Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIn her 2000 race for the US Senate, Hillary Clinton was loudly denounced by uncritical right-wing supporters of Israel for a 1999 trip to Ramallah, where she kissed Palestinian First Lady Suha Arafat and listened as Arafat denounced Israel (in Arabic). Pictures of "the kiss" were repeatedly slapped across the cover of the New York Post, in TV ads and invoked by the campaigns of Rudy Giuliani and Rick Lazio. The flap almost derailed Clinton's campaign.
Clinton learned her lesson and for nearly a decade afterward offered only boilerplate praise of Israel, which made her a favorite of the right-leaning Israel Lobby.
Now, as Secretary of State, she's forced to confront another reality: the difficulty of forging peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Anything she says that might be perceived as even slightly critical of Israel will land her in hot water with right-wingers back home. Just ask Chas Freeman, who Barack Obama appointed to head the National Intelligence Council despite fierce opposition from war-hungry neoconservatives.
In advance of her trip to the Holy Land next week, Clinton advisers sent word that the US was unhappy with Israel for blocking humanitarian aid to Gaza, which was further devastated by Israel's recent military incursion.
According to Haaretz:
"Israel is not making enough effort to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza," senior US officials told Israeli counterparts last week, and reiterated Washington's view by saying that "the US expects Israel to meet its commitments on this matter."
It didn't take long for so-called "pro-Israel" leaders back home to howl with protest. "I am very surprised, frankly, at this statement from the United States government and from the secretary of state," said New York Daily News publisher Mort Zuckerman. "I liked her a lot more as a senator from New York," added Brooklyn assemblyman Dov Hikind.
Since when did starving the people of Gaza become good for Israel? Before we can solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict we have to be able to have a rational conversation about it. The Zuckermans and Hikinds of the world make that nearly impossible. They're doing neither Israel nor the United States any favors.
Politically, Clinton knows that the only safe words to say in US politics are "I support Israel," no if ands or buts. Israel is the victim and the righteous warrior. Palestinians are terrorists who can't be trusted to negotiate. Hamas must be eliminated. Iran must be obliterated. End of story.
Unfortunately, such insane demagoguery doesn't come in very handy when it comes to the actual practice of diplomacy. So Clinton, rightly, is trying to make sure that Israel doesn't turn Gaza into an even bleaker post-apocaptyic wasteland. Kudos to her for trying and lets hope there's more tough love to come.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
"Israel is not making enough effort to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza," senior US officials told Israeli counterparts last week, and reiterated Washington's view by saying that "the U.S. expects Israel to meet its commitments on this matter."
This is part of the reason the ceasefire collapsed in the first place. Israel didn't fully commit to increasing humanitarian aid in the region. This is a completely valid statement. If you want peace both sides have to be willing to give fully.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/27/2009 @ 1:14pm
This isn't (or shouldn't be) about politics. The people of Gaza need food, medical supplies, etc. Let them have it. Period.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 1:21pm
And now of course, we'll get our usual...
smattering from the Right who'll defend the slime from Zuckerman...
and big heapin' helping of "Not good ENOUGH!" from the Hard Left of syfriend, Crip, excalibur, etc.
Posted by Mask at 02/27/2009 @ 1:29pm
Why does the left hate the Jews? Stop being anti-Semitic and support Israel unquestioningly!! Nazis.
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/27/2009 @ 1:33pm
>>>"Israel is not making enough effort to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza," senior US officials told Israeli counterparts last week, and reiterated Washington's view by saying that "the U.S. expects Israel to meet its commitments on this matter." <<<
What a welcome SURPRISE!
After her photo-op at an illegal Israeli settlement on Palestinian land, I thought she was a lost cause.
Maybe there is hope for Hillary after all.
Posted by Metteyya at 02/27/2009 @ 1:36pm
Mask,
Why I ask you, why, would anyone (Israelis or its hardcore supporters) not want humanitarian aide for suffering human beings in Gaza? Why?
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 1:42pm
What I mean is, how can such a heartless position, by any measure, by anyone with an ounce of compassion, be justified?
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 1:47pm
What I mean is, how can such a heartless position, by any measure, by anyone with an ounce of compassion, be justified?
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 1:47pm
A valid question that applies to so much more than the Israel/Palestine situation.
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/27/2009 @ 1:57pm
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 1:42pm
Oh, you know the typical answer...
"The aid won't get to the people; it'll be stolen by Hamas!!!!"
Ergo "obviously" let's don't send any...or even more idiotic "We'll give them the aid AFTER they kick Hamas out of power!"
Posted by Mask at 02/27/2009 @ 2:06pm
Nice Article, Ari. You point out why Americans have to stand up and support Obama and Clinton. Peace requires dealing with both sides evenly - and that will make the pro-Israel lobby foam at the mouth.
We need to have the strength as a nation to let them. They are entitled to their opinion. The problem is they back their opinion up with enough cash to buy lots of media time and political influence.
But the people can overcome this if we are organized. Most of us want Israel to be safe and secure - but we also want Palestine to be safe and secure. Those two desires go quite well together and we have to have guts to say so.
www.theysaynothing.com
Posted by TheySayNothing at 02/27/2009 @ 2:13pm
Posted by Mask at 02/27/2009 @ 2:06pm
Not that I'm criticizing, but I seem to remember when I first started checking out this site a couple of years ago that you seemed somewhat more conservative on a few issues (although never war/foreign policy that I'm aware of). Has the center shifted?
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/27/2009 @ 2:14pm
Posted by TheySayNothing at 02/27/2009 @ 2:13pm
Excellent post. I agree completely.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 2:21pm
a) Any notion that Hillary Clinton will be critical of Israel or any sort of force for creating peace between Arabs and Israelis, or any honest broker for resolving the conflict with the Palestinians, is hysterical. The woman is a wholly-owned asset of the Israel Lobby. Every public statement she has ever made attests to this fact, as does her (limited) record during her brief tenure in the Senate while she was trying to position her presidential run. I cannot understand why journalists report on Hillary Clinton as if she is anything other than yet another tool of the Israel Lobby.
b) " ...Since when did starving the people of Gaza become good for Israel? ..."
The Israeli agenda is to cast Gaza as a miserable, open-air prison, to never allow any hope or prosperity to develop there, to use the Gaza prison itself as a tool to bludgeon the miserable Palestinian population into cultural submission, to make it so that the people there finally stop resisting and become easy to transfer away. The Israeli agenda does not include any form of peace or reconciliation with the Palestinian people. Israel is a colonialist and largely racist entity that covets the land of the West Bank, that continues to annex the West Bank, and that has openly (according to statements made publicly by their own government officials) pursued an ultimate goal of ethnic cleansing of the West Bank and Gaza, which Israeli leaders and officials since David Ben Gurion have called the "transfer solution" to the "Arab problem". Those terms are the verbatim terms used even today by Israeli leaders, most recently by Tzipi Livni. The point is that the only way to shocked by Israel's ongoing reprehensible and unforgiveable, inhuman conduct, most recently in its festival of butchery in Gaza, is to be ignorant.
Posted by syfriendly at 02/27/2009 @ 2:31pm
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/27/2009 @ 2:14pm
Well, MY center has shifted...heheh
Posted by Mask at 02/27/2009 @ 2:36pm
Posted by syfriendly at 02/27/2009 @ 2:31pm
See?
"and big heapin' helping of "Not good ENOUGH!" from the Hard Left of syfriend, Crip, excalibur, etc."---Posted by Mask at 02/27/2009 @ 1:29pm
Posted by Mask at 02/27/2009 @ 2:37pm
'In their book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, John Mearsheimer, political science professor at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, academic dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, named Zuckerman as a member of the media wing of the "Israeli lobby" in the United States. Zuckerman replied: "I would just say this: The allegations of this disproportionate influence of the Jewish community reminds me of the 92-year-old man sued in a paternity suit. He said he was so proud, he pleaded guilty."'
Source: Economic Policy Journal
Posted by OneVote at 02/27/2009 @ 2:42pm
Sy, she is criticizing Israel right now! Didn't you read the article? This tends to undermine your argument that she is totally in their pocket!
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 2:49pm
BERMAN:
"... So Clinton, rightly, is trying to make sure that Israel doesn't turn Gaza into an even bleaker post-apocaptyic wasteland ..."
Clinton is assuredly doing no such thing. The "humanitarian aid" is all about PR. It is a whitewash designed to firefight the damage to Israel's international image after the recent festival of butchery in Gaza. Israel faced worldwide popular hatred for this latest episode.
Hillary Clinton never met a military "aid" package to Israel she didn't love. She voted annually to maintain or extend the billions of dollars the US gives to Israel every year to buy and develop weapons which are used within Israel/Palestine against the miserable and impoverished Palestinians, and which are exported via Israel's famous arms bazaars to some of the ugliest governments in the world (eg Burma). If Hillary Clinton was in favor of humane treatment of the Palestinians or humanitarian aid to Gaza she would be demanding, loudly, that the US suspend or end permanently the "aid" to Israel, and that Britain and other western nations follow suit.
She does not demand this. She will if asked indicate her eager support for continuing the policy of the US buying weapons for Israel for Israel to use in destroying Gaza brutally, the policy of military "aid" to Israel. This would save the US money and would save the Palestinians lives, while making it clear that Israel no longer has support when committing its worse acts.
Instead, she supports billions of dollars to destroy Gaza and kill Palestinians, with an extension to military "aid" to Israel called "humanitarian aid to Gaza" in the hundreds of millions as part of a PR initiative.
Posted by syfriendly at 02/27/2009 @ 2:55pm
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 2:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Ask her if she supports military "aid" to Israel, the expensive US policy of buying the bombs that Israel used to destroy Gaza.
While the festival of butchery took place in Gaza, the US was rushing reloads of bombs and bullets to Israel on our naval transport craft. Turkey had to forbid US vessels bound for Israel carrying war materials to dock anywhere in Turkey, in order to make it clear that Turkey was not facilitating these reloads.
Where was Clinton's "criticism" then? While the US was rushing fresh bombs and bullets to Israel, for Israel to use to crush Gaza in an episode quite reminiscent of the bombing of the Warsaw Ghetto?
Where was her zeal for "peace" then?
She's lying to us. The criticism is bullshit. She's a tool.
Posted by syfriendly at 02/27/2009 @ 2:57pm
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 2:49pm
FD, sy is a anti-Israel/pro-Hamas extremist.
He even hates Fatah! Which means half of the Palestinians he doesn't even like!
Posted by Mask at 02/27/2009 @ 3:01pm
BTW, correction...he's not just "anti-Israel"....he's anti-Israeli.
Posted by Mask at 02/27/2009 @ 3:02pm
Posted by Mask at 02/27/2009 @ 3:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Go screw yourself. Don't mischaracterize me. That's all you have ever done is make up random bullshit about me to try to provoke an angry reaction so that you can get your desperately-needed attention. You've never even articulated a viewpoint of your own. You are on these pages exclusively to provoke angry reactions so that you can get attention and get people to focus on you. You shouldn't be commenting on politics so much as you should be visiting a therapist trying to work through whatever personal and social issues have driven you to this sad end.
No, I am not an "extremist", and you yourself have no utility beyond mischaracterizing people as such.
Posted by syfriendly at 02/27/2009 @ 3:10pm
Posted by Mask at 02/27/2009 @ 3:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You are so worthless! You have no view or idea of your own, just this knee-jerk, desperately needy reaction I previously characterized. Go make friends and form some in-person relationships with people, it will help with you immensely -
Posted by syfriendly at 02/27/2009 @ 3:11pm
Sy, this might clear up the issue as to whether you are an extremist or not: do you recognize Israel's right to exist (pre 1967 borders)?
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 3:15pm
Posted by TheySayNothing at 02/27/2009 @ 2:13pm
This brings up a great point. The right says the only way to achieve peace is for Hamas and Palestinians to give up everything however when has peace EVER been achieved when it is one side who has to give up everything. The only way to gain peace is for, at least out of good faith, both sides to acquiesce to some of the demands of the other.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/27/2009 @ 3:20pm
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 3:15pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Given that Israel is an inherently colonial entity that was a construction of fanatical and racially-discriminatory Western European Zionists along with Western Great Power national governments, I'd prefer to say no, however given that millions of people have now been relocated over half-century in order to pursue the Israel project, unfortunately I must say yes - contingent upon Israel's willingness to obey international law in particular laws maintained by the same institution (the UN) that provides the legal charter Israel uses to declare itself legitimate pre-'67.
As Israel in general continues to proceed as a rogue nation, refusing to declare its nuclear arsenal, subjugating and slowly cleansing itself of the Palestinians, attacking Lebanon, etc. ... certainly I do not recognize such a nation's "right to exist". I don't recognize such a right of pathological and bloody rogue nations to exist with regimes that cause widespread horror and suffering and that commit great and grave injustices.
So in short, the answer to your question: "yes, if Israel complies with the essentials of international law, ceases its subjugation and cleansing of the Palestinian people, declares its nuclear arsenal, and produces a regime that makes it clear that Israel is an honest player for peace in the area, otherwise, no, and there is no moral argument that any other demonstratedly rogue nation would have any such right, either."
Posted by syfriendly at 02/27/2009 @ 3:25pm
Sy, this might clear up the issue as to whether you are an extremist or not: do you recognize Israel's right to exist (pre 1967 borders)?
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 3:15pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Good question...
I would ask the conservative: Should Israel retreat to pre-1967 borders if it meant a Middle East Peace accord?
Posted by BizarroRio at 02/27/2009 @ 3:26pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/27/2009 @ 3:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Just prior to the festival of butchery in Gaza, as President Carter wrote in an essay ("An Unnecessary War") published in The Washington Post, Hamas was approaching Israel through channels with an initiative to restore the conditions of the previous truce between Gaza and Israel. Observers have seen in the fact that Israel responded with the bombing of the Warsaw Ghetto as a sign that Israel was deliberately destroying a peace initiative from Hamas because peace is assuredly bad for the Israeli regime and because peace has nothing to do with colonialist expansion.
Posted by syfriendly at 02/27/2009 @ 3:27pm
Intrestingly the last ship boarded by Israel carried no food or other vital humanitarian supplies to Gaza? No weapons found either.
So just how were the leftist aboard helping resolve the suppossed blockade of aid? Oh, I get it if Israel will freely let ships dock without inspection, and the borders crossed without searches everything will be just fine and peace will ensue!
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/27/2009 @ 3:27pm
Sy, ok. Thanks for answering the question.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 3:28pm
Surprise!
In a momentary lapse, Hillary gave in to the better angels of her nature. And is getting shot for it. A dent will be felt in Bill's annual revenues if she doesn't shape up & tow the Israeli rightwing line at once. Contrition is order here.
Keep it up, Hillary, and you may sleep better nights, but you'll never get to mount a primary challenge & may not even last the 1st Obama term.
When will We the People stop being jerked about by the rightwing of a country with a population equal to that of Brooklyn, Queens & part of Staten Is ... a country with which the US doesn'r even have an alliance treaty.
We are being played for such suckers.
Posted by sloper at 02/27/2009 @ 3:29pm
According to the long-standing Resolution 242 (sponsored by both the U.S. AND the Soviet Union) Israel should withdraw to pre 1967 borders.
However, how can this now be done, realistically speaking, with thousands of Jewish settlers and settlements now in the West Bank?
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 3:30pm
Posted by syfriendly at 02/27/2009 @ 3:25pm | ignore this person | warn this person
So you do or don't recognize Israel's right to exist? I do not typically qualify 'right to exist' with 'if, then statements'. Right to exist is yes or no.
Posted by BizarroRio at 02/27/2009 @ 3:31pm
I would ask the conservative: Should Israel retreat to pre-1967 borders if it meant a Middle East Peace accord?
Posted by BizarroRio at 02/27/2009 @ 3:26pm
Bizarro, don't assume all conservatives are hardcore pro israeli supporters/zealots. Or, for that amtter, that all liberals and/or leftists are strongly anti-Israeli.
This is one issue that cuts across ideological parameters in several different ways. Rightists such as Pat Buchanon don't particularly support Israel. Many liberals are totally pro-Israel. Most hardcore leftists are totally anti-Israeli.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 3:34pm
Posted by Mask at 02/27/2009 @ 2:06pm
Not that I'm criticizing, but I seem to remember when I first started checking out this site a couple of years ago that you seemed somewhat more conservative on a few issues (although never war/foreign policy that I'm aware of). Has the center shifted?
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/27/2009 @ 2:14pm
Note that MASK posted 4 comments since your 2:14pm.....
He's a mirror-copy of his Messiah......
Pretend to be a moderate and sucker as many of the "center" as possible, until the votes are cast.
In case you didn't know, he was For the War before he was Against it....like his pre-Magic hero, John Kerry.
Posted by Happy at 02/27/2009 @ 3:35pm
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 3:30pm | ignore this person | warn this person
It would require the Israeli's to commit to peace and move themselves out of these settlements. It is never easy to displace your own citizens, but, the Israeli people and government will have to make concessions to they show they are serious about peace.
Posted by BizarroRio at 02/27/2009 @ 3:40pm
In MASK's defense: in my view, MASK is not easily classifiable, ideologically speaking. He strikes me overall as a moderate, perhaps slightly leaning towards the left.
But open to critisizing both sides of the aisle.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 3:43pm
Posted by BizarroRio at 02/27/2009 @ 3:40pm
Bizarro, Gaza was easy, in terms of getting settlers out, as compared to the West Bank. The West Bank Jews are, to use the colloquial phrase, nuts. Religious fanatics. The West Bank is the HEART of ancient Israel - getting them out might literally mean civil war!
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 3:45pm
The settler movement has connections with the Israeli military, for example.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 3:46pm
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 3:34pm | ignore this person | warn this person
An extremist is an extremist- you provided a solid litmus test question for the hard-left, I think the pre-'67 borders issue is a solid litmus for the hard-right.
But you are correct-many on the left (think Joe Leiberman/Chuck Schumer) do not support Israel retreating to pre-'67 borders and many on the right (think Neo Nazi's) do not believe in Israel's right to exist. I did not mean to infer that the left and right can be boiled down to such pedestrian questions.
Posted by BizarroRio at 02/27/2009 @ 3:47pm
I believe that if they tried to get all settlers out, some Israeli soldiers would literally refuse the orders.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 3:48pm
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 3:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You make very valid points, and maybe both sides are not ready for peace. Maybe they need to kill each other for a few more decades before they realize a peaceful solution.
The Palestinian and Israeli citizens will have to demand peace from themselves and each other, and be willing to leave their own fanatical wings swinging in the wind if need be.
Posted by BizarroRio at 02/27/2009 @ 3:53pm
Bizarro, that's where the United States COULD play a key role - in PRESSURING both sides, getting them (at least) back to the table, hopefully, getting them going on negotiating a settlement of some kind, amenable to the moderates of both sides. But also, pressuring both moderate sides to curb their respective extremsists - no easy task though.
On the whole, I'm pessimisstic, though we can never give up.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 4:06pm
Theoretically, we could get Israel to chnage its policies overnight - all we'd have to do is threaten a complete aide cut-off, unless they stop any new settlements. Of course, this will never happen.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 4:07pm
Bush Sr tried this somewhat, remember? He refused to give a huge new grant (0f the kind we are constantly giving them), UNLESS new settlement activity was halted. Some Israelis, of course, called him an "anti-Semite," and so on. But that was very ballsy of Bush Sr.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 4:09pm
Go screw yourself. Don't mischaracterize me.---Posted by syfriendly at 02/27/2009 @ 3:10pm
Allow me to QUOTE-
The brutish and dumb Israeli population is ever cheered by the prospect of slaughtering Palestinians. Barak, Livni, etc., will easily be elected on February 10.----Posted by syfriendly at 01/15/2009 @ 1:51pm
The Israelis don't want peace. Look at what happens when they commit atrocities: the brutish population cheers in great numbers, and the "leaders" who direct the atrocities are lionized and elected. This is not a peaceful people. This is a savage people.----Posted by syfriendly at 01/15/2009 @ 2:39pm
Posted by Mask at 02/27/2009 @ 4:11pm
Posted by Happy at 02/27/2009 @ 3:35pm
I was for the war when it was going to be "out in 18 months"..."cost less than $50 Billion"...and "we'll be welcome as liberators"....that lasted about 6 months.
Now how about somebody that refers to THE PRESIDENT as "Messiagh" and "Magic" (aka "Magic Negro") who once said-
"I'll repost this and let it sink in a bit.....about the state of our country and the general lack of respect toward authority and of course, BDS!"----Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/26/2008 @ 11:45am
but who now feels no need to show the SAME respect toward the SAME authority???
Posted by Mask at 02/27/2009 @ 4:14pm
Posted by Mask at 02/27/2009 @ 4:14pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Don't forget the irrefutable evidence of WMD's
Posted by BizarroRio at 02/27/2009 @ 5:25pm
Wantitallism is the least cited aspect of Jewish achievement, but a great many Jews have mastered the art. We can thank Jewry for countless artists, scientists, etc., but "they" (collectively, anyway) want to eat everyone else's lunch, while sputtering about victimhood between mouthfuls. Peace treaties are less palatable than Palestinian land.
Until We The People institute public campaign financing, our lawmakers will be catering to the Israel lobby in the interest re-election. We lose. Public campaign financing is feared by political parties, corporate news media and incumbent politicians, so it's grass roots or nothing. A tip of the hat to all Jews who proclaim truth and the long-term survival of Israel. Their social and family lives suffer for it.
Posted by Adonis_Tate at 02/27/2009 @ 5:40pm
you know, the irony of this whole thing is that...
if the israelis were to let us ship some humanitarian aid above board into gaza, they could concentrate on shutting down the arms shipments coming in the tunnels...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/27/2009 @ 5:43pm
BizarroRio,
You asked ".......I would ask the conservative: Should Israel retreat to pre-1967 borders if it meant a Middle East Peace accord?....."
The problem is -- whenever I see this subject mentioned, it always seems that returning to pre-1967 borders is "required" (by Palestinian groups) as a pre-condition to beginning negotiations.
Thus, Israel is expected by many to give up everything in the way of bargaining leverage before even beginning to talk.
Somehow, that sure doesn't start out too good for Israel.
It is situations and "requirements" like that which are some of the reasons why peace is an elusive goal in the Middle East... the one-sided demands on Israel with no demands on the other side or enforcement of any agreements made by the other side or any living up by the other side to any agreements that have been made.
Posted by sjchermak at 02/27/2009 @ 6:08pm
if Hamas can use the tunnels to ship weapons, why can't they use the tunnels to ship in humanitarian aid?
Posted by emile duBois at 02/27/2009 @ 6:16pm
The Zionists speak of Hamas extremism as if the Zionists are really desperate for a peace-loving moderate to strike peace deal with. Well, what is wrong with Mahmud Abbas? He gave the store to the Israelis. He disarmed Fatah, renounced armed struggle and negotiated peace with Israel since Oslo in 1993. Let's all marvel at what Abbas got so far from the sleazy deceptive Zionists. Well, the Jewish settlements on the West Bank increased four folds, military checkpoints mushroomed to 620. Remember, Sharon poisoned Arafat, with Bush's consent, because Sharon claimed that Arafat wasn't the genuine peace partner. The Israelis are simply buying time to complete the take over of Jerusalem and West Bank. It is time to call the Zionist's bluff and force them to swallow the peace pill. Though I don't see Hillary as the gutty politician who can stand to the lobby. Maybe Obama can, if enough Americans stand with him and prevent Pelosi from turning against him, when her handlers at AIPAC give her the marching order.
Posted by CripThink at 02/27/2009 @ 6:21pm
Posted by emile duBois at 02/27/2009 @ 6:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person
They do use the tunnels for food, medicine, etc. Everyone agrees that this is the primary mode of use for the tunnels. The tunnels are ALSO used for weapons. And what people on Earth has no right to defend themselves?
Posted by syfriendly at 02/27/2009 @ 6:41pm
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 3:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person
The "settlement movement" (read as: "racist religious fanatics, heavily armed, who are attempting to cleanse the West Bank") doesn't just have connections to the military but an entire battalion to themselves and a major party in Israel headed by Avigdor Lieberman, who lives in a "settlement" (illegally occupied land) himself.
Posted by syfriendly at 02/27/2009 @ 6:43pm
I would ask the conservative: Should Israel retreat to pre-1967 borders if it meant a Middle East Peace accord?
Posted by BizarroRio at 02/27/2009 @ 3:26pm
no-for a couple of reasons.
1. In order to have a ME peace accord, the muslims would have to deny the Qu'ran which is not about to happen.
2. UN 242 does not require Israel to retreat to pre-67 borders. In fact it doesn't require anything because a)it is a general ass'y resolution which carries no weight of authority, b)it says to agreed upon borders because they acknowledged that the borders with Jordan, Egypt and Syria were not defined and would be negotiated, and c) it had nothing to do with the so-called Palestinians who variously called themselves Syrians or Egyptians prior to 1967. Those lands were taken in the war with Jordan, Egypt, and Syria, not this new made up "Palestine".
Posted by antisocialist at 02/27/2009 @ 7:14pm
Posted by antisocialist at 02/27/2009 @ 7:14pm
So basically there will never be peace and they will all have to kill each other. "1. In order to have a ME peace accord, the muslims would have to deny the Qu'ran which is not about to happen"
Because if that's the case no muslim in the middle wast will live with Israelis. So why not just dissolve Israel, move the Israeli Jews to another country(just like what you propose doing to Palestinians) and bring peace to the situation?
I don't think that's actually a solution, just being snarky.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/27/2009 @ 7:55pm
1. In order to have a ME peace accord, the muslims would have to deny the Qu'ran which is not about to happen.-------Posted by antisocialist at 02/27/2009 @ 7:14pm
Wait a minute, Larry, I thought you said most Muslims DIDN'T KNOW what was in the Qu'ran?!??!?!?
Posted by Mask at 02/27/2009 @ 8:31pm
how many Muslims in the world will actually treat the Qu'ran as to be completely obeyed?----Posted by antisocialist at 02/27/2009 @ 3:24pm
to be exact....
Posted by Mask at 02/27/2009 @ 8:45pm
How about getting the story straight, Berman?
You say, Hillary Clinton was denounced because, "she kissed Palestinian First Lady Suha Arafat and listened as Arafat denounced Israel (in Arabic)."
She sat with an English translation, within feet of Suah, as Mrs. Arafat accused Israel of spreading toxins in a deliberate and successful effoert to murder Palestinian children. That was her message, and Hillary knew it as she arose and embraced and kissed, Suah.
The "irrational" Zionists found that objectionable, and many New Yorkers, Jews and non Jews, had the temerity to question Hillary about it when she ran for the Senate the following year.
Hillary replaced Senator Patrick Daniel Moynahan. You can bet that he would not have embraced and congratulated Mrs. Arafat after listening to such a performance. He would have challenged her then and there. Those charges the PNA itself immediately acknowledge, had no basis in fact.
As it happens, New York's Jews went on to elect Hillary in overwhelming numbers. As New York's senator she was highly supportive of Israel.
If she now changes her tune, and I am not sure she has as yet, it is reasonable to recall that earlier hint of her sympathies.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/27/2009 @ 9:10pm
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/27/2009 @ 9:10pm
So you're attacking Hillary for being too cozy with the PLO...
then she was attacked by New Yorkers being too cozy to the PLO...
then was elected by New Yorkers who didn't think she was too cozy to the PLO...
then saying she was a great supporter of Israel...
then going back and saying you think she might end up being too cozy to PLO?
And that's "straightening out the story"???
Posted by Mask at 02/27/2009 @ 10:06pm
Mask at 10:06pm says:
>> So you're attacking Hillary<<
Your post illustrates well your compulsion to spit, no matter how dry your mouth and how empty your head.
Incidentally, my post addressed itself against Berman's misrepresentation of the facts.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/27/2009 @ 10:13pm
Right to exist is yes or no.
Posted by BizarroRio at 02/27/2009 @ 3:31pm
does canada have a right to exist?
i suppose it depends on who you ask.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/28/2009 @ 12:02am
if the israelis were to let us ship some humanitarian aid above board into gaza, they could concentrate on shutting down the arms shipments coming in the tunnels...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/27/2009 @ 5:43pm
and build more condos in the west bank, too!
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/28/2009 @ 12:05am
Those lands were taken in the war with Jordan, Egypt, and Syria, not this new made up "Palestine".
Posted by antisocialist at 02/27/2009 @ 7:14pm
you mean like the new, made up "israel"?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/28/2009 @ 12:06am
how many Muslims in the world will actually treat the Qu'ran as to be completely obeyed?
----Posted by antisocialist at 02/27/2009 @ 3:24pm
do you completely obey the bible?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/28/2009 @ 12:07am
if Hamas can use the tunnels to ship weapons, why can't they use the tunnels to ship in humanitarian aid?
i have posted this question numerous times. not once have I gotten a reply. not once.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/28/2009 @ 1:26pm
In order to have a ME peace accord, the muslims would have to deny the Qu'ran which is not about to happen"
the peace accord between Egypt and Israel, proves this to be nonsense. Jordan and Saudi too have made accommodations. this is now history.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/28/2009 @ 1:43pm
Wait a minute, Larry, I thought you said most Muslims DIDN'T KNOW what was in the Qu'ran?!??!?!?
Posted by Mask at 02/27/2009 @ 8:31pm
I'd love to see that quote if you have it.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/28/2009 @ 2:00pm
do you completely obey the bible?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/28/2009 @ 12:07am
I certainly try and obey all of the NT requirements.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/28/2009 @ 2:06pm
Posted by antisocialist at 02/28/2009 @ 2:06pm
Why not the old testament? Just curious.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/28/2009 @ 4:21pm
Posted by antisocialist at 02/27/2009 @ 7:14pm | ignore this person | warn this person
LVL,
1.) You represent the extremist point of view that the muslims in this conflict simply cannot engage in peace, it is against their theological/phsycological ability. You have claimed that Sy is anti-semetic (and I agree that he is), but you use the same arguments against the Muslims. There are no righteous parties in this conflict. Both have culpability and both will have to make concessions in order for peace to occur.
2.) UN 242 is not relative to the question. Furthermore, I am not claiming that the land belongs to the Palestinians, some of it can and should be used to create a soveriegn home for Palestinians. Besides being the right thing to do, this would be a way to gain Egyptian and Saudi support for the peace deal. Israel could gain Syrian and Jordanian support by returning some if not all of land taken in the 6 Day War.
Posted by BizarroRio at 02/28/2009 @ 4:23pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/28/2009 @ 12:02am | ignore this person | warn this person
But the question remains a yes or no answer by whomever is asked. Qualifiers do not apply. And if you ask me, Canada has a right to exist.
Posted by BizarroRio at 02/28/2009 @ 4:25pm
If you look at a world map with the eye of a religion, Israel is at a disadvantage. If you look at a map with the eye of land grabbers, Israel is not even a factor.
Don't fall for the we are being mistreated Muslim dialogue as Jews still are a minority and NOT allowed equality in many areas, especially those with a strong Muslim population. In places like the US, the fact that they back Israel isn't dependent upon how many Jews are here, but on the fact that there are so few and they have no place that supports them and the religion. We didn't enter WW2 because of the Jews and actually we ignored how many were killed during the early years.
Posted by rezasantorini at 03/01/2009 @ 10:09am
Why not the old testament? Just curious.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/28/2009 @ 4:21pm
Luke 16:16 Jesus said "the law and the prophets were until the time of John the Baptist, since then the Kingdom of G-d is preached, and many are pressing into it".
For right standing with G-d, the OT no longer applies. There are however G-dly principles that do apply.
Isaiah 58 on true fasting as being service to others in need is a precept for Matthew 25.
Psalm one on the true way to have shalom (wholeness), is to meditate daily on the word of G-d.
So it is a matter of difference in application of the OT to Christians versus a Jewish follower of G-d.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/01/2009 @ 12:37pm
Posted by antisocialist at 03/01/2009 @ 12:37pm
So does that technically mean that the 10 Commandments don't apply? Since they are OT.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/01/2009 @ 9:33pm
So does that technically mean that the 10 Commandments don't apply? Since they are OT.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/01/2009 @ 9:33pm
Christians do not obtain acceptance through the OT Law. Our acceptance is based upon the righteousness of Christ, not us.
It doesn't mean they don't have meaning. But if a person has truly accepted Jesus as both Lord and Savior, they should be a new person who lives right by the power of the Holy Spirit and as Jesus and Paul both described, we now walk in liberty to the law (instead of bondage) and in obedience to Christ.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/01/2009 @ 10:38pm
Good on Hillary for standing her ground with Israel, this has been needed for a long time but of course she will be chastised for this move by the the right wing who support Israel. I think it's great and long and overdue.
Posted by Caj at 03/02/2009 @ 11:14am
I am a Jew who was once a Zionist and my greatest dream was to live in Israel. No longer. Israel came into being because of the world's outrage at the treatment of the Jews by the Nazis; i.e., the holocaust. Now the Jews, with their outsized sense of entitlement, have BECOME the Nazis. Old Testament "eye for an eye" beliefs turned into actions are creating death, chaos, and agony throughout the entire world. I can't see how the 60 year + situation in the Middle East will change as long as all of Israel's surrounding neighbors refuse to accept their right to exist. Israel does not have the right to demand fealty from the rest of the world when their presence is the basis for worldwide war. Using a risk-benefit analysis, maybe Israel doesn't need to exist any more.
Posted by heartlaw at 03/03/2009 @ 3:06pm
Right to exist is yes or no.
Posted by BizarroRio at 02/27/2009 @ 3:31pm
No, it is not a "yes or no" question, although it is an absurd question.
1) what other state on the planet requires a subject people to "affirm its right to exist"? None that I now of.
As to the qualification of the so-called "right to exist", let's pase this absurd formulation.
Does Germany have "the right to exist"?
You would probably say "yes".
However, does Nazi Germany have "the right to exist"?
O gee. Hmnnn. I think one might answer, "No. Not until they get rid of the Nazi part."
Does Israel have the "right to exist"? Sure. The minute they get rid of their fascist ethnic-cleansing tendencies.
Posted by kryptos at 03/03/2009 @ 3:07pm
One of the reasons I opposed Hillary's bid for the presidency was her uncritical support of Israel: her loyal support of Israel, right or wrong. Now I applaud her honesty for criticizing Israel's real cruelty in Gaza. You are absolutely right. Praising Israel despite its inhumane behavior in Gaza will never help protect Israel nor bring peace to its misguided, but troubled, people.
Posted by ejmurphy414 at 03/03/2009 @ 3:12pm
Posted by BizarroRio at 02/27/2009
"maybe both sides are not ready for peace. Maybe they need to kill each other for a few more decades before they realize a peaceful solution. "
You're falling into the trap -- or trying to propagate the disinformation -- that this is somehow a fight between equal forces. As if England and France were at war. It is not. Not even remotely.
One might as well have said, "maybe the Jews and the Nazis will have to kill each other for a few more decades before they realize a peaceful solution."
That's an extreme statement of your equation for peace, of course, but it should underline the core fault in your reasoning.
One side is a massively armed military complex, the other (the Gazans), a captive people, jammed into an open-air prison camp, armed with light weapons and homemade and ineffective rockets.
(as even one ranking officer in th IDF said, "these are mostly street boys with guns we're fighting."
Forget the "battle between equals" paradigm, as that is a basic misrepresentation of the conflict.
If one were looking for an analogous situation, try to imagine Puerto Rico and the U.S. at war. And a large number of posters feeling great sympathy for the beleaguered, mightily endangered U.S.
Posted by kryptos at 03/03/2009 @ 3:22pm
Finally, a Secty of State willing to tell the truth. She is strong enough to withstand the wrath she will undoubtedly get from the Israel lobby, and hopefully she will. Israel cannot stand the truth to be told, because they have had it too goo for too long, all under the guise that we pretend not to know what they are truly doing to another population - genocide. They are systematically wiping out the Palestinians to the point there will no longer a partner to negotiate peace with. My only hope is that we here in America are growing in number and speaking out about the terrible crimes being commited by Israel. I hope the next step Hillary takes will be to recommend cutting off all aide until Israel lives within the guidelines set out for them pre 1967, including the borders.
Posted by cannuck at 03/03/2009 @ 3:25pm
A few points: 1) Opposing the policies of the Israeli governent is not being anti-semitic. The governemnt is not the people; 2) Most Israeli's I've met are kind of clueless about what's happening in Gaza, or about the whole Palestinian question, for that matter, probably due to the coverage it gets in the Israeli press. Life in Tel Aviv is very comfortable. Why rock the boat?; 3) The claims of Israeli settlers that the land belongs to them because it was the land of their fathers is the kind of reasoning that would would return Omaha to the Sioux Indians; 4) The word "anti-semite" is widely misused. Arabs are also a semitic people (sons of Sem as opposed to Hamites, i.e. black-skinned people or sons of Ham). "Anti-Jewish" is what is meant when the phrase "anti-semite" is used. Arabs and Jews are genetically the same peoples .
Posted by whemmer at 03/03/2009 @ 3:31pm
" I hope the next step Hillary takes will be to recommend cutting off all aide until Israel lives within the guidelines set out for them pre 1967, including the borders."
Posted by cannuck at 03/03/2009 @ 3:25pm
Never happen, canuck. See syfriendly's earlier summation regarding Hilary.
Hilary will try to put a "kindler gentler face" on the United States of Israel, because we've elected a new, cuter cheerleader -- excuse me, President -- and we're trying to create a new public image, but AIPAC still calle the shots regarding our MidEast policy.
The vast project disengenously called "the peace process" is just a term for pacifying and nullifying the Palestinians as a people, and thus as a potential state.
These little anomalies (Hilary's statement, for instnce) don't really slow down or derail tat process.
It's gradual, but it's relentless.
Ever boil a crab? To avoid an unpleasant scene, you place the animal in cold water and slowly turn up the heat. The crab goes to sleep, never realizing it's being killed for dinner. And there you have the "peace process."
Posted by kryptos at 03/03/2009 @ 4:08pm
I wish we could replace the misleading phrase "pro-Israel lobby" with something else. I'm one of many American Jews who hates the suffering of the Palestinians. Many of us want Israel to give up some land, support the creation of a Palestinian state, and to care about the well-being of Abraham's other children.
It would be nice to say that one is "pro-Israel" without being mistaken for a right-winger in solidarity with AIPAC. Let's call AIPAC what it is: not "pro-Israel" but pro-occupation, pro-apartheid, pro-war. It's my belief that the ONLY way to be pro-Israel is to also be pro-Palestinian.
Let's hope that Hillary Clinton can stay brave enough long enough to make the distinction between support for Israel and support for the fascistic inclinations of its government.
Posted by whybaby at 03/03/2009 @ 7:15pm
I am basically a card-carrying liberal when it comes to almost all issues. But the standard liberal stance on Israel is so uninformed that it makes me want to question all other standard liberal views. A couple of points:
Israel PROVIDES humanitarian aid to Gaza. Yes, check your facts.
Contrary to popular Nation-reader dogma, Israel, officially and unofficially, does not want people in Gaza and the West Bank to live in poverty. A number of companies in Israel have active partner companies in the West Bank in particular. They work together quite synergetically.
A comment was made that Israel's founders were European colonists. Ok, fair enough, so were present-day England's founders (the Normans, in 1066). But I argue that present-day Israel is ANTI_COLONIST. If you think about it, Israel accepts displaced and discriminated-against people from all over the world. A colonist Israel would be SENDING them out into other countries.
As Israel's population increases, its people spread out, namely into the West Bank. Much like as black people's population increased in the U.S., the black population in cities like Washington, D.C. increased. Should we refer to black people in general as land-grabbing colonists?
Speaking of black people, Israel is currently taking in large numbers of Ethiopean ex-patriots. So much for Israel as a "racist entity."
Posted by zaphod71828 at 03/04/2009 @ 09:48am
Slaves in Palestine: (1) May not elect a government that resists slavery. (2) May not create a war zone around Gaza by shooting rockets. (3) Must realize that dictator civilians may live in a war zone and use their children as human shields. (4) May have their babies bombed if they in any way cause harm to their dictators.
Posted by Alabama.John at 03/04/2009 @ 4:39pm
"If you think about it, Israel accepts displaced and discriminated-against people from all over the world. A colonist Israel would be SENDING them out into other countries."
Posted by zaphod71828 at 03/04/2009 @ 09:48am
If you "think" about it, your line of reasoning makes no sense.
Israel IS the colony. Of course they aren't sending Jews out to colonize other nations -- that would dminish the size and power of their colonial enterprise.
VID South Africa.
Historically, colonies try to maximize their populations as much as possible, in order to overwhelm the native inhabitants.
In this case, the Palestinians.
And Israel provides "humanitarian aid" to the Gazans, in the same way that a prison warden must provide food for the inmates.
Otherwise, they starve to death.
It's not an option, it's a responsibility under international law.
Posted by kryptos at 03/04/2009 @ 6:33pm