Israel's 'unshakeable ally' awaits formal response
The US state department says it is waiting for a "formal response" from the Israeli prime minister after his telephone conversation with Hillary Clinton about plans to build new homes for Jews in East Jerusalem. But the USA's relationship with Israel was declared "unshakeable".
The US response has been fast and furious after the announcement of plans to build more than one and a half thousand new homes in East Jerusalem in the middle of a visit to Israel by US Vice-President Joe Biden.
It comes ahead of a new round of indirect talks with the Palestinians. Mr Biden had gone out of his way to lavish praise and affection on his host. So the initial reaction to the announcement seemed to be shock as much as anything else.
But in the following days, Hillary Clinton called it "deeply negative" and White House adviser David Axelrod said it was an "affront" and an "insult".
It seems they want to use this as an opportunity to test how serious the Israelis are about more talks.
State department officials would not go into what Mrs Clinton said in the phone call, but said "she did outline some specific things" that she wanted done, both about the housing project and more generally about the talks. One Israel newspaper reports that among her requests were the reversal of the project, and substantial gestures towards the Palestinians.
Asked about the Israeli ambassador's claim that the relationship with the US was at its lowest for 35 years, the spokesman said that Israel was a "strategic ally" and America's commitment was "unshakable".
He repeated that they were awaiting an official response and would then "evaluate the implications".
He said that George Mitchell was in the region and that the beginning of talks was not conditional on the response, but would go ahead if the negotiations could move forward and make progress.
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~28~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
No direct talks, no indirect talks, no talks between the Palestinians themselves, this puppy is as dead as puppies can get. The roadmap has reached the dead end I said it would the day it was announced. There will be no Palestinian state for a very long time if ever.
Time to move on. 1967 is ancient history, several lifetimes, two wars of annihilation against Israel, two intifada wars of terror against Israel, nearly 20 years of failed peace talks in which the Palestinians rejected acceptance of every demand they made by sudenly adding insistane on return of 5 million refugees and their descendants, and one Israel should be wiped off the map ago. It's over. The whole thing is pointless.
Mr. President, the people of the United States of America overwhelmingly support Israel in its struggle to survive terrorism. Get with the program, forget this foolish mistake you just made and focus on the reason you were elected, to fix America's economy. That or step aside and the Republicans will be back in power before you can say "One Termer."
Complain about this comment
Mahmoud Abbas uses yet another excuse not to negotiate. Why should he, when Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama are doing such a fine job on his behalf?
Complain about this comment
The US State Department can say what it likes but this latest “fiasco” is all a ruse for public consumption.
If the US really wanted to stop Israel in its tracks, all it would take is
a) stop the endless funding
b) stop the endless supply of weapons.
There was no real plan for talks with the Palestinians – direct or indirect.
Each American politcian duly followed the script:
Hillary Clinton called it "deeply negative", White House adviser David Axelrod said it was an "affront" and an "insult".
Biden was angry; Obama was angrier.
In the meantime, one look at a map of Israel/Palestine will clearly show that a viable two-state solution is no longer in the cards; the only thing to talk about is a one-state solutuion, and Israel will never, NEVER agree.
Complain about this comment
"The Obama Administration’s recent statements regarding the U.S. relationship with Israel
are a matter of serious concern. AIPAC calls on the Administration to take immediate
steps to defuse the tension with the Jewish State.
Israel is America’s closest ally in the Middle East. The foundation of the U.S-Israel
relationship is rooted in America’s fundamental strategic interest, shared democratic
values, and a long-time commitment to peace in the region. Those strategic interests,
which we share with Israel, extend to every facet of American life and our relationship
with the Jewish State, which enjoys vast bipartisan support in Congress and among the
American people.
The Administration should make a conscious effort to move away from public demands
and unilateral deadlines directed at Israel, with whom the United States shares basic,
fundamental, and strategic interests.
The escalated rhetoric of recent days only serves as a distraction from the substantive
work that needs to be done with regard to the urgent issue of Iran’s rapid pursuit of
nuclear weapons. . ."
[AIPAC statement. My Italics.]
Note the reference to 'the Obama Administration'; not the "United States Government". So, there you are. Them's your orders, jump to it!
(Ethinic cleansing of East Jerusalem isn't a problem. Nothing to do with real issues like nuking Iran. And Netanyahu only upset a) a Veep who's an idiot anyway, and b) a President who's unpopular. So who cares? Congress will keep the dollar tap turned on anyway. And most Americans will cheer. What's the fuss?)
Complain about this comment
Most people would not object to Israel's standing up for itself and combatting terrorism, despite the fashionable anti-semitism expounded by the UK's chattering classes and the BBC. But it has to be said that its recent heavy-handedness over Gaza and these land grabs are steps too far, taking the mickey in fact - and Israel may well come to regret them. They assume American support too arrogantly and could well end up losing it. Caledonian Comment
Complain about this comment
Mark:
"It seems they want to use this as an opportunity to test how serious the Israelis are about more talks."
And if they aren't? What's the next move for the U.S.?
Complain about this comment
Finally the Americans realise their greatest ally is not so great. Now only if America does what is good for America and its interests.
Complain about this comment
President Obama has no more right to tell Israel what kind of housing it can build in Jerusalem, it's capital city than Prime Minister Natanyahu can tell America what kind of housing it can build in Washington DC.
Many Americans and Israelis feared President Obama would sell Israel out to the Palestinians despite his reassurance that he wouldn't. Now we see their concerns were well justified. This will cost President Obama a lot in American domestic politics.
Complain about this comment
If you built your house on property your neighbor thought was his, you'd have the issue settled in a court of law.
That's all the Palestinians are asking.
Complain about this comment
Well, the Israelis have been illegally deducting contributions from Palestinian's wages for benefits to which they are not entitled to claim. They have also been forcing Palestinian workers to pay dues to a labour federation that they are not allowed to join, and which does not represent Palestinian workers. A conservative estimate puts the figure stolen at $2 billion!
This stolen money has been spent on 'infrastructure projects' (think settlers, think nice new homes ...). Don't let anyone tell you that Israelis don't have a sense of humour.
According to a new report "State Robbery" by The Alternative Information Centre and Kav La’Oved, 20% of workers salaries are deducted while less than 8% is used to award benefits to Palestinian workers. The rest being secretly transferred to the finance ministry.
So I am not holding my breath while waiting for the Israeli Government to do the right thing ...
Complain about this comment
Shrewd negotiation tactic on the part of Netanyahu's government. I wonder whether Obama's administration, affronted with such unyielding resolve, will cave in again. In the name of Peace, I hope not. Just imagine how much wheeling and dealing is going on in Washington right now. The reality on the ground keeps changing, only it is never in favor of the Palestinians. The question of settlements is crucial to the peace process. Arguably, it is the single most important determinant and their proliferation is inversely correlated to the prospects for a lasting peace. I hope Pres. Obama and his team have the political courage to do the right thing here.
Complain about this comment
I'm still waiting to see what the political backlash about this in the US will be. I expect the Republicans to be in all of their glory supporting Israel and the Democrats torn and twisted trying to thread a needle between keeping faith with their President and not wanting to be seen as selling Israel out as the Republicans will surely claim.
It is a fact that the perception of most people in the US whether justified or not is that Palestinians are terrorists. The cheering we saw among them in the aftermath of 9-11 did not do their public image any good in among the American public. I don't think there is much sympathy for them here, I don't think there is much left among many Jews in Israel either. I think it's something Europeans don't understand.
Complain about this comment
Marcus : "time to move on. 1967 is ancient history"
So, presumably, you are advising Cuban Americans to "move on" as 1959 is "ancient history"?
Complain about this comment
Whilst it is admirable and right that the United States' administration wants to genuinely encourage a peace process, it has nevertheless entered into murky territory by presuming it can dictate to Israel the correct way to proceed. Barack Obama seems to assume that the solution is to ask Israel to even consider relinquishing her sovereignty over what is culturally and historically a Jewish city and which is now under Israeli sovereignty due to the wars Israel had to fight to preserve their very lives and their existence.
I was proud of the world when Barack Obama was elected, I was proud of him and I wanted the message he was carrying to become a reality. Now I think twice before reading the news for fear of the shame I will feel for him when I read of his actions and I worry about a future world in which it has been proven that those who speak and wish hate gain legitimacy in the eyes of the world.
Barack Obama COULD have been a force against racism; a true and lasting force. But instead he proven through the actions of his administration and through his own choices that he supports racism. He and his administration now have a chance to change that and I await their response.
Complain about this comment
As an American I wonder why we are letting Israel smack us in the face and the Conservative element in my country is calling on our President to apologize. The problem with Israel is our undying allegiance to their cause no matter what craziness they deal out this week. Where is the America first crowd when it comes to Israel? Why aren't we looking out for Number One now?
Israel is not an Ally, an Ally would offer protection in return. All Israel does is leave the US exposed to violence. Now I don't hate Israel I just have the sense to treat them like any other country. If the UK were wrapped up in a similar case I would say cut them loose. At the end of the day our Foreign Policy needs to be geared towards one thing and one thing only. Keeping America safe and well positioned in the world. Siding with Israel in it's assisted suicide is not keeping with that goal.
Complain about this comment
So Israel has taken a page from the Germans and Serb's books when they claimed a greater Germany and greater Serbia. Now it is greater Israel.
Ah well historically they have been getting away with murder and we stood at the sidelines and let them.
Complain about this comment
Word is four star General David Petraeus sent top officials to Mike Mullen about how the Israeli Palestinian conflict is undermining U.S. influence in his region CENTCOM and endangering American troops and credibility. If this is the case nobody has more respect in the U.S. military, he is respected by both Republican and Democrat, and his opinion means more than the Israel lobby.
Complain about this comment
If there was ever a glimmer of hope in finding a solution to the plight of the Palestinians it evaporated when the Israeli Zionists - deliberately - derailed negotiations by announcing their latest expansionist plans.
Israel rebuked President Bush when he, naively, announced that a successful agreement would be negotiated within one year after the Annapolis talks, and they did it again while VP Biden was trying to stimulate meaningful negotiations.
If there was ever any doubt that Israel has no intention to negotiate in good faith, let alone allow the creation of a Palestinian state, it should be clear by now that that is simply not going to happen regardless of how many UN resolutions are issued or what the rest of the world has to say.
The only way to force Israel to the negotiating table is by suspending all US foreign and military aid, which is not going to happen, and by imposing a world wide boycott of all Israeli products, which the USA will not allow.
Consequently, the best thing everyone could do is accept the new world super bully, get used to political assassinations (when carried out by the Zionist regime), and make sure maps of the Middle East are modified often.
Complain about this comment
Ref 6, Andy
"And if they aren't? What's the next move for the U.S.?"
The same move taken by every previous US administration...punt!
Complain about this comment
Psalm 92 Psalm 94--1 The prophet, calling for justice, complains of tyranny and impiety. 8 He teaches God's providence. 12 He shows the blessedness of affliction. 16 God is the defender of the afflicted.
Complain about this comment
I assume this means the US is going to cut the huge military and economic aid it gives to Israel every year? Sorry, I have to go, there's just been a formation of flying pigs go past my window...
Complain about this comment
NicDriver;
"If you built your house on property your neighbor thought was his"
According to the Palestinians all the land Israel exists on belongs to them. They feel they are making a concession even when they just agree it has a right to exist at all...which is not always. Hamas, their elected government doesn't agree to it.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 4, squirrelist:
"...our relationship with the [i]Jewish[/i] State... "
Do you think they're trying to persuade Axelrod and Emanuel based on their common religion?
Complain about this comment
Ref 14, OneEssence
"Barack Obama seems to assume that the solution is to ask Israel to even consider relinquishing her sovereignty over what is culturally and historically a Jewish city and which is now under Israeli sovereignty due to the wars..."
Does this mean Saddam Hussein should have been allowed to keep Kuwait because he defeated his neighbors militarily?
Complain about this comment
The US administration can forgo the histrionics. In 62 years they have never been angry enough to do anything to inconvenience Israel. Settlement activity started 42 years ago, and was illegal then. Jerusalem was annexed, illegally. Palestinians have been kicked out of land in Jerusalem and West Bank to make room for illegal Jewish settlements, even while America was angry. All of the diplomatic activity going on now is to find a way to shift blame to the Palestinians. Expect the US administration to call for both sides to "make concessions". Well the Palestinians have conceded 78 percent of Palestine, and are forced to share the 22 percent with Israel. Some of the earlier contributors see nothing wrong with that equation.
The disinterested observer finds it unfathomable that Americans could think that their long-term interests lie with supporting to every fault an intractable ally, thus alienating a large part of the world whose support it could use.
Complain about this comment
One Essence;
It's worse than you think. Obama's obsession with the United States pursuing a policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament could get him a label of fool at best, traitor at worst. I don't think the joint chiefs will go along with that. One way or another, he will not get to impliment such a suicidal policy for America. Obama's inexperience explains his incompetence to be President. In a nation that wanted change, his charisma blinded too many Americans from exercising common sense. Now we are stuck with the consequences.
Complain about this comment
When will the USA ever condemn Israel for it's illegal occupation? I've boycotted Israeli goods for 40 years, I am considering boycotting American goods.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 3, BluesBerry:
"If the US really wanted to stop Israel in its tracks, all it would take is
a) stop the endless funding
b) stop the endless supply of weapons."
We can do neither. The U.S. will not stop supporting of Israel. It just isn't in the cards.
However, we could call Israel's bluff and reduce the amount we're willing to guarantee when they try to get loans. That would push up their interest rates just a tad and put a gentle squeeze on their economy. Nothing too drastic. Just enough to remind the Israelis who's footing the bill.
Complain about this comment
Maximus Barbarius,
You actually know you are wrong, that is the only logical or rational explanation for your extreme intolerance and hatred. Every human being is worthy of respect for their humanity, but not by you apparently! Every human being is the image of God in the scriptures that from the basis of all of the peoples of the book, yet you deny these fundamental doctrines of their faith to both your own nation and the Israelis - One Nation under God, indeed! Smell the cordite, you have just blown your own head off!
Complain about this comment
13. At 9:48pm on 15 Mar 2010, DennisLanePretoria wrote:
Marcus : "time to move on. 1967 is ancient history"
So, presumably, you are advising Cuban Americans to "move on" as 1959 is "ancient history"?
Well, you see, time is a strange thing to the right-thinking, I've come to realise. To many who post here, 1776 is but yesterday, but is still present; and the English present is stuck somewhere around 1300. For some, time stopped in 1945 and endlessly recycles through the preceding 12 years. For others, a biblical time thousands of years ago is the future.
So there's no problem about 1967 being ancient history and 1959 being recent history. It all depends on what time some people want forgotten or ignored because it leads, or led, down paths they don't want to be followed or want to pretend were never there.
T S Eliot explained it:
Time present and time past
Are both perhaps present in time future,
And time future contained in time past.
If all time is eternally present
All time is unredeemable.
What might have been is an abstraction
Remaining a perpetual possibility
Only in a world of speculation.
What might have been and what has been
Point to one end, which is always present.
Complain about this comment
America needs to look at our relationship as we would any other nation. We supply a significant amount of foreign aid every year to Israel and allow them to purchase some of our most advanced weapons system systems. In return Israel shares intelligence with us (while they continue to spy on us) and...what? What else do they provide that we need? They have no oil. They have no rare metals or substances we need but can't purchase elsewhere. They produce nothing we need and can't make for ourselves.
The fact is that our relationship with Israel is based on sentimental and religious attachment, hardly the basis for forming a rational foreign policy in America's strategic interests. We admire their grit and pluck while ignoring that they sometimes act like bullies and spoiled brats and embarass the heck out of us. Support Israel, yes. Unconditonally, no.
Complain about this comment
Maximus Bardus,
How do you justify your hatred of everyone? How do you justify your rabid intolerance? Do you think (and I am assuming you are actually human!) that you are somehow different to all other people and everyone else is beneath contempt?
Both Israelis and Palestinians are human beings - even you will not contest this, I hope, although I am not sure any more after your intemperate outburst in #1. Are you so insane to actually intend to wipe-out the Palestinians? Are you advocating that the USA should undertake, encourage or participate in genocide?
Complain about this comment
re. #17. At 10:08pm on 15 Mar 2010, eli wrote:
"Word is four star General David Petraeus sent top officials to Mike Mullen about how the Israeli Palestinian conflict is undermining U.S. influence in his region CENTCOM and endangering American troops and credibility. If this is the case nobody has more respect in the U.S. military, he is respected by both Republican and Democrat, and his opinion means more than the Israel lobby."
I think you underestimate both the pro-Israel lobby and the ability of Congress to ignore sound advice. Remember that the pro-Israel lobby has a weapon which no four star in our military can match: a large pot of money with which to make donations to re-election campaigns. A lot of politicians can convince themselves that skunk smells like sandalwood if that's what it takes to get the funds to run for re-election.
Complain about this comment
Note for the moderators. I Have been in this 'room' for many years. I used to post under the name palegreenoptimist. I could not re-register under the new Cid (Criminal investigation department?)system. Now I have used a new registration, and my comment is not included (awaiting moderation - OK) in the list of comments in this room. Why?
Complain about this comment
# 14 OneEssence wrote:
"Barack Obama COULD have been a force against racism; a true and lasting force. But instead he proven through the actions of his administration and through his own choices that he supports racism. He and his administration now have a chance to change that and I await their response."
Perhaps you could clarify?
I'm assuming that what you are saying is that anyone who disagrees with the policy of any Israeli government is a racist? Or have I misunderstood?
Complain about this comment
the only reason Israel is able to conduct its current foreign policy is because USA is supporting it without any conditions. Israel "forces" (there was one case where israel built roads around a village and cut off its sole water supply as palestinians aren't allowed on those roads. read chomsky (hell, read anyone who does any kind of analysis on the settlement process) and you'll see the horrors that go on in there) palestinians to relocate *ILLEGALLY*, and all USA does is a slap on the wrist, following a statement that tells Israelis that their alliance status is unshakeable.
if american government actually wants to have good relationships with muslim countries (which it is claiming to. they don't have to have good relationships, noone is forcing them), then they need to stop vetoing the UN sanctions blindly (-vast- majority of US vetoes in the UN are pro-israel, with USA being the only country that goes against the resolutions).
Israel is feeding islamist terrorists with its actions. Israel is feeding anti-semitism throughout the world with its actions. these are all public knowledge, just read the plethora of books available in the subject (which overwhelmingly criticize Israel for its actions, for *some* reason). I wouldn't say Israel is the sole reason for 9/11 (there were many more american interventions in the middle east), but it definitely was a big... help (for the lack of a better term).
obviously had the arab-israeli wars ended differently, we would be talking about how arabs were abusing the israelis the same way. also there are many other human tragedies around the world that we aren't even bothering to talk about. but that doesn't justify Israel's actions
Complain about this comment
18. At 10:22pm on 15 Mar 2010, SaintDominick wrote:
"Consequently, the best thing everyone could do is accept the new world super bully, get used to political assassinations . . . and make sure maps . . . are modified often."
That advice seems vaguely familiar relative to another historical period. . .
Complain about this comment
Sorry,
Did not realise that 'you' is me!
Complain about this comment
Israel's continued constructions in the West Bank are illegal under international law. The Palestinians will never agree to peace talks with Israel if Israeli tanks keep bulldozing their homes. Its about time the US begins to talk openly about it. Looking the other way won't do anymore. It's one of the main reasons why the US is hated in most of the Middle East.
The Israeli's actions in Palestine are the cause of their terrorism threats. Their fueling the terrorist's cause by their continued violence.
Before you leap out of your seats and start shouting at me let me say this: just because I am speaking out against the Israeli government does not mean that I am an antisemite. Thats just lame name calling to those who do not agree with what the Israeli government is doing.
Complain about this comment
About July 15, 2009
Edit This
Cosmic Awareness — the force that expressed itself through Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Mohammed, H.I.M. and other great avatars who served as channels for what is commonly referred to as “God” — communicates again today as the world begins to enter a period of Spiritual Ascension with a new consciousness and awareness.
This force, which refers to itself as Cosmic Awareness so that it cannot be confused with an entity or a personality, has been communicating for more than 40 years through several carefully trained music channels who go deep into trance and communicate the energies and symbols that are expressed, putting them into human language. As it reveals this information, Cosmic Awareness does not ask you to “believe” anything, but to question, explore, doubt and discover for yourself the Truth that is within you – to discover “Who, In Fact, You Really Are.”
Comments (2)
Complain about this comment
I notice someone or some people do not want the world commenting on the big story.
Is this a grey or black operation? Looks very much like a panic measure.
Complain about this comment
I'm a little puzzled by an ambiguity I keep coming across. Apparently, this was all terribly insulting because the Jerusalem plans (which everyone's known about for months) were formally announced while the Veep was in Israel.
Why wouldn't it be just as insulting if he'd been in Tulsa instead of Tel Aviv?
Complain about this comment
Please post my thoughts as Mikelib, not ast you!
Complain about this comment
I always believed that the Israelis were smart - probably smarter than most non-Israelis in terms of protecting their own interests. In view of that, what is it that they don't get about the necessity of achieving peace with the Palestinians to ensure their very survival? Israel has brutally oppressed the Palestinians since the very inception of Israel in 1948. Israel will not survive another all-out Arab-Israeli war. Missile technology and the impending nuclear capability of Iran are total game-changers. Israel is a small country. No matter what devastation they can inflict on Iran, Iran will emerge as a whole country at some point - Israel will be completely wiped off the map. What is it that the Israelis don't understand about that equation?
Complain about this comment
27. At 10:57pm on 15 Mar 2010, Mikelib wrote
"When will the USA ever condemn Israel for it's illegal occupation? I've boycotted Israeli goods for 40 years, I am considering boycotting American goods."
No creme eggs this Easter. [Sigh. It's really hard sometimes.]
Complain about this comment
#1 MarcusA.... says "Mr. President, the people of the United States of America overwhelmingly support Israel in its struggle to survive terrorism."
I beg to differ Marcus. The majority of people of the US and all other civilized nations no longer supports Israel due to its recent track record. Furthermore, they are smart enough not to fall for the worn-out "terrorism" angle. They are not going to accept a whitewash on this one. They believe it is finally time for the US administration come down clearly on the side of international law. If it fails to achieve this then the US will descend one more notch in its international standing, reaching just about rock bottom. I think Mr. President knows this, so your advice and that of AIPAC will fall on deaf ears.
Complain about this comment
They've been doing this for 10 20 30 years now?
It has just not been quite so obvious perhaps for some.
How many Presidents have there been in that time?
It is clearly not a political party issue but a national one now.
Complain about this comment
15. At 10:04pm on 15 Mar 2010, Risforme wrote:
"As an American I wonder why we are letting Israel smack us in the face...Israel is not an Ally, an Ally would offer protection in return. All Israel does is leave the US exposed to violence. If the UK were wrapped up in a similar case I would say cut them loose."
We in the UK came to your aid in the USA when you were attacked by Islamic extremists who flew planes into the twin towers and so it is interesting to hear how you would desert us if a nation dissolved our government, shipped us Brits around the world and then after a thousand years we got back here and found that we were not welcome. It is interesting to learn how you would not explain to those who had inhabited our beloved UK that in fact we were the victims of human disgrace and that we have a right to live here again and determine our own destiny.
Don't you remember your own history and that it was born out of the desire for and the belief in the dignity innate in all people and the subsequent right for freedom from oppression?
The Jewish people suffered indignity throughout their history and have finally found the dignity of political sovereignty in their ancient homeland, in which a Jewish presence has consistently existed for 3 and a half thousand years.
Israel is an ally to the USA because it embodies the primary US value that "everyone has the right to be their best" and even more so since the Jews showed throughout history that they are able to "be their best" culturally and socially, despite their enemies.
Haven't you learned history? Don't you recognise the enormous contributions Jewish people, influenced by Jewish culture (read for example Parsons' book "Societies: Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives"), have made to all of us both historically and in modern times? Wouldn't you be more honest returning to this discussion to say that they are allies to all the people of the earth, including all Muslims?
Complain about this comment
This is a non issue in the US. The media aren't even covering it. All the media is interested in now is counting votes on the health care bill vote. The killings of US counsulate personnel in Mexico is getting some press, there is an occasional blurb about the pope and the child sex abuse scandal in Germany, this gets nothing. I think if they had killed Biden instead of just insulted him nobody in America would have paid attention to it either. This for America is a non event, a tempest in a teapot when we have real issues on our plate. The apartments will be built, occupied, and nothing will come of it. It's as good as over. Even one reporter on MSNBC in the brief discussion they had said some people have suggested that Biden should apologize to Israel for the language he used. If the Obama administration is smart, it will just drop it. That may be exactly what it is doing. Meanwhile, today the govermenet of China has told the west to take its values, it human rights, its democracy, its demands that it revalue its currency and go to hell with them. I wonder which leaders they were thinking about.
Complain about this comment
marcus is a rabbi
Complain about this comment
This is rare occasion to show the view of American leader and I compliment it. I hope Israel sees what the rest of the world sees. Israel has to abide by international laws and respect the lives of its neighbors.
Complain about this comment
John from Helldom;
"Are you advocating that the USA should undertake, encourage or participate in genocide?"
Want to talk about the RAF bombing of Dresden again? It's a topic I could warm up to.
Complain about this comment
24. At 10:51pm on 15 Mar 2010, SaintDominick wrote:
Ref 14, OneEssence
"Barack Obama seems to assume that the solution is to ask Israel to even consider relinquishing her sovereignty over what is culturally and historically a Jewish city and which is now under Israeli sovereignty due to the wars..."
Does this mean Saddam Hussein should have been allowed to keep Kuwait because he defeated his neighbors militarily?
---------
Saint Dominic
I am surprised at your question! Saddam Hussain attacked Kuwait with no provocation and so, no, I do not think he should have been able to keep Kuwait. In Israel's case, however, Israel was attacked without provocation and with a vendetta for Israel's total destruction. I do think, despite the unpopularity of this view, that due to those aforementioned circumstances, and due to security issues as well as the Jewish people's precedented historical and cultural relationship with the lands of the West Bank and East Jerusalem that they are perfectly entitled to keep all the land from those wars.
I am also surprised that the Arabs living there have not genuinely rejoiced in the fact that Jewish people have returned to their historical homeland. A real peace resolution will come about when this celebration in fact takes place and when that happens we can expect lots of good news from that region of the world which will affect all of us in a positive way.
Complain about this comment
The worst aspect of the snub is how it "legitimises" the Hamas stance.
Complain about this comment
"When will the USA ever condemn Israel for it's illegal occupation? I've boycotted Israeli goods for 40 years..."
You may think that you do, but in reality - you don't.
Do you also boycott goods from many Arab countries for their attempts to destroy Israel and for continuing to promote hatred towards it?
Complain about this comment
Everybody likes to play the victim. It gives them reasons to justify crimes they've committed in the past, crimes they are going to commit in the future. The Palestinian terrorists, the governments that attacked Israel, the ones that would like to, the general attitude among Moslems and Europeans towards Jews, towards Israel, towards America will not change the fact that these crimes are still crimes. And they are being punished and they will all continue to be punished. If the Palestinians have a real legitimate gripe, it's against their own leaders and the Arab countries that got them into this mess in the first place. America doesn't seem to care much what happens to them anymore, President Barack Hussein Obama and his associates notwithstanding.
BTW, we still haven't forgotten the fact that Hillary Clinton was duped by Yassir Arafat's wife and kissed her after she told a big whopper of a lie about Israelis poisoning Palestinian children in Arabic. Mrs. Clinton proved she didn't qualify to be President either. Duped by Mrs. Arafat, duped by her cheating lying husband.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
MarcusAureliusII wrote:
NicDriver;
‘"If you built your house on property your neighbor thought was his"
According to the Palestinians all the land Israel exists on belongs to them’.
The PA has already accepted Israel's right to exist. When is it time for Israel to accept the Palestinian right to exist? They are at the very least disputed lands. Unilateral action by Israel is changing the facts on the ground and it is these very facts that are at the heart of the peace process.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
WHO WILL BLINK FIRST?
[The Four DEMANDS]
The American-Israeli Empire’s [SOS] Secretary of State Hillary Diane Rodham-Clinton has made [4] four [DEMANDS] the gloves are off these are not requests of Israel to meet to repair relations, or risk the breaking of its Deep Running Bonds, and Unshakable Special Relationship, as a Strong and Special ally.
1.) Investigate the process that led to the announcement of the Ramat Shlomo construction plans project the middle of Biden's visit; The Americans seek an official response from Israel on whether this was a bureaucratic blunder/mistake or a deliberate move/act carried out for political reasons. Netanyahu has announced the convening of a committee to look into the issue.
2.) Reverse the decision by the Jerusalem District Planning and Building Committee to approve construction of [1,600] One-Thousand-Six-Hundred new housing units in Ramat Shlomo. and Cease the construction in East Jerusalem.
3.) Make a [Substantial Gesture’s] toward the Palestinians, enabling the renewal of peace talks;
* The releasing of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, being held by Israel.
* The [IDF] Israel Defense Forces withdraw from additional areas of the West Bank, in particular the Sinai Peninsula, held by Israel since the [1967] War, transferring them to Palestinian Control.
* Cease the siege of the Gaza Strip [Called a open air Concentration Camp] by the International Community Sphere of Nations, be ended.
* Removal of all roadblocks in the West Bank.
4.) Issue an official declaration that the peace talks, even indirect with the Palestinians will specifically address and deal with the conflict’s core issues
* Borders.
* Jerusalem.
* Refugees.
* Security Arrangements.
* Settlements.
* Water Rights.
[The Question]
Who will be the first to blink, the International Quartet, of The American-Israeli Empire’s [SOS] Secretary of State Hillary Diane Rodham-Clinton, The Russian Federation, the [EU] European Union, and the [UN] United Nations, or will it be Benyamin/Binyamin [BiBi] Gift from God Netanyahu, the [PM] Prime Minister Israel, or will BiBi try to walk the political tight rope, the high wire, once again showing composure, by not sweating and smelling of fear, trying to defuse the ticking time bomb, he’s sitting on?
HERCULE TRIATHLON SAVININE
Complain about this comment
Low-level comment from peeved US citizen: the reason why Clinton was angry was the timing of the announcement of the 1.5 K units. As Biden was in Israel when the announcement came out, standard diplomatic mores would lead people to believe that Biden (and the U.S.) somehow sanctioned the Jerusalem development. It made U.S. look either a) complicit or b) rear end of horse. With that in mind, Netanyahu's claim that he didn't know is incredible: of course he knew. Of course he set Biden up. And that scenario leads to the awkward question of what the U.S.-Israeli relationship really is.
Higher-level comment. Over the last few years, blood tests have indicated that the Israeli Jews and Palestinians are more closely related to each other than to anyone else. The separation is recent: in the last few thousand years. Now look at the Old Testament. THESE ARE THE SAME GROUPS OF PEOPLE FIGHTING THE SAME FIGHT THEY WERE FIGHTING THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO. This war deserves a place in the Guiness book, and frankly, a lot of the world is tired of it. As for those of us who want to take sides in it, can any of you remember what the fight is about? Warning, this fight was already old when Samson was conducting, uh, paramilitary operations against people who were conducting paramilitary operations against people who were...
Complain about this comment
The American citizens have had enough of Israel's insolence. We also want Palestinians to live in freedom, not under occupation.
Complain about this comment
The Israeli state was founded on terrorism. Arab states have every right to be angry about that - our allies are not by definition our friends. I don't subscribe to the more extremist attitudes that they should be wiped off the map, but they need to wake up to the fact that their neighbours have legitimate concerns. If they lived on a council estate in Leeds they'd have had an ASBO slapped on them a long time ago.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 19, SaintDominick:
"The same move taken by every previous US administration...punt!"
Well, that would be a little bit of history repeating.
I'm not so sure. I consider it disrespectful, and I think the administration does, too.
Israel's economy depends on ours. It seems like Israelis have forgotten that. We should send them a gentle reminder.
Complain about this comment
NutDriver;
"The PA has already accepted Israel's right to exist. When is it time for Israel to accept the Palestinian right to exist?"
That's for them to say not me. But if it were up to me I'd say never because as far as I am concerned, there is no such thing as Palestinians. There were just the Arabs who lived in that area. Before 1967 nobody ever heard of a Palestinian state. The Arab state carved out of the Palestinian Mandate was Jordan. The Arabs on the West Bank were Jordanians, those in Gaza were administered by Egypt, and some live in Jerusalem, some in what is now Israel. Just Arabs. The concept of an Arab Palestinian state carved out of these lands lost to Israel in the 1967 war is a fiction invented to justify more wars to wipe out Israel. That's the only reason it is even talked about. So I'd say IMO the answer should be never. I'd have what's left of the West Bank after the Israelis decide on what are secure borders they could defend returned to Jordan and as for Gaza, it could become a mini state like Monaco governed by the UN until it accepts that it has to live in peace with Israel in action as well as words. Any way you look at it, unless the Arabs accept Israel's right to exist within secure borders which it has now and with Jerusalem as its capital, then the region is on the road to another war. The return of all those refugees is also out of the question.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Well, having reviewed all these comments, allow me a couple of simple observations which are not intended to offend anyone:
1. Any criticism relating to Israeli policies, no matter how objective or reasonable it may be, exposes rifts borne out of deep-rooted and sometimes extreme ideologies.
2. Such criticism typically gives rise to self-righteous, hyperemotional refutations and counter-accusations, often without relevant or compelling evidence. Witness some of the comments on this page. This, in turn, gives rise to what the French call a "dialogue de sourds" where inconvenient facts are easily ignored or distorted.
3. Any disagreement or debate relating to Israeli policy is so politically charged (particularly in the US), that virtually noone who condemns such Israeli policies has the chutzpah to sign his own name for fear of some form of retribution.
4. The relevance of Point #3 has consistently extended to the highest levels of Government and Society for decades, across the Western world... EXCEPT (ironically) in Israel, where a vibrant and dynamic democracy debates these matters publicly and sometimes heatedly.
5. There are too many Israelis and Palestinians for either camp to disappear from that land, so the 2-state solution is irrefutable.
I hope that Israel's pragmatic moderates will recapture the Knesset from the wackos and summon the courage to finish Rabin's work.
Complain about this comment
It had to happen. "No such thing as 'Palestinians'; the history of the name of the area through Roman times to the Ottoman Empire has been referenced here over and over in the past.
I merely remind people that the constant reiteration of an untruth or a half-truth does not make an assertion true.
Complain about this comment
59. At 01:57am on 16 Mar 2010, seafly wrote:
"We need to educate the Palestine people that this is not their land and they need to go to another part of Arabia. . .The Palestinians are weak and the weak (like the American Indians and the Australian Aborigines) need to realize they have no power and back off on their claims on Greater Israel. If god wanted them to have the land He would have made them stronger. The Arab Jews may be allowed to stay in Israel if they behave well or they should leave too."
Ah. When people say this, does it not occur to them that they are both proposing exactly the same thing that was Nazi policy? The phraseology in Mein Kampf is not very different.
Complain about this comment
As an American Israeli who loves peace, respects human righs and the environment, I feel that both the USA and Israel need to take more steps to minimize incitement by extremist, right wing Jews... The USA in particular needs to stand up to heavily armed, American Jewish settlers who are disturbing many of the chances for peaceful coexistence in the State of Israel as well as the potential State of Ishmael.
Complain about this comment
I am shocked by the one sided anti semitic bias here, since the "improvement" no less.
I shall be complaining.
Complain about this comment
I am an Israeli
I voted for the Likud.
There are four issues issues here:
1.The Israeli government has to come out of the closet. We officially state that will ask only for demographic solutions which means minor adjustments with territorial exchanges. We have to accept that just as we share the land of Israel we must share Jerusalem. Sharing does not mean dividing. We have to face down the internal political consequences. I wonder if Bibi has the guts? The country is ready for the decision. It will take it if led. The leadership will come. We have a strong democracy and we are very much in touch with reality. A leader will arise
2. Palestine: We must do everything to help them unite & negotiate with us. Let them face world opprobrium if they refuse to settle their refugees in their territory.Or refuse to make peace. But that is their problem.
3. Iran: Israel cannot allow Iran to have both nuclear capability & front line confrontation via Hamas Hezbollah & Syria. Hamas will be solved by the Palestinians. The UN & World community must take responsibility for Syria and Lebanon. If Israel is to enter the family of nations, as she should, then the family of nations should accept us and behave fairly.
4.US: Our special relationship is changing. It is hard not to be critical of Obama's government. If he wants the change we can survive. This latest outburst was completely over the top. It is for the good. We have to put our house in order and not Americas.As we stand before a threat of a nuclear holocaust this was not the smartest of moves by anyone. But that is the way it is so we have to live with it Somehow I think we will come out of this stronger. We are more like Formosa than South Vietnam. I just wonder how the Saudis, Jordanians and Egyptians are seeing their world this morning?
Complain about this comment
"Everybody likes to play the victim. It gives them reasons to justify crimes they've committed in the past, crimes they are going to commit in the future."
Ah, what splendid irony. Pot, meet Kettle.
Complain about this comment
59. At 01:57am on 16 Mar 2010, seafly wrote:
"Israels European citizens have suffered intolerable harshness from the Nazis. Millions were killed. Now it is time for them to left in their spiritual homeland told of in their holy books"
A little demographical lesson for those who seem to have a misconception of the Israeli population:
"Most immigrants who arrived in Israel during the mass migration (1947-51) were refugees who were brought by the state with the help of Jewish organizations (bringing to Israel the entire Jewish communities of Yemen, Bulgaria and Iraq)
About half the immigrants came from countries in Asia and Africa, and the other half were mostly European-born survivors of the Jewish Holocaust. Three source countries—Iraq, Romania, and Poland, each with over 100,000 immigrants—accounted for about half the immigrants arriving in the mass migration. The other major source countries were Yemen, Turkey, Libya, Morocco, Iran, and Egypt in the Middle East, and Bulgaria, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia in Europe.
In the fifteen years between 1952 and the end of 1967, 582,000 immigrants arrived. Immigrants from Asia and especially North Africa comprised about 60 percent of this wave. Moroccan Jews alone numbered 210,000 in this period, and an additional 60,000 immigrants came from other North African countries. Romanian Jews were the largest European group withabout 109,000 immigrants.
The Israeli victory in the 1967 war and its aftermath attracted nearly 200,000 Jewish immigrants from the developed countries of North America, Western Europe (mostly France and Britain), Australia, and South Africa. These immigrants, especially the North Americans (about 70,000) and to a lesser extent the West Europeans, included a disproportionate number of ideological immigrants—mostly right-wing religious zealots."
[Immigration and the changing composition of Israel's population 1948-1949], Yinon Cohen (Yosef H. Yerushalmi Professor of Israel and Jewish studies at the Department of Sociology, Columbia University.)
Complain about this comment
1967, ancient history?
What about the Holocaust? I think that was a long time before 1967. No longer relevant then. TIME TO MOVE ON!
What about the biblical account of G_D promising some land to the Isrealites? Definitely, without a doubt 'ancient'. Whether it is 'historic' (as in an 'portraying a real-life event'), I think many people find the evidence a little shaky. Maybe if G_D would like to help his chosen people out by providing his own contemporaneous account the argument would carry some weight. In the absence of this it seems the Jewish claim on Palestine is about as credible as any other work of fiction.
Complain about this comment
Ref 53, OneEssence
"I am also surprised that the Arabs living there have not genuinely rejoiced in the fact that Jewish people have returned to their historical homeland."
Religious affiliation does not mean ethnic affinity, and in this case it does not mean the ancestors of the people that settled in Israel since the end of WWII were originally from the Middle East. The ethnicity of the Ashkenazi Jews that settled in Israel in recent decades is European not Semitic.
In any case, I believe the radical elements that seem to control Israeli foreign policy should reflect on what they are doing and should not emulate the reprehensible acts that brought so much pain and misery to their ancestors until not so long ago.
Complain about this comment
Re #74
Haven't you forgotten that a pretty sizeable chunk of Israeli Jews immigrated from Russia?
[btw. the word "pogrom" is not Hebrew or Yiddish]
Complain about this comment
Even accepting that the timing was bad:
This part of East Jerusulem is not part of the disputed area.
where is Obama:
1. No direct talks from the Palestininas
2. No criticsm of the Palestinians for honoring a terrorist with a memorial
3. No call on other Arab nations to open negoiations without preconditions
4. no call for release of gilead Shalit
This administration has bent over backwords to talke the Palestinians side and itis a disgrace
Complain about this comment
On a previous thread I explained the historical references to Palestine, going back thousands of years. The revisionist claim that Palestine only existed since the formation of Israel, ignores historical facts and documents.
Marcus claimed the 1967 is old history, which does make me wonder how his brief visit France carries any validity since it happened nearly as long ago, and that generations have been born since. For some Palestinian children this means they have grown up a subjugated people fed on the anger of their parents and the existence of refugee camps. Are we really that shocked that these children grow up angry and hating Israel? Unlike pampered Americans and Brits, who are willing to turn a blind eye they live under real hardship. Does this make the Palestinians blameless? No, in many ways it makes them as bad as the Israelis, both sides can claim that the other is untrustworthy and carries out almost inhuman acts of cruelty and both are correct. As mommy always says though two wrongs don’t make a right.
What needs to happen is that both sides are dragged kicking and screaming around the negotiation table and tied down until they make concrete agreements and have it explained to them the consequences of failing to live up to those agreements. In the modern age it is intolerable that so much of the world’s energy is spent dealing with tiny minorities of the global population. If a fraction of the money, time and energy was applied to helping other minority groups then the world would not be in such a bad state.
Israel has had over 50 years to prove that it is a viable state, it is time that the US removed the stabilisers so the world can see if Israel is. Israel needs the US far more than the US needs it, personally if I was America I would expect Israel to bend over backwards to play ball. Holding one hand out for weapons and money while giving the finger with the other hand, is called biting the hand that feeds you. As others have pointed out this is not the first time that Israel has done this, it doesn’t seem to matter whether it is a Democrat or Republican administration. Surely to be treated with such disrespect by an ally should be a point of honour?
Marcus – The capital of Israel is Tel Aviv not Jerusalem. Since it is clear that neither Palestine nor Israel can treat the city with the respect it deserves and due to its religious significance to three of the worlds major religions, personally I think that neither ones should hold Jerusalem. Make it an independent city-state, like the Vatican, open to Jews, Christians and Moslems equally. Alternatively considering the historical heartache the city has caused, the fact that it has for centuries been the spark that has ignited conflicts, maybe the whole place should be bulldozed into the ground and then maybe everyone can grow up a bit!
Complain about this comment
ref #51, AWorldPeace wrote:
This is rare occasion to show the view of American leader and I compliment it. I hope Israel sees what the rest of the world sees. Israel has to abide by international laws and respect the lives of its neighbors
_______________
Obama is very selective in his outrage and seems to be more concerned in pleasing the international community than what is doing right.
Did he criticze The Palestinians for not have direct talks/ or the continued terrorism or Palestinan thugs opposing a temple reopening in Jerusulem, which is a Jewish holy city too?
Obama has shown himslef to be as clueless about foriegn affairs as domestic.
Palin would be doing a better job than Barack
Complain about this comment
This is just the latest round in an endless cycle. As long as one side is still under control of (former) army or secret service men and women and the other side is ruled by (former) terrorists there can be no solution. The roadmap is dead and buried and has been since Rabin was shot. To believe otherwise is naive.
Complain about this comment
Those who claim here that population of Israel consists of European (Ashkenazi) Jews could not be more mistaken.
A sizeable chunk of that population consist of Sephardic Jews.
And Mizrahi Jews.
A group which includes Iraqi Jews, Syrian Jews, Lebanese Jews, Yemenite Jews, Persian Jews, Afghan Jews, Bukharian Jews, Maghrebi Jews, Berber Jews, Kurdish Jews, Mountain Jews, Georgian Jews and Ethiopian Jews.
I recognize that everybody has his pet theory.
But facts are stubborn things.
Complain about this comment
Human sin has distorted the image of God in us
• and used this gift of communication
• for destructive and harmful purposes.
PSALM 12 is about the abuse of words.
• When words are misused the very foundation of our humanity is endangered.
• David feels almost alone in crying for truth.
1-3: Help, LORD, for the godly are no more; the faithful have vanished from among men. 2 Everyone lies to his neighbour; their flattering lips speak with deception. 3 May the LORD cut off all flattering lips and every boastful tongue 4 that says, "We will triumph with our tongues; we own our lips-- who is our master?"
Complain about this comment
`The godly are no more.'
• `Godly means literally`those who practice steadfast love.'
• Those whose love is lasting and honest and faithful to the end.
• The `faithful have vanished'.
• Faithful means those who are firm and trustworthy.
• Like solid ground into which a tent peg can be driven and become immovable.
David sees this kind of society disappearing all around him.
• His question might be that of the previous Psalm in which we read: `When the foundations are being destroyed what can the righteous do?'
What has gone wrong is that WORDS which are so powerful
• have been misused.
THE POWER OF WORDS is very great.
• In verses 2 and 3 he speaks of
• `lies', `flattering lips', `deception' and `boastful' words.
• The word `lies' is literally `empty talk'.
• Not just deliberate falsehood but insincere talk -
• that cheapens and corrodes conversation and discussion.
Complain about this comment
Re: "Palestine".
Arabs who came from Jordan and, on the other hand, Biblical claims aside:
Why do you think a land described in detail by rather renowned and rather secular Roman historians and consuls was called JUDEA?
Complain about this comment
Prior to 1967 East Jerusalem belonged to the King of Jordan, he lost that territory to Isreal when he joined with Egypt, Syria, Labanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia in an all out war to destroy Isreal and her people.
he lost and he knew it. He ceded the land to Israel in treaty. Neither he, nor his son, have made any further claim on that land. What business it it of Hillary's to complain about the homes that have yet to be built?
All of Jerusalem belongs to Israel. Israeli Arabs can appeal to the Israeli courts if they beleive they have been displaced.
Complain about this comment
Re: powermeerkat #77 "btw. the word "pogrom" is not Hebrew or Yiddish"
1) The word "pogrom" (Russian: погром) came from the verb громить, "to destroy, to wreak havoc, to demolish violently". In Russian the word pogrom has a much wider application than in English, and can be applied to any incident of wanton and unrestrained destruction on a mass scale, such as occur during wartime. The word pogrom may have come into English via Yiddish.
Oxford English Dictionary, Dec. 2007 revision.
2) Israeli Prime minister Ehud Olmert harshly criticized Yitzhar settlers who launched a revenge attack in a Palestinian village in the West Bank. A Palestinian youth was killed and eight Palestinians were injured. It was not the first time the settlers had harassed the neighbouring villagers. "This phenomenon of taking the law into their own hands and of brutal and violent attacks is intolerable and will receive the strictest and most severe treatment. There will be no pogroms against non-Jewish residents in the state of Israel." said Olmert.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/settlers-attack-palestinian-village/2008/09/14/1221330653198.html
3) On December 7, 2008, Olmert again used the term "pogrom" while denouncing a group of Jewish settlers residing in a disputed building in Hebron who had clashed with Palestinians of the city during and after being evicted from the building by Israeli forces: "As a Jew, I was ashamed at the scenes of Jews opening fire at innocent Arabs in Hebron. There is no other definition than the term 'pogrom' to describe what I have seen," he told Cabinet members, according to public radio. "We are the sons of a nation who know what is meant by a pogrom, and I am using the word only after deep reflection."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7770384.stm
Complain about this comment
Powermeerkat – Can you tell me what Palestine means?
References:
Peleset (Egypt Ramesses III period)
Syria Palaestina (Roman Authorities, remained from Provincia Judea following the Kokhba rebellion 2nd Century AD)
Paleastina, containing Syria Palestine, Samaria & Galilee (Byzantine period)
So I believe that, if someone bothers checking, the Roman (not commonly regarded as secular considering that they had a pantheon of gods and also followed the Mystery Cults such as Mithras (the cult of which was Christianity’s main competitor for a while) and Isis – but hey lets not let history and facts stand in our way here) historians and administration agree that after Judah (which is not Israel you will note) the land became Palestine and not Israel.
I am not saying that Israel does not deserve to exist, just that revisionist history against Palestine is simply crock, especially if you know what Palestine means.
Complain about this comment
I don't think Israelis particularly care who thinks Israel deserves to exist and who thinks that "the Zionist entity" should be wiped off from the world map.
They will simply do whatever's necessary to make sure Israel continues to exist. As they have in the past. More than once.
[Countries don't have friends; just temporary allies]
Complain about this comment
america should back off israel,and miss clinton. needs a kik in the pants.america is a pro arab nation,especially with a muslim president obama.tell me americans how did your country get a muslim president,what a stench to the american flag, and what your christian fore fathers stood for.arent you ashamed of yourselves.
Complain about this comment
Mexico claims California and Texas, so should Anglophones not be allowed to build houses there? We have one standard for Jews, and another for the rest of the world?
Argentina Claims the falkland islands, should Falklanders not be allowed to build homes?
Complain about this comment
#79
"The capital of Israel is Tel Aviv not Jerusalem."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In October 1995, the United States Congress passed into law "The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995" which includes the following statement of U.S. policy:
"Statement of the Policy of the United States"
(1)Jerusalem should remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected.
(2)Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and
(3)the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999.
The U.S. Law also states that;
(1)Each sovereign nation, under international law and custom, may designate its own capital.
Complain about this comment
# 89 powermeerkat wrote:
"I don't think Israelis particularly care who thinks Israel deserves to exist and who thinks that "the Zionist entity" should be wiped off from the world map."
Really? As I had the impression they were extremely interested in this question, and in the views expressed eg by the Iranian leadership.
"They will simply do whatever's necessary to make sure Israel continues to exist. As they have in the past. More than once."
The problem with this 'logic' is of course that it assumes that any action taken by any Israeli government is necessary for the continued existence of Israel. It 'logically' follows that anyone who dares question or criticise any action taken by any Israeli government is an anti-Semite opposed to the existence of Israel. Where this leaves the many Israelis who dare to criticise their own government is an interesting question. 'Self hating Jews' presumably...
It never seems to occur to people who take this attitude that at least some people who dare to criticise one or more actions taken by any Israeli government might actually have the best interests of Israel at heart.
[I had understood, for example, that Biden was considered a relatively pro-Israel Senator - and he would have had plenty of competition.for that title....]
Complain about this comment
MK at #80 [and various others.]
So - MK thinks everything Israel does is right, and everything Obama and/or the Palestinians do is wrong.
There's a newsflash! Who'd a thunk it?
"Obama is very selective in his outrage"
MK is very selective in his outrage. Pot, kettle.
"...and seems to be more concerned in pleasing the international community than what is doing right [sic]."
"What is doing right" is KirinSpeak. In English it means 'doing whatever Israel says.'
"Obama has shown himslef [sic] to be as clueless about foriegn [sic] affairs as domestic."
MK has shown himself to be as clueless about foreign affairs as domestic.
"Palin would be doing a better job than Barack"
Course she would, MK. COURSE she would....[Since of course she's not at all clueless about foreign affairs OR domestic.]
In fact, I understand that she has begun an immediate 'Apology Tour' to Israel.
She plans to express the hope to Bibi that Biden's lip didn't damage his fist, and Biden's rear end didn't damage his boot....
Complain about this comment
ShaneDawson – I am not sure where you come from but from your username you are an Anglophone. Here are a few facts for you
1 – Obama, at least nominally is a Christian. Having a Muslim name does not make you a Muslim. I have a Jewish name, both David and Murrell can be Jewish, yet I am not a Jew.
2 – The US maintains, again at least nominally, a separation between Church and State, so the President’s religion should not be an issue.
3 – It is spelt kick not kick
4 – That upward facing key on either side of the keyboard is a shift key, try using it
Scotch-git – Apologies you are correct however according to the US embassy website the Israel embassy is located here:
U.S. Embassy, Israel
71 Hayarkon Street
Tel Aviv
Complain about this comment
This seems like the US-China debate over who needs who more. Israel and the US need each other... if you think there's some threat in the middle east. I don't see how anyone, anywhere in the world, can't see that the Palestinians are getting the short end of the stick, while wealthy hacks we refer to as politicians are one-upping one another in their silly game of who needs who more. Where's the peace in these talks? Just think if these talks were to be public by law... I can't help but question if any of us are talking about anything relevant regarding the facts of the middle east peace process taking place in those rooms.
Complain about this comment
ref #93
when has Obama criticized the Palestinians, especially when theyy refused direct talks.
the Obama administration is very biased towards the Palestinian view even though they have never been a friend to the U.S or done anything to prove they want peace
Complain about this comment
Ref 91, Steve
"Mexico claims California and Texas, so should Anglophones not be allowed to build houses there? We have one standard for Jews, and another for the rest of the world?
Argentina Claims the falkland islands, should Falklanders not be allowed to build homes?"
This is a critical element in our foreign policy position towards Israel.
Complain about this comment
The problem is that neither Israel nor Palestine govts really want to talk. The settlements provide an excuse for Palestine govt not to talk which is no doubt why Israel allowed them to be built. In another few months when this piece of news has died down, there will be a series of rocket attacks against Israel which will then give Israel an excuse not to talk, which is of course why the Palestine govt will allow the rocket attacks to happen.
In many ways this is a bit like NOrthern Ireland, they have been fighting for so long they do not know how to stop.
Much of the solution to the problem has been obvious for years:
1. Palestine to give up right of return for refugees
2. Israel to give up some of the territory, even it has settlements on it.
3. Disarming of Palestine other than police force (I suggest they probably need a small army).
4. Mutual economic co-operation
5. (the one difficult bit) Jerusalem - although I like the suggestion of it being an international city like the Vatican.
The problems are only over the amount of territory Israel should give away and settling Jerusalem and I suspect on the amount of territory the majority could be agreed within a few days.
Complain about this comment
DruM;
I could tell you the capital of England is Manchester not London but that does't change anything. London is the Capital because that's where the English choose it to be.
BTW, when is England going to stop occupying Scotland. If the Scots were given a chance to vote to quit Britain they'd be a free country tomorrow. English who feel cheated about not getting to vote on the EU Constitution and Lisbon should consider that Scots feel the same way about having to be par of Britain even though they get tax subsidies from England. Based on discussions I've had with more than a few Scots myself, I'd bet the vote would be overwhelming.
I'm sure there is plenty of room in England for the Palestinians to move to for a new homeland. That is if the Pakistanis will put up with them. You want to give them land, give them some of yours. Over the centuries England has not hesitated to take land from others all over the world, lots of it.
Squirrel;
What you said about half truths...practice what you preach. Stop telling lies about Israel and Jews including your half truths. Pot, kettle, black.
Complain about this comment
Ref 85, powermeerkat
"Why do you think a land described in detail by rather renowned and rather secular Roman historians and consuls was called JUDEA?"
Long before the Romans set foot in the region it was known as Plesbeth, according to Biblican references, and five centuries before the birth of Christ the Greeks (eg Herodotus) referred to is as Assyrian Philistine.
The region was inhabited by the ancestors of both Middle Eastern Jews and Palestinians, as well as Greeks, since time immemorial. The only recent immigrants to what is now known as the State of Israel are the Jewish immigrant who moved there since that new country was created.
When we deny the Palestinians the right to a homeland, their heritage, and deprive them of a sense of identity we are simply emulating the thinking and actions behind some of the worst acts of inhumanity in the history of mankind. The irony is that the nation that has been carrying out some of the greatest injustices in modern history is inhabited by people whose ancestors were victimized for centuries because of their ethnicity, religion, culture and the, alleged, lack of a national identity. Shame.
Complain about this comment
Re shanedawson #90
1) Learn proper punctuation and capitalization.
2) As far as I know, Mrs Clinton is still married.
3) Learn to spell.
4) America is pro and anti all sorts of things. Usually (but not always) pro American National Interest. It may at times be or have been pro Arab (it certainly seems pro Saudi) but it is also certainly pro Israeli.
5) Obama is not a Muslim.
6) But if he was a Muslim, there would be nothing wrong with that.
7) Given that the US Constitution protects religious freedom and prohibits religious tests for office, and that Jefferson advocated complete separation of church and state, I doubt they would object.
8) The only person who should be ashamed should be you for making such an ignorant, intolerant and uneducated comment.
Complain about this comment
@79 (dm): "Marcus – The capital of Israel is Tel Aviv not Jerusalem. Since it is clear that neither Palestine nor Israel can treat the city with the respect it deserves and due to its religious significance to three of the worlds major religions, personally I think that neither ones should hold Jerusalem. Make it an independent city-state, like the Vatican, open to Jews, Christians and Moslems equally."
David: This was what the original plan was, under the UN Mandate. While the Chinese government is too smart to take on the job, running Jerusalem and making it a place that can only be visited but not lived in is something that the Chinese could do very, very well. They have no historic interest in the place, and they have the discipline to be very, very tough when needed.
"Alternatively considering the historical heartache the city has caused, the fact that it has for centuries been the spark that has ignited conflicts, maybe the whole place should be bulldozed into the ground and then maybe everyone can grow up a bit!"
That's the solution that parents take when their kids positively will not get along with sharing of a toy...they take it away so it's never available again. It would be better to destroy the city rather than it be a continuing source of conflict, because in its current form it's nothing but a snare; however, I doubt that many people have the sense to see this. I wouldn't just bulldoze it, though; I'd turn it, its foundations down far enough to get to any ancient ruins, and all the "special places" that people visit in it and its suburbs into hot plasma. Obviously this would be after removing all the people and animals beforehand, by force if necessary. By doing so I'd ensure that nobody put the effort into trying to rebuild it for a very long time.
Complain about this comment
If Barack Hussein Obama's commitment as an "unshakable ally" can be derailed by a mere 1600 apartment houses he isn't much of an ally. A lot of us suspected he was a fraud all along and now he is proving us right. This is just one more of his broken promises to the American people. Can anyone think of even one promise he made that he's kept? The fools who voted for him because they believed him got a man who may yet prove not only to have betrayed Americs's self serving alliance with Isreal and with other countries but who will betray America in a way nobody since Benedict Arnold has been accused of except possibly for the Rosenbergs. Only time will tell if he proves to be a traitor but his proposal for what amounts to America's unilateral nuclear disarmament definitely heads him down that road.
How fortunate for the Israelis that they can defend themselves and that the other 99% of Americans are solidly behind them. This overplayed outrage as an excuse to sell out is just one more nail in Obama's political coffin.
Complain about this comment
Some people seem to be rather missing the point. Isn't it primarily Israeli Arabs living in East Jerusalem, and secondarily Palestinians in the West Bank, who should be feeling really insulted, not Americans generally and Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton particularly?
Why aren't Israeli Arabs offered super-duper fancy houses in settlements in the West Bank? Or given first refusal or subsidies on these fancy new apartments to be built in East Jerusalem? It rather gives the lie to any idea that all Israeli citizens have equal rights.
Why should people who have passed down their homes for generations be turfed out to substantially and deliberately change the religious and ethnic makeup of a whole area of a city?
And why should it be thought in certain quarters that it's OK for people to be uprooted and told to go and live in a foreign country that shares nothing more than a religion and ethnicity as one person suggested--and I've heard several times before? ('Arabia', forsooth! That's a big geographical area; full of countries which don't even speak the same dialects.)
It's like telling me some time that because my mum's ancestry is Norse way back, I should leave England and go to Norway to live 'among my kind' to make room for somebody else whose isn't. Why should I; I've never been there, and anyway, it's cold.
Complain about this comment
The US Constitution holds it as self evident that all men are equal;
Jews hold that they are a 'chosen' people and thus are in some way privileged above Arabs.
International Law says that Israel is acting illegally in settling outside their 1967 borders - and this is certainly self evident. US support of Israel is therefore an excessory to international crime and runs counter to the basis of their own constitution. (Nothing new here the US was based on taking others land and the use of slaves - it is the American way)
Palistinians must themselves give up 'rocketary' but should prosucute the US in US Courts;
Otherwise the comments that are recorded in by others are equal to an over partisan football match. [Full of sound and fury - signifying nothing]
But just look at the numbers of dead and wounded - Clearly Israeli is the aggressor and Israeli greed is at fault. And they carry on doing it because they can.
Now I do not mind the US being the gardian of Israel.
What I object to is the EU and Russia not similarly supporting the Palistinians. Negotiations will only be succesful if both sides are somewhat equal. When the Republic of Ireland was an equal member of the EU alongside UK - negotiations at Prime Minister level could meaningfully take place. While Ireland remained charmingly rogue no proper negotiations could take place.
Israel is committed in ensuring that the Palistinians remain an uncharming rogue or unrecognised entity - so that no meaningful negotiations can ever take place.
It is this that must be stopped and conditions whereby negotiations can begin created - by EU support.
Margret Thatcher took on the unions in the UK after 70 years of union assendency. Thus the EU must support Palestine. It is a very small price to pay for peace.
Complain about this comment
Re #98 SD
There are people who claim that Canaries do not belong to Spain.
And others who claim that Cataluna should not be a part of Spain since
Catalans are not Spaniards (different culture, different language).
And of course there are Basques.
Not that the Flemish want to live in one state with Wallooons and suggest a "two-state solution." :-)
Now, 'bout 'them Jews', although no crypto anti-Semite would ever admit that it is mostly simply about 'them Jews'...
["Zionist entity", my foot! Visit Zion National Park. (that's in Utah)]
Complain about this comment
Truths, half-truths, lies and plain rubbish:
"when is England going to stop occupying Scotland."
"The concept of an Arab Palestinian state carved out of these lands lost to Israel in the 1967 war is a fiction invented to justify more wars to wipe out Israel."
"20 years of failed peace talks in which the Palestinians rejected acceptance of every demand they made by sudenly adding insistane on return of 5 million refugees and their descendants, and one Israel should be wiped off the map ago."
"Many Americans and Israelis feared President Obama would sell Israel out to the Palestinians despite his reassurance that he wouldn't. Now we see their concerns were well justified.
"Obama's obsession with the United States pursuing a policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament "
That's not me. That's MAII, and just from this thread.
And why this gratuitous bit of double-sided racist nonsense: ""I'm sure there is plenty of room in England for the Palestinians to move to for a new homeland. That is if the Pakistanis will put up with them."
Why Pakistanis? Why not Bangladeshis, Somalis, Ethiopians, Chinese, Spanish, Portuguese, Welsh, Irish, Barbadians? (Just some of the origins of people who live where I do along with Iranians, Lebanese, Iraquis, Afghans, Moroccans, French and, nearly forgot, even some Americans.)
Complain about this comment
I made a couple of typos in post Nr. 101. The biblical name of Palestine was Plesheth or Palestina. It also appears in pre-Christian Greek books as Philistine or Assyrian Philistine.
If the Zionists wish to deny the Palestinians the right to a homeland because their military might allow them to do so they should acknowledge the rationale for their decision, but denying people the right to exist and their heritage while claiming victimhood is the ultimate example of cynicism.
Complain about this comment
Marcus – I guess you wrote this before you got a chance to read my retraction regarding Jerusalem.
What does Scotland or the United Kingdom have to do with this? I understand your knowledge of ‘ancient’ history is pretty poor but do you know who James I was, before he was King of England? As for full Scottish devolution, even the SNP are not convinced that they would win that vote, while most Scots would like more say in how they run their part of the Union, fewer want full devolution. You know you could like try and read something on the subject. Actually there is a sizable minority of English who would also welcome devolution from Scotland.
As for the EU Constitution AND the Lisbon Treaty, effectively they are one and the same, since the Constitution became the Treaty. As it currently stands there is no EU Constitution, though many Brits would have liked a vote on the Treaty. Again this has little to do with the relations between the USA and Israel.
I am even more intrigued by the comment regarding Pakistani attitudes to Palestinian migrants into the UK. Why do you single them out? You would have thought the chattering classes of the white majority would have had more issues. As anyone who looked into the matter the UK is one of the most densely populated countries around, particularly in the South East.
I should point out at this point that at no point have I suggested that Palestine get any more land than they already have in the Occupied Territories, recognised by amongst others the US. It seems a strange angle of attack considering my non-vocalised opinion on the matter. Correcting revisionist history regarding the legitimacy of the term Palestine (since Power cannot answer the question, do you know what the name means?), is a long way from extending the lands currently inhabited by the Palestinian dispora.
Oh and name me six countries England specifically has taken from others, go on I bet you can’t!
Complain about this comment
Ref# 100 MAII
"BTW, when is England going to stop occupying Scotland. If the Scots were given a chance to vote to quit Britain they'd be a free country tomorrow. English who feel cheated about not getting to vote on the EU Constitution and Lisbon should consider that Scots feel the same way about having to be par of Britain even though they get tax subsidies from England. Based on discussions I've had with more than a few Scots myself, I'd bet the vote would be overwhelming."
_____________________
Marcus, I know it's a long established habit, but you really ought to try not to reference issues you know nothing about.
There is little or no appetite for an independent Scotland. Especially since a large number of government functions was devolved to Edinburgh in '99. The last party to have an outright majority in any vote in Scotland was the Conservative (and unionist) party in the 50's. Go figure. It's widely acknowledged the Scotland has always gained more financially out of the act of settlement than England did. The recent independence movement is a product of oil being discovered in "Scottish" waters. When it dries up the nationalist movement is likely to whither.
Also, given the 50 million people that live in England make it considerably more densely populated than the US (Imagine fitting the entire US population into Texas and you have a similar number of heads per square km).
Given that so many in your country are advocating the displacement of the Palestinians and that you have so much room, why don't you offer to give them a chunk of somewhere in the deep south (not too much of a temperature change for them). You can just displace the people that already live there. I'm sure they wont mind.
Alternatively, grow up and accept that Israel has to be held to the rule of International law just as everyone else does. If Israel can't stick to the rules, why should it's neighbours, or it's occupied population be expected to?
Complain about this comment
What 'bout them Kurds?
No, I'm not promoting a creation of Kurdistan (such a state never existed).
But a historic fact as well a genetic evidence is that the Kurds are neither Turkish, nor Arabs, nor Persians. And that they have strong national identity despite never having a country.
Should they not at least deserve a broad autonomy?
Now, what about millions of Azeris, who are not Persians, and who don't particularly want their ancient land to be a part of Islamic Republic of Iran, but would rather be a part of Azerbaijan? [if they had any choice]
I don't see any concern here, let alone displays of moral outrage regarding their plight.
And I wonder why.
P.S. I won't even mention Chechens, Tibetans or Uighurs. That's non-PC.
Complain about this comment
I am amused that many of the conservatives who proudly voice that America has no allies, that it is beholden to no other countries seem to be the most whinging, sorry bitter, about the current administration taking issue with Israel.
So which is it, does America only look out for its own interests, even at the expense of other nations or is there some special kinship with Israel where they have to be kept happy and nothing critical can be said?
Is the mighty US really held to account by some minor democracy? If so is Israel the kryptonite to the US superpower?
Complain about this comment
Re#101
SaintDominick
A simple question.
Why are Palestinians not in Jordan and what did they do there to deserve to be thrown out of that kingdom by a Hashemite monarch?
Does a name Black September ring a bell?
And does that event explain a close cooperation of Jordan with US in their common fight against terrorism?
BTW. How come Egyptians don't want to take Gaza Strip back?
[Israel doesn't particularly care for it]
Ney, they're building a huge underground barrier between Egypt and Gaza.
To protect themselves against whom? The Jews?
Complain about this comment
#104 Marcus quit trying to tell us that the vast majority of Americans support Israel, no matter what it does. This was never true and certainly never will be unless the Israeli government becomes a law abiding citizen of the world.
Complain about this comment
"[Obama's] proposal for what amounts to America's unilateral nuclear disarmament " writes our resident Vampire.
What has been proposed (by the leaders of Russia and Britain, too) is joint nuclear arms reduction.
(In the interest of promoting truth over lies and videotape. . .Not that it'll make any difference of course to anyone with such a tediously boring one-track mind. I do like the way people who demand others 'respect' their Constitution, the 'Rule of Law' and 'the Presidency' love to bandy about accusations of treachery and betrayal and scream for impeachment. Yeah, that's what I call respect for democratic institutions. . .
Forget elections. A la lanterne!
Complain about this comment
"The US Constitution holds it as self evident that all men are equal"
US Constitution is not a sacred document. Although it's a pretty good one.
And a simple IQ test would demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that not all men (AND women) were created equal.
Complain about this comment
At 03:05am on 16 Mar 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
NutDriver;
'"The PA has already accepted Israel's right to exist. When is it time for Israel to accept the Palestinian right to exist?"
That's for them to say not me. But if it were up to me I'd say never because as far as I am concerned, there is no such thing as Palestinians.'
Just as there was no such thing as Israelis prior to the establishment of that nation state?
You'd think Jews would be more understanding of the plight of the oppressed than any other religion given their history.
The land is disputed and Israel's continued construction only means they have the military ability to force their will on the situation. All you are advocating is the neighbor with the biggest guns gets the land, that's hardly peace.
It’s really quite simple even though there are Israeli expansionists who would try to cloud the issue. Stop construction, enter peace talks and allow the Palestinians the right of self-determination. Both sides are going to have to compromise, why is Israel so unwilling to do the obvious?
Complain about this comment
"What I object to is the EU and Russia not similarly supporting the Palistinians."
Neither EU nor Russia are in any shape to support anybody else other than rhetorically.
[cf., e.g., Russia's 'support' for Serbia, and EU's support for Georgia]
Ney, they can hardly support themselves these days.
Complain about this comment
# 100 MA II
"BTW, when is England going to stop occupying Scotland. If the Scots were given a chance to vote to quit Britain they'd be a free country tomorrow. English who feel cheated about not getting to vote on the EU Constitution and Lisbon should consider that Scots feel the same way about having to be par of Britain even though they get tax subsidies from England. Based on discussions I've had with more than a few Scots myself, I'd bet the vote would be overwhelming."
If the Scots want independence, then presumably a majority of them will vote for the SNP in the next election in a few months. Even if the SNP end up as the biggest party - with Labour's current unpopularity, I assume that is possible – I rather doubt they'll get 50% + of the votes.
The Scots have had numerous chances to do this over the decades.
As for MAII claiming to know the opinion of most Scots, based on a few he claims to have spoken to - this is beyond ludicrous
There is a rather more informed [well, it could hardly be less informed] description of the facts here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence#Public_opinion
It appears that poll results vary considerably, especially when the option of Scotland having more autonomy within the UK is included. It certainly isn't the case that they show constant overwhelming support for independence.
I wonder whether anyone else here has had the experience of reading in the papers about something they know a lot about or have personal experience of, seeing that the papers don't really know what they are talking about, and subsequently being much more sceptical about what the papers say.
What with this and MA recently telling us there were no black presenters on the BBC, and think that pretty much establishes his level of credibility…
Clearly, however, he's not one to ever let the facts interfere with his prejudice.
He also wrote
"Squirrel;/What you said about half truths...practice what you preach. Stop telling lies about Israel and Jews including your half truths. Pot, kettle, black."
Can we have a whip round and buy him a mirror? [Silly me - I forgot - he won't be able to see himself - that explains a lot...]
Complain about this comment
# 106 Appleorchard wrote:
"When the Republic of Ireland was an equal member of the EU alongside UK - negotiations at Prime Minister level could meaningfully take place. While Ireland remained charmingly rogue no proper negotiations could take place."
I have NO idea what that is supposed to mean
Complain about this comment
SD wrote: "I made a couple of typos in post Nr. 101. The biblical name of Palestine was Plesheth or Palestina."
No big deal. You could have written 'Plesetsk'.
And there would be a problem then with Israel occupying it. :)))
Complain about this comment
Powermeerkat (107) – you of course ignore the glaringly obvious point, of those nations mentioned only the Basques are actually fighting for independence, even there ETA is losing support.
If any of those states or parts of states chose independence I would not have any issue supporting them.
And as someone who in the main is not of a favourable leaning towards Israel, my issue is not about them Jews, it’s about them Muslims (who are also Semites). Really I could not care less about 0.2% of the world population, unless it does something I don’t like. I am not interested in which bearded bloke sitting on a cloud they tell fairy stories about, or in which language. This whole religious aspect normally matters more Christians and Muslims. To be honest I am as anti-Semitic as I am anti-Inuit, anti-Jannist, anti-Maorist and anti-Romany gypsy, its just normally none of these do things to ensure children are kept living in refugee camps, then again neither do most Jews, nor even most Israelis, which is why my issue is with the Israeli government rather that its population or people living elsewhere who belief in the same myths.
Complain about this comment
"Hear, O Israel..."
It is to weep. This issue is akin to firearms and abortion among Americans in that it stirs up so many emotions and tangles with so many religious and ideological threads that it is difficult to ever find the facts...and next to impossible to solve the problem.
I grew up in a religiously mixed family -- Jewish, Christian and a few who refused to declare. The parent generation were all, however, from the Greatest Generation and emotionally scarred by WWII and the Holocaust. It may have been guilt or the announced resolve of the deathcamp survivors never to let this happen again, but their opinions fuel much of the political support for Zionism and Israel in this country.
As the political right made common cause with the religious fundamentalists during the 70's and 80's, I argued that "support" for Israel would morph into dogma for the Rapture. My parents almost had heart attacks on the spot when I brought THAT up at the dinner table! As it happens -- here in 21st century America with The Family bidding for control of Congress -- I wasn't so far off base.
The Obama Administration is the first post-Zionist thinking Administration. Yes, they're aware of the enormous emotional support for Israel among our citizens, both Jewish and Christian. They are also aware that we have a large and growing Arab-American voting citizenry. Nativist v. Immigrant difficulties at home play out on the geo-political stage.
Have I offered a solution? No. Have I offered some perspective? I hope so. Dear Squirrels: your commentary about the mutability of Time prompted some reflection and this:
Put up in a place where it's easy to see --
The cryptic admonishment, TTT.
Then, no matter how depressingly slowly you climb,
It's well to remember that Things Take Time.
(Piet Hein)
Complain about this comment
# 104 MA
"How fortunate for the Israelis that they can defend themselves and that the other 99% of Americans are solidly behind them. This overplayed outrage as an excuse to sell out is just one more nail in Obama's political coffin."
I generally skip over MA's interminable rants but this caught my eye.
Also, as a general rule, I automatically assume that anyone who thinks they are qualified to speak on behalf of a whole nation [or even 99% of one] is self-evidently suffering from megalomaniacal delusions of grandeur. Almost akin to thinking you're a Roman Emperor...
The claim for 99% US support for Israel is self-evidently ludicrous.
[BTW, I assume I'm not alone in noticing the let us say 'erratic and volatile', to be polite, nature of MA's postings re Obama. One day, if he's done something MA approves of, he's a good guy, better than all Europeans. The next, if he's dared to do something the Emperor disagrees with, he's an incompetent traitor who needs to be impeached...]
Complain about this comment
If you mention anything to some (americans etc) about palestinians rights
they will get violent froth at the mouth and punch and bang on the table
Complain about this comment
Powermeerkat – Another list of irrelevant countries/ethnic groups, irrelevant since they are not related to the matter being discussed in this blog. I am sure, since you obviously know all of my views, you can tell me what my view on the plight of the Kurds.
I have spoken about my views on the Kurds as much as I have the Australian aborigines, because they have not formed part of a board thread I have posted on. So the simple answer and we know how you prefer these to complex and relevant ones, is that I do not show my moral ‘outrage’ on their plights because it is not relevant on a discussion about Israelis building on occupied land and the US administrations reaction to this.
Other than being diverted by posters who try and score meaningless cheap points about unrelated topics I try and discuss the actual main topic points.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAurelius: "President Obama has no more right to tell Israel what kind of housing it can build in Jerusalem, it's capital city than Prime Minister Natanyahu can tell America what kind of housing it can build in Washington DC."
The difference is that Israeli taxpayers don't subsidise America. American taxpayers subsidise Israel, giving more per capita in aid (yes, aid) then America gives any African country. Israel would be a failed state without this charity. On top of aid, America gives Israel weapons and diplomatic cover. As such, it has every right to tell Israel to stop breaching international law. Israel's main leverage is AIPAC, and Lieberman, McCain and the ADL have predictably criticised Obama. However, Congressional bullying can only go so far, and if healthcare passes, Obama will be even more defiant of the Lobby. And not before time - most people are sick of Israel's expansionism and brutality towards Palestinians (as evidenced in Channel 4's Dispatches yesterday).
Complain about this comment
Some years ago as a university student I wrote an Op-Ed about the still-born peace process that was based on rigorous analysis and demonstrable facts. It was toughtful and objective, and critical of both sides (Arafat's Palestinians and the Israeli government) for thir respective failures. A good friend of mine, who is Jewish, agreed with my criticism of the Palestinian side but he was SO outraged by what he thought was otherwise an antisemitic attack that he never spoke with me again. Marcus, MK and others in this forum remind me of this guy with their viscerally ideological stance, which unfortunately affects their ability to distinguish good from bad. It breeds in that camp precisely the opposite of the good faith effort that is needed to settle such contentious issues.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"The US Constitution holds it as self evident that all men are equal;" (from Appleorchard at #106)
No, it is the Declaration of Independence, which begins its second paragraph with:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, ..."
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I was upset when I first heard about what happened. Why would Israel snub us like that? I mean, they could have announced that any other time. Why do it to insult us?
Then, I realized it is just Israel's statement that basically they are not ready to make this peace deal. They were too chicken to say this to Joe Biden, so they let the Interior Minister snub him, in order to stop the peace deal from further movement. Sad that they had to snub us to do it. I mean, at least give us respect here, please.
However, I still think that both Israel and Palestine are to blame for not being able to make peace. Israel will not compromise, but neither will Palestine. They are alike in this aspect. So if neither will compromise, both Israel and Palestine are neither wrong, nor right.
Some say that the land belongs to Palestine, but Israel fought for it fair and square. This also happened in the USA- we now have Texas. This happened in China- they now have Tibet. I'm sure Russia likely still has some land grabs, too. And is anyone asking North and South Korea to reunite or give their land back to one another? Obviously not. What right does the United Nations or even USA have to ask Israel to give land back when USA, China, Russia and other countries have also taken land they fought for?
I am in support of letting Israel keep their land that they fought for, just as I am in support of USA, China, Russia, ect. keeping the land we/they have fought for, too. If Palestine wants their land back, they are going to have to fight for it. That is the only way. There is no compromise.
USA was hurt by Israel's snubbing. But they can make it up. The best way to resolve this situation is for Israel to give a sign or symbol of respect back to us. It doesn't have to be the land settlements. But there should be some other peace offering, so that it shows Israel still respects us. That is what America wants. Respect.
Even Aretha wrote a song about it. R-E-S-P-E-C-T!
Upset at first, but I still love Israel just as much as I ever did. I choose Israel and their Jewish over Palestine and their Hamas.
Complain about this comment
Squirrel;
"Why Pakistanis? Why not Bangladeshis, Somalis, Ethiopians, Chinese, Spanish, Portuguese, Welsh, Irish, Barbadians?"
Do you expect me to believe you don't know? Even you can't expect me to think you are that blind.
About Scotland, I was surprised. In 1990 I was on the Sky Princess shortly after Princess Cruise lines had bought Sitmar, an Italian line. One day I made the mistake of asking a Scottish bar waitress how she liked working for the English. Had we been outside on deck, I think she would have tried to throw me overboard. The English wine steward was so unhappy, everyone who worked there seemed to hate her, especially a couple of Scots. We felt sorry for her so since the line would do almost anything for its passengers, we threw her a birthday party which seemed to cheer her up. One crew member told me there was so much hatred of the English aboard the ship by the old Sitmar employees there had even been a stabbing. Every time I bring up the subject to a Scotsman about England, they go ballastic on me. I really don't think most of them like even thinking about it. To them it's like having a goiter around your neck. They are aware of it but try to put it out of their minds.
Complain about this comment
Quick Note:
Here in the states, I live a few blocks from a Reformed Synagogue and from a Mosque. Historically, most Synagogues I've encountered advocated the American civil rights movement and have advocated peace in the Middle East.
We need to get out of that mess...
But, how does our Government backpedal safely?
And, can we cleanly break political ties when so many Americans support Israel?
It's ugly. Real ugly.
And it's increasing our military security risk.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
blue;
"If you mention anything to some (americans etc) about palestinians rights they will get violent froth at the mouth and punch and bang on the table"
Their cheering and celebrating at the attack by al Qaeda on 9-11 was consistent with their well deserved reputation as supporters of terrorists. We saw them on the roofs of their houses cheering the Scud missiles launched at Israel by Saddam Hussein in 1991. Some said they'd hoped there were chemical weapon warheads even though they knew they'd die too. It is no small coincidence that their heroes are suicide bombers who have killed Israeli civilians. Their public image in the US is slightly lower than whale excrement. I do not know one single American who feels sorry for them. Most agree with me in that they created their own problems and through their violence and hatred and therefore deserve them.
Complain about this comment
Ref # 75
Who is this clown who keeps treating "God" as a four letter word? Since when is the word "God" censored?
Complain about this comment
I cannot tell a lie.
I love, respect and value Marcus Vampiricus The Second.
(I said I could not tell a lie; that's three.)
Complain about this comment
Apeman;
So you are saying that because the US spends money to help Israel defend itself, it can dictate to it whatever it wants to and Israel must comply. By that logic, Germany should have been forced to vote for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 or we should have pulled our troops out. I think that's long overdo anyway. Sorry, Israel is not a slave colony of the US. America is not an Imperial power, it does not have a slave empire the way the Europeans used to.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 72, Dr Michael Benjamin:
"4.US: Our special relationship is changing."
Not in any real way as far as I'm concerned. Israel is completely dependent on my tax dollars for its survival. Without that funding, Israel would collapse. It's wildly outnumbered by its enemies (which it seems hell bent on creating more of), and its economy isn't close to being big enough to support the IDF. Until such a time as you can take care of yourselves (which may be never), you will toe the line. You will not act in ways that run counter to American interests. That's just the way it is.
The Israelis need to understand what the Palestinians already do: we hold all the cards.
Complain about this comment
So, there is need to correct seriously misleading propafandistic information,
propafandistic ✱
✱ I ❤ That Word
✞
Complain about this comment
Palestinians are people too. For Israel to 'ghetto-ize' them is hypocracy. What are we afraid of youse people of Islam and Israel...balance, assimilation and a return to common ancestry...'fraid of the majority vote? We have that in the US too...took us centuries to give women and 'coloreds' a vote although I am proud of where we are TODAY since our people were brave enough to vote in Prez Obama.
Its an inherited cat-fight between Sarah and Hagar ... who was Abraham supposed to sacrifice, Isaac or Ishmael? If it were today, Hagar would pose for GQ...and Sarah would write a book about her tribulations and the 'handmaiden' who stole her hubbie's heart. Abraham would probably take a hike on the Appalachian Trail.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAurelius: "Their (Palestinian) cheering and celebrating at the attack by al Qaeda on 9-11 was consistent with their well deserved reputation as supporters of terrorists. We saw them on the roofs of their houses cheering the Scud missiles launched at Israel by Saddam Hussein in 1991."
Some Palestinians did, yes, which was wrong, but perhaps explainable given America's one-sided support for Israel. You know who else was cheering (and dancing, and videotaping themselves) on the rooftops as the Twin Towers burned? Suggest you google "Five Dancing Israelis" and find out. My question is: why would any Israelis be so happy as to be dancing watching 9/11 unfold?
Complain about this comment
"But the USA's relationship with Israel was declared 'unshakeable'"...but it might better have been declared unspeakable, the most infamous relationship the USA has ever entered into, a pact with the devil! It's long since time Amerika shook off its hellacious relationship with this pariah state, in every way, shape, and form. "Mr Biden had gone out of his way to lavish praise and affection on his host"...when instead he should have heaped reprimands and indictments on the outlaw Jewish State. Sad then, if they only "want to use this as an opportunity to test how serious the Israelis are about more talks." Talks under U.S. auspices only favor the continuing Israeli rejectionism. Of course Ms. Clinton's alleged request for "the reversal of the project" is much too little and shows the U.S. is not serious. Rather all U.S. aid to the apartheid Jewish State should be immediately and permanently ended and an international coalition of the willing should be immediately assembled to use whatever measures are necessary to completely and unconditionally expel the Israeli bandits from the illegally occupied territories. Very simple.
Complain about this comment
The issue remains straight forward and easy to grasp. Disputed lands require mediation. Israeli construction on these disputed lands is prohibiting the dialogue necessary to resolve the dispute.
Complain about this comment
Anyone who kicks the Brits out of wherever they don't belong, America, Israel, Ireland, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Argentina, Scotland has my vote. Britain, why don't you stay home and fix up the mess you made on your plessed blot, your skewered Isle, your England. Let the rest of the world sort out its own problems. For a nation that is over a thousand years old, you're not doing all that well just now.
Complain about this comment
Tsar Bomba in full retreat;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8571143.stm
This is hardly the first time. I suppose after only a year in office every President is still a beginner. How about more action on the economy mister President and less on affairs that don't really concern us like 1600 condos in jerusalem.
Complain about this comment
134. At 4:37pm on 16 Mar 2010, LucyIllinois wrote:
"If Palestine wants their land back, they are going to have to fight for it. That is the only way. There is no compromise."
And then:
"I still love Israel just as much as I ever did. I choose Israel and their Jewish over Palestine and their Hamas."
Wrong way round, then, surely, that last bit?
I see from the latest news that the proposal for East Jerusalem has added another 400 apartments to the 1600 before; this is not, according to an Israeli source quoted (taking a cue from Marcus Vampiricus) as saying it's "old news" expected to be an insult to anybody.
By 'anybody', I presume of course, that means 'anybody in the US', or 'anybody who's Joe Biden, not anybody who lives in East Jerusalem and is Arab. This is escalation by inches until people wake up and discover the distance that's been travelled is a hundred miles.
For the Vampire's information, I may wear glasses, but I still don't see why he had to bring Pakistanis into this. An explanation, please.
And as for the Americans or Scotsmen he claims to know, I think we can disregard that as a reliable measure of opinion. After all, opportunities to meet people of a broad range of views in graveyards without any grass in the dead of night must be pretty limited. And anyway you're bound to bump into some very strange people.
Complain about this comment
143. At 6:02pm on 16 Mar 2010, bluenoterevisited wrote:
So, there is need to correct seriously misleading propafandistic information,
propafandistic ✱
✱ I ❤ That Word
Who came up with that? It describes so much of what is written on the subject of Israel brilliantly. I'm adopting it.
Complain about this comment
Ref 114, powermeerkat
The issue is not whether the Palestinians should pack their bags, migrate to Jordan or Egypt, and let the Israelis seize the miserable dwellings where they currently live, but whether they should enjoy the same rights as all other human beings and have their own sovereign state.
If biblical and other ancient history references is all it takes to create a country for members of a specific religion, there are plenty of references about Palestine, Palestina, Pleshbeth, Assirian Philistine, etc to justify that deed. After all, wasn't Israel created based on alleged divine rights, in compensation for past wrongs...at the hands of Christians, and to fullfil a promise made to the British and the Zionists influenced our decision to enter WWI?
Let's not forget that the Palestinians lived alongside Middle Eastern Jews before 1948, that their houses and properties were appropriated the same way the properties of the Sephardic Jews were seized during the Inquisition, and centuries later by Hitler when that monster pursued one of the most reprehensible events in human history.
I suspect that most Jews and most Palestinians are sickened by the human tragedy that has been taking place for decades and want a solution to this interminable problem. Unfortunately, zealots on both sides of this conflict are determined to prolong the agony forever to achieve their personal and religious goals.
BTW, Israel does not need US financial or military aid to survive, what we give them is icing on a cake. Its economy is in better shape than ours, and their military is one of the best equipped, trained, and disciplined in the world. In fact, with the exception of the USA, China, and perhaps Russia they could probably defeat everyone else. Efforts to transform their hapless neighbors into superpowers that pose a terrible threat to Israel's existance are disingeneous to put it mildly.
Complain about this comment
142. At 5:56pm on 16 Mar 2010, Andy Post wrote:
"we hold all the cards."
Sure about that? But suppose one day you discover Netanyahu has the Joker? In the last few years, the Israelis have trumped every single American hand.
(I might not have got the terminology quite right, but I've never known how to play any card game but Patience or Snap, you see.)
Complain about this comment
35. At 11:27pm on 15 Mar 2010, John_From_Dublin wrote:
# 14 OneEssence wrote:
"Barack Obama COULD have been a force against racism; a true and lasting force. But instead he proven through the actions of his administration and through his own choices that he supports racism. He and his administration now have a chance to change that and I await their response."
Perhaps you could clarify?
I'm assuming that what you are saying is that anyone who disagrees with the policy of any Israeli government is a racist? Or have I misunderstood?
-----------------
John, thank you for asking and I'm not sure why you make that assumption. I'm referring to the fact that Barack Obama has so far failed to address the underlying racism that has always been the primary cause of this conflict since the 1800's and more prominently since the 1920's.
In a kind world that is motivated by gratitude and respect, Arab Muslims and Christians living in the British Mandate would have said to Jews returning to their homeland: "welcome back, we look forward to being your neighbours". Why didn't that happen?
Complain about this comment
76. At 08:37am on 16 Mar 2010, SaintDominick wrote:
In any case, I believe the radical elements that seem to control Israeli foreign policy should reflect on what they are doing and should not emulate the reprehensible acts that brought so much pain and misery to their ancestors until not so long ago.
-------------
What exactly are you saying?
Complain about this comment
I remember when Israel invaded Gaza and the small handful of people who made trenchant criticisms of Israel's actions here were flooded with condemnations, accusations of being terrorist supporters, all the rest of it.
So the Israelis diss an American Vice President -- not by actually calling him rude names or anything, just by saying they will carry on doing something they've said they'll do for months and have been planning for years-- and suddenly Israel isn't quite so popular with Americans?
If that's how you lose American hearts and minds that fast, I have some advice for Ahmedinajad on how to win them: all he has to do is send Joe Biden a birthday cake and Hillary Clinton a bunch of roses on Mother's Day, and Americans will be friends of Iran for ever and ever by the following morning. And maybe they'll even give him some nukes to show how pleased they are.
Complain about this comment
Philly-Mom gets it: why can't the rest of y'all.
This is the BIG ONE.
Complain about this comment
#95
David Murrell,
A very good point! We have to go back to 1999
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
152. At 7:38pm on 16 Mar 2010, SaintDominick wrote:
"After all, wasn't Israel created based on alleged divine rights, in compensation for past wrongs...at the hands of Christians, and to fullfil a promise made to the British and the Zionists influenced our decision to enter WWI?"
The 'Balfour Declaration' (1917):
"[The British government] "views with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
(My Araab friends frequently quote the first two lines at me; and I continue just as often with the following two.)
Complain about this comment
#151 - same bloke who coined "perfidelicious"
And...what if he has THREE Jokers...and yer not playing Canasta?
Complain about this comment
160 This is a problem with secularism and the other-isms, and strict adherence to ancient texts that translated tranlations of other texts derived from oral histories....the REAl story of the sacrifice of Abraham was meant as satire, along the guise of 'be careful what you wish for'...you may wish you were the favorite son, but be content that you're not mutton. And THAT is the problem with the Scots...too much mutton. The meaning was lost, hence Zionism.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 153, squirrelist:
"Sure about that? But suppose one day you discover Netanyahu has the Joker? In the last few years, the Israelis have trumped every single American hand."
We haven't played a hand, yet. We've simply been kibitzing. They're playing with our chips. It might be time for us to join the game for ourselves.
To be clear: Israel's destruction is off the table. The diaspora is over. However, Israel does not have carte blanche to do as it pleases. If America is looking out for Israel's best interests, then Israel must keep an eye to ours, and that means defusing the Palestinian situation, not aggravating it.
Complain about this comment
161. At 9:23pm on 16 Mar 2010, frayedcat wrote
"#151 - same bloke who coined "perfidelicious" "
As in 'perfidelicious Albion' by any chance?
"And...what if he has THREE Jokers...and yer not playing Canasta?"
Er . . .Dunno. The house of cards falls down?
Complain about this comment
Oh Sainted One;
"The issue is not whether the Palestinians should pack their bags, migrate to Jordan or Egypt..."
The Jordanians threw them out...because of terrorism as I recall. IMO the Hashemites stole their land from them in Jordan and now they want Israel's. Nobody wants them. The Kuwaitis gave them jobs and they turned on the Kuwaitis as soon as Saddam Hussei invaded. They sided with the invaders. Not the Jordanians, not the Egyptions, not the Lebanese, not the Tunisians, nobody wants them. They've been thrown out of all these places. So why should the Israelis be stuck with them? I say send them to Euorpe. The Europeans will hardly notice the difference with all the Moslems living there already.
Complain about this comment
#162 Er...oopsie...I meant Nonpropofandastic-sectarianism....not secularism,
Complain about this comment
Have any of you followed the link Marcus left on #149?
"The reopening of the twice-destroyed Hurva synagogue, in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, which Palestinians seek as part of a future capital, triggered a wide backlash."
Do they think if they destroy it a third time they get to keep it? They won't tolerate a synagogue in the Jewish Quarter?
This is why there is no peace; because of the Arabs' implacable hatred of the Jews. That is not a typo. Not Israelis. Not Zionists. Jews. And not only in the Holy Land.
So tell me, those among you who think that Fatah are potential peace partners. How do you make peace with people who are intent upon your destruction?
Complain about this comment
#164 - No...you say "Peanutbutter" of course.
http://www.wikihow.com/Play-Cheat
I gotta' go, everyone just listen to this tune and we'll all feel better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgWFxFg7-GU
Complain about this comment
@ 168. 2010, frayedca
Your search - perfidelicious - did not match any documents.
Suggestions:
* Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
* Try different keywords.
* Try more general keywords.
Complain about this comment
198. At 3:29pm on 10 Mar 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
lonund
I do not claim to represent anyone's views other than my own.
Complain about this comment
The Hamas are considered a terrorist organization with most countries. Israel will never let go of her land again with or without the USA.
I agree with Squirrelist on many issues here.
Complain about this comment
Ref 165, MAII
"So why should the Israelis be stuck with them?"
Because their ancestral homeland, Palestine, is what we now know as Israel.
Complain about this comment
Ref 155, OneEssence
"What exactly are you saying?"
That Israeli Jews should not do to the Palestinians what the Spaniards did to them during the Inquisition and what the Nazis did to them 7 decades ago.
Complain about this comment
141. At 5:39pm on 16 Mar 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"So you are saying that because the US spends money to help Israel defend itself, it can dictate to it whatever it wants to and Israel must comply."
__________
You've got the logic a bit mixed there. I.e., the diode is facing in the wrong direction.
Israel can do what it pleases. It is free to make its own decisions.
But that doesn't mean America has to keep on paying for it.
Complain about this comment
It is strange that folks otherwise presenting sound judgment on various issues are so blinded when it comes to the "bad boy" Israel. Suddenly those persons become propaganda parrots repeating insincere slogans created by and used for the benefit of insincere "negotiators" for peace in the Middle East.
"Israel is America’s closest ally in the Middle East. The foundation of the U.S-Israel relationship is rooted in America’s fundamental strategic interest, shared democratic values, and a long-time commitment to peace in the region. Those strategic interests, which we share with Israel, extend to every facet of American life and our relationship with the Jewish State, which enjoys vast bipartisan support in Congress and among the American people" is their incessant cry.
Big B.S. I say. Take a look at other forums and see where the outrage is directed at. Support of Israel, considering its behavior, is based on scare tactics played by influentially placed manipulators on American politicians. Anyone who is airing different than theirs views will be labeled anti-Semite.
The label does not bother me, the twisting of the truth and vicious propaganda does. I see Lieberman, the democratic turncoat, embracing "democracy" deliverer in Iraq George Bush, and advocating expansion of America military might in that region (read: introducing more American gun meat)I shake my head. The other old man, McCain is also talking nonsense. His latest blubbering about easing on Israeli criticism and... concentrating on, listen to this - bringing parties to the peace process!. That guy must be senile. Illegal buildup is what destroys bringing parties together. He did not know how many houses he owns so nonsense from his mouth comes naturally.
The truth is more aligned with observations of president Carter on situation under Israeli control. Assessments of serious and honorable men on barbarian destruction of property and lives during Gaza campaign to punish thousands for actions of few is ridiculed and minimized by those who ought to know better. In history there are examples of Nazi
atrocities when innocent multitude died of bullets at the wall for action of few. Remarkable comparisons and correct analogy.
Nothing makes enemies as favoritism toward a party in an argument. And people align and sympathize with victims. Nations sympathized with Jews and Holocaust was the reason. That is why nations allowed creation of the land of Israel. Now that sympathetic sentiment is waning away thanks to the irrational actions of that country leaders. And we, in America?
We , or rather our leaders were and are irrationally sympathetic to Israeli to the point that many others label us puppets in Israeli hands!
Obama, Clinton and several other honorable, SERVING TRUE AMERICAN INTERESTS, people rightly express their indignation with that stupid behavior of Israelis and the fifth column is enraged!
The chorus of Israeli sympathizers see only what they want. My question is: Doesn't this minute, relative to world population, minority see that antagonizing the world with its brutal, inexcusable ways is not the wise, smart thing to do in the long run?
Complain about this comment
169 bluenoterevisited - Did you grasp the idea or were you so involved with examining the spelling and other grammatical nuances that you missed the point?
If you managed to do both, my hats to you. Your score A+, Veri gud!
Complain about this comment
Here's the real payback, the real cost of being held hostage to the log-rolling extortion of Israeli domestic politics, the real cost of indulging the whims of Israel's right wing splinter religious parties:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8570842.stm
The timing of this announcement was no more a coincidence than the timing of the announcement to build the 1600 housing units.
But this announcement is far, far more important.
If people are upset about the magnitude of America's direct financial and military subsidies to the State of Israel, well, that's peanuts compared to the price that's implied in this announcement.
So that the government of Israel can pander to religious zealots, America's genuine strategic interests are being put at risk. Does anybody think that's a good trade?
But this is the price that America is paying for irresponsible behaviour by the Government of Israel. It would be less expensive, by far, for America to have bought up every last one of those 1600 housing units, and the land they are to sit on, even at $ 1M apiece, than the price it's going to pay - and this announcement by the Turks is probably just the first installment.
"Err in haste, repent at leisure."
More on this in the next posting.
Complain about this comment
171. At 10:56pm on 16 Mar 2010, joan_of_arc wrote:
"I agree with Squirrelist on many issues here."
Actually, I suspect you may be reading my attempts to clarify some of the historical contexts that some ignore or misrepresent as something more and you might not agree with my opinions.
But they've been expressed on this blog elsewhere in the past when the issue of Zionism, Eretz Israel, the Occupied Territories and the Gaza Invasion have come up before, and unlike others I see no need to repeat them.
For example, Hamas put up candidates in an election; won, and formed a civil administration. And should be treated as such. Much as Sinn Fein came (though not without a considerable amount of similar propaganda against it) to be treated separately to the IRA as a political organisation.
Complain about this comment
Uninteresting Foreigner;
"Israel can do what it pleases. It is free to make its own decisions.
But that doesn't mean America has to keep on paying for it."
You're confused Canadian. America doesn't pay for this or anything because it has to. It pays for it because IT WANTS TO!
Complain about this comment
That Carpetbagger, the Arkansas Traveler is backing off from her foolish venom. Her contrition cannot undo the damage she, Vice President Biden, and Obama did to their administration and the Democratic chances in November and in 2012. On January 21, 2013 Biden can take the A train back to Delaware while his boss can fly home to the South Side of Chicago.
Complain about this comment
America seems to have lost sight of its real strategic interests in the region.
The single most important country in the region, and therefore the single most important ally, by far, is Turkey.
The next most important country in the region is Iran.
The next most important country is Egypt.
The next most important country is Saudi Arabia.
Neither Israel, nor if it were an independent country, Palestine, is strategically important. They are too small, both in terms of size and population, to matter; and they are located in the wrong place to be important. They have, relatively speaking, roughly the same inherent strategic importance as Lebanon or Jordan.
----------
Why is Turkey the most important country in the region?
In essence, because Turkey was, and will be again, a great nation.
Great civilizations do not disappear. They wax and wane. For most of the 20th century Turkey worked through a period in which it exercised considerably less than its typical historic influence in its own neighbourhood - through the decline and dismemberment of the Ottoman empire, and the relatively inward looking period of Attaturk.
For centuries, no, rather, for millennia in fact, Constantinople was at the center of first the Eastern Roman Empire, then its Byzantine successor, the the Ottoman Empire. It lies at a critical geographic cross-roads between east and west, the hub of major trade routes. Culturally and historically, it has a foot in the west, and a foot in the east, in a way not matched by any other country in the region. It has a significant economic hinterland; it has the largest economy in the region, it has centers of learning and technology; it has something recognizable as industrial capability; it has a large population (approx 75M, perhaps slightly less), it is reasonably well educated, reasonably young - it is not facing the decline of an aging population; it has an historic cultural reach far beyond its current borders; it has a substantial army, the second largest army in NATO; it has good or reasonably good relations with all of its neighbours in a region of difficult neighbours; it has the depth of a talent pool that includes one of the most cosmopolitan urban areas in Europe. It is a nation that is clearly on the ascendant.
Whether Turkey formally re-establishes its empire or not, the economic reality of the situation is that Turkey is, and in the future is likely even more so to be, the economic engine of this region. It has a mixed economy, not an economy skewed by the ephemeral and historically anomalous temporary wealth derived from hydrocarbon extraction.
Why is Iran the next most important country in the region?
Because it has a significant population (75+ M) roughly comparable in size to Turkey; it has good schools for science and engineering; it is located on major trade routes; it has significant industrial potential; Like Turkey, Iran has a long history of influence in its region; in the last fifteen years Iran's influence and power have grown steadily greater. It has fuel reserves, so its dance card will always be full.
Why is Egypt the next most important country?
Because it is strategically located - think Suez canal; and because it has a large young population (75M +/-)roughly similar in number to those of Turkey and Iran) with significant potential. Egypt has many problems, and part of its strategic importance lies in the uncertainty of what will follow the end of the Mubarak era.
Saudia Arabia next? Because of its accumulated oil wealth, its hydrocarbon reserves, and a still sizeable population (approx 30- M)
Iraq matters because it has a sizeable population (30+ M), large hydrocarbon reserves, and a location smack in the middle of the region, with sea access to the Gulf.
Who does that leave?
The Trucial States, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Oman, Yemen, and Palestine.
The Trucial States do not have a particular inherent strategic importance of their own, but in relation to their common interests with Saudi Arabia, they have a combined importance, and the entrepot of Dubai dreams of having an importance as a free-wheeling trade hub akin to Singapore.
Israel has a western economy, an aging (relative to its neighbours), highly talented but small (6 - 7 M) population, cut off by politics and history from having a wider hinterland or playing a role like that of Dubai; too small geographically, way too crowded; no natural resources of which to speak, very little water to feed the demands of its sophisticated western economy; and a military security burden that is a perennial millstone to its economy. But for its incredibly dynamic people, Israel would probably have remained the economically marginal scrubland that it was under the Ottomans before Theodore Herzl arrived. There is no natural geographic or historical reason for economic development here. Israel is a small, gritty country fighting against the forces of geography, demography, economics, and history.
Jordan has essentially the same problems as Israel, except without the first world economy - population too small, country almost landlocked, few natural resources, no water, no port on the Mediterranean, difficult neighbours.
Palestine, ditto except far, far worse, with a military occupation squatting on top of it.
Syria - landlocked country, no resources, handicapped by its rather repressive government.
Lebanon - small country, lovely seashore, wrong place, no resources, under the shadow of Syria; badly riven domestic political situation, not improved by the presence of groups like Hamas and Hizbullah.
Oman - great country, but on the rim of things. Good place for having naval bases for dominating sea lanes.
Yemen - so many problems, Aden is strategically located.
Complain about this comment
Ref 174, Interested Foreigner
"Israel can do what it pleases. It is free to make its own decisions."
The risk from a cooling of relations between the USA and Israel is not that the national security of Israel may be compromised, they have enough firepower to destroy any or all of its foes, including Iran, but the fact that we may not be able to restrain them and they may launch an unprovoked massive attack against Iran that may destabilize the entire region and would put our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan at risk.
Hopefully cool heads will prevail, but with Bibi in power that's just an illusion.
Complain about this comment
In a way I feel sorry for William Jefferson. When the truth dawned on "she who must be obeyed" about Monica, Gennifer, Paula, and the others the halls of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue must have echoed for hours at a time as "hell hath no fury like the tongue of a woman scorned." What to do? Divorce him and give up any chance of the Presidency or swallow hard, accept that "boys will be boys" and put him on a tight leash? In the end she got the worst of both worlds. Watch out Mister Natanyahu, there are weapons far sharper and more piercing than swords.
Oh sainted one;
"...they have enough firepower to destroy any or all of its foes, including Iran, but the fact that we may not be able to restrain them and they may launch an unprovoked massive attack against Iran..."
Far more than enough provocation is already there. More correctly it would be pre-emptive but hardly unprovoked. Some of us wonder what Israel and America for that matter have been waiting for. A coordinated effort would be best. It would also be wise for American troops to distance themselves from ground zero well in advance. For that reason alone, a complete pullout from Iraq might be the wisest course to follow after all.
Complain about this comment
Getting involved in an interminable spat between two bitterly antagonistic peoples in a pair of fly-speck countries of no inherent strategic importance on the western margin of western Asia, just does not seem like a very good expenditure of blood, treasure, or diplomatic capital.
Yet America has been at it for 60 years.
It has bribed Jordan and Egypt to play nice.
Saudi Arabia has sort of agreed to play nice (for all sorts of reasons, including that America guarantees Saudi security, while filling the Saudi treasury with American petrodollars).
There has been no progress with Syria.
There has been no progress with the Palestinians.
America has been vilified through the Muslim, and particularly Arab, world for its blind, unquestioning support of Israel.
And Israel is presently thumbing its nose at the whole thing, and especially at the President and Vice-President of the United States.
And we are no nearer to ending the conflict.
Thankless, futile task.
What has America got to win in this fight?
Nothing.
What has America got at stake in this fight that matters to America's strategic interests as a continental empire 8000 miles away?
You tell me.
I think the answer is "nothing".
But America, and a lot of other countries, have a fair interest in preventing nuclear proliferation, pretty much everywhere.
America - and a lot of other countries - certainly have an interest in preventing nuclear proliferation in distinctly hostile countries. America, - and a lot of other countries - certainly have an interest in trying to contain that kind of problem.
America cannot possibly do that alone, on the far side of the earth, in a region where is doesn't have the cultural history or the presence on the ground to be a natural player. So to address this real strategic problem, America needs to thread a set of difficult needles.
For sanctions to work, for containment to work, for diplomatic efforts of any kind to work, for almost anything you can think of except unilateral military action (because America's treasury is flush with cash, and America's armed forces just can't wait to get involved in yet a third conflict in Western Asia), America needs co-operation from a whole bunch of neighbours: Turkey, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, India, Pakistan, and China. And that's just the start of the list.
Well, that ought to be easy enough.
They all share the same strategic interests, right?
They're all good friends.
None of them has anything better to do than fall into line and dance to America's tune. Sure, be glad to do that.
None of them would be interested in cutting secret side deals.
None of them has a history for slipperiness or duplicity.
None of them would have any other irons in the fire.
None of them has a history of making deals with unsavory regimes.
None of them has a history of smuggling or sanctions busting.
All of them are good international citizens with reputations for upholding the highest standards of international law.
Note that Israel's co-operation in this effort is irrelevant: If you can't get this rogues' galley of nations to work together, the whole thing falls apart, no matter what you do, Israel or no Israel.
Clearly, the task isn't hard enough, so let's start by seeing what Israel can do to alienate, yet again, the Moslem countries on the list, starting with Turkey. There's a great idea.
It appears that the Turks waited 72 hours to give America a fair chance to solve the problem.
It wasn't solved.
So what Turkey has just told the world is that they're cool with our old buddy Ahmadinjad, i.e., nuclear weapons in Iran are something Turkey can live with. You have to be deaf, blind, dumb, and stupid not to hear that message loud and clear.
Good luck trying to round up an international coalition for military action against Iran, under those circumstances. It leaves any military action to Israel and America - probably in the teeth of public opinion around the globe, trying to justify military actions that Turkey (the next door neighbour, for heaven's sake) says aren't needed.
And even if America decides to pursue a policy of containment without overt military confrontation ("cold war II", so to speak), it will be blamed, nonetheless, if Israel then takes unilateral military action.
Oh, and did anyone mention they'd like to use Incirlik?
Yeah, we are going to pay a price for those condos in East Jerusalem. Are we ever. And this is just the downpayment.
Thus, again, a small group of religious zealots in Israel can damage the larger strategic interests not only of the United States, but also of many other nations.
Foolish. Foolish. Foolish.
When is somebody going to pull the plug on this nonsense?
Complain about this comment
Let's be honest here: over the past 30 years, America's allegiance to Israel has been total and uncompromising. I mean, way above and beyond what one would expect of a "normal" alliance.
On numerous occasions, though by no means always, this unconditional support has reeked of injustice, fanning the embers of hatred, baffling real politik and legitimizing conspiracy theories. A number of posts here address these issues.
Very difficult to understand how a major power (let alone a hegemon) that preaches freedom and champions human rights could absolve a problem child of all its sins, time and time again. Especially when so many of those sins have been evidenced by videotape, third-party testimony and overt action. And especially when the cost to the US cannot be calculated in dollars alone.
The US has been an enabler, either forcefully or tacitly supporting Israeli actions and policies that run counter to international law as well as common sense.
Why, then, would Israel now thumb its nose openly at its best friend and mentor in this fashion? Well, it is a calculation that may yet be proved wrong. Netanyahu is odious, but also brilliant and tough. He seems confident that dispaying his resolve and setting his lobbying aparatus in motion will persuade Obama's team not to test their domestic standing and political capital on this.
I'm afraid Netanyahu's assumption might be right, too. But I am also hoping that my president will put principles above political considerations, smack Bibi's unholy alliance of right wing parties down, and credibly establish his firm commitment to peace.
Complain about this comment
181. At 01:04am on 17 Mar 2010, Interestedforeigner wrote:
"few natural resources, no water, no port on the Mediterranean, difficult neighbours. Palestine, ditto except far, far worse, with a military occupation squatting on top of it."
West Bank, yes; Gaza no. Why otherwise would Israel be so determined on depriving Gaza of water, blockading it and making its coastline inaccessible? And to some extent they have done their damnedest to do the same to Lebanon, and the Lebanese currently fear they will have another go very soon.
It's not just Bibi having a go at Iran people in the Middle East (as opposed to armchairs in New Jersey trailers) are bothered about.
Complain about this comment
For those who are still unable to grasp this issue: If you have the stomach, read from the Old Testament, that much maligned common source of all these cultures. You will understand much more. Although many on this list are trying to tear us away from it, this is still the fundamental perception behind this issue.
The Jews, in spite of being identifiably the most cultured, progressive, and compassionate segment of western civilization for the past two centuries, have no obligation to the ‘Loving Jesus’ acclimated to the desires of the liberals of the late 19th and 20th centuries.
Palestinia - Philistia – Philistines –
Not Semites, not the ancestors of modern Palestinians, who are Arabs and Semites. Probably related to the Sea Peoples who invaded Egypt at the end of the Old Kingdom , and likely related to the ancestors of the classical Greeks.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
Uninteresting foreigner;
"And Israel is presently thumbing its nose at the whole thing, and especially at the President and Vice-President of the United States."
So are China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Venezuela, Britain, Bolivia, Peru, and many of us in the United States. All we can tell our fellow citizens who elected him is: "we told you so."
Complain about this comment
182. At 01:05am on 17 Mar 2010, SaintDominick wrote:
"... but the fact that we may not be able to restrain them..."
__________
We don't have the power to restrain Israel.
We do have the power to walk away from the table and stop subsidizing foolish, dangerous behaviour.
Complain about this comment
180. At 00:48am on 17 Mar 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"That Carpetbagger, the Arkansas Traveler is backing off from her foolish venom."
Are you really an American? Did you grow up here at all? Although Billybuckjoebob is as authentic an Arkansawyer as you can get, Hillary is not, and could not be construed for one if she were caught noodling. She is an Illinios Yaynkee, a Wellesley girl who saw a rare opportunity in the kid from Hope, and rode it.
KScurmudgeon
not from Oklahoma, but I married two who are.
Complain about this comment
Uninteresting Foreigner;
"Foolish. Foolish. Foolish.
When is somebody going to pull the plug on this nonsense?"
I don't know. The moderators seem willing to let you go on with it indefinitely.
Complain about this comment
Smudge;
"She is...a...girl who saw a rare opportunity in the kid from Hope, and rode it."
Seems like there was a lot of horseback riding going on both in Arkansas and later in Washington DC and much of the time she wasn't even on the bridle path. New York State has always been a target for people in other parts of the country who want to rise quickly because of its foolish residency laws which I think only require six months to be an "official" New Yorker to run for office. That is why Bobby Kennedy was called Massachussets' third senator.
There seems to have been a far stronger reaction by the Obama administration to Israel announcing it would be building 1600 apartments in Jerusalem than to a real sellout, the release of Megrahi who killed almost 300 Americans, and then after assurances by the UK government that he would remain in prison if the US gave up all claims to prosecute him and he was tried and convicted by a court in Scotland, was released from prison after conviction on "humanitarian grounds" when in all likelihood, the UK sold America out for an oil deal with Lybia. Now that was something to really get angry about. So this pretense of outrage is just one big sham. Barack Hussein Obama was looking for a reason to sell Israel out all along. This non event was the kind of pretext he was looking for. Maybe he was born in Indonesia after all.
Complain about this comment
Re # 184. Turkey...
IF. Ankara does not have to restore the Ottoman Empire.
All Ankara has to do is to abandon its futile attempts to join EU and create a Confederation of oil/gas rich Turkic republics (Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan) with Ankara supplying it with all necessary modern technologies and wherewithal.
And then, Brussels bureaucrats are going to wake up one day with their hands in a collective chamber pot realising that all pipelines critical to EU's syurvival either go thourgh Turkey or are controlleed by it and that therefore Ankara holds them by their shor&curlies.
BTW. Present day Iraq's problems stem from the fact that the British, in order to punish Turks for humiliating militarily British Empire's forces during WWI curved out a portion of Turkish South Eastern Anatolia and lumped it with Sunni Mesopotamia and Shia (Persia-influenced) marshes thus creating a contiguous but incnogruous entity, inhabitans of which (Kurds and Araba Sunni and Shites) don't feel any national afiliation let alone a loyalty to that artificial entity.
[Not that creating artificial entities in sub-Sharan Africa across traditional tribal eras has resulted in a more mitigated disaster]
Complain about this comment
Re #192
I recall that Megrahi, a Libyan terrorist/agent, has been released [Oil for Terrorist scheme] on "humanitarian grounds" because he had "only
3 months to live "
Now, as far as I know Qadafi's thug is miraculously still alive and well.
Must me something in Libyan air. Or water. Or perhaps BP oil. [omega-3?]
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
186. At 02:34am on 17 Mar 2010, squirrelist wrote:
"West Bank, yes; Gaza no. Why otherwise would Israel be so determined on depriving Gaza of water, blockading it and making its coastline inaccessible? And to some extent they have done their damnedest to do the same to Lebanon, and the Lebanese currently fear they will have another go very soon."
__________
My understanding is that Gaza doesn't have any worthwhile port.
I was about to say something particularly unkind about Gaza, but it wouldn't serve any useful purpose.
When I think about all the problems facing Gaza, my inclination is to say "why don't you just pick up and move to North America. Provided you leave your disputes behind, you're welcome to come here and start a better life - like millions before you."
I'm sorry, but I don't see any hope in Gaza. It's a dead end.
And why would they do it?
Again, I can think of a bunch of answers, none of them very nice. The kindest one I can think of is "read Clausewitz", or maybe just "because they can".
Just because I have harsh words about the government of Israel, doesn't mean I don't have harsh words about the leadership of Hamas. I'm not impressed by them, either.
The longer Palestinians stay penned up in Gaza, the more damage it is doing to their own society.
It's a dead end.
Complain about this comment
191. LOL.
Complain about this comment
As far as different girls' hopes about the Arkansas Hope and their relevant hopes - the title "It Takes a Village" sums it up pretty well.
Although, if memory serves, an official assurance "I've never had sex with that woman.." has at some point been made.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I SMOKED, BUT I DIDN'T INHALE"
Complain about this comment
P.S. A typo...
It should have been "relevant hops" of course.
["nice try but no cigar", as Monika Lewinsky would have said]
Complain about this comment
Where is that Suicide Blogger??!!
Complain about this comment
190. At 02:51am on 17 Mar 2010, KScurmudgeon wrote:
"not from Oklahoma, but I married two who are."
??????
"I say, I say, I say. I have two wives."
"Isn't that bigamy?"
"I think it's very big of me."
Complain about this comment
196.Interestedforeigner :
No; Gaza does not have a port. But there is no reason why it shouldn't. No reason why it shouldn't have an international airport. No reason why it should not have a productive economy. No reason it should not have more water per person daily than most Israelis probably use brushing their teeth.
Except Israel, with the tacit compliance of the USA (and inter alia the pusillanimous lack of guts of the British and the EU) doesn't want any of that.
If you can see no hope, offer no hope, only then is there no hope.
How the Gazans retain any hope for their future at all sometimes I find almost impossible to credit, but they do.
Obviously; despite Israel's officially unstated hope (though that seems to me what they want to achieve) Gazans do not think vacating their country is a sensible option.
Who seriously ever proposed that all black South Africans should abandon the struggle against apartheid and ship themselves off en masse to Alabama? Or Angola, for that matter?
Complain about this comment
Ref# 192 MAII
Putting aside the argument that Megrahi probably didn't do it (something your intelligence sevice acheived during the trial by refusing to release relevant evidence), this is a Scottish matter and - as you're so fond of saying to us - something you should keep your nose out of.
I wouldn't expect you to understand the decision to release Megrahi. Scots law is founded on achieving justice. As opposed to the American system which hasn't evolved much farther than the days of forming a posse and where the sentencing system is based around punishment and retribution.
In this case it doesn't matter where Megrahi is now, he is basically delerious with pain and will be until he dies. Whether that is in a prison in Scotland, a dungeon in Gitmo or a house in Tripoli doesn't make any difference to him. At least his innocent family can say their goodbyes now.
Megrahi was released in accordance with rules that were in place before America and Libya agreed to a trial in Scotland. America should have objected to them then.
Complain about this comment
ref #175
On Carter read the book " the case againsts Israel enemies"
Carter is racist to Jews and has been for some time and since he supports other human rights violators like Chavez and Castro he has been shunned even during humantarian crisis by both Obama and Bush.
he will join Chamberlen, Brevin is the hall of cowardness and hate.
What people are ignoring that part of Jerusulem is considered a Jewish enclave. But the Palestinians feel jewish sights like the reopened temple have no place in Jerusulem they think the Temple mount is more important to moslems and Jews have no right there.
I repeat when have the Palestinians made any steps for peace.
Complain about this comment
There are Gaza War-Zones in every ghetto tenement yard
Complain about this comment
#203
PartTimeDon,
We have known for years that our Cabinet Secretary for Justice aka Kenny MacAskill is spectacularly incompetent. We have looked on in sheer disbelief as he continues to allow dangerous criminals to leave Scottish prisons long before they have served their time. His decision to release Mr. Megrahi has merely spread his infamy far and wide.
Marcus is correct. That was a real slap in the face to the U.S.A.
Complain about this comment
Re# 204
Why would you or anybody else bother with an embittered "has-been" whom nobody at DNC wants to mention by name?
What we should be actually6 concerned about is our current President and a Commander-in-Chief apparently having no clue what kind of world he lives in.
And personally, I thought he was a smart lawyer who'd learn fast on the job, even if he wasn't qualified for it initially.
But 'mistakes have been made' and I grudgingly admit to mine.
Complain about this comment
Scotch – Remember though as a nation we don’t have allies and we should put our interests above everyone else, if other countries don’t like tough, well according to Marcus anyway. Apologies that only applies to the US doesn’t it?
Complain about this comment
In the case of Megrahi, the government of the United Kingdom made a representation to the government of the United States that it would keep a mass murderer of Americans in prison if the US gave up its own claims to prosecute him and if a Scottish court tried and convicted him under Scottish law. That happened but the UK did not honor its commitment. Either the government of the UK was not competent to make such a commitment in the first place or it broke it. In either case, the UK like all other European governments cannot be trusted to keep its word. One the UK government made that commitment, it was no longer just a Scottish matter, it became a bilateral treaty involving the US.
The government of Israel never made any commitment to the US that it would not build apartment houses in its capital city Jerusalem. The consequences for the US despite what some military people have said are insignificant. Those who do not like the US will not change their minds, those that do won't change their minds either as a result of it. The rest is just idle speculation.
Complain about this comment
#208 LOL
David Murrell,
Did I get carried away? I have to keep reminding myself that my opinions on any given subject won't make a jot of difference one way or the other.
Although I can think of more destructive ways to let off steam...
Truth is, we should all get a life!
>8-D
Complain about this comment
Anyone can put on a hizbulla t-shirt to frame some one else
Inside story
Flight from the truth
The Lockerbie trial was meant to end the saga of Pan Am flight 103. But it didn't take into account the wads of US dollars, or the heroin, or the Hizbullah T-shirt found in the wreckage. As the man convicted of the bombing prepares to appeal, John Ashton and Ian Ferguson argue that there has been a top-level cover-up
Complain about this comment
Some Israelis think they own the USA, and they might be right -- look at the composition of the democrat senators and you will see one of the reasons. Maybe President Obama could look the other way and allow Iran to acquire nuclear arms.
In reality, USA should be the least worried about Iran acquisition of nuclear arms; its posturing against Iran is on the behest of the ungrateful state of Israel, But the presence of a formidable Iranian neighbour – with mutual destruction capabilities -- would force the Israelis to seek peace with her neighbours.
Complain about this comment
#209 Re Libyan mass murderer/ Qadafi's agent Megrahi. [PanAm #103]
MAII. Please, don't use words like 'commitment' and 'honor'.
Remember what happened with BAE massive corruption investigation in the UK?
They may not be Americans but they sure understand an American saying:
"Money talks, s..t walks".
[The rest is silence.]
Complain about this comment
Bloggers Unite
We should delete the word M--CUS from the english language, never to be typed again from anyone's fingers until the end of time
Complain about this comment
Pan American World Airlines Inc; Bank of New York Mellon International
I know all the theories
I got the T-shirt
Complain about this comment
202. At 09:19am on 17 Mar 2010, squirrelist wrote:
"Who seriously ever proposed that all black South Africans should abandon the struggle against apartheid and ship themselves off en masse to Alabama? Or Angola, for that matter?"
__________
Nobody.
That isn't my point, though. I was thinking on a much smaller and more personal scale.
Gaza is jammed full of children (median age 17 years). If they included my children, I would be doing everything I could to get them out to Canada or Australia, or the US, in the hope of building a better life.
I can't solve international problems between states - the Israeli PM isn't taking my calls any more, either - but I can affect the future of my own children. My impression is that Gaza is an awful hell-hole. I would want my kids out of there.
Is it right? Is it just? No.
But I don't see why, if they were my kids, they should spend a lifetime being punished for it.
This interminable dispute is debasing both societies.
Complain about this comment
You know what your problem is bluenote? You were born about 5 or 6 hundred years too late. Back in the days of the inquisition dissenters who were called heretics could be tortured and burned alive at the stake. That was when the earth was still flat and at the center of the universe. Now all you have is your wits and facts to fight with. Small wonder you would like to have someone else eliminate those who not only disagree with you but beat your arguments to a pulp every time. Ah for the 14 century, those were the good old days.
Complain about this comment
Ref# 206 Scotch-git
I think the jury's still out on MacAskill's performance given the 8 years of unprecedented incompetence that preceded the SNP government, however he had no discretion in this matter. Medical opinion was unequivocal even if it did turn out to be wrong. If he had denied the application he would have failed to apply the law of the land.
I agree that the decision must have been hard to take in the US, especially for relatives of the victims, however Scots and UK law was amended to let the trial happen in the first place. To preclude a compassionate release, that law should have been changed at the time also. As it wasn't, the law as it stands must be applied without prejudice.
Ref# 209 MAII
Bilateral agreements are not made verbally in smoke filled rooms. Besides any agreement such as this one made that runs contrary to domestic law would ultimately be invalidated by the courts. The US agreed to a trial in Scotland because if they had insisted on a US trial Megrahi would never have left Libya.
Besides, the US agreed the trial, but then systematically withheld evidence to maximise the likelihood of a conviction. In getting Megrahi to drop his appeal, there's a good chance that MacAskill avoided the very real possibility of the conviction being declared unsafe on those grounds.
Still, glad to see you're agreeing with Hilary about something.
Complain about this comment
powermeerkat;
"Remember what happened with BAE massive corruption investigation in the UK?"
Yes, the UK government fought its own Justice Department's investigation claiming that if the facts came out it would damage the UK's national security. That shows you what their strategy for their national defense is based on.
Complain about this comment
Marcus (217) – Not a Catholic I see, the Roman Inquisition (formed 1542 by Pope Paull III), or to give its full title the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition, after few name changes became in 1983 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. So BlueNote does live in an age with the Inquisition.
Historical note the idea that the world was flat was never universally held, Ptolemy having devised the measurements for the globe BCE, the exact same model used by a certain C Columbus, the problem being Ptolemy under estimated the size of the planet (something other theorist on the matter suggested prior to the finding of the New World).
Other than that a solid argument as always, never let the facts get in the way of a good rant, after all we should always do what we think Chuck would do!
Complain about this comment
Aggressor's / victim's / drama queens / whatever your names Back It Up
Complain about this comment
PTD;
"Bilateral agreements are not made verbally in smoke filled rooms."
PTD, you are wasting your time preaching to the choir. If you are trying to convince me that you can't take an Englishman at his word don't bother, I was convinced of the truth of that statement a long time ago.
Complain about this comment
I hope the US/Israeli relations get worse not better, that is more likely to lead to a quick equitable solution for both sides. A solution agreed to by both sides at Taba, unfortunately the timing was wrong,Bush and Sharon came to power.
The reality, however, is that the (big stick) AIPAC and their lackies in congress will insure the wounded spouses kiss and make up and then back to business as usual.
Complain about this comment
Squirrel;
Paraphrasing;
"Who seriously ever proposed that all blacks in America should be shipped off en masse to Africa?"
Actually that was the plan Abraham Lincoln was toying with for them after the Civil War ended. I only learned that fact a few years ago. I was quite surprised about it.
IF
"Gaza is an awful hell-hole. I would want my kids out of there."
"I don't see why, if they were my kids, they should spend a lifetime being punished for it."
There are consequences for what people do. The Palestinians voted for Hamas as their leaders, a party who in effect declared war on the very existance of the state of Israel. They brought their misery about themselves.
The anti-Americanism that festered in Europe for the longest time until it exploded in the early part of the 21st century even before the invasion of Iraq during the time when Schroeder and Chirac whipped it up for their own cynical domestic purposes has had and will continue to have dire consequences for Europeans for decades to come. The people to people relationship that existed before it may never be restored. The release of Megrahi left no doubt for anyone who thought the British were not as culpable in being anti-American as the rest of Europe. Even if Europe were to have a change of heart, it is unlikely that America's backlash will end. That bridge is blown to smithereens. I can't imagine any American politician daring to offer aid of any kind to a European nation, certainly not military defense or money.
The US has and will continue to suffer the consequences of electing Barack Obama as President. In his first year in office he accomplished.....nothing. It's likely to go down hill from here. About all he can lay claim to is that had the bank bailout and the bailout of GM and Chrysler not taken place, things would be even worse than they are. It's the same policy though any President of either party would have pursued. Perhaps after he retires from the Presidency in 2013 he can find a community to organize somewhere, a job he is more suited for.
Complain about this comment
Ahh Mr Aurelius I can see our expectations were correct!
Do you want some dip for that chip?
Complain about this comment
Those of you that have the interest (and time) might find this article in Haaretz (Israel's oldest newspaper) informative. While it doesn't change my views on the situation, I found it to be good background material. It lays out the choices facing the Prime Minister.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1157086.html
Complain about this comment
DruM;
"Ahh Mr Aurelius I can see our expectations were correct!
Do you want some dip for that chip?"
Yes I admit that I sometimes do grab a bite at MacDonalds. So Mr. Murrell, I think I will have fries with my burger. What does my bill for my value meal come to?
Complain about this comment
224. At 3:29pm on 17 Mar 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"Who seriously ever proposed that all blacks in America should be shipped off en masse to Africa?"
Hold on, wasn't that the original idea behind Liberia?
----------
"There are consequences for what people do. The Palestinians voted for Hamas as their leaders, a party who in effect declared war on the very existance of the state of Israel. They brought their misery about themselves."
----------
Well, I have no use for Hamas, either, and I also believe that there are consequences that flow from actions. I think that comment should apply to the Government of Israel, too.
It seems to me that the Palestinians have missed many, many opportunities to make peace, in my view very unwisely. Bill Clinton came very close. But just as the PM of Israel is deleting my phone messages now, Yasser Arafat was not taking my calls then. More's the pity.
----------
But all of it misses my main points.
First, why should American foreign policy in the middle East be held hostage to the intricacies of coalition politics in the Knesset, or, as here, effectively be dictated by the Shas party? I wonder how many Americans actually understand the position that America is now committed to supporting, and how many Americans share the political beliefs and objectives of the Shas. I have Israeli friends and colleagues, and they all despise the Shas party.
Second, why is America involved in this dispute at all. Consider the lands that are now Lebanon, Syria, Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, and most of Sinai. Before Herzl, what was there? What was the level of economic development? I have the impression that it was the Ottoman equivalent of some kind of sleepy, backwards Hicksville-upon-Boondocks.
Prior to WWII, America had no interest whatsoever in the area. It held nothing that anyone considered even remotely important to American security.
Ok, so look at it even now. Granted, the Israelis have made a miraculous transformation of the land and it's economic potential. They built a first world economy in a place where it simply would not have existed without them. You have to admire that.
(In passing, I have commented on this in previous postings, and it is one of my criticisms of Israel's enemies that they would garner a lot more favourable hearing from others if they had a bit more time on building successful pluralistic societies and advanced economies of their own. If Israel can do it, why couldn't they, too?
Why exactly do the Arab citizens of, say, Egypt or Saudi Arabia not enjoy the same civil liberties, the same democracy, the same standard of living and mobility that people take for granted in Western Europe and North America? Why, exactly, are civil liberties and democracy incompatible with Islam, as some would seem to want us to believe? No doubt others here will take offense at that, but still.)
Whatever the case, and no matter what miracles the Israelis have wrought, the place is still too small; too crowded; lacking in the two critical fluid upon which its economy depends, namely water and oil; it has essentially no natural resources; and it isn't on the way to or from anywhere. Even without its implacably hostile neighbours, it would have no more inherent strategic significance than its immediate neighbours, Lebanon, Syria, and (trans-)Jordan.
So why are such enormous proportions of America's foreign policy resources and assets tied up in this backwater?
Does the question of ownership of land between the Jordan valley and the sea really have any more relevance to the needs of America's economy and security than the ownership of a parking lot in Scarborough?
Third, in being entangled in this dispute in which America has no critical strategic interest, America's position is prejudiced with respect to other relationships that really are of strategic significance. So America's policy options in completely unrelated situations are constrained by, and distorted by, this never-ending Levantine pissing-match that is totally irrelevant to America's actual strategic interests and needs.
Involvement in this dispute is a luxury, an indulgence. America's treasury can't afford this kind of foolishness anymore.
And, fourth, how can it possibly be acceptable for a government whose security depends on American support to treat the representatives of that government, and, in particular the President and Vice President, with such disdain and contempt. To me, it is incomprehensible why the Republican leadership have not grasped this issue.
Complain about this comment
MAII
You do tend to deal in absolutes don't you. You meet one or two people or read one or two things and you think you can encapsulate a nation or a political party, or even a continent by the few details you learn. Worse yet, you bring the debate down with you. Everything is black and white. Depending on the topic, Americans/Isrealis/Republicans are forgiven their sin because of what they are and anyone not in this club is automatically wrong/dangerous/treasonous or supports terrorism.
Newsflash, the world was made with shades of grey.
It's a shame because on more practical topics you show your intelligence and have excellent contributions to make. However when it comes to world affairs your inablilty to recognise others opinions as even having validity reduces your arguments to the cyber equivalent of a 5 year old's temper tantrum.
Complain about this comment
I really wonder how much longer we will continue to funnel money and weapons into what is really a theological state - something I thought the US Constitution was intrinsically opposed to. Israel acts like a spoiled child - it doesn't have to be respectful to anyone else or follow anyone's rules. When I was a child, I was baptised in the River Jordan by a Rabbi, and so I've always had a special place in my heart for Israel. Now that space is filled with disappointment. Over and over again the leadership of Israel has promised and failed, and the US needs to stop feeling guilty for them. We've given them enough - Its time for them to grow up and act like a real nation, and not an angry fortress.
Complain about this comment
IF
"It seems to me that the Palestinians have missed many, many opportunities to make peace, in my view very unwisely. Bill Clinton came very close"
Actually he didn't. He thought he did until.... In an interview on American television several years later, when asked why he met all of Arafat's demands at the peace conference at the end of 2000 to the astonishment of Isrealis and the rest of hte world alike, Ehud Barach told the interviewer because he know Arafat wouldn't accept it. When Barack agreed to Arafat's demands, Arafat added a new condition, the right of return of 5 million Palestinians to Israel, a demand he know Barach couldn't accept. Then Arafat walked out of the talks and called for a second Intifada, a war of terror against the Israelis. That war of terror including suicide bombings of shopping malls, wedding celebrations, buses, restaurants, an attempt on a hospital, sniper attacks, rockets fired at civilians, and every other heinous crime they could devise has resulted in the Palestinians being where they are now. When the Israelis left Gaza the left behind greenhouses they'd used to grow tomatoes they sold all over the world. These were for Palestinian use. Instead the Palestinians smashed them and use the land for launching rockets at Israeli civilian targets.
There is no rational reason to negotiate for peace with these people. There isn't the slightest reason to expect that such negotiations could possibly be fruitful. They cannot even get along with each other, their terror is visited upon their own kind daily. The importation of large quantities of weapons and arming of Palestinian terrorists led to the Israeli attacks against them such an in Jenin in 2002 and against Gaza recently and the quarrantining of both Gaza and the West Bank. There are no Israeli troops among the Palestinians, they are not being occupied, they are being isolated. Perhaps if the Palestinians hadn't used ambulances to transport arms and terrorists, they would still move freely too but that was not to be. And so incrementally to defend themselves the Israelis have arrived at the current situation which is right. Also right is the building of settlements to create borders that are defendable so that neighboring Arab governments will never again be tempted to attack them with the expectation of easily overwhelming them. Also right is for Israel to hold on to the sparsely populated but militarily important Golan Heights, and to Judify Jerusalem so that Isrealis will never again be denied access to their holiest shrine as they were when Arabs controlled it up to 1967. There really is nothing to negotiate. There is no reason for the US to waste its time trying. The US should forget about the useless roadmap and accept the situation for what it is.
Americans will continue to ship military weapons and send money to Israel because that is what the overwhelming majority of Americans want to do. This seems inconceivable to Europeans because their hatred of Jews that has lasted over 1000 years has not ended. It's a good reason to recognize the irrationality of Europeans and be very wary and suspicious of any relationships with Europe. But America got that warning from President Washington in his farewell address, a warning it wisely heeded until it foolishly entered WWI. There is now good reason for America to consider breaking off many relations with European countries, withdrawing all investments, troops, and ties to Europe and to concentrate on its own problems, its own progress. There is nothing more America could do for Europe even if it still cared about it. It appears there is nothing Europe can do for itself either. It is a lost cause, absolutely hopeless.
Complain about this comment
August wrote
"I really wonder how much longer we will continue to funnel money and weapons into what is really a theological state......"
Until the US Ambassador to the United Nations joins the rest of the world and condemns Israel for its actions. This action, by admission would make funding for Israel a violation of US law and policy. Aid cannot be spent in the occupied territories, cannot be used to violate peoples human rights, military aid to be used for legitimate defensive purpose only. Conditions Israel has violated with impunity.
Complain about this comment
231. At 7:26pm on 17 Mar 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"Americans will continue to ship military weapons and send money to Israel because that is what the overwhelming majority of Americans want to do. ..."
__________
All the things you say may be true.
(I was certainly aware of many of the examples you give, and more, but you made your point)
Still, none of it explains to me what strategic interest America has in who owns any part of the land between the Jordan River and the sea.
Why should America care?
What is the critical strategic interest in that land that merits the management time devoted to it by successive US administrations?
Why do western countries and their diplomats keep playing this game?
I don't see, for example, China, devoting a great deal of time to the issue, or of allocating a lot of money to it, or of using the scarce time of the Chinese leadership dealing with it. Or Japan, or Brazil, or name another place.
It also seems to me that America is paying significant costs for the distortion of foreign policy that comes from this distraction. An awful lot of blood and treasure has gone into American policy in the mid-east.
Are those costs being carefully assessed and balanced?
It doesn't look to me that they are.
----------
You say that "... it is what the overwhelming majority of Americans want to do."
Really? I would be quite surprised if that's true.
As a nation, Americans are notoriously dis-interested in foreign affairs, and particularly so when it involves the expenditure of public funds on foreigners. Hence the old (and very true) saying "There are no votes in foreign aid."
Forget about asking really specific questions like "Do you, Mr. Smith of Akron Ohio, believe that America should devote financial and military support to pander to the policy of the Shas party in the Israeli Knesset"
No, just ask the general question: "America spends X dollars every year on subsidies to Egypt, Israel, and Jordan; and y dollars supporting Israel's economy and armed forces. Do you think America should keep spending that money."
My guess is that if actually given the choice, the majority of Americans wouldn't devote anything like the level of resources that are being directed toward the middle east. I'm not sure it would be zero, but the phrase "not one thin dime" does come to mind.
Paradoxically, while America is notoriously stingy with public funds for this kind of stuff, in my experience Americans as private citizens don't take a back seat to anybody when it comes to generosity and philanthropic funding of all sorts of charities in foreign countries. They just don't often tend to like the government spending tax money doing it.
Complain about this comment
ref #232"I really wonder how much longer we will continue to funnel money and weapons into what is really a theological state......"
Until the US Ambassador to the United Nations joins the rest of the world and condemns Israel for its actions. This action, by admission would make funding for Israel a violation of US law and policy. Aid cannot be spent in the occupied territories, cannot be used to violate peoples human rights, military aid to be used for legitimate defensive purpose only. Conditions Israel ha
________________________
Has it occured to you that the worldshould join the U.S in condemning islamic terrorism and demand that Arab nations make peace with Israel?
Complain about this comment
Marcus - Shlomo Ben Ami Foreign minister under Ehud Barack,would differ with you, he said there was full agreement by both sides at the Taba conference(2001) It was however not ratified by Sharon when he came to power. I am sure you are familiar with Sharon’s stellar career, one of his military exploits that comes to mind is Qibya Massacre. This is probably the last UN resolution that the USA did not veto on Israel’s behalf.
P.S. I will sure miss your internet comments if China decides to calls in its loans. Assuming you do not move to either Europe or Isreal.
Complain about this comment
IF;
"Why should America care?"
I don't think there is a single simple answer to that question. It's obvious why about 6 million American Jews care. But it goes far further and deeper than that. At least 30 million American evangelical Christians believe that Israel must conquer the lands it supposedly held in the bible and must fight a titanic war with the Arabs for Christ to return to earth. Other Christians hold similar beliefs if not as strongly. Israel is seen as a tiny island of democracy in a sea of hostile Arab despotic tyrannies who want to destroy it and have fought four wars trying just that. The current conflict is seen merely as an extension of those wars and is now joined as the same war America is fighting against extremist Islamic terrorists. Israel also looks and feels a lot like America. Many of the towns and villages have the feel of an American suburb. Many Israelis speak English, a lot of them with Amrican accents. There are close ties between many Israeli and American organizations including universities, hospitals, corporations. Israelis prize education the way Americans do and are leaders in high technology. The innovation flows in both directions with many innovations coming from Israel to the US. There is close cooperation between military organizations and intelligence agencies between the countries. Lots of visitors between the countries as well. Israel is one place Americans always feel welcome as visitors. Israel was also a bulwark against Soviet domination of the middle east during the cold war. The list goes on and on but in short there are strong interlinkages at many levels between the two societies. There is no comparable relationship between American society and any Arab society. In fact you'd be hard pressed to find any such relationship between America and any other society in the world, even Canada. This was noted by Sir Christopher Meyers in a BBC interview. He was Britain's ambassador to the US for over 5 years. America has the relationship with Israel Britain wishes it had.
We know why the Europeans hate Israel and the Jews. They've demonstrated it for over 1000 years. Overt anti-semitism in Europe is on the rise but I saw it first hand for myself in 1973 so it never really went away completely, it just waned for a few decades. After what Europe did to the Jews and considering how it still feels towards them, they give me good cause to hate Europe and everything about it. There are many more reasons for me to hate it as well. Their attitude towards Israel and the Jews is only one thread in a consistent tapestry.
Complain about this comment
Obaaje;
I am familiar with what happened because I saw it in the news when it broke. I followed it closely at the time. Events happened just the way I said they did. To the astonishment of the world (and to me), Barach agreed to all of Arafat's demands. Then Arafat threw in the 5 million refugee return kicker and when he got a no, he walked out calling for an intifada. Check the news accounts of the time. Whatever else you heard is a lie. Later on before he died, Arafat said he regretted he hadn't accepted the offer. Too late. I think that was a one time offer and is gone. Besides, Hamas wouldn't accept it either. They won't accept anything that allows Israel to exist permanently. That is their stated position.
Complain about this comment
Many hold the view that animosity toward Jews is still present in Europe and that it was cultivated for long time (1000 years). Yes, we know why. The hatred toward Jews was based on the idea, cultivated by Rome that Jews need to be hated because they killed Jesus of Nazareth. Simple idea for simple masses. That long term conditioning of minds is as difficult to eradicate as would be an attempt to convert a multitude to another faith. We thus recognize what the European reality of present time is.
What is the American reality?
American reality is similar to European. And reasons are exactly the same as those stated above.
Americans support/identify/love Jews? Some maybe, but certainly not the majority. American masses like to blame Jews, especially for their financial misfortunes but as in European case the roots of Jews dislike has the religious colors.
Most vivid case that ought to command the attention is 2000 year presidential contest between George Bush and Al Gore. While the outcome raised the emotions and centered on few Florida votes, Supreme Court intervention etc. there was another, significant factor that may have out weighted all others - the selection of presidential candidate mate. Al Gore picked Joe Lieberman, acknowledged Orthodox Jew, the fellow that would not touch work during weekends. The results of that run - look back at the contest map representing blue and red colors candidate assignments. The more backward the state, the bigger win for George Bush and Dick Cheeney.
These kind of consideration are still a taboo in American politics. In most places in America, especially backward states, publicizing your Jewishness while running for a public office would constitute political suicide.
So let's not talk about majority of Americans supporting Israel. In fact, the Israeli overwhelming, heavy handed approach toward Palestinians of the region creates more antogonists and less and less of sympathisers for Israeli cause. Let's not be fooled by skewed reasoning. The support comes from the elected, or running for office politicians whose funds/monetary support comes from fat pockets of influential Jewish-American community. Reciprocation that is pre- defined is a must for any politician who like to stay at and feed from a public office sty.
So it goes. Question is how long the trend will continue in THAT direction.
Complain about this comment
PassTorian, your view of the United States is off the wall. You don't know what the hell you are talking about. What you say may have been true in places fifty years ago but not today.
Complain about this comment
236. At 10:57pm on 17 Mar 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"I don't think there is a single simple answer to that question."
Well, that I agree with, certainly.
On the first point, considering the 6 million American jews, and I would add a proportionate number of Canadian jews, too, that's true - if anything you have understated it. The history of homeless peoples is not an happy one, and the jews are no exception.
There are however, three or four observations I would make.
----------
First, I have Jewish friends and colleagues who either are Israelis, or have lived in Israel. They have four common views - first, they do not want to go back and live in Israel; second they have no use for the extremist religious parties and the creeping petty controls they exercise over Israeli life, their hypocritical and self-serving exemptions from military service (oh, have I ever heard about this one - and almost invariably the description includes the word "parasites"), their efforts to have control over who gets to be called a "jew", and so on; third, they all liked living in Tel Aviv, but can't understand why anyone would want to live in Jerusalem; and fourth they are almost all more moderate in their views than the current government. Interestingly, a minority of them want all support for organized religion to stop. There is also the issue of national military service: They all want their children to know what Israel is like, but nobody really wants their kids to be called up for national service.
Second, on the views of evangelical Christians, yes, I am familiar with that one, too.
But the idea that the Government of the United States should pursue a policy to make the prophesies of Ezekiel come true, so that the day of rapture can be hastened runs into three problems - there is a big problem of separation of church and state, I would have thought; last time I checked none of the middle east was part of the United States; in a secular state making biblical prophesy the rationale of government action is, um, er, problematic; and, finally, the whole thing has the air of Jim Jones in 1975(was it really that long ago?), or various other doomsday cults.
Whatever it is, it isn't a basis for rational policy decisions based upon the best interests of the United States, and it is hardly fair to expect other citizens to pay taxes for government action toward that end. It also has a huge level of presumption, not only about the presumed righteousness of our own revealed beliefs, but also about the expectation of acquiescence (or acceptance of an assigned status of irrelevance) of the current inhabitants of the holy land, especially those who have not yet accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour.
Third, on the island of democracy issue, I hear you, and it's a view I share - particularly given my views on civil rights. I have no affection for the various neighbouring tyrannies, whether they are nominally American allies or not. All people have the right to choose their own government by free and fair elections; to equality before the law; to the right to seek justice through the courts; to be free from arbitrary arrest, confinement, punishment or seizure; to choose their own religion, or none at all; to enjoy freedom of conscience and freedom of speech - and we should not look the other way just because it is convenient. Yes, Israel, or parts of Israel, may feel a lot like America. But while those issues have a very strong personal emotional pull - and particularly so when the founding generation were still alive - it is no substitute for a sober assessment of a nation's actual interests.
----------
"In fact you'd be hard pressed to find any such relationship between America and any other society in the world, even Canada."
True, in one way, but not so true in another. I hear what you're saying, and I know what you're talking about. But that closeness is a NY-NJ-PA-Conn-RI-Mass kind of thing. There isn't much nexus between Texarkana and Tel Aviv. The Canada-US closeness is a Toronto-Chicago, Halifax-Boston, Winnipeg-Minneapolis, Vancouver-Seattle kind of thing. Just as close, in some ways closer, but clearly different. The relationship between the US and the UK is different again, too.
The thing is that while those may be important emotional and philosophical ties, they don't really relate to the hard interests of America as a continental nation in North America.
Consider Britain when it dropped the commonwealth and recognized that its interests and its future were linked to Europe as opposed to, e.g., the Antipodes. Britain had all the same cultural and historic affinities of which you speak, but it was fighting against geography, demography, economics, and history - just as Israel is now. Britain moped through all sorts of stages of denial from 1945 to 1979. Usually when you fight against either demography or economics, you end up doing the King Canute thing. And when you fight against both of them?
The Diefenbaker government wanted to revive the links of empire, and was quite hurt to be told that Britain was headed in the other direction, and wasn't really interested. Australia and New Zealand long ago accepted that their future lay in their relationship with Asia. Israel isn't Puerto Rico, and the relationship of dependence on America is anomalous.
I go back to the same starting point.
If you look at America's economy, and its genuine commercial and strategic interests around the world, it should be essentially indifferent to which nation, if any, owns land between the Jordan river and the sea - if it were still part of the Ottoman Empire, or for that matter the Roman Empire, that issue would still be irrelevant.
So what genuine strategic interest does America have there?
And if there is an answer to that one, then the next question is: "Whatever interest America may have in that corner of the world, does it justify the grossly disproportionate allocation of economic and military assets that currently occurs?"
And if it doesn't have any genuine strategic interests in that struggle, then why is it obliged to tolerate bad behaviour from an ally that needs America a lot more than America needs it?
What is the price that America is paying for its current posture, not merely in financial subsidies, but in the prejudice done to America's standing with other nations that really do have strategic importance, above all Turkey, Iran, and Egypt?
I don't see these questions being answered - either here or in the mainstream press.
Complain about this comment
240. At 04:42am on 18 Mar 2010, Interestedforeigner and
236. At 10:57pm on 17 Mar 2010, MarcusAureliusII
I preparing to answer IF's carefully reasoned, pragmatic outline, and his Divine Majesty's exceptionally balanced discussion, but when I step out of their texts I see plainly that they give the best evidence themselves.
Why, in spite of all you say - and it is all of it the truth - do we care?
I was going to respond to each of your points, but my arguments would not be better than yours; the better response to each of them is - in spite of this we care about the survival and prosperity of Israel.
I could explain that it was done by our parents and grand-parents, in the heady days at the end of their greatest triumph, and the emotional wave is still felt.
I think you would agree that the creation of the state of Israel is a unique event in modern history - a colony of sorts, but not a political colony.
By the way, your characterization of the evangelical Christians' attitude shows that you have read and heard about us, but seem not to know very many. The majority view is that the full restoration of Israel can only occur by God's hand and in his time, and only fools would try to force that hand. We are taught to honor the Jews because they are fellows in the faith and that those who bless them will be blessed. (Quite a change that, I know.)
Israel is for me an extraordinary incident of hope against all historical and pragmatic expectation - as much as America thinks it is exceptional in this time, so the state of Israel is exceptional across millenia. I think, although it is not the pragmatic approach, our relationship with Israel cannot be understood without understanding our cultural roots in the Bible.
The anomaly of Israel causes exceptional difficulties. Why do we defend it? It is a good thing to do.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
ref #238
I would argue that Gore inadequacy and charisma deficet rather than Lieberman's jewishness( he is outside of the liberal dem wing one of the most respected Senators in the country) was the reason.
in addition I would argue my own state Mass is backwards becuase with the exception of this year senate race, there is a Palov response to voting democrat.
Even if the indvidual is a child molster, a drunk driver who caused another's death, having an SO who runs an escort service out of their shared D.c apartment etc
Complain about this comment
#238. Yes the persecution of Jews in Europe was largely driven by the belief that the Jews were responsible for Jesus' crucifixtion. That is of course theologically ignorant as the Gospels record that one of Jesus' final sayings on the cross was "Father forgive them for they know not what they do..." It also goes against one of the central tenents of Jesus' teachings, forgiveness.
What that proves is how easy it is for a religious message to be corrupted and perverted by people for their own ends. Jesus was an ardent pacifist yet more people have probably died in his name than anyone else in history.
Complain about this comment
MK;
Being President or Vice President of the United States is a 7 day a week 24 hour a day job. Anyone who does not accept that no matter what religion they are is not qualified IMO. We expect our leaders to be ready, willing, and able to deal with a crisis whenever it arises, even if it is on someone's religious Sabbath. I found Lieberman unacceptable on those grounds alone even though I did like many of his other policies. What would he do if 9-11 happened on a Saturday, wait until sundown?
Complain about this comment
241 kscurmudgeon
"We are taught to honor the Jews because they are fellows in the faith"
Is not Islam of the same root .... and are muslims not "people of the book"?
__________________________________________________________
Now I have no axe to grind in favour of the various muslim nations, but neither do I see the benefit of the UNCONDITIONAL support for Israel. You make great points about the "Greatest Generation" and the terrible discoveries at the end of WW2 - but remember nobody went to war to protect the rights of Jews living under the Nazi yoke. This is pure historical revisionism based on the rather embarrassing horror of the post WW2 discoveries.
It is entirely correct to protect the rights of Jews in Israel - but not the rights of a theocratic society (as IF says - many secular jews have left Israel). We denounce muslim fundamentlism, but excuse Jewish or Christian fundamentlism. Somehow this seems wrong to me.
The problem, again as stated so eloquently by IF, is that policy about Israel in the USA is or has been influenced by religious views about rapture and the second coming etc. This must be seen as unacceptable, or are christians unable to see the hypocrasy of promoting the US as a bastion of freedom with its vaunted seperation of church and state.
Complain about this comment
I am kind of surprised that this has not gone smoother, especially with President Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, who is highly Jewish and has Obama's ear. You would think that Rahm understands Israel and could have helped the peace process more. Even though Netanyahu's brother in law stated that Obama was anti-Sematic, this is clearly proven false by Emanuel. If Obama was anti-Semantic, he wouldn't have picked Emanuel.
It will be interesting to see what Netanyahu says next week at the AIPAC meeting, where all eyes and ears will be on him. He will surely defend Israel's settlements, as well as having difficulty with the peace process due to Palestine and Israel not being able to compromise. Even today, there was a rocket fired on Israel. SO Palestine is no innocent. But I hope that Netanyahu shows respect toward the USA, even if there are disagreements. If there is not respect between USA and Israel, there is nothing. Respect is essential for allies.
Complain about this comment
241 KS.
Yes, when it comes to scripture, I am out of my depth.
The issue does, however, strike much closer to home than you might realize.
Need to think about this before responding.
In the meantime, I try to be guided by two principles:
1) A loving and just God leads us to truth and enlightenment. He does not leads us to accept the counsels of hatred, or impatience, or ignorance.
2) Our highest duty is to love our neighbours. In that duty we cannot do, or condone evil. If we would have justice, we must do justice to others, for they are all our neighbours.
Complain about this comment
Fareed Zakaria gets it. I completely agree with this informed view:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/03/18/zakaria.israel.mistake/index.html?hpt=C2
Generally speaking, and to give credit where credit is due, I applaud the caliber of the insights and analysis provided on this blog, particularly those of Andy Post, David Murrell, Interested Foreigner and Squirrelist. Others, too. Lots of valid, incisive, well thought-out points. Difficult to refute such sensible opinions. A sharp contrast to the emotionally charged, narrow-minded, unyielding and prejudiced propaganda advanced by others in this forum (and more importantly, in the hallways of power).
Finally, full disclosure: I am Lebanese Christian and have aways been compassionate with those who suffer at the hands of blatant injustice. Unlike some folks, I strive to think with my head, not with my heart. Marcus Aurelius, I know you'll have trouble believing this but you are completely misguided in some of your beliefs. Completely and utterly so. Try distancing yourself from the debate to consider the underlying issues with humility and objectivity. Try it. Gain some perspective. You would not be betraying the Cause, and it might help you see things more clearly.
Complain about this comment
134. At 4:37pm on 16 Mar 2010, LucyIllinois wrote:
"Some say that the land belongs to Palestine, but Israel fought for it fair and square."
So the Palestinians are fighting for it and that is fair and square?
You use freemasonry language.
Complain about this comment
48. At 00:37am on 16 Mar 2010, OneEssence wrote:
"The Jewish people suffered indignity throughout their history and have finally found the dignity of political sovereignty in their ancient homeland, in which a Jewish presence has consistently existed for 3 and a half thousand years."
So a religion as well as many other religions have had a presence in that region so what. Human presence has been there longer than religious presence. You like many others confuse nationality with religion when it suits your agenda and for some reason raise that above humanity. Now the Israeli state a religious state inflicts atrocity with the military support of USAmerica. Israel is a criminal state which inflicts crime against significant proportion of its population and on people outside its state border. It is a nuclear rogue state which refuses to neither confirm nor deny the possession of weapons of mass destruction and frankly what is being done now is no longer sanctified by past transgressions against members of that religion. Sympathy wore out a long while back and Israels development of Hamas only compounds the antipathy many feel for that state. THAT is the problem with confusing nationality with religion. It creates its own twin nemesis.
The people I feel sorry for are those Israelis who object to the illegal occupation of Palestinian land of all religions. Jews Muslims and Christians alike object to the illegal occupation.
"Wouldn't you be more honest returning to this discussion to say that they are allies to all the people of the earth, including all Muslims?"
I wouldn't sink that low. The Jews suffered collective strafe and now Israel in the name of the Jewish religion inflicts collective strafe.
I call that evil.
Complain about this comment
Lebanese Christian, nothing you say would surprise me. Hezbollah controls your country. Iran and Syria own it. Iran owns, funds, trais, and arms Hezbollah. Israel let you get off easy...last time. Next time will be very different if there has to be a next time.
Complain about this comment
239 - Is this your final argument MA? I thought so. Saying " your views are off the wall " is the simplistic shallow dismissal of one's point of view; dictated by a lack of any formidable riposte. The question is why. Are you a sleeper or your intentions are not as noble as you try to impress upon others?
By the way, how my views about America may be palatable to the real America of fifty years ago and not today? Is this because of the known fact that in those days high officials publicly displayed their dislike of Jews?
Vince Packard's old book titled "Status seekers" explains well how and why acceptance of Jews into American elite circle evolved. Yet, if for no other reasons you should read it in order to realize how little the human nature changed in those mere fifty years. Let me reiterate - general dislike of Jews by masses still persists in today's America regardless how the official media presents that relationship.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
MA2,
Israel did not let Lebanon off easy. It lost. Everyone knows it including Israel. Everyone apart from you. Strange that.
Complain about this comment
245. At 2:02pm on 18 Mar 2010, RomeStu wrote:
"It is entirely correct to protect the rights of Jews in Israel - but not the rights of a theocratic society (as IF says - many secular jews have left Israel). We denounce muslim fundamentlism, but excuse Jewish or Christian fundamentlism. Somehow this seems wrong to me."
_________________________________________
For me, fundamentalism is harmful when it blinds people to realities around them, when it allows them to interpret events according to their own desires. But fundamentalism is also a foundation in the midst of shifting sands of interpretation and opinion - a rock of ultimate reality that can be depended on. To see it correctly, it must not be an excuse to glorify personal, even cultural preconceptions. I shudder to think what folks would think of me if, from a modern preconception, they knew the level of affinity I feel with 'fundamentalist' Muslims.
"The problem, again as stated so eloquently by IF, is that policy about Israel in the USA is or has been influenced by religious views about rapture and the second coming etc. This must be seen as unacceptable, or are christians unable to see the hypocrasy of promoting the US as a bastion of freedom with its vaunted seperation of church and state."
__________________________
I cannot agree. Religion is specifically the tool to use when deciding moral questions - right or wrong, friend or foe, to do or not to do. Otherwise it becomes merely a utilitarian question, a kind of calculus based on personal benefit, and we lose our sense of personhood responsibility in a dehumanizing way.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"PassTorian, your view of the United States is off the wall. You don't know what the hell you are talking about. What you say may have been true in places fifty years ago but not today."
PassTorian is being perfectly truthful. The USA is the best democracy money can buy. Since many US Jews tend to be affluent, organised and cohesive, theirs is the greatest influence on that country's political direction, not least through the likes of AIPAC and others. The US's unquestioning support for Israel would be inexplicable otherwise, and certainly so as none of the US politicians since Eisenhower has had any backbone. Denying the truth won't make it any less true.
Complain about this comment
255 kscurmudgeon
"But fundamentalism is also a foundation in the midst of shifting sands of interpretation and opinion - a rock of ultimate reality that can be depended on."
I'm sorry but it is the more "fundamentlist" Christians in the USA who have reinterpreted the scriptures in so many ways in the last 100 years. How many different "churches" are there? You can basically find one that fits your pre-existing social beliefs and prejudices.
If you want an escape from "interpretation and opinion" learn Ancient Greek and Aramaic and become Greek Orthodox - at least they don't rewrite their book whenever it's meaning becomes inconvenient.
________________________________________________
"Religion is specifically the tool to use when deciding moral questions - right or wrong, friend or foe, to do or not to do. Otherwise it becomes merely a utilitarian question, a kind of calculus based on personal benefit, and we lose our sense of personhood responsibility in a dehumanizing way."
Whereas I in general agree with your position on many things, this is an outrageous position - that without religion one cannot adequately decide on moral issues.
If christian faith gave the ability to "decide moral questions - right or wrong" then this issue of healthcare would be in the bag months ago. The current situation highlights the base hypocrasy of many so-called Christians.
I would challenge all those "christians" in the Tea Party movement that my atheistic sense of ethics leads me to make a better choice for the benefit of the poor and less fortunate than their belligerant christianity.
Pots and Kettles. Motes and Logs. (By the way KS, I know your position and respect it, but a large number of your co-religionists are letting the side down pretty badly dont you think?)
I have no problem with people having a religion (although for the life of me I can't see why) but if they expect not to be challenged on their behaviour and attitude once they have professed their religion then they are on a sticky wicket.
Complain about this comment
257. At 1:48pm on 19 Mar 2010, RomeStu wrote:
"I'm sorry but it is the more "fundamentlist" Christians in the USA who have reinterpreted the scriptures in so many ways in the last 100 years. How many different "churches" are there? You can basically find one that fits your pre-existing social beliefs and prejudices.
If you want an escape from "interpretation and opinion" learn Ancient Greek and Aramaic and become Greek Orthodox - at least they don't rewrite their book whenever it's meaning becomes inconvenient."
___________________________________
I agree entirely, and agree also that the Orthodox Church holds the tradition as securely as any. But if you want to start a new doctrine, what can be a better justification than some newly refreshed 'original' truth? Still, many traditional Orthodox patriarchates are nationalistic expressions as much as they are Christ's. Consider the Russian church, or the Serbian church...
'Religion is specifically the tool to use when deciding moral questions'..
"...this is an outrageous position - that without religion one cannot adequately decide on moral issues."
_____________________________________
I didn't say exactly that - moral systems can be constructed without reference to God, some of them quite good - adequate was your word. The core of that discussion is whether you begin with man as the final arbiter, or with man as a creature responsible to his creator. This is not that conversation.
It is difficult to construct a rational morality, in the classical use of reason, beginning with self-justification. The Thomists and so the Catholics are supremely rational, perhaps to excess. Religeon, because it makes mankind answerable to a loving, self-consistent ('righteous' is the old term) creator, is a perfect environment to determine morality. The application of morality to nature or to the physical universe as understood, say, by science, is more difficult.
Still your point is valid considering all the evils that have come from people acting in the name of God.
Too often religion is taken as a justification of the cultures that have grown up, each like an accretion around it. We feel we need our security and our comforts, and generally these comforts include having someone to hate, to define ourselves against. Just as Jesus struggled to fulfill the Law of Moses by shattering much of the Jewish traditions that prevented or obscured its understanding, so true religion is largely about 'breaking the vessel' of our presumptions in order to find the truth. Challenges to presumption, behavior and attitude are always healthy. But too many people are 'hungry ghosts' consuming all their surroundings on their appetites, to use a Buddhist term.
The power of Western societies, of which America is a specific example,
is not only in our relentless greed and ambition for power. It is also in our cohesion, compassion, and recurring selflessness. 'The good life' is the right of all. I fear that in making each person the center of his or her own universe, we will loose the glue that makes us strong (and good).
We would get nowhere if we were all alike. Thank you.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
117. At 2:11pm on 16 Mar 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
""The US Constitution holds it as self evident that all men are equal""
"US Constitution is not a sacred document. Although it's a pretty good one.
And a simple IQ test would demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that not all men (AND women) were created equal."
__________
No, you've misunderstood the context and meaning of the word "equal".
It means that all men were created equal in God's love, and are therefore entitled to be treated equally before the law, to benefit from the same rights, and to be afforded the same protections under the law.
Complain about this comment
258. KS
Agree with you on much of this.
I believe that America's greatest strength lies not in its dedication to commerce, but rather in the great goodness and generosity you find in Americans far and wide - and particularly in the drainage basin of the Ohio-Missouri-Mississippi. This is my enduring image of America and Americans.
The justification for government, in my view, often boils down to "Thou shalt organize thyselves in a manner that maximizes overall utility of scarce resources."
This is why we have publicly funded police, fire departments, and armed forces, rather than private armies and warlords (and nobody ever suggests this is "socialism"); Why we have democracy, rather than feudalism; it is why most rich western democracies have public healthcare systems.
But that general rule needs to be tempered. Much of our morality translates into one economic commandment: "Thou shalt not commit negative externalities." This sums up a very great deal of our criminal law and of the law of civil wrongs, i.e., Tort.
So, if you take both rules together you arrive at a very secular and utilitarian view toward public policy, and yet one that is also profoundly moral (at least in my view) - because it is subject always to the rule that whatever policy is chosen, we must not commit evil. Usually we achieve that result whenever we avoid causing negative externalities.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
262. At 11:23pm on 20 Mar 2010, procrastinationstolemylife wrote:
"Have we helped evil as much as those promoting evil?"
Ah! Thanks. I've been trying to make out what 'negative externalities' really means for ages.
Now if procrastination hadn't been busy out thieving I'd have found out earlier ;-)
Complain about this comment
Thank you squirrilist for your post no 4, which was very helpful when taken
together with the wiki article on the lobby group. Apparently it is still possible in the US to refer to Israel as a j***** s***** in a polemical context whereas in our country it would be considered to verge on anti-semitism. But the wiki article suggests an interesting model for other clients of the US Empire, such as the UK, to strongly influence the Empire's conduct.
Complain about this comment
Re #259
No, Beauty Contestants don't deserve same protection rights, either.
Or at least they shouldn't.
[creatures with an IQ of a scallop do not deserve any HUMAN rights]
And btw., it's not US Constitution but our Declaration of Independence.
Clearly alluding to British colonialists who treated their colonials like second class citizens.
Which resulted in the original Tea Party.
P.S. This meerkat happens to think we were NOT created by God, or any other supreme being.
And that human beings have only rights they've given themselves.
Rightly or wrongly.
[Now I read that an Internet access is a inalienable human right. :-)))]
Complain about this comment
"and particularly in the drainage basin of the Ohio-Missouri-Mississippi"
Well IF, this meerkat happens to think that the real America (and Americans) starts west of the Continental Divide.
And that the real US heartland is Arizona, Colorado, Dacotas, Montana, New Mexico and Wyoming.
Although "It's not a Country for Old Men".
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
264
cping.,
Israel IS a Jewish state, the settlements are designated for Jewish eople. Non jews are not allowed to serve(Well not is arab decent(either christian or Muslim). The president demands others recognise it is a jewish state.
To claim that those that would call it a Jewish state are anti semetic would be to claim that the founders of Isreal were anti semetic.
"WE DECLARE that, with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight, the eve of Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948), until the establishment of the elected, regular authorities of the State in accordance with the Constitution which shall be adopted by the Elected Constituent Assembly not later than the 1st October 1948, the People's Council shall act as a Provisional Council of State, and its executive organ, the People's Administration, shall be the Provisional Government of the Jewish State, to be called "Israel"
David Ben-Gurion
Complain about this comment
263 Squirrel
On Negative Externalities:
Suppose there are two people (which could mean individual human beings, companies, governments, charities, or any other economic entity capable of making an exchange of goods or services)
Lets call the two people A and B.
A and B make an exchange.
The exchange will not occur unless both A and B believe that they will be "better off" as a result. What does "better off" mean? For now, just take it as a given that both A and B view this exchange as advantageous, for whatever subjective reasons they each may have. And by making this exchange, the total "better-off"-ness of A and B will increase by the sum of their individual "better-off"-nesses added together.
When A is selling oranges, and B is selling fresh goat meat, that transaction would seem to be self-contained: at least for now it seems to have no economic consequence for anyone other than A and B.
"Externalities" arise when the costs and benefits of the transaction are not fully contained (i.e., "internalized") between the parties.
Let's suppose, for example, that the economic benefit of this transaction to B is so large that B decides to build a road from his goat farm to A's orchards to ease delivery of goods. Perhaps the road includes a bridge that spans a gorge.
All of B's neighbours (let's call them C, D and F) then use the bridge to take their goods to market, saving them an arduous three hour hike down into the gorge, across the river, and back up the other side.
C,D and F are then the beneficiaries of the positive externalities of B's economic activity: They have not paid for the bridge, yet they obtain the benefit of being able to use it. So, by definition, a positive externality is a benefit, or windfall, to third parties arising from economic activity in which those third parties are not involved.
----------
[[Of course, B might try to recapture some of this benefit by setting up a tool booth on the bridge. C might decide to pay the toll. D might decide that he was better off making the three hour hike. F might decide to build another bridge elsewhere. Of course, B might then pay F not to build the alternative bridge, or might collude with F to make sure that F would not reduce the price of the toll. Both of these actions by B would, of course, give rise to anti-trust problems.]]
----------
But now consider:
A finds the price of oranges, when converted to goats, to be so attractive that he decides to double the size of his orchards, and to use more pesticides and fertilizers.
B finds the price of goats, when converted to oranges, to be so attractive that he doubles the size of his goat business, and starts trucking in goats from all over the state to be fattened at his feed lot.
But A's orchards depend on obtaining free water from the river. A takes so much water from the river that his neighbours don't have enough to irrigate their fields. What's more, the pesticide and fertilizer rich run-off from A's orchard poisons the river downstream of A's land. It ruins the commercial fishery, and the town has to install expensive water purification equipment.
B's feed lot creates a huge sewage run off problem, and the people in the housing development on the edge of town complain every time the wind blows the wrong way. Further, B has so many goats that when they graze on public land, nothing is left for other ranchers' herds.
Thus the economic activity in which both A and B capture private benefits generates significant costs for their neighbours. A negative externality then, is a cost to third parties arising from the economic activity of A and B.
A and B may have maximized their total utility (i.e., total economic benefit when the value of the benefit to A is added to the value of the benefit to B) in respect of this transaction, however the total utility of that economic activity may be negative because the net cost to their neighbours may exceed the increase in utility to A and B.
----------
We can see that there are obvious moral implications to both positive and negative externalities.
Generally speaking, it is morally indefensible to impose negative externalities on your neighbours. Sometimes it is just plain, outright, undiluted, evil.
Therefore, it is usually taken as a given that good economic policy attempts to do some combination of three things: (i) compel A and B to reduce or elininate the negative externalities arising from their activities; (ii) compel A and B to internalize the negative externalities of their activity; or (iii) (which often amounts to the same thing) compel A and B to compensate their neighbours for the negative externalities so that the neighbours are no worse off than they would have been if A and B had not engaged in their exchange.
----------
This is where politics enters the picture.
Suppose the neighbours go to the King to demand redress against A and B. (Let's suppose that the private civil remedy under the Tort of Nuisance is not applicable).
The King doesn't actually make decisions himself. Rather he acts only on the advice of his council. So A and B ask his councilors for help.
The councilors hold their positions by election. It turns out that A and B have made so much money trading oranges and goats that they have financed the election campaigns of all of the councilors - both the blue councilors and the red councilors.
The townsfolk then find that the councilors have no interest in enacting by-laws that would force A and B to internalize the costs of their economic activity.
However, the red councilors eventually say they would be willing to support a partial ban on importing out-of-county goats, provided that there would be an increase in the water allowance of orange growers (there only was one orange grower - guess who), and a ban on abortion.
The blue councilors said they would be willing to support a requirement that only environmentally friendly pesticides be used, provided that the only fertilizers approved for use in the county were those containing at least 50 % goat manure, and provided that the county fund free access, 24 hour abortion clinics.
Eventually the red and blue councilors compromised and eliminated all restrictions relating to oranges and goats, and enacted a law to fund the construction (using goat-dung adobe bricks) of abortion clinics (serving free, publicly subsidized orange juice) while outlawing abortion, doubling the water allowance of orange growers, and providing a subsidy for the importation of out-of-county goats. They called it the "No kid left behind" law.
The townsfolk are by now so completely at each others' throats over abortion, they forget entirely about oranges and goats.
----------
Negative externality problems arise everywhere.
In one notorious example of B's bridge the private owner of a bridge has fought for years and years to prevent another, publicly owned, bridge from being built.
Automobile manufacturers fought tooth and nail against improvements in safety standards advocated by Ralph Nader.
Automobile manufacturers fought tooth and nail against improvements in fuel efficiency standards.
Tobacco growers and cigarette manufacturers fought against restrictions on the sale of tobacco, and on increases in tobacco tax to force internalization of the health care costs associated with tobacco.
It happens now with gun control: the sellers of firearms do not want to be forced to internalize the negative externalities that arise from their economic activity. Instead, they repeatedly advocate arming the entire population, which, of course, would increase their own profits.
Global warming is perhaps the Godzilla of all negative externality issues. America's energy industry is primarily fossil-fuel based, and America's most inexpensive (provided you don't internalize the externalities, that is) and abundant fuel is coal. The amount of money involved in this industry is gargantuan, so the resistance to internalizing the negative externalities of burning fossil fuels is going to be correspondingly immense.
But negative externalities also arise from the behaviour of public-sector actors, such as nation states and terrorist groups. Every time you go to the airport and have to remove your shoes and permit yourself to be searched, you are experiencing the negative externalities that arise from a small number of bad actors. Think of the tens of billions of dollars spent each year on airport security. This huge public expenditure arises from the behaviour or a relative handful of people.
It is not only stateless terrorist groups. National governments also play these games. Israel has done it this week. But last year it might have been the government of North Korea. Or the Sudan. Or Burma. Or Zimbabwe. Or Venezuela, or, or, or ....
Some of it is obvious. Some of it is less obvious. For example, is the government of China creating huge negative externalities by refusing to allow the Yuan to float freely? Or is the cost of mercantilism, as practiced by China, ultimately borne (i.e., internalized) by the mercantilist? Or, as the government of China would tell it, is it the loose and irresponsible policies of America that are generating huge negative externalities in financial markets?
On the more complicated questions, there are often lots of pots and kettles calling each other black.
That's more than enough on this topic for now.
Complain about this comment
The have and the have nots, best help each other and stop the urban sprawl.
Their gods like the olive grove horizon.
raymond
Complain about this comment
And this is what gets announced in the news as the House is voting on health care:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8579273.stm
Pride cometh before a fall.
Complain about this comment
271
Teenagers throw stones from one side and on the other they shoot back.
Yet in this case we sit back and say "shoot on".
What's wrong with that picture?
Time for international sanctions I would say. After all it is the logic that seems to be cosidered the best by most when it comes to dealing with states that have no intention of listening to anyone but them selves and justifying being in their neigbours territory and killing the locals for saying"get the hell out of my country"
If the recognition of Isreal stands the same recognition of the area not given to Isreal should be recognised. The fact that it was NOT given to Isreal should be recognised. And Isreal should be FORCED to with draw by what ever means are nessesary.
That is the language we would use for any other state behaving in the manner they have.
But we do not.
Yes IF they announce this as the health care debate is in full swing.
Like they attacked Gaza durig christmas.
Maybe the UN should debate this on Saturday.
Complain about this comment
This opinion post offers a valuable historical perspective. This tug of war is, after all, history in the making.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-03-22/obama-must-stand-up-to-israel/2/
Complain about this comment
USA loves Israel, as we do all our allies. We may have disagreements, but we will never abandon them or let others hurt them.
To the anti-Semantics, I say, "Leave Israel alone!"
Complain about this comment
274. At 4:33pm on 23 Mar 2010, LucyIllinois wrote:
"USA loves Israel, as we do all our allies. We may have disagreements, but we will never abandon them or let others hurt them.
To the anti-Semantics, I say, "Leave Israel alone!""
__________
A good number of the people who post here like semantics a lot.
Sometimes MK's postings are anti-semantic, but that may be because he types too quickly.
----------
As for "Leave Israel alone", I think you'll find that while such a policy would benefit American taxpayers generally, and would be entirely consistent with US Policy in the middle east prior to December 7, 1941, it would be strongly opposed by AIPAC.
AIPAC wants Israel to have America's support with no questions asked, i.e., without Israel having to be criticized or held accountable for its acts by the American government.
Complain about this comment
Ah, the never-ending tussle between the 'anti-semantics' and the 'anti-grammaticals' . . .
Complain about this comment
276. Indeed
Complain about this comment
Epilogue from the news today, March 24, 2010:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8585239.stm
You can see why there is a huge disconnect.
One woman thinks Israel is part of America.
Another woman presumes that the foremost job of the President of the United States to take care of Israel.
Several of them seem to think that Obama's call for a halt to settlements last year came out of the blue, when that issue has been building and building in America for years and years. They think that the souring in the relationship was started by President Obama. Wow.
What planet are they living on?
Good heavens.
They have no idea.
No understanding of public opinion in North America.
One of them refers to President Obama as the Palestinians' President.
Wow.
If they think that now, when President Obama has taken baby steps to re-balance America's policy in the region, can you imagine what it would be like if the US took positive steps to support the Palestinians?
Oh, boy.
Open your eyes guys.
You have been insulated from reality for decades.
You are in for a very cold bucket of water.
Huge, huge disconnect.
A tragedy is going to unfold because of that disconnect.
There's going to be a train wreck here.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The two-state idea is going nowhere, slowly. One look at the map and it's clear that there is no territorial basis for it. Palestinians need to wake up to that fact, and seek equal rights under Israeli law.
Complain about this comment
Maybe the time has come to set our friends free. We (the US) will fend for ourselves, as will they. I must admit I have not contemplated all the ramifications of this position, but it is difficult to find fault with Mrs. Bohlen's reasoning.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aFFYtiVnKge8
Bibi: put that in your peace pipe (if you have one) and smoke it.
Complain about this comment
25. At 10:53pm on 15 Mar 2010, Courcey wrote:
“The disinterested observer finds it unfathomable that Americans could think that their long-term interests lie with supporting to every fault an intractable ally, thus alienating a large part of the world whose support it could use.”
You really don’t understand! The truth is, we are in the end days. God will soon come to judge the living and the dead. In order for this to occur, it is the duty of the US to support Israel unwaveringly so that the temple can be rebuilt and so that Armageddon may occur.
If we do not do our duty to support Israel, Armageddon will not happen and we will not be raptured away to bliss, leaving the rest of you suckers behind, especially the “Jesus murderers” we have to pretend to like just to get that damned temple rebuilt.
So there is no “long-term interest!” Now do you understand?
{Moderators, do consider satire to be what it is and not what some might say it is.}
Complain about this comment
53. At 00:56am on 16 Mar 2010, OneEssence wrote:
24. At 10:51pm on 15 Mar 2010, SaintDominick wrote:
Ref 14, OneEssence
“I am surprised at your question! Saddam Hussain attacked Kuwait with no provocation and so, no, I do not think he should have been able to keep Kuwait. In Israel's case, however…”
And what provocation did the Palestinian inhabitants of Palestine offer to justify hordes of Zionists descending upon them and driving them off the land they had been inhabiting for centuries?
Yes, I know about Masada. Bad Romans! Yes I know about the deportations and the diaspora. Horrid Romans. Yes I know that Turks had occupied the Holy Land for ages. Evil Turks! And what of all this badness and evil was the fault of the Palestinians, for which they deserve their fate?
The Torah says, “Do not covet your neighbour’s wife, your neighbor’s donkey,….or anthing that is your neighbor’s.” In “the Jewish State” how many Jews and how many Rabbis either do not know or do not wish to adhere to the Torah?
For shame. Let the Torah and the Koran be followed to the letter and there would be no problem. Selah!
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS