Benjamin Netanyahu is basically a fascist

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Either that or he's just really good at impersonating one, but the implications are pretty much the same regardless. And with his electoral career on the verge of coming to a screeching halt, with voters possibly about to turf him out of office, he's proving it once more, in extremis:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Monday that if he were to be reelected, a Palestinian state would not be created, in a definite disavowal of his 2009 speech, in which he had voiced support for the principle of two states for two peoples.

Netanyahu's remarks in an interview with the NRG website -- which is owned by casino mogul Sheldon Adelson and tied with the settler newspaper Makor Rishon -- were a last-minute attempt to pull right-wing voters away from Habayit Hayehudi.

"I think that anyone who moves to establish a Palestinian state and evacuate territory gives territory away to radical Islamist attacks against Israel," Netanyahu said. "The left has buried its head in the sand time and after time and ignores this, but we are realistic and understand." 

Oh, what a pile of horseshit. Creating a Palestinian state would basically mean caving in to ISIS or al Qaeda or whatever? Seriously. Nonsense. I would say the reverse is true. Creating a Palestinian state would encourage the rapid development of more moderate forms of political Islam. It would show the Muslim world that Israel, the United States, and others are serious about solving the long-standing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It would be the ultimate expression of respect, the ultimate olive branch.

I have said this many times before and I'll say it again now: I'm pro-Israel. But what that means for me is that I'm also pro-Palestine. Indeed, it's because I'm pro-Israel that I'm anti-Netanyahu, anti the Israeli right generally (and anti Israel's right-wing supporters in the U.S., like Adelson, the neocons, and the #47Traitors). The fact is, for the sake of Israel's present and future security and prosperity, it is essential that there be peace, that there be an accord between Israel and moderate elements in the Muslim Middle East. That can't and won't happen with Netanyahu and the right in control in Israel.

I realize that Netanyahu is desperate, and that he's doing what he thinks he needs to do to hold onto power. Faced with such desperation, politicians do and say stupid things. But this isn't just that. This isn't just desperation. This is the real Netanyahu, a man who doesn't want peace because he doesn't believe in peace, a man who doesn't want what is ultimately in Israel's own best interests, a man who is actually a threat to Israel's present and future security and prosperity.

And it's time to kick him to the electoral curb for good. Hopefully the people of Israel have had their fill of him.

John Kerry, peacemaker?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Well, this is something:

Secretary of State John Kerry said Tuesday that Israeli and Palestinian negotiators would convene again in the Middle East within two weeks and that their goal would be to work out a comprehensive peace agreement within nine months that would lead to an independent Palestinian state. 

"The parties have agreed to remain engaged in sustained, continuous and substantive negotiations on the core issues," Mr. Kerry said at the State Department, flanked by Tzipi Livni, Israel's justice minister, and Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator.

"Our objective will be to achieve a final status agreement over the course of the next nine months," Mr. Kerry said. "We all understand the goal that we're working towards: two states living side by side in peace and security."

It's good to see the U.S. again assuming a productive leadership role with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian situation, something that only seems to happen when a Democrat is in the White House, but a meaningful agreement on a two-state solution, however desirable, seems less likely than Kate giving birth to another undeserving "royal" in nine months.

Nonetheless, if Kerry pulls it off, the Nobel is his, deservedly so, and all of us who thought he was a fantastic pick to be secretary of state, perhaps better even than Hillary, and thought he would have been a similarly fantastic president, will be proven right.

Occam's Razor

By Carl 

The simplest solution that covers all foreseeable contingencies is usually correct. 

Right? 

The two-state solution is supported by all the major international players, including the US, the UN, the EU, and the 22 countries of the Arab League. It's also, officially at least, the stated policy of the current Israeli government and the internationally recognised Palestinian leadership. 

What's more, it's repeatedly been backed in principle by majorities of ordinary Israelis and Palestinians.

When the sides last sat down to try and reach a deal – at Annapolis in 2007 – their respective proposals turned out to be surprisingly close (take a look here and here). In fact on the issue of borders they were able to agree on how to divide all but around 250 square kilometres of land – or 1 per cent of the total area of Israel-Palestine.

These facts need pointing out because Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu insists the conflict is "insoluble", and that aiming for two states is unrealistic. 

250 square kilometres. Say, you know what might work there? How about calling it, ohhhhh, I don't know... a de-militarized zone? An international city-state? You know, a solution nobody likes and therefore is perfect in keeping everyone honest. We can freeze populations in those regions at some agreed-upon point in time and be done with it. Throw some UN peacekeeping forces in there just to keep a presence.

So why is this so difficult, apart from Netanyahu's intransigence? Granted, the division of Palestine into two non-contiguous states is a bit of a hang up, but it's not like we don't have nations made up of physical islands, so how hard is it to have one made up of political ones?

Read more »

Mitt Romney's ignorant, far-right views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Trashing 47% of the American people wasn't the only thing Mitt Romney did at that $50,000-a-plate fundraiser in Boca Raton on May 17.

As David Corn of Mother Jones reports, he also expressed his views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, asserting that "the Palestinians have no interest whatsoever in establishing peace, and that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish. He added:

And I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say, "There's just no way." And so what you do is you say, "You move things along the best way you can." You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem. We live with that in China and Taiwan. All right, we have a potentially volatile situation but we sort of live with it, and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it. We don't go to war to try and resolve it imminently.

And: "The idea of pushing on the Israelis to give something up to get the Palestinians to act is the worst idea in the world."

As Corn notes, these views conflict with his own party's platform, which stresses the desire for a two-state solution. And Romney himself has said that he supports a two-state solution, including in July: "I believe in a two-state solution which suggests there will be two states, including a Jewish state."


Once more, then, we see Romney the two-faced opportunist saying two different things, and taking two very different positions, in front of two different audiences. As Corn writes: "Romney's remarks to these funders -- this was one of his longest answers at the fundraiser -- suggest he might be hiding his true beliefs regarding Israel and the peace process and that on this subject he is out of sync with the predominant view in foreign policy circles that has existed for decades."

Now, Romney ought to be asked -- and perhaps he will be, at one of the upcoming debates -- about his views on this matter. There is a blatant self-contradiction here, perhaps a strategic one involving lying to voters, and he ought to be required to answer for it.

But let's say his views are indeed those he expressed at the fundraiser. Well, then, he's an extremist, much further to the right on this issue, and on foreign policy generally, than he would have us, and voters generally, believe. Because when you're even further to the right than the Republican Party's platform, well, that puts you pretty far out there on the right. And on this matter it aligns you with a subset of the most extreme neocons and against the broad consensus that has developed, even with ongoing disagreements over the details.

Furthermore, it suggests to me that he would do nothing as president to provide the sort of leadership that is needed to resolve this decades-long crisis. Okay, he wouldn't push for war, and his remarks do show a sense of moderation and humility, but he also seems to have given up on peace, embracing the pro-Israeli status quo that most sensible people realize is simply untenable, not to mention unjust.

And it's not at all like China and Taiwan, because Taiwan, whatever the mainland might like to think, is an independent and sovereign nation and is treated as such by the international community. Indeed, Mitt the foreign policy ignoramus may not know this, but the U.S. has actually supported Taiwan all along, including militarily, and of course supported the Taiwanese and their independence against the Communists on the mainland. Such has certainly not been the case with the Palestinians. Not even close.

I know I'm repeating myself, but more and more we're seeing that Romney is unprepared, unqualified, and unfit to be president. He insulted the Palestinians and revealed his astonishing ignorance during his trip to Israel, and this is really just more of the same.

What really makes Mitt Romney tick

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Hard work, providence, a rich daddy...

Earlier today, I wrote about the many gaffes, missteps, and otherwise revealing incidents that plagued Romney's trip to Israel, including his suggestion that Israeli/Jewish success and Palestinian (apparent) lack of success can be attributed to culture and the "hand of providence" (i.e., Israel thrives because it has a culture that allows it to, whereas the Palestinians do not; moreover, God is with Israel, directing its success, and against the Palestinians).

This is wrong for so many reasons, not the least of which is that these two peoples are not living in a vacuum but rather in a devastating situation in which one, the supposedly successful one, is militarily occupying the other. Indeed, as Dan Amira wrote at New York's Daily Intel, "a recent [World Bank] report on the economies of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip... concludes that the 'major constraints to private sector activity are the tight Israeli restrictions, and growth will not be sustainable until Palestinians have access to resources and are allowed to move freely.'"

Now, clearly, Romney's goal wasn't to provide an accurate analysis of the situation -- nor to offer a thorough, nuanced understanding of the two books he cited (and misrepresented), Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel and David Landes's The Wealth and Poverty of Nations -- but to score political points. And if that meant insulting an entire people, so be it. As Amira's colleague Jon Chait points out, though, "Romney has expressed versions of this belief over and over, including in his book. It appears to be a foundational belief of his."

And just what is that foundational belief? "The shorthand version he offers up on the campaign trail is little more than a modernized version of western self-congratulation: Those of us who are rich owe our success to hard work and strong values, and those who are poor have only themselves to blame."

This is "western self-congratulation," to be sure, but for Romney it is also self-congratulation, a self-validation of himself and his values. Israel is rich and Palestine is not, owing to hard work and values, but so too is Romney rich because of his own hard work and values, while those beneath him on the socio-economic ladder, which is to say almost everyone else on the planet, just isn't as good as he is. (Perhaps he also has the "hand of providence" helping him out?) It's a foundational belief -- and also the basis for so much of his self-aggrandizing plutocratic policy agenda (e.g., lower taxes on the rich, like himself; disregard for the plight of the poor; America as crusader for righteousness).

To understand Romney, and to understand just what he would do as president, what would guide him in the Oval Office, you need to understand this about him. It's easy to say he's a just a privileged rich douchebag, as we often have. It's actually much worse than that.

So what music should we play for Romney's return?

By Carl 

Sad Trombone or Yakkity Sax? 

From the WaPo:

Even before he was wheels-up for London, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's overseas trip was drawing comparisons to then-presidential candidate Barack Obama's 2008 overseas trip.

Both were candidates looking to appear presidential and polish up their foreign-policy credentials.

But where Obama's trip was smooth sailing (save a kerfuffle about a cancelled visit with wounded troops), Romney's voyage has been laden with cringe-inducing gaffes. 

From claiming London was not ready to host an Olympics (note to Mitt: they were two up on you when you decided to "abandon" Bain for Salt Lake City) to commenting on the disparity between Israeli wealth and Palestinian poverty -- created in large part by official Israeli policy favoring investment in Jewish areas and ignoring Palestinian ones, where Mitt decided it was "cultural," which itself seems to paint Israelis as wealth-obsessed -- it seems Mitt could not open his mouth without putting his shoe in it.

Then he made sure he swallowed his socks, too, by pointing out that health care in Israel costs 8% of GDP, whereas in the U.S. it's 18%.

Errrm, Israel has nationalized healthcare, Mittens. You know, sort of like Obamacare? Perhaps you know it better as Romneycare.

About the only thing Romney could have done worse was to walk into a kosher restaurant in Jerusalem and order the lobster.

He was probably glad to get to Poland, where he could review Rafalca's performance in the Olympic equestrian events. Rafalca is probably lucky Paris didn't get the Olympics, or she'd be outsourced to a dinner plate by now.

I mean, at least Poland went smoothly.

Oh. Wait...

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Unfit for the White House: Mitt Romney insults the Palestinians, kowtows to Netanyahu, reveals astonishing ignorance of Israel and Palestine, and continues his disastrous foreign tour

By Michael J.W. Stickings

What a great photo-op. Too bad all these Jews will miss out on exaltation, though.

Mitt Romney clearly wasn't prepared for his foreign tour, and clearly isn't prepared for the international stage (not to mention for the presidency), and it's been one gaffe

There was everything that happened in the U.K., of course, and then he went to Israel, where it's been mroe of the same, but worse. Let's recap:

1) Yesterday, one of his advisors, Dan Senor, said Romney would support a pre-emptive Israeli strike on Iran. Until his campaign pulled that back a bit, sort of, saying he prefers "diplomatic and economic measures," which he then followed up on Face the Nation, using his "own words," by saying he hopes the U.S. and Israel "come together in peace that want to see Iran be dissuaded from its nuclear folly." (Later, in a much-ballyhooed speech, he stressed Israel's "right to defend itself," a view shared by all across the political spectrum back home, notably by President Obama. Oh, and on Face the Nation he also said there are "other options, and we don't take those other options off the table," a reference to military action and, again, very much in line with what the president has said repeatedly.

2) In that speech, Romney said that Jerusalem was, in fact, the capital of Israel. He also said it in an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN, though he seemed to want to have it both ways by refusing to commit to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Consider the cortortions here: "The decision to actually make the move is one, if I were president, I would want to take in consultation with the leadership of the government which exists at that time. So I would follow the same policy we have in the past. Our embassy would be in the capital.  But that said, the timing of that is something I'd want to work out with the government." So typically Romney, a man evidently without principle other than self-aggrandizing plutocracy. Basically, the view that Jerusalem is the unqualified capital of Israel violates decades of U.S. policy, including from Reagan through Obama, the common position being, as White House spokesman Josh Earnest put it, "the capital is something that should be determined in final status negotiations between the parties." If nothing else, Romney's remark was unnecessarily divisive. Sure, he was trying to pander to the right-wing Israeli lobby (and Jewish voters generally) back home, but his remark exposed him as either an ignoramus or an extremist -- or perhaps both.

3) While cozying up to his buddy Netanyahu, Romney was scheduled to have a meeting with Labor Party leader (and former opposition leader) Shelly Yacimovich. (Just as Candidate Obama met with then-opposition leader Netanyahu on his trip to Israel in '08.) Yacimovich's people talked to Romney's people about cancelling the meeting after Shaul Mofaz of Kadima replaced her as opposition leader, but Romney's people objected, saying Mitt would meet with both Yacimovich and Mofaz. But then, suddenly, the meeting with Yacimovich was cancelled. Why? As Haaretz reports, "[Labor Knesset faction head Yitzhak] Herzog and Yacimovich have no doubts: Netanyahu, or his people, didn't approve of the Yacimovich meeting and pressured Romney to cancel it – and succeeded." Which is to say, Romney likely caved in to pressure from the Israeli prime minister, backing out of a meeting with someone of whom he disapproves (and despises). Put another way, Romney allowed Netanyahu to call the shots, proving, it would seem, that he lacks the fortitude, at least when it comes to Israel, to stand up for himself (and his country?).

4) Violating its own rules, the Romney campaign said the press was barred from his fundraiser with bigwigs like former Newt-lover Sheldon Adelson at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on Monday, perhaps to keep his self-inflicted embarrassment out of the media, until, under pressure (and getting bad press), it relented, agreeing to allow a single pool reporter into the event.

5) Romney praised Israel's health-care system. Now, in and of itself there's nothing wrong with this, as Israel does indeed have excellent health care. But...

Romney's point about Israel's success in controlling health care costs is spot on: Its health care system has seen health care costs grow much slower than other industrialized nations.

How it has gotten there, however, may not be to the Republican candidate's liking: Israel regulates its health care system aggressively, requiring all residents to carry insurance and capping revenue for various parts of the country's health care system.

Israel created a national health care system in 1995, largely funded through payroll and general tax revenue. The government provides all citizens with health insurance: They get to pick from one of four competing, nonprofit plans. Those insurance plans have to accept all customers -- including people with pre-existing conditions -- and provide residents with a broad set of government-mandated benefits.

And yet he still insists on opposing Obamacare and calling for its repeal, even though it's based largely on what he implemented in Massachusetts and includes an individual mandate akin to what Israel has. Hypocrisy? Opportunism? Shameless pandering? Unprincipled nonsense? You betcha.

6) Finally, as his fundraiser yesterday, he insulted the entire Palestinian people with this remarkably insensitive, and just plain ignorant, statement:

"And as I come here and I look out over this city and consider the accomplishments of the people of this nation, I recognize the power of at least culture and a few other things," Romney said, citing an innovative business climate, the Jewish history of thriving in difficult circumstances and the "hand of providence." He said similar disparity exists between neighboring countries, like Mexico and the United States.

At New York, Dan Amira notes that he likely won't take a political hit for insulting the Palestinians, and, again, his goal was to appeal to certain voters back home, not to provide "an accurate and thorough analysis," but his comments were nonetheless revealing. As Saeb Erekat, senior aide to the Palestinian prime minister said, "[i]t seems to me this man lacks information, knowledge, vision and understanding of this region and its people." Yes, absolutely. Amira adds: "As for the substance of Romney's remarks, the World Bank, for one, seems to agree with Erekat, at least on the question of Israel's role in depressing the Palestinian economy. In a recent report on the economies of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, it concludes that the "major constraints to private sector activity are the tight Israeli restrictions, and growth will not be sustainable until Palestinians have access to resources and are allowed to move freely." And what about this "hand of providence"? How bigoted is that?

And all that's just from a brief trip to Israel. Imagine what serious damage he'd do if he were actually president.

Easy target

By Mustang Bobby

Steve M. brings up a very good point about Mitt Romney's comparison between Israel and Palestine.

Romney knows that, in the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, Americans' sympathies are overwhelmingly with Israel. This is a freebie. You want to talk about the last acceptable prejudice? This is a serious contender.

His policies notwithstanding, George W. Bush personally shied away from overt racism toward blacks, Hispanics, and Muslims. Romney, by contrast, will eagerly exploit bigotry when he thinks he can get away with it. In this case, he knows he can not only get away with it but benefit from it, because so many Americans will cheer the dog whistle and so few will be outraged. He showed in prep school that he won't refrain from hate if hatred has no negative consequences.

The prep school reference is to the incident in 1965 where he pinned down a boy he perceived to be gay and cut off his hair.

It's further proof that the man is a sniveling coward and a bully who will never pass up an opportunity to beat up on the weak and the downtrodden. But then, that's the GOP platform.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Occupational therapy

By Mustang Bobby

Mitt Romney in Israel marvels at their economic growth:

In a salute to Israel's economic growth, Romney compared the GDP of his hosts to that of the Palestinian territories as though they were just any old neighboring countries. "As you come here and you see the GDP per capita, for instance, in Israel which is about $21,000 dollars, and compare that with the GDP per capita just across the areas managed by the Palestinian Authority, which is more like $10,000 per capita, you notice such a dramatically stark difference in economic vitality," he said.

Romney (who actually grossly overestimated Palestinian GDP) made no mention of the Israeli occupation, and its restrictions over Palestinian life as being perhaps somewhat determinative in the economic disparity he lauded as a sign of Israel's success.

It's kind of like commenting on how the French GDP really lagged between 1940 and 1945. Why was that?

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Mitt Romney would let Israel control U.S. foreign policy

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Republicans love to accuse President Obama of weakening America, of not believing in so-called American exceptionalism, of being too much of an internationalist -- all of which is to say, of not being an imperialist bully pushing its weight around without regard for anyone else.

This is the opposite of the truth, of course. Obama has worked to restore America's standing in the world, as well as its credibility and influence, after his predecessor worked to ruin it with his cowboyish, us-versus-them unilateralism. He is certainly an internationalist in the sense that he respects international institutions such as the UN, and in the sense that he values diplomacy and not just brute force, but there is nothing to suggest that he doesn't believe in, or accept as one of the foundations of his foreign policy, America's supposed exceptionalism, to the point that he often sounds like a Republican, spouting the same old flag-waving nonsense that is de rigeur in U.S. politics regardless of which party you belong to. And then there's his war on al Qaeda and other terrorist threats and his ramping up of the war in Afghanistan, both of which have shown him to be anything but what Republicans say he is.

Anyway, if you're looking for someone who would actually sell out America, you need look no further than Mitt Romney, who may well be the Republican standard-bearer next year. Like many Republicans, he would allow Israel to dictate U.S. policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian situation:

The free daily newspaper Israel Hayom — a media outlet closely associated with right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — asked Romney if, as president, he would ever consider moving the American Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. In his answer, Romney made some astonishing claims. First, that his policy toward Israel will be guided by Israeli leaders; second, on the Jerusalem issue, he'd do whatever Israel tells him to do; and third, he does not think the United States should take a leadership role in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

ROMNEY: The actions that I will take will be actions recommended and supported by Israeli leaders. I don't seek to take actions independent of what our allies think is best, and if Israel's leaders thought that a move of that nature would be helpful to their efforts, then that’s something I'll be inclined to do. But again, that's a decision which I would look to the Israeli leadership to help guide. I don't think America should play the role of the leader of the peace process, instead we should stand by our ally. Again, my inclination is to follow the guidance of our ally Israel, as to where our facilities and embassies would exist.

He was referring to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but of course Israel has views on the Middle East generally. Where would Romney stop letting Israel dictate U.S. policy? Where would he draw the line? Or would he always follow Israel wherever Israel determines its interests are at stake?

Once again, we see Romney playing to the Republican base, which is extremist in its support for Israel's right wing, while also trying to score some cheap political points with an important constituency, in this case Jews in swing states like Florida. What he actually believes, if he actually believes anything at all, is irrelevant. This is all about self-promotional politics, as seems always to be the case with Romney.

Now, I get why Romney is taking this position, given what currently plays in the Republican Party, as well as the demands of electoral politics, but of course Republicans are only extremist like this in their support for Israel when Israel is being governed by the right-wing likes of Netanyahu. Would Romney be saying such things if Labor or even Kadima or Yisrael Beiteinu were in power instead of Likud? Well, maybe, given how shameless he is, but certainly Republican support for Israel would be significantly less absolutist.

Romney titled his self-promotional campaign book No Apology: Believe in America. The implication, of course, is that Obama doesn't believe in America and apologizes for it. (Again, this is standard Republican fare.) And yet it's Romney who would put Israel's interests before America's (and, no, they're not the same even they occasionally overlap), and who would allow a foreign country to dicate U.S. policy. Imagine what Republicans would say if, say, Obama were to allow the EU to dictate U.S. monetary policy. Think that would go over well?

Well, it's the man who might very well be the Republican presidential candidate next year, not the president, who would weaken America by taking the exceptional step of selling out the country, and abdicating responsibility over one of the most important areas of foreign policy, for ideological purposes. (Or at least that's what he's saying to try to win votes. Who knows what he'd actually do.) That's just the sort of "leadership" Romney would bring to the Oval Office.

Craziest Republican of the Day: Allen West

By Michael J.W. Stickings

He wasn't being crazy when he was criticizing Newt Gingrich for proposing the return of "poll tests," but he's generally one of the craziest and most extreme Republicans around, and he's been at the crazy again in recent days attacking President Obama over Israel:

In West's typical hyperbole, he said [Obama's] speech was the "beginning of the end" of Israel and mysteriously accused Obama of giving Islamists a "Pavlovian-style" reward. But in a statement quoted by the Broward County New Times [on Wednesday], West took things further than any Republican lawmaker yet, invoking Hitler and accusing Obama of "nefarious" intent toward Jews:

In reviewing history, I would say Sir Neville Chamberlain was naive in his negotiations with German Chancellor Adolph Hitler. However, when one examines the state of affairs in the Middle East, including the Fatah-Hamas reconciliation pact, increase of rocket/mortar attacks from Gaza, the definitive Hamas Charter statement vowing the destruction of Israel, and the Hamas condemnation of America for killing Osama bin Laden... I cannot attribute this incompetent statement to naivete, but rather to conscious, nefarious, and malicious intent.

Of course, this is "an ignorant or intentionally dishonest interpretation of Obama's speech and the facts of the Middle East situtation." (And, yes, he spells Hitler's name incorrectly.)

And it is simply ridiculous, if predictable from the likes of West, to suggest that Obama is anti-Israel, or that suggesting, as Obama did, that the pre-1967 borders be taking as a starting point for negotiations signals an opposition to Israel's very existence. As the New Times explains:

Obama never once said Israel ought to withdraw to its "pre-1967" borders. He said that the division of land between Israel and a future Palestinian state would take the 1967 borders as a template and would be modified by land swaps. The words "pre-1967" never passed his lips. (In his speech, Obama also roundly decried Fatah's association with Hamas. West doesn't mention this, presumably because it would tarnish Obama's new image as the Jew Killer In Chief.)

How Obama's cautious, conservative stance on Israel is "unconscionable" is anyone's guess. It's precisely the approach advocated by every American president for a generation. The only way Obama's prescription is "unconscionable" is if a two-party solution is itself "unconscionable" -- which West firmly believes. Yet, like Obama's statements of unyielding support for Israel's security and his condemnation of Hamas, this goes unmentioned in his remarks.

And so you see, West is anti-Obama but also anti-Palestinian, and so he's attacking Obama, and doing so by lying about what the president actually said and actually supports, for working towards a sustainable peace in the region that includes not just a secure Israel but a Palestinian state that is itself similarly secure in its territory -- and not just "peace" on Likudnik Israel's terms, a "peace" that would allow Israel to keep all the post-1967 land it occupies.

A genuine peace agreement will require concessions on both sides. Obama knows that. But West, like Netanyahu, and like many in the American pro-Israel lobby, refuses to compromise, or to concede anything at all, which he crazily likens to appeasing Hitler. And that means he opposes peace, or at least that he doesn't give a damn about the Palestinians. Given his history of scapegoating Muslims, it's hardly surprising that that's the case.

(photo - with more on West's craziness)

Major Democratic donor criticizes (and will not contribute to) Obama over Israel

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As the neocon Commentary (or is it Dysentery?) is (gleefully) reporting, Haim Saban, a major Democratic donor, "has indicated that he will not contribute to President Obama's reelection campaign in 2012, because of the administration's stance on Israel":

"President Obama has raised so much money and will raise so much money through the Internet, more than anybody before him. And he frankly doesn't, I believe, need any of my donations," said Saban.

"I'm very perplexed as to why the president, who's been to Cairo, to Saudi Arabia, to Turkey, has not made a stop in Israel and spoken to the Israeli people," he continued. "I believe that the president can clarify to the Israeli people what his positions are on Israel and calm them down. Because they are not calm right now."

He's probably right that Obama doesn't need his financial support, but what does he object to, that Obama hasn't visited Israel? Okay, fine, he should go to Israel sometime, but the real issue is that Obama refuses to play along with the right-wing pro-Israel lobby in the U.S., that is, to kowtow before Netanyahu and Likud, and their American allies, who seek "peace" only on terms that penalize the Palestinians and otherwise keep them in a state of submission before an enlarged Israeli state that keeps the land it has come to occupy.

Again, all the president said in his speech last week was that Israel's pre-1967 borders should be taken as a starting point for negotiations. That's it, but it was enough to enrage Netanyahu and others on the right and to turn Congress into a bunch of shameless weaklings applauding Israel's, and the Israeli lobby's, demands.

Obama deserves criticism, perhaps, for not doing enough to work for a settled peace between Israel and the Palestinians, but his position is clearly aimed at securing such a peace by acknowledging that concessions are required on both sides. Of course, Netanyahu and his allies, both in Israel and the U.S., refuse to make any concessions, or at least the sort of concessions that could actually bring about peace, which is why they are obstacles to peace regardless of whatever dishonest rhetoric they may spew.

If there is to be any progress in the region, and any long-term security for Israel, it is essential that extremist ideology of all kind be rejected in favour of a more realistic understanding of what it may take to reach a compromise that, while not necessarily perfect, will be acceptable for the most part to both sides. It's too bad Saban doesn't seem to get that.

Measuring politics by standing ovation: Netanyahu addresses Congress and pushes the same old right-wing agenda

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Honestly, how does it matter that Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu got 29 standing ovations, four more than President Obama got during his 2011 SOTU address?

Are we measuring political popularity by standing ovation?

And does this really indicate anything other than that the generally right-wing pro-Israeli lobby is immensely influential and that weak-kneed Sens. and Reps. will kowtow to Likudnik demands for fear of appearing to oppose that lobby?

And that Netanyahu is a powerful orator?

(As Think Progress notes, he got a standing ovation for saying that Israel doesn't occupy the West Bank. In other words, he got a standing ovation for telling a massive lie. And all those standing and applauding didn't seem to have a clue. Indeed, they only brought shame on themselves for doing so.)

**********

Because, otherwise, all Netanyahu espoused was the same old hard-line position -- a domineering Israel that refuses to make concessions -- that has done nothing to secure anything even resembling a lasting, sustainable peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Sure, Israel will be "generous on the size of the Palestinian state," but the devil, as they say, is in the details -- and it's all about "where we put the border." And Netanyahu stressed that Israel will not, if he has his way, go back to its pre-1967 borders, even though Obama, breaking somewhat from previous U.S. policy, stated in his Middle East speech other day that those borders would only be a starting point for negotiations.

That isn't nearly good enough for Netanyahu and the Likud and their mostly right-wing American allies, of course, even though that would certainly be a good starting point that could ultimately lead to an acceptable compromise.

Because, of course, they only want peace on their terms.

Now, I'm generally pro-Israel myself, but I'm not certainly not pro-Netanyahu's Israel, and certainly not for the sort of peace they want. I used to think that it might just take a conservative like Netanyahu to make the necessary concessions to secure peace, but it's been clear for a long time that Israeli conservatives want no such thing and that there will never be a genuine peace agreement as long as they're in power.

It doesn't matter how many standing ovations Netanyahu gets. He's a bully, not to mention a liar, and Israel under his leadership is itself a bully -- a bully with a military that seeks to advance its interests through force.

President Obama knows better. Obviously, Congress does not.

The Epitome Of Ultimate Superlative Hyperbole

(By Zandar)

No subject in American politics in 2011 brings out the flammable straw men being engulfed in the fires of rhetoric, the over-the-top references to doom and destruction, the cries of helpless victimization and the utter nonsense of warnings of evil quite like the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.  Combine Obama Derangement Syndrome with this subject and the odiously mendacious Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post, and you have a recipe for one of the all-time classics of truly terrible "journalism" as the President addressed the annual AIPAC conference this weekend, elaborating on what he meant by "1967 borders" for Israel, and Rubin wastes no time in letting the blood fly.

Obama must be very certain that liberal Jews will enthusiastically support him no matter what. And there is evidence he is right. Josh Block, senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute and a former AIPAC spokesman, e-mailed: “It [the speech] was a strong reaffirmation of the US-Israel relationship, and was an important and positive change from his remarks on Thursday. It reflected an important continuity of US policy going back to President Johnson.”

This is the sort of spin that pro-Israel Democrats use to justify voting for Obama. But there is a reality that can’t be avoided. This president once again has proved an apt negotiator on behalf of the Palestinians and a thorn in Israel’s side. Now is a time of choosing for the American Jewish community, for Israel and for Congress. And if Obama should be reelected in 2012 one can only imagine how hostile he will become toward the Jewish state.

So not only does Rubin stop about a micron short of accusing first African-American president of being an anti-Semite and an enemy of Israel, she stops maybe two microns short of accusing anyone of Jewish faith in America who supports Obama of being the same, calling on the American Jewish community to choose between their faith and Obama.

That's outrageous, the kind of spittle-flecked invective one expects to find from Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post.  But the insinuation here is that the biggest single threat to the Jewish homeland is not the intransigence of Israel's righteous indignation, nor the continued justifications for the treatment of the Palestinians, nor the international community becoming bone-weary of a country that has flouted international law time and time again, but that the American President is saying these things in public. This alone makes him an enemy of all Judaism in the eyes of some.

Oh, and by no means are the Palestinians angels in this bloody idiocy.  They have killed with suicide bombers and gone after civilians for the sheer shock value and fired rockets indiscriminately and taken pound after pound of flesh from their neighbors.  They too are part of the problem, not the solution.

But the issue is that the Palestinians aren't getting billions in military equipment, training, and cutting-edge technology from the United States, and that they aren't rounding up Israelis and putting them in armed camps, either.  Jewish right-wing neo-cons say that they could never understand supporting Obama.  I say given the tragic history of the Jewish people in the last century, I can't fathom anyone of the Jewish faith wanting to inter any group of people to single them out for collective punishment.

Imagine if the 12% of the nation's population that is African-American took over an American state, or if the nation's Native American population gathered together to do the same, or the nation's Latino or Japanese-American or any group took over an area of the country, declared it their new ancestral homeland, and then herded the people not of that ethnicity into separated, armed camps.  The new state created demanded its own independence and UN recognition, while the basic civil rights of those who were not of the proper background were curtailed severely in the name of public safety.  Trade of basic foodstuffs, livestock, building supplies, even information, would be arbitrarily monitored and controlled by the ethnic group in charge.  Bad movie plots and "Second Amendment remedies" aside, this is the reality of the Israeli-Palestinian "conflict" right now, it's pretty one-sided.

But to even mention this unfortunate truth at AIPAC, well apparently this makes Obama and anyone who supports him an enemy of Israel and the Jewish people.  And yet people like Jennifer Rubin wonder why no progress has been made on this front.

I can't imagine why.

(Cross-posted at Zandar Versus The Stupid)

Becoming the monster?

By Capt. Fogg

I'm old enough to have learned to delay anger at any reports about or coming from the area formerly known to some as Palestine. Initial reports are so often untrue or exaggerated that caution is always advised. If it is true, of course, that the government of Israel has caused part of a Muslim cemetery in Jerusalem to be bulldozed, my anger is going to be well into condition red -- the more so if, as has been reported, the demolition is related to the construction of a Museum of Tolerance planned by the US based Simon Wiesenthal Center.

So I'll hold my temper a while longer although I fear that Nietzsche's warning about becoming the monster you set out to fight may be waiting to make a comeback.

UPDATE

It's possible that the "newly renovated" grave sites may have been newly constructed for the purpose of creating a false "atrocity" for propaganda purposes and to claim additional territory.

(Cross posted from Human Voices)

Premeditated violence

By Capt. Fogg

So whether you agree with me or not that Israel's attempt to enforce the blockade of Gaza by boarding a ship which refused normal inspection procedures and the attempt at self defense of the IDF Navy when attacked, was not the outrage it was meant to look like, do you agree that it's all Obama's fault? Sure it was says John Bomb-Bomb McCain. If Obama hadn't insisted that Israel freeze it's West Bank settlement construction, this wouldn't have happened. (insert WTF here!)

Michael Savage tells us that Obama "pressured" Israel into it without offering any of the evidence one would desire to back it up.

"As far as I know, it was Obama's administration that told them how to do this attack. It was probably one of America's peace-loving generals, who knows which one of them did it."

The use of probably by a Fox News member of course is as good as proof to the willfully Foxed, as is "as far as I know." Probably means 'definitively' to the Savage audience. Only a Liberal would question it. Only a Liberal would wonder why "peace loving" should be the equivalent of stupid, duplicitous and incompetent -- if not treasonous.

Of course knees are jerking in the Liberal camp as well, as Dennis Kucinich has written to President Obama suggesting that the country needs to "redefine its relationship with Israel" in the wake of the Gaza flotilla "raid." I'd ask him his opinion on redefining the US Coast Guard's daily practice of stopping and boarding ships with armed gunboats and armed inspectors as "raids." I'd ask him if an attack on the Coast Guard by a vessel refusing to stop and be inspected in wartime or peacetime, would be supported by him or excused by him because we're certainly doing it now in the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Caribbean. I'd ask him whether our entire drug interdiction and human smuggling interdiction policies are " reckless, pre-meditated violence waged against innocent people." I'd try to do it without calling him an idiot and a hypocrite, but I doubt I could manage.

So if you still feel this was "premeditated violence" even when the violence occurred only after the "peaceful passengers" tried to kill the inspectors and threw one overboard, ask yourself what the US should do if a flotilla from Iran attempted to enter Iraq with an unspecified, un-inspected cargo, refused to heave to and be inspected and then brutally attacked our Navy when our Navy attempted to examine that cargo and passenger list.

(Cross posted from Human Voices)

The outrage machine

By Capt. Fogg

As a boater, I'm aware that the Coast Guard has the right to board and inspect my vessel at any time and that I'm required to comply. Upon probable cause and perhaps just suspicion, they have a right to impound and literally disassemble my boat looking for drugs or contraband. Sometimes, as I'm given to understand, they've been known to be rather demanding in their searches, and other completely innocent, law abiding yacht captains I know have complained of dirty footprints on the ivory carpeting or greasy hand prints on the cherry paneling and have suggested that too much protest or grouchiness can earn one an extra careful inspection of safety equipment that might entail a ticket.

Of course we have a real problem in our coastal waters and particularly on the Atlantic coast with illegal immigrants arriving rather often, and then there's always the drug smugglers, so when the Coasties hail you it's best to heave to and not make waves, so to speak. In fact the US has a policy of stopping and boarding vessels anywhere on the high seas and at any time they suspect contraband. For an honest captain or crew, the idea of going after the Coast Guard with a boat hook or marlinespike is pretty much as unthinkable as it is counterproductive.

Yesterday however, when I read about the Israeli raid on the blockade runners attempting to bring supplies to Gaza, I was truly angered at what seemed like a pointless and brutal attack on unarmed civilians, and the video then available seemed to confirm that first impression. The media were making charges of piracy and it seemed less than hyperbolic at the time. Then I saw the rest of the video.

Aside from the question of the embargo itself, it has to be mentioned that the "relief" expedition was required to pass inspection before landing in Gaza, there being good reason for Israel to make sure no weapons or explosives or ammunition were being carried, or fugitives, or any persons wanted for questioning. The word of some Turkish political group that it's a peaceful enterprise is scarcely enough, although reports so far seem to gloss over the obvious with a coat of shiny outrage. Of course the flotilla had no intention of complying or of allowing themselves to be boarded peacefully and inspected, which carries the implication that they had indeed something to hide. The Israeli Navy did what any country would have done and boarded them.

The video that was not shown, of course, was the brutal attack by the passengers, who mobbed the inspectors, threw them to the deck and began beating them with clubs and metal rods. One Israeli was thrown overboard. They were vastly outnumbered. They began to defend themselves. There were casualties. It started to look less and less like piracy or even aggression. It began to look like deliberate provocation. It began to look like assault. It began to look like a mission of strategic martyrdom designed to turn Israel's ally Turkey against them. It looks like a success so far.

As usual, those who have their reasons for hating Israel will not compare the incident to trying to run through passport control at the airport and complaining about being tackled and detained. Those who are quite sure Hamas is justified in any act whatsoever that brings about the total annihilation of all Israelis wouldn't care and might rejoice if the ships had been blown out of the water without warning.

There's not much middle ground, there's not much changing of minds and a fortune is being spent on further polarization. This, in my opinion, is just part of that enterprise. The drums of manufactured outrage will continue to boom about mistreatment of "peaceful" passengers so long as doubt remains as to whether their mission had anything do do with anything but creating provocation against "Zionist Aggression." To some, the passengers will continue to be "tourists" and the haters of Israel will use any opportunity to appear as martyrs, but try this, if you dare: load up a flotilla of ships and announce your destination as Turkey and your cargo as aid for Islamist patriots resisting secularist aggression and when it comes time for customs inspection -- refuse to stop and be boarded. Set your "tourists" on the Turkish coast guard and customs inspectors with fence posts and bits of deck railing and furniture and claim that the secular Turkish government is attacking Islam and peaceful Islamists. Go on -- I dare you.




(Cross posted from Human Voices)

Map of the Day!

By J. Thomas Duffy

Last week, we gave Juan Cole's post "Quote of the Day", on the Israeli announcement of housing expansion on the day Vice President Joe Biden arrived to, hopefully, jump-start the stalled peace talks, and now, causing a good deal of tension.

Today, he follows up (with pointers to the blog flare-up, between Andrew Sullivan and Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, with additional commentary from Spencer Ackerman and Matthew Yglesias) with more;

The Map: The Story of Palestinian Nationhood Thwarted After the League of Nations Recognized It

As part of my original posting, I mirrored a map of modern Palestinian history that has the virtue of showing graphically what has happened to the Palestinians politically and territorially in the past century.



[snip]

The map attracted so much ire and controversy not because it is inaccurate but because it clearly shows what has been done to the Palestinians, which the League of Nations had recognized as not far from achieving statehood in its Covenant. Their statehood and their territory has been taken from them, and they have been left stateless, without citizenship and therefore without basic civil and human rights. The map makes it easy to see this process. The map had to be stigmatized and made taboo. But even if that marginalization of an image could be accomplished, the squalid reality of Palestinian statelessness would remain, and the children of Gaza would still be being malnourished by the deliberate Israeli policy of blockading civilians. The map just points to a powerful reality; banishing the map does not change that reality.

Phew!

You can almost look at that map and think it was shaken, like an Etch-A-Sketch.

Go read Juan Cole's "The Map: The Story of Palestinian Nationhood Thwarted After the League of Nations Recognized It", it's a good briefer on what's all the fuss going on.

Bonus Bonus

Steve Clemons, over on The Washington Note, has a bit of fun, creating some hijinks, reworking, tongue-in-cheek, an AIPAC press release;

The AIPAC Statement We Need But Have Not Gotten (Yet): Netanyahu Government Needs to Remove Daylight Between US & Israel

(Cross Posted at The Garlic)

Palin, Netanyahu, and Israel's West Bank settlements

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Sarah Palin recently suggested that "the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon." (I blogged about her comments, from an interview with Barbara Walters, here.) Evidently, this extremist position puts her to the right even of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has called for a 10-month freeze on settlement construction in order to show, so he says, Israel's commitment to peace.

The freeze will only go so far:

Netanyahu said the "far-reaching and painful" move would not be implemented in predominantly Arab East Jerusalem, which is viewed by Israel as a separate issue to be discussed in a final status agreement with the Palestinians.

"We do not put any restrictions on building in our sovereign capital," the premier said.

The freeze applies only to new construction, meaning housing already underway will continue. Also, Netanyahu said, only new homes are included.

"We will not halt existing construction and we will continue to build synagogues, schools, kindergartens and public buildings essential for normal life in the settlements," he said.

As for any sort of "normal life" for Palestinians, and specifically for those whose land has been taken or those who otherwise are being impacted by the settlements and, until now, the expansion thereof, well, no matter. It seems that Netanyahu cares about as much the Palestinians as Palin does.

No, that's not fair. Netanyahu at least seems to be genuine about his efforts to achieve a lasting peace:

Now is the time to begin negotiations, now is the time to move forward towards peace. Israel today has taken a far-reaching step toward peace, it is time for the Palestinians to do the same.

This isn't entirely fair either, given that Israel will continue to colonize an occupied territory -- construction will continue, after all -- and it is rather disingenuous of Netanyahu to suggest that Israeli is now fully committed to peace and that the Palestinians must now, backed into a corner, prove themselves similarly committed. All this means is that, should negotiations fail, he'll be able to blame the Palestinians for not stepping up in response to this "far-reaching and painful" move. In giving up so little while claiming to give up so much, Netanyahu proves to be nothing if not a Machiavellian manipulator. (Too bad for him that this is all so transparent.)

Still, compared to Palin, Netanyahu deserves the Nobel Peace Prize (which I once thought he would win one day as a co-architect of peace, as it will probably take a conservative to make the necessary concessions and to persuade the Israeli people of the need for compromise). At least this is something, after all, and something, even this, is better than nothing, and certainly much better than dismissing the Palestinians entirely and pushing for even more Israeli expansion, as Palin and many on the American right are doing.

She really is clueless and really is dangerous and should never be allowed anywhere near U.S. foreign policy, or anything having to do with the Middle East in general and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular. While it is easy to laugh at her ignorance, though, her views are hardly uncommon among American conservatives. What Netanyahu's move shows is not just Israel's supposed commitment to peace, if we take him at his word, but just how extreme people like Sarah Palin really are.