Palin Reverses Press Ban | This shouldn't even be news, but yes, vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin has announced she will actually take questions from the press.
Ari Melber
Not-Ready-for-Prime-Time Palin | GOP puts its candidate in a political witness protection program.
John Nichols
What McCain Needs to Tell Us About Sarah Palin | Interviewing the VP choice is important, but the real questions can only be answered by McCain.
John Nichols
McCain and The Forrestal | Back in '67, McCain did recognize the horror of war. But he chose horror.
Robert Dreyfuss
Inside Palin's Politics | A debate with Republican strategist Barbara Comstock over what McCain's running mate represents and where she would lead the country.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Community Organizers Fight Back | These people are not particularly practiced in taking things lying down.
Christopher Hayes
Power Vote | New effort to build a green youth voter bloc of one million is growing.
Peter Rothberg
Sarah Palin, Wrong Woman for the Job | Seriously, people! Life is not a Lifetime movie.
Katha Pollitt
This "summit" is all about show, nothing more. Talk about too-little, too-late," well this is an epitome.
Nothing will be obtained from this discourse. Gaza will continue to be isolated. Lebanon will not get any war damage reparations or apologies from Israel, whose massive bombing campaign last year was way overboard. We forget about the five year old girl dead in a field. There was no reason to wage this bombing campaign. Hezbollah is now stronger than ever inside Lebanon.
The parameters of this so-called pseudo-conference will not include any genuine reference to opposing viewpoints, but are merely another photo-op for Ms Rice to flash her ingenuous smile.
Israel needs to get stronger by becoming a good neighbor and allowing the Palestinians to follow their democratically elected choices without penalizing them for doing so.
Posted by Jim Willingham at 11/27/2007
The summit is a ridiculous talk-fest, purely for show. The Palestinians have no desire for peace as long as Israel exists and those "ape and pig", "cannibal" Jews are either killed or driven out of the Middle East. The two-state solution that the U.S. and Israel are looking for is completely unacceptable to Palestinians. They will accept nothing short of Palestine 1, Israel 0.
The discussions will be counterproductive, like all peace talks with the Palestinians. When moderate, rational Palestinians move closer to paths that would lead to peace, Hamas and other terrorist groups ratchet up the violence to ensure that no peace is possible.
Posted by tshawytscha at 11/27/2007
"The summit is a ridiculous talk-fest, purely for show. Likud have no desire for peace as long as a possible Palestine exists and those "ape and pig", "cannibal" Arabs are either killed or driven out of Eretz Israel. The two-state solution that the U.S., perhaps, and most Palestinians are looking for is completely unacceptable to Likud. They will accept nothing short of Palestine 0, Israel 1+.
"The discussions will be counterproductive, like all peace talks with the Likud. When moderate, rational Israelis move closer to paths that would lead to peace, Likud and and the non-military-serving Orthodox land grabbers will ratchet up the violence to ensure that no peace is possible."
Posted by sloper at 11/27/2007
I ACTUALLY VOTED FOR OPTION #1, "YES"...
More out of sheer hope than anything else. Who knows? The Bush administration might actually have a few positive surprises in store for 2008 (including, no doubt, the usual "October surprise"). But if this conference is anything like the "Road Map" business of a few years ago, the Bush/Cheney administration will make a lot of media hoopla out of Anapolis (the "photo ops" choice), and then everybody will go back to (nasty) business as usual....
Posted by w_m_bear at 11/27/2007
There can be no peace because the haters on both sides do not really want a two state solution. Hamas, and its sponsor Iran, want Israel gone, and the radical right wing Israelis will never accept a compromise that is acceptable to the Palestinians.
These are not solvable problems. The U.S. government and the American people do not know what they are dealing with here. They're talking only to the reasonable people, while the radicals and terrorists are simply waiting to see how far it goes before they destroy whatever accord or whatever appearance of an accord is arrived at. Then Hamas will start tossing missiles or sending suicide bombers to Israel and Israeli nut cases will assassinate any leader who they feel is giving away "sacred" land.
Posted by bean22 at 11/27/2007
SLOPER, Even the right-wing government formerly in charge of Israeli policy bent over backwards to work out a two-state agreement, including extremely generous land-for-peace deals. It is not the Israelis who wrote into their founding documents the destruction of Arabs. Hamas, which is vying for control of "Palestine", is absolutely and officially dedicated to the destruction of Israel.
It is not the Israelis who dress people up in Mickey Mouse costumes to appear on TV shows to encourage kids to learn how to blow themselves up in order to kill innocent people in pizza parlors and buses.
It is not the Hebrew Bible that calls Arabs or Muslims or anyone else "apes and pigs" and calls for the killing of non-believers (but the Koran does).
It is not the Israelis who make homosexuality a crime and viciously and maliciously abuse, imprison, and even kill offenders.
Palestinians--whether Muslim or Christian, hetersexual or homosexual, male or female--have way more rights, freedom, and opportunity in Israel than in Palestinian territories or in Jordan or Egypt or anywhere else in the Middle East.
Posted by tshawytscha at 11/27/2007
BEAN22, Hamas is very clear that they will not accept ANY compromise short of the elimination of Israel. It is not just "right-wing" Israelis who would not accept such an uncompromising compromise, it is moderate Israelis, left-wing Israelis, Arab-Israelis, Israeli Christians, Israeli Muslims...and can you blame them?
Hamas: "We want you dead and that is our final offer." Israel: "I'm sorry, we just can't accept that." BEAN22: "Those hateful right-wing Israelis won't accept any compromise that Hamas is willing to accept."
Posted by tshawytscha at 11/27/2007
The solution is simple. Israel has to pull back to the pre-1967 borders. Jerusalem cannot belong to the Jewish people, the Muslims, or to the Christians. It should be controlled by an international group and it has to be completely demilitarized so that ALL people who so choose can freely visit to worship. The West Bank and Gaza must be completely given back to the Palestinian people with no intrusions from the Israelis unless welcomed by the Palestinian government. The Palestinians displaced from Israel must give up all rights and demands to Israeli land and to any further reparations. Then the nukes must be completely removed from Israel. Finally, the entire Western world must completely back Israel and be ready to protect it from any threat to its peaceful existence. They must be willing to do this without wavering and at any cost. If we really want to get creative, we can set up the two new states as independent under a loose 'federal' government with Jerusalem being the equivalent of Washington D.C. A federal constitution and bill of rights would protect the rights of all citizens of both states. The new federal government could be internationally controlled and financed until such time as the new country is completely prosperous.
Posted by D1od1o at 11/27/2007
D10D10, the only problem with such "simple" solutions is that the Palestinians are firmly dedicated to the proposition that Israel has no right to exist and the ONLY solution is that Israel must be eliminated entirely.
Posted by tshawytscha at 11/27/2007
Not while this President is in office.
Posted by rickgriffin at 11/27/2007
"Peace" has never been possible through a process in which the arbiter agrees that one side is the exceptional and chosen people of God with a Holy Land Deed from Heaven.
Posted by blueCedars at 11/28/2007
I find it deeply ironic and bizarre that the American left seems to side with the most extreme right-wing, racist, sexist, homophobic, authoritarian, anti-democratic, illiberal facists that the world has known for perhaps centuries. The ideology of hatred and genocide that Hamas (and others) preach in Palestinian territories (and elsewhere in the Middle East) is at least as extreme as what Hitler spewed. And what's so attractive about that to the modern left? All I can think of is that it opposes America and George Bush opposes it. "All cultures are equal, except that Amerika sucks."
Posted by tshawytscha at 11/28/2007
I find it deeply ironic and bizarre that the American left seems to side with the most extreme right-wing, racist, sexist, homophobic, authoritarian, anti-democratic, illiberal facists that the world has known for perhaps centuries."
I find it deeply ironic that a right-wing Bush lovin troll like TSHAWYTSCHA would bother to post here. We already have Hitchens and Berman, and they already suck up enought bandwidth to be forced to listen to you. Why don't you go hang out with Weekly Standard or New York Sun readers and free us from having to listen your garbage.
Posted by detroitcgj at 11/28/2007
DETROITCGJ: Two questions: Do side with Islamo-Nazi ideology of Hamas/Wasabi/al Qaeda against liberal democracy (e.g. U.S., Isreal)? Were you in the streets celebrating like the Palestinian masses were after 9/11? Or celebrating privately in your mind? Or mourning the slaughter of thousands of innocent civilians? These are just questions. You can answer multiple choice to the first one: A. Yes, Islamo-Nazism is better than liberal democracy; B. No, it's just that sometimes my emotions get the best of me and I irrationally lash out at true liberal Americans (like tshawatscha) because of my seething hatred of Republicans; C. I disagree with the premise of your question. Radical Islam is not illiberal, and the U.S. and Israel are fascist police states; D. I disagree with the premise of your question. I don't side with anyone because all are equally bad. E. Other (please explain).
Posted by tshawytscha at 11/28/2007
TSHAWYTSCHA: One question: the Wasabis- are they the radical Japanese horseradish sect of Sunni Islam? Or are those the Wahhabis I'm thinking of?
Posted by gazaa at 11/28/2007
Ahhh, ya' gotta' love the radical horse radish! That's one of the classic typos that the spell checker wouldn't catch.
Thanks for the correction, gazaa.
Posted by tshawytscha at 11/28/2007
TSHAWYTSCHA-Your about as liberal as Irving Kristol who thinks we should nuke Iran in the name of liberal democracy and fighting the good fight against "Islamo-Fascism." He hates Palestinians as much as you do too. Palestine actually had democratic elections which Hamas has honored. Your freedom fighting buddies in Pakistan and Egypt wouldn't dream of holding elections. You clearly would feel more comfortable hanging around readers of Commentary or Policy Review so why don't you go bother them and leave the clear headed left alone.
Posted by detroitcgj at 11/28/2007
DETROITCGJ, you are completely dodging my questions, which is fine, but it gives the Irving Kristols of the world license to speculate on what your answers would be.
I never hear any straight answers from the left about why they apparently show such strong support for "Islamofacism" and groups that espouse it.
Also, I'm curious. On 9/11 did you have a tinge of pleasure that the capitalists in the WTC towers got torched and that the big, nasty U.S. took such a big hit? Any sense of satisfaction that NY city in some sense "deserved" it? I raised this question earlier, and you gave it a pass. Do you feel uncomfortable addressing it?
By "liberal", I mean I strongly support freedom of speech, press, and religion. I believe in equal rights regardless of gender, race, or religion. I think it is none of the government's business what mine or anyone else's sexual preference is. Etc. These ideas are anathema to most Palestinians, but the leaders go a step further and harbor incredibly intense religious intolerance and racism that borders on the genocidal. Do you think they really don't mean what they say? Or do you support some part of the Hamas political platform?
Sincerely,
Tshawytscha A curious liberal
Posted by tshawytscha at 11/28/2007
Tshawytscha, The Islamisation of the Palestinian cause and the regions lurch towards 19th century style tribalism came about in the last decades in response to the Judeo/ChristoFacism (You see, we can all play word games!) that has been expanding the military colony of Israel. To say you oppose Palestinian human-hood because of Islam is specious given your opposition to (I'm taking a wild stab here) Yasser Arafat and the Secular PLO. Also, opposing an indigenous peoples mores is not cause to kill them and steal their land. Now, if you have a Magic Book in which God says your real estate claims are divine, well, all I can say is " 'scuse me Buwanna, where shall I carry your bags and when do you want me to clean you toilet?"
Posted by blueCedars at 11/28/2007
Thank-you for the beginnings of an answer, BlueCedars. I think you are right that there has been an increasing Islamization in Palestine since the 1970s. But that trend has been world-wide and can't credibly be linked to Israeli settlements in the West Bank (if it can, the Islamization problem is far scarier than Irving Kristol et al. imagine). And now back to my question: Which part of the radicalization of Islam and Hamasification of Palestine do you (or anyone on the left) support?
And please don't stray off into pretended omniscience and mind-reading abilities, like "...you oppose Palestinian human-hood" or assuming that because I ask whether it makes more sense to support liberal democracy or far-right extremist regimes (like Hamas) I must therefore think Iran should be nuked, believe that Israel can rightfully stake a claim on land because of some Bible passages, that I'm Bush-loving, etc.
I just have a question or two that I'm hoping someone on the left will tackle head on, soberly, honestly and with insight.
Why does the left in the U.S. always seem so sympathetic to Islamo-facism? Is there something attractive in it? Or is it simply knee-jerk opposition to or hatred of the U.S. and/or Israel? It really does sound like a shared anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism most of the time. Is it? Or is it that the virulent anti-Semitism in contemporary Arab culture is just ignored or denied? If you actually listen to what Palestinian leaders and media say and watch what they do, you begin to understand the racism and hatred have an intensity beyond that of Nazi Germany's. Or do you not believe it?
Posted by tshawytscha at 11/28/2007
We have to stop demonizing the Palestinians. Anybody with 'power' and a well funded military can demonize anybody they want. That isn't the point. The point is that Israel can not sustain the current treatment of the Palestinian population. I agree that the Palestinians and most muslims, are still living in the Middle Ages as far as human rights are concerned. That, once again, is not the point. Basically, for the current U.S./Israeli policy to succeed, they would have to kill every single Palestinian. Otherwise, they will always be a 'threat'. If Israel is prepared to do this, then congratulations. You've solved your problem. The 'holy land' is yours. Enjoy it and burn in hell. If Israel isn't prepared to do this, which I assume they are not, then they must seriously compromise. The compromise is what I described in my earlier post. The compromise isn't to build walls and it isn't bulldozing homes and squeezing the Palestinians into smaller and smaller zones and preventing these people from dreaming of a better life for their children. One glance of history will tell you that situations are never static. The US might someday get bored with Israel and stop the $3 billion yearly subsidy. The Palestinians might invent some better terror method. For Israel's permanent security, they must give the Palestinians a chance for a reality that they can be proud of. They have to be given something that is of enough value that they do not dare risk losing it with violence. That is the turning point when long term wars really end, unless you're prepared to kill them all. I hope Israel makes the right choice for all our sakes.
Posted by D1od1o at 11/28/2007
All this is is a desperate man trying to build himself a legacy. At least the idiot's father can have pride in himself for kicking Saddam out of Kuwait. This is such a blatant attempt of legacy building it is pathetic. I would like to say that there is finally an administration that can see the Israeli and Palestinian side of the problem but this is worse than Britney Spears' publicist saying she is a good mother. What a public relations fiasco. This president will go down as the worst ever.
Posted by calbon at 11/28/2007
Posted by calbon at 11/28/2007
TSHAWYTSCHA: Although I hardly speak for the apparently monolithic hive mind that is the left, I will offer my two cents answer to the question that has been plaguing you for all these posts.
Any purported sympathy the left has for the Islamo-Nazis/Islamunistofascists/whatever the latest popular conglomeration of scary things is/ and those anti-Semitic Arabs (who are themselves Semitic peoples, if we're going to cling to ancient tribes and imagined communities) arises from opposition to the bellicose policies that the US has pursued in the Middle East. Sadly, these policies can hardly be defended as bulletproof, figuratively and otherwise. A radical action from one pole will galvanize an equivalent response from its opposite, not a moderated, centrist reaction. So yes, perhaps the left, or those who support Palestinian statehood, or Israeli revisionist historians, or whoever sometimes gloss over the nasty aspects of Palestinian history. To be fair though, AIPAC is hardly delivering press packets detailing every atrocity committed by the Israeli military. So no, it is not some irrational loathing of Americans and Israelis or selective ignorance that stirs sympathy on the left for Palestinians. Rather it is an opposite, but equally hyperbolic reaction of those who do not always support the policies that have been pursued.
I do not dispute that some Palestinian leadership perpetuate racism and intolerance, but redressing the political and material problems of Palestine will quell some of that discord. People are less prone to beating the shit out of each other when they actually have houses and jobs. Furthermore, racism and violence and intolerance are hardly unique to Palestinians, and do not justify further evils.
Posted by gazaa at 11/29/2007
Tshawytscha-
Your questions are bs neo-con frames that serve only the propaganda purposes of the Bush/Cheney adminstration. They are garbage and not worth anyones time. I could give a rats ass about what Irving Kristol thinks about the lefts motivation It's you and the whole neocon crowd, including fake Vichy liberals like Hitchens, Berman and Cohen who should feel defensive and do some soul searching, not those who opposed Bush's imperial crusade or who stand up for Palestinian rights.
Posted by detroitcgj at 11/29/2007
we can only hope & pray at this point these so called "negotiations" don't end up being the undoing of us all.
Posted by Scrub at 11/29/2007
D1OD1O, in Israeli eyes the point that "the Palestinians and most muslims, are still living in the Middle Ages as far as human rights are concerned" is numero uno in importance. They're not so concerned about the utter lack of free speech or of religious tolerance or about the torture, killing, or imprisonment of gays in the territories or elsewhere in the Arab world. Strap bombs on yourself, your kids, your developmentally disabled, so that they can blow themselves up while blowing up dozens of wholly innocent people in public buses, pizza parlors, etc. Dress up as Mickey Mouse, the jihadist, to teach little children the virtue of slaughtering Jews. Launch barrages of rockets into any Jewish neighborhood that is within range. They need to protect themselves. A wall? It seems to be working. Of course, that leaves the ordinary Palestinian people to struggle for survival "outside" the wall, at the mercy of a ruling class that is as inept as it is corrupt and cruel. They do not have nearly as much opportunity to benefit from Israeli liberalism (particularly the free-enterprise economics) as they did previously, but with every Arab state (except Egypt and Jordan) officially devoted to the destruction of Israel and with the Palestinians living close enough to do something about it, the Israelis' security concerns are real.
Withdrawal to pre-1967 borders is not a solution. From an Israeli perspective, the borders were used to launch a war of aggression against them in 1967 and have been the staging ground for a continual string of mini-attacks since then (and before too). The Arab attacks in 1967 (and 1948 and a continual string of small-scale terrorist attacks too) were launched within the context of pre-1967 borders, and the expected result of going back to pre-1967 geography would simply be more attacks from areas that are more strategically located. A war of aggression was launched against Israel from the territories, and the aggressors still maintain an official policy of destruction of Israel through military attack. Israel cannot go back to the pre-1967 borders without some assurance that the attacks would stop, but Hamas and Fateh have vowed to continue the attacks until Israel is destroyed--not just pushed back to pre-1967 borders but pushed into the sea. Israel would withdraw in a heartbeat if it would bring peace, but there is no chance that it would. Meanwhile new peace talks begin. If progress is made, expect a new wave of Palestinian attacks. It has always happened in the past, and there is no reason to think that it wouldn't this time.
And a comment on one specific line of yours: "Basically, for the current U.S./Israeli policy to succeed, they would have to kill every single Palestinian. Otherwise, they will always be a 'threat'." U.S. and Israel are working to find a viable two-state solution. The ruling class in Palestine has said they will accept nothing short of a one-state solution, and until such solution is attained, they will continue to attack. As long as radical right-wingers are in control in Palestine, they will always be a threat. (Do you think they are lying when they say this?) A two-state solution certainly won't come about through "kill[ing] every single Palestinian" (and it's silly to suggest it), but only through a change in leadership from the PLO/Palestinian Authority/Fateh/Hamas line. U.S. and Israeli policy-makers know this. And so do Palestinians.
Posted by tshawytscha at 11/29/2007
Gazaa: Thanks for the thoughtful response. It is very helpful. Let me restate what I think I'm hearing. You can correct me if I'm wrong. U.S. policy in the Middle East has been flawed at times(not "bulletproof", to use your colorful phrase). Because of this, the left overlooks (or "glosses over") the [strongly] facist and racist tendencies of groups like Hamas, etc. in order to express opposition to the U.S. and Israel.
And specific responses to your comments: "I do not dispute that some Palestinian leadership perpetuate racism and intolerance, but redressing the political and material problems of Palestine will quell some of that discord." When their oft-expressed cause is the destruction of Israel and are adament about a one-state solution, how do you redress the political grievance?
And: "Furthermore, racism and violence and intolerance are hardly unique to Palestinians..." So very true! But racism and intolerance must be confronted and questioned and opposed at every turn, especially when it is so uniquely virulent as it is in so much of contemporary Arab culture (esp. in Palestine and Saudi Arabia) and the greater Muslim world (e.g., Iran, Taliban, growing parts of Pakistan).
Posted by tshawytscha at 11/29/2007
DETROITCGJ: Hmmmm... Thanks for your comments. It certainly helps me understand better where you are coming from. I'm not sure it enhances your credibility or helps advance the cause, but it does shed some light on what drives the issue for some on the left, belying Gazaa's comment that "it is not some irrational loathing of Americans or Israelis."
[For the record, I don't think the irrational loathing expressed by DETROITCGJ is a universal characteristic of American "liberals", but I do wonder about the extent to which it underlies the impulse to solidarity with religious facism among so much of the American left.]
------------------------------------------------------------------- "I'm understanding better Your questions are bs neo-con frames that serve only the propaganda purposes of the Bush/Cheney adminstration. They are garbage and not worth anyones time. I could give a rats ass about what Irving Kristol thinks about the lefts motivation It's you and the whole neocon crowd, including fake Vichy liberals like Hitchens, Berman and Cohen who should feel defensive and do some soul searching, not those who opposed Bush's imperial crusade or who stand up for Palestinian rights."
Posted by tshawytscha at 11/29/2007
Loath as I am to return to the comments section of a statistically invalid poll on The Nation for a second day, I am back in my selfless quest to sate TSHAWYTSCHA's curiosity about the left. To clarify your clarification of the opinion I wrote this morning: Some on the left overlook some of the racist and fascist i> (but never, to my admittedly limited knowledge, has anyone "on the left" condoned the expression or execution of such talk) in their opposition to US and Israeli policy. Overlooking racism and fascism to advance political ends is hardly unique to "the left." Apologizing for every nasty thing Palestinians and Israelis have ever said or done will not rectify the root causes of the conflict, but then again the pro-Zionist/far right/whatever are not particularly concerned with that, are they?
As for your second question, you redress the political grievance by redressing the material grievances. If Palestinians had a viable state, one where they could travel from side to the other without passing through a dozen Israeli security points, etc., they would most certainly be less emphatic in voting in radicals that espouse the destruction of whoever is making their lives miserable. Palestinians do not possess some irrational physiological compulsion to destroy Israeli. Its not hard to get people excited about destruction when they don't have much to lose to begin with.
Posted by gazaa at 11/29/2007
TSHAWYTSCHA: I am not accustomed to seeing the American left associated with "irrational loathing" and "religious fascism." Usually such invective is hurled at individuals like Ann Coulter or President Bush, people who are not typically identified as "on the left." I guess we're all just zany religious fascist hate mongers.
Posted by gazaa at 11/29/2007
and two posts down, the
Posted by gazaa at 11/29/2007
ok, my html tags are messed up. three posts down the < i replaced the word rhetoric. sorry for the spam.
Posted by gazaa at 11/29/2007
Gazaa, the Palestinian leadership say over and over and over again that they are more interested in destroying Israel than they are in their own state. The officially stated policy is to wipe Israel off the map and not stop attacking until Israel is gone and a Palestinian state stands in its place. They simply are not interested in their own state, living side by side in peace with Israel. It makes no sense to ask the U.S. and Israel for them to "give" Palestinians a state. The independent state is there for the taking, but they just do not want it (unless Israel is gone).
Posted by tshawytscha at 11/29/2007
Gazaa, I really do appreciate your comments. Thank-you.
And regarding: "I am not accustomed to seeing the American left associated with 'irrational loathing' and 'religious fascism.'"
Can you see why I would think DETROITCGJ's comments reek of "irrational loathing" and why so many people see the left's expressed solidarity with the Palestinians as aligning themselves with fascism? And particularly virulent, religiously motivated fascism at that?
I remember attending "peace" rallies in SF and northern California during the Gulf War in 1991. I was attending as a peace-loving, Buddhist American liberal. I was dumbfounded at the intensity and ubiquity of anger and hatred expressed by speaker after speaker after speaker and by demonstrator after demonstrator after demonstrator. After participating in several such events, I realized that the degree of hatred and personal invective seemed far more pronounced than anything I'd seen expressed by the Bush 41 regime in the run-up to war. I found myself feeling profoundly grateful that the extraordinarily unpeaceful "peace" activists did not have much political power. Theirs would be a most oppressive regime indeed!
And: "I guess we're all just zany religious fascist hate mongers." No, not all, but certainly some are!
Posted by tshawytscha at 11/29/2007
This is a bit fragmented to address both posts.
Yes, I can see why you could construe sentiments form the left as aligning with Palestinians/irrational loathing/etc. However, I think you are conflating opposition to American policies with support of Palestinian policy. If I oppose what the US has pursued and call for a viable solution and Palestinian rights, I do not by extension support Palestinian policies. I do recognize that all parties involved in the conflict have blood on their hands, and that arguing over whose are bloodiest is not necessarily productive. I also recognize that American interest and a viable solution are not necessarily in alignment, and do not try to mask pursuing one as the other.
I am not disputing what the PLC has said. I am saying that they are elected officials, and that they are pandering to win seats, and that if every incident of jingoistic rhetoric was to be believed everyone would be in trouble.
It is absurd to say that somehow the Palestinians are more interested in destroying Israeli than their own state, and that an independent state solution is theirs for the taking if the Palestinians would just be reasonable. Assuming that we accept the meager lands granted to Palestine in the UN partitions as their viable state, Israel is still in contravention of UN regulation. A viable two state solution has not been presented, and the Palestinian leadership cannot be blamed as the sole aggressor.
I wasn't at that rally; I can't say whether it amounted more to a productive protest or a two minute's hate. But it does not logically follow that protester angry over a government's policies would practice an oppressive regime himself, given the opportunity.
Posted by gazaa at 11/29/2007
Interesting news out of Sudan:
"AP-British teacher Gillian Gibbons has been convicted of inciting religious hatred for letting her pupils name a teddy bear Muhammad and sentenced to 15 days in prison and deportation from Sudan, one of her defense lawyers said Thursday.... 'It's a very fair verdict, she could have had six months and lashes and a fine, and she only got 15 days and deportation,' said Robert Boulos of the Unity High School, adding they would not appeal the decision."
I'm glad to see that Sudan is being so fair and just!
Posted by tshawytscha at 11/29/2007
Gazaa: "It is absurd to say that somehow the Palestinians are more interested in destroying Israeli than [establishing] their own state..."
The one-state solution is written into their "constitution," and each time there is significant movement toward a two-state solution (e.g. Oslo), there are enough Palestinians who express their objections through violent attacks that any hopes of progress are derailed.
Posted by tshawytscha at 11/29/2007
Q. Will anything useful come of the Mideast Peace Talks in Annapolis?
A. If you enjoy sifting through pulverized, acidified tailings for gold nuggets, knock yerself out.
Anyway, I was kinda hoping that "late night Nichols" would post on the Edwards' appearance on Charlie Rose tonight.
Since he hasn't I'll post a brief note here.
As the tiny remaining pinch of sand spills through the hourglass on the eve of the most important presidential election in the 220 years of the American Republic, the list of currently viable candidates is down to Guiliani, Romney, Huckabee, Hillary, Barrack and Edwards.
Given the choppy economic and geopolitical waters this manifest is subject to change, but the need to look seriously at the entries is not reasonably in dispute.
On the Republican side I'd be relieved to see the ignominious disappearance under the waves of the Romney / Guiliani ship of fools. Huckabee may be a mildly buffoonish character, but at least the guy appears to be a genuinely humanistic figure.
As for the Donkeys, I believe the vast majority of the readers of The Nation comprehend well the Machiavellian machinations of Queen Clinton and are suitably repulsed.
That leaves two remaining reasonable choices, Obama and Edwards.
No doubt, Barrack Obama possesses a keen intellect and ability for oratorical flair, but his campaign has been largely mired in political platitudes and short on substance. I have yet to witness an inspired oration on our all too obviously broke-back government with its gilded Habitrail gerbil runways between Capitol Hill, K-Street, and the Corporate-Military-Industrial-Complex.
For a moment in history so drenched in a deluge of danger while simultaneously perched at the precipice of possibilities, where in the name of all that is holy is the voice who speaks to this conundrum?
I don't have an answer that is personally satisfying on that count, but I do know that John Edwards is the only viable candidate at the moment who admits to both the root of the problem as well as the depth of its seriousness.
Obama's plank is that he will "bring us together". Well isn't that special?
How about some freakin' leadership!
What I heard John Edwards say loud and clear on Rose's show was that the crux of America's problem is broken democracy rooted in rampant conflicts of interest in Washington, and that the average citizen has no virtually no voice in DC.
He also made clear that all of the serious issues we face are interwoven into a tapestry and must be addressed in a concerted fashion in order to return the nation to its proper course, and allow us to once again take the leadership role that the world needs us so critically to assume.
He's obviously on to something that no one else --aside from the media-maligned Kucinich-- is saying.
I sincerely hope we get the leadership that we --as well as the planet-- are so desperately in need of. John Edwards is speakin' the right stuff.
The question is: Are we listening?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/30/2007
B_KOOL_66, To answer your question, yes we listen to Edwards--and laugh! How can anyone be fooled by his "two Americas" rhetoric that he dreams up in his 32,000 square foot mansion? Limosine liberals talk about ways to do "good things" with other people's money, while they pile up huge dragon hordes of their own, but Edwards out-limonsines them all and condemns himself every time he opens his mouth.
Posted by tshawytscha at 11/30/2007
Being unreceptive is a trademark of inflationary arguing. A haughty attitude does not encourage conversation. this dichotomy of opposites is part of the problem, and categorizing leftist liberals as sympathetic to fascism in any form is absurd.
Why does anyone pursue an irrational suicidal bombing mission? One may think that an institutionalized hatred cultivated by "fascist" programming is the primary reason. But my instinct tells me that despair and unbridled anger is a more likely factor in channeling desperate activities.
It is true that there is a lot of hatred for Israel by it's neighbors. They see Israel as a land grab, an invasion. Nothing can erase the fact that Israel became conceived in the aftermath of the holocaust in Germany, etc. And the dreams and aspirations of a Jewish homeland were a part of the healing from that time, and the centuries of resentment lived through by Jews in many locations.
Unfortunately, the healing of the Jews came in part at the expense of the Palestinian people. To accuse the failure of peace progress on the intransigence of one side or the other is without merit. Obviously, Palestine has got to accept the fact that Israel exists and is not going away. But Israel has the advantage of the potential for an enlightened approach to this peacemaking process. The level of innate education in Israel is far superior and the economy is vastly superior as well as the standard of living. This absolutely needs to be shared in creative ways with Israel's neighboring territories. Unfortunately this is not a priority for the Israelis, who need to take a leadership role in the effort to share their prosperity with their neighbors.
Israel can withdraw from the network of settlements in the West Bank. This will not result in any diminishing of security for Israel proper, and the disruptive policing of the West Bank is paranoid and demeaning. You want to build a wall and mark your borders? I don't care. Just set a limit on this, set limits on the Israeli territory. As far as rockets go, well, there is no real protection, not now and especially in the future, when weapons technologies will be even more accessible .
It does not matter what the official policy of Hamas or Fatah is proclaimed to be. This can all be changed. Bringing prosperity to the West Bank and to Gaza should be a priority, and would be a far more effective tool in diminishing anti-Israeli sentiment than these inhumane sanctions.
Israel has the power, and the ball is in Israel's court.
Posted by Jim Willingham at 11/30/2007
Do I resent the fact that Edwards is rich? No, because he, along with some wealthy people, understand that wealth is not threatened by a widening prosperity. The concentraton of wealth is a necessary element of a free market economy, but there have to be limits to that concentration for new wealth to be created. A shared prosperity is absolutely necessary and possible with adequate governmental protections, including investments in infrastructure, jobs creations, mixed economics, encouraging private enterprise by having public access to healthcare and education, for starters. There are at least two Americas. The haves and the have-nots, as well as the calloused and the compassionate. Closed minded rabid pseudo-conservatives, with shallow rejection of progressive Americans, is the real "other" America, as far as I am concerned.
Posted by Jim Willingham at 11/30/2007
B_KOOL_66, To answer your question, yes we listen to Edwards--and laugh! How can anyone be fooled by his "two Americas" rhetoric that he dreams up in his 32,000 square foot mansion? Limosine liberals talk........etc etc etc.
Posted by TSHAWYTSCHA 11/30/2007 @ 12:12pm
Wake up and smell the nuance, fool. Which realistically possible presidential candidate today doesn't possess a mountian of cash or the blessings of the plutocracy?
In the final analysis, it is the rabid ignorance and callousness of the masses --including many in the highest corridors of power-- that will likely lead to the demise of this twinkling of "civilization" on this star-circling speck we call Earth.
So thanks for your little noticed contribution to the cesspool, witless fool.
In the meantime, the rest of us who are engaged and heartfelt will continue to do our best to save your stupid ass from burying itself in its own shit.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/30/2007
oy vey!
Posted by Jim Willingham at 11/30/2007
B_COOL_66: Such eloquence and compassion! Lol!
To answer you anyway: Yes, it's probably true that to make a viable candidate one has to be fairly wealthy. And it doesn't bother me one bit that Edwards is unusually wealthy--even by credible presidential candidate standards. But which other candidates villify the wealthy and the system that creates wealth to the extent that he does? Which talk so much about helping the poor but do so little themselves? He talks a good deal about being compassionate with other people's money (taxes) but meanwhile uses his own money to support his opulent lifestyle. In essence, in the name of compassion, he wants to put the gun (IRS) to my head to force me so that he can spread my money around in ways that he likes. But when it comes to spreading his own money around, it goes to luxury living. Everything about the man strikes me as callous and insincere.
Posted by tshawytscha at 11/30/2007
But when it comes to spreading his own money around, it goes to luxury living. Everything about the man strikes me as callous and insincere.
~TSHAWYTSCHA
Fair enough, Thatch.
What is not known is what Edwards actually does with all of his loot. For all we know he may make massive contributions to worthy causes.
But the bottom line is that we are in a serious ditch, a way out must be found, and the time is short.
Whatever your opinion of Edwards may be, he continues to strike the right chords in regards to the stark madness that is DC. I don't see anyone else within easy reach who might wield the hammer to the warp-mirrored walls of Washington.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/30/2007
Segue.
Here's one I'd like to see on CNN:
Russ Mokhiber's Corporate Crime Reporter [counterpunch.org]
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/30/2007
Callous and insincere? The man(?)don't know the meaning of the words.
What I saw in Vietnam and Cambodia, damage to terrain with de-populated territory, qualifies for "callousness." How our nation responded to this ecocide was both callous and insincere.
That is how I qualify these descriptive words.
Edwards may be a lightweight populist, but he is neither callous nor insincere, within his scope.
Anyhow, the Annapolis talks are already stepping back a bit, as Condi Rice so eloquently stated, "why gild the lily?" The initial declarations about a peace accord within a year was obviously an exaggeration. With intransigence such as what has been expressed here by our Zionist friend, it is no wonder that these "talks" will not amount to anything more than an assembly without substance.
Posted by Jim Willingham at 11/30/2007
here is the link to a followup article, posted November 29, 2007 (December 17, 2007 issue)
Spectacle at Annapolis [thenation.com]
Posted by Jim Willingham at 11/30/2007
To "TshawTschank" --and anyone else who's interested:
Here is the Charlie Rose interview of John Edwards [tinyurl.com].
Again, whatever your opinion of the guy, who else among the so-called front runners is speaking as clearly and concisely of the need to reform The System?
Nothing of significance in any policy realm can happen until we address our national cancer.
Along with a treatment regimen analogous to surgery and chemotherapy we should be opening the doors to third party candidates and instant runoff voting. After all, isn't competition supposed to be a good thing?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/1/2007
These comments need to be moderated, in advance. We progressives have serious issues to work through and serious work to do, and we need to be able to talk to each other. These blog response forums are an important resource for this, but they have been taken over by ranters, people with axes to grind, and (to put it bluntly)loudmouth boors. I have things to say on this topic, things that I consider important to share, but feel that speaking here would be whistling into the wind. These posts should be pre-screened for relevance, courtesy and reasonable brevity, and against repetitiousness. One or two loudmouths should in no way be allowed to dominate them. Thus moderated, they could become much more widely read and much more useful.
Posted by CAH at 12/1/2007
In all the discussions about how 'bad' the Palestinians are so that's why we have to kill them, the Israelis conveniently forget that they are the ones that pushed them out of their homes. Not the other way around. It's easy to feel superior when you've got a benefactor that funds all your arrogance. Every child has to grow up and be independent. Do you really expect that the US will keep funding the slow and steady destruction of the Palestinians on the west bank forever. You're lucky that our Christians think that the existence of Israel coincides with their desire for a 'Rapture' otherwise you wouldn't get your $3 billion in blood money every year. Israel 'wants to be left alone' while they bulldoze the homes of the people who were born there and live there. How many of the Israelis can you say were 'born there'? It amazes me that they call the Palestinians terrorist because of their primitive ways of defending themselves. How would you defend yourselves if you didn't have American funded Jets and Helicopters that can destroy with the touch of a button? Don't delude yourselves that you're superior because you have real weapons. Yes, you also have Nukes, funded by the U.S. too, but this superiority is not static. Israel needs to survive not for five years or ten years or even 100 years but permanently. That's why it is up to the Israelis to compromise, not the Palestinians. It doesn't help things either that Israel keeps promoting the immigration of 'foreigners' into the regions in huge numbers. There is no justification for this. Jews are not in danger in any other part of the world. Also, Israel isn't that big. That's why it doesn't take a brain surgeon to see that Israel doesn't want peace. War keeps the funds rolling in and it gives them cover to bulldoze the West Bank for their own use. As a progressive, I want real peace in that region, not for the oil in the region but because it is the Human thing to want. What Israel is doing is slowly committing suicide and it doesn't even realize it.
Posted by D1od1o at 12/2/2007
Rush to defend right-wing extremists in Palestine and condemn a liberal democracy for trying to defend itself. Strange. How did the American left come to this point? The rationale appears to be along the lines of "Yes, Islamofascism is bad, but Israel is just as bad. I'm mean, how can you say that one culture is better than another? Except the Palestinians are very stronly anti-American, so it's best to side with them."
Posted by tshawytscha at 12/2/2007
"These comments need to be moderated, in advance." CAH, although it's rare, there's sometimes agrain of truth or a glimmer of light from the snarks and ranters. As you become familiar with this post,you learn which commenters are which, then disregard the undesirables. That's the nature of free speech; it also implies free listening.....
Posted by days23000 at 12/2/2007
CAH.... As you become familiar with this post,you learn which commenters are which, then disregard the undesirables. That's the nature of free speech; it also implies free listening.....
~DAYS23000
Right on, man.
And I would add, "CAH", just drop the hand-wringing and post your thoughts. Intelligent and thoughtful comments are always welcome as well as being a useful fumigant of the right-wing brain droppings that frequently splatter the site.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/3/2007
In response to D10D10's racist rantings, if Israel's intent was to kill the Palestinians they would all be dead. If Israel's intent was to expel the Palestinians, as Jordan did, they would not be in Israel. Israel's ongoing war is not with Palestinians but with Palestinian factions, and their supporters like Iran and Syria who wish to destroy Israel and the Jews. It is possible that Israel may not exist in 20, 50 or 100 years, but neither will the Palestinians who will disappear with her. Along with a few of Israel's sworn enemies I might add.
Posted by bean22 at 12/3/2007
These attempts to paint the Israelis as the under-siege victims require the utmost of suspension of dis-belief. Which Arab/Muslim countries are continually expanding into "Jewish Land"? Rockets from some Palestinian thugs fall harmlessly into illegally occupied Israel and 'terrorize' the Israelis. Real US/Israeli bombs fall from sky and actually kill hundreds of Palestinian preceding the bulldozers and new settlers. Palestinians are killed at a rate of 5-1 over Israelis. Where are the roadblocks and checkpoinnts and detention by fiat for Israelis? Hell, for Jews anywhere in the world?? They don't exist, yet we're to believe that the victims of Israel/US mayhem and murder are the terrorists? So Bean22 and TSHAWYTSCHA - probably the same person - use some of that paycheck that ADL gives you to monitor these lists all day and buy a moment of reality.
Posted by blueCedars at 12/3/2007
The only Arab nations that are not pledged to the destruction of Israel are Egypt and Jordan. The "occupied territories" were occupied in response to their serving as staging grounds for Arab wars of Arab aggression. And Israel will continue to assert some level of control of them until there is some assurance of security (like the peace treaty with Egypt--exchanging recognition of Israel's right to exist for the return of Sinai to Egyptian control).
And add Iran to the list of nearby countries that are working for Israel's destruction.
Posted by tshawytscha at 12/3/2007
Well said, D10D10!!
Posted by DejaVu at 12/3/2007
These comments need to be moderated, in advance. We progressives have serious issues to work through and serious work to do, and we need to be able to talk to each other. These blog response forums are an important resource for this, but they have been taken over by ranters, people with axes to grind, and (to put it bluntly)loudmouth boors. I have things to say on this topic, things that I consider important to share, but feel that speaking here would be whistling into the wind.Posted by CAH 12/01/2007 @ 12:52pm
i rather appreciated the dialogue betwixt the several "ranters" here and appreciate the spontenaity from all perties, and would rather err on te side of spirit rather than by an edited restraint.
Posted by Jim Willingham at 12/3/2007
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071210/hedges
Chris again hits all the reasons why a war with Iran could destroy American Constitutional government.
He is excellent in his analysis.
This piece shows who will benefit from such an action: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070917_giving_and_taking/
‘Giving’ and Taking Email Print Share Del.icio.us Digg Facebook Ma.gnolia Newsvine Reddit StumbleUpon Yahoo
Posted on Sep 17, 2007
AP Photo / Pablo Martinez Monsivais
By Chris Hedges
Bill Clinton has written a new book. It is called “Giving: How Each of Us Can Change the World.” He will give a portion of the proceeds to charity. Giving, the former president informs us, gives us fulfilment in life and is “the fabric of our shared humanity.”
His book is the political equivalent of “Marley & Me” It is filled with a lot of vapid, feel-good stories about ordinary and wealthy Americans setting out to make the world a better place. It smacks of the philanthropy-as-publicity that characterized the largesse of the robber barons—the Mellons and the Rockefellers—and has become a pastime for our own oligarchic elite. Clinton’s call for charity is the equivalent of well-scrubbed prep school students spending a day in a soup kitchen, doling out food to the people whose jobs were outsourced by their mommies and daddies. It does little to alleviate suffering. But it is a balm to the conscience of the oligarchic class that profits handsomely from the impoverishment of the working class, globalization and our anti-democratic corporate state. The rich love to dine out on their own goodness.
The misery sweeping across the American landscape may have begun with Ronald Reagan, but it was accelerated and codified by Bill Clinton. He sold out the poor and the working class. And Clinton did it deliberately to feed the pathological hunger he and his wife have for political power. It was the Clintons who led the Democratic Party to the corporate watering trough. The Clintons argued that the party had to ditch labor unions, no longer a source of votes or power, as a political ally. Workers would vote Democratic anyway. They had no choice. It was better, the Clintons argued, to take corporate money and use government to service the needs of the corporations. By the 1990s, the Democratic Party, under Clinton’s leadership, had virtual fund-raising parity with the Republicans. In political terms, it was a success. In moral terms, it was a betrayal.
The North American Free Trade Agreement was sold to the country by the Clinton White House as an opportunity to raise the incomes and prosperity of the citizens of the United States, Canada and Mexico. Goods would be cheaper. Workers would be wealthier. Everyone would be happier. I am not sure how these contradictory things were supposed to happen, but in a sound-bite society, reality no longer matters. NAFTA would also, we were told, staunch Mexican immigration into the United States.
"There will be less illegal immigration because more Mexicans will be able to support their children by staying home,” President Clinton said in the spring of 1993 as he was lobbying for the bill.
But NAFTA, which took effect in 1994, had the curious effect of reversing every one of Clinton’s rosy predictions. Once the Mexican government lifted price supports on corn and beans for Mexican farmers, they had to compete against the huge agribusinesses in the United States. The Mexican farmers were swiftly bankrupted. At least 2 million Mexican farmers were driven off their land from 1993 through 2002. And guess where many of them went? This desperate flight of Mexicans into the United States is being exacerbated by large-scale factory closures along the border as manufacturers leave Mexico for the cut-rate embrace of China’s totalitarian capitalism.
Clinton’s welfare reform bill, which was signed on Aug. 22, 1996, obliterated the nation’s social safety net. It threw 6 million people, many of them single parents, off of the welfare rolls within three years. It dumped them onto the streets without child care, rent subsidies and continued Medicaid coverage. Families were plunged into crisis, struggling to survive on multiple jobs that paid $6 or $7 an hour, or less than $15,000 a year. But these were the lucky ones. In some states, half of those dropped from the welfare rolls could not find work. Clinton slashed Medicare by $115 billion over a five-year period and cut $25 billion in Medicaid funding. The booming and overcrowded prison system handled the influx of the poor, as well as our abandoned mentally ill.
The growing desperation provided a pool of broken people willing to work for low wages and without unions or benefits. And while Clinton was busy selling out the poor, he lowered the capital gains tax from 28 percent to 20 percent, a reduction that permitted the wealthiest 1 percent of the population to derive 80 percent of the tax savings. Clinton, like George W. Bush, also provided lavish government funding for his corporate backers, including in 1998 a $200-billion highway and transportation package for the big construction companies and a $17-billion increase in the military budget. This was the largest increase in military spending since the end of the Cold War. Corporations, flush with government aid, saw their taxes dwindle. Amway, for example, had its taxes cut during the Clinton years by an estimated $280 million. The Clinton and Bush administrations, through tax breaks and corporate bailouts, have squandered billions of our tax dollars on corporate welfare.
The appreciative oligarchs and corporate class have made Bill rich. He is fond of boasting in public about how wealthy he has become. Hillary raised $26 million in the first quarter of the year, almost three times as much as any politician previously raised at that point in a presidential election.
We face the prospect of having two families govern the country for 16 years. The system is rigged. Our democracy is a consumer fraud. The government has given up any pretence of serving the interests of citizens. The corporations rule. And for all Clinton’s charm and talent for self-promotion, he is largely to blame.
Half a century ago, corporations paid 45 percent to 50 percent of the income tax. Today they pay 6 or 7 percent. This is why our infrastructure is crumbling, there is no universal health care, our public education is in crisis, regulatory agencies are impotent and our poor and working class are desperate.
The bottom line is that the Democrats, including John Edwards, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, will never govern on our behalf. They are hostage to those who put them in power. And it is not us. Until we throw our weight behind fringe candidates such as Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader, if he runs, we will continue to be fleeced by corporate pawns such as the Clintons and the Bushes. It is no longer possible to argue between the lesser of two evils. The corporate state, which is carrying out a coup d’etat in slow motion and has already shredded most of our constitutional rights, is an unmitigated evil. We do not need charity. We need justice. And all of Bill Clinton’s heart-warming stories about giving are not going to save us from the corporations who sucked out his soul and seek to imprison the rest of us.
Posted by Rese at 12/4/2007
1942 newsflash: "German feelings hurt by use of negative stereotyping of Nazis. Said Gunter Schmidt, spokesman for the Council on American-Nazi Relations: "Goosestepping through Europe is part of our culture. Why cant you Naziphobes respect that?"
Posted by tshawytscha at 12/7/2007