Clinton, Obama Clash With Israel Over Settlement Freeze
I’ve been saying the Obama administration should make a serious push for a settlement freeze since Election Day, but I have to admit that I didn’t really think it would happen:
Rebuffing Israel on a key Mideast negotiating issue, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday that the Obama administration wants a complete halt in the growth of Jewish settlements in Palestinian territory, with no exceptions. President Obama “wants to see a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not natural-growth exceptions,” Clinton said.
This is good. Unfortunately for us, we’re not in one of those periods of time when Israel has a government that’s probably actually not that sympathetic to the settlers but faces domestic political difficulties in cracking down on them. If that were the case, then strong words from the United States might be enough to force change in Israeli policy. But the current government is a coalition between the right and the far-right, and gives every indication of being extremely committed to settlement expansion. This, naturally, raises the question of what American policymakers are prepared to actually do about the fact that the world’s largest recipient of American aid seems to have so little interest in our perspective on crucial regional issues.
65 Responses to “Clinton, Obama Clash With Israel Over Settlement Freeze”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
May 28th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Holy *%^$&!
I can’t believe it – and HIllary is a known as a strongly pro-Israel figure.
May 28th, 2009 at 11:32 am
Time for younger American Jews to step up to the plate and confront their AIPAC elders in strong terms. Paging J-Street . . .
May 28th, 2009 at 11:35 am
There is a widespread feeling in Israel (as well as amongst Jews in general) that “if we build settlements, they’ll attack Israel and hate us … if we don’t build settlements, they’ll attack Israel and hate us. So we might as well build settlements”. If stopping settlement activity is a key (intermediate) goal of the Obama admin’s mid-east policy (which makes sense to me), then the most important thing to be done (and I’m not sure how this is possible) is to give Israelis (and the “defenders of Israel” stateside) good reason to believe that if Israel stops expanding settlements, things will actually be more secure for Israel. Currently, there is no good reason to believe such a thing.
Of course a similar point could be made as far as the Palestinian side is concerned: “If we support those who terrorize Israel, they try to steal even more of our land, our dignity and even endanger our very lives … if we don’t support those who terrorize Israel, they still try to steal even more of our lands, our dignity and even endanger our very lives. So? We might as well fight back against them” …
May 28th, 2009 at 11:43 am
#3: Well said.
It’s clear both sides need some incentive to change their behavior. How about something like…in return for a binding settlement freeze, Hamas recognizes Israel’s right to exist. Paging SLC!
May 28th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Did Obama ask Palestine to stop Israeli Arabs from expanding or building in Israel, to stop immigration to Israel? Or is this just another of Sotomayor’s arbitrary decisions to restrict Due Process.
Anybody getting the impression that Obama’s people get more rights than others? Should we go back and read Animal Farm?
May 28th, 2009 at 11:45 am
DAS makes a good point. If the US is not backing up its demand for a settlement freeze with both a carrot (say, we’ll force the PA to take a similar step) and a stick (if not, we’ll reduce aid or re-direct it in some manner that does not require Congressional action) then there’s little chance of it succeeding. And in fact, Netenyahu has already rejected Clinton’s demand.
May 28th, 2009 at 11:48 am
This, naturally, raises the question of what American policymakers are prepared to actually do about the fact that the world’s largest recipient of American aid seems to have so little interest in our perspective on crucial regional issues.
Nothing.
This has been another edition of simple answers to unnecessarily complicated questions…
May 28th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Did Obama ask Palestine to stop Israeli Arabs from expanding or building in Israel
This is not even remotely the same thing. If Israelis wished to immigrate to the West Bank and fully subject themselves to the laws and authority of the PA without IDF protection or a separate set of roads and services, then I think normal building and expansion of towns and cities would be unobjectionable. And if Israeli Arabs had established enclaves in Israel proper via conquest and maintained their presence through force of arms and did not subject themselves to the government of Israel in any way and then sought to expand those enclaves, that would be something I’d expect the US government to work to put a stop to.
May 28th, 2009 at 11:52 am
This is political theater for the masses. It’s gone on for over a decade. There is no relaxation of America’s commitment to Israel’s security, no talk of decreasing the billions in military support provided annually.
May 28th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Look behind the curtain:
76 of 100 Senators signed a letter supporting Israel. Over half of Congress attended the AIPAC Gala Ball. Obama’s White House senior staff is an AIPAC dream.
May 28th, 2009 at 11:55 am
#4 and #6: thank you for your complements.
The issue is, though, how do we get Hamas, which isn’t even a state entity, to recognize Israel’s right to exist and stop sending rockets to Israel? How do we force the PA to take a similar step?
And even if all “official” and quasi-official parties involved take the necessary steps, what’s to stop freelancers? It isn’t as if the PA is powerful enough to stop Yussef Palestinian from launching a rocket at Israel and even killing some kids in a school yard … and it isn’t as if even Israel is powerful enough to prevent Yossi Israeli from staking out an illegal land claim and building on it. Yet such actions still would lead to exactly the sort of “well, they will attack us/steal our land anyway, so why not do what we want” attitude that is currently killing any hope of ME peace.
As to the issue of sticks, we need to use them carefully. Both Israel and the Palestinians suffer, quite understandably, from a siege mentality (Palestinians have been under siege in one way or another since the very process of formation of Israel and Israel exists because we Jews have been under siege for over a thousand years … and yet ironically, Israel, rather than leading to the normality the Zionists intended, has itself been under siege in some way for its entire existence as a modern state). If we do end up redirecting funding from Israel, that’ll just strengthen the belief in Israel that “everybody hates us, so we might as well screw what the world says and do what we feel we have to do”, and similarly for any sticks we might use against Palestinians.
May 28th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Israel is a Democracy like the US. When Bush seemed to alienate a lot of our allies around the world we eventually decided we didn’t like him and elected Obama. Israel’s settlements need to have costs, but what we really need is for people in Israel to decide that they need to change directions.
May 28th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
If Israelis wished to immigrate to the West Bank and fully subject themselves to the laws and authority of the PA without IDF protection or a separate set of roads and services, then I think normal building and expansion of towns and cities would be unobjectionable. – Rob Mac
Um … no. I expect such building would be about as well received as if some Arab Jews did decide to return to the homes from which they were expelled and start building new homes, synagogues, etc.
And if Israeli Arabs had established enclaves in Israel proper via conquest and maintained their presence through force of arms and did not subject themselves to the government of Israel in any way and then sought to expand those enclaves, that would be something I’d expect the US government to work to put a stop to.
I wouldn’t expect a government that has itself gained and then settled so much territory via conquest to put a stop to such behavior.
Of course in the actual (as opposed to the hypothetical) case at hand, the territory now occupied was gained in a war of defense. In general, countries are allowed to keep such territories. Otherwise, perhaps we should start righting the older wrongs first and be concerned about Czech settlement in the Sudetenland and Russian settlement in Karelia before we are concerned about Israeli settlement in the West Bank?
May 28th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
And what has President Osama demanded that the Fakestinians do in return for the cessation of settlement building/expansion? Not a god damn fucking thing.
May 28th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
“This, naturally, raises the question of what American policymakers are prepared to actually do about the fact that the world’s largest recipient of American aid seems to have so little interest in our perspective on crucial regional issues.”
The fact that “largest recipient of American aid” coexists with “little interest in our perspective” suggests the answer: nothing.
May 28th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
When Bush seemed to alienate a lot of our allies around the world we eventually decided we didn’t like him and elected Obama – Craig
But how long did that take? Remember the first response of many Americans, who felt under siege due to 9/11, etc., was “if our erstwhile allies don’t like Bush, well, screw ‘em — let the Frenchie-fiffies vote for the Dems and we real ‘Murkins will vote GOP, if only to piss off those Euro-weenies”.
Now imagine how this kind of reaction to pressure from allies would work in Israel, a nation with a very large population of people whose parents/grandparents some of those Euro-weenies killed off while the rest of the world twiddled its thumbs until it was too late to stop the plans for said mass killings, a nation that has every reason to feel completely under siege, etc. Eventually, public opinion would turn against the right in Israel, but in the meanwhile, while Israelis would be in a very natural and understandable “screw the world … they tried to kill us all … and they still don’t respect our need for security” stage, a lot of evil will have been done which would make the situation in the ME even more intractable than it is now.
May 28th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
And what has President Osama demanded that the Fakestinians do in return for the cessation of settlement building/expansion? Not a god damn fucking thing.
OK. Maybe not yet. So I ask you specifically: what would be appropriate to ask for? Under what conditions would you accept Israel stopping settlement expansion? Are there any?
May 28th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
What an idiotic question. Israeli Arabs are…you know…ISRAELI. I don’t thing he’s asked Israeli Jews not to built in Israel, nor Palestinian Arabs not to build in Palestine.
Maybe you should put together a research panel to figure out why.
Good Lord.
May 28th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
“If Israelis wished to immigrate to the West Bank and fully subject themselves to the laws and authority of the PA …”
The commenter must be referring to the anti-Jewish laws that restrict rights according to religious belief
This is just the Sotomayor arbitrary use of Due Process simply because someone’s “compassion” is justification enough to distort the rule of law.
Eventualy, one of Obama’s supporting groups will feel the hand of arbitrary tacking of rights, and the game is over.
May 28th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
He has consistently demanded that the recognize Israel and stop terror attacks.
Gee, what a shocker you managed not to know that.
May 28th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
He has consistently demanded that the recognize Israel and stop terror attacks. – Joe from Lowell
But terror attacks have not stopped. The only time they ever stop is after Israel engages in a “disproportionate response” and even then they only stop temporarily.
Of course, why should the terror attacks stop if Israel still hasn’t even stopped building settlements. But then why should Israel stop building settlements if there is no reason for Israel to believe that cessation of settlement activity will help Israel’s security situation (look at what happened in Gaza … we can debate who did what or what Israel should have done in order to have been a more sincere partner for peace, but when it comes down to the brass tacks, Israel dismantled settlements and the violence against Israel got worse! so why should any Israeli believe that cessation of settlement activity is going to help?)?
At this point it’s all about who will blink first and neither side wants to blink because they fear that as soon as they blink, they will be utterly destroyed. And both sides can cite some very good reasons to be concerned!
May 28th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
I’d like to see the number of TV appearances of Secretary of State Clinton, as opposed to, say, Gingrich or McCain or Cheney or Rove, or any other Republican (I wish!) has-been, since Feb 2009 (or whenever it was that she took office).
May 28th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
I’m wondering if this is in part a favor to sectors of the Israeli political establishment, as some Israelis are getting tired of the lunatic settler asshole ‘community’ acting like the entire nation exists for them, thus I’m wondering if anyone up top agrees.
Either that or it was done to shut up some whining from other U.S. allies so that the SecState can say, ‘hey, you know, we asked, what else can we do?’.
May 28th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
DAS, I was obviously responding to Mattyoung’s “point” about Obama not asking Israeli Arabs to stop building in Israel proper. I’m not going to defend every aspect of my hypotheticals. The only point was to show that the situations of the Israeli settlers in the West Bank and that of the Israeli Arabs is different in that the Israeli Arabs are subject to the authority of the Israeli government while the settlers are not subject to the authority of the PA.
It isn’t as if the PA is powerful enough to stop Yussef Palestinian from launching a rocket at Israel
This is quite true and is one of the things that makes a peaceful solution so difficult. However, Palestinian violence was greatly lessened from the Arafat/Rabin agreement until the start of the second intafada, so it’s not as if stopping the violence is impossible.
and it isn’t as if even Israel is powerful enough to prevent Yossi Israeli from staking out an illegal land claim and building on it.
This is less certain. All that Israel lacks is the political will to stop such claims. The IDF could easily remove any settlement it chose to, as was demonstrated in Gaza. Barring that, Israel could allow the Palestinian security forces, as the relevant local authority, to remove such new illegal settlements. However such would almost certainly lead to violence that would quickly spiral out of control.
May 28th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Neither has the settlement-building, the theft of land for the “Security Fence,” and the illegal occupation of land.
False. There was not a single terrorist attack in Israel during the entirety of the Clinton-led peace negotiations. How can someone who claims to be deeply concerned about terrorism against Israelis manage not to know this?
And why should Palestinians stop attacking Israel if there is no reason for them to believe that the cessation of violence will help them achieve self-governance and security?
The answer to both questions is, they shouldn’t. It is only the prospect of a deal that can help both parties achieve their objectives that will provide sufficient reason to stop their depredations upon each other.
May 28th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
“This is just the Sotomayor arbitrary use of Due Process simply because someone’s “compassion” is justification enough to distort the rule of law.”
First of all, what does Sotomayor have to do with Israel? For the record, I’ll publish Sotomayor’s entire record of court rulings related to Israel. Here it is:
” “.
Okay, that done, does anyone even know what Sotomayor’s rulings related to due process are? I only know one case where a pro-choice group argued that the Mexico City Rule violated their due process rights. She ruled against them. Anyone got another ruling on due process issues?
May 28th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Israel does not build settlements to provide for security; it builds them for the sake of economic, territorial, and ideological gains. These gains come at the expense of the Palestinians. Because some Palestinians, at any rate, fight back against Israel’s actions, the settlements actually decrease, rather than increase, Israel’s security.
So no, “Israelis (and the “defenders of Israel” stateside)” don’t need a “good reason to believe that if Israel stops expanding settlements, things will actually be more secure for Israel”. They need to stop, by their own actions, decreasing their own security.
May 28th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
There is no such rule. In fact, the United Nations has clearly declared the Israeli occupation of the West Bank a violation of international law.
May 28th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
False. There was not a single terrorist attack in Israel during the entirety of the Clinton-led peace negotiations.
That isn’t true.
However, the idea of Arab settlement in green line Israel is risible and stupid and anyone who doesn’t understand how laughably funny the idea is so ignorant as to make them unworthy of having opinions about the situation at all.
May 28th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
“The issue is, though, how do we get Hamas, which isn’t even a state entity, to recognize Israel’s right to exist and stop sending rockets to Israel?”
Hmmm. Let me see. Perhaps Israel might recognize Hamas’ right to exist? Recognize their elected status? Give the residents of Gaza their ports and airspace? Give them their trade?
May 28th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
“But terror attacks have not stopped. The only time they ever stop is after Israel engages in a “disproportionate response” and even then they only stop temporarily.”
Because Israel is occupying their land, you dimwit.
May 28th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Re joe from Lowell
He has consistently demanded that the recognize Israel and stop terror attacks.
Has he, like King Canute, also asked the tide to refrain from rolling in?
May 28th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
SLC, you haven’t answered my question. Under what conditions would you accept Israel ending settlement expansion? Are there any?
May 28th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Re Dude in Jersey
Because Israel is occupying their land, you dimwit.
Mr. Dude is apparently unaware that the rockets are fired from the Gaza Strip which is no longer occupied by Israel.
May 28th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
“…the most important thing to be done (and I’m not sure how this is possible) is to give Israelis (and the “defenders of Israel” stateside) good reason to believe that if Israel stops expanding settlements, things will actually be more secure for Israel.”
I don’t find this reasonable at all. If you don’t have a right to do something in the first place, then your duty to stop doing it is not contingent on what other people do. So if Israel has no right to build settlements in the occupied territories in the first place, it is in no position to demand any kind of reward or payment or concession from anyone else for not doing it. The same goes for Palestinian terrorist attacks, needless to say.
May 28th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Hillary may not have won the presidency, but she still gets to do The Wave From The Plane, so that’s pretty cool.
May 28th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Re Adam
SLC, you haven’t answered my question. Under what conditions would you accept Israel ending settlement expansion? Are there any?
When the Fakestinians give up their demand that inhabitants of refugee camps be resettled in Israel.
May 28th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Of course in the actual (as opposed to the hypothetical) case at hand, the territory now occupied was gained in a war of defense. In general, countries are allowed to keep such territories. Otherwise, perhaps we should start righting the older wrongs first and be concerned about Czech settlement in the Sudetenland and Russian settlement in Karelia before we are concerned about Israeli settlement in the West Bank?
Okay, firstly, what Scott P. says above – there’s absolutely no rule that “countries are allowed to keep territories gained in a war of defense.”
Secondly, your examples are complete bullshit. The Soviet Union gained Karelia as the result of a war of aggression against Finland. The expulsion of German from the Sudetenland was unjust, I think (although understandable) but the Sudetenland was not territory conquered by the Czechs – it was pre-war Czech territory.
Thirdly, the claim that the Six-Day War was a defensive war is, at the very least, debatable. Even the then-Israeli prime minister conceded that Nasser did not want war in 1967, and it was, of course, the Israelis who started the war by attacking the Egyptian Air Force on June 5.
May 28th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
I have to say that one of the best ways to persuade people who do not already agree with you of your position is to refer to Palestinians as “Fakestinians”. SLC should teach a course on persuasive writing.
May 28th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Because some Palestinians, at any rate, fight back against Israel’s actions, the settlements actually decrease, rather than increase, Israel’s security. – Dude in NJ
But the point is that Israelis, quite justifiably, don’t see how the settlements are decreasing their security — after all, as the experience in Gaza shows, even in the absence of settlements, Israel will still get attacked.
The point is not that Israelis really believe the settlements increase their security (*), but that the settlements are, contra your claim, not threatening to security but on the other hand have many benefits, as you have pointed out, to some in Israel. If the settlements don’t decrease security and yet they have benefits, why should Israel move to cease making/expanding them?
As to Israel’s right to build settlements and even occupy the territories in question — the international law is less clear than some would have you believe. At the very least, if a law is only enforced in regards to one particular party, then it is a de facto bill of attainder that wouldn’t pass muster in most legal systems. Certainly, the general, de facto if not de jure, way of doing things is that if country A starts a war with country B and country A wins, country A doesn’t get to keep the land. However, if country A starts a war with country B and country B wins, then country B gets to keep the land. I can give you many examples of this being condoned and sometimes actively supported by the international community. It’s only when country A = an Arab country and country B = Israel that people get their pants in a wad. This is a double standard that smells of anti-Semitism. If a law encodes a double standard or is a bill of attainder, we don’t defend the law on the basis of “rule of law”. We, as liberals, seek to change the law (even if it means a judge striking down said law in “judicial activism”). Why should international law be different here?
* some people do believe this — I’d say that such a belief is laughable, but at a really fundamental level settlements in the occupied territories and the occupation itself has benefitted Israel … assuming Arab nations are honest in their rhetoric. Before the issue was Israel’s very existence. Now the claim is that Israel will be just fine once it withdrawals from the occupied territories, etc. If this change is indeed a real change, then Israel has benefitted greatly from the occupation!
May 28th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Thirdly, the claim that the Six-Day War was a defensive war is, at the very least, debatable. Even the then-Israeli prime minister conceded that Nasser did not want war in 1967, and it was, of course, the Israelis who started the war by attacking the Egyptian Air Force on June 5.
I can claim I don’t want war and you can believe me. But if I amass a force ready to invade your country, you are perfectly justified in attacking said force. IIRC, international law says that it is an act of war to amass such a force in such a way.
Nasser may not have wanted war when he was committing acts of war and he may have been doing what he was doing to just make a show of strength or something. But if I am about to pummel you, you don’t have to let me pummel you and then fight back — you can block the pummeling and, if in the process, I get beat up … well, so be it.
May 28th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
The tide did not stop rolling in for a several years in the late 1990s, while terrorist attacks within Israel did.
May 28th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
The issue of settlements isn’t some quid-pro-quo issue. Stopping settlements is a good in and of itself. They are not a neutral action by Israel they are an agressive expanionist act. The argument that “they’ll hate us if we build them or they’ll hate us if we don’t so might as well build them ignores the fact that building settlements is illegal and provocative and are a clear indicator to the Palestinians that while they negotiate they lose land at same rate as when they commit terror.
It’s like saying well the kid’s mother already hates me, so there’s no reason I shouldn’t beat the little bugger to a pulp.
May 28th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
John says to SLC: “I have to say that one of the best ways to persuade people who do not already agree with you of your position is to refer to Palestinians as “Fakestinians”. SLC should teach a course on persuasive writing.”
Why are you asking a moron with a personality disorder if he should teach persuasive writing? SLC is still trying master eating his Happy Meal without consuming one of the napkins.
May 28th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
DAS says, “I can claim I don’t want war and you can believe me. But if I amass a force ready to invade your country, you are perfectly justified in attacking said force. IIRC, international law says that it is an act of war to amass such a force in such a way.”
So I guess Iran now has a right to attack Zionland at any time since the PM of Zionland has already threatened to attack Iran. Notice how the pre-emptive arguments never hold water when they are applied to the White Man, instead of being used by the White Man.
May 28th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Re DAS
I seem to recall reading an article which claimed that it was the former Soviet Union which actually provoked the 1967 war by erroneously informing dictator Nasser that Israel was about to invade Syria, which intelligence he responded to by telling UN peacekeepers to leave the Sinai and thence moving 100,000 troops up to the border as a deterrent to the supposed invasion. It is not clear whether this was done through incompetence or malice.
May 28th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Re Mythbuster
Mr. Mythbuster is forgetting that dictator Nasser moved 100,000 troops up to the Israel border and announced his intention to remove Israel from the map of the world. Would Mr. Mythbuster inform us as to where as many as 1 Israeli soldier is stationed on the Iran border (kind of hard since Israel and Iran don’t have a common border).
May 28th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
SLC’s response: “Would Mr. Mythbuster inform us as to where as many as 1 Israeli soldier is stationed on the Iran border (kind of hard since Israel and Iran don’t have a common border).”
As to proof as to SLC’s absurdly low IQ, just read the above. So if the Egyptians put troops on their border, then a pre-emptive strike (a White Man’s Sneak Attack) is acceptable, but if Zionland actually plans and threatens to attack Iran with its air force, I guess the Iranians have to wait until the Zionists enter Iranian air space–otherwise the Iranians are the aggressors.
Let’s reverse that: If Iran’s President actually traveled all over the world stating that if Isarel did not disarm within a few months, he was reserving the right to attack Isarel at a time of his own choosing, would that be kosher? I think not.
Remember: Only the White Man can plan Sneak Attacks, er, Pre-emptive Strikes, and call it “defense.”
May 28th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Clinton’s picture, in combination with the article, makes her look like a bada@@ pimp. I’m impressed with her on this.
I never really understand all the talk about tip-toeing around Israel. I’m not saying we should support them or not support them. I’m saying that, as far as I know, Israel is pretty useless in terms of U.S. needs or interests. I can’t understand why anyone assumes they have or should have any real bargaining power with the United States.
So, when people talk about what action can be taken to make Israel cooperate or we need to “dangle a carrot” for them I just don’t get it. It’s easy, just say “Hey, a$$holes, you know those free billions you get, well, guess what?” or “Hey dumba%%es, you know that military equipment you get, well, we’ll see about that.” or “Hey dufuses, you know that no one really gives a sh%t about your nonsense except the U.S., well see what happens in your region, in the U.N., etc… when we drop you like a hot potato.”
May 28th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
chris Diaz: “I never really understand all the talk about tip-toeing around Israel.”
Clearly, you have never been to (a) a Democratic fundraiser; or (b) a Council on Foreign Relations and/or World Affairs Council meeting.
Get back to us when you’ve been to either.
May 28th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
“This is political theater for the masses. It’s gone on for over a decade. There is no relaxation of America’s commitment to Israel’s security, no talk of decreasing the billions in military support provided annually.” (Alan)
That’s the crux of it. Either this Administration is serious about not letting Israel continue to crucify the Palestinians (a.k.a. “filthy shvatz goyim” to SLC) on our dime or it isn’t.
May 28th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Mr. Dude is apparently unaware that the rockets are fired from the Gaza Strip which is no longer occupied by Israel.
Mr. SLC is apparently unaware that Gaza is filled with refugees disposessed of their land Israel.
May 28th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Amos Elon, the Israeli writer and journalist died two days ago.
This thread, and countless others like it confirm what he said in an interview:
“Nothing has changed here [in Israel] for the past 40 years,” he told Ari Shavit in an interview five years ago, expressing his frustration with the country. “The solutions were known already back then. I realized I was saying the same things again and again. I began to bore myself.”
May 28th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Re Dude in jersey
Indian reservations in the US are filled with the descendants of refugees who were deprived of their land by European settlers.
May 28th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
SLC says to Dude in Jersey: “Indian reservations in the US are filled with the descendants of refugees who were deprived of their land by European settlers.”
You know, this is right. And so, as compensation, I am perfectly willing to give SLC’s home to a Native American family. It doesn’t matter if SLC’s family has lived there for generations, the GREAT SKY GOD actually chose the Native Americans to live here, made a covenant with them, and considers the Native Americans as His Own Special Possession. Why should some European-descendant Fake-American like SLC have any rights that a Native American should respect?
May 28th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Re Mythbuster
When Mr. Mythbuster shows a willingness to give his home (assuming he resides in the Western Hemisphere) back to its real owners, then he can talk. Otherwise, he should go fuck himself.
May 28th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
So I guess Iran now has a right to attack Zionland at any time since the PM of Zionland has already threatened to attack Iran. Notice how the pre-emptive arguments never hold water when they are applied to the White Man, instead of being used by the White Man.
In case you missed it, the leader of Iran has made some pretty strong threats against Israel and is pursuing nukes, so this hardly proves whatever point I believe you are trying to make.
And for the record — please don’t be racist. Jews (and Israeli Jews) come in all colors and both genders. I am sure my wife (a more religious Jew and much more committed to Zionism than I) would be tickled pink to find out that she is now white. I guess whenever she gets followed around in a store or experiences any of the other little bits of discrimination still experienced by African-Americans, she can tell the offender “but look — I’m Jewish … that makes me a White Man not a Black Woman!”.
May 28th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
DAS says: “In case you missed it, the leader of Iran has made some pretty strong threats against Israel and is pursuing nukes, so this hardly proves whatever point I believe you are trying to make.”
What the Iranian president has said was that the Zionist regime will disappear, that’s not callling for genocide any more to see the collapse of the former White Apartheid Regime in South Africa or the former Soviet Regime. The Hasbara patrol immediately turned his statement into a threat of genocide. And it was lie when they said it. And its is a lie today. And you repeated the lie.
DAS says: “And for the record — please don’t be racist. Jews (and Israeli Jews) come in all colors and both genders. I am sure my wife (a more religious Jew and much more committed to Zionism than I) would be tickled pink to find out that she is now white.”
This is childish. The “White Man” is a metaphor for the Colonizing, War-mongeroring West. When non-whites engage in preemptive attacks, e.g., the Empire of Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, we called it a sneak attack. When the White Man does it, we call it a “preemptive strike.”
And why are you so sensitive. You might consider manning up. Your estrogen count is dangerously high, and I cannot hand you a tissue through the screen.
P.S. I am a white man. Love being one in fact. And I understand metaphors. May I suggest a dictionary?
May 28th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
If back in the eighties some right wing blowhard had asked you what would you need to give to white south Africans so that it would to worth their while to allow democracy (or “majority rule” as fans of the RSA used to mockingly call it) I hope you would not have bothered to engage the racist sons of bitches.
The west bank settlements are an almost exactly similar situation and whether DAS or any other Israeli is a charming, intelligent and attractive individual who you would love to have at your party the state of Israel as it it currently stands is a heavy militarised, institutionally bigoted and expansionist state. You can profess the Zionist belief that Israeli Jews have more right to the land than the non Jews who already lived there, or just admit you dislike Arabs or it suits your prejudice in some other way but please do not embarrass yourself by trying to argue that this is some complex story of conflicting rights or disputed territory.
It is straightforward colonialism and dispossession and if you are an American taxpayer you bankroll it. Hows that feel?
May 28th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
What I don’t get is that neither side has sold the TV rights to this war. It will go on until one side no longer exists, and that will be a while. You could certainly sign a seven season deal on it. And it would be the perfect reality show. It would have real killing, and everyone wants to see that. So why doesn’t anyone sign the deal? Do we really need the Palestinian-Israeli sex scandal to get the ratings? Apparently so. But this is silly, they will kill each other until one side has nobody left. So why do we care about these people? Both sides are assholes and they should just kill each other. And then we should kill whoever is left. But in the meantime, why aren’t we signing the TV deals?
May 28th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
All of this is complete bullshit and PR theater. Obama and Clinton can demand this and that all they want, but without withdrawing US aid to Israel, nothing will happen.
More importantly, the US needs to support the UN and the international community and clamp down on Israel. That means withdrawing all economic and military aid, demanding Israel adhere to UN resolutions going back decades, all of which have been ignored, and demanding Israel totally disarm its nuclear arsenal under pain of economic boycott and blockade. Israel must then unilaterally withdraw all settlements past the 1967 borders.
In fact, the UN should go further and withdraw its decision in 1947 to partition Palestine as it did, and recognizing the Israeli state. This would be a de jure dissolution of the Israeli state. – to be followed by the de facto dissolution by means of a declaration of a bi-national state, the construction of a new state Constitution, and subsequent elections for which no existing member of Hamas or the Israel government is eligible for standing.
Failing this, nothing short of the military destruction of Israel is going to change anything. There is no way a two-state solution can be made to work as long as Zionist freaks are running Israel.
May 29th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Ah Mr. Hack appears to entertain us.
But he reminds us (perhaps an accident) that the UN did declare a two state solution — not that there were arabs, at the time who even thought that they were “Palestinians” — and the Arabs decided that the Jewish State was a Nakba, and decided, despite the United Nations, to eliminate it. Slight miscalculation, though. The Arabs (who STILL didn’t consider that any sort of “people” who thought of themselves as “Palestinians”) lost. And the Israelis won. Go figure! But the Jordanians(still no Palestinians, by the way) through an accident of history and a ceasefire, no peace treaty, held most of the old City of Jerusalem, an area inhabited by Jews for thousands of years. Making the place Judenrein. Taking over the millenia old “Jewish Quarter” and literally razing the place. destroying religious objects and cemataries, attempting to erase any evidence that Jews had EVER lived there. And please don’t tell me about the poor Palestinians who deserved there own state. Because even though the area was not controlled by Jews, the Palestinians didn’t have their own state. Because the area was Jordan.
When I first visited Israel, in 1960, I could only look down, from afar, to the area. Because I am a Jew. Today, Jews live there. And Christians, and Hindus, and yes, many, many Muslims live there. In peace. A redivision of Jerusalem into one part Jewish and one part where no Jew may live, or pray or even visit, is impossible.
If you don’t understand that, Mr. Hack, you understand nothing.
May 29th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
[...] I said yesterday, I’ve been a bit surprised (in a good way!) by how tough and united the Obama administration has been in terms of pressing [...]
May 29th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Re BB
I haven’t seen Mr. BB here previously so let me introduce him to Richard Steven Hack. Mr. Hack is a convicted bank robber who held up a bank in San Francisco, lining up the tellers and forcing them to empty their cash drawers on pain of termination with extreme prejudice. He was captured on a city bus shortly after this episode as he attempted to make his getaway. He was sentenced to 9 years in the federal penitentiary in Leavenworth, Ka. Since being released, he has advocated the assassination of police officers and threatened to shove fascist radio talk show host Michael Savage, also a resident of San Francisco, off a curb into traffic.
May 29th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
[...] Two posts from Matt Y, here and [...]