Obama Should Engage Now for Middle East Peace

An Israeli air assault on Palestinian targets in Gaza has taken an estimated 300 lives over the course of the past several days, and the death toll is mounting rapidly. Dozens of children have been killed, confirming that there is nothing "surgical" about these strikes.

Most U.S. media coverage portrays a simple struggle between Israelis on the one side and Gaza's Hamas militants on the other. This is the line that is being advanced aggressively by the Bush administration and that has effectively been accepted by President-elect Barack Obama's transition team, which is maintaining its "Bush speaks for the U.S. until January 20" line even as the crisis mounts. Following Bush's lead, Obama has refused to call for a more nuanced and effective U.S. response to an escalation of the Middle East conflict that Palestinian parliamentarian Mustafa Barghouti on Sunday described as the worst since the 1967 war in the region.

Obama and his aides should be openly counseling the Bush administration to use every diplomatic avenue to promote a ceasefire and, above all, to urge against an Israeli invasion and occupation of Gaza.

Unfortunately, the president-elect is doing nothing of the sort. Some may imagine that this disengaged approach confirms Obama as a true "friend of Israel."

But Jeremy Ben-Ami, the executive director of the U.S.-based pro-Israel, pro-peace advocacy group J Street, argues that: "While (the recent) air strikes by Israeli Defense Forces in Gaza can be understood and even justified in the wake of recent rocket attacks, we believe that real friends of Israel recognize that escalating the conflict will prove counterproductive, igniting further anger in the region and damaging long-term prospects for peace and stability. Respecting Israel's right to defend itself, we urge leaders there to recognize that there is no military solution to what is fundamentally a political conflict between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples."

That sentiment is echoed in Israeli, where many war-weary citizens are objecting to their government's escalation of a simmering conflict.

While moves to prevent rocket attacks on Israeli targets that have been launched from Gaza enjoy broad popular support in Israel, there is good deal of genuine concern about the prospect that Israeli forces might invade and occupy all or part of Gaza.

A substantial crowd of Israelis – estimated at 2,000 by organizers -- rallied in Tel Aviv Saturday to protest their country's attacks on Gaza and to call for an immediate ceasefire. Chanting "No to War – Yes to Peace," the protesters carried signs urging "Negotiation Instead of Slaughter" and calling on Israeli leaders to "Lift the Siege from Gaza".

"(We) are not destined to be the victim of history," says Israeli parliamentarian Dov Khenin, who has spoken at several anti-war rallies in recent days.

Khenin argues that, "A comprehensive war in Gaza is dangerous and unnecessary and will put the lives of thousands of Gazans and western Negev residents (of Israel) at risk. War is not the solution to (concerns about rocket attacks on Israeli targets by Hamas militants). There is another way: a real truce agreement. Not just a cease-fire, but also ending the Gaza blockade and easing the extreme suffering of a million-and-a-half people."

Unfortunately, the "comprehensive war" that Khenin fears seems increasingly likely. Writer Gideon Levy argues that Israel has already "embarked… on yet another unnecessary, ill-fated war."

"Once again, Israel's violent responses, even if there is justification for them, exceed all proportion and cross every red line of humaneness, morality, international law and wisdom," Levy wrote in Monday's editions of Israel's oldest daily newspaper, Haaretz.

The same paper carried an editorial calling for "a diplomatic move whose goal is a genuine cessation of fire."

The headline on the Haaretz editorial read: "Defend, Don't Invade."

In the U.S., the group Jewish Voice for Peace called for "an immediate end to attacks on all civilians, whether Palestinian or Israeli."

JVP goes on to argue that:

Israel's slow strangulation of Gaza through blockade has caused widespread suffering to the 1.5 million people of Gaza due to lack of food, electricity, water treatment supplies and medical equipment. It is a violation of humanitarian law and has been widely condemned around the world.

In resisting this strangulation, Hamas resumed launching rockets and mortars from Gaza into southern Israel, directly targeting civilians, which is also a war crime. Over the years, these poorly made rockets have been responsible for the deaths of 15 Israelis since 2004.

Every country, Israel included, has the right and obligation to protect its citizens. The recent ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in Gaza shows that diplomatic agreements are the best protection for civilian life.

Moreover, massive Israeli air strikes have proven an indiscriminate and brutal weapon. In just two days, the known death toll is close to 300, and the attacks are continuing. By targeting the infrastructure of a poor and densely populated area, Israel has ensured widespread civilian casualties among this already suffering and vulnerable population.

This massive destruction of Palestinian life will not protect the citizens of Israel. It is illegal and immoral and should be condemned in the strongest possible terms. And it threatens to ignite the West Bank and add flames to the other fires burning in the Middle East and beyond for years to come.

The timing of this attack, during the waning days of a US administration that has undertaken a catastrophic policy toward the Middle East and during the run-up to an Israeli election, suggests an opportunistic agenda for short-term political gain at an immense cost in Palestinian lives. In the long run this policy will benefit no-one except those who always profit from war and exploitation. Only a just and lasting peace, achieved through a negotiated agreement, can provide both Palestinians and Israelis the security they want and deserve.

Americans for Peace Now, which works in solidarity with Israeli supporters of diplomatic responses to the Middle East conflict, on Sunday called upon U.S. officials to "urgently engage with Israel, regional parties, and the international community to bring about an immediate halt to the rapidly escalating hostilities in the Gaza Strip and southern Israel." Said Americans for Peace Now president Debra DeLee, "Any real resolution to this crisis will require Israel and Hamas to engage, directly or indirectly, to achieve a ceasefire and to further engage in a post-ceasefire political process."

"While we hold – as we always have – that Israel has the right and the obligation to protect its citizens from attack and threats," added DeLee, "we know that military power alone will not provide real, long term remedy for the threat that the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip poses to Israel. Israel needs stability on its border with Gaza. Such stability can only be achieved through a political process."

This is just another truth about the Middle East that the Bush administration continues to deny.

The Obama transition team – and the Obama administration that will soon end Bush's reign of error -- should end the state of denial and act as candidate Obama said he would when he declared that, "As President, I will work to help Israel achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security. And I won't wait until the waning days of my presidency. I will take an active role, and make a personal commitment to do all I can to advance the cause of peace from the start of my Administration…The United States must be a strong and consistent partner in this process - not to force concessions, but to help committed partners avoid stalemate and the kind of vacuums that are filled by violence. That's what I commit to do as President of the United States."

As with the economy, events have forced Obama's hand. The president-elect cannot wait until he swears his oath of office to "take an active role" is advancing the peace process.

Of course, Obama only has the bully pulpit at this point. And he must use it judiciously. But neglecting to engage at this critical stage sends the wrong message about the seriousness with which Obama will pursue that "active role" once he has the power that goes with the pulpit.

At the very least, Obama and his aides should publicly embrace the spot-on message of J Street's Ben-Ami:

The need for diplomatic engagement goes beyond a short-term ceasefire. Eight years of American neglect and ineffective diplomacy have led us directly to a moment when the prospects of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict hang in the balance and with them the prospects for Israel's long-term survival as a Jewish, democratic state.

We urge the incoming Obama administration to lead an early and serious effort to achieve a comprehensive diplomatic resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian and Arab-Israeli conflicts.

This is a fundamental American interest as we too stand to suffer as the situation spirals, rage in the region is directed at the United States, and our regional allies are further undermined. Our goals must be a Middle East that moves beyond bloody conflicts, an Israel that is secure and accepted in the region, and an America secured by reducing extremism and enhancing stability. None of these goals are achieved by further escalation.

Even in the heat of battle, as friends and supporters of Israel, we need to remember that only diplomacy and negotiations can end the rockets and terror and bring Israel long-term security and peace.

Comments (131)

1. Obama has no power until he is president in Jan and cant do anything but talk until then... Anything else is not legal, binding or appropiate.

   And despite the usual droning on how all is Bush fault, a simple look back in history will show this conflict has been going on since 1948, no matter which president is in power.

   Posted by YourJomamma at 12/29/2008 @ 02:22am

2. stupid humans.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 12/29/2008 @ 03:08am

3. Although of course Obama has no formal authority yet, he could do much to improve this terrible situation, which is taking the lives of many innocent people and which is absolutely inimical to the interests of America and the world. Obama could easily send signals to Israel that its current behavior will not be tolerated by its big, rich uncle during his administration. Obama could put serious pressure on both sides to reach a reasonable settlement that is fair to both Israelis and Palestinians.

   However, Obama will do no such thing. Obama will continue America's blatantly one-sided support for Israel and everything it chooses to do. Obama proved that he is a supporter of the unjust status quo when he capitulated to AIPAC a few months ago. The icing on the cake was his appointment of Zionist hardliner shill and political fixer Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff. The MSM showed hardly any interest in Rahmbo's Middle East viewpoint or his service to Israel during the First Gulf War or his father's terrorist background or said father's recent anti-Arab remarks. Nevertheless, Obama's cowardly appointment of Rahmbo has sent clear signals to all sides that America will continue to languish under the evil spell of hardcore Zionism. A tragic situation all around.

   Posted by feinfein at 12/29/2008 @ 05:18am

4. Often Mr Nichols answers his own argument in his own article...

   "J Street, argues that: "While (the recent) air strikes by Israeli Defense Forces in Gaza can be understood and even justified in the wake of recent rocket attacks.."

   So if J STREET says the attacks are justified....why would Obama, or anybody, condemn them??!!?!?!?

   Posted by Mask at 12/29/2008 @ 07:35am

5. Once I though Obama will go for a real change domestically an internationally. Once I thought that the financial crises and the Middle East mess - as whole - would be his top priorities. But here appeared the nomination of H. Clinton for US Foreign Policies and all my hope for changes despaired. The mess in the Middle East will worsen.

   Posted by bah at 12/29/2008 @ 07:56am

6. I also fear that PE Obama will take the same stance on this conflict we already have and back up Israel yet again. I don't agree that is the right thing to do it has not worked for all the years we have been doing it, that notion only keeps creating more tension. Serious talks from both parties are necessary and we can't decide that Hamas can't be involved in these talks as they are the chosen leaders for Palestine. PE Obama of course can't do anything as yet anyway, but I do hope he will take a different approach to this mess...time for a change in policy here, it's long overdue. Until Israel and the US accept that Hamas are the "chosen leaders" of Palestine and they have to deal with them accordingly...because we/Israel don't feel that's right to talk to them, then nothing will ever be achieved. We keep talking about dictators around the world...I see Israel and the US as being the dictators here as regards this conflict...they can only have who we deem as the correct choice of leadership. Also we bang on about Democracy....well that was the Palestinian democratic choice to choose Hamas as their leader so we have no argument as far as I can see.

   Posted by Caj at 12/29/2008 @ 08:53am

7. Caj and all lefty loons who inhabit the far left and believe they are the center...

   Do you recognize, finaly that the view to the left of you is the engine compartment and the view to the right of you is the exhaust sytem and rear axel?

   You are clearly under the bus.

   do you finally realize you are valuable only on election day and the you are not the main stream?

   Welcome to reality.

   It is the same view Bush(both of them) gave conservatives after election day.

   Posted by YourJomamma at 12/29/2008 @ 09:34am

8. No, I don't agree about being thrown under the bus as you put it, my vote for PE Obama was made on many different issues and was I going to agree with all of his choices of course not. That is the democratic way of thinking, we may vote for someone but we don't have to fall in line with everything they say. The Republican stance is very different, you are not allowed to think for yourself and disagree with your leader or you are called un-patriotic. You have to be with us or against us attitude is a Republican idea, that is not how I view myself as a Democrat at all...PE Obama may be my President but I don't always have to agree with him.

   Posted by Caj at 12/29/2008 @ 09:50am

9. Posted by YourJomamma at 12/29/2008 @ 09:34am

   Oh come on, MAASCH. Revisionist history is so lame.

   You had NO PROBLEMS with Dubya until 2006. Sure a little "concern" over no spending cuts and "disappointment" with the Medicare Drug Plan....but the tax cuts, the war in Iraq, etc. The BIG Stuff?....you were fully onboard and happy with him.

   It wasn't until the polls went south, the war became a mess, and the GOP lost Congress that guys like you started this "Bush wasn't a REAL conservative" crap to try to make it seem as if America is "still Reagan country"....same for this "Obama ran as a conservative" POST-election spin, in exact opposition to "He's a SOCIALIST and a TERRORIST APPEASER!".

   Think there might be a SIMPLER explanation for the end of the Reagan Revolution than "They didn't gut Social Security and Medicare and abolish the Education Department like they were supposed to!!!"????

   Posted by Mask at 12/29/2008 @ 10:13am

10. I feel the same about any and all repulican presidents and politicians..

    I guess that kills off your logic flow from last post...this for us or gainsts us of yours is silly or demonstrates a dangerous level of naivete(sp)...

    as far as any war against America...yes, you are either for us in defending us or not...that is where a statement like that would apply..

    enjoy the bus ride.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 12/29/2008 @ 10:15am

11. Iraq was not a war against America, that was based on a lie, but the premise was still there for us who did not believe in it...it was a case of you are either with us or against us!!! So your argument there is wrong...and we who did not believe in this war were called un-patriotic. We got involved there against most American opinion and yet we are supposed to fall in line and support Bush regardless...I don't think so.

    Posted by Caj at 12/29/2008 @ 10:49am

12. Mask,

    I do not have a problem with Iraq...never did except the cost and no plan after the battle field..

    I never like the spending of Bush(Both of them)...

    I always belived the GOP congress was fired for not being conservative and still do...and still believe they deserved to be fired.

    No inconsistancy...

    I did and still do prefer Bush(both of them) over anyone and everyone the Dems have...

    and I was only luke warm for McCain... Palin awakened my interest...other wise I had no horse in the race. It appears now, even BEFORE Obama takes the oath, that he he is luke warm for this side(yours) of the left aisle,...and the same goes for this far left side towards him...the people here will accept Obama as much as the people like me accepted Bush(both of them)...there was no place else to go..and there still isn't. For either of us on either side.

    I remain consistant.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 12/29/2008 @ 11:14am

13. Israel: bully or victim?? The world is torn:

    http://controversialpolling.blogspot.com/

    Posted by jimmyvegasjimmy at 12/29/2008 @ 11:37am

14. Posted by YourJomamma at 12/29/2008 @ 11:14am

    Yes, yes, JM....and "You wait, come 2012 (or 2016) after Obama and the Dems have ruined everything, the people will realize their mistake and come running back to a 'new Reagan'...maybe Newt or Bobby Jindal!!!"

    I think we know how the refrain will go.

    "Conservatism didn't fail...it has never been REALLY tried!"

    Sounds a bit familiar, doesn't it???

    Posted by Mask at 12/29/2008 @ 11:53am

15. Oh look, another article demanding what Obama should do. Think he is listening? Not a chance. He doesn't even have to posture like he does now. There was the hopeful possibility that Obama may actually manifest change rather than blow hot empty air about it, but he has thus far proven to be just another disappointing conventional politician surrounded by his wall of appointed status quo advisors. The tragedy is he, like Rice and Powell before him, is little more than a boy to the master--which he tries to spin as pragmatism. Watch him fall on his face.

    Posted by Lil at 12/29/2008 @ 1:35pm

16. "The tragedy is he, like Rice and Powell before him, is little more than a boy to the master"--Posted by Lil at 12/29/2008 @ 1:35pm

    Obama....Rice...Powell...."boy"..."master"...hmmmm?

    Now, what is the significance of those PARTICULAR three people and terms like "boy" and "master"?!!??!

    Hmmmmmmmm???

    Posted by Mask at 12/29/2008 @ 1:39pm

17. Nothing hidden there at all. I am sure that Harry Bellafonte could explain it to you.

    After all, the palestinian struggle is a whole lot closser to the African Americans experience while AIPAC pulls the strings. He knows who the master is--and he knows who he betrays.

    He ain't nothing but a boy to the master.

    Posted by Lil at 12/29/2008 @ 1:45pm

18. America will continue to languish under the evil spell of hardcore Zionism.

    gosh, I love that kind of talk. Goebbels would have been so proud.

    Posted by emile duBois at 12/29/2008 @ 1:50pm

19. President Obama should ACT NOW to stop this murder and mayhem...Everyone voted for a CHANGE and sitting silently and supporting murder is NOT CHANGE but very much the same...

    Posted by freenation at 12/29/2008 @ 2:08pm

20. Posted by Lil at 12/29/2008 @ 1:45pm

    Just interesting that the ONLY persons you cited (nary a mention of Bush, Biden, Hillary, etc.) as "boys to masters"...

    were all three AFrican-American?!?!???!?

    Posted by Mask at 12/29/2008 @ 2:22pm

21. Posted by Lil at 12/29/2008 @ 1:35pm

    Well said, Lil!

    Some leadership, huh? Obama is always available to give his views on economic questions. Why might you think he's so shy at the moment? His predicted tendency to avoid making decisions on difficult questions, perhaps?

    Now, I'm afraid, it will be all too evident for the world to see that "Yes we can" translates "Yowsa, sho can, massa", in Hebrew. The American political leadership is owned lock, stock and barrel by lobbying interests of a foreign power and the American people, 71% of whom favor a more balanced Middle Eastern policy, short of a revolution or a nuclear war, are and likely will be in the future powerless to do much about it. As long as people mindlessly vote for system candidates what they're going to get is this kind of slavery. Its what the system has to offer.

    Posted by john lowell at 12/29/2008 @ 2:41pm

22. The Arabs do not want peace with Israel. They want the destruction of Israel!!!!! I had to laugh at the "Memo To Obama" article which included the statement that Syria would end anti-Israel activities..... truly laughable...... LONG LIVE ISRAEL!!!!!!

    Posted by dswhiplash at 12/29/2008 @ 3:12pm

23. By the way, Lil, don't overly concern yourself with Mask. In addition to being at a little disadvantage morally and intellectually, he's a DNC plant and a schlemeil, always making demands that people account to him about one thing or another. You can afford to ignore him in about the same proportion that one might ignore the deranged. Admittedly its sad, but there's not much that can be done. He likely won't take proferred suggestions to turn on the gas, for example.

    Posted by john lowell at 12/29/2008 @ 3:25pm

24. President Obama should ACT NOW to stop this murder and mayhem...Everyone voted for a CHANGE and sitting silently and supporting murder is NOT CHANGE but very much the same...

    Posted by freenation at 12/29/2008 @ 2:08pm

    What are we supposed to do with Bush while PE Obama is making all these decisions about Israel...I know he usually out to lunch most of the time now but he is still the President and PE Obama's hands are tied. Bush has condoned this nonsense all his Presidency and will not see anything wrong with the Israeli actions ever. I just hope PE Obama will have a stronger opinion on it and make some serious moves to stop this constant backing of Israel, they have had a free pass for too long and it's time to change that.

    Posted by Caj at 12/29/2008 @ 4:10pm

25. I am a first-time poster to the Nation and the temperature does got a little hot in these comment sections.

    But really now, the expectations--hopes--need for Obama are impossibly high when he can do nothing to respond to them until January 20, 2009. Many of the posters already refer to him as "President." Without commenting directly on the issues connected with Gaza, I simply urge everyone, particularly everyone on the left, to give the poor man until January 21, 2009 before giving up on the Obama Administration on domestic or foreign policy.

    Posted by Harmiclir at 12/29/2008 @ 4:27pm

26. Get a grip John.

    First you make the assumption that if Obama were to "engage" that there would actually be someone the other side to participate. While I am sure Hamas would accept a lunch anytime anyplace, I doubt Isreal would accept such an offer as it runs counter to international protocol. Second, you think somehow that the next 20 days is all important in a conflict that has been going on for generations. Get some perspective. Third, you ignore the fact that this transition period actually has a purpose other than making policy without authority. Climate change guys were wanting Obama at the conference in Nov. Unions want him to publically "engage" on bailing out the auto industry. etc.

    20 days is about 1% of his first term and you want him to start marginalising the center right over 20 days by insulting the standing president's authority when there is no evidence that this would do anything except make him look to Isreal like an overreaching and naive first term senator.

    Give the man some space and let him and his team prepare to great things in the next 4-8 years including working for a lasting middle east peace.

    Posted by YosemiteNP at 12/29/2008 @ 4:34pm

27. does anyone remember the charade that Bush played recently, when he sent Rice over there to make peace. it was a joke then, and it is a tragedy now.

    all Obama could do now is talk. he is smart enough to hold his tongue until he has the power to act.

    Posted by emile duBois at 12/29/2008 @ 4:41pm

28. Obama has no autority at all. There isn't even an 'office of the President Elect.' Even if he did have some authority he could never solve the problem with diplomacy. Attorneys like Obama always think that there is a negotiated solution to problems. There isn't always a negotiated solution.

    The Israelis have no central Palestinian counterpart to negotiate with. Israelis have given away land and have been rewarded by rocket attacks. Given that reality, I don't think that Israelis are going to continue to give land for 'piece.' There is no diplomatic solution to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. The Gaza conflict and a future Hezbollah conflict are inevitable.

    Posted by tatanka at 12/29/2008 @ 4:45pm

29. Emile duBois takes home a Godwin Award for the reference to Herr Dr. Goebbels and also an Orwell Prize for ferreting out an anti-Zionist thought crime. Why not toss in a McCarthy-Foxman Citation for the enforcement of political correctness too? One should note that it is usually the Zionist extremists (and Islamicists) who resort to accusations of National Socialism against their enemies, not critics of those two viewpoints such as your humble correspondent. One must now fear becoming the subject of a Two-Minute Hate. Grrr. Grrr. Grrr.

    Posted by feinfein at 12/29/2008 @ 4:46pm

30. The Arabs do not want peace with Israel.

    there are arab countries who ARE at peace with Israel, let's not forget that.

    Posted by emile duBois at 12/29/2008 @ 4:55pm

31. Posted by feinfein at 12/29/2008 @ 4:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    your "statement" is one of a poseur. you are too in love with the sound of your own voice. a child really.

    Posted by emile duBois at 12/29/2008 @ 4:57pm

32. What IDIOT believes Palestinians want peace? They elected Hamas! They knew what they were getting.

    It's so repetitious, I don't even know why it needs to be said again: Palestinians want to lob bombs at Israel with impunity and then whine like victims when they get punched back.

    Palestinian terrorists are morally inferior to the Judeo-Christian ethic. They truly believe no one has the right to return what they dish out.

    All you deluded Obama worshippers who think Arabs and Jews are going to see eye to eye when he gets out his rainbows and unicorns should prepare to be disappointed. Palestinians hate Israel too much to ever WANT to live peacefully.

    Posted by HypnoToad at 12/29/2008 @ 4:57pm

33. Better a "poseur" and a child than a bloody-handed warmonger, Monsieur duBois. For curiosity's sake, are you on the payroll of some Zionist organization? Or are your motivations more doubleplusbellyful in nature? Jingoism? Anti-Arab racism? Nihilistic tendencies? Plain old bloodlust? Self-hatred?

    Posted by feinfein at 12/29/2008 @ 5:16pm

34. "Obama and his aides should be openly counseling the Bush administration to use every diplomatic avenue to promote a ceasefire and, above all, to urge against an Israeli invasion and occupation of Gaza."

    John Nichols: Feel free to explain to us why you think this strategy is going to work?

    Posted by YourJomamma at 12/29/2008 @ 02:22am

    Agree totally with this remark. A rare treat.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 12/29/2008 @ 09:34am

    And then you post this insipid crap.

    For one, you frequently waffled on whether you considered Bush a "true conservative" or not - depending on what was convenient for you at the time.

    For two, Obama won because of the "mainstream", not the "loony left" - as you put it, and he is doing exactly the kinds of things he promised he would do. The only people "thrown under the bus" were people not paying attention. The man is very careful with his words, and it was obvious where he is/was going.

    I don't like it, but then again, I didn't vote for him. I did prefer him over Clinton, but I cast my votes for Kucinich and Nader. But in any event, he is not doing a Bush style bait and switch on the people that voted for him.

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/29/2008 @ 5:36pm

35. Posted by YosemiteNP at 12/29/2008 @ 4:34pm

    "Give the man some space and let him and his team prepare to great things in the next 4-8 years including working for a lasting middle east peace."

    Oh, please, spare us this stomach turning twaddel. Great things, with him on his knees at the AIPAC conference last June and his Secretary of State designate, Hitlery Clinton, claiming for public consumption that she's ready to nuke Iran at any moment? Alexrod provides the closest available take on the likely course of events here and it has nothing to do with a lasting peace in the Middle East. Rather, what becomes clear in Axelrod's statements is the all-too-familiar toxins associated with the Bush Administration, that is to say, a US Middle East policy eager to accomodate any Israeli excess, any aggression. And, what's more, to fund it too.

    "20 days is about 1% of his first term and you want him to start marginalising the center right over 20 days by insulting the standing president's authority when there is no evidence that this would do anything except make him look to Isreal like an overreaching and naive first term senator."

    Although grasping something along these lines might be a bit beyond your ken, son, I expect Obama to do the right thing. I don't give a rat's ass who he marginalizes or insults. His silence in this question is the worst possible kind of cowardice. He can express himself on this question without interfering in any way with established policy. Why he now routinely criticizes Bush economic policy, there would be something terribly seismic about his expressing a desire for the cessation of hostilities? Only if he wished to see Israel unhindered in this violence would he not express such sentiments but I'm afraid that his owners and handler just couldn't countenance something like that. Like the neo-cons before them, they simply don't want peace.

    "First you make the assumption that if Obama were to "engage" that there would actually be someone the other side to participate. While I am sure Hamas would accept a lunch anytime anyplace, I doubt Isreal would accept such an offer as it runs counter to international protocol. Second, you think somehow that the next 20 days is all important in a conflict that has been going on for generations. Get some perspective. Third, you ignore the fact that this transition period actually has a purpose other than making policy without authority. Climate change guys were wanting Obama at the conference in Nov. Unions want him to publically "engage" on bailing out the auto industry. etc."

    Are you so naive as to believe that if the will for peace were strong enough in Washington, that a way wouldn't be found for its realization by Israel and its adversaries and right now? The conflict goes on for 20 years precisely because those that least want peace have our politician by the short curlies. We're talking about stolen land and ethnic cleansing here and a decided unwillingness to come to terms with those uncomfortable facts. An end to all forms of aid to Israel and a little less bellicosity toward the Arab side might bring peace within reach, but tell me who in Washington would risk that with AIPAC breathing down their neck. Not our dear savior, I'm quite sure. Great things? You entertain.

    Posted by john lowell at 12/29/2008 @ 5:40pm

36. Posted by feinfein at 12/29/2008 @ 5:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    you're foaming at the mouth.

    calling me a bloody handed warmonger? are you outta your fucking mind?

    Posted by emile duBois at 12/29/2008 @ 6:08pm

37. Hamas purposely locates its rocket launchers & terrorist capability in densely populated civilian areas. If Israel weren't engaging in careful surgical strikes there wouldn't be 300 deaths, there would be 3,000 or 30,000. And Hamas does it purposely, knowing children will die, so their stooges like John Nichols can trot out the bodies of dead children to castigate Israel for defending itself. Where are the outraged articles Mr. Nichols about the daily rocket attacks and deaths of innocent Israelis??? Where are the outraged demands that Hamas cease its terrorist attacks. If the U.S. were being attacked daily from Mexico the way Israel has been there'd be a 200 mile dead zone on the Mexican side of the border by now. Hamas could lift the blockade of Gaza and end the attacks tomorrow by stopping all attacks on Israel. Its doubtful that will ever happen because Hamas is a terrorist organization as intent on genocide as Hitler and the Nazi's ever were. And those terrorist have the support of far to many people like John Nichols who seem to be ok with a 2nd Holocaust!!!!

    Posted by valwayne at 12/29/2008 @ 6:27pm

38. And those terrorist have the support of far to many people like John Nichols who seem to be ok with a 2nd Holocaust!!!!

    Posted by valwayne at 12/29/2008 @ 6:27pm

    Oh not the holocaust again, will it never ever stop being a crutch for Israel...they have used that for years and smart folks have had their eyes opened at how evil the Israeli government are and are quite happy to continue their rein of terror. Yes, I said their rein of terror toward the Palestinian people....they need to be stopped, too much freedom for them to do as they like and get away with it.

    Posted by Caj at 12/29/2008 @ 6:50pm

39. Only if Ron Paul , Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich or others with sincere convictions of the depravity of the current system, who have shown a willingness to suffer personal loss for challenging our current political and fiscal system, would have made any substantive change against all the forces for the status quo. Obama has already exposed himself in his cabinet appointments as a "change" farce, protecting himself from any unpleasant personal repercussions to his career or lifestyle, allowing all of us who hoped for a revolution in the nature of the the policy decisions in the US under Obama to grit our teeth for four more years of myopic and self destructive politics that benefit a tiny minority and leave the marginalized of the rest of the world again without any material hope of a humane and just US foreign policy. But this is good in so far as it causes us to turn our minds away from this present, intractably evil, world to a new heavens and a new earth as the kingdom of God. May it come quickly!

    Posted by nonukes at 12/29/2008 @ 6:51pm

40. Well, well, well, it seems that the Israeli propagandists, MASK and emile DuBois, are back defending the Israeli criminal attack on Gaza. They both should be proud to know that their beloved criminal state, Israel, has so far murdered 360 Palestinians and wounded 1650; mostly civilians. The Israelis signed a truce with Hamas for six months, during which the Israelis had 135 incursions into Gaza murdering 30 Palestinians. It is also during that truce that Gaza was placed under the whim and mercy of the Israeli racist government. Food to Gazans was restricted; fuel supply for Gaza single electric power plants was intermittent at best. Gaza's Airspace, territorial water and ports were under Israeli control. Gaza was dying slowly in the dark. When Palestinians fired some of their homemade primitive rockets; the Israelis began their murderous campaign. In essence, the Palestinians were presented two bad choices by Israel; to die from starvation or to be blown to pieces by the American made F-16 and Apache helicopters.

    Obama has surrendered to AIPAC since the early campaign days; The Israeli lobby has twisted his arm so hard that I doubt he would ever think of playing Middle East Peace. He has given the task to the new-born Zionist Hillary Clinton. Clinton has made her commitment to Israel unquestionable from day one. She appointed two assistant secretaries, James Steinberg and Jacob Lew and plans to appoint three special envoys: Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk and Richard Holbrooke; all are Jews and ardent Zionists. You are Right duBois, when it comes to being pro Israel; the State Department would the kind of place which Goebbels would have been so proud of.

    Posted by CripThink at 12/29/2008 @ 6:59pm

41. Thank you CripThink - it is Israel that violated the terms of the "truce" with Hamas killing 30 , and then whines when "militants" respond in like manner - Israel sows 30 murders during the truce and reaped about 17 in return : whoever is casting the shells at Israel are culpable of serious crimes and worthy of condemnation , but Israel is not innocent of provoking these shells - rockets from Gaza were sent always in reaction to truce breaking bloody Israeli incursions onto Gaza.

    Posted by nonukes at 12/29/2008 @ 7:32pm

42. Posted by Caj at 12/29/2008 @ 6:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    no, reign of terror. as in regina=queen. rein is the horse thing

    Posted by emile duBois at 12/29/2008 @ 7:41pm

43. Well, well, well, it seems that the Israeli propagandists, MASK and emile DuBois, are back defending the Israeli criminal attack on Gaza.

    this is a lie. where have I defended the current attack on Gaza?

    Posted by emile duBois at 12/29/2008 @ 7:43pm

44. emile duBois,

    If you have not, I take it back.

    Posted by CripThink at 12/29/2008 @ 8:09pm

45. I cannot defend the Israeli attack, just as I cannot defend the Hamas rocket attacks on Israel.

    Posted by emile duBois at 12/29/2008 @ 8:34pm

46. They need to mail Gilad Shalit's teeth back to his family.

    Tomorrow, send his eyeballs.

    Posted by rykart at 12/29/2008 @ 10:11pm

47. Comanchenation,

    I thought that the Israelis were burned when they played Matches with Hezbollah in 2006, and what did they do in return? They cowardly sent their warplanes on murderous campaign against Lebanese civilians; women and children. And before they left Lebanon in defeat, they sprinkled two millions cluster bombs which are still maiming Lebanese children until today. Again, the Israelis are playing the same cowardly game with the people of Gaza; 700 Palestinian dead and 1700 wounded; mostly civilians.

    One day the Israelis shall discover, the hard way, that stealing other people's land and homes is very dangerous and costly game. The Apartheid regime of South African tried it before, but where is racist South Africa today?

    Posted by CripThink at 12/29/2008 @ 11:02pm

48. For the "moral" right the carnage in Gaza leaves them undisturbed - the number of pregnancies which must fail as a consequence of these air strikes fazes them not - the "morality" of the right wing is simply "might is morally right" anything Israel chooses to do has moral sanction because of its military strength , the same with the United States. Killing civilians however is murder, and causing devastation to an entire ethnicity is genocide. Israel and the US are guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity : and George W Bush is a war criminal whose decisions and actions have spawned uncalculable deaths , including deaths of fetuses and very young children, and crippling injuries , social and economic collapse &c Yet to the right , this is all morally acceptable , because the right follows the ANTI-CHRISTIAN ethic that the END justifies the means , whereas the apostle Paul condemns such in Romans 3:8 who slander him and Christ's disciples claiming that they confess, Let us do evil, that good may come. Yet, to claim that Bush, Barak and their delusional , fawning sycophants, as well as their ideological bedfellows the Nazis , and Maoists, assert , Let us commit untold immoral atrocities, so that some good will result, would be a true witness. The Jewish State presently acts on the same ethical ideological basis of pure Machivallianism and shall be , lest they repent , judged as murderers whose hands are full of blood and so when they stretch out their hands to God He shall hide his eyes from them , and though they make many prayers , He shall not hear, but says , Wash you and make you clean. The right is neither Christian nor ethical, and Israel which does not hear the Law of Moses are no Jews, for they rejoice in disobeying the law of God.

    Posted by nonukes at 12/29/2008 @ 11:03pm

49. Israelis are filth from the toilet.

    No person of conscience can have the slightest sympathy for them.

    Posted by rykart at 12/29/2008 @ 11:30pm

50. Israel's airstrikes "have killed at least 270 people so far, injured more than 1,000, many of them seriously, and many remain buried under the rubble so the death toll will likely rise," Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies pointed out on Sunday, two days into Israel's attack. "This catastrophic impact was known and inevitable, and far outweighs any claim of self-defense or protection of Israeli civilians." She mentioned that "the one Israeli killed by a Palestinian rocket attack on Saturday after the Israeli assault began was the first such casualty in more than a year." http://www.counterpunch.org/solomon12292008.html There is NO MORAL justification for the blood spilled and trauma caused in Gaza - watch Israel point to this one death by a missle of a militant, who does not officially or even unofficially represent the people of Gaza in any case, as somehow justification for the on going slaughter and carnage , even as George Walker Bush justified the invasion of weapons of mass destruction less Iraq on the premise that Al Qaeda is there , even though the presence of Al Qaeda, the CIA supported (albeit in the 1980s) terrorist network , and the Israeli death occurred subsequent to the immoral invasions and are the predictable reaction to them same. Israel now is acting as if there is no moral law which must restrain their actions. Its own thirst for Palestinian (as well as Lebanenes) suffering on a massive scale does not provide them any justification for their inhumanity to their neighbors . Let those who sanction Israel's barbarity in the name of Jesus Christ hear him: Matthew 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.

    Posted by nonukes at 12/30/2008 @ 12:00am

51. This is pathetic. In case you left-wing nuts have not noticed ISRAEL WAS ATTACKED FIRST! What is going to happen if Obama listens to all you sissies is the terrorist will win wherever they can find limp-wristed liberals to support them.

    Israel has TRIED to find peace, but HAMAS will not even regognize their right to exist.

    What are they supposed to do, lay down and kiss but like you limp-wristed sissies want to do. God help America if that happens, because you sissies won't be willing to do anything, besides whine, that is.

    God Bless John McCain, despite the loss, hee seems to be the only real man left in America. Obama certainly isn't one.

    Posted by Paradelady at 12/30/2008 @ 12:29am

52. This is amazing. I never posted to Nation before, so I never knew you had an "ignore" list. So all you have been doing is preaching to the choir. You are losers. Yes, Obama won, but if he listens to you, he will be a loser just like you are. Ignore me, fine, but I know I represent millions. And I am a DEMOCRAT. A real Democrat, like Bobby Kennedy, who would not put up with these sissies for 5 minutes.

    Where have all the real men gone.

    Posted by Paradelady at 12/30/2008 @ 12:35am

53. By the way, in case you all are too young to know, or are too senile to remember, Bobby Kennedy was killed by a Palestinian, Sirhan Sirhan, from the West Bank. Whose people want him released and call him a political prisoner. Do you think Bobby Kennedy's killer is a political prisoner because he supported the Palestinians? Whose side are you on? Bobby was always on America's side.

    Posted by Paradelady at 12/30/2008 @ 12:40am

54. how charming of the immoral right - the only real men according to them are those with the brazen ambition to flaunt the law of God - those who kill without conscience and show complete contempt for human dignity and worth - McCain advocated a vociferously bellicose attitude towards and prescribed action against Russia that would have precipitated a completely gratuituous cold war, if not World War III. Notice Paradelady's logic , because Israel was (allegedly) "attacked first" this justifies ANY and ALL atrocities committed by them - as if there are no absolute moral strictures or proportional responses required even in battle. Paradelady as all the right wing immorality promoting writers in this thread ignores all the bloody crimes of Israel , based merely on the sentiment that REVENGE justifies all : Jesus Christ , the ONLY REAL EPITOME of a man, ever in the flesh , denied the justification of any revenge and rather advocated turning the other cheek to those who strike one. Real men do not volunteer to kill and main unjustly, but use their strength of will to not exact revenge and to leave vengeance to the thrice holy God.

    Posted by nonukes at 12/30/2008 @ 02:04am

55. Paradelady,

    You seem to be brave; like your Israeli bodies, shooting women and children in Gaza from 35,000 feet high in their F-16's cockpits. They don't dare to come lower, since they have learned a hard lesson in Lebanon, when Hezbollah kicked their tails.

    What kind of peace tried by Israel you are talking about; you ignorant? How about all those maniac Jewish settlers who are occupying Palestinian lands in the Wes Bank? Are they the peace angels you are talking about? They are armed to the teeth and indoctrinated with deep hatred by hardcore rabbis. They manifest their religious rituals in their daily raids uprooting olive trees and shooting indigenous Palestinians.

    Enough deception, you can have peace or land, but can't have them both. The Palestinians are fighting for their land and homes; a coward like you can't defeat them.

    Matter of fact, you don't sound like a Democrat at all; you sound like a fascist.

    Posted by CripThink at 12/30/2008 @ 02:08am

56. Israel don't want peace in that region they just want to own it!! With all their military might and they have plenty...planes dropping bombs...tanks going into Palestine whenever the mood takes them and they still want to be seen as the victims in all this. What kind of "military power" do the Palestinians have here for their protection...lets see,oh yes a few ground rockets!!! What a load of crap that Israel are seen as the victims...they have this belief that have the God given right to be in charge of everything...well, they have been in charge of us for years!!! I wonder when we will ever get a backbone and start doing the right thing and using some strong language against Israel instead of keep embracing everything they do?

    Posted by Caj at 12/30/2008 @ 08:15am

57. where is racist South Africa today? Posted by CripThink at 12/29/2008 @ 11:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    this was ended through negotiations.

    Posted by emile duBois at 12/30/2008 @ 09:32am

58. I am filth from the toilet. No person of conscience can have the slightest sympathy for me. Posted by rykart at 12/29/2008 @ 11:30pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Posted by emile duBois at 12/30/2008 @ 09:34am

59. I am filth from the toilet. Posted by emile duBois at 12/30/2008 @ 09:34am | ignore this person | warn this person

    You're Israeli, emile?

    That explains everything.

    Posted by rykart at 12/30/2008 @ 09:38am

60. like you limp-wristed sissies want to do.

    I suggest you seek help with your masculinity issues.

    Posted by emile duBois at 12/30/2008 @ 09:38am

61. You're a human being? That explains everything. Posted by rykart at 12/30/2008 @ 09:38am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Posted by emile duBois at 12/30/2008 @ 09:47am

62. emile, you ought to show some solidarity and join your Nazi pals in Ashkelon or SHITerot.

    In good time, they will all be dead.

    Posted by rykart at 12/30/2008 @ 10:42am

63. In this conflict you see it from your own point of view if you happen to be Palestinian or Jewish and you think "your" side is right. We come in with a view of how we see things that are going on over there and we are not Palestinian or Jewish in most cases. I see Israel as being the bigger aggressor here, they are on land that does not belong to them...they have tremendous fire power...they own nuclear weapons, and above all they have the backing of the US with everything they do. Palestine on the other hand, just want their land back...they have ground rockets only and NO backing from the US. I hardly see how Israel can keep saying they are the victims in all this, they play the sympathy card and the US falls for it every time. Time for our policy to change and we get tougher on Israel they have had a free pass with all their atrocities over the years and with our blessing.

    Posted by Caj at 12/30/2008 @ 10:44am

64. caj

    This conflict is most assuredly NOT about Jews vs Palestinians.

    This conflict is sewer garbage vs Palestinians, with MANY Jews of character taking the side of the Palestinians, including the UN Special Rapporteur, who writes scathingly of the Israeli filth in the pages of The Nation.

    Posted by rykart at 12/30/2008 @ 10:48am

65. I can't wait until PE Barack Obama is in charge. When he is done parting the Red Sea and Healing the World, he can then tackle Middle East peace.

    Thank goodness we have a real eloquent, smart leader in Barack Obama. I am sure he can end all this HATE with just a gesture and a possibly a speech in Jeruselem. That is, if he doesn't feel peace in the middle east is "above his pay grade."

    Posted by Weyld1 at 12/30/2008 @ 10:49am

66. richard falk:

    http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090112/falk

    Posted by rykart at 12/30/2008 @ 10:53am

67. rykart, any solutions from you or just rants?

    Posted by Mask at 12/30/2008 @ 10:59am

68. Mask

    International law has spoken again and again on the matter. The ICJ ruled Israel's behavior illegal from top to bottom--the settlements, the wall, all of it. The UN General Assembly votes for the past 20 YEARS show the entire world favoring a two state settlement in the whole of the WB and Gaza with a capital in East Jerusalem. This is accepted by everyone INCLUDING Hamas and including the full Arab League. Israel will have none of it.

    Could the Vietnamese have prevailed against US Nazi aggression through negotiation or protest? We can answer that pretty simply: NO WAY. They had to inflict devastating losses on the US and drive the American goons and scum from SE Asia.

    They won.

    The Taliban---reprehensible as they may be---are winning. I have zero doubt they will drive out the US.

    America has now achieved, at the cost of an estimated 3 TRILLION dollars, a complete, ignominious defeat in Iraq. Not only have we achieved none of our goals, not only have we failed to impose our permanent bases, not only have we failed to secure immunity for our Nazi butchers, we have empowered an Iran-friendly regime and strengthened Iran's position in the region, not to mention strengthening al qaida and all anti-US movements worldwide.

    The Palestinians however, are losing...they are losing very badly and it is imperative that we find out why and that they adopt more effective means of combatting aggression. If they don't the Israelis are sure to finish the Shoah (their word) they have planned for the Palestinian people.

    Posted by rykart at 12/30/2008 @ 11:10am

69. Can anyone tell me the real reason for our total sucking up to Israel...what do they have over us that we can't do enough to accommodate them???

    Posted by Caj at 12/30/2008 @ 11:28am

70. Other possibilities exist. Maybe one day the UN will find a leader with a modicum of courage, though that doesn't seem likely right now. The spineless Kofi Anan cancelled the UN investigation into the Jenin massacre (as but one example) because Israel objected to it. He should have said "I don't give a shit if you object---the UN has a mandate to conduct a forensic investigation and we are going to conduct that investigation and we are going to report the results, and if you are smart, you'll stay out of our way, because we are going to be armed." That is what is needed.

    I don't see the US as a possibility any more for assisting with this situation. America literally can do no good in the world. I see no reason for optimism with Obama, who has wasted no time positioning a gaggle of anti-Arab racists like Emmanuel, Ross, and the insufferable Clinton in his new cabinet.

    Posted by rykart at 12/30/2008 @ 11:28am

71. Posted by rykart at 12/30/2008 @ 11:10am

    And on the other thread, you said we should "starve the Israelis into submission"....sorry, can't tell what's serious and what's lunacy with you.

    Posted by Mask at 12/30/2008 @ 12:03pm

72. Posted by Mask at 12/30/2008 @ 12:03pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    I see.

    Perfectly reasonable to starve innocent victims into submission, as the Israelis have been doing to the Palestinians for quite some time, but it's "lunacy" to starve the aggressors into submission?

    Makes total sense.

    To a Nazi, at least.

    Posted by rykart at 12/30/2008 @ 12:11pm

73. Posted by rykart at 12/30/2008 @ 10:42am | ignore this person | warn this person

    you are a tiny man, trying to puff yourself up with your tough talk. it's not working.

    Posted by emile duBois at 12/30/2008 @ 12:18pm

74. this was ended through negotiations.

    Posted by emile duBois at 12/30/2008 @ 09:32am | ignore this person | warn this person

    duBois,

    Would stop this ignorance nonsense? You are playing a well-known Israeli Propaganda. You are fooling no one but yourself. It was the terrorist Yitzhak Shamir, The Israeli ex Prime Minister, who said, and I am quoting the Israeli Paper HAARETZ:

    "They used to say about Yitzhak Shamir that he conducted peace negotiations with our neighbors as long as they never ended … Every prime minister after him, with the exception of Yitzhak Rabin, behaved exactly like he did, though they added whistles and bells to the foot-dragging. If the rumors are true and history really does have a muse, he will one day convene a press conference and utter his verdict: Shamir, Shimon Peres, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert are in fact the same dancer - one step forward, two steps back"

    So deBois, I thought that Mahmud Abbas has recognized Israel and negotiated with them for years, since Oslo and before Hamas even existed. And what did Abbas get from Israel in return? More settlements in the occupied territories, more annexation of Palestinian land, more military check-points and more demolition of Palestinian homes. And the Israeli deception goes on.

    Posted by CripThink at 12/30/2008 @ 12:38pm

75. Posted by CripThink at 12/30/2008 @ 12:38pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    you keep attacking me for positions I do not hold.

    negotiations do work, see peace between Egypt and Israel, Jordan and Israel.etc.

    Posted by emile duBois at 12/30/2008 @ 12:43pm

76. crip is absolutely right of course, and the preposterousness of israel's "defense" agrguments become even more acute when we look at the bedouins of the Negev---poor, hungry, unarmed nomadic peoples, whom the israelis routinely beat to a bloody pulp and herd into concentration camps.

    The bedouin!

    yeah---they are a REAL "existential threat" to Israel!

    Posted by rykart at 12/30/2008 @ 12:48pm

77. Posted by CripThink at 12/30/2008 @ 12:38pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Abbas' problem was with Hamas.

    Posted by emile duBois at 12/30/2008 @ 12:52pm

78. To a Nazi, at least.----Posted by rykart at 12/30/2008 @ 12:11

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law

    or

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

    Posted by Mask at 12/30/2008 @ 1:03pm

79. This war is tragic. I believe that the only way out of this continual violence is with international pressure, active management and monitoring. Obama can easily take the lead.

    The world must come together, recognize the reality of the situation, the severe cost to the world of the status quo, and develop a solution which allows everyone to flourish and live in peace. Neither side in this conflict will ever win. It is in the benefit of all sides to move beyond attachments to the past and put full support to a shared solution. And because of the violence of the past this must be fully supported and enforced by the international community.

    Israelis and Palestinians will only find peace when citizens on both sides of the borders embrace this reality and pressure their governments with their minds and bodies to embrace this reality.

    This is a place of shared heritage, culture, history and traditions. For this reason, parts of this land must not be 'owned' by any nation. They must be shared. And this requires the unified actions of the international community.

    A shared solution also requires the will of the warring parties, and most importantly the dedication and support of the area citizens. Obviously, any solution must also create uncontested homelands for both the Israelis and the Palestinians.

    There must be a ceasefire and the citizens on on both sides must shout about the futility of continual violence and struggle to enforce this ceasefire. And we as citizens of the U.S. and as citizens of the World, must do all we can to force our new Administration to recognize the importance of a solution to the problems of this land to us and the entire World.

    Posted by HowlingWinds at 12/30/2008 @ 2:28pm

80. Posted by HowlingWinds at 12/30/2008 @ 2:28pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    calm and reasonable. a rarity in these pages now.

    Posted by emile duBois at 12/30/2008 @ 2:51pm

81. Mr. Nichols flatly claims the following:

    "Obama and his aides should be openly counseling the Bush administration to use every diplomatic avenue to promote a ceasefire and, above all, to urge against an Israeli invasion and occupation of Gaza. Unfortunately, the president-elect is doing nothing of the sort. "

    The article includes no substantiating evidence - not even anonymous sources, to back up the above claim. There is an assertion of fact where only conjecture rules.

    Despite the fact that Mr. Obama is arguably the only real President we have, he still remains the President Elect. His refusal to publicly attempt to direct the Bush Administration's foreign policy is not only politically and legally correct, it's also prudent.

    If the President-Elect is involved behind the scenes, directly or through his emissaries, it is especially prudent for him to keep a low public profile. Good negotiators are neither seen nor heard until there is something of substance to share and all parties agree to the release of that information. That's obviously not where we are now.

    Mr. Obama doesn't have his own pocket State Department. He must rely on the behind the scenes positioning of the one and only State Department we have and his communication with the current Secretary of State (which he has publicly done.

    Mr. Bush is on vacation and has been for the last 8 years. However poorly run and irresponsible our current government may be, it's all we. have.

    Yes, people are dying, and they've been dying from this insanity for Millennia. This is central to the reality of the problem and the task, and we have limited resources to deal with any of it.

    In the meantime, we need to stop spreading idle speculation and fabrication. That won't save innocent lives, either.

    Posted by wbramh at 12/30/2008 @ 3:05pm

82. it's all we. have.

    we have one more thing, hope.

    Posted by emile duBois at 12/30/2008 @ 3:16pm

83. Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/30/2008 @ 3:39pm

    Have we SEEN a reasonable solution out of you yet, LVLIB?

    Again, the only logic from your own arguments about Islam/Muslims/Palestine is "Kill 'em all, let Allah sort 'em out!" or "Wait...in 150 years, they might become Christians and then understand why it's 'God's plan' and they need to let Israel have its 'Biblical' borders!"

    Other than that, nothing from you that isn't cheerleading of whatever the Likud wants to do.

    Posted by Mask at 12/30/2008 @ 4:15pm

84. Everyone thinks that Obama is the Messiah--the man who will solve all problems and bring paradise to earth. In reality, Obama is a Chicago politician, nothing more, nothing less. (see Jesse Jackson, Mayor Daley, Sr and Jr. and Rod Blagoevich)

    We have a disaster in Gaza. Obama is, has been and will be, Pro-Israeli. His chief of staff is an Isreali dual citizen, his foreign policy team in pro AIPAC. So is he.

    Waiting for Obama to resolve the crisis in the Middle East is like waiting for Godot. It aint gonna happen.

    What it to be done? Well, Israel feels insecurce, as well they should be, and Palestinians feel on the brink of disaster. We need UN/NATO/Someone intervention. We need to "Pull a Kosovo":

    Every day Israel grows larger and Palestine grows smaller. They were supposed to share the land of the "Palestinian Mandate" -it's now Israel 80%, Palestinian 20%

    Israel and US preach a two state solution but they practice the creeping erasure of the Palestinian people.

    People rebel under such desperate circumstances. Let's hope there is some power to get Israel to stop just like NATO stopped the Serbs from attacking Kosovo.

    Posted by hkaplan at 12/30/2008 @ 5:30pm

85. Everyone thinks that Obama is the Messiah

    it's just not true, no matter how many times it is thrown out there.

    Obama is more than a Chicago pol, he is the president of the united states, (elect)

    "Every day Israel grows larger and Palestine grows smaller. They were supposed to share the land of the "Palestinian Mandate" -it's now Israel 80%, Palestinian 20%"

    this is nonsense. Palestine was divided in two. last I heard, Jordan is alive and well. they did lose the west bank, to Israeli military occupation. there was no mention of sharing the land, that's why it was partitioned.

    Posted by emile duBois at 12/30/2008 @ 5:46pm

86. incidentally, partition was not equal. the arabs got the bigger piece.

    Posted by emile duBois at 12/30/2008 @ 6:20pm

87. Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/30/2008 @ 5:47pm

    But the really important question is what percentage is it of the Ottoman, Eastern Roman, Roman, Greek, or Babylonian Empires? Or for that matter, the Hasmoneans or Biblical Israel?

    I'm not sure why you believe arbritary divisions made for administrating a defunct empire by the League of Nations are somehow the standard for evaluating the size of the current Israeli state - but let's just say I find it about as dubious as using any of the Empire choices above.

    Even using the historical boundries of the Jewish state has problems, such as the fact that the state of David lasted slightly more than 100 years and was relatively unstable.

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/30/2008 @ 6:21pm

88. "J Street, argues that: "While (the recent) air strikes by Israeli Defense Forces in Gaza can be understood and even justified in the wake of recent rocket attacks.."

    This demonstrates how utterly useless J Street is, along with all other so-called "progressive" Zionist groups.

    Even before Israel's bloody attack on Gaza, they were killing Palestinians at the average rate of 17 per week. This does not include those who died as a direct result of Israel's illegal blockade, or those who died at checkpoints trying to get to hospitals. Then we might remember to home demolitions, the ongoing land theft, the destruction of crops and livestock, the daily attacks, beatings, and humiliations - all delivered by Israelis.

    If anything any rationale being would argue the rocket attacks to be a desperate effort by a besieged people to defend themselves from a brutal enemy.

    Posted by Rosser at 12/30/2008 @ 6:29pm

89. the '48 war left Israel slightly larger than when partitioned.

    I will again suggest a book on "the eastern question"

    International Politics and the Middle East By L.Carl Brown

    and guess what, it's a google book and available free on line.

    this one and the Smith book I mentioned, are indispensable to understand the present.

    Posted by emile duBois at 12/30/2008 @ 6:29pm

90. incidentally, partition was not equal. the arabs got the bigger piece. Posted by emile duBois at 12/30/2008 @ 6:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Right.

    Don't bother mentioning the fact that the Jews represented less than 13% of the population and owned a mere 5.6% of the land, before roughly half the country was turned over to them with the stroke of a pen.

    Of course for "God's Chosen" that only seems fair.

    Posted by rykart at 12/30/2008 @ 9:28pm

91. posted by srjenkins at 12/30/2008 @ 6:21pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Actually, we now know that the so-called "kingdom of david" is a fraud, as is very nearly the whole of Israeli history:

    http://mondediplo.com/2008/09/07israel

    Posted by rykart at 12/30/2008 @ 9:34pm

92. Posted by rykart at 12/30/2008 @ 9:34pm

    I'd suggest citing a historian who specializes in Judaism, rather than Cinema and French Intellectual History.

    Here is the key piece from your link:

    "Nor is there any trace or memory of the magnificent kingdom of David and Solomon. Recent discoveries point to the existence, at the time, of two small kingdoms: Israel, the more powerful, and Judah, the future Judea. The general population of Judah did not go into 6th century BC exile: only its political and intellectual elite were forced to settle in Babylon. This decisive encounter with Persian religion gave birth to Jewish monotheism."

    If we assume that this author is right, we can only say that there were in fact a Kingdom of Israel and Judah, and there is no specific archeological evidence to prove it. Not a fraud really.

    You would also do well to read criticism of the work.

    http://mondediplo.com/2008/09/07israel

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/30/2008 @ 9:57pm

93. Israeli history: hahahahaha. they're jews, not Israelis. the hebrews, created the basis of the three major religions of the world. their cultural contributions are unsurpassed.

    not everyone who criticizes Israel is an anti semite, but you are one. verreck.

    Posted by emile duBois at 12/30/2008 @ 10:05pm

94. the Jews represented less than 13% of the population

    No, in '47 the jews were 35% of the population.

    Posted by emile duBois at 12/30/2008 @ 10:13pm

95. Meant to include this link:

    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/999386.html

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/30/2008 @ 11:05pm

96. Israeli history: hahahahaha. they're jews, not Israelis. the hebrews, created the basis of the three major religions of the world. their cultural contributions are unsurpassed

    No emile..I'm talking about Israeli history...specifically, the PHONY history they continue to use for political ends, particularly the phony story of their forced exile and outmigration from the so-called "holy land" which is now recognized as a hoax.

    What do the achievements of European Jews like Einstein and Primo Levi (both fierce critics of the Israeli schistosomes) have to do with the state of Israel? As another great Jew points out---not a damn thing.

    "The only place I have ever been where all the Jews are stupid is Israel. I spit on them! I spit on them!." ...philip roth

    Posted by rykart at 12/30/2008 @ 11:40pm

97. and for those curious for more insight into the more repellent aspects of Judaism and Israeli megalomania, retardation and acute psychosis, you can't beat the wonderful Israeli scholar Israel Shahak. His book is available in full here:

    http://www.radioislam.org/historia/shahak/english.htm

    ..with a marvelous introduction by Gore Vidal.

    Hmmm...great writers all seem to LOATHE Israel. Must be some link between eloquence and "anti-semitism."

    Look into it, will you emile?

    Posted by rykart at 12/31/2008 @ 12:09am

98. Posted by rykart at 12/30/2008 @ 11:40pm

    Except, it is not a hoax. Even your link acknowledges both kingdoms and the exile. On top of that, you cite a book by Israel Shahak that argues the Jews actually worship Satan, and you make bad arguments - hey, if all great writers believe something, I should too!

    Either you are brain damaged, or you think we are.

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/31/2008 @ 04:46am

99. if all the great writers jump in the lake, should I jump too? just absurd. this guy is a nutcase. an ignored nutcase.

    Posted by emile duBois at 12/31/2008 @ 09:31am

100. Dishonesty or impressively poor reading skills---which is it, srjenkins?

     The article states quite unambiguously that "Moses could not have led the Hebrews out of Egypt into the Promised Land, for the good reason that the latter was Egyptian territory at the time."

     And as to the 70AD hoax:

     "There has been no real research into this turning point in Jewish history, the cause of the diaspora. And for a simple reason: the Romans never exiled any nation from anywhere on the eastern seaboard of the Mediterranean. Apart from enslaved prisoners, the population of Judea continued to live on their lands, even after the destruction of the second temple. Some converted to Christianity in the 4th century, while the majority embraced Islam during the 7th century Arab conquest.

     Most Zionist thinkers were aware of this: Yitzhak Ben Zvi, later president of Israel, and David Ben Gurion, its first prime minister, accepted it as late as 1929, the year of the great Palestinian revolt. Both stated on several occasions that the peasants of Palestine were the descendants of the inhabitants of ancient Judea (2)."

     As to Shahak, Israelis try to sweep his direct translations of nauseating hallachic lunacy under the rug. They are helpless to contradict the evidence before them.

     Jews are wonderful people in spite of their religion, which is as poisonous and repellent as any you can find. The whole rabbinic class--their brainlessness, racism and profound hostility to learning, held the Jews back for centuries. That's quite obvious.

     Posted by rykart at 12/31/2008 @ 10:28am

101. Posted by rykart at 12/31/2008 @ 10:28am

     Your original claim: "...we now know that the so-called "kingdom of david" is a fraud."

     From the link you used to back it.

     "Nor is there any trace or memory of the magnificent kingdom of David and Solomon. Recent discoveries point to the existence, at the time, of two small kingdoms: Israel, the more powerful, and Judah, the future Judea."

     This is not claiming that there is a fraud. It seems to be suggesting that there is no archeological evidence for David or Soloman, and later on, that the monotheism Jewish religion is a by-product of the Babylonian captivity.

     The argument is a bit ambigious, but certainly the second claim is not indisputable.

     Your revised claim: "...particularly the phony story of their forced exile and outmigration from the so-called "holy land" which is now recognized as a hoax."

     From the link you used to back it.

     "The general population of Judah did not go into 6th century BC exile: only its political and intellectual elite were forced to settle in Babylon."

     The really amusing part is that you don't seem to understand that his argument that Jews learned monotheism from the Babylonians, requires an exile. He isn't arguing it was a "hoax".

     You also are trying to question the idea of a "holy land". Fair enough. However, if we acknowledge that there was a Jewish elite that gets exiled. How did they get to Judah and Israel? What were their beliefs prior to exile?

     Given the fact that dates for the Torah range anywhere from 10BCE to 2BCE, these are interesting questions. But, even people like William G. Dever in books like What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? escribes a core factual historical narrative from David onwards.

     Posted by srjenkins at 12/31/2008 @ 12:05pm

102. Posted by rykart at 12/31/2008 @ 10:28am

     "Dishonesty or impressively poor reading skills---which is it, srjenkins?"

     The problem is that the article you cite: doesn't say what you think it does, is written by someone who both doesn't have an expertise in this area and both you and the author of the editorial you cite have an agenda.

     And this problem is an obstactle to rational discourse and honesty about the weaknesses of your position. No matter how many times you say "hoax", "fraud", "obvious", "helpless to contradict the evidence" and so forth, it doesn't make it true. Further, the fact that you used emotion laden language as a crutch is a clear sign you are engaging in sophistry, rather than proof or rational discourse.

     Posted by srjenkins at 12/31/2008 @ 12:16pm

103. Posted by rykart at 12/31/2008 @ 10:28am

     One other thing:

     "Jews are wonderful people in spite of their religion, which is as poisonous and repellent as any you can find."

     Let's try that with other subjects.

     1. Christians are wonderful people in spite of their religion...

     2. Hindus are wonderful people in spite of their religion...

     3. Muslims are wonderful people in spite of their religion...

     Defining people by their religion then asserting that they are "wonderful" despite it, you basically are revealing either a contempt for Jews or for all religion - and are doing it in a way that tries to set it up so you can't be called on it.

     So which is it for you? Are you anti-semitic or are you anti-religion?

     My reading of your posts is that you are against all religion but have a particular disregard for Judaism. Are there any religions you like?

     Posted by srjenkins at 12/31/2008 @ 12:34pm

104. Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/31/2008 @ 1:18pm

     "It seems SRJ that when it comes to biblical research, you are very limiting in your research skills...Only the most severe of those in the "Higher Criticism" schools ever offer such late dates. And they do so by ignoring the weight of evidence to the contrary."

     My only concern for my post on 12:05pm was to give the full range of argument that is out there, to grant that the argument he is offering is within the range of discourse and to suggest where he might go if he wanted to present an effective argument, rather than making bold and baseless assertions like he has been doing.

     In terms of the larger discussion, I'm simply showing him the weaknesses of his argument. My concern here is not to argue, for or against. My concern is that we bring out implicit assumptions behind the various bold assertions that are being made - whether they are concerning whether Judaism is a fraud or that the modern state of Israel is only X percent of the area of the Palestine Mandate - and honestly discuss them.

     "In fact, critics like yourself have no contrary evidence to disprove the age of the written Jewish bible."

     I'm not actually a critic - beyond pointing out that there currently is no reliable dating of many of the books of the Bible.

     If I were to offer any observation of my own is that there definitely is a more mythological trend toward the beginning of the Bible that moves more toward history as you get toward the older books - which I take to be a codification of oral traditions.

     I also think that your dating is more along the lines of Biblical maximalists and relies on the text itself, divorced from the archeological evidence. That's fine, but it strikes me as a little weak.

     Posted by srjenkins at 12/31/2008 @ 2:13pm

105. I thought all "faith's" supposedly believed in loving one another, it's ludicrous how you can be such an ardent believer in one religion or another and yet see nothing wrong in killing people!! All these folks who go to Church,,Mosque, Synagogues etc are there to hear the word of God and practice his teachings supposedly and the minute they come out that seems to go out the window and sides are taken for "rightful killing" of innocent people. Makes no sense to me, glad I don't have to justify myself by going to church and being a hypocrite at the same time.

     Posted by Caj at 12/31/2008 @ 3:59pm

106. Defining people by their religion then asserting that they are "wonderful" despite it, you basically are revealing either a contempt for Jews or for all religion - and are doing it in a way that tries to set it up so you can't be called on it. ..srjenkins

     The analogy you make is critically flawed.

     First of all, an "atheist Christian" is a contradiction in terms, whereas an "atheist Jew" is an entirely commonplace individual and of course, all the best Jews are atheist.

     Zionists and pro-Israel louts want to tie Jews in perpetuity to the lunatic cosmology of Judaism, with its grim prohibitions on assimilation, overt contempt for non-Jews and all manner of other transparently racist precepts, (see Shahak for an in-depth review).

     We owe the Jewish enlightenment and all spectacular achievements of Jewish artists, scientists and intellectuals to a rejection of religious dogma and the stifling atmosphere of doctrinaire Judaism.

     Of course, this is part of the problem today--Jews are no longer united in adherence to a childish fairy tale, we are free. Nor are we bound by the hebrew language--most of us don't speak it. So the idea of a Jewish homeland to which we are all magically connected has been invented out of whole cloth, to try to super-glue the fragmented Jewish people back together again. And it has worked pretty well, at least for the easily-bamboozled Jews Philip Roth refers to. For the rest of us, Israel is at best, a matter of supreme irrelevance, more often, a stomach turning source of embarrassment.

     Posted by rykart at 12/31/2008 @ 4:20pm

107. Posted by Caj at 12/31/2008 @ 3:59pm

     But the funny thing, Caj, is that you are doing the secular equivalent. You see some people claiming to be religious engaging in hypocritical behaviors, and you extrapolate and argue that all religious people are hypocrites or that the fact that people have real failings invalidates their religious beliefs. That's wrong.

     Hating the "Other" and selfishness - whether the "Other" is religious people, other religious sects, immigrants, gays, indigenous people or yourself - lies at the heart of every type of violence ranging from war and murder to bigoted remarks. The only difference is in degree, and everyone comes out a miserable failure. But, we try our best given our abilities and limitations. But this doesn't mean everyone is a hypocrite because we all fall short of the mark.

     Posted by srjenkins at 12/31/2008 @ 4:29pm

108. Religion enshrines hatred of the other and elevates it to a cardinal virtue. Jews who murder non-Jews are performing a mitzvah.

     This is sickness.

     This is disease.

     Either hate-filled belief systems are to be exposed and condemned or they aren't. Why should religions like Judaism be exempt?

     Every fucking year I sat there listening to them prattle on about the "angel of death" passing over the houses of the Jews to strike the first born Arab child---cause for great celebration!

     How vile. How utterly repulsive.

     Posted by rykart at 12/31/2008 @ 4:41pm

109. Posted by rykart at 12/31/2008 @ 4:20pm

     Well, what we have here is a problem of semantics around Jewish identity. I am defining being a Jew as both a religious and cultural/ethnic identity. You are defining Jew as solely a cultural/ethnic identity. These positions give us different answers to questions such as, "Is it possible to have an atheist Jew?"

     But an inconsistency in your argument still remains, one of the people you cite argues that Jews prosletized their religion in order to explain a dispora. Yet, you turn around and make claims like, "...[Judaism's] grim prohibitions on assimilation, overt contempt for non-Jews and all manner of other transparently racist precepts..."

     Aggressively prosyletized religions cannot, by definition, have the qualities you assert. So, you are left having to explain why you differ from your cited source and why.

     It seems to me that your real issue is with Zionism. I think there are many good criticisms of Zionism. But then again, there are positives too.

     I also think you are pigeon-holing Jews into one group, when I think there are good arguments that there are significant differences between the beliefs of different groups such as Orthodox and Reform Jews.

     Since you also are implying that you are Jewish, by using the "we" pronoun, you may have other personal considerations influencing your argument. I don't want to engage in any amateur psychology, but I did want to point out it may be an influence.

     Posted by srjenkins at 12/31/2008 @ 4:49pm

110. Posted by rykart at 12/31/2008 @ 4:41pm

     There were ten plagues, were their not? And they were as a result of Pharoah's refusal to free Israel from slavery? And the Angel of Death was the one that finally changed Pharaoh's mind?

     Plenty of the Bible has reprehensible material, Lot's willingness to give his daughters to the mob comes to mind, but it is in grappling with these questions that we grow spiritually. Job, for example, is the quintessential book of questioning God.

     Oh, btw, Egyptians typically don't self-identify as Arab, and they were definitely distinct during the time of the Pharaohs.

     Posted by srjenkins at 12/31/2008 @ 5:02pm

111. God Bless John McCain, despite the loss, hee seems to be the only real man left in America. Obama certainly isn't one.

     Posted by Paradelady at 12/30/2008 @ 12:29

     Excuse me....PE Obama has more class in his little finger than McCain has in his whole body. McCain was rude and disrespectful in the debates and showed very little respect in the campaign...with his rabble rousing side kick Palin. PE Obama never once was disrespectful toward McCain and even gave him praise on several occasions....so I don't want to hear about McCain being the only "real man" left!!! PE Obama has class and that is the mark of a real man.

     Posted by Caj at 01/01/2009 @ 09:05am

112. hi sr

     I don't think there's necessarily a contradiction in pointing to the blatant anti-assimilationist strains one finds in Judaism (and in fact, the anti-assimilationism was so severe among european zionists that many of them made common cause with the Nazis) and Sand's contention that at least in earlier times, Judaism was a proselytizing religion.

     Certainly, denying the legitimacy of atheist Jews would deprive Jewish culture of so many of its guiding lights---in literature, physics, music, you name it. As to the unpleasantries you point to in the Bible, no argument there. I've always found the story of Isaac and Abraham one of the supreme perversions of the human mind.

     This is all getting a bit heady. Any thoughts on Israel's latest barbarities? Lipsi's assertion today that there's no humanitarian crisis in gaza---let the bombing continue?

     Posted by rykart at 01/01/2009 @ 9:53pm

113. as for lvliberty...he must have missed the memo.

     Citing Massada2000 grants one instant induction into the lunatic hall of fame.

     Posted by rykart at 01/01/2009 @ 9:55pm

114. Posted by rykart at 01/01/2009 @ 9:53pm

     "I don't think there's necessarily a contradiction..."

     Agreed. I guess you could say that by making this argument I am doing what I accused you of, which is to treat Judaism as a whole rather than a tradition comprised of different strains.

     Perhaps the better question is to ask which strain predominates? The fact being Jewish means remaining culturally distinct, suggest evidence for you. But, by the same token, a major part of the reason Jews have maintained this culture is due to their observance of their religion - which creates problems for your sub-argument of atheist Jews and religion being seperate from Jewishness.

     "...denying the legitimacy of atheist Jews would deprive Jewish culture of so many of its guiding lights..."

     Perhaps you are right. I would maintain that identifying as a Jew, even if you reject Judaism, is still making a religious statement. One of the great qualities of Judaism is the idea that human beings are right to question God and make up their own minds, and this includes rejecting God. But that relationship with God - even a dysfunctional one - is implicit in defining oneself as a Jew.

     "...I've always found the story of Isaac and Abraham one of the supreme perversions of the human mind."

     I think it is an explicit rejection of child sacrifice that apparantly was common in the area where Abraham lived. I also think it is a story about faith, putting God first and how if we do both of these things, we will not be led into evil.

     Jesus makes similar points many times in his sermons: "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also; "No one can serve two masters"; "whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me".

     Posted by srjenkins at 01/02/2009 @ 10:12am

115. Posted by rykart at 01/01/2009 @ 9:53pm

     "Any thoughts on Israel's latest barbarities? Lipsi's assertion today that there's no humanitarian crisis in gaza---let the bombing continue?"

     It's reprehensible, as all state violence is reprehensible. The question I have for you is, given the fact you readily accept the concept of an atheist Jew, can you accept a Jewish state that doesn't represent Judaism?

     "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others." Matthew 23:23

     I also think the story of Abraham and Lot is useful in Genesis Chapter 13. Abraham let's Lot pick, and he picks the fertile plain, the place closer to the evil of Sodom. History is repeating itself in the modern state of Israel who want to take the best part - and willing to commit evil to keep it.

     Posted by srjenkins at 01/02/2009 @ 10:38am

116. I also think the story of Abraham and Lot is useful in Genesis Chapter 13. Abraham let's Lot pick, and he picks the fertile plain, the place closer to the evil of Sodom. History is repeating itself in the modern state of Israel who want to take the best part - and willing to commit evil to keep it.

     Posted by srjenkins at 01/02/2009 @ 10:38am

     The best part is not the land but the sort of society either side has produced. Surely that is where a judgment about the better part should and must be made.

     The tragedy is that Hamas, and apparently other Arab states, are just as passionate about martyrdom as killing Israeli Jews. Israel then is an important psychological cog in that chain of self-destruction. One despairs of the Palestinians ever achieving a state of their own. That is not because of Israel's occupation of their land but simply because their leaders have no concept of what is required to built a modern viable state.

     The tragedy is that other states like Egypt and Jordan (who also didn't want the "Palestinians" in Jordan and killed tens of thousands of them in expelling them. re Black September 1970) who have peace accords with Israel, are along with Lebanon and Syria all in danger of becoming failed states for much the same reason as obtains with the Palestinians.

     Hatred and blame, fanned by its media with the approval of its leaders, directed toward Israel is no more than a cover for the inability of Arab states to prosper and build strong societies able to survive in the modern world. And we Westerners do Palestinians no favors if we help them perpetuate those grievances against Israel, which cover a deeper and more fundamental malaise.

     If Israel were not there another would need to be invented to justify its culture of martyrdom and self hatred.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 01/02/2009 @ 3:59pm

117. Posted by lrjones4 at 01/02/2009 @ 3:59pm

     I would agree that Palestinians contribute to the problem. But to argue that people are passionate about martyrdom - I don't buy it. Most people chose martydom because it is preferable to the life they lead.

     "That is not because of Israel's occupation of their land but simply because their leaders have no concept of what is required to built a modern viable state."

     It is hard to build a viable state when that state is surrounded by another state's military, another state's settler's who encrouch on land, and so forth. Feel free to point to any society in history that has been viable under the conditions Palestine operates in. There isn't any.

     We also have to recognize that Israel has more culpability because it has the upper hand - greater resources combined with a unwillingness to share or work out any kind of deal that would make peace possible. And, a successful deal would need to include various neighbors including Syria.

     But, the situation continues as is because Israel has no compelling reason to agree to peace. And from a Palestinian perspective, martydom is one avenue they hope will provide a compelling reason.

     It's wrong, but then again, the conditions the Palestinians live under are wrong too.

     Posted by srjenkins at 01/02/2009 @ 5:24pm

118. Is it possible to have an atheist Jew?"

     of course. most of the early Zionists were secular jews. as were many of the german jews who were murdered in the camps.

     Posted by emile duBois at 01/02/2009 @ 6:57pm

119. Posted by srjenkins at 01/02/2009 @ 5:24pm

     I have quite a few Iraqi Arab friends, some of whom were former workmates, who are now Australian citizens and they are tremendous contributors in everyway to our society. My gripe is with the Palestinian leadership and the wasted, lost sixty years of getting their people progressively deeper into the shit.

     Firstly martyrdom is not just a death to escape a terrible world but it is giving up one's life for a cause that in the martyr's estimation transcends all other considerations. It is thus invariably done in a religious or transcendent context, whether it is dying alone in a Roman circus for refusing to deny one's Lord or taking others to an untimely death in an act of bloody murder. Thus your suggestion that it is done to impress Israelis, that they are serious, is probably not even remotely in their thinking.

     Looking at the current Palestinian experience there seems to be lots of evidence pointing to al Fatah's vast corruption and incompetence as the chief reason it was rejected in favour of Hamas in the last election. I suggest that that was an out of the frying pan into the fire choice.

     Palestinians must have known of Hamas's ideological stance against Israel and its embrace of martyrdom when they chose to vote for it and at some level been susceptible to both things. That in turn should have alerted them to the sort of thing that has come upon them in these last few days with a terrible vengeance. If it is true that Hamas purposely locates it weapons and rocketry, which can only be for use against Israel, in civilian living areas, then not only Hamas but also the civilians, who allow those weapons to be placed there, are responsible along with Hamas for the outcomes. That makes every such citizen a "soldier".

     Posted by lrjones4 at 01/02/2009 @ 9:52pm

120. Posted by lrjones4 at 01/02/2009 @ 9:52pm

     I don't think you are anti-arab or anti-muslim. I agree that the word martyr has religious connotations, which is why it would be better to use suicide bomber or another word that doesn't have them.

     I think the main problem with your argument is the religious connotations. Palestinians are predominately Muslim. So, if it is solely or even primarily a issue of religious fanaticism, then we would expect to see similiar levels of martyrdom across the Islamic world. But, the fact is, you don't. Whether you look at Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Turkey, you don't see people trying to be martyrs in those places at the same rates.

     Even if you look at a country that has the same proportion of Muslims in the general population as Israel - such as India, you don't find martyrdom much of an attraction.

     So what is different? I think the obvious answer to this is the level of oppression and the socio-economic conditions are unique in Palestine, and you basically have an insurgency. Insurgencies everywhere use suicide bombers because it is an effective tactic. Whether there is a veneer of Islam, communism or whatever to justify this tactic, we shouldn't pretend that it is solely people's beliefs that are driving them there.

     I have no doubt that corruption is part of why Hamas is in power. But the rest of your argument is simply bad. To argue that because some people allow weapons to be stored in their house, all citzen's are soldiers is especially bad. I also think that you are quite free with letting Israeli settlers, Israeli police/military and so forth off the hook - when they are part of the reason Palestinians are motivated to get weapons to protect themselves. Both parties are part of the problem - and Israel more so.

     Posted by srjenkins at 01/03/2009 @ 09:05am

121. Both parties are part of the problem - and Israel more so.

     Posted by srjenkins at 01/03/2009 @ 09:05am

     The bottom line is that Israel has been able to produce a successful modern state and the Palestinians have not. That is the "why" that needs to be addressed.

     Your argument about religious fanaticism seems to be based on the premise that if Arabs and Muslims are relatively happy they will not engage in martyrdom.

     That was not my premise but rather that the extremist groups like Hamas and al Qaeda and the *Muslim Brotherhood promote it to gain not merely political but religio/political ends. And that message does demonstrably have some resonance in Arab and to a lesser degree Muslim lands like Indonesia. The indications are that the broader Muslim community rejects that strain of Muslim religious extremism.

     The fact that Hamas to this day actively promotes child martyrdom through its educational arm, which are in fact very cruel and cynical indoctrination programs, should make any civilised person reject any claims it has to sympathy or support. Who on earth with any moral conscience would want to see a state that was led by such moral monsters brought into existence? You may have noted that in contrast Israel has closed the schools where the rockets may score hits. That is why on this and other issues Israel and Hamas are a million moral miles apart.

     (you can google this stuff from all sorts of sources including Hamas).

     *The Muslim Brotherhood's ideology, which insists that Islam is a prescription for governance as well as religion, is the prototypical example of Islamism. Their slogan is self-explanatory: "God is our purpose, the Prophet our leader, the Qur'an our constitution, Jihad our way and dying for God's cause our supreme objective".

     Posted by lrjones4 at 01/03/2009 @ 5:29pm

122. You kick sand in the face of the beach bully and you can expect the consequences. I believe these war mongers are all cut from the same cloth. They are beastly--they are beasts.

     I cannot pick sides in these horrid abominable choices without any positive outcomes.

     They are fools and a virus infecting humanity by increasing terrorism globally. They are a cancer upon our earth. They use money to kill, they praise their god and kill, they pray success and kill. They are the antithesis of all that is Godly and of the Divine. They are a scourge to children, education, women, gardens, romance, and all things lovely. And they are the same, same, SAME I say, the same.

     The Palestinians claim oppression while they oppress by launching missiles into innocence.

     The Israelis claim self defense while they offensively and indiscriminately drop bombs into innocence.

     They are the SAME, they are their enemy--an oppressive cancer to the world.

     Posted by PrairieDeb at 01/03/2009 @ 6:49pm

123. Seriously, it seems like we are simply an enabler for their v.i.o.l.e.n.c.e. We are supporting the neighborhood bully. I know, I know all you zionists out there--Hammas this, Hammas that. But the press is not telling the whole story.

     They have been choking the people of the Gaza Strip by not allowing food, medicine, supplies etc... get through. Hammas has been taunted and they feel desparate.

     I still think that their approach is wrong, but I believe there is enough culpability to go around.

     They're made from the same cloth. And I mean that both figuatively and literally.

     They are brothers who hate eachother. How can we cure that?

     Posted by PrairieDeb at 01/03/2009 @ 6:53pm

124. This is going to be the longest 16 days of my life.

     This complacent administration is sowing the seeds of terrorism as we speak.

     You cannot choke off a people from all access to supplies and not create a desparate situation. This was the plan in my view. They wanted an excuse to attack. They are an aggressor nation and I guess at this point I would like to know--

     What do you folks get out of having the whole Arab. world hate you? Do you really think you are going to get peace when you run around shooting up your neighbors? When will you ever learn that those who live by the sword die by the sword? Or what about Karma? Do you not believe it that? If I ran around attacking my neighbors, would I have peace?

     I just don't get your objective. You seem to be self-imploding if you ask me. Where would you be without this incompetent administration backing you?

     Are you trying to ruin America?

     Do you want more attacks against us?

     Do you realize that you are your enemy; the same; brothers?

     This is the longest 16 days of my life.

     Posted by PrairieDeb at 01/03/2009 @ 6:59pm

125. Posted by srjenkins at 01/03/2009 @ 09:05am

     SR,

     In the past I haven't really been a pen-wielding warrior on either side, though my natural sympathy for Israel was probably shaped by the Judeo/Christian influences to which we in the West have been exposed. A bit like which sports team one supports.

     As a point of interest I noticed today that our Left-Wing deputy PM, Julia Gillard, was being harangued for calling on Hamas to stop its provocation. She has drawn the ire of our Muslim community by refusing to condemn Israel. Her attitude was not to be expected and probably, I thought, could be traced back to the influences that formed my bias.

     I've been doing a bit of googling to get a better handle on the issues and I came across the way Hamas indoctrinates its children to be jihadists. I found that abhorrent and without any justification, land issues included. Now I know the world can be a pretty rotten place and I don't want to become obsessive but that's the pits. It helps me to know where Gillard and perhaps Obama will also be coming from, so until someone can give that an acceptable face or show where my understanding is wrong my natural bias is being confirmed by the realities. What is your slant on that aspect of martyrdom and the acceptability of that sort of Palestinian leadership in the modern world?

     Posted by lrjones4 at 01/03/2009 @ 8:37pm

126. Israel need to get out of Gaza and take their tanks and planes with them....they are barbarians...we just sit and watch this mess continue and all Bush can do is condemn Hamas. Where is the condemnation for Israel here... we are so weak and totally loyal to Israel we condone their every move...it is disgusting!!!

     Posted by Caj at 01/03/2009 @ 11:33pm

127. lrjones4,

     There are those of us who, though disturbed by the American enabling of Israel, fully understand the crimes and indoctrination of youth by Hammas. But Israel makes it quite easy to indoctrinate terrorists by THEIR brutality. They are both culpable, both sides have made horrid choices. I cannot see this as a good guy, bad guy situation. They are both made from the same cloth.

     I am no scholar on Middle Eastern history, but it seems to me that Israel is taking advantage of the fact that America has a weakened President, unable to put forth courageous and firm diplomatic measures, due to this administration's lack of credibility.

     Israel's response is disporportional and breeds the hatred that feeds the beasts.

     Posted by PrairieDeb at 01/04/2009 @ 05:02am

128. I am no scholar on Middle Eastern history, but it seems to me that Israel is taking advantage of the fact that America has a weakened President, unable to put forth courageous and firm diplomatic measures, due to this administration's lack of credibility.

     Israel's response is disporportional and breeds the hatred that feeds the beasts.

     Posted by PrairieDeb at 01/04/2009 @ 05:02am

     It's just after 11.30pm Sunday in Melbourne so I'm not an early riser. I don't think it really has much to do with Bush per se, as these sorts of operations have taken place under different presidents, nor has it much to do with the so-called Jewish lobby in the States as the response around the world from most Western Leaders is similar to Bush's or at least in pointing up the aggression of the Hamas faction of Palestinians in the Gaza. I would be very surprised if Obama does not take a similar stance to the present administration. I also don't think they are all blindly following the dictates of some mythical Jewish lobby but are men and women with pretty finely tuned consciences and their muted responses reflect that.

     The proportionality angle appears to have some merit until one recognizes that if the present intrusion, into Israel, of primitive rocketry is allowed to continue and the infrastructure, including the supply routes and tunnels, are not dismantled it wont be long before far more potent weapons systems, that could devastate Israel, will be introduced.

     These sorts of operations may be necessary from time to time to ensure that never happens. Unless of course the Palestinian leadership gets serious about building a modern, co-operative and viable state.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 01/04/2009 @ 07:39am

129. Posted by lrjones4 at 01/03/2009 @ 8:37pm

     You're asking a loaded question. Morally, I think the answer to whether or not it is appropriate to use children as combatants is obvious.

     But let's put this into context. From Al Jazeera interview with a Hamas expert:

     "What Israel wants from the Gaza Strip is basically a clean and quiet occupation like they achieved in the West Bank...In the West Bank there are no rockets launched against Israel and yet we have Palestinians killed, arrested, their homes demolished on a daily and weekly basis. We have this thing happening in the West Bank but not complaining, no moaning. Hamas is doing this complaining, doing this resistance."

     Now, the question for you is if you were in a similar situation - surrounded by what you considered an occupation, your friends relatives were regularly detained and arrested, your home and your friend's homes and olive trees bulldozed, important members of your community assassinated by said occupation, cutting of electricity and so forth. Which path would you choose? West Bank's or Gaza? And if Gaza, how would you get the necessary boots without turning to your children?

     That's the real question here, are Palestinians supposed to just lay down and take whatever Israel can dish out, in your view? Explain why, if so. If not, then how do they do it without turning to children? And by turning to children, isn't Israel culpable in creating the conditions where a rational, moral person would choose to sacrifice their children in this way?

     It's disgusting all the way around. But we know who has the power here, Israel. They don't have to turn to their children - but compelling others to do so because they don't need to make peace doesn't strike me as a morally superior position.

     Posted by srjenkins at 01/04/2009 @ 11:04am

130. here, Israel. They don't have to turn to their children - but compelling others to do so because they don't need to make peace doesn't strike me as a morally superior position.

     Posted by srjenkins at 01/04/2009 @ 11:04am

     I'm assuming that you are trying to be the devil's advocate but the position you espouse on their behalf is reprehensible. That touches at the very basis of all that is morally vital to our Western and I'm sure almost every other culture. Why their children and not themselves? Why on earth would anyone put a lousy bit of land above the welfare of their own children? Where are their values? What gives their religious/political leaders the right to demand that of parents and children all in the name of winning favour with God and a better life in the world to come ? If that is their focus why on earth be worried about something as temporal as land and be willing to sacrifice, in death, precious young lives for a miserable piece of it? Their child's life or death on one side of the balance, a bit of land on the other.

     I cannot comprehend the enormity of that sort of moral degradation. That self hatred cuts across all our normal responses. It really gets back to what a martyrdom focused religion does to the basic morality and intellectual responses of its devotees and that is where we began.

     That, when all is said and done, is the calculus. And that is what prompts the question, why on earth should we encourage such a people, with those values, to form a state?

     Maybe that is why the rest of the world including all the Arab states are holding back from really helping the Palestinians, under that sort of leadership achieve statehood or in the case of the Arab nations offering to resettle what is a numerically insignificant group.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 01/04/2009 @ 1:51pm

131. Posted by lrjones4 at 01/04/2009 @ 1:51pm

     There are many parts of the world where life is cheap. Children are sold into slavery, work in sweat shops, and live on the streets begging for pennies - and you want to talk about how precious children are? It's a nice idea, but it's not reality.

     It also fails to recognize that in many parts of the world, people are tied to the land in ways that we in the West are no longer - land is more important than anything else.

     Example: If land isn't important, then why was Israel created at all?

     And the interesting thing is you aren't asking those questions. You are applying one standard to the Palestinians and another for Israel - and ignoring the fact that many actions of the Palestinians are a direct reaction to the superior economic, military and other powers of the Israeli state.

     You also seem to have some ideas about Islam being some kind of evil religion. The bottom line is that many people use religion for evil purposes, but we should be careful about looking at the acts of people claiming a label - whether Christian, Muslim or whatever - and confusing that with the religion itself.

     Christ, for example, talks about false teachers, knowing a tree by its fruit, and how there will be people crying Lord Lord that he will claim to never know before the father. Religion is a magnet for hypocrites - and learning to seperate the two is one of the first important steps in spiritual development.

     I agree that Palestine is doing things morally repugnant. But we have to deal with the reality, and the reality is that Israel has no motivation for peace, is oppressing the Palestinians, and is part of the problem. To pretend that Israel is just defending itself from evil Muslim terrorists is also part of the problem.

     Posted by srjenkins at 01/04/2009 @ 11:06pm