Obama's Arabian Dreams

[calfoxwc]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFull

 

Column One: Obama's Arabian dreams

By CAROLINE GLICK

 

US President Barack Obama claims to be a big fan of telling the truth. In media interviews ahead of his trip to Saudi Arabia and Egypt and during his big speech in Cairo on Thursday, he claimed that the centerpiece of his Middle East policy is his willingness to tell people hard truths.

 

Indeed, Obama made three references to the need to tell the truth in his so-called address to the Muslim world.

 

Unfortunately, for a speech billed as an exercise in truth telling, Obama's address fell short. Far from reflecting hard truths, Obama's speech reflected political convenience.

 

Obama's so-called hard truths for the Islamic world included statements about the need to fight so-called extremists; give equal rights to women; provide freedom of religion; and foster democracy. Unfortunately, all of his statements on these issues were nothing more than abstract, theoretical declarations devoid of policy prescriptions.

 

He spoke of the need to fight Islamic terrorists without mentioning that their intellectual, political and monetary foundations and support come from the very mosques, politicians and regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt that Obama extols as moderate and responsible.

 

He spoke of the need to grant equality to women without making mention of common Islamic practices like so-called honor killings, and female genital mutilation. He ignored the fact that throughout the lands of Islam women are denied basic legal and human rights. And then he qualified his statement by mendaciously claiming that women in the US similarly suffer from an equality deficit. In so discussing this issue, Obama sent the message that he couldn't care less about the plight of women in the Islamic world.

 

 

 

So, too, Obama spoke about the need for religious freedom but ignored Saudi Arabian religious apartheid. He talked about the blessings of democracy but ignored the problems of tyranny.

 

In short, Obama's "straight talk" to the Arab world, which began with his disingenuous claim that like America, Islam is committed to "justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings," was consciously and fundamentally fraudulent. And this fraud was advanced to facilitate his goal of placing the Islamic world on equal moral footing with the free world.

 

In a like manner, Obama's tough "truths" about Israel were marked by factual and moral dishonesty in the service of political ends.

 

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 soothe 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.

 

Even worse than his willful blindness to the historic, legal and moral justifications for Israel's rebirth, was Obama's characterization of Israel itself. Obama blithely, falsely and obnoxiously compared Israel's treatment of Palestinians to white American slave owners' treatment of their black slaves. He similarly cast Palestinian terrorists in the same morally pure category as slaves. Perhaps most repulsively, Obama elevated Palestinian terrorism to the moral heights of slave rebellions and the US civil rights movement by referring to it by its Arab euphemism, "resistance."

 

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.

 

Obama argued that the first policy will facilitate peace and the second policy will prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Upon reflection, however, it is clear that neither of his policies can possibly achieve his stated aims. Indeed, their inability to accomplish the ends he claims he has adopted them to advance is so obvious, that it is worth considering what his actual rationale for adopting them may be.

 

The administration's policy toward Jewish building in Israel's heartland and capital city expose a massive level of hostility toward Israel. Not only does it fly in the face of explicit US commitments to Israel undertaken by the Bush administration, it contradicts a longstanding agreement between successive Israeli and American governments not to embarrass each other.

 

Moreover, the fact that the administration cannot stop attacking Israel about Jewish construction in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, but has nothing to say about Hizbullah's projected democratic takeover of Lebanon next week, Hamas's genocidal political platform, Fatah's involvement in terrorism, or North Korean ties to Iran and Syria, has egregious consequences for the prospects for peace in the region

 

(click the link to read the rest of the article)

 

 

[DieHardBrownsFan]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFull

 

Column One: Obama's Arabian dreams

By CAROLINE GLICK

 

US President Barack Obama claims to be a big fan of telling the truth. In media interviews ahead of his trip to Saudi Arabia and Egypt and during his big speech in Cairo on Thursday, he claimed that the centerpiece of his Middle East policy is his willingness to tell people hard truths.

 

Indeed, Obama made three references to the need to tell the truth in his so-called address to the Muslim world.

 

Unfortunately, for a speech billed as an exercise in truth telling, Obama's address fell short. Far from reflecting hard truths, Obama's speech reflected political convenience.

 

Obama's so-called hard truths for the Islamic world included statements about the need to fight so-called extremists; give equal rights to women; provide freedom of religion; and foster democracy. Unfortunately, all of his statements on these issues were nothing more than abstract, theoretical declarations devoid of policy prescriptions.

 

He spoke of the need to fight Islamic terrorists without mentioning that their intellectual, political and monetary foundations and support come from the very mosques, politicians and regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt that Obama extols as moderate and responsible.

 

He spoke of the need to grant equality to women without making mention of common Islamic practices like so-called honor killings, and female genital mutilation. He ignored the fact that throughout the lands of Islam women are denied basic legal and human rights. And then he qualified his statement by mendaciously claiming that women in the US similarly suffer from an equality deficit. In so discussing this issue, Obama sent the message that he couldn't care less about the plight of women in the Islamic world.

 

 

 

So, too, Obama spoke about the need for religious freedom but ignored Saudi Arabian religious apartheid. He talked about the blessings of democracy but ignored the problems of tyranny.

 

In short, Obama's "straight talk" to the Arab world, which began with his disingenuous claim that like America, Islam is committed to "justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings," was consciously and fundamentally fraudulent. And this fraud was advanced to facilitate his goal of placing the Islamic world on equal moral footing with the free world.

 

In a like manner, Obama's tough "truths" about Israel were marked by factual and moral dishonesty in the service of political ends.

 

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 soothe 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.

 

Even worse than his willful blindness to the historic, legal and moral justifications for Israel's rebirth, was Obama's characterization of Israel itself. Obama blithely, falsely and obnoxiously compared Israel's treatment of Palestinians to white American slave owners' treatment of their black slaves. He similarly cast Palestinian terrorists in the same morally pure category as slaves. Perhaps most repulsively, Obama elevated Palestinian terrorism to the moral heights of slave rebellions and the US civil rights movement by referring to it by its Arab euphemism, "resistance."

 

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.

 

Obama argued that the first policy will facilitate peace and the second policy will prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Upon reflection, however, it is clear that neither of his policies can possibly achieve his stated aims. Indeed, their inability to accomplish the ends he claims he has adopted them to advance is so obvious, that it is worth considering what his actual rationale for adopting them may be.

 

The administration's policy toward Jewish building in Israel's heartland and capital city expose a massive level of hostility toward Israel. Not only does it fly in the face of explicit US commitments to Israel undertaken by the Bush administration, it contradicts a longstanding agreement between successive Israeli and American governments not to embarrass each other.

 

Moreover, the fact that the administration cannot stop attacking Israel about Jewish construction in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, but has nothing to say about Hizbullah's projected democratic takeover of Lebanon next week, Hamas's genocidal political platform, Fatah's involvement in terrorism, or North Korean ties to Iran and Syria, has egregious consequences for the prospects for peace in the region

 

(click the link to read the rest of the article)

 

 

Glick is famous and well respected. I think she makes some valid points in her article. Thanks for finding it.

[Guest Aloysius]

Glick is famous and well respected.

 

She gets kind of crazy on the second page of the piece:

 

The only reasonable explanation is that the administration is baiting Israel because it wishes to abandon the Jewish state as an ally in favor of warmer ties with the Arabs. It has chosen to attack Israel on the issue of Jewish construction because it believes that by concentrating on this issue, it will minimize the political price it will be forced to pay at home for jettisoning America's alliance with Israel. By claiming that he is only pressuring Israel to enable a peaceful "two-state solution," Obama assumes that he will be able to maintain his support base among American Jews who will overlook the underlying hostility his "pro-peace" stance papers over.

This is in line with what Jeffrey Goldberg wrote about her a year ago (in a post titled, "The Delusions of Caroline Glick"):

 

I believe, simply put, that the occupation of the West Bank undermines Israel demographically, strategically, and morally. Demographically, because there will eventually be under Israel's control more Arabs than Jews. Strategically because the occupation undermines Israel's international legitimacy, which it needs in order to wage the coming war of national defense against Iran and its proxy armies. And morally, because -- well, I served in the occupation, and I saw what such service did to my fellow soldiers, not to mention the Palestinians who were our captives. In fact, I wrote a whole book about this, which Caroline Glick could surely read, if she even reads book written by people with whom she disagrees.

 

Glick is representative of a certain strain of mainly-American Jewish thinking: She believes that all criticism of Israel is illegitimate; she believes Jews who disagree with her are traitors to her cause; and she conflates the settlement movement with the entire Zionist project. I believe that it is possible to stand against the settlements and stand for Israel at the same time.

I agree.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Glick was born in Chicago and graduated from Columbia University with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science. She immigrated to Israel in 1991 and joined the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).[3]

 

She worked in the IDF's Judge Advocate General division during the First Intifada in 1992, and while there edited and co-authored an IDF-published book, Israel, the Intifada and the Rule of Law. Following the Oslo Accords, she worked as coordinator of negotiations with the Palestinian Authority. She retired from the military with the rank of captain at the end of 1996. In 1997 and 1998 she served as assistant foreign policy advisor to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. She returned to the US to get her Master of Arts in Public Policy from Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, in 2000.

 

Upon her return to Israel, she became, and remains, the chief diplomatic correspondent for Makor Rishon newspaper, for which she writes a weekly column in Hebrew. She is also the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post for which she writes two weekly syndicated columns. Her writings have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, the National Review, The Boston Globe, the Chicago Sun-Times, The Washington Times, Maariv and major Jewish newspapers worldwide. She has appeared on MSNBC, Fox News Channel, Sky News, the Christian Broadcasting Network, and all of Israel’s major television networks. She also makes frequent radio appearances both in the US and Israel.

 

In 2003, during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Glick was embedded with the US Army’s 3rd Infantry Division and filed front-line reports for The Jerusalem Post and the Chicago Sun-Times. She also reported daily from the front lines, via satellite phone, for the Israeli Channel 1 news. Glick was on the scene when US forces took the Baghdad International Airport.

 

She is the Senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy and is one of several co-authors of the Center’s latest book, War Footing. She has been a senior researcher at the IDF’s Operational Theory Research Institute (which as Israel’s Defense establishment’s most prestigious think tank is roughly equivalent to the US’s Rand Corporation). She has also worked as an adjunct lecturer in tactical warfare at the IDF’s Command and Staff College.

 

In 2003, Glick was named "The Most Prominent Woman in Israel" by the Israeli newspaper Maariv.

 

She was the 2005 recipient of the Zionist Organization of America’s Ben Hecht award for Outstanding Journalism (previous recipients have included A. M. Rosenthal, Sidney Zion and Daniel Pipes).

 

She also received Israel Media Watch’s 2006 award for critical journalism.

 

On May 31, 2009 she received the Guardian of Zion Award from the Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies at Bar Ilan University.

 

 

[calfoxwc]

Odd, that Jeffrey Goldberg is now the excellent authority to diss a highly educated and successful Caroline Glick !!!

 

After all, everybody knows it is a lib's thing to diss people with formal education.

 

I don't know why Al would diss someone with a higher ed. I thought libs defended people with higher educations.

 

Hmm. That's food for thought, eh?

 

I mean, nice job, Al ! Goldberg wrote how Iraq was a danger to America, and a CLOSE RELATIONSHIP between

 

Hussein and AL-QUAIDA and WMD's !!!

 

And, THANK YOU AGAIN, AL, for your new authority in Goldberg - he says:

 

 

 

In a late 2002 debate in Slate, Goldberg described Hussein as "uniquely evil" and advocated an invasion on a moral basis:

 

There is consensus belief now that Saddam could have an atomic bomb within months of acquiring fissile material. ... The administration is planning today to launch what many people would undoubtedly call a short-sighted and inexcusable act of aggression. In five years, however, I believe that the coming invasion of Iraq will be remembered as an act of profound morality.

[24]

 

Gee, Al, your expert clears up all sorts of strange accusations by you libs. Nice job.

 

*****************************************

 

 

 

Goldberg's book, Prisoners: A Muslim and a Jew Across the Middle East Divide (New York: Knopf, 2006), describes his experiences in Israel working at the Ketziot military prison camp as well as his dialogue with Rafiq, a prisoner whom Goldberg would later befriend in Washington, D.C.^[18][19][20] American critics received the book positively as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Los Angeles Times all named it one of the best books of 2006.^[21][22][23]

 

 

 

[in "The Great Terror", the article that Goldberg wrote for the New Yorker in 2002 during the run-up to the Iraq war, Goldberg argues that the threat posed to America by Saddam Hussein is significant. The article opens with a vivid description of Hussein's Al-Anfal Campaign, including his regime's use of poison gas at Halabja.^[10] Goldberg goes on to relate detailed allegations of a close relationship between Hussein and Al Qaeda which Goldberg claims he "later checked with experts on the region."^[10] Goldberg argues that: "If these charges are true, it would mean that the relationship between Saddam’s regime and Al Qaeda is far closer than previously thought."^[10] Goldberg concludes his article with allegations about Hussein's supposed Weapons of Mass Destruction:

Saddam Hussein never gave up his hope of turning Iraq into a nuclear power ... There is some debate among arms-control experts about exactly when Saddam will have nuclear capabilities. But there is no disagreement that Iraq, if unchecked, will have them soon ... There is little doubt what Saddam might do with an atomic bomb or with his stocks of biological and chemical weapons.

[10]

 

In a late 2002 debate in Slate, Goldberg described Hussein as "uniquely evil" and advocated an invasion on a moral basis:

 

There is consensus belief now that Saddam could have an atomic bomb within months of acquiring fissile material. ... The administration is planning today to launch what many people would undoubtedly call a short-sighted and inexcusable act of aggression. In five years, however, I believe that the coming invasion of Iraq will be remembered as an act of profound morality.

[24]

 

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Jeffrey Goldberg Background:

 

Goldberg was born in Brooklyn, New York and raised in Malverne, New York in a socialist home. He attended the University of Pennsylvania, where he was editor-in-chief of The Daily Pennsylvanian. While at UPenn he worked at the Hillel kitchen serving lunch to students. He left college to move to Israel, where he served in the Israeli Defense Forces as a prison guard during the First Intifada. He later returned to the United States to continue his journalism career, and now lives in Washington, D.C. with his wife and three children.

 

Journalism career

 

Goldberg began his career at The Washington Post, where he was a police reporter. While in Israel, he worked as a columnist for The Jerusalem Post, and upon his return to the United States served as the New York bureau chief of The Forward, a contributing editor at New York magazine, and a contributing writer at The New York Times Magazine.

 

The New Yorker

 

In October 2000, Goldberg joined The New Yorker. Two of his articles for the magazine have won awards.

 

His 2002 article "The Great Terror" won the Overseas Press Club's Joe & Laurie Dine Award for international human rights reporting. "The Overseas Press Club stated: "A former CIA director, James Woolsey, called the story 'a blockbuster.'" Goldberg's article has been criticized, however, as "a J-school nightmare: bad sources, compromised sources, unacknowledged uncertainties, and the whole text spun through with an alarmist rhetoric that is now either laughable or nauseating, depending on your mood."Critics also charge that the article boosted the Bush administration's argument for the invasion of Iraq by emphasizing Saddam Hussein's use of weapons of mass destruction.

 

In 2003 Goldberg's two-part examination of Hezbollah, "In the Party of God," won the National Magazine Award for reporting.

 

 

The Atlantic

 

In 2007, he was hired by David G. Bradley to write for The Atlantic Monthly. Bradley had tried to convince Goldberg to come work for The Atlantic for nearly two years, and was finally successful after renting ponies for Goldberg's children.

 

 

Books

 

Goldberg's book, Prisoners: A Muslim and a Jew Across the Middle East Divide (New York: Knopf, 2006), describes his experiences in Israel working at the Ketziot military prison camp as well as his dialogue with Rafiq, a prisoner whom Goldberg would later befriend in Washington, D.C. American critics received the book positively as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Los Angeles Times all named it one of the best books of 2006.

 

Political views

Iraq

 

In "The Great Terror", the article that Goldberg wrote for the New Yorker in 2002 during the run-up to the Iraq war, Goldberg argues that the threat posed to America by Saddam Hussein is significant. The article opens with a vivid description of Hussein's Al-Anfal Campaign, including his regime's use of poison gas at Halabja.[10] Goldberg goes on to relate detailed allegations of a close relationship between Hussein and Al Qaeda which Goldberg claims he "later checked with experts on the region."[10] Goldberg argues that: "If these charges are true, it would mean that the relationship between Saddam’s regime and Al Qaeda is far closer than previously thought."[10] Goldberg concludes his article with allegations about Hussein's supposed Weapons of Mass Destruction:

 

Saddam Hussein never gave up his hope of turning Iraq into a nuclear power ... There is some debate among arms-control experts about exactly when Saddam will have nuclear capabilities. But there is no disagreement that Iraq, if unchecked, will have them soon ... There is little doubt what Saddam might do with an atomic bomb or with his stocks of biological and chemical weapons.[10]

 

In a late 2002 debate in Slate, Goldberg described Hussein as "uniquely evil" and advocated an invasion on a moral basis:

There is consensus belief now that Saddam could have an atomic bomb within months of acquiring fissile material. ... The administration is planning today to launch what many people would undoubtedly call a short-sighted and inexcusable act of aggression. In five years, however, I believe that the coming invasion of Iraq will be remembered as an act of profound morality.

 

So he is more reputable?

[calfoxwc]

ROF,L.

 

Al loves him some Goldberg until the big "OOPS" comes home to roost.

 

AL:

 

"^&$#$#^&%(*&)^*&%*&^$"

 

 

 

 

[Mr. T]

In tandem, there was scant attention paid to a disquieting comment by Obama when he spoke effusively about a 2002 Saudi peace initiative for normalization of relations between the Arab world and Israel. The Saudi initiative, which would end Israel as a Jewish state, is now also the official position of the entire Arab League.

 

 

read here... Obama, King Abdullah, dream of the end of Israel

[Mr. T]

And how we forget in such little time....... follow the money trail, its time to honor all of those who paid you Obama.

 

Obama–Bought and Paid For–Will He Stay Bought?

 

[Guest Aloysius]

Ha. I apologize for forgetting how low the level of assumed knowledge is on this board. If you don't state the obvious, you get it thrown back at you as a series of C&P gotcha! posts.

 

Yes, Jeffrey Goldberg is a liberal hawk who played a significant role in selling the Iraq War. That was part of the point: with his personal background as a supporter of Israel and am Iraq War hawk, it was all the more strange to see Caroline Glick question his Hebrew National bona fides.

 

And why did she do it? Because he criticized Israel's settlement policy, just like Barack Obama did. Her column twisted and misread Obama's speech for the same reason she tarred Goldberg, who clearly didn't take kindly to being told he didn't care about Israel.

 

While I may be a lot less hawkish than him, Goldberg and I agree on the settlement issue because we care about Israel's long-term security, not because we want to destroy the country we both lived in and love. With that in mind, it seems absurd to interpret Obama's speech as somehow proving he hates Israel, as the policies he's adopting are ones that we think preserve Israel's existence as a Jewish and democratic state.

[Guest mz.]

Ha. I apologize for forgetting how low the level of assumed knowledge is on this board. If you don't state the obvious, you get it thrown back at you as a series of C&P gotcha! posts.

 

And all one need do is look above this very post to see this in action! Huzzah!!

 

[Westside Steve]

The Mexicans want Texas back too.

 

Seriously.

Lets say Israel gives back the entire west bank and Gaza and clears out the settlements.

 

Which happens then:

Continued problems from Al Queda Hamas Hezbollah etc

Or

Kumbaya time.

 

 

WSS

[Mr. T]

his arabians dreams....... 70 virgins maybe

 

[Legacy Fan]

The Mexicans want Texas back too.

 

Seriously.

Lets say Israel gives back the entire west bank and Gaza and clears out the settlements.

 

Which happens then:

Continued problems from Al Queda Hamas Hezbollah etc

Or

Kumbaya time.

 

 

WSS

And probably California too. And maybe an ounce or two of that yellow stuff we forced them to dig out of the ground for us.

 

I'm for Israel remaining a democratic state, and for reaching peace with Palestine. If that means leaving the West Bank, so be it. The 4 gilded minaret's of the Islamic mosques should be removed from the Temple Mount as well, if we are asking for these kind of concessions of Israel.

[Westside Steve]

And probably California too. And maybe an ounce or two of that yellow stuff we forced them to dig out of the ground for us.

 

I'm for Israel remaining a democratic state, and for reaching peace with Palestine. If that means leaving the West Bank, so be it. The 4 gilded minaret's of the Islamic mosques should be removed from the Temple Mount as well, if we are asking for these kind of concessions of Israel.

 

True.

Seems all the "concessions" so far are from Israel.

 

Hey give em the west bank and Gaza as an autonomous and independent Palistine.

 

First rocket attack declare war and incinerate the whole fu*king lot.

 

WSS

[calfoxwc]

It's pretty telling, that Saudi Ariabia is telling Obama to force Israel into concessions on the West Bank.

 

The UN didn't prevent the 6 Day War, and Israel had to defend itself.

 

Declare war to take Israel, instead lose the West Bank, Gaza and Golan Heights.

 

Meanwhile, concerning the Golan Heights,

 

it's also to take water away from Israel and thirst them out

 

of existence, apparently.

 

Israel gave up the Gaza Strip for peace with the Palestinians.

 

We can see how that was a mistake. Well, everybody except Dan maybe.

[Guest Aloysius]

I'm for Israel remaining a democratic state, and for reaching peace with Palestine. If that means leaving the West Bank, so be it. The 4 gilded minaret's of the Islamic mosques should be removed from the Temple Mount as well, if we are asking for these kind of concessions of Israel.

I think it's a mistake to say the Palestinians won't be making any concessions. Here are just a few that will be part of any peace deal:

• The Right of Return - Palestinians have long expected that families who fled or were expelled from their homes in 1948 would be allowed to return to Israel proper. As sane people on both sides realize, that isn't going to happen, but it's something that is as important to the Palestinians as retaining the West Bank is to the Israeli right. Some believe that Arafat blew up the Camp David talks because he feared what would happen to him if he accepted a deal that didn't include the right of return. This will be viewed by the Palestinians and the Arab world as a huge concession, which has to be taken into account.

   

• Territory - the Palestinians likely will not get the entire West Bank returned to them, with 3-4% of the best territory being absorbed as part of Israel. Despite all the talk about Israel freezing settlement activity, some of the long-existing settlements will end up becoming part of Israel. That is also a major concession, as the Palestinians view those settlements as illegitimate and int'l law pretty much agrees.

   

• Jerusalem - Jerusalem will not be the capital of Palestine, or at least not the capital of Palestine alone. This will be one of the most difficult parts of any peace deal, but there probably will be some compromise hatched where the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem will become part of Palestine and the Jewish neighborhoods will be part of Israel. There will be freedom of movement between the two sides of Jerusalem, with trusteeship of religious sites being given to religious, mostly non-political authorities. There's already precedent for this, as Israel handed over authority over the Temple Mount to the Waqf soon after it conquered East Jerusalem in 1967.

   

• Sovereignty - Palestine will have limits on its sovereignty similar to the ones the US has imposed on Japan, Germany, and South Korea. It will be a demilitarized zone, with a possible international peacekeeping force posted there to ensure each side observes the terms of its peace agreements. It may not have control over its airspace and its water rights will be divided with the Israelis.

If Israel is going to concede the West Bank, it should do so with conditions attached that help ensure peace and security will actually be achieved. For that reason, the Palestinians will end up making a series of concessions that they don't think are justified but are willing to take in exchange for getting the state they've long longed for.

 

So it's a mistake to say that the concessions will all be on the Israeli side.

[Guest Aloysius]

Israel gave up the Gaza Strip for peace with the Palestinians.

 

We can see how that was a mistake. Well, everybody except Dan maybe.

There's a lot of debate in Israel about why Sharon withdrew from Gaza. The explanations range from pragmatic (the demographic threat) to Machiavellian (have Gaza, which is a densely populated hellhole and is a lot less politically moderate than the more secular West Bank, prove to the int'l community that Palestine would be a failed state).

 

Whatever the reason, most Israelis realize that Israel made a huge mistake when it didn't let Fatah security forces from the West Bank enter Gaza. That, along with the terrible economic conditions created by Palestinian mismanagement and Israel's economic blockade, helped cause the Hamas takeover of Gaza.

 

So the failure of Gaza is the result of specific conditions and non-existent coordination between Israel and the moderates within the Palestinian leadership. That's why any withdrawal from the West Bank should be part of a peace process, which would include coordination between Israel and the Palestinians, as well as a US or int'l diplomatic team that can make sure each side observes the terms of its agreements.

[calfoxwc]

<LI>Sovereignty - Palestine will have limits on its sovereignty similar to the ones the US has imposed on Japan, Germany, and South Korea. It will be a demilitarized zone, with a possible international peacekeeping force posted there to ensure each side observes the terms of its peace agreements. It may not have control over its airspace and its water rights will be divided with the Israelis.If Israel is going to concede the West Bank, it should do so with conditions attached that help ensure peace and security will actually be achieved. For that reason, the Palestinians will end up making a series of concessions that they don't think are justified but are willing to take in exchange for getting the state they've long longed for.

 

So it's a mistake to say that the concessions will all be on the Israeli side. by Al

 

****************************************************************

 

 

I hope it's arranged and genuine, and not like N/S Korea.

 

 

I find it odd, that in earlier negotiations for returning the West Bank/part of it... that Syria refused to

 

 

compromise on allowing the Israelis to have water access to the sea. And, with the Golan Heights supplying

 

 

15% of their water...

 

 

You have to wonder if all goes for naught as far as peaceand security gains finally, for Israel.

 

 

I don't see the hate Israel politics changing, or Hamas leaving the Palestinian state...

 

 

If they do have an agreement, we can only hope it's finally solved. But I don't see it, and the Bible

 

predicts otherwise...

[Guest mz.]

and the Bible predicts otherwise...

 

What does the Bible say about the new iPhone release?

 

[calfoxwc]

Go Google it, and I'm NOT calling you a "dipshit" !!!

 

(see? I have good ole American family values !)

[Guest Aloysius]

Netanyahu yields on Palestinian sovereignty

 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a major shift, will accept the notion of a Palestinian state -- a policy pushed by the Obama administration but resisted until now by Mr. Netanyahu, Israeli officials and Americans briefed on the Israeli leader's thinking said.

 

The policy reversal, which is expected to go public this weekend, could help restart negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians and allow the Israeli leader to steer a course between Mr. Obama's view and those of his own hawkish base.

Caroline Glick's going to be pissed.

 

It looks like Netanyahu's speech is going to call for some of the Palestinian concessions I mentioned earlier in this thread.

 

The conditions he is expected to put forward include:

 

• Any Palestinian state must be demilitarized, without an air force, full-fledged army or heavy weapons.

 

• Palestinians may not sign treaties with powers hostile to Israel.

 

• A Palestinian state must allow Israeli civilian and military aircraft unfettered access to Palestinian airspace, allow Israel to retain control of the airwaves and to station Israeli troops on a future state's eastern and southern borders.

 

• Palestinians must accept Israel as a Jewish state, a nod to the hawkish side of Mr. Netanyahu's governing coalition that has raised concerns that the Palestinian Authority, which nominally governs the West Bank, does not recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

The last two are a bit tricky, but it's good to see Netanyahu heading in a more moderate direction.

[calfoxwc]

Caroline Glick's going to be pissed. Al

********************************

Alas, yet another lib who hates formal education

 

Sorry, Al, but you should pissed. She knows more than you do, and you're mocking her about Israel?

 

Why, oh, why, is it, that experience and education works when libs like Al want it to,

 

but THEN, if they don't agree with someone with education and experience, well then,

 

the hell with education and experience.

 

My, my, how that works for them so often...

 

********************************************

 

 

Caroline Glick

 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

BornChicago, Illinois

 

Education

 

Bachelor of Arts in Political Science Master of Arts - Public Policy

 

Occupation

deputy managing editor

 

Notable credit(s) Author of "Shackled Warrior"; co-authored an

 

IDF-published bookOfficial websiteCaroline Glick is an American-

 

Israeli

 

Journalist and is the deputy

 

managing editor of The Jerusalem Post

 

She is also the Senior Fellow for Middle East Affairs of the Washington, DC-based Center for Security Policy

 

Life

 

Glick was born in Chicago[/url] and graduated from Columbia University[/url] with a Bachelor of Arts

 

Political Science. She immigrated to Israel in 1991 and joined the Israel Defense Forces IDF

 

She worked in the IDF's Judge Advocate General division during the First Intifada in 1992, and while there edited and co-authored an IDF-published book, "Israel, the Intifada and the Rule of Law".

 

Following the Oslo Accords, she worked as coordinator of negotiations with the Palestinian Authority . She retired from the military with the rank of captain at the end of 1996. In 1997 and 1998 she served as assistant foreign policy advisor to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu . She returned to the US to get her Master of Arts in Public Policy Harvard University

 

Kennedy School of Government, in 2000.

 

Upon her return to Israel, she became, and remains, the chief diplomatic correspondent for Makor Rishon newspaper, for which she writes a weekly column in Hebrew. She is also the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post for which she writes two weekly syndicated columns . Her writings have appeared in

 

The Wall Street Journal

the National Review

The Boston Globe

Chicago Sun-Times

The Washington Times

Maariv and major Jewish newspapers worldwide. She has appeared on MSNBC ,

Fox News Channel

Sky News

Christian Broadcasting Network , and all of Israel’s major television networks

 

She also makes frequent radio appearances both in the US and Israel.

 

In 2003, during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Glick was embedded with the US Army’s 3rd Infantry Division and filed front-line reports for The Jerusalem Post and the Chicago Sun-Times. She also reported daily from the front lines, via satellite phone, for the Israeli Channel 1 news. Glick was on the scene when US forces took the Baghdad International Airport

 

She is the Senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy and is one of several co-authors of the Center’s latest book, "War Footing". She has been a senior researcher at the IDF’s

 

Operational Theory Research Institute

 

(which as Israel’s Defense establishment’s most prestigious think tank is roughly equivalent to the US’s Rand Corporation. She has also worked as an adjunct lecturer in tactical warfare at the IDF’s Command and Staff College.

 

In 2003, Glick was named "The Most Prominent Woman in Israel" by the Israeli newspaper

 

She was the 2005 recipient of the Zionist Organization of America Ben Hecht

award for Outstanding Journalism (previous recipients have included A. M. Rosenthal Daniel Pipes)

 

She also received Israel Media Watch’s 2006 award for critical journalism.

 

On May 31, 2009 she received the Guardian of Zion Award from the Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies at Bar Ilan University.

 

Remarks

Glick has remarked that "one of the greatest problems for international journalists covering the Middle East

 

is that people who serve as guides for journalists are often affiliated with Islamic terrorists seeking to turn foreign visitors against Israel.

 

They bring journalists to staged scenes that paint a false, overly optimistic picture of Arab life.

 

"Also, civilians are sometimes willing to give their true opinion if a reporter will allow them to remain anonymous," Glick says, "but using anonymous sources opens a reporter to charges of fabrication."

 

"The people often cannot tell you what they think of things because they can be physically punished," Glick said. "This is not just an Israeli problem. This is a problem for reporters in any place that is not free. "

 

 

 

Documentaries

Glick is featured as a speaker on the documentaries Relentless:_The_Struggle_for_Peace_in_Israel"

 

 

Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West

 

 

Articles

Glick's articles and papers can be found on the websites of The Jerusalem Post, the Center for Security Policy, and Townhall.com. A few of the articles that have been published by the Post have been titled "The world according to Olmert", "Column One: Anatomy of a massacre", and " prayer for 5767".

 

 

Bibliography

 

Glick, Caroline 2008, "Shackled Warrior. Israel and the Global Jihad?", Gefen Publishing House.

[Mr. T]

You need to add one, Glick isn't just a mod who hangs out on a football political board

[Guest Aloysius]

This goes hand in hand with the article you posted the other day Alo,

Looks like Rahm Emanuel was a very wise pick by Obama,lets all hope this is a good start towards a peaceful solution.

Agreed. When Emanuel was picked, I assumed he'd be one of the more hawkish voices in the administration and take a hardline position on Israel-Palestine. I had no idea that he co-sponsored a congressional resolution in support of the Geneva Initiative, a provisional peace agreement negotiated by former Israeli and Palestinian cabinet ministers.

 

Seems like a very wise pick. He's got the knowledge, background, and experience to help push the peace process forward. Netanyahu's speech looks to be a small step forward.

 

And @ Cal: I'm not sure why my comment was interpreted as an attack on Glick's credentials. All I was saying is that as a former Netanyahu adviser, and as someone who lionized Bibi in her column when he opposed Sharon's Gaza disengagement plan, Glick's going to be disappointed to see Netanyahu supporting a two state solution.

 

IIRC, she got pretty nasty in her attacks on Sharon, suggesting that he only supported the withdrawal from Gaza in order to avoid corruption charges. It'll be interesting to see if she subjects Netanyahu to the same editorial bile.

[calfoxwc]

And @ Cal: I'm not sure why my comment was interpreted as an attack on Glick's credentials. All I was saying is that as a former Netanyahu adviser, and as someone who lionized Bibi in her column when he opposed Sharon's Gaza disengagement plan, Glick's going to be disappointed to see Netanyahu supporting a two state solution.

 

IIRC, she got pretty nasty in her attacks on Sharon, suggesting that he only supported the withdrawal from Gaza in order to avoid corruption charges. It'll be interesting to see if she subjects Netanyahu to the same editorial bile.

Al

****************************************************************************

 

Oh. Sorry. Went too fast. My bad, Al.

[Mr. T]

unpeaceful Muslim actions:

 

Can't get enough Mahmoud?

 

Latest Offerings from the Religion of Peace

"He who fights that Islam should be superior fights in Allah's cause"

Muhammad, prophet of Islam

 

2009.06.13 (Narathiwat, Thailand) - A female nursery teacher is shot to death by Islamic radicals.

2009.06.13 (Helmand, Afghanistan) - Eight delivery drivers are killed when a Shahid suicide bomber detonates in a convoy.

2009.06.13 (Paktia, Afghanistan) - Three construcution workers and one other civilian are murdered in two Taliban attacks.

2009.06.13 (Yala, Thailand) - Two Buddhist villagers, a husband and wife, are gunned down by Mujahideen in cold blood.

2009.06.13 (Yala, Thailand) - Dedicated Muslims throw a grenade into a bus packed with Buddhists, killing at least one.

2009.06.12 (Yala, Thailand) - A woman is among two people killed by Muslim militants in separate attacks.

 

 

While viewing the website below the only words that come to my mind are let the bodies hit the floor.

 

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

 

 

[Guest Aloysius]

• Territory - the Palestinians likely will not get the entire West Bank returned to them, with 3-4% of the best territory being absorbed as part of Israel. Despite all the talk about Israel freezing settlement activity, some of the long-existing settlements will end up becoming part of Israel. That is also a major concession, as the Palestinians view those settlements as illegitimate and int'l law pretty much agrees.

Here's a clip in which Jimmy Carter acknowledges that some of the major settlement blocs in the West Bank will remain/become part of Israel.

 

 

 

[calfoxwc]

Hamas et all, will want the entire West Bank returned, to deny Israel a badly needed portion of their water.

 

And, to once again have the strategic advantage.

 

Far too much of "international law" is baloney - set up for political advantage by those

 

countries who want to gain by it. And the U.S. and Israel always seem to be on the defense.