Is there nothing that Obama can’t do?
On the surface Obama seemed to scold the Muslim world for its all-pervasive Holocaust denial and craven Jew hatred. By asserting that Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism are wrong, he seemed to be upholding his earlier claim that America’s ties to Israel are “unbreakable.”
Unfortunately, a careful study of his statements shows that Obama was actually accepting the Arab view that Israel is a foreign — and therefore unjustifiable — intruder in the Arab world. Indeed, far from attacking their rejection of Israel, Obama legitimized it.
The basic Arab argument against Israel is that the only reason Israel was established was to sooth the guilty consciences of Europeans who were embarrassed about the Holocaust. By their telling, the Jews have no legal, historic or moral rights to the Land of Israel.
This argument is completely false. The international community recognized the legal, historic and moral rights of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel long before anyone had ever heard of Adolf Hitler. In 1922, the League of Nations mandated the “reconstitution” — not the creation — of the Jewish commonwealth in the Land of Israel in its historic borders on both sides of the Jordan River.
But in his self-described exercise in truth telling, Obama ignored this basic truth in favor of the Arab lie. He gave credence to this lie by stating wrongly that “the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history.” He then explicitly tied Israel’s establishment to the Holocaust by moving to a self-serving history lesson about the genocide of European Jewry.
[…]
But as disappointing and frankly obscene as Obama’s rhetoric was, the policies he outlined were much worse. While prattling about how Islam and America are two sides of the same coin, Obama managed to spell out two clear policies. First he announced that he will compel Israel to completely end all building for Jews in Judea, Samaria, and eastern, northern and southern Jerusalem. Second he said that he will strive to convince Iran to substitute its nuclear weapons program with a nuclear energy program.
The idea of handing over the West Bank to the Palestinians has lost favor in Israel after Gaza was evacuated (at considerable pain) in 2005, because the area became a launching pad for missiles aimed at the Israeli heartland. But President Obama has a solution to that. It’s nothing much — just the wholesale reversal of Palestinian political culture.
h/t Revnant Dream
Remember when the USA had backbone, and the free world knew that it could count on the USA to stand up to terrorists?
One good prattle deserves another.
Bush couldnt have been that bad if it’s all smoothed over with a few speaches and dinners.
“Yet another stream of whinging bullsh*t” seems to be all that needs to be said of a man shockingly ignorant of history and without a trace of moral conviction.
For anyone not cognizant of the history of Israel, I suggest they read “Churchill and the Jews” by Sir Martin Gilbert. Indeed, in the 19th century the idea of creating a Jewish homeland was being considered.
History begins this morning or whenever Obama re-writes it, whichever comes later.
I disagree with the commentary.
First, no people have a ‘right’ to a land. Land ownership is not a genetic or ethnic right but a political decision. If we agree with this author of this piece, then, we should all leave N. America to the indigeneous peoples. Using that exact same criteria of ‘we were here a long time ago’ – then, the indigeneous alone have the ‘right’ to the entire continent of America. And we could do the same with Europe, whose peoples have moved over its terrain for thousands of years.
Land ownership is a political decision. The enabling of the modern state of Israel was a political decision and should be treated as such. That means that Israel has no inherent right to the West Bank – which is insists, obliquely, that it does by calling it Judea and Samaria and trying to link it to the original land base.
And that’s the problem. Israel wants the West Bank, which was politically defined by the UN as the land base of the Palestinian state. Israel wants that land, for its expanding population and above all, for its vital water supplies. It has occupied this land for a generation, settling it, refusing to allow equal use and water to the Palelstinians who were living there before the creation of Israel.
Israel will not accept the West Bank AND its population as Israeli territory because it does not want the Palestinians as citizens of Israel. It wants them to leave that land base and has been economically and politically squeezing them for a generation, to get them to leave. This hasn’t happened, and many Israelis, opposed to this government policy, actively help the Palestinians.
Israel has been hiding its continual hold on the West Bank behind the rubric of ‘we have to hold on to it to defend ourselves’. Then, when the Palestinians fight back against the land expropriations, the road closures, etc – this becomes an ‘attack’ and a reason to retain control. But the real reason is the land for settlements and the vital water supply.
What Israel has to do is ‘come clean’. State, openly, that they have no intention of leaving the West Bank. This effectively means that there is NO land base for a Palestinian state – and this denies their rhetoric over the years that they ‘might’ accept a Palestinian state IF the Palestinians wouldn’t fight them.
Netanyahu is quite clear – he has no intention of halting expansion of settlements or leaving the West Bank. But the rhetoric of Israel being ‘open’ to a Palestinian state remains in his verbiage. This is impossible. Without the West Bank – there’s no land for a second state.
What Israel ought to have done right from the beginning, is to have enabled a Palestinian state alongside it, with its economy deeply embedded with that of Israel. Two democratic states side by side. But, it has always refused to acknowledge a Palestinian State. And, the Arab States have played a vital role in this mess; they too didn’t want a democratic Palestinian state. They didn’t want a Muslim democracy in their midst. Remember, they reject democracy; they are all tribal dictatorships and any democracy is a cursory front.
But, with the years, Israel hedged itself away from enabling a Palestinian state, moved itself into the West Bank, destroyed any chance of a Gaza economy by shutting off water and hydro and closing the borders…and now..it’s in a mess.
What I’m speculating it will do – is attack Iran rather than release the West Bank to the Palestinians.
Iran, by the way, wants Israel to attack it.
Iran has its own agenda of imperialism; it wants to move into Iraq, Syria, Lebanon etc..and it would use such an attack as a cover for its imperial agenda.
The arab states are quite legitimately concerned about Iran. The problem is, that the Israeli-Palestinian mess is a different issue..but the political schemes of the area have merged them.
…and when I said he was a muslim plant people laughed. Now I’m really afraid. Are you?
Sounds like ET spends to much time at liberano rallies err hezbo err well you know what I mean. I hope. Hoping without the changy.
Scaramouche had pretty much the same reaction yesterday:
http://scaramouche.motime.com/post/763797
My second take is that Obama’s message about the Holocasut was entirely the wrong one to take to the Muslim world. That world is already convinced that the only reason the Jews have a state is because of a war in Europe, and that the detritus of that war–the Jews who survived–were offloaded into the Mideast, where they don’t belong and where they’re “colonial” interlopers. What Obama should have said is that the Jews are in Israel as a birthright. It’s their ancient, ancestral homeland, and there was a Jewish presence there long before Mohammed was a glint in his mama’s eye. He should have emphasized the fact that the Jews are indigenous to the region (heck, we were in Medina before Islam’s prophet arrived), and that, over the millennia, there has always been Jews in Eretz Yisrael. Only after stating the aforementioned should he have brought up the subject of the Holocaust, and only then to underscore the need for there to be a Jewish country in which Jews call their own shots and aren’t subject to the ebb and flow of Judenhass in the diaspora.
That’s what he should have said.
http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930#
Click on Mark Levin’s June 4th show to get a recap of the history of Israel in The Middle East.
Free – I don’t think Obama is a Muslim. Or a Christian. He’s a pathological narcissist and his focus is only on himself and his power to control people. He can’t acknowledge a superior power (god).
I happened to think his speech in Cairo was a good one (see my comments in yesterday’s Readers Tips) – despite its being filled, paragraphy after paragraph, with misinformation and manipulation.
I felt it was geared to the youth, that massive proportion of the Middle East who are under 30, and who are restricted by their tribal political regimes from progress, and economic and political participation in their nation. He was trying to create a gap between the old guard tribal rulers and the youth – encouraging the youth that they could advance, could gain power, could be part of the world.
They could advance, however, only by abandoning the old restrictive ways, and educating themselves, opting for equality of men and women, etc. These options are restricted currently, in their home states.
It was, in a way, a challenge to the old guard as well.
Obama was able to make this speech only because of Bush’s confrontation of terrorism and his pushing terrorism back to the Muslim lands – and, his enabling Iraq, an arab state, to become a democracy.
Atric – yes, zionism was a 19th c movement, long before the Holocaust. There are many Jews who reject Zionism, defining it as going against the will of God, who alone makes the decision of ‘the return’. As for the UN decision, I wonder if it was done out of guilt for the deliberate refusal to acknowledge what many knew was happening in Germany and Poland – or a tactic to ‘get the Jews out’ in its own way.
Although Israel was established by political means by other nations and world organizations, she is today a sovereign state with elected representatives and systems and infrastructure in place for decades now. Israel has the right to defend herself, even if this means by striking first.
Obama is doing nothing but talking out of both sides of his mouth, but in reality he is throwing Israel under the bus what with his latest ‘Ich bin ein Muslimer’ world apologoy tour.
The sooner we cut this ‘Islam is peace’ crap the better.
ET,
You are genius! Is there nothing you do not know for certain?
Arabs are many and they hold huge land masses. Why can’t the few million Jews who have more brains and class than all billion and a half Muslims put together, have a little homeland.
If they could, for once not have to spend all their time and energy defending themselves against the Morlock, they might likely be the very one’s who develop the warp engine, a cure for cancer, a solution for may other human ailments. They certainly have proved they have the ability to achieve greatness with their over 150 Nobel prizes in all disciplines, compared to the paltry 8 from the Muslim world most from American Muslims.
I am surprised the Jews are not more paranoid and weirded out than they are. They maintain a civility that I doubt many other could muster under the same situation.
Obama is POS. He is selling our the American and our values like the pandering and useful idiot he was trained to be.
“And, the Arab States have played a vital role in this mess; they too didn’t want a democratic Palestinian state. They didn’t want a Muslim democracy in their midst.”
Nor a Jewish one, for that matter. Nor anything kaffir. That’s the reality ET continues to miss.
If you can take BO’s motives at face value, you can see how he’s trying to build bridges. That being said, even if he’s successful changing the general perception of America by Muslims, what will the tangible benefits be?
I believe BO is under the misconception(taking his motives at face value) that goodwill from Muslims will translate into peaceful relations with terrorists. What he doesn’t seem to grasp is these terrorist groups operate outside of the law, and are not accountable to the public. Furthermore, he doesn’t seem to grasp that being a terrorist is a good paying job and no amount of pandering is going to make someone give that up. Terrorists are in the business of making terror!
These oversights are obvious to most onlookers, including BO. Personally I don’t take BO at face value, I believe his defense strategy is to appease Muslim extremists with rhetoric in hopes of diverting their attention away from America, instead of facing this enemy head-on. This is not consistent with American values, nor the American public’s POV.JMO
Eskimo – right, Israel is a political not a genetic entity, and is now a sovereign state. That’s hardly the issue.
And the rhetoric of some of the Arab States is a cover for their own agendas of retaining tribal dictatorships – and using the theme of ‘Israel is harming our brothers’ as a red herring diversion to externalize the unrest of their own population.
Unrest of their own population? Yes – against the theocratic restrictions and lack of economic and political powers of the common man imposed by the old guard tribal rulers. Diverting attention to Israel has been extremely useful.
Don’t assume that the Arab States have ever wanted a Palestinian state – one that would be a democracy – in their midst! They didn’t and have worked to ensure that it never occurred. That includes enabling Hamas and Hezbollah. The agenda of the leaders of the Arab states is to retain tribal power, not encourage their people to move into democracies…hand over power to the common man..and end tribalism.
And the agenda of Israel has been to gain control of the West Bank land – without its Muslim population.
These two agendas, quite different from each other (retain tribal elite power; gain the West Bank), have been used by each side..to enable each to function.
The issue is the enabling of a Palestinian state. And Israel has refused to accept that – and, as I’ve said, the Arab States have also refused to accept such an entity. Never mind the verbiage on both sides which supports a ‘future Palestinian state’. Ignore that and focus on their actions.
After a full generation of this rhetorical front and its contrasting actions – what’s the result? A mess. IF Israel were to move out of the West Bank, enable a separate Palestinian state – but one that was economically embedded within the economy of Israel, my own view is that this would be the best-case scenario.
But it won’t happen. The orthodoxy in Israel remains powerful, and their views reject giving or selling land to an Arab (these are ancient views and held by both sides). And the Settler movement is extremely powerful. There are many ordinary Israelis who support a Palestinian state but they aren’t the most powerful voice in government.
Again, the Arab States have never shown any interest in a democracy Arab State in the midst of their tribal dictatorships – and Israel wants that West Bank land base..so..there’s little hope.
And, as I said, there’s yet another agenda in the area, and that’s Iran’s imperialism against the Arab States.
Obama’s address yesterday was brilliant. He not only reached out to the Muslim world, but offered an olive branch to both Jews and Muslims to work toward peace. Finally a world leader has condemned Israel for the unlawful settlements in Palestine. Palestine has a right to exist and he said so, contrary to what many Israelies think. How many posting here have ever read the Quaran? I have never seen such anti-Muslim, Islamic hatred as is posted on this site. Shameful. I am not Muslim; however, I do not condemn the entire Islamic world for the actions of a few.
ET said “What Israel ought to have done right from the beginning, is to have enabled a Palestinian state alongside it, with its economy deeply embedded with that of Israel.”
I don’t really know much about the whole history of this region but I was under the impression that this was offered to the Palestinians many times and they have turned it down.
Can anybody enlighten me on this?
Well, I thought Obama’s speech was filled with lots of platitudes. It was kind of like listening to a Moody Blues album.
Anyway, good on him to try. I can’t imagine any American President before him that would have got the audience.
That being said, I don’t like the reinforcing of “muslim lands/muslim world” any collective expression of muslimness. It is a joke. Was the bombing of Serbians an attack on all Eastern Orthodox Christians? Ridiculous.
Talking in terms of Islam as homogeneous, or Islam as a single entity is both inaccurate and adopting the terms of the opponent. The islamists who say it is a battle between islam and the west. I was taught in PR 101 to never answer the negative, in other words dont accept the premise of the critic.
I understand the pandering he was doing, buttering them up about a history that they believe is ignored. But Christianity had nothing to do with Galieleo, or Netwon or Copernicus and Islam had nothing to do with calculus, or the pen or the compass.
The pandering was to build empathy and connection. But how real can it be when it is built on something that isnt real. Anyway, if it works, fantastic. If lots of Arab youth come out and start ratting Al Queda fantastic, I mean is this community organizing writ large, engage the youth so they dont join the gang?
Obama should have reinforced nationalities. But hey if his approach works I’ll be happy.
I do agree with his emphasis on stopping settlements. But you know, George Bush said the same thing and yet he never did anythign about it. The Isreali’s will do something that pushes beyond Obama’s statements, then we will see what he does. If he does nothing, all the nice words go down the toilet with the Arabs and others.
What will he do when the Israeli’s expand a settlement? Is he going to cut aid? Is he going t do anything concrete. Once again, if he can talk sense into the Israeli’s great. Good luck though. As some commentator said, the middle east is a long movie, dont expect resolution anytime soon.
ET: What Israel ought to have done right from the beginning, is to have enabled a Palestinian state alongside it, with its economy deeply embedded with that of Israel. Two democratic states side by side. But, it has always refused to acknowledge a Palestinian State. And, the Arab States have played a vital role in this mess; they too didn’t want a democratic Palestinian state. They didn’t want a Muslim democracy in their midst. Remember, they reject democracy; they are all tribal dictatorships and any democracy is a cursory front.
So it seems that we’re down to choosing a tribe to root for. Anyone giving odds?
ET, I find your comments v.v Israel and the Arab world to be quite naive and rife with sins of omission.
Does Israel have expansionist motives? Yes, they do, aided and abetted by the war footing they have been placed on, primarily by the Arab world, from the moment of the inception of the Israeli state.
It has provided ample justification for establishing buffer security zones. I disagree strongly with your contention that Israel has denied water and other services to the the Palestian prople. They have at least tried and been rebuffed.
Perhaps you should read some material on the other side of your argument for further insight. I and others can help you with that, if you are interested (though based on your long-standing comments at this site you are not).
Yes, there are hawks in Israel seeking an historic homeland encompassing far more that the borders set out in 1947. OTOH, the steadfast refusal to recognize the state of Israel by the Muslim world in particular, and ongoing military action has helped to harden views in Israel and give their hawks all the justification they need.
Bottom line, the Arab world and Israel hate each other, each feeling they have good reason, with zero goodwill. Obama can make all the “let’s be nice” speeches he wants, but he will simply be one of many who have naively believed the Arab world has any intention of recognizing Israeli sovereignty.
Nobody steps in to help Israel when they are subjected to military attack and constant harrassment; so when they take matters into their own hands (and yes take certain advantage of the situation), there should be no surprise.
Like I said, nice speeches and promises to hand over the West Bank, which Israel has no intention of doing, change nothing. Period.
It was called Judea, or if you wish Jewdea, 3,000 years ago and 1500 years before the land was conquered by an imperialistic outflow of Arabs and their Muslim faith.
The Palestinians are, therefore, an illegal occupation of “settlers” on land that was originally Judea.
Maybe Obama wants those settlers removed too.
Thanks for posting this Kate. Hopefully Robert W from the last readers tips post gets a look at it.
what is even more obscene is that this selling out of Israel is being done for purely domestic partisan interests.
And ET it think you are flat out wrong that this was a good to great speech. the patter about the Holocaust is so much static to the ears of radical islam. The selling out of Israel will be seen as a surrender and a sign of extreme weakness. they will be greatly encouraged by such weakness. and we will all suffer because of it.
Well, if we are going to sit and read every hacks views, we might as well be thorough about it. Enjoy. These are but a mere cross section of the Israeli media, and therefore contain a diversity of views, which may be unpalatable to most SDA readers. Reader discretion is advised – this may be harsh for you if you think you are always correct.
Commentary by Eitan Haber in Yediot Aharonot
The speech was balanced but this is exactly the problem… For light years we were spoilt by the lack of US balance in our favour… The speech yesterday is the beginning of a “new countdown” in the relations between Washington and Jerusalem. It seems there will be no intimacy in the relations, that intimacy that granted Israel and its leaders a unique, special status among the leaders and nations of the world.
Commentary by Yoaz Hendel in Yediot Aharonot
Only over one evil the new American prophet weeps – the settlements … What is left as an obstacle to peace, according to Obama, are those settlers… They are the ones responsible for the Israeli-Arab conflict… Had we not been witnesses to the result of the dismantling of the settlements in Gaza, someone in Israel still could believe that this is right.
Commentary by Nahum Barnea and Smadar Peri in Yediot Aharonot
Obama’s speech was intended as a war instrument against one enemy – Islamic extremism… It is impossible not to appreciate a president who opens his term with an intensive effort to promote solution of the problem under which Israel has laboured since its creation… He is not naive. He knows that a long time will pass until the achievement of peace – if at all. Yesterday he crossed the start line.
Commentary by Orly Azoulay in Ynetnews.com
The proposal placed on the table by Barack Obama in Cairo is one that Israel would not be able to refuse… Obama is timing Netanyahu, while expecting him to voluntarily connect to the new winds blowing from Washington, before he is forced to contend with a storm.
Attila Somfalvi in Ynetnews.com
Obama left no room for doubt: The United States supports Israel, yet the era of trickery, promises, and the gradual annexation in Judea and Samaria is over. The time has come for action; the time has come for moving towards a resolution of the Palestinian problem… Barack Obama’s speech was meant to make it clear to Netanyahu who the master of the house is.
Commentary by Yo’el Marcus in Ha’aretz
Today, 5 June, 42 years after the Six-Day War, the time has come to respond to the question posed by President Lyndon Johnson to Prime Minister Levi Eshkol: What kind of Israel do you people want? Yesterday, Obama made it clear what the answer should be, and that we should view his sycophantic speech in Cairo as a true alarm.
Editorial in Ha’aretz
It was not only before Islam and the West, but also, perhaps mostly, before Israel, the Palestinians and the Arabs that an opportunity for a new beginning was laid out in Cairo yesterday… The government of Israel, like that of the Palestinians, has no right to ignore this opportunity and place it in the drawer alongside all the other missed opportunities. The price of missing out will not be measured in the quality of relations with Washington, but in human lives.
Yossi Verter in Ha’aretz
The moment of political reckoning that he [Binyamin Netanyahu] so feared is now rapidly approaching… Netanyahu will have to decide over the coming weeks who he would rather pick a fight with: the powerful US administration or his own coalition and members of his party… If he aligns himself with the coalition, he will keep his job but risk isolating Israel.
Gideon Levy in Ha’aretz
Only the Israeli analysts tried to diminish the speech’s importance (“not terrible”), to spread fear (“he mentioned the Holocaust and the Nakba in a single breath”), or were insulted on our behalf (“he did not mention our right to the land as promised in the Bible”). All these were redundant and unnecessary. Obama emerged on Thursday as a true friend of Israel.
Commentary by Ben Kaspit in Ma’ariv
Bush’s work tools were the aircraft carriers. Obama’s work tools, at this stage, are his conquering personality, sweeping charisma and reconciled diplomacy… Netanyahu will have to decide soon. It is either “Yes” or “No” to Obama… If Netanyahu wants to go with the president, enter history and give peace a chance, he will have to change his government’s composition.
Commentary by settler Benny Katzover in Ma’ariv
Obama reiterated his wish to establish two states for two peoples. Balance and equality between Jews and Arabs as it were. But Obama “forgot” that in the Jewish state there are more than a million [Israeli] Arabs who enjoy democratic rights unknown to their brothers in Arab countries. No one stops them from building… But for us Jews in Judea and Samaria [the West Bank] it is forbidden to live, build or to buy land. Obama, who is supposed to be sensitive to racism, has turned himself into a racist.
Editorial in Jerusalem Post
It was with mixed feelings that we watched President Barack Obama deliver his extraordinary speech to the Muslim and Arab worlds in Cairo yesterday. Critics will see the speech as incredibly naive… Obama didn’t really need to tell Israelis to acknowledge “Palestine’s” right to exist since every government since Yitzhak Rabin’s has been explicit that the Jewish state does not want to rule over another people. The real question is whether a violently fragmented Palestinian polity is capable of making the necessary compromises required to close a deal.
Another good analysis of “the speech”
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KF02Ak05.html
T: “offered an olive branch to both Jews and Muslims to work toward peace. Finally a world leader has condemned Israel for the unlawful settlements in Palestine.”
Hard to see where the olive branch is, and I don’t know how the cause of peace between Israelis and Palestinians was advanced by this speech, which was very short on specifics. If it made you feel good, that’s fine; enjoy the feeling while it lasts. There are, however, many, many Israelis this morning who are not feeling that way.
Charisma and loud applause won’t solve this problem, much as the talking heads on CNN seem to think so. If Israel tries to destroy Iran’s reactors — as I thought they would have done by now — the whole game changes. And possibly Obama’s presidency as well.
mississauga matt – the fact that a Jewish democracy exists in their midst is irrelevant. The arab states are against an ARAB democracy for that would give their population ‘the wrong ideas’. The post WWII population of the Arab Middle East has grown exponentially and yet, they’ve been governed in the old pre-industrial style of elite tribalism which excludes them from economic and political participation in their nation. That has led to unrest – but the old guard is fighting to retain power. They’ve been able to do this by oil money – and using Israel as a diversion.
T – no people, including Palestinians, have a ‘right to be a nation’. Nations are political constructs and aren’t human rights. (As we try to remind the Tamil who protest here in Canada). The problem of ‘what to do with the inhabitants of Israel’ when Israel was created by the UN was resolved (heh) by creating a second state for the Palestinians. This second state never developed; its land based was occupied by Israel from 1967.
And some of us here, including myself, have read the Koran – which has many anti-infidel statements alongside many ‘let’s live together’ statements. Scholars suggest that the oral text was debased many times. Equally, one can read the Judaic texts of laws, which also detail how one must not interact with arabs…Both sides have ancient tribal traditions of isolation and rejection of each other.
Gord – no, an embedded side by side two-nations set up was never offered. The Oslo agreement, which was turned down, was only for municipal governance of certain Palestinian towns. Not a sovereign state; Israel was to retain control of air, borders, land resources, water, roads.
stephen – yes, Obama’s speech was filled with misinformation and manipulation. And that includes his list of ‘scientific accomplishments’ of the Arab world – most of which were not true, including algebra, printing, the compass and those Nobel prizes, which were won only because the scientists were working in the US. The Arab world stopped the use of Reason, Science and individual thought ..well, several centuries ago.
They have to modernize, and the real fight is between the old guard and the youth. Obama was speaking to the youth.
The key problem, I think, is the Old Guard of the Middle East -who want to retain tribal power. The West, Bush included, have warned them that the oil won’t last; they won’t be able to smother their people forever, using that money. They’ll have to enable modernization, which means freedom of thought, of work, of equality, democracy, etc. That’s the real problem in the Middle East.
I still say that Iran wants Israel to attack it, so that it can attack the Arab States (Iran is not an Arab nation but Persian). This resulting war will/might destabilize the old tribalism of the area..and enable the emergence of modern states in that area. It sounds terrible to suggest that a disastrous phase must preclude a constructive phase – but – it happens in the biological realm..and also in the societal realm (think of our own transition from feudalism to democracy).
“the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history.”
I did not see Obama’s speech so I cannot really comment on his speech, but the above statement is basically true. The foundations of Zionism started in the late 19th century and it is precisely because of centuries of hatred toward Jews by Europeans. Even before WWI, Zionism became a big political and military movement and it began to gain weight with Euro politians (partly as a way to get rid of the Jews from Europe). Even before WWI, Jews were buying up large areas of land from Arabs and settling in the Holy Land. The Holocaust provided the final moral ground for the fight for Israeli statehood (Zionists already had built up a pretty potent military and by 1948 they were ready to go for it – they just needed the right excuse).
Israeli’s do have a right to be there. They can talk about ancient homeland, etc. until the cows come home (everyone does this), but they are now there and established (call it squatter’s rights or whatever) and need to be accepted.
Concerning the comment on nuclear power in the middle east: Don’t really want to comment on Iran until we see what the results of the pres elections are next week but several Arab countries have bought nuclear reactors from France (the US is also trying to get in on the business). For countries like Saudi Arabia it’s an economic no-brainer.
Well, what did we expect from a first generation mulatto from Mumbasa, Kenya ?
Man, to get my fingers around the neck of some Obabots.
ET
Your comments on the creation of the Israeli state
are somewhat disingenuous. The British controlled
the land that is now called Israel. The Brits, through the Balfour Declaration of 1917, encouraged the development of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, provided the rights of the people living there were not affected.
The bottom line is that the Arabs will not accept anything other than the destruction of Israel and indeed, all Jews. There will never be a separate Palestinian state as long as Israel exists. Obama and others are just dreaming to think there ever will be one existing along with the state of Israel.
“Why can’t the few million Jews who have more brains and class than all billion and a half Muslims put together, have a little homeland.”
Ask the Christian Europeans. They were only too happy to massacre Jews by the millions. And when they were done, they sent the Jews off to a deserted stretch of land in some place called Palestine and tried to forget about it. Why keep talented people when you can throw them into the middle of a hostile group, eh? It took a genoicide for Christians to even notice the hatred they had fostered against Jews for centuries.
“They certainly have proved they have the ability to achieve greatness with their over 150 Nobel prizes in all disciplines”
There is no doubting the success of the Jewish community. Of course, the flip side is that this success scares the living daylights out of other communities. Jewish success has been used as justification for violence against them many times in history.
I do find it a bit ridiculous when Christians chastise another religious community for continuing what they started. The opportunism is insulting. I really think you should leave commentary about Israel to Israelis. Israelis have earned it. Instead we have kooks who use Israel as a pedestal from which to whip whoever’s the enemy of the day – Obama, in this case.
Let the flaming begin.
Ratt
“Well, what did we expect from a first generation mulatto from Mumbasa, Kenya ?”
How do you explain John Kerry?
“Well what did we expect from a 7th generation white from Boston, Mass?”
Go on, I m listening.
What perplexes me is that Obama’s supporters constantly screech ‘religion has no place in the public square.’
Yet, Obama spoke of America’s relation with the ‘Muslim world.’ A head of state speaking with a religion?
Also, when he spoke of resentments caused by colonialism, it seemed curious to me, since the US never had colonies in the ‘Muslim world.’
Curious how Obama glossed over the colonial expansionism of Islam that was finally repulsed from Europe.
ET:This second state never developed; its land based was occupied by Israel from 1967.
And this “occupation” ocurred before or after the Arab “invasion” of the first state? Why don’t you just openly admit that you’ve chosen your tribe, then you can concentrate on giving odds for the outcome.
The issue of Holocaust in the ME is a not an insignificant cloud on the peace picture.
Mr. Ahmadinejad insists the “Holocaust myth” was among the primary justifications for the Israeli state, which of course is false; as the Balfour Declaration predated Adolf & co.
Trying to rewrite history in the pursuit of empire building designs isn’t going to change the history, but underscores a weakness in the argument.
The dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, along with other empires in the European sphere in the wake of WWI resulted in the partition to nation states across the ME and Europe. see Paris 1919.
Iran appears to want to rebuild on the old Empire theme with grand dreams of glory. Of course we have seen examples of this in previous European and ME history. The sticking point as ET points out is that you can get stuck in the ‘history trap’ which informs or guides decisions.
Just as Adolf got stuck in the ‘history trap’, ie ‘we’ll get it right the second time’ with WWII.
What should have been patently obvious after two world wars, with 16 million and 50 million dead respectively, is that the prospect of shooting your way to prosperity is most likely an economic dead end. The jihad artists should be taking notes here.
Economic isolationism and retreating into old patterns of thinking will not bring prosperity nor peace.
In short, just because some of our forefathers leaders were stupid and short sighted doesn’t mean we need to follow blindly in their footsteps.
As Caroline Glick rightly pointed out in her article the left in Israel have been in control for almost the past 20 years with no substantive peace prospects. So the proposition of a peace with the left in Israel would likely be no better nor worse than with a party on the right such as Netanyahu.
The ability to fill up the grave yard is never in question in reference to self defence. The real question is why do you feel you need to do that to ‘buck up’ your own economy, other than when overtly threatened?
Making provocative statements like ‘wiping Israel off the map’, which was later claimed to be a mistranslation, is not the way to look for peace.
It makes people rightly nervous.
And of course the ordinary Abdullah, Isaac, or Peter on the street is simply looking to feed his family and wondering why our collective leaders are so stupid.
The open question is are the leaders of the respective nations in the ME hungry enough for peace?
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
The Bible does say that we have to pray for our enemies. I didn’t know we had to feed them!
ET; You need a refresher course in grade school biology. Let me see if I can help. NOTHING CAN SURVIVE WITHOUT WATER. If the Israelis had shut off the taps to the Palestinians as you so often claim, there wouldn’t be any Palestinians to talk about today. THEY’D ALL BE DEAD. What part of this don’t you get?
Glen Ford
“The Bible does say that we have to pray for our enemies. I didn’t know we had to feed them! ”
Of course not. What kind of compassionate merciful God would want you to feed other human beings, regardless of whether they have erred. God, in his infinite compassion, wants to see humans starve!
Uh huh: “Ask the Christian Europeans. They were only too happy to massacre Jews by the millions. And when they were done, they sent the Jews off to a deserted stretch of land in some place called Palestine and tried to forget about it. Why keep talented people when you can throw them into the middle of a hostile group, eh? It took a genoicide for Christians to even notice the hatred they had fostered against Jews for centuries.”
Is that what passes for history nowadays? Or was it just a rant?
You’re right, ET, land ownership is a political decision. This is why we should be careful handing over swaths of land to murderers such as Hamas.
Obama talks with his two faces. Nothing should surprise us. He is coddling the Islamic states as he promised during the election. He will try to placate the implacable and lose.
MJ, it seems that uh-huh attended the same Kindergarten as cough-cough where they learned history from Puff-Puff, Jane-Jane and Dick-Dick.
Me thinks Obama could sell ET on a Muslim state within Canada or the US, perhaps we could give them Toronto & New York, after all it is only a political decision – land is not owned by anyone.
No-One said of the Palestinians; “perhaps we could give them Toronto”
That’s next. They’re still working on Brampton and Mississauga.
Tell me about it, Bob.
I thought they owned Illinois to. Or at least shared it with the MOB.
ET,
This just a question… nothing more
If the world intellectual community, after WW11, had a loathing of the Arab tribal tendency for fascism.. and a fear of Jewish Zionism.. What would be a the logical solution for containment? What “marker” would one use to measure results?
PBS Charlie Rose show ( A WTF moment)
“The good thing is that when America is subjected to another Terrorist attach we will
enjoy more empathy by the youth of the Muslim world.”
BTW:
I think the good thing is that all those old Guard Communists hidden in the shadows of our establishments are going to suffer death, by old Age, in ~ 10 years. The replacements are all in the open…and accountable
The longstanding goal of the Arab nations is to destroy Israel. The only reason this has not been accomplished, to date, is soley due to the United States. The Arab states feared the US economic and military power and their unwavering commitment in befriending Israel at all costs.
To realize this goal, the Arabs States (majority Islamic – Muslim) first needed a strong victory over the US, which began with 911 and is seeing its completion with the election of Obama – the majority of his campaign donations, $800,000,000.00, are suspected to have come from the Arab part of the world.
The Arab states strongly believe they have successfully defeated the US.
They have announced this victory to the world by building the New World Trade Center Twin Towers in the Arab State of Bahrain in the Gulf of Bahrain (81% Muslim) which was completed in April of 2008. The new World Trade Center Twin Towers is an engineering marvel. I think it interesting that the twin towers look very much like two wings of an airplane bridged together by 3 huge wind powered turbines that look like airplane propellers- surprising given this is an oil rich area.
Link to pics and info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahrain_world_trade_center.
It is naive to think that the scope of the Israeli – Palestinian conflict is limited to the right to land. The Arab nations do not believe the Israel or the Jews even have a right to exist. Muslims hate Jews. This is sibling rivalry on a world scale. The Muslim faith and Jewish faiths both claim Abraham as their father – rightly so. Abraham had two sons, his first by his wife’s handmaiden Hagar, who was named Ishmael (Muslim faith) and his second son by his wife Sara, named Isaac (Jewish faith). Abraham favoured Isaac over Ishmael and sent Ishmael and Hagar away – at the request of Sara. Ishmael then bitterly went to live in the wilderness region of Hejaz in what became known as the Arabian Peninsula. This is when and where it all began.
so if you want to know where the jews have lived for thousands of years then you should read the bible.
bob c – the water shut off to Gaza was for the irrigation farms, which meant that the greenhouses could not longer function. This was the main economy in Gaza.
The water control by Israel in the West Bank allows Palestinians limited water at certain times of the day for household use only. They are not allowed, as are the settlers, water for irrigation.
No-one; that’s right. The ownership or sovereignty over a land base is not inherent, not a genetic claim, not an ethnic right. It’s a political decision. Surely you don’t think that land sovereignty is an ethnic or genetic right?
Fred, your viewpoint assumes that once a particular people move into a land base, then it is theirs for eternity. With this rationale, then, all of us here in America are ‘illegal settlers’. Plus, before the Jews moved into and conquered that area, there were other peoples living there. How far back do you wish to go in your linear viewpoint of defining ‘ownership’ of land?
glasnost – the 1949 armistice agreement didn’t enable or set up a Palestinian state and the areas of Palestine not incorporated into Israel were occupied by Jordan and Egypt (West Bank and Gaza) until 1967. And again, as I’ve said repeatedly, the Arab nations didn’t want a Palestinian state – a democratic model – in their tribal midst. Jordan, as you know, annexed the W. Bank rather than itself enable a Palestinian state. However, to my knowledge, only the UK recognized this annexation. The 1967 war took the W. Bank under Israeli rule.
My point is that they could have, and ought to have, then enabled a separate Palestinian state, economically embeddd with the Israeli state. That would have set up a buffer against the tribal Arab States, and also, prevented those Arab states from using the I-P conflict as a convenient diversion for their own rebellious youth.
Kinyobe – any group can be ‘murderers’; the zionists had their own militants, as I’m sure you know.
Hans Rupprecht – exactly, Iran is focusing on its ‘glorious past’ and wants an equally glorious imperialist future. It is enticing Israel to make the first attack – and that enticement includes funding and enabling Hamas and Hezbollah. Ahmadinejad’s juvenile rhetoric (no Holocaust) is meant to provoke; Iran wants that attack, so that it can then move against the Arab States. Again, it is utterly indifferent to the Palestinians.
But I think that the right is extremely powerful in Israel; the orthodoxy can’t be ignored, and they consider the ‘arabs’ as equally distasteful as the Islamists consider the Jews. Both sides are locked into ancient, ancient rules of behaviour to The Other. Check out the Halakha.
There are lots of articles on the Israeli need for the W. Bank water. Check out Stephen Lendman on ‘drought and israeli policy’.
As for Obama, apart from his narcissist agenda, I think he was appealing to the Muslim youth of the area, trying to encourage them to modernize and participate in the global economy. The tribal dictatorships have a deep grip on them, they are brainwashed, they are restricted – and that’s the root of fascism – but I think he was trying to create a wedge between them and their old guard rulers.
Remember as well, that Obama doesn’t write his own speeches and, in my view, hasn’t a thought in his head other than his own magnificence. So, someone else is running the show.
As for Israel, I stick to my point; Israel wants the West Bank land, without its Muslim inhabitants as Israeli citizens.