Did Pres. Obama throw Israel under the bus?

[GeoffP]

I'm expecting to hear some retort about how the Oracle of Baghdad "knew" the Jews were going to support Zionist disposition of the Arabs down the road, and thus Iraq had no choice but to act.

But of course! Post-hoc pronouncements of prescience are par for the course. (Or de rigueur. But that doesn't have a nice ring to it.) The violence - no matter where or when - is always the fault of the Jews as far as Sam is concerned; at which point exactly is Sam differentiated politically from the likes of her "esteemed" Mawdudi (not to be esteemed too strongly when his political bent is made more clear) or even Qutb? Is it in her social permissiveness, so long as certain groups know their place in society? Is that enough moral mettle to buy oneself out of an association? I'm not sure.

[S.A.M.]

What about all the Palestinians who migrated or married into that region after the Ottomans took it over? Or all the Palestinians who voluntarily served in Ottoman armies over the centuries? Given how many times the region has been nearly completely depopulated and repopulated by dozens of occupiers, I'm guessing that would probably constitute the vast bulk of them. I didn't realize genetic purity was so important to you, given how much you denounce it when hardline right wing Jews talk about it.

I think any notions of complete depopulation and repopulation are myths. And I don't see what the problem is with Palestinians migrating into or out of the region as well.

Furthermore, if it's ok for the Ottomans to purge masses of Jews for allegedly resisting Ottoman occupation, but the Arabs were exempted from this punishment because they were supposedly all living there before the Ottomans arrived, then why are the Arabs not considered occupiers too? Did anyone there speak Arabic prior to the 7th century? By your logic, there shouldn't even be a West Bank, the land should revert to its pre-Roman status.

Not at all. The Ottomans only purged citizens of states they were at war with, two years after said citizens of other countries formed armed militia to fight the government. There is nothing new under the sun about such behaviour

e.g. US deports Somali-born Canadian with ties to Al-Qaeda

I am not sure why you cannot, or refuse to see, the difference between enemy aliens and civilians of the state.

Well I guess DiamondHearts failed to see the consistency in your position, because I recollect it being a pretty heated disagreement. On the bright side, you were both on excellent terms as long as you were discussing things you mutually hated.

Indeed.

Well here's one of your lovefests with DiamondHearts, if you're so interested in seeing proof.

Thanks

All he has to do is call it "ontological parsimony" (a.k.a. Occam's Razor) and, like you, I'm sure he'll be let off the hook without further dispute.

I think Tiassa has dealt quite adequately with this demonstration of Quixotism on your part. I'm not certain why you are tilting at windmills here but don't let me stop you!

Hey Bells, now you can call S.A.M. a bigot too

Btw where did you see a burqa clad picture of me?

[CptBork]

Btw where did you see a burqa clad picture of me?

I might have to retract that statement- I found a thread where you posted just your eyes, but I don't see a burqa in that one, whereas my recollection had you in a burqa where you could see just the eyes poking out and nothing else. I'll also admit in searching just now, I saw at least one non-burqa pic of you too, and I had never seen any such pics of you before, so I have misjudged your religious inclinations somewhat, or at least your inclinations from a few years back, and for that one particular mischaracterization, you deserve an apology.

[S.A.M.]

I might have to retract that statement- I found a thread where you posted just your eyes, but I don't see a burqa in that one, whereas my recollection had you in a burqa where you could see just the eyes poking out and nothing else. I'll also admit in searching just now, I saw at least one non-burqa pic of you too, and I had never seen any such pics of you before, so I have misjudged your religious inclinations somewhat, or at least your inclinations from a few years back, and for that one particular mischaracterization, you deserve an apology.

No problem, the only time I have ever worn a burqa was while travelling alone or with Saudis in KSA and it was not during what may be called photo-ops and I never needed to cover my face - since Saudis do not expect non-Saudis to cover their faces - so I was curious which picture you were referring to. IOW, there doesn't exist a picture of me in any burqa. Even my great grandmother, who came from NW Pakistan, did not ever wear a burqa and she was pretty religious.

[CptBork]

No problem, the only time I have ever worn a burqa was while travelling alone or with Saudis in KSA and it was not during what may be called photo-ops and I never needed to cover my face - since Saudis do not expect non-Saudis to cover their faces - so I was curious which picture you were referring to. IOW, there doesn't exist a picture of me in any burqa. Even my great grandmother, who came from NW Pakistan, did not ever wear a burqa and she was pretty religious.

It's not even the idea of a burqa that intrigued me in the first place- you've been more than clear about your religious views as is, I wouldn't need to see you in a burqa to believe you, and I don't consider every woman in a burqa or hijab to be a religious radical. It was more just the pic where you only have your eyes, while everyone else was posting body shots, and my apparently mistaken memory of those eyes being totally surrounded in black fabric. Those few women out there who dress like Darth Vader, they're considered pretty radical in the west and even in most Muslim societies as far as I know, not the kind of people you can reason with when a religious principle is at stake. Again though, I wrongly mischaracterized your religious stance and choice of garb- my fault entirely, I'll try to make sure it doesn't happen again.

[S.A.M.]

Those few women out there who dress like Darth Vader, they're considered pretty radical in the west

Yes, I have noticed that assumption; its usually made by people who don't know any women that wear burqa and in fact, is a direct indicator of someone who has absolutely no clue what they are talking about. Most women who wear burqa are like women who wear stockings, they do it as a habit [pun intended] and it makes little to no difference to how radical they are in their religious beliefs. Most of the radically religious Muslim women come from societies where the burqa is not worn.

Anyway to get back on topic re:Russian Jews in Palestine, I went over what was already said and I realised that no one had mentioned the Russian Christians

The Russian Compound (Hebrew: מִגְרַשׁ הָרוּסִים‎‎, Migraš ha-Rusim, Arabic: المسكوبية‎, al-Muskubīya) is one of the oldest districts in central Jerusalem, including a large Russian Orthodox church and several former pilgrim hostels which are used as government buildings and for the Museum of Underground Prisoners. The compound covers 68 dunams (68,000 m²) between Jaffa Road, Shivtei Israel Street, and Street of the Prophets.

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

The Russians bought a lot of land for the safety and comfort of their pilgrims and built a compound and infrastructure for them in Palestine

The Russian Pilgrims (1858-1917)
In 1858, the Russian Empire during the reign of Tsar Alexander II who had become concerned about the Russian pilgrims in the Holy Land, purchased 68,000 m² between Jaffa Road, Shivtei Israel street and The Prophets street.

The location on the boundary between New Jerusalem and the Old City was chosen because of its proximity to the holy sites in the Old City such as the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Russia, at this time, had neither a consulate, nor any other institution, such as the future Orthodox Palestine Society, to protect or provide assistance to the Russian traveller.

http://www.alma-mahler.com/archiv_je..._pilgrims.html

The difference between the Russian Christians and the Russian Jews is that the Russian Christians went back home after their pilgrimage;during WWI when the Ottomans kicked out the aliens, they also captured the compound and after the October revolution, Christian pilgrims petered out.

Another interesting fact I found is that the Russian Consul wanted the Russian Jews to be sent back when they were transferred to Alexandria by the Ottomans:

The Russian Consul in Alexandria, Petrov, demanded that the Egyptian and British authorities send the Russian Jews back to Russia to enlist in the Russian army. But the Grand Rabbi used contacts to foil the plot, [xviii] with the help of Jabotinsky and Edgar Suares, a local Jewish banker [xix] .

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...oli.html#_edn5

I'm not sure why they did not go back. Zionism?

[CptBork]

Yes, I have noticed that assumption; its usually made by people who don't know any women that wear burqa and in fact, is a direct indicator of someone who has absolutely no clue what they are talking about. Most women who wear burqa are like women who wear stockings, they do it as a habit [pun intended] and it makes little to no difference to how radical they are in their religious beliefs. Most of the radically religious Muslim women come from societies where the burqa is not worn.

I'm talking about the kind where even showing a mouth is considered too much, hence the reference to Darth Vader- but then again I think even the eyes are usually kept hidden in those cases.

[CptBork]

I'm not sure why they did not go back. Zionism?

Not wanting to be cannon fodder for Russia's army? I could see either one being a strong motivator for not wanting to leave their homes.

[S.A.M.]

I'm talking about the kind where even showing a mouth is considered too much, hence the reference to Darth Vader- but then again I think even the eyes are usually kept hidden in those cases.

And there is a very good reason for that. Its called haboob. To experience that phenomenon, one must visit those places where such garments are common in both men and women, i.e. something to cover the head and something to cover the face, especially eyes, ears, nostrils and mouth. Its an interesting experience to be standing in the middle of a sandstorm and feeling sand under your eyelids, inside your nostrils and mouth and in your ears.

[CptBork]

And there is a very good reason for that. Its called haboob. To experience that phenomenon, one must visit those places where such garments are common in both men and women, i.e. something to cover the head and something to cover the face, especially eyes, ears, nostrils and mouth. Its an interesting experience to be standing in the middle of a sandstorm and feeling sand under your eyelids, inside your nostrils and mouth and in your ears.

It's also great for roasting on a hot day in a busy European market. I think when a woman covers every last inch in a place where it's completely impractical and stifling, and they don't have some ultra-rare vampiric skin disorder, it's a reasonable indicator of a very deep, uncompromising and fanatical devotion to the religion, not just a fashion choice. Obviously I'm not the only one who thinks that way, because Europe has banned far less restrictive religious garbs and even I think that's going too far.

[S.A.M.]

It's also great for roasting on a hot day in a busy European market. I think when a woman covers every last inch in a place where it's completely impractical and stifling, it's an indication of a very deep, uncompromising and fanatical devotion to their religion, not just a fashion choice. Obviously I'm not the only one who thinks that way, because Europe has banned far less restrictive religious garbs and even I think that's going too far.

I think it depends on what you're used to. I've read that Europeans would wear layers of clothing [as many as seven petticoats] corsets and even powdered wigs in the same climate - most men wear business suits no matter how hot it is, because its expected of them in some circles. I suppose you could say they are fanatically devoted to their image and beliefs about how successful businessmen should dress

I suppose I am used to seeing women in India who veil, so its not an oddity for me. Most of the time, I see clothing as following social expectations rather than beliefs

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

@Sam

Its not just young Israeli's who are moving to Berlin. Berlin offers a great new young art scene with cheap housing. Its just the place to be. I know lot's of people from all over who have chosen to live in Berlin.

Sam: They are defending colonisers and racists and right to occupation based on race, mythology, successful genocides and religious supremacy. I think your expectations of rationality are a bit high!!!

Its not about race Sam. You have white as well as black jews and Israeli's. Which race are you speaking of exactly that warrants the term 'racism? Also 'ethnic cleansing' is not genocide. If you want to know what a recent genocide looks like just take a look at what the Muslim north (arab janjaweed) did to the christian and animist south in Sudan. THAT was a genocide. I never heard any of you hand-wringers going on about that actual occurrence when it was going on. So, you can go on about religious supremacy and mythology and occupation and even colonization but the use of racism and genocide puts you in error.

[Dinosaur]

The Arab/Israeli conflict is a terrible situation & it is difficult to imagine a reasonable end to it. There are two sides to this issue. It seems to me that the Israelis have been more willing to negotiate than the Palestinians.

The pro Palestinian bias of many here boggles my mind. It is not that they have no arguments on their side of the issue. It is that they do not recognize the Israelis as having any right on their side.

I spent over a year in Israel in 1960-1961 teaching programming & setting up a programming staff for the Israeli DOD, which bought a computer from the company I worked for.

Oddly enough, the Jewish members of our programming staff for one reason or another did not want to take the assignment.

Among the friends I made while in Israel was an affluent Arab whose family had a contracting business. My friend mentioned that there had been a family discussion during the 1948 war.

He mentioned that in some small towns, Jews encouraged Arabs to leave & made threats, but this was not the official government position.

The official line of the Arab nations who attacked Israel was that Arabs staying would be considered collaborators.

His family stayed in Israel because if the Israelis won, they expected the Jews to honor their bank accounts, real estate holdings, & business ownership. If the Arabs won, they expected to be able to bribe officials & be allowed to retain their business & real estate. They were sure that if they left, victorious Arabs would keep control rather than return their business & real estate.

I do not know if this family had citizenship rights, but they had no complaints about their treatment & did a lot of business with both the local Israeli government & with private citizens.

One of the reasons they did not trust the Arab nations was Jordanian control of the West Bank captured during the 1948 war. Arabs who owned homes & left were not viewed as owners & were not invited to return. Jordan annexed the west Bank & viewed all residents as Jordanian citizens. If Israel had not won control of the West Bank in 1967, Hamas & the PLO would have very little to negotiate over now.

One of the reasons Israel takes a hard line toward the Palestinians is the treatment of Jerusalem Jews when Jordan took over the West Bank. From Wikipedia:

The Jordanians immediately expelled all the Jewish residents of East Jerusalem. All but one of the 35 synagogues in the Old City were destroyed over the course of the next 19 years, either razed or used as stables and hen-houses. Many other historic and religiously significant buildings were replaced by modern structures. The ancient Jewish cemetery on Mount of Olives was desecrated, and the tombstones there were used for construction, paving roads and lining latrines; the highway to the Intercontinental Hotel was built on top of the site.

Note also that The Palestinian leaders have never renounced their intention to destroy Israel. Should the Israelis negotiate a peace treaty & some division of the disputed territory without at least a promise of peaceful coexistence? So far, the Palestinian intent seems to be get as much as possible by negotiation & continue the conflict until Israel is destroyed.

In view of the above, what do you expect of the Israelis? Should they pack up & leave Israel? If so, where would they go? If the Palestinians were given whatever they wanted, what would they leave for the Jews?

[spidergoat]

He's right about that. But somewhat wrong about the fleeing Arabs. There were actually massacres of Arab civilians by Zionist gangs or troops, whatever. The Irgun. Is it not reasonable to run from the fighting? I agree with Israel's right to exist, it's need transcends problems with it's founding.

[S.A.M.]

The Arab/Israeli conflict is a terrible situation & it is difficult to imagine a reasonable end to it. There are two sides to this issue. It seems to me that the Israelis have been more willing to negotiate than the Palestinians.

The pro Palestinian bias of many here boggles my mind. It is not that they have no arguments on their side of the issue. It is that they do not recognize the Israelis as having any right on their side.

I spent over a year in Israel in 1960-1961 teaching programming & setting up a programming staff for the Israeli DOD, which bought a computer from the company I worked for.

Oddly enough, the Jewish members of our programming staff for one reason or another did not want to take the assignment.

Among the friends I made while in Israel was an affluent Arab whose family had a contracting business. My friend mentioned that there had been a family discussion during the 1948 war.

He mentioned that in some small towns, Jews encouraged Arabs to leave & made threats, but this was not the official government position.

The official line of the Arab nations who attacked Israel was that Arabs staying would be considered collaborators.

His family stayed in Israel because if the Israelis won, they expected the Jews to honor their bank accounts, real estate holdings, & business ownership. If the Arabs won, they expected to be able to bribe officials & be allowed to retain their business & real estate. They were sure that if they left, victorious Arabs would keep control rather than return their business & real estate.

I do not know if this family had citizenship rights, but they had no complaints about their treatment & did a lot of business with both the local Israeli government & with private citizens.

One of the reasons they did not trust the Arab nations was Jordanian control of the West Bank captured during the 1948 war. Arabs who owned homes & left were not viewed as owners & were not invited to return. Jordan annexed the west Bank & viewed all residents as Jordanian citizens. If Israel had not won control of the West Bank in 1967, Hamas & the PLO would have very little to negotiate over now.

One of the reasons Israel takes a hard line toward the Palestinians is the treatment of Jerusalem Jews when Jordan took over the West Bank. From Wikipedia:

The Jordanians immediately expelled all the Jewish residents of East Jerusalem. All but one of the 35 synagogues in the Old City were destroyed over the course of the next 19 years, either razed or used as stables and hen-houses. Many other historic and religiously significant buildings were replaced by modern structures. The ancient Jewish cemetery on Mount of Olives was desecrated, and the tombstones there were used for construction, paving roads and lining latrines; the highway to the Intercontinental Hotel was built on top of the site.

Note also that The Palestinian leaders have never renounced their intention to destroy Israel. Should the Israelis negotiate a peace treaty & some division of the disputed territory without at least a promise of peaceful coexistence? So far, the Palestinian intent seems to be get as much as possible by negotiation & continue the conflict until Israel is destroyed.

So basically, the Israelis treat the Palestinians badly because the Jordanians treated the Jews a little less badly than Israelis treated the Palestinians? How bizarre.

In view of the above, what do you expect of the Israelis? Should they pack up & leave Israel? If so, where would they go? If the Palestinians were given whatever they wanted, what would they leave for the Jews?

One of the major differences I have found between Jews and Palestinians in the I-P conflict, is that in every stage where Palestinians aspire to nationalism, they make it clear that they include the Jews and in every stage of Zionism, even before the Russians moved to Palestine to relive their mythology, Jews make it clear that they exclude the Palestinians.

So I think, it doesn't really matter what the Palestinians want or will do. Israelis will do their level best to oppress the Palestinians and replace their population [63 years of nakba and ongoing] and when the apartheid state they create becomes untenable to them, either because there are "too many Arabs" or because of international isolation, then they will pack up and leave.

Also I'm not sure who your bizarre "Arab" friend was, but I recommend you read two books on this topic:

1. The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappe

2. The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem by Benny Morris

Both are Israeli historians who reference the Haganah archives and describe in some detail the atrocities committed by Jews to drive out the Palestinians.

There is also plenty of Arab discourse on the topic, like this open letter by a Tunisian Arab to Foad Ajami:

Neocon Fouad Ajami lately published an attack on the Palestinians in the Wall Street Journal-- an unfiltered anthology of Israeli myths and lies, revisionist history, misrepresentation of the Arab revolution, and so forth; dismissing the UN statehood effort. I wrote out a letter, an e-mail really, to Ajami only to find that he does not have a listed e-mail. Odd, considering he's an academic who frequently publishes. I guess he does not want to hear any rebuttals.

I kind of felt like kicking myself after I had written so lengthy a letter and now without anything to do with it. Then I thought maybe it could be an open letter.

Fouad,

I have read your books and try to read all your WSJ contributions, but this is the first time I have decided to reply in a (open) letter. I hope you'll do the same, a simple courtesy, and fully read this letter.

I never truly appreciated your callousness and proclivity to pander to American Zionists until I read your recent op-ed in the WSJ dismissing the forthcoming Palestinian statehood declaration. Even for a page that features the likes of Bret Stephens, it was filled with casual lies and distortion of history, and adopted so uncritically the Israeli narrative, in a pathetic effort to cater to the "White Man".

You say the Palestinians and Arabs rejected partition and chose war with the Zionists, but I know you know that the Zionists were working with the Hashemite kingdom to sabotage any truncated Palestinian state. Even if the Palestinians accepted the principle that they should attend to Western hearts and guilt by sacrificing their own land and accepted a partition plan whereby the one-third population of Jews, overwhelmingly recent immigrants, nay colonizers, should receive 55% of Palestine while the two-thirds population of indigenous Palestinians should redraw their borders to solely 41% of their homeland (I am sure it is superfluous to remind you that Jerusalem was proscribed an international zone on 4% of the land), an absurd partition plan, unprecedented in history where colonization is bestowed not just with recognition but with an even more favorable condition than the natives (it is not as if the Palestinians were accorded even a majority of the land, how did they the actual majority of the people get less than half? and they are supposed to be the bad guy and ingrates for not accepting this handed down injustice?!). But even if the Palestinians accepted this cruelty, the Zionists and Hashemites were in agreement that no Palestinian state should come into being. The Zionists - then and now - believe that Zionism cannot survive unless the natives are denied their rights. It was not the Palestinians who sought to deny the Jews, since Palestinian nationalism does not deny Jews their rights as individuals, but the Zionists who were not content to deny simply Palestinian statehood but the very idea of a Palestinian people, to quote your inspirer Golda Meir.

And your nonsense about combined Arab armies, meant to convey a massive Arab force seeking to overrun a underdog Jewish force, is further disinformation when you know that the Arab forces were 1) late to the game 2) 1/3 of the combined force of the Zionists 3) poorly armed as opposed to the Zionists who had superior weapons, procured weapons, including bombers from sympathetic Americans, and even violated the ceasefire agreement to purchase weapons and 4) the Arabs were so poorly organized that they were at times shooting at one another and 5) most of the Arab armies never even crossed into the territory allocated for the colonial Jewish state. And besides, the Zionists had ethnically cleansed hundreds of thousands of Palestinians even before a single Arab army declared war, whatever the merit of that declaration.

Contrary to your Zionist propaganda, the Palestinians did not flee on their own accord, but were massacred and compelled to flee under threat of further violence. You cite Jaffa, the Palestinians in Jaffa, then Palestine's greatest city and so important that it was carved out by the United Nations as part of the Arab state, an Arab island of 70,000 citizens, enveloped by the Jewish state next to Tel Aviv in the partition. In Jaffa, the people were pushed into the sea by the Zionists who later posed as victims of Arabs who were allegedly seeking to do unto them what they had cruelly did to the Palestinians. Jaffa was the victim of a barrage of rockets, you know the ones Israel whines about today, by Menachem Begin's Stern gang, leading to tens of thousands to escape (what they thought temporary) via ferry to Beirut. But the Zionists made sure there was no return. And Begin used Jaffa as a way to prove his Zionist bona fides. For it was the Zionists who refused to accept an Arab city in their generous 55% allocation. (who has the sense of entitlement? forgive the Palestinians for actually believing they have a right to their country).

It is fallacious that you seek to position Arab Jews as comparable to Palestinian refugees, a Zionist gimmick. In no way to lessen their plight, but their tragedy is not the same: it was a migration or forced exodus over decades, greatly encouraged by the Zionists, and many were allowed to sell their property, and they deserve compensation and return, but that is a separate issue for which the Palestinians do not need to answer. Your statement about the Beirut of your dreams and the Jewish quarter being a Hezbollah enclave, what further fabrication! The Jewish quarter is in Beirut's Sunni dominated central district and the Maghen synagogue has been recently renovated, that entire area is as much a Hezbollah stronghold as the Wall Street Journal's editorial board is dominated by leftists. Hezbollah wouldn't dare to even step foot next to Lebanese Sunnis who detest it. And are you ever reminiscent about the lost quarters of the Palestinians? I am sure you know this but I guess without such nonsense and pandering you would not be part of the club, and not get published. Sell your soul to be treated like a human being by America's fanatical pro-Israel elites.

One last point: Nothing was more egregious than your patently false statement that the Arabs in Tunis, Cairo, et al have not raised the banner of Palestine since the revolution began. Of course, if you read Arabic newspapers, and I am sure you do, you know that many Egyptians have been open about their disdain for Israel, a wish to end the shameful bought "peace" of Sadat, attacking Mubarak-Suleiman as stooges, and proudly raising the flag of Palestine. But if you choose to adopt the Tom Friedman nonsense that the revolutions have no foreign policy implications, that's your wish to ignore reality. Palestine is there, it is always there for Arabs.

Let me conclude by stating that I am a Tunisian living in America and I watched every moment of my birth nation and its revolution in exhilarating and tearful excitement. Do not use the rising up of the Arab people as a fig leaf in your silly and inferiority-minded polemics. No Tunisian would ever dignify you, for you readily humiliate yourself. An Arab like yourself, so eager to cast aspersions on the Palestinians people, who have suffered so much and so unfairly, no, this moment is not for you. You do not share it with us. We do not wish to have you. Please, no longer wish us Arabs goodwill for we do not seek it from such a hand. On the day of the Tunisian revolution, an al Jazeera screen grab casually captured a Palestinian flag hanging from a Tunisian apartment balcony. Palestine always waves high for the Arabs, it is always there, Tunisians have not forgotten it and have shouted, in an amendment, "The people want the liberation of Palestine".

Nothing is more vulgar than to use the Arab revolution to advance your anti-Palestinian cause, the revolution does not vindicate you, it refutes you. Palestine will only rise in a free Arab world. It is your tyrants Ben Ali, Mubarak and al-Saud who sought to deny Palestine in the Arab conscience. Every Arab knows that the Arab revolution will not be complete until Palestine is free. A cursory run through a Tunisian Facebook page will show that Palestine is still the heart of the Arab people. So, please, at least have the decency to acknowledge that you are not part of the Arab moment, rejected by the Arab people and further pulling yourself away, and that you may never awake from your slumber to recognize the justice of the Palestinian cause and call yourself an Arab, head held high.


http://mondoweiss.net/2011/06/an-ope...volutions.html

In fact, there is so much information out there including from organisations like Zochrot [remembering the nakba] that it is entirely surprising to me why people still cling to false narratives spread by Israelis.

[Asguard]

you know sam, if they were given equal citizianship and voting rights then i wouldnt paticually care if the whole thing WAS called israel. Concidering the numbers involved that would fix the conflict there and then, bit hard to oppress if you have less politcal power than those you seek to oppress

[S.A.M.]

you know sam, if they were given equal citizianship and voting rights then i wouldnt paticually care if the whole thing WAS called israel. Concidering the numbers involved that would fix the conflict there and then, bit hard to oppress if you have less politcal power than those you seek to oppress

Same here. I don't think Palestinians would care either.

[GeoffP]

The name of the country is hardly the central problem with a one-state proposition.

[Asguard]

The name of the country is hardly the central problem with a one-state proposition.

Hat is? The fact that the Jews would lose there ability to oppress? Yes I know that's a problem. Course so are the terms "Jewish" state and "Democratic" state, a Democratic state requires that all people be treated as equal no matter what religion they are

[S.A.M.]

Absolutely brilliant article by Robert Fisk!

Who cares in the Middle East what Obama says?

President Obama has shown himself to be weak in his dealings with the Middle East, says Robert Fisk, and the Arab world is turning its back with contempt. Its future will be shaped without American influence

One of the vainest elements of American foreign policy towards the Middle East is the foundational idea that the Arabs are somehow more stupid than the rest of us, certainly than the Israelis, more out of touch with reality than the West, that they don't understand their own history. Thus they have to be preached at, lectured, and cajoled by La Clinton and her ilk – much as their dictators did and do, father figures guiding their children through life. But Arabs are far more literate than they were a generation ago; millions speak perfect English and can understand all too well the political weakness and irrelevance in the president's words. Listening to Obama's 45-minute speech this month – the "kick off' to four whole days of weasel words and puffery by the man who tried to reach out to the Muslim world in Cairo two years ago, and then did nothing – one might have thought that the American President had initiated the Arab revolts, rather than sat on the sidelines in fear.

There was an interesting linguistic collapse in the president's language over those critical four days. On Thursday 19 May, he referred to the continuation of Israeli "settlements". A day later, Netanyahu was lecturing him on "certain demographic changes that have taken place on the ground". Then when Obama addressed the American Aipac lobby group (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) on the Sunday, he had cravenly adopted Netanyahu's own preposterous expression. Now he, too, spoke of "new demographic realities on the ground." Who would believe that he was talking about internationally illegal Jewish colonies built on land stolen from Arabs in one of the biggest property heists in the history of "Palestine"? Delay in peace-making will undermine Israeli security, Obama announced – apparently unaware that Netanyahu's project is to go on delaying and delaying and delaying until there is no land left for the "viable" Palestinian state which the United States and the European Union supposedly wish to see.

Then we had the endless waffle about the 1967 borders. Netanyahu called them "defenceless" (though they seemed to have been pretty defendable for the 18 years prior to the Six Day War) and Obama – oblivious to the fact that Israel must be the only country in the world to have an eastern land frontier but doesn't know where it is – then says he was misunderstood when he talked about 1967. It doesn't matter what he says. George W Bush caved in years ago when he gave Ariel Sharon a letter which stated America's acceptance of "already existing major Israeli population centres" beyond the 1967 lines. To those Arabs prepared to listen to Obama's spineless oration, this was a grovel too far. They simply could not understand the reaction of Netanyahu's address to Congress. How could American politicians rise and applaud Netanyahu 55 times – 55 times – with more enthusiasm than one of the rubber parliaments of Assad, Saleh and the rest?

And what on earth did the Great Speechifier mean when he said that "every country has the right to self-defence" but that Palestine would be "demilitarised"? What he meant was that Israel could go on attacking the Palestinians (as in 2009, for example, when Obama was treacherously silent) while the Palestinians would have to take what was coming to them if they did not behave according to the rules – because they would have no weapons to defend themselves. As for Netanyahu, the Palestinians must choose between unity with Hamas or peace with Israel. All of which was very odd. When there was no unity, Netanyahu told us all that he had no Palestinian interlocutor because the Palestinians were disunited. Yet when they unite, they are disqualified from peace talks..


But as this nonsense continues, so the tectonic plates shudder. I doubt very much if the Palestinians will remain silent. If there's an "intifada" in Syria, why not a Third Intifada in "Palestine"? Not a struggle of suicide bombers but of mass, million-strong protests. If the Israelis have to shoot down a mere few hundred demonstrators who tried – and in some cases succeeded – in crossing the Israeli border almost two weeks ago, what will they do if confronted by thousands or a million. Obama says no Palestinian state must be declared at the UN. But why not? Who cares in the Middle East what Obama says? Not even, it seems, the Israelis. The Arab spring will soon become a hot summer and there will be an Arab autumn, too. By then, the Middle East may have changed forever. What America says will matter nothing.

The whole article is worth a read.