 6:02 pm

        “For a very long time there is literally nothing, then you have a significant and rapid change seemingly out of nowhere.”

        http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/102579-how-did-you-go-bankrupt-two-ways-gradually-then-suddenly

        “How did you go bankrupt?”
        Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.”

        ― Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises

        The bots left no space for the Palestinians, nothing for them to walk away with dignity. They richly deserve what is coming.

        It should be added as a new chapter to the Torah. Not the first instance of arrogance followed by disaster and lack of attention paid to the spirit of the religion….

        BTW on Ukraine the EU does seem to be doing something
        http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ff37a636-a2be-11e3-ba21-00144feab7de.html

      • W.Jones
        W.Jones
        March 3, 2014, 6:16 pm

        As long as you have 14,000 AIPAC attendees + their resources, with minimal counterweight from any other lobby, AIPAC is huge.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        March 4, 2014, 9:28 am

        @Krauss —

        The question is not what side the American people will side on as the 2SS dies officially, not just informally as it already has.
        We already know that, it’s in the polling.

        The polling is as pro-Israel as it has ever been.
        60% pro-Israeli
        30% indifferent
        10% pro-Palestinian

        “democracy” is a good word. Of course people in polling are going to support democracy. That’s like polling on Apple Pie or sunshine. But it isn’t going to be presented that way in a policy debate. Ask the question this way, “Should the United States take hostile action against are closest middle east ally, which is destabilizing and could result in large increases in oil prices so as to advance the interests of Palestinian population most closely aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood”. The numbers will come out different.

      • Krauss
        Krauss
        March 4, 2014, 10:46 am

        Jeff, the numbers for Palestinians are around 20%. And another thing to keep in mind: there’s been an enormous shift to Israel among older, less educated and especially whiter Americans. If you look at democrats, especially younger and educated ones, it’s much more even. And those are the people who will populate the media and the academies.

        Second, I think you missed my reference. Have you not seen the poll that came out in recent says about the death of the 2SS?

        In such an event, 60% of Americans supported the 1SS, not exactly what most Israelis or Zionists would want. The support for Israel in America is wide but incredibly shallow since it is based on pure propaganda. When you look beneath the surface, the situation changed drastically.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 4, 2014, 11:39 am

        But it isn’t going to be presented that way in a policy debate . . . so as to advance the interests of Palestinian population most closely aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood”.

        The emancipation of the State of Palestine isn’t going to be discussed as advancing the narrow interests of the portion of the population that happens to be aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood, although I’m certain it plays out that way in your fantasies.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        March 4, 2014, 3:13 pm

        @Krauss

        Jeff, the numbers for Palestinians are around 20%. And another thing to keep in mind: there’s been an enormous shift to Israel among older, less educated and especially whiter Americans. If you look at democrats, especially younger and educated ones, it’s much more even. And those are the people who will populate the media and the academies.

        And if you look at Liberal Democrats it is even worse. Which OTOH means if you look at conservative Republicans it is far better. As for education, because of minority antagonism and Jewish support I think Israeli support is still positively correlated with education.

        As for academics you are absolutely right that tends to be liberal and thus support will be lower in academia. Which is why things like the MSA petition are even possible to pass. As far as media, media still has a huge draw for Jews and while liberal isn’t nearly as liberal as academia I wouldn’t be so sure media isn’t pretty safe.

        Second, I think you missed my reference. Have you not seen the poll that came out in recent says about the death of the 2SS? In such an event, 60% of Americans supported the 1SS, not exactly what most Israelis or Zionists would want.

        That poll is phrased in a way to draw support. It is a totally biased poll. I’d like to see how well that number holds up if the question is rephrased more negatively so that one side isn’t advocating “democracy”. Mostly the poll is testing
        a) Do you have a strong opinion?
        b) If no, do you support good stuff?

        The support for Israel in America is wide but incredibly shallow since it is based on pure propaganda. When you look beneath the surface, the situation changed drastically.

        I don’t agree. Certainly most Americans don’t really care much at all. But there are two domestic groups with strong opinions (Jews and Christian Zionists). That’s rather large and passionate for a foreign policy issue. I’d say in support that Israel is at levels near the support for UK, Ireland, Germany, Italy, Mexico and China.

      • ahhiyawa
        ahhiyawa
        March 4, 2014, 6:40 am

        Not to worry Woody, the teeth may be long in coming, but as sure as the sun also rises so will the teeth.

    • Daniel Rich
      Daniel Rich
      March 3, 2014, 8:11 pm

      @ Hostage,

      But it seems the Apartheid State has a mind of its own.

      Do you think this is on par with what happened back in Gaza [building until the very last minute to maximize ‘bailout’] or a sign of ‘defiance,’ ‘moral recklessness,’ or the timeless ‘they are against us anyway’ adage?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 4, 2014, 3:58 am

        Do you think this is on par with what happened back in Gaza [building until the very last minute to maximize ‘bailout’] or a sign of ‘defiance,’ ‘moral recklessness,’ or the timeless ‘they are against us anyway’ adage?

        I was pointing out that the government of Israel hasn’t really convinced anyone with its arguments and is still in denial about the mess it has made for itself.

    • thankgodimatheist
      thankgodimatheist
      March 3, 2014, 11:46 pm

      Hostage..It’s an old article (2006)

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 4, 2014, 5:46 am

        Hostage..It’s an old article (2006)

        I’m not sure where you get that date, but the policy hasn’t changed.

        I supplied one link to the EU policy in Haaretz, darted 26 March 2004 and another from the ECFR blog which discussed a letter that reaffirmed the policy dated 15th September 2013. The article saying the US adopted the EU position is dated 20 May 2011.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 4, 2014, 2:09 pm

        You need to spend some more time with the mainstream media. The “emancipation of the State of Palestine” is going to be discussed in terms of how it harms US policy and US interests.

        Why don’t you cite some articles from the mainstream media that claim an independent Palestinian State harms US interests? The US government has voted to create one on at least two occasions when the UN adopted GA resolution 181(II) and Security Council resolution 1515. For it’s own part it has included one in the framework agreements of the first and second Camp David Conferences, the Annapolis Conference, and Kerry’s current round of talks. It claimed that it’s both necessary and desirable to establish an independent Palestinian state.

        The only thing I’ve seen in the mainstream media about the establishment of the State of Palestine is that Clinton, Bush II, and Obama each claim that the status quo is unsustainable because the daily humiliation of the Palestinian people by Israel harms US interests.
        * Bush calls on Israel to impose settlement freeze: Bush urges Sharon to end ‘daily humiliation of the Palestinian people
        http://www.haaretz.com/news/bush-calls-on-israel-to-impose-settlement-freeze-1.135277
        *FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 4, 2009, REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT OBAMA ON A NEW BEGINNING, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt:

        On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years they’ve endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations — large and small — that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. And America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.

        http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Cairo-University-6-04-09
        * Bill Clinton: No alternative to Palestinian state
        http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4393643,00.html
        * Clinton: Israel must make peace with Palestinians in order to survive
        Former U.S. president says no credible alternative to a two-state solution had been presented that would preserve Israel’s character as a Jewish and democratic state:

        “Democracy is not only majority rule, but also minority rights,” he said. “The question [the Israeli public has to] confront is, is it really ok with you if Israel has people in its territory that will never be allowed to vote? If so, can you say with a straight face that this is a democracy? If you let them vote, can you live with not being a Jewish state?

        “The longer this goes on, the tougher [the implementation of a two-state solution] is going to get,” he added.”

        http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.530422

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        March 4, 2014, 2:25 pm

        @Hostage

        JeffB: You need to spend some more time with the mainstream media. The “emancipation of the State of Palestine” is going to be discussed in terms of how it harms US policy and US interests.

        Hostage: Why don’t you cite some articles from the mainstream media that claim an independent Palestinian State harms US interests?

        Notice the shift there? Lots of things if they fell out of the sky would be in the USA’s interest that aren’t worth the cost of making happen. The act of ripping a huge chunk out of allies country’s territory and giving it to a hostile people is very different than that ally deciding for itself it wants to do that. The American people wouldn’t have any problem if Wales and Scotland decided to become free of England and England agreed. That is entirely different than a proposal to force England to relinquish control of Wales and Scotland.

        Even still I just grabbed the latest 3 articles from Google News.

        The first: “Netanyahu calls on Abbas to recognize Israel as the Jewish state” is a reprint from the AP. This one just quotes Netanyahu without any bracketing comments. Which is a friendly treatment for a foreign leader, not at all what would happen in Hostage’s world where the United States desperate wants to constrain Israel if only the UN would give them permission.

        The second is: “Obama, Netanyahu reiterate US-Israel alliance as deadline looms on peace deal” The one is from FoxNews and in addition to comments contains their editorial voice President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu traded jabs Monday as the leaders met in Washington, both aware that the window for a negotiated peace deal was closing… Netanyahu bluntly told Obama that Israelis expected their leader not to compromise on their security. His comments came as Obama sought to reassure him on Iran diplomacy and put pressure on him for Middle East peace talks. Netanyahu’s comments underscored the slim prospects of reaching an agreement to the long-running conflict, despite a robust effort led by Secretary of State John Kerry… In his remarks, Netanyahu referred to what he says he sees as a threat from Iran, an enemy of the Jewish state…. Obama is seeking room for diplomacy with Iran, while Netanyahu says sanctions on Tehran are being eased prematurely. Here we see Netanyahu as being a counter point to Obama’s weak feckless foreign policy (in FOXNews’ opinion) a common theme. Obama’s processes are going to fail and Netanyahu is being generous and patient with Obama…. That ain’t advocacy.

        The third is also the AP: Statistics bureau: Israel’s annual settlement construction more than doubled in 2013. Note the language about legal status, The Palestinians seek the West Bank, east Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip — territories captured by Israel in 1967 — for an independent state. The Palestinians consider settlements build beyond the pre-1967 lines to be illegal and an obstacle to peace. Netanyahu has refused to recognize these lines as a starting point.

        No Hostage the mainstream does not agree with your positions, not at all.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 4, 2014, 3:45 pm

        Notice the shift there?

        Yes I noticed that you could NOT cite any articles from the mainstream media that said an independent Palestinian state would harm US interests.

        FYI you claimed I needed “to spend some more time with the mainstream media. The “emancipation of the State of Palestine” is going to be discussed in terms of how it harms US policy and US interests.”

        The 3 stories you cited didn’t say a damn thing about any harm to US interests that would result from an emancipated, independent Palestinian state. They had the usual navel gazing nonsense from Netanyahu, but he doesn’t even try to rationalize his position on the basis of any harm to US interests.

    • JeffB
      JeffB
      March 4, 2014, 11:45 am

      @Hostage

      The emancipation of the State of Palestine isn’t going to be discussed as advancing the narrow interests of the portion of the population that happens to be aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood, although I’m certain it plays out that way in your fantasies.

      You need to spend some more time with the mainstream media. The “emancipation of the State of Palestine” is going to be discussed in terms of how it harms US policy and US interests. What’s going on in Ukraine isn’t being discussed in terms of human rights rather it is being discussed in terms of: America’s international prestige, our relationship with Putin (not Ukraine), NATO expansion….

  2. Woody Tanaka
    Woody Tanaka
    March 3, 2014, 3:41 pm

    Shameful. zionism truly is demonic.

    • Krauss
      Krauss
      March 3, 2014, 11:50 pm

      Although, Woody, can you see how this outright annexation would be any different?

      It’s not a “unilateral withdrawal” as Oren suggests. It would essentially be the same as today.

      I mean, Israel has tried to paint the current situation as a “border dispute” and it has failed. The main difference now is that the borders would, for the first time in Israel’s history, be defined. But even so, the settlements would still remain, including those deep into Palestinian territory like Ariel as well as the prescence in the Jordan valley, East Jerusalem would be annexed. And so on.

      For me, it’s simply impossible to see how this would solve anything for them, not even in the short term. Oren is basically saying the solution is to listen to Avigdor Lieberman’s and Bennet’s proposals.

      Good luck.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        March 4, 2014, 9:30 am

        @Krauss

        The difference would be that Israel would no longer occupy in any way the territories. There would be an international border, and incidents would be border skirmishes not policing.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        March 4, 2014, 9:56 am

        “The difference would be that Israel would no longer occupy in any way the territories. ”

        If there’s any zionists anywhere in historic Palestine, there’s an occupation. If there’s any zionists anywhere over the green line, there’s an occupation.

      • Krauss
        Krauss
        March 4, 2014, 10:48 am

        The difference would be that Israel would no longer occupy in any way the territories. There would be an international border, and incidents would be border skirmishes not policing.

        And how would this reasoning differ from the current status? It’s still occupaying the area around Ariel and so on, it has de facto control.

        In addition, do you really think Israel would let go of the areas which it wouldn’t annex outright?

        Don’t be naive. It would still control their lives through checkpoints, their airspace, even their borders. Israel would never trust the Palestinians to run their own lives, even in the sectioned-off bantustans.

        No, the situation would not be different at all, in some ways it would be worse for Israel.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        March 4, 2014, 1:44 pm

        @Krauss —

        And how would this reasoning differ from the current status? It’s still occupaying the area around Ariel and so on, it has de facto control.

        It wouldn’t have just de facto control it would annexed it would de jure control. Moreover it would have the full support of the population in that control. The UN’s position would be that the people of Ariel aren’t entitled to the right to self determination, but rather they should be forcibly repatriated into a state they despise under a government they can’t stand with a full understanding that they intend to break violent away from that government at the first opportunity. That’s not going to be a defensible position for the UN.

        The UN doesn’t generally give a damn about self determination as is far more interested in territorial integrity but many countries have formed and are altering borders based on poorly designed borders that deny self determination to peoples.

        In addition, do you really think Israel would let go of the areas which it wouldn’t annex outright?

        It has already proven it will with Gaza.

        Don’t be naive. It would still control their lives through checkpoints, their airspace, even their borders. Israel would never trust the Palestinians to run their own lives, even in the sectioned-off bantustans.

        There won’t be checkpoints at all. There won’t be airports so no airspace. And the border will likely be Israel so of course it will control it. But… if they get a cooperative government that could turn into soft control and not be violent.

        No, the situation would not be different at all, in some ways it would be worse for Israel.

        How is that worse for Israel?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 4, 2014, 2:46 pm

        It wouldn’t have just de facto control it would annexed it would de jure control. Moreover it would have the full support of the population in that control. The UN’s position would be that the people of Ariel aren’t entitled to the right to self determination, but rather they should be forcibly repatriated into a state they despise under a government they can’t stand with a full understanding that they intend to break violent away from that government at the first opportunity. That’s not going to be a defensible position for the UN.

        You are either a troll or you are completely bat shit crazy. In any case you are completely incorrect. The government of Israel has ruled that the settlers in Gaza had no right of self-determination and the IDF has ruled that settlers aren’t even protected by the Basic Laws of Israel, e.g. IDF panel rules West Bank settlers not protected by Basic Law http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/idf-panel-rules-west-bank-settlers-not-protected-by-basic-law-1.293849

        The UN position on the settlers in Ariel is that they only have a right to self determination in the territory of the State of Isrsel and that Israel’s attempts to unilaterally alter the status of the occupied territories are legally null and void. So annexation would not transform the situation into a de jure one.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        March 4, 2014, 9:57 am

        “Oren is basically saying the solution is to listen to Avigdor Lieberman’s and Bennet’s proposals.”

        I think that the proposal here is a plan to turn the entire West Bank into a giant Warsaw Ghetto. The Wall will be built to include all of the Palestinian areas, and nothing and no one will be permitted in or out. Gaza has, at least, a border with Egypt. The West Bank Ghetto will be a killing field where the zios will establish genocide conditions.

        Which, again, is why zionism is demonic; it’s a massive exercise in colonialism by a European and American people who are aliens to the land but who profess a dubious connection based on religious dogma, and who are backed by force. They have adopted the same might-makes-right policy to dehumanize those from whom they wish to steal.

  3. Kathleen
    Kathleen
    March 3, 2014, 3:48 pm

    Obama not beating around the bush. At all. Great piece.

    In that picture Obama looks like he is saying with this face “Look Jeffrey I don’t want to play Israel’s games here. Get straight with me or get out”

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      March 3, 2014, 5:16 pm

      I hope they gave Jeffrey some nice biscuits, so that the trip wasn’t totally wasted.

    • Krauss
      Krauss
      March 3, 2014, 5:26 pm

      Of course he’s beating around the bush. He’s saying the fallout in the abscence of a 2SS would be “survivable but not preferable”.
      The fact that you think his words are tough are a clear condemnation of the kids gloves treatment Israel has been getting from the U.S. and still does to a large extent.

      • Kathleen
        Kathleen
        March 3, 2014, 6:37 pm

        Have you ever heard any other U.S. President be this clear in the public sphere. My statement is relative to the other way Presidents have talked about the I/P issue in public. Should have been more specific. That is the toughest talk I have heard besides Bush 41 and Baker threatening to cut off aid to Israel. Which President has been this straightforward. Understand your “kids glove” statement in general to U.S. policy towards Israel. But comparing Obama’s words to other Presidents.

      • Krauss
        Krauss
        March 3, 2014, 11:45 pm

        Bush 41 and Baker threatening to cut off aid was far, far more tougher. So Obama, 23 years later, is saying much softer things. So yes, I am saying that he is beating around the bush and I am saying that this isn’t the toughest words spoken by a U.S. president by far.

        In addition, you also have to take into consideration that the settlements in 1991 were far less advanced than today and AIPAC is weaker today than it was during that time, so Obama has even less of an excuse.

      • Kathleen
        Kathleen
        March 4, 2014, 9:35 am

        Can you supply some examples of tougher talk?

      • Kathleen
        Kathleen
        March 4, 2014, 9:37 am

        Can you supply some examples of more direct statements by a U.S. President?

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        March 6, 2014, 6:43 pm

        And let’s not forget that Reagan “read the riot act” to Israel, at one point.

      • UpSIDEdown
        UpSIDEdown
        March 4, 2014, 8:55 am

        Kathleen
        Regardless of what anyone says you’re absolutely correct, I’ve not seen another president say boo to Israel since Regan said no when they asked the US to sell Saudi weapons. Obama gets a thumbs up on this.

      • American
        American
        March 4, 2014, 10:37 am

        Kathleen,

        How long have you been at this……a long, long time is my guess.
        And what have your polite and reasonable appeals to politicians and appeals to non existence morals and ethics amounted to?
        None of changes in attitudes on I/P and Israel among the public have come from the political sphere, they have all come from grassroots activist and are getting NO HELP from politicians.
        You cant use ‘morals’ or patriotism on todays politicians—you can only use threats to their careers.

        Its the same with Israel. Obamas’ warnings’ to Israel carry no weight whatsoever as long he includes with those warnings…’the US support is unshakable”.
        It is ABSOLUTELY POINTLESS to warn or admonish Israel when it is told it will be supported regardless of what it does.

        All you get from warnings that carry no promise of punishment is this:

        http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4494635,00.html

        New Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank increased by more than 120 percent in 2013 from the year before, according to new data published by the Central Bureau of Statistics on Monday.

      • American
        American
        March 4, 2014, 10:53 am

        Furthermore regarding Obama’s always repeated “unshakable US support”—it does not matter if that is included as ‘domestic political lip service ‘ to the I-Lobby or not.

        When it comes to paying lip service to the I-Lobby for politics and yet trying to control Israel it is exactly like pretending to be ‘only a little bit pregnant’….you cant be a little bit pregnant with Israel –if you cater to it because of domestic politics then you end up carrying it to term and supporting it ‘unconditionally’ forever for that same reason.

        US Zionism for Israel needs to be wiped out of US politics, totally and completely, gone after just like communism was demonized and gone after.

    • Daniel Rich
      Daniel Rich
      March 4, 2014, 12:17 am

      @ Kathleen,

      Q: Obama not beating around the bush.

      R: What’s W get to done with it…that… fool me once and I don’t like it… isn’t Obambi Obomber Obama kind to pets and other animals [or is this a modern day rehash of Moses and the Burning Shrub]?

  4. W.Jones
    W.Jones
    March 3, 2014, 3:49 pm

    It’s maintenance of a chronic situation. And my assessment, which is shared by a number of Israeli observers, I think, is there comes a point where you can’t manage this anymore,
    Oh? Just because you are ruling over a majority means you cannot manage it?

    If he does not believe that a peace deal with the Palestinians is the right thing to do for Israel, then he needs to articulate an alternative approach.
    Or what?

    Do you resign yourself to what amounts to a permanent occupation of the West Bank? Is that the character of Israel as a state for a long period of time? …
    So what?

    if Palestinians come to believe that the possibility of a contiguous sovereign Palestinian state is no longer within reach
    Open Question: Have Pals considered their state ever to be within reach as fully sovereign since 1968?

    It sounds like the Israeli Plan B is to recognize a state that does not have full sovereignty, is overseen militarily, and whose territory is limited and chopped into pieces- something not wholly different from what happened to Gaza.

    • Sibiriak
      Sibiriak
      March 4, 2014, 11:40 am

      W.Jones:

      It sounds like the Israeli Plan B is to recognize a state that does not have full sovereignty, is overseen militarily, and whose territory is limited and chopped into pieces- something not wholly different from what happened to Gaza.

      Bingo!

  5. eljay
    eljay
    March 3, 2014, 3:50 pm

    >> “However, the Palestinians have intimated that if they can’t reach a negotiated solution with us they then have a Plan B, and their Plan B is a binational state. And I think it’s important that we also have a Plan B…

    …and, in my opinion, the B-for-Best plan is to annihilate the Palestinians. Ooops, did I just say that out loud?!”

  6. kalithea
    kalithea
    March 3, 2014, 3:57 pm

    Oh the staggering hypocrisy and the irony! Here is what Obama stated a few moments ago in the Oval Office in the presence of the Zionist Netanyahu and his Zionist entourage:

    “What cannot be done is for Russia with impunity to put soldiers on the ground and violate basic principles that are recognized around the world. And uh I think the strong condemnation that its received…indicates the degree that Russia is on the wrong side of history on this. John Kerry’s gonna be travelling to Ukraine to indicate our support for the Ukrainian people.”

    What he SHOULD HAVE said at that TIMELY meeting is:

    What cannot be done is for Israel with impunity to put soldiers on the ground and violate basic principles that are recognized around the world. And uh I think the strong condemnation that its received…indicates the degree that ISRAEL is on the wrong side of history on this. John Kerry’s gonna be travelling to the Palestinian Territories to indicate our support for the Palestinian people.

    Just imagine what the reaction of the Zionist masters would be? Heresy!

    How do you spell NO MORAL AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER?

    • John Douglas
      John Douglas
      March 3, 2014, 6:06 pm

      Obama states “… the strong condemnation that its received…indicates the degree that Russia is on the wrong side of history on this.”

      I wish Obama and everyone else would ditch this business about being on the “wrong side of history.” If history progressed inexorably and always for the better then being on history’s wrong side would be a problem, but history is not determined to do what it does and it often changes for the worst. Maybe Obama just means that Putin is bound to fail, but it’s not always a bad thing to take on causes that seem likely to fail. In this sense environmentalists, in their head to head with unregulated capitalism, have been on the wrong side of history since things have continued to decline since TR’s day. My point is that the expression just clouds understanding and so would be better discarded.

    • JeffB
      JeffB
      March 4, 2014, 11:48 am

      @kalithea

      Or if we were on the other side of this he could have called for the right of self determination of the Russian people’s of Ukraine, attacked the Ukrainian government for their occupation of those people and applauded Russia for their selfless work towards advancing human rights in Eastern Europe. The objective morality of these things turns out to be relatively non-existant.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 4, 2014, 1:38 pm

        Or if we were on the other side of this he could have called for the right of self determination of the Russian people’s of Ukraine

        The right of self-determination does not imply the right to establish states on the basis of ethnicity. Article 1 of the UN Charter and the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action Adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna on 25 June 1993 don’t allow governments to use ethnic distinctions to exclude others from participating in the political life of their country, i.e.

        In accordance with the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, this [self-determination] shall not be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples and thus possessed of a Government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction of any kind.

        http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/vienna.aspx

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        March 4, 2014, 1:57 pm

        @hostage

        The UN rejects self determination. Other bodies consider democratic legitimacy and consent of the governed to be important criteria.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 4, 2014, 3:57 pm

        Other bodies consider democratic legitimacy and consent of the governed to be important criteria.

        I don’t know what you mean by “other bodies”. Are they in our solar system? FYI, there isn’t another government anywhere on this planet that hasn’t declared the Israeli settlements to be completely illegitimate.

  7. seafoid
    seafoid
    March 3, 2014, 4:01 pm

    I guess they’ll do a few extra mitzvot this Shabbat in Kiryat Arba. That should work.
    Call everyone in Europe anti-Semitic. Never fails
    Pray to St Jude and promise publication, just to hedge the bets.

    I hope Ms Sharmouta gets the psychiatric treatment she needs. Is there space for 5000 Jewish Hebronites in Israel’s psychiatric system ?

    • Kathleen
      Kathleen
      March 3, 2014, 4:25 pm

      This is a truly wicked person and then the soldiers stand and do nothing. I would want to ring that illegal settlers racist …..

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        March 3, 2014, 4:37 pm

        Devoid of compassion. Very sad to think of the atmosphere she lives in and the kids being raised there . And the deluded grandmothers…

      • Kathleen
        Kathleen
        March 3, 2014, 4:49 pm

        Have heard about these tactics of humiliation used on a regular basis by illegal settlers from former CPT member Art Gish for three decades. Many of the stories he used to tell were horrifying. Now coming out on web in videos’….documentation. And the IDF and Israeli police stand and watch. Now we know if it was the Palestinian woman harassing that vicious illegal Israeli settler the police would arrest the Palestinian woman in a flash and more than likely kick the living daylights out of her in the process.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        March 3, 2014, 5:14 pm

        It’s not sustainable to build a community (whose focus is the worship of God) on humiliation. They are wasting their time with those prayers.

      • amigo
        amigo
        March 4, 2014, 1:30 pm

        “I would want to ring that illegal settlers racist ….. ” Kathleen

        I like to play darts to let off steam.Having her image on the dart board has really improved my game.

        And I can print another one as needed.

  8. German Lefty
    German Lefty
    March 3, 2014, 4:05 pm

    to cite the polling that Joy Reid just mentioned on MSNBC

    Thanks for the hint. I found the link: http://www.msnbc.com/the-reid-report/watch/netanyahu-holds-the-key-to-peace-deal-180374083871

    • Kathleen
      Kathleen
      March 3, 2014, 5:02 pm

      First mention of the Aipac conference in the MSM that I have heard. Go Joy Reid. We know if 14,ooo lobbying members of the NRA came to D.C. that so called liberal Rachel Maddow, Al Sharpton, etc would be all over that conference and story. But not Aipac…no no no…silence out of them. Now Joy Reid leads the way. Go Joy

  9. seafoid
    seafoid
    March 3, 2014, 4:15 pm

    The look in that photo says :

    “I won my second term. Bibi backed Romney He humiliated me. It’s unforeseen consequences time. Bend over, Israel ”

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/jul/14/obama-his-words-his-deeds/

    “Only a fraction of Obama’s May 19 speech was allotted to Israel and the creation of a Palestinian state. Yet the concrete language of that part—which contained names and dates, if not numbers—drew immediate and heated comment. The most controversial sentence was doubtless this: “The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.” It was a plain statement of an obvious truth. Obama, in addition, said that the shape of a Palestinian state would be based on the 1967 borders of Israel, only altered in accordance with “mutually agreed [land] swaps.”
    This had been the common understanding and phraseology of American-Israeli-Palestinian discussions over two decades; but in the past several years, the word “1967” was used less than before; and this became the detail Benjamin Netanyahu seized upon. Immediately after the speech, he issued a statement in Jerusalem that the 1967 borders of Israel were “indefensible.” He repeated the same objection after he met with Obama in the White House. The differences between the two leaders were played out once more in their speeches to the annual AIPAC convention.
    Without backing down, Obama explained the meaning of his reference to 1967: the borders of course would not stay the same, but land swaps would offset the differences. This candor, on the occasions when Obama shows it, is an impressive quality, and it seemed to be appreciated even by the AIPAC audience. Besides, on May 19 he conceded most of what Netanyahu could have asked. He alluded to Gaza only once. He offered no criticism of new Israeli settlements, as he had done in Cairo two years ago, and made no mention of the dispossession of Palestinians on the West Bank.
    From his silence on these points, it was clear that after the failure of the most recent shuttle diplomacy and the resignation of George Mitchell on May 13, Obama personally planned to initiate no further negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. He trusted that under the visible pressure of an Arab Spring of their own, now gathering on both sides of Israel’s borders, most Israelis would eventually see his words as a kindly prophecy.

    Netanyahu struck back as if Obama had mounted a deliberate assault with a threat of lasting enmity. Yet Netanyahu’s speech to AIPAC was emollient compared to his speech to Congress on May 24. There he made a conquest that can have few precedents. He began with brash familiarity, in a backslapping salute to Joe Biden; spoke with boyish humor about his early years as a diplomat within the Beltway, and his knowledge of an America beyond it; reestablished, with passion and simplicity, the close ties between America and Israel that Obama had sought to view with an impartial loyalty; in short, pulled out all the stops to undercut President Obama on his native ground. The speech itself was a tissue of clichés, anecdotes, and half-truths, but delivered with dramatic buoyancy and urgency as if his life depended on it.

    Congress gave Netanyahu twenty-nine standing ovations. How did he do it? By presenting himself to his audience as an all-but-American politician—one less lucky than they, and more brave, a leader with a fight on his hands; a real fight, in his own backyard and not six thousand miles away. He spoke with gusto of his part in an earlier episode of that never-ending war:
    I was nearly killed in a firefight inside the Suez Canal—I mean that literally: inside the Suez Canal. I was going down to the bottom, with a forty-pound pack, ammunition pack on my back, and somebody reached out to grab me and they’re still looking for the guy who did such a stupid thing.
    Netanyahu did not speak of the subsidized increase of Israeli settlements that accounts for the “certain facts on the ground” he had mentioned at the White House. He invoked the biblical names of Judea and Samaria as if they were as natural to modern Israel as St. Louis is to the state of Missouri.
    And Congress loved him, or seemed to think it should, from the very moment when he said in a flattering exordium: “Congratulations America. Congratulations, Mr. President. You got bin Laden. Good riddance!” The performance combined the maximum of demagogy with the maximum of smarm, and it mixed aggression, paternalism, and a preening collective self-love, in proportions that Netanyahu assumed Americans would be comforted by. Israel, this speech said, has everything in common with America. We are the home of freedom and wisdom among the ancients, just as you Americans are among the moderns.
    Netanyahu’s speech to Congress was also part of a larger strategy of his right-wing coalition. He got his invitation to address Congress from Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, and the Republican Party is now working to detach Jewish donors from the Democrats and to convert Republicans at large to the Likud and neoconservative politics that support a greater Israel. In the pitch offered to Americans, taking sections of the West Bank from Palestinians is as warranted as the taking of lands from American Indians. Mike Huckabee has indicated his sympathy with this point of view. Sarah Palin wore a Star of David on her necklace in her recent liberty tour. Glenn Beck has planned a mass event, “Restoring Courage,” on August 24 at the Southern Wall excavations in the city of Jerusalem. Americans of the chauvinist and evangelical right are being invited to think of Israel as a second homeland.

    Considered as a response to this predicament, Obama’s speech at the State Department, with its broad-gauge pronouncements and its candor regarding Palestine, was utterly overmatched by Netanyahu’s speech to Congress. It is an unhappy fact of politics that victory goes to the pressure that will not let up. Netanyahu’s belief in his immoderate purpose is stronger than Obama’s belief in his moderate purpose.”

    Too far, too high, too soon

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ri2CzfI84Wk
    Richly deserved

    • just
      just
      March 3, 2014, 6:19 pm

      Remember when Mr. Obama zeroed in on that fly and smacked it?

      He looks just as pissed and determined to get pesky Ziogoldberg out of our White House.

      (wanna make a bet that he feels the same about Netanyahu?)

      • Kathleen
        Kathleen
        March 3, 2014, 10:30 pm

        That is classic. Had forgotten all about that one. “got the sucker”

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        March 4, 2014, 4:44 am

        I think we may be looking at a watershed. The GOP spent record amounts trying to unseat Obama by rallying the US around Israel at the behest of the bot leadership and it didn’t fly.

        http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/20/binyamin-netanyahu-gambles-on-mitt-romney

        “The political TV advertisement featuring Binyamin Netanyahu and the slogan “The world needs American strength, not apologies” is likely to fuel claims that the Israeli prime minister is interfering in the US presidential election in support of Republican candidate Mitt Romney.
        It comes increasing during anxiety that Netanyahu has overplayed his hand in displays of warmth and enthusiasm for Romney while his relationship with Barack Obama grows more antagonistic. ”

        The ad really sucked

        Lots of soul searching followed in the GOP after the election was lost

        http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/233805c0-2cf6-11e2-beb2-00144feabdc0.html

        “The US Congress should agree to higher taxes on the wealthy to avoid the fiscal cliff, a top Republican economist has said in a sign of the rapidly shifting political climate in Washington before negotiations to avert the looming budget crisis”

        In 2013 the GOP tried to make the US default over Obamacare

        http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/39912e34-2b6d-11e3-a1b7-00144feab7de.html

        “A highly anticipated meeting Wednesday evening between Mr Obama, John Boehner, the Republican Speaker of the House, and other leaders ended without any sign of progress.“They will not negotiate,” Mr Boehner said, standing outside the White House. “At some point we have to allow the process to work out.”
        Moments later, Harry Reid, the top Senate Democrat, accused Mr Boehner of not accepting a “lifeline” that had been thrown his way after Democrats promised to begin negotiations on a long-term budget once the Republican moved to pass a “clean” short-term budget that ended the shutdown.
        Mr Reid said spending levels, healthcare and agriculture, among other issues, were on the table. Mr Boehner has rejected the offer.
        “My friend John Boehner cannot take yes for an answer,” Mr Reid said.
        Asked whether there was a risk of a debt default, Mr Reid said: “I believe based on what we’ve seen . . . the performance of the [Republican Senator Ted] Cruz led House, I think that it looks like these people are headed where they want to go.””

        That didn’t work either. Really serious partisanship and they still couldn’t make it.

        Now the Dems are back with minimum wage as the issue.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/30/us/politics/democrats-turn-to-minimum-wage-as-2014-strategy.html

        ” Representative Steve Israel of New York, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told the Times, “The more Republicans obsess on repealing the Affordable Care Act and the more we focus on rebuilding the middle class with a minimum-wage increase, the more voters will support our candidates.” Dan Pfeiffer, the president’s senior adviser, added, “You can make a very strong case that this will be a helpful issue for Democrats in 2014.”

        http://heritageaction.com/2013/12/raising-minimum-wage-really-fair-minimum-wage-workers/
        “It puts Republicans on the wrong side of an important value issue when it comes to fairness,” said Dan Pfeiffer, the president’s senior adviser.”

        There may have been no light between DC and Zionism for 34 years but perhaps this was more an accident of fate than anything else.

        The US is the prize and Israel is incidental, baby.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        March 4, 2014, 9:44 am

        @Seafold

        I think we may be looking at a watershed. The GOP spent record amounts trying to unseat Obama by rallying the US around Israel at the behest of the bot leadership and it didn’t fly.

        Except it did fly. In a sea of terrible news for the Republicans regarding minorities one of the only minorities that shifted towards Republicans 2008 vs. 2012 was Jews. Florida was 50.1% vs. 49.1% closer than it should have been given the election. And if you polled older Jews the reason they shifted was Obama being “anti-israel”. It was a successful campaign it persuaded some voters without alienating others nor motivating the opposition. That’s as good as it gets.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        March 4, 2014, 2:34 pm

        Jeff

        Are you stupid?

        Minorities and women voted overwhelmingly for Obama. They do not care about Israel.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        March 4, 2014, 2:50 pm

        @seafold

        Jeff
        Are you stupid?
        Minorities and women voted overwhelmingly for Obama. They do not care about Israel.

        Women do care about Israel as shown by their voting. Zionist women exposed to pro-Romney Israeli adds voted for Romney in substantially greater numbers. As for minorities they don’t care about Israel but that’s fine. They didn’t vote against Romney on the Israel either they had a host of other reasons to hate Romney.

        The point of an issue like Israel is if it can move voters on the fringes and this one was tested by Romney in 2012 and proved quite successful.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        March 4, 2014, 5:52 pm

        Jeff
        You are a moron
        Romney lost.

        Lot of GOP bigshots didn’t see that coming and wanted to know why it was such a fuckup.
        The Republicans are not going to win by putting Israel center stage. Americans do not care enough about your kip in the Eastern Med.
        It is a Jewish preoccupation. Nothing to do with life in America.

        Sure you invented the clitoris and the tomato but nobody CARES.

  10. seafoid
    seafoid
    March 3, 2014, 4:22 pm

    Bibi should listen to Ice Cube
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1haNyJWW7M
    or JayZ
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20eKnNc-N7c
    rather than Burt Bacharach !

  11. bilal a
    bilal a
    March 3, 2014, 4:25 pm

    Oren’s solution seems predictive if not moral. Israel and its trojan Horse AIPAC linked Jewish orgs with massive economic power will never allow a non-Jewish state replacement for Israel,and they cannot give up the water and other resources on the WB.

    Keep in mind current Israeli policy has the silent support of all major Arab national governments

    Annexation is then a regional solution.

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      March 3, 2014, 5:55 pm

      It’s interesting. Israel has zero European popular support. It has zero Arab popular support. It has weak US popular support.

      I think the Arab governments will follow the European and American streets.
      It’s going to come down to sanctions.
      Politicians will follow, even in the US.

      • just
        just
        March 3, 2014, 6:05 pm

        I fervently hope so, and believe that you are right.

        Israel has “delegitimized” itself, and continues to do so with an audacious and surreal denial of reality.

      • kalithea
        kalithea
        March 3, 2014, 9:19 pm

        Israel was NEVER legitimate to begin with. Zionism is founded on forced ethnic cleansing. Is ethnic cleansing legitimate when legally it’s considered a war crime? A crime or illegal act cannot legitimize anything!

      • kalithea
        kalithea
        March 3, 2014, 11:00 pm

        The US is going to defend the indefensible Apartheid and look risible in the process; it already does to people with integrity who can’t be bought.

      • Erasmus
        Erasmus
        March 4, 2014, 5:07 am

        Pope Francis’ imminent visit to Palestine and Israel

        I am looking forward and wonder what contribution Pope Francis will make during his forthcoming visit.

      • just
        just
        March 4, 2014, 6:41 am

        I somehow think that this Pope will spend some time with the Palestinian people- – and I’m not talking just about their leaders. I don’t think that he’ll take kindly to being ‘shielded’ from the realities of Gaza…I don’t think that he will allow it. He, is after all, a Pope who actually ministers to the homeless, the poor, the sick, the INCARCERATED……….I’m quite sure that he will visit the terrorized Palestinian people, and cause outrage and apoplexy throughout Israel– he won’t even have to speak a word to the “press”.

        Because actions speak louder than words.

      • Walid
        Walid
        March 4, 2014, 8:19 am

        Erasmus and Just, given the super-close relationship between various Zionist organizations and the Vatican and how the Vatican is constantly kept on the defensive and off-balance with regards to Jews with their incessant accusations of antisemitism, the Pope will do absolutely NOTHING to upset the Israelis. In fact, he’s coming with hat in hand to beg Israel’s permission to proceed with the canonization of Pius XII. The last big rumble involving the Vatican and the Zios was a couple of years back when the Vatican was about to release its conclusive report that the Jews were not God’s chosen people and worse than that, that God did not actually promise the land to the Jews and that they should stop using this Biblical alibi to continue their occupation. Abe Foxman took the then Pope Benedictus XVI to task invoking antisemitism at play in the Vatican, and the Church ended up blinking and rewriting its conclusions in a very watered down and meaningless wording that don’t attack the Jewish concepts in any way. Right after that one, the Vatican was under heavy Zionist flack for wanting to proceed with the canonization of Pius XII that the Jews falsely accuse of having sold out to Hitler and has been spooked by the Zionists since then. The most the Pope will do for the Palestinians is to kiss a few children on the forehead and Israel will gift the Pope with letting the Cremisan keep the vineyards.

      • UpSIDEdown
        UpSIDEdown
        March 4, 2014, 9:46 am

        Erasmus
        What this Pope says or doesn’t say will either make or break him. I’ve no doubt there are many who have been waiting to hear the Pope’s opinion on this matter. I’ can only hope that his faith is strong and that he walks away with a renewed sense of what his job entails. We need a man who represents God to speak the truth however it seems that in todays world God is no longer very important to the masses. I pray that his heart is full of the sprit of truth I believe if he does the right thing so much will change for the Palestinian’s. I for one have prayed and will continue to do so..

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        March 4, 2014, 1:20 pm

        Pape Francis should address the Palestinians, standing in front of the separation barrier.

  12. talknic
    talknic
    March 3, 2014, 4:36 pm

    IOW Israel shows no change of plan… http://wp.me/pDB7k-l5
    ————
    Zioinfection results in ill thought out nonsense which depends on one 1st believing Israel’s expansionist propaganda

    “If we declare our borders “

    The Israeli Government’s plea for recognition proclaimed Israel’s sovereign extent via the frontiers of UNGA res 181 http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf , that’s the resolution enshrined in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel http://pages.citebite.com/w1r5t6q2q5qhs (long after the Arab States rejected UNGA res 181, allegedly making it irrelevant. So why include it months later?)

    Mr Oren needs reminding that State borders are only declared once in order to set the legal parameters for determining amongst other things, the extent of a country’s sovereignty, what “territorial integrity and political independence” other states are required to have “respect for and acknowledgement of” and when an invasion might have occurred

    Changing one’s borders, which is what Mr Oren is suggesting, requires an agreement. The legal precedent has already been set. Israel proclaimed it’s borders, has already been recognized by the International Comity of Nations according to its proclamation, has already been accepted into the UN based on Israel’s proclamations and Internationally recognized borders, from which have flowed hundreds of UNSC resolutions against Israel’s illegal activities in territories outside the State of Israel

    “that creates a de-facto situation of two nation states recognized by the UN”

    A) ‘de facto’ created by Israel unilaterally declaring new borders encompassing territory acquired by war, without an agreement, amounts to illegal

    B) The UN doesn’t recognize states. It accepts or not, already recognized states as UN Members.

    An example?…. lemme think ……….. Oh yeh …. Israel was recognized before being accepted into the UN. In fact Israel was recognized before the UNSC recommended Israel for Membership. In fact Israel was recognized, recommended and accepted into the UN whilst at war in territories the Israeli Government at the time claimed were “outside the State of Israel”!

    C) It would be illegal for the International Comity of Nations to recognize these new borders

    ARTICLE 11

    The contracting states definitely establish as the rule of their conduct the precise obligation not to recognize territorial acquisitions or special advantages which have been obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure.

    “we may not recognize one another, but they’re already recognized by the UN “

    An admission that the Israeli demand for recognition by the Palestinians as the Jewish state,has no legal basis. Oren is blowing the ziofool narrative out of the pool

    The statement as a whole “If we declare our borders, that creates a de-facto situation of two nation states recognized by the UN — we may not recognize one another, but they’re already recognized by the UN — that have a border dispute.”

    No Mr Oren, what you’d have is one party having acquired territory illegally by war.

    “And we would be one of dozens of pairs of countries in the world that have a border dispute”

    Their disputes are over where declared borders precisely lay and they’re attempting to reach an agreement to make the changes legal! They’re not border disputes over territory illegally acquired by war.

    • kalithea
      kalithea
      March 3, 2014, 11:34 pm

      Trust me these Zionists probably have an entire complex of lawyers working on the wording of the massive deception they’re going to spring on the world to get out of the jam they’re in. They’re counting on the U.S.s continuing prowess in defense of the indefensible and the fact that they, Zionists, think they’re smarter than anyone else in the “room”. And, then they might have a different “solution” up their sleeve; whatever it is; it’s probably been a long time in the planning, seeing as this point of no return and the demographic shift have always been their greatest fear and the inevitable fate that exposes Zionism’s greatest flaw must be pushed back at all costs.

      No worry though, ’cause no matter how fast they’ll try to run from it; they’ll never escape the delusion they’ve created. It’ll get them eventually.

      • Walid
        Walid
        March 4, 2014, 8:37 am

        “Trust me these Zionists probably have an entire complex of lawyers working on the wording of the massive deception they’re going to spring on the world to get out of the jam they’re in.”

        Kalithea, I don’t think they’ll try very hard since it will be sprung on the Palestinians, that have no Arab states in their corner, much more than on the rest of the world that doesn’t really care. As to the prowess of the Palestinians themselves, you have to account for their current leaders and negotiating team (minus Arafat, of course) being the same one that negotiated and signed-off to the Oslo without the benefit of having a lawyer present to advise them. Israel, of course, had a team of sharp lawyers there all the time, but Palestinians knew better.

  13. radii
    radii
    March 3, 2014, 6:21 pm

    israel seems to relish being obstinate and defying the course desired by others, and they almost always choose the most cruel and destructive (to others) path … so annexation and permanent occupation and devolution to a complete bunker state seems inevitable … every now and then israel takes a more rational course and most of us hope they will this time and take the damn peace deal that’s been on the table for decades

    • kalithea
      kalithea
      March 3, 2014, 11:37 pm

      “every now and then israel takes a more rational course…”

      Yeah? Point to an example!

      They’ll never accept; and oddly enough, that’ll be a tiny reason to celebrate.

    • Chu
      Chu
      March 4, 2014, 11:25 am

      They have too many fundamentalists in their gov’t at this point. Craziness has been on the rise since the death of Rabin. Logic and rationality don’t seem to equate in the minds of Israelis.

  14. James Canning
    James Canning
    March 3, 2014, 7:13 pm

    “We’ve already lost Europe”? Actually, Obama should be glad that “Europe” is increasingly fed up with Israel and tis illegal colonisation programme in the West Bank.

    • kalithea
      kalithea
      March 3, 2014, 11:38 pm

      Obama is A MORON, and I wish everyone would quit reading more into him.

      • American
        American
        March 4, 2014, 8:19 am

        @ kalithea

        Obama (and the US) defeat the purpose in warning Israel every time by saying the US will always and is ‘unshakable’ in its support of Israel.
        The day the US quits saying that is the day Israel will get serious and change.
        As long as Isr thinks the US ‘will always support’ it no matter what then Israel will do whatever it pleases.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        March 4, 2014, 1:23 pm

        Israel clearly has sound reasons for thinking it can rely on the Aipac stooges in the US Congress. For “support”. Meaning, encouraging the insane illegal colonisation programme.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        March 6, 2014, 6:57 pm

        Obama obviously is not a “moron”. That said, many of his decisions (or non-decisions) are ones I do not agree with.

    • American
      American
      March 4, 2014, 8:22 am

      James Canning says:

      March 3, 2014 at 7:13 pm

      “We’ve already lost Europe”?
      >>>>>

      Yea…. and who the F is the ‘we’?
      Israel might be ‘we’ to our politicians but it isn’t ‘we’ to the rest of the country.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        March 4, 2014, 1:27 pm

        You make a good point, obviously. ISRAEL LOBBY demands the use of the pronoun “we”, by a US president.

  15. James Canning
    James Canning
    March 3, 2014, 7:15 pm

    Safe to say, Oren wants the US to help Israel to scr*w the Palestinians good and hard, into perpetuity.

  16. pabelmont
    pabelmont
    March 3, 2014, 7:26 pm

    Assuming there is no 2SS in sight, we are told (by Michael Oren no less) that the future holds ONLY either
    * * * [1] democratic 1SS or
    annexation — annexation being another name for a formalization of what we have today, that is,
    * * * [2] formal, announced, apartheid 1SS.

    This ignores
    * * * [3] the status quo (informal, denied, apartheid 1SS)
    which has long been thought the likely long-term “solution”.

    Now what pushes Israel away from [3] (status quo) is fear of EU or BDS or whatever. And the same forces that would make [3] untenable in long run also make [2] (formal apartheid) untenable. (Hint: both are illegitimate.)

    So it looks like Israel can kiss the brittle Jewish State goodbye and settle in for a warm-and-fuzzy USA-style democracy in the Middle East.

    Is it too early to cry out, “Hooray” ?

    • kalithea
      kalithea
      March 3, 2014, 9:49 pm

      Yes. You underestimate how embedded Zionism and Zionists are in the American “system” and thus capable of such passing massive deception for truth and how crafty Israel will be when it justifies suppressing the rights of Palestinians in some kind of bogus “annexation” that’s really a one-state with rampant Apartheid or justifies annexation to ANOTHER state. I just know they already have a contingency plan in place to worm their way out of this predicament. Just like they have germ and cyberwarfare think tanks; they no doubt have think tanks working feverishly to combat their greatest threat; the end of Zionism via democracy and the rule of Law and the end of Zionism via birthrate demographics. Put it this way, Iran, is less of a threat to Zionism than a Palestinian majority, and just look at how hard they’ve been working to demonize Iran and how successful they’ve been in making Iran suffer for its nuclear development even so far as the murder of scientists, so don’t you think Zionists are working even harder to solve the greatest threat that lies in store for them?

      When Ahmedinejad stated that Zionism would be wiped out, he was toying with Zionist paranoia. He didn’t mean by nuclear disaster; he meant a demographic disaster and Zionists have been lying about his intent ever since and successfully so.

      So I’m sorry to burst your bubble; but don’t crack open the champagne just yet.

  17. German Lefty
    German Lefty
    March 4, 2014, 6:02 am

    The Real News: Where are the Palestinian Journalists in Israeli Media?

  18. just
    just
    March 4, 2014, 6:58 am

    Thanks, German Lefty. It’s good to have suspicions verified.

    Not very “democratic”, eh? But we have many of the same problems of censorship right here in America.

Leave a Reply