"Netanyahu doesn't want to play along with any form of negotiations process.."

who does that remind one of?? intolerance and inflexibility are the hallmarks of fanatics...

I'd lose the Khrushchev analogy. Whatever happens with the Israelis and Palestinians, nothing President Obama can do is likely to tempt anyone involved in the Midwest controversy to bring the world to the brink of nuclear war as Khrushchev did in 1962.

With that said, the practical question Steve Clemons does not answer is the one Obama faces now -- not whether to "crush" (or outmaneuver, or whatever) prime minister Netanyahu, but how. Obviously there are things Obama could do, like setting settlement-related conditions on aid to Israel. What we know so far suggests that he is unlikely to do this kind of thing if he thinks he has any choice. He can try to manipulate Israeli public opinion, by pointing out how Israeli government policy on settlements is driven by minority factions who periodically make themselves unpopular in Israel. This might be less likely to arouse Israel supporters in the American Democratic Party, whose support Obama needs on other issues, but it wouldn't be easy. For one thing, it would take time and effort on Obama's part. His dance card is pretty full at the moment.

Despite the difficulties, Obama can't let Netanyahu's defiance on settlements stand. Whether on the West Bank or in Jerusalem, settlements serve no American interest, yet America's close ties to Israel means we get blamed every time Israel decides it wants to expand them. That cannot continue.

Netanyahu appears to have decided to call Obama's bluff, betting that his risk of becoming unpopular in Israel for creating a rift between Tel Aviv and Washington is less than Obama's risk of becoming entangled in the passions of Israel's many supporters in his own party -- besides which, Netanyahu's own base is narrow enough not to allow him much maneuvering room. His political situation is actually more troubled than is Obama's. It won't be a simple matter for Obama to take advantage of that, but seeing as Netanyahu's government has made its challenge in broad daylight Obama has to try.

The British Foreign Office, today:

'The UK has long made our opposition to
settlements clear and we press the Israel
government at the highest level continually on the
importance of fulfilling its roadmap commitments:
Israel should freeze all settlement activity,
including the natural growth of existing
settlements, and dismantle all outposts erected
since March 2001'

HEADLINES from today's media July 21, 2009

1. Israel is the prime impediment to progress in
the Middle East
2. Most Arabs refused property in West Jerusalem
3. Israeli war crimes against Gazans : straight
from the horses’ mouths
4. Memo From Jerusalem: Netanyahu’s Talk of Peace
Finds Few True Believers
5. Israel Rejects U.S. Call to Hold Off on
Development
6. How US bingo dollars are funding Israeli
settlements
7. Israel Told to Halt East Jerusalem Housing
Project

A very apt analogy! Netanyahu is very likely to
bring the world to the brink of a nuclear war,
just as Kruschev did in 1962.

Israel is now estimated to be the fifth most
powerful nuclear state in the world with an
arsenal, possibly containing up to 400 nuclear
warheads. All uninspected. All outside of the IAEA
and Israel is not even a signatory to the NPT -
(although Iran is).

This is a dangerous time for the global community
and nobody should underestimate the risks of
dealing with an aggressive, undeclared nuclear
power with an unstable coalition government and a
large chip on its shoulder.

Steve - You are 100% correct that Obama needs to rise up and swat away Bibi's direct challange. If he does not, Obama is finished in the mideast. I think the first step is to go to the UN and get France or Britain to introduce a UNSC resolution demanding that Israel freeze settlement construction. I suspect the US can get Russia and China to go along or at least abstain.

I would like to see another UNSC member introduce the resolution which would make it easier to deflect criticism from Congress. If Israel blows off the resolution as I suspect they will try to do then go for imposing some very minor sanctions. That should be enough for Bibi to either capitulate or blow up his governing coalition.

Of all the issues to pick a fight with Netanyahu over, building an apartment building in Jerusalem across the street from the Green Line (literally) was the one guaranteed to give Netanyahu maximum support from the Israeli public. It's hard to find issues that will unite 90%+ of the fractious Israeli public, but Obama has picked one. So Netanyahu will 'stand tall' against the demand and solidify his political position. It's a no-brainer for him.

If Obama decides to punish Netanyahu for refusing to divide Jerusalem, he will have a price to pay from the American Jewish community too. They don't support outlying settlements; but Jerusalem is a different matter. Unlike James Baker who could say of the Jews "f---'em, they don't vote for us anyway" they did vote for Obama. Care to lose Florida next election?

Plus, Obama has gotten nothing from the Arabs for picking this fight. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia treated him to a tirade and refused all cooperation cf Laura Rozen at FP http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/07/17/revisiting_obamas_riyadh_meeting

So there we are, it's a lose-lose-lose trifecta for Obama.

If Netanyahu is Khrushchev, then this was the Vienna Summit, where Obama/Kennedy just got his head handed to him.

Wow! That didn't take long. From "Give US Netanyahu. Please." to "finding a way to knock Netanyahu off his perch."
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/02/give_us_netanya/#postcomment

Though I like the analogy, I don't think the Netanyahu-Krushchev it would work in most people's minds. Most people will remember Krushchev's Soviet Union as an enemy, not as a "friend," like Israel. Also, the US never propped up the Soviet Union with $100 billion in aid over the years.

Nonetheless, I like the analogy, because I think the US needs to start viewing Israel as an impediment to its national interests, and possibly even a threat to its national security. I mean, how can you trust a country with 200 undeclared nukes, particularly one that feels it can attack US warships (USS Liberty) and capture former US Congressmen with impunity?

The most formidable opponents of any ME peace arrangement are not Netanyahu and his ilk, but the likes of Engel, Ros-Lehtinen, Berman, Berkley, Reid, NcConnell etc. etc.

Netanyahu may be Obama's Khrushchev, but to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen: Mister president, you're no Jack Kennedy.

Kennedy had principles. Obama is a back-sliding compromiser, telling others only what they expect to hear, and Netanyahu will clean his clock, perhaps not over an apartment building but on the larger issues.

"Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided," Obama declared over a year ago to rousing applause from the 7,000-plus attendees at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference.

Two months ago Obama told Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas that the U.S. foresees the creation of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, according to a top PA official.

Your vacation has done you good, Mr. Clemons. With this commentary you've shown us you've had your oil changed, a tune up done and you're back to firing on all cylinders.

Nadine - You sure are confident. You remind me of listening to Netanyahu on the campaiogn trail in 1999.

Well, I don't think Obama needs to do anything particularly bold here. He just needs to stick to his guns and continue to emphasize, both for the benefit of Americans and Israelis, the utter reasonableness of his position.

Obama could also do more to make it clear that the US and its global partners are prepared to move in a coordinated fashion onto the next stage in the peace process, and that the intransigence of the rightist Israeli government is the chief thing holding the process up right now.

Obama has done nothing in this department that he did not campaign on. He won a resounding victory in the election, including the overwhelming support of American Jews. He has not demanded an end to the occupation. He has not asked Israel to remove even a single settler from the occupied territories. All he has asked is that Israel *stop expanding*. As a prelude to a peace process, what could be more reasonable?

There might be a few American Jewish leaders who are getting some willies or cold feet, even though Obama is doing exactly what he said he'd do, and even though most of their constutuents voted for him, because they are unaccustomed to seeing any "space" whatsoever open up between Israel and the United States. But Obama didn't open up that space. Israel did. Israel opened up that space when it followed up a very violent and controversial war with a political lurch toward the far right.

At the same time, The US has vomited out the far right government of Generalissimo Bush-Cheney and returned a centrist government to power. But that's something most political observers of America were predicting since at least the fall of 2006. Nobody can be surprised by that development.

If Israel had just elected either the center-right Kadima, not to mention a Labor government, that government would have gotten on board the good ship Obama without a lot of undue fuss, halted the settlements, and have smartly put the ball right back in the Palestinians' court. It's not Obama's fault Israel decided to go all ultra-nationalist and elected a failed and unreliable right-wing retread along with his new fascist bouncer buddy.

Anybody who expected that an Israeli government lead by Binyamin Netanyahu and the racist Avigdor Lieberman wouldn't experience space between itself and the Washington mainstream must have a fairly warped conception of the location of the US political center, or be possessed of some rather un-American attitudes.

At this time, Obama is swimming right down the middle of the deepest channel of the US mainstream. He is in a position of unassailable diplomatic and domestic strength on this issue. As I suggested in an earlier post, Israel's rightist bloc might continue to bang its head against the wall for a few more months. But Obama just has to stay firm and ride through it.

If Netanyahu really wants to make a stand out their on the fringe, that's up to him. It's going to get very cold outside. If American Jews really want to be useful to Israel, they should start pushing and using their connections in Israel to get a more reasonable Israeli government, something I suspect many are already earnestly working on, even if they choose to run some token interference for Israel's government as they go about it.

Some of the recent propaganda that has been coming out of Israel is deeply unhinged - stuff about papal plots to wipe out the Jews, openly racist diatribes, etc. As more of that stuff gets out and permeates into US consciousness, Netanyahu's position is only going to grow weaker. More and more Americans will conclude Israelis have lost their marbles.

Politically, Netanyahu already looks like a dead man walking.

Someone might need to correct me on the history. But during the Cold War wasn't Kruschev on ... er ... the other side? I thought Israel was on *our* side. If Netanyahu is Obama's Kruschev, then I'm confused about where the new lines are.

Of course some Israelis are now calling the country that is obviously still their best friend in the world "anti-Israel", so maybe there is no stopping the full-blown, paranoid Masada-madness from taking root.

From Dan Kervick: "...so maybe there is no stopping the full-blown, paranoid Masada-madness from taking root."

You don't need me to point out that "full-blown, paranoid Masada-madness" is one of the cornerstones of Zionism, Mr. Kervick, and because of that it has been a mainstay of Israel's psychotic makeup since before their ignoble inception.

“Of all the issues to pick a fight with Netanyahu over, building an apartment building in Jerusalem across the street from the Green Line (literally) was the one guaranteed to give Netanyahu maximum support from the Israeli public.”

With respect, screw the Israeli public. Building into an East Jerusalem neighborhood? This has nothing to do with Israeli security. It has everything to do with Israeli hegemony over the area, and everything to do with finding an issue to challenge the US/western understanding of bottom lines.

So Bibi tries to analogize telling Americans they can’t live in certain areas of Boston, and other western urban analogies, as if he/Israel already owns Jerusalem, and as if he is already in a position to dictate the future of Jerusalem, supposedly subject to final status talks. This may play well with the firsters and the fundies and much of the Israeli public but, in international law, it's pure crap and chuztpah.

But there is no length to which Bibi seemingly will not go to advance the outrageous proposal that Jerusalem and, putatively, all of the West bank is Israel’s toy to do with what it will.

Tastes differ.

"Tastes differ"

But everyone hates the taste of spam.

With Netanyahu ignoring demands to freeze the settlements and his obvious shunning of anything coming out of the Obama administration has to hit the wall. Hopefully Obama knows that the nation has shifted enough (with Former President Carter's commitment to educating the public about the I/P conflict and Meisheimer and Walts book on the Israeli lobby. As well as so many others who have come before them trying to focus the worlds attention on the facts on the ground. Edward Said, ARchbishop Tutu, Vanessa Redgrave, Noam Cholmsky, Professor Norman Finkelstein and so many more.

The tide has shifted and hopefully Obama is fully aware of this. Time to draw the line with Israel. Stop the Settlments get out of the West Bank and share Jerusalem or U.S. aid will be reduced wish they would cut it off.

Time for Israel to pay the piper by honoring International boundaries, freezing the settlements and abiding by UN Resolutions.

Many around the world are tired of Israel getting away with murder and breaking INternational laws and agreements

Netanyahu isn't Obama's hurdle, Harry Reid and company are. As far as Netanyahu goes, all it would take is Hillary, Mitchell, or Obama to set him down behind closed doors and say...

"Straighten up, you racist pain in the ass, or we're cuttin' off your gravy train."

But with Reid and his compatriots telling Obama, openly and publically, to lay off of Israel and keep the Palestinian boogie man thing going, Netanyahu knows that Obama won't have democratic support for any serious political confrontation with Israel. Yes, Netanyahu is telling Obama to go screw himself, but more importantly, so is Reid. And who knows what this fox in the henhouse Hillary is doing behind closed doors. Judging from the arrogance of Netanyahu and Lieberman, she sure as shit ain't playin' hardball during sit-downs.

I don't 'spect much is gonna come of this. They'll be a bit of posturing by Obama, a bullshit "concession" from Israel, once again, the Palestinians will get screwed in the deal, and Congress will promptly promise Israel a few more billion of OUR tax dollars. (Sweet, we get screwed too.)

And the middle east will, in the not too distant future, once again have the smell of barbequed Palestinian wafting on the evening breezes, courtesy of this poor misunderstand victim state, Israel.

(And I would like to extent my sincere and heartfelt appreciation to Steve for his attention to this matter. I hope his interest, and his blogging on it, continues.)

Sen. Reid to Obama: Back Off Israel, Pressure Palestinians

Warns President Not to Let Peace Process Interfere With Measures Against Iran

by Jason Ditz, June 19, 2009

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has issued a letter to President Barack Obama urging him to reverse his course on Palestinian peace talks, to back off of his criticism of Israel and focus of pressuring the Palestinians instead.

Obama has urged the Israeli government to accept a two-state solution to the decades-long conflict, and to end the expansion of settlements in the West Bank. Israel’s right-wing government has refused to end the settlement expansion, and has said it would accept a Palestinian state under certain conditions.

Reid likewise appeared to take issue with the Obama Administration’s comments that a resolution to the dispute with Iran would be more easily obtained if the Palestinian issue were resolved, instead warning the president not to let the peace process “take away from your commitment to deal with the ongoing threat from Iran.” Reid insisted that rather, “resolving” Iran’s nuclear program would facilitate the peace process.

Congressional Democrats have repeatedly condemned Obama for his willingness to publicly criticize Israel, and one Israeli Minister has proposed anti-US sanctions and a public effort by the Israeli government to punish Democrats in the upcoming mid-term elections for Obama’s stance.

http://news.antiwar.com/2009/06/19/sen-reid-to-obama-back-off-israel-pressure-palestinians/

Kervick...

I've read, and reread your comment a number of times, and it strikes me your optimism is competely out of character to your usual astute and thought provoking commentary.

You really think Obama can make headway while the AIPAC fed posse of Democratic movers and shakers work actively and publically to undermine him?

No way. Obama is too much the political animal to jeopordize his standing with his party compatriots. I can guarantee, as we speak, Obama is more worried about appeasing the likes of Reid than he is about holding Netanyahu to task. Obama's strategy will be to assume a posture that implies steadfast political will, yet doesn't really change one gawd damned thing about the dynamics of our relationship with Israel. Israel will make some chickenshit concession, and that will be the end of it.

Don't forget, the media is not going to support Obama, either. MSNBC's total silence about the settlement issue tells us all we need to know about how much "progressive media" support Obama can expect.

Obama is pissin' into the wind.

I certainly hope the President can find a way to face down Netanyahu. Am I too optimistic thinking that being brushed back would severely undercut Bibi's position? (Of course, the abominable Avigdor waits in the wings....)

It won't be easy, domestically. Sadly, Nadine has a point that the status of Jerusalem to many American Jews, not to mention to the scourge that is Christian Zionists, is not negotiable. Fortunately, the belief in a unified Jerusalem, inviolate, is not universal, and many who care about Israel understand that a lasting peace is in everyone's interests.

Hopefully, enough voices can be raised in support of facing down Netanyahu to provide cover. It'd be nice if many of those voices were not hot-headed fanatics. It's a shame that this issue brings out the nuts on both sides.

Cheers,

Martin

John Mearsheimer on Philadelphia radio:

The idea that [Charles Freeman] is some kind of lone ranger wandering around making irresponsible statements is the typical smear campaign that the lobby makes of anyone who is critical of Israel…

Barack Obama pandered to the Israel lobby coming and going. What did he do during the recent Gaza war… He kept silent. The idea that Barack Obama has backbone on this issue is laughable. Barack Obama is not going to challenge the lobby. He did absolutely nothing to save Charles Freeman. And if anybody thinks that Barack Obama is going to put pressure on Israel to give the Palestinians a state, they're living in Disneyland…

http://tinyurl.com/mhte7w

Really, when you think about it, the settlement issues pales before the use of white phosphorous or cluster munitions against civilian non-combatants.

Nadine has a point, just not the point she thought she had. Does it really make sense for Obama to decry settlement expansion while he has stood mute before massive evidence of serious war crimes and human rights abuses? What is worse, having your olive orchard stolen, or having your child incinerated in white phosphorous? (White phosphorous supplied by the United States, I might add) Perhaps if Obama and crew had made a fuss about about Operation cast lead. or Tristan Anderson, Or Cynthia McKinney, these two racist monsters Lieberman and Netanyahu would not feel so empowered to flip us the bird.

Then of course there's this, done simultaneously with Netanyahu telling us to go screw ourselves....

Over Half of House GOP Voted against Aid to Israel, 95% of Dems Support
Aaron Keyak — July 10, 2009

Today, Ira N. Forman, CEO of the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC), released the following statement:

NJDC applauds the Democratic leadership and the 95% of House Democrats for standing by Israel and supporting a strong U.S. – Israel relationship. We wish we could say the same for the House Republicans, but they were unable to muster a majority in support of this important aid.

Last night over half of House Republicans voted against $2.2 billion in aid to Israel. Such votes clearly don’t support a strong and secure Israel. The House GOP is continuing a disturbing trend of returning to their isolationist roots and a lack of an enlightened foreign policy. We remember in 2007, 164 House Republicans rebuffed the pro-Israel community and voted against billions in aid to Israel. Here they go again.

https://www.njdc.org/blog/post/HouseGOPVoteAgainstIsrael071009

So, uh, how much support do you think Obama is going to get rocking Israel's boat? Political suicide. Ain't gonna happen.

jdledell, Obama just kicked the ball right through his own goal on this one. He picked a fight over an issue where the game is not worth the candle and he's highly likely to lose. Expect some face-saving backpedalling - fight? what fight? everything's cool - from both sides.

I notice you didn't pick out which point you think I had wrong. Seriously, you think the Israeli public will abandon Bibi over building an apartment building on French Hill in Jerusalem?

Not to mention the fact that President Obama has repudiated the signed agreements between President Bush and PM Sharon on the settlement blocs. Why should an Israeli PM trust him now on anything?

The Kruschev analogy holds in some respects.

In terms of outcomes and the end game, the net result may very well be the same.

Interesting question about the Greeks. I'd wager that two of the three wouldn't have great insights on the I-P conflict. Socrates and Obama would probably hit it off for at least a couple hours on the subject of the life well lived. Obama would probably end up hedging though on Socrates's prescription for health care policy and end of life questions.

Plato would criticize Obama for not pushing harder on a Republic of Virtue. I think Plato would find a greater kindred spirit in a leader like Stalin. He probably would have loved Mao. I'm not sure that he would have great advice on foreign policy. Plato's focus seemed to be more in creating a self-contained, "perfect" domestic policy.

Thucydides would probably offer the most sober and practical counsel. Granted Thucydides would probably benefit from a good editor who could condense the substance of his argument to a more executive friendly 100 pages or less. e.g. Thucydides would need to resist the temptation to fabricate speeches in order to enhance the dramatic impact of his telling.

"the signed agreements between President Bush and PM Sharon on the settlement blocs"

Egads, what "signed" agreements"

Lyin' again, Nadine?

Dan K,

Your faith in Obama moving "in a coordinated fashion onto the next stage in the peace process . . .in a position of unassailable diplomatic and domestic strength on this issue" is fanciful rhetoric (I'm being polite) of a kind you usually avoid.

And the next stage of your "peace process" is . . .what?

The acceptance all Palestinians of their complete subjugation?
their willingness to live in their shrinking Bantustans subject to continuing Israeli humiliation?
the acceptance of no right of return and the confiscation of their lands?
Is this the kind of "peace" that you might accept if you were a Palestinian?

I don't think so.

and this just in:
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel has ordered its diplomats to use an old photograph of a former Palestinian religious leader meeting Adolf Hitler to counter world criticism of a Jewish building plan for East Jerusalem.

and this:
Pro-Israel activists from across the country will gather in San Diego this fall for AIPAC's premier foreign policy retreat, the 2009 AIPAC National Summit. This year's National Summit, to be held October 18-19, is geared specifically for the AIPAC's most generous contributors.

Participants will have the opportunity to hear from leading statesmen and scholars and engage in thoughtful exchanges with America and Israel's chief policymakers. Previous Summit speakers have included President Bill Clinton, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Nobel Laureate Eli Wiesel as well as many other top administration officials, congressional leaders, academics and political pundits. In addition, AIPAC Senate Club members will enjoy an elegant dinner the evening before the National Summit kicks off. Hundreds have already signed up.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has ordered diplomats to use an old photograph of a former Palestinian religious leader meeting Adolf Hitler to counter world criticism of a Jewish building plan for East Jerusalem.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1102225.html

East Jerusalem / Israeli roulette

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1101386.html

what is nadine smoking?

It's not what am I smoking, it's what is Yossi Sarid smoking. He is now working as journalist for Haaretz since Meretz, the ultra-left party he founded is down to 3 seats in the Knesset. But no amount of failure of its initiatives or rejection by the voters can induce Meretz to ever from its mistakes.

Franklin, it's very interesting that TWN thinks Khrushchev is in any way analogous to Netanyahu. Khrushchev was an enemy who wanted to defeat America. Netanyahu is an ally who wants America strong, just not at Israel's expense.

If Kennedy was ready to "support any friend, fight any foe...in defense of liberty" then Obama is ready to fight any friend, appease any foe, in defense of thinking well of yourself while never confronting an enemy, because we don't have any enemies, only parties whose grievances haven't yet been assuaged.

http://settlementwatch.wordpress.com/2009/07/22/the-shepherd-hotel-story-netanyahu-is-hard-pressed/#more-110

Posted by downtown, Jul 22 2009, 7:19PM - Link

The most formidable opponents of any ME peace arrangement are not Netanyahu and his ilk, but the likes of Engel, Ros-Lehtinen, Berman, Berkley, Reid, NcConnell etc. etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Correct.

Posted by Dan Kervick, Jul 22 2009, 8:09PM - Link

Well, I don't think Obama needs to do anything particularly bold here. He just needs to stick to his guns and continue to emphasize, both for the benefit of Americans and Israelis, the utter reasonableness of his position.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Huh?.. Nothing bold? Are you serious? Er..how long do you want him to 'emphasize' it? Until Jerusalem is built over...or all the new settlements have swimming pools?
Gads!...have you not observed how 'reasonableness" for 40 years has only prolonged this situtation ?

If there was ever a time for some a** kickng, it is now.

Tell us about these "signed agreements", Nadine.

About those political cost with the Jews and the Lobby.....

"""and believes he can wield Congressional power via his levers in the American Jewish community to create painful costs for the White House that ultimately constrain the President's latitude."""

That's easily cured ...just do the Chuck Hagel speech..

"The political reality is that... the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here." Hagel said, then related a meeting he had in New York with a group of supporters of Israel who are pushing the U.S. to attack Iran.
When Hagel said it hadn't worked out that well in Iraq, a couple of members of the group said he wasn't supportive enough of Israel.
Hagel spoke firmly: "Let me clear something up here if there's any doubt in your mind. I'm a U.S. Senator. I'm not an Israeli senator. I'm a U.S. Senator. I support Israel... But my first interest is, I take an oath to the constitution of the United States. Not to a president, not to a party, not to Israel."

"If there was ever a time for some a** kickng, it is now"

Well, he better start with Reid, because thats who's stickin' a knife in his back.

Elliot Abrams, head of Middle East Affairs for Bush's National Security Council from 2001 to 1009, says there were signed agreements:

Despite fervent denials by Obama administration officials, there were indeed agreements between Israel and the United States regarding the growth of Israeli settlements on the West Bank.... On April 14, 2004, Mr. Bush handed Mr. Sharon a letter saying that there would be no "right of return" for Palestinian refugees. Instead, the president said, "a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel."

On the major settlement blocs, Mr. Bush said, "In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588743827950599.html

elliot abrams... now there is a real friend of the usa's....

trust bush, led by a wrath of israeli firsters to sign off on, or openly support israels ongoing bullshit... that would be just like him.. he screwed up on everything else, so this would be no exception if true... any other ugly possibilities you have ready to dredge up???

Chomsky: Israel uses force illegally, because a peaceful alternative exists

http://mondoweiss.net/2009/07/chomsky-israel-uses-force-illegally-because-a-peaceful-alternative-exists.html/comment-page-1#comment-101346

I did not expect you to like the Bush-Sharon accord. Nonetheless, it did exist and Elliot Abrams is in a position to know, having been instrumental in drawing it up. This accord was what Arik Sharon got in exchange for the Gaza withdrawal. President Obama has repudiated this accord.

"the Bush-Sharon accord"...

Sounds very authoritative, this Bush-Sharon accord... as if it was
written in stone - or: as if it was written at all.

"Nonetheless, it did exist and Elliot Abrams is in a position to
know".

You`re seriously asking the readers and commenters at TWN to
trust ONE man`s claims regarding "natural growth" of
settlements, against the official record of the Bush
administration, and against the words of the current Obama
administration? A highly dubious personage, Elliott Abrams,
who was heavily involved in the Iran-Contras affair, and who
never should have set his foot in the White House after that?

Yes, you are. "And why not?", I guess you´re thinking. "It`s
worth a try..."

Yeah, you have plenty of chutzpah. Next time you may ask us to
trust the words of Oliver North, Chalabi, Douglas Feith, Bernard
Madoff...

Why not? It`s worth a try, isn`t it?

There was a con man who actually managed to sell the Eiffel
Tower - not once, but twice!

Ok Nadine,

after this spectacular mix of empty claims, facts, half-truths,
biased interpretations, and 100 % incorrect statements from you
during the last days, I would like to take a closer look at your
methods. For the sake of conveniency, let`s study an example
from this thread.

When POA asked above: - Where are these "signed agreements"
that you had referred to (quote Nadine:) "between President
Bush and PM Sharon on the settlement blocs", you answered
with quotes from Elliot Abrams and a link that supposedly
should prove your claim.

You could have admitted that you didn`t find any "signed
agreements", neither in the link you provided nor anywhere
else. Fair enough. A mistake. But you preferred to act as if
nobody here could read, nor remember your original claim. Here
are some crucial quotes from the article you linked to as
"evidence" for your claim:

Abrams: "Despite fervent denials by Obama administration
officials, there were indeed agreements between Israel and the
United States regarding the growth of Israeli settlements on the
West Bank."

He is referring to things HE, ELLIOT ABRAMS, CLAIMS were said,
and not to signed agreements: "We asked Mr. Sharon about
freezing the West Bank settlements. I recall him asking, by way
of reply, what did that mean for the settlers? They live there, he
said, they serve in elite army units, and they marry. Should he
tell them to have no more children, or move?

We discussed some approaches: Could he agree there would be
no additional settlements? New construction only inside
settlements, without expanding them physically? Could he agree
there would be no additional land taken for settlements?

As we talked..." etc

I recall, he said, we discussed...

Later on, according to Abrams: "On the major settlement blocs,
Mr. Bush said, "In light of new realities on the ground, including
already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is
unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status
negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice
lines of 1949."

Bush said... (according to Abrams)

Then, according to Abrams: "On settlements we also agreed on
principles that would permit some continuing growth."

Still no signed agreements.

"Four days after the president's letter, Mr. Sharon's Chief of Staff
Dov Weissglas wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that
"I wish to reconfirm the following understanding, which had
been reached between us: 1. Restrictions on settlement growth:
within the agreed principles of settlement activities, an effort
will be made in the next few days to have a better definition of
the construction line of settlements in Judea & Samaria.""

Still no signed agreements, just a letter from Sharon`s Chief of
Staff...

Abrams continues: "It is true that there was no U.S.-Israel
"memorandum of understanding," which is presumably what
Mrs. Clinton means when she suggests that the "official record
of the administration" contains none. But she would do well to
consult documents like the Weissglas letter, or the notes of the
Aqaba meeting, before suggesting that there was no meeting of
the minds.""

Meeting of the minds, according to Abrams... But no signed
agreement.

Why not admit it? Why all this distortion, distraction, instead of
telling the truth: There is no signed agreement regarding
"natural growth" between Bush and Sharon? Because that was
the crucial issue here.

You say that we should not trust Obama. Now, give us at the
Washington Note one single reason why we should trust you,
Nadine?

You've misstated the facts on several crucial points. First, the settlement construction in East Jerusalem is not in French Hill--a Jewish neighborhood--but in Sheikh Jarrah, a Palestinian neighborhood. That's precisely why it's so problematic. As you noted earlier, Sharon obtained a letter from President Bush recognizing that "In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949..."

Building new Jewish housing in Palestinian neighborhoods--and Israel plans more of the same in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood--creates yet more new Israeli population centers--which Israel then uses to claim more Palestinian territory should become part of Israel in any final agreement.

What's more, since Israel and the Palestinian Authority do in fact have signed and binding agreements not to undertake any actions which would prejudice the outcome of final status negotiations, Israel's building new Jewish housing in a predominantly Palestinian neighborhood is clearly a violation of those agreements, and patently detrimental to any good faith effort to negotiate a mutually acceptable 2-state solution.

Second, you keep citing Elliot Abrams to back up your claim that Israel and the US had an agreement on where Israel could build in settlements. In fact, Sharon's chief advisor, Dov Weisglass, who was also the primary liaison to the US in those negotiations, has now admitted that in fact the negotiations were never completed between the US and Israel: "However, Dov Weissglas, who was chief of staff to Mr. Sharon and lead Israeli negotiator at the time, told The Washington Times that the agreement was not implemented because the two sides never specified where within existing settlements new construction would be permitted.

EXCLUSIVE: U.S., Israel at odds over 2003 settlements accord
Eli Lake
The Washington Times
July 22, 2009 - 12:00am
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/22/us-israel-at-odds-over-2003-settlements-accord/print/

Israeli officials Tuesday accused the Obama administration of failing to abide by an agreement allowing settlement construction, but a key Israeli negotiator said the deal was never implemented.
The unfinished negotiation between the administrations of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and President George W. Bush has contributed to rising tensions between the two allies since the Obama administration took office.
See the link for the rest of the article.

There are other misstatements of key facts in your posts--such as what the Saudis are and aren't prepared to do in exchange for an Israeli settlement freeze, and under what conditions. It is precisely because the Saudis fear that Netanyahu will embarrass them with settlement construction in Palestinian neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, and other bad faith violations of a settlement freeze, that the Saudis have not been willing to give an advance commitment to Obama of early normalization steps--until they see whether Obama can deliver a genuine Israeli commitment to stop settlement construction in disputed areas which are subject to negotiations.

Doni Remba

My post above refers to serious misstatements of fact in Nadine's posts--sorry for the omission. Doni Remba

Paul, this is horsepucky. This isn't one random guy making claims about these accords. This is Bush's NSC Head of Middle East Affairs; this seconded by the Olmert Government and by the Bush administration. Furthermore, these were not secret documents; they were made public at the time (certainly Sharon boasted of them with full acquiescence from Bush) and have been discussed in many publications, including books like The Iron Cage written by Prof. Rashid Khalidi, who bitterly opposed the accords because the Palestinians were not a party to them. Go read what has been written.

You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. These accords are a fact even if the Obama administration wants to throw them down the memory hole. I'm very tired of "arguments" that consist of whining "eeewww, Elliot Abrams is a bad man so it must all be a lie!" Grow up already.

"This isn't one random guy making claims about these accords.
This is Bush's NSC Head of Middle East Affairs."

Yes. And Dick Cheney was the Vice President of the United
States. And Douglas Feith was working directly under Rumsfeld.
And Richard Perle...

Your impatience with me does not impress me.

What about those "signed documents"? Where are they? And
what`s the content regarding "natural growth"?

Abrams`claims today are not signed documents between Israel
and the Bush admin.

"Go read what has been written"

Why don´t you find something in what has been written proving
the existence of, and the content of the "signed documents"?

Nadine and Paul, Please take a moment to read my post above about your dispute. I've provided the goods that show why Nadine is quite wrong as a matter of fact. Doni

Doni Remba,

thanks for your post. I`ve read it now, and it`s going straight to
the core of this issue!

Allow me to quote a bit more from your Washington Times link:

"Implementation of the agreement was not concluded because
both parties to a certain degree willingly neglected the
conclusion of the demarcation process.

The understanding was never drawn up as a formal agreement.

Elliott Abrams, a deputy national security adviser for President
George W. Bush who negotiated the deal on the U.S. side, said
that was not unusual.

"There were lots of agreements between the U.S. and Israel
because there was tremendous trust between the two
governments," he said. "We did not operate in a context in
which anything that was not written down would disappear; we
operated in a context of trust and confidence."

--------------

In other words: "Tremendous trust" (according to Abrams) - but
still no signed documents.

Where are they, Nadine?

Doni, I don't agree with your interpretation of the facts.

To quote from your WashTimes article:

""There was an agreement," Mr. Weissglas said. "The implementation of the agreement was not concluded because both parties to a certain degree willingly neglected the conclusion of the demarcation process."

The understanding was never drawn up as a formal agreement.

Elliott Abrams, a deputy national security adviser for President George W. Bush who negotiated the deal on the U.S. side, said that was not unusual.

"There were lots of agreements between the U.S. and Israel because there was tremendous trust between the two governments," he said. "We did not operate in a context in which anything that was not written down would disappear; we operated in a context of trust and confidence." "

The Obama administration is not merely declining to implement on the grounds that no formal accord was drawn up; they simply deny there ever was an agreement, that Bush ever wrote and signed a letter containing the accord. Both Weinglass and Abrams say they are lying. The question remains, if Obama does not feel honor bound to respect the promises of his predecessor, who will be foolish enough to trust America's promises now? The next president may simply ignore them too. This is not the way serious countries do business.

As for the apt bldg: it is not in the middle of Sheikh Jarrah, but on the border between Sheikh Jarrah and French Hill, which is why one side uses one name and the other the other. What is your position, that the Arab who sold the land to Jews should be put to death according to PA law? That Arabs should be allowed to buy land from Jews in Jerusalem but not vice-versa? That all neighborhoods must be strictly segregated? Whatever the "settlement blocks" referred to, this land, in the heart of Jerusalem, meters from Hebrew University, was included in them. Therefore it's not "prejudicing" anything to build there.

As for the Saudis, according to Laura Rozen of FP (not a right-winger) they gave Obama nothing. If your assessment was right, they could have given him a conditional agreement - IF you get full settlement freeze for so long, etc, we'll do this much, but instead they made it clear that they wouldn't give anything regardless. And why should they? They set up the peace process as a tar baby for the US and Israel. They don't intend to get stuck to it themselves. They've always been AWOL when it mattered.

And please don't wave the "Saudi peace plan" at me. It was carefully designed to demand everything from Israel up front in exchange for the vaguest of Arab promises to follow, and delivered to Tom Friedman, who they knew would whoop it up without requiring them to actually engage in any real diplomacy. It's a cover story.

Nadine,

according to Abrams, there were "lots of agreements" and they
were even operating "in a context of trust and confidence".

This trust and confidence is even UNSPOKEN, so now we have:

a) lots of talks, within

b) an atmosphere of trust beyond written or spoken words, but

c) still no "signed agreement".

Why not simply admit it, instead of trying to escape by changing
topic - concentrating on the dubious intentions of the Saudis?

"but on the border between Sheikh Jarrah and French Hill"
(Nadine)

So now you want to defend your claim that it was French Hill, by
arguing that it was "on the border between" etc ...one of your
typical half truths I referred to above.

And a distraction nobody should be tempted to get distracted by
- because the "signed agreement" is still an empty claim and the
core issue here.

I`m waiting...

Paul, what was signed was a letter from President Bush to PM Sharon, with the terms of the accord in it. That is a signed document. But a letter is not a formal accord. There is a signed letter, which has been discussed many places, but not a formal diplomatic agreement. Get it now? This is the document that the Obama administration has dropped down the memory hole.

If it's on the border, it is equally a half truth to say it's in French Hill or Sheikh Jarrah. Having the two sides call the same ground a different name is normal. What matters more is that it is in the middle of Jerusalem, which Israel has declared since 1967 is its unified capital city, and the Israeli High Court has decreed that it's legal for either Arab or Jew to buy land and build in any part of the city. So in a private contract, this parcel of land changed hands and an apartment building is going up, and Middle East peace is suddenly supposed to hinge on this most ordinary occurrence.

Meantime, Jordan has just stripped its Palestinian citizens, who are 70% of its inhabitants, of their citizenship. If Israel stripped its Arabs of their citizenship the outrage would deafen the world. But it's Jordan, so nobody seems to care. Maybe Jordan intends to expel 3 million Palestinians, wouldn't that at least qualify as "unhelpful" to finding a diplomatic solution? But until their suffering can be blamed on Israel, the Palestinians of Jordan are on their own, in terms of world sympathy.

Nadine,

you`ve been referring to the "Bush-Sharon accord" as if it was a
written agreement. Now you claim that "what was signed was a
letter from President Bush to PM Sharon, with the terms of the
accord in it".

1. question: Does this letter explicitly refer to and accept
"natural growth" of settlements"?

2. question: Does this letter constitute the "signed agreement"
that you claimed existed above in this thread - or just a "signed
document", just like the letter Abrams referred to from
Weissglas to Condolezza Rice?

Despite displaying a continued impatience with my knowledge
on this, where is the evidence backing your original claim?

So much for the "signed agreements".

It boils down to a letter from Bush to Sharon. No "signed
agreement".

Nadine opportunistically "disagrees" with Doni`s
"interpretations of the facts", to distract us from her own
avoidance of the essential fact that both Doni and I, as well as
POA earlier on this thread, pointed out for her:

There were no signed agreements!

Then she acts as a schoolteacher toward me, explaining -
exactly what?

The point is that the Obama administration can not build upon
an unspoken, unwritten "trust"; a letter from Bush preparing an
agreement never achieved; Abrams`post factum claims in
newspapers; nor a letter from Sharon`s chief of staff to
Condolezza Rice.

I`ve been reading and commenting on TWN for a while now,
and never before seen such a consistent lack of intellectual
honesty; such careless, flexible dealing with facts, opinions,
people, victims... as if nothing really matters - except
promoting an Israeli right wing agenda with all available means.

This was obvious even in Nadine`s first sentences, and it`s just
going on and on.

Never ad hominem - beware! But frequently on a more general,
impersonal level with much more ugly consequences:" The
Palestinians", "The Arabs", etc....

And always displaying a contempt for facts, and for the remote
possibility of the relevance of other narratives, other
perspectives than her own.

Steve Clemons has a flair for the dramatic. The Kruschev-Kennedy metaphor for the Netanyahu-Obama relationship is the product of an overactive imagination. Comparing the relationship of the leaders of two ascendant superpowers at the height of the Cold War with the relationship of the leaders of a declining superpower and a small state with a population of less than 10 million people is simply over the top. The Cold War was the defining international conflict of a generation. The Israel-Palestine dispute is rapidly declining in importance to everyone in the world except to the adversaries involved (and to a U.S. President with a much-reported on Messiah complex).

With that said, Steve Clemons' post is largely correct. Obama's success in convincing, coercing or cajoling Netanyahu into agreeing to a total and complete settlement freeze will be a defining moment for President Obama. The stakes are that high because Obama chose to make them that high. The Administration has essentially left no room for compromise; in fact they've defined compromise as failure.

They've said,

“He wants to see a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not ‘natural growth’ exceptions.”

And more recently they've emphasized (they would say reemphasized) that the "no exception" provision applies to eastern Jerusalem.

It will be easy to tell whether Obama is a weak paper tiger (which is what I think he is) or a strong calculating leader. After all, he's identified the factor on which he wants to be graded.

If six months from now Israel is building dwellings anywhere in land it won in the 1967 War, Obama by his own terms has failed. Likewise, if the U.S. Administration and the Israelis agree to a compromise that permits, for example, Israel to finish dwellings already under construction, Obama will have failed.

Actually I think Obama is entitled to some credit. He's actually raised the bar on himself. Corralling political support from the Congress and from Israel's American supporters for a settlement freeze was hard enough. Now that he's reiterated his position on Jerusalem, attracting support from Congress and Israel's supporters will be far harder.

If the settlements stop completely with no exceptions, it will be a clear success; if not it will represent a total failure. That's the grading system Obama asked for; that's the one he will get.

For those who want to handicap what to expect, just look at the way Obama handled the stimulus debate and now the health care debate. He's swung and missed twice.

Will Israel-Palestine be strike three?

I love it when Nadine uses Elliot Abrams as her primary source! Gee, Nadine, can't you find anyone more reliable than someone convicted of withholding information from Congress? A real gem!

Nadine,

You wouldn't happen to shed any further light on this program,
would you?

***

The passionate support for Israel expressed on talkback
sections of websites, internet chat forums, blogs, Twitters and
Facebook may not be all that it seems.

Israel’s foreign ministry is reported to be establishing a special
undercover team of paid workers whose job it will be to surf the
internet 24 hours a day spreading positive news about Israel.

Internet-savvy Israeli youngsters, mainly recent graduates and
demobilised soldiers with language skills, are being recruited to
pose as ordinary surfers while they provide the government’s
line on the Middle East conflict.

“To all intents and purposes the internet is a theatre in the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and we must be active in that
theatre, otherwise we will lose,” said Ilan Shturman, who is
responsible for the project.

The existence of an “internet warfare team” came to light when it
was included in this year’s foreign ministry budget.

link:

http://www.counterpunch.org/cook07212009.html

"You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts"

ROFLMAO!!!

"Facts"? Show us the "signed statements", Nadine.

You wouldn't know a "fact" if it goosed you on Hanukah.

I'm curious. Why do you post here? Its obvious, by the responses you get, that the majority of the commenters here know you are full of shit.

Why lie to people that know you're lying? I don't get it.

Posted by JohnH: "I love it when Nadine uses Elliot Abrams as her primary source! Gee, Nadine, can't you find anyone more reliable than someone convicted of withholding information from Congress? A real gem!"

The parallels between Abrams and Nadine are striking, JohnH, and are certainly the reason she chooses to cite his musings in support of her as-usual bigotry and serial-lying. After all, he's a demonstrated bigot and serial liar too, isn't he?

I'm not sure the Kennedy-Khrushchev analogy works. Kennedy got into trouble with Khrushchev because he made a sophomoric impression when they met in Vienna and ended up giving Khrushchev what he wanted in the first place -- removal of NATO missiles from Turkey. It wasn't the Cuban Missile Crisis that overthrew Khrushchev, it was that Brezhnev was a better infighter and Khrushchev had alienated many Politburo members by his aloofness (I consider it remarkable that he was the only leader of the USSR to leave office alive until the USSR disbanded -- no Gorby doesn't count).

By contrast, Obama has a very specific agenda to reduce overall tensions in the Middle East by establishing an order in that part of the world under which Israel and its neighbors can reasonably coexist. True, Obama is no Jack Kennedy -- he's alot smarter, wiser, and more grown up than Kennedy was. Also, Netanyahu is not head of a rival superpower but of a state that relies heavily on US support. Yes, there's an alliance, but there are senior and junior partners to an alliance, and an alliance is not a blank check for our allies to get into trouble and expect us to bail them out.

Mayors of Hoboken, Secaucus, Several Rabbis Arrested (Update3)
Share | Email | Print | A A A

By David Voreacos

July 23 (Bloomberg) -- The mayors of Hoboken and Secaucus, New Jersey, and several rabbis were among at least 30 people arrested today as part of a public corruption and money- laundering investigation by U.S. authorities.

THE HEAT IS ON.

Don Bacon and POA,

I think you guys have a near-religious need to believe in the omnipotence of Aipac. Yes, it's a very powerful lobby, and should not be underestimated. But Obama has already done several things that Aipac doesn't appear to like.

France has also now summoned the Israeli ambassador to demand a halt to Israeli settlement-building, including in East Jerusalem. Sarkozy personally insisted on the need for a complete freeze. As WigWag has mentioned several times, Sarkozy is probably the most pro-Israel President France has ever had. So I think this demonstrates how isolated Netanyahu is on this issue. Obama has organized a united front here.

Obama - not Aipac, and not Harry Reid - is standing where the majority of Americans are, along with the majority of the world community.

wigwag, in your usual style, you certainly do set Obama up; pass/fail. (I know, you intone that Obama has asked for this 'test). Interestingly it's the same sort of rhetoric that the repubs and their minions are using and hoping for -- Obama to 'fail'.

Now I'm not one who thinks Obama is any great shakes on the ME, and I also doubt whether Obama is orchestrating an end game with Bibi; why would he? (Obama knows as well as the rest of the sentient world that, even if he was committed to radical change in the I/P equation, that is not permitted under the US political rules of the game.) Of course there is always the ultimate hubris card, but even that doesn't make sense in the cesspool of I/P politics and history of many more failures than arguable sucesses in moving the process.

Of course there is also always the possibility that Obama will give away the store, to Israel, even more if Bibi gives him a fig leaf. Wait and watch. But I take no glee as you seem to that Obama could be construed as boxing himself in.

With Obama's increased soft power in the world
http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/2009/07/23/D99K7LUO2_us_obama_us_global_image/index.html

I think he simply needs the rest of the world, especially the EC, to box Israel in economically, isolate them, and simply shrug his shoulders.

Of course Obama asked for this test, most notably in his speech to 7,000 cheering Israel supporters at the AIPAC conference last year. extracts:

". . .the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable today, unbreakable tomorrow--unbreakable forever. . .as President I will work with you to insure that it is this bond that is strengthened. . . .I have been proud to be a part of a strong bipartisan consensus that has stood by Israel in the face of all threats. . .Our alliance is based on shared interests and shared values. Those who threaten Israel threaten us; Israel has always faced these threats on the frontlines and I will bring to the White House an unshakable commitment to Israel’s security. . . there are terrorist groups and political leaders committed to Israel’s destruction . .Those who threaten Israel threaten us . . .I don’t think any of us can be satisfied that America’s recent foreign policy has made Israel more secure. . . .Israel’s quest for peace with its neighbors has stalled . . .I will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself in the United Nations and around the world. . .As President I will implement a memorandum of understanding that provides $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade. . . etc."

So all Netanyahu has to do is throw Obama's words back at him, including his above-noted support for an undivided Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Domestically Netanyahu has the overwhelming support of Israelis for expanded settlements.

Domestically in the US, Obama needs Jewish support to pass health care reform, which of course trumps an apartment building in Jerusalem, doesn't it.

Dan,
Thanks for that comment at 11:02 am.

paul norheim - thanks for covering all this in a thorough way... i know when i smell a rat..

dan kervick - i agree aipac's strength is overestimated... it is a pain in the ass, but it doesn't call all the shots...

Don Bacon,

The Obama campaign never should have made that statement in the Aipac speech about "undivided Jerusalem", but in the days immediately following the speech they backtracked and corrected that original statement. An Obama adviser told Agence France Presse that it meant only that the city, while remaining Israel's capital, should remain physically undivided - no barriers, barbed wire, etc. That leaves open the possibility that Jerusalem will *also* become the "undivided capital" of Palestine. But the bottom line is that the campaign insisted following the speech that status of East Jerusalem would be something that the parties themselves had to negotiate Nothing the campaign committed to amounted to the position that Israel already has sovereignty over East Jerusalem or the right to settle people there.

There was a lot of grumbling by the pro-Israel community last summer about this backtracking and clarification by the Obama campaign, but it was all very public. So nobody can say now that Obama made campaign commitments that he is now withdrawing.

don bacon, the usa needs health care reform, but jerusalem doesn't need ethnic cleansing which is what netanyahu's agenda is...

"Wigwag, in your usual style, you certainly do set Obama up; pass/fail. (I know, you intone that Obama has asked for this 'test). Interestingly it's the same sort of rhetoric that the repubs and their minions are using and hoping for -- Obama to 'fail'."

DonS, I think you are being a little unfair. I'm not the one who set up this test for Obama; he did it himself. He's the one who adopted an uncompromising position (which may or may not be the right position to adopt).

The Obama Administration denied that Olmert and Bush made any deal on “natural expansion” that Obama is obligated to stick to; the Obama Administration took the stance that any construction on any land won by Israel in 1967 needs to be stopped; and the Obama Administration made the construction of 20 apartments in East Jerusalem a litmus test knowing that it would lose him even more support from Congress, from the American Jewish community and from the tens of millions of American Christians who support Israel.

If Obama succeeds in halting 100 percent of construction in land Israel won from the defeated Jordanians and this settlement hiatus leads to a two state solution, he will have been proven correct. If he proves unable to get the Israelis to halt all construction or if he compromises after he said he wouldn’t, then, by his own standards he will have failed. Similarly if he succeeds in halting construction but the resulting hiatus does not result in a two state solution, Obama, like all the previous U.S. Presidents will have failed.

Of course the idea that a halt in settlement construction is a prerequisite for progress in the conflict has been proven wrong more than once. Construction continued in the West Bank and Jerusalem during the same period that Israel signed a peace deal with Jordan and construction continued during the period when Israel removed 8,000 Israelis from 21 settlements in Gaza.

I think Obama has a reasonably good, if somewhat naïve, view of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute and I think that he is an honest broker. I don’t believe he has any animus towards Israel and I think he wants to see a more progressive and prosperous Arab world. Like the Palestinians, Israel will have to make some extremely tough choices if it wants a peace deal; Obama's position is that they might as well start making some of those difficult choices now. The reality is that a settlement halt is the easiest thing Israel will need to do to get to a two state solution; it only gets harder from here. The same is true of the Palestinians who will be loathe to give up the right of return to Israel for their refugees or to accept a demilitarized state that is likely to be a ward of the international community far into the future.

I don't think Obama is necessarily wrong; but I do think that he may be misjudging whether a peace deal is currently achievable. I also don't think Obama is strong enough, smart enough or strategically adept enough to achieve alot of progress on the Israel-Palestine front; let alone help (or force) the parties to an accommodation.

But Obama can easily prove me wrong. All he has to do, is do what he said he wants to do; get the Israelis to stop 100 percent of the construction. If they don't, Obama may or may not choose to take Steve Clemons' advice and start ratcheting up real pressure on Netanyahu. But it's not the pressure that matters; it's the results.

By the way, it will be very interesting to see how much pressure Obama is willing to exert as the 2010 elections approach. I don’t know how closely you monitor the fundraising success of the congressional and senatorial campaign committees. After several years of the DCCC and the DSCC far outraising the RCCC and RSCC the tables have turned. Republican fundraising is going extremely and unexpectedly well; Democratic fundraising has surprisingly fallen off a cliff. I can’t help but wonder how easy this will be to remedy while Obama is exerting the type of pressure on Israel that no Chief Executive has exerted since the early days of the George H.W. Bush administration. Perhaps these are the “domestic costs” that Steve Clemons is referring to in his post.

My position has always been that Obama is a blow hard who talks the talk but can’t walk the walk. On domestic issues this view has been borne out, at least so far. The stimulus bill was mishandled and far too small; he bailed out banks that have gone on to make enormous, almost unbelievable profits; the health care debate is turning against him making unwise compromises almost inevitable.

On international affairs the track record has been equally spotty. His meeting with the Russians was a failure; his discussions in Saudi Arabia went poorly and his position on Iran is difficult to discern. As one might expect; all of his foreign policy successes so far have been rhetorical. I fully acknowledge that Obama is good at talking; the question is whether he’s good at anything else.

Are you optimistic that Obama will do a better job on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute than other Presidents have?

I’m not. And unlike Steve Clemons and many other Washington Note readers who are viscerally anti-Israel, I understand that whether or not Obama ratchets up the pressure on Netanyahu is not necessarily relevant. What’s relevant is whether he moves the parties the entire way or at least much of the way towards his vision for the region.

Great piece on Samantha Power, who's just been appointed to
the National Security Council. Liberal interventionism is as
dangerous or more so to world peace then plain old imperalism.

From the American Conservative via the indispensable
antiwar.com

Samantha Power and the weaponization of human rights
(excerpt)
For Samantha Power, the United States can by its very nature
only be a force for virtue abroad. In this sense, the outlook of
Obama’s human-rights advocate is no different from Donald
Rumsfeld’s.

Power’s faith in the therapeutic possibilities of military force
was formed by her experience as a correspondent in the
Balkans, whose wars throughout the ’90s she seems to view as
the alpha and omega of ethnic conflict, indeed of all genocide.
For her, NATO’s bombing of Belgrade in 1999 was a stunning
success that “likely saved hundreds of thousands of lives” in
Kosovo. Yet this assertion seems to crumble a little more each
year: estimates of the number of Kosovars slain by the
province’s Serb minority have shrunk from 100,000 to at most
5,000. And it is far from clear whether NATO’s air strikes
prevented more killing or intensified the bloodshed. Even so, it
is the NATO attack on Belgrade—including civilian targets, which
Amnesty International has recently, belatedly, deemed a war
crime—that informs Power’s belief that the U.S. military
possesses nearly unlimited capability to save civilians by means
of aerial bombardment, and all we need is the courage to launch
the sorties. Power has recently admitted, perhaps a little
ruefully, that “the Kosovo war helped build support for the
invasion of Iraq by contributing to the false impression that the
US military was invincible.” But no intellectual has worked harder
than Samantha Power to propagate this impression.
http://amconmag.com/article/2009/sep/01/00028/

And Dan, about Spam: I worked on a series of Spam
commercials in the 90s. They were REALLY dumb but Spam sales
shot up. Our craft service lady served us what we thought was
pate -it was delicious, the crew ate it up and demanded more --
but it was actually Spam doctored beautifully.

Also in Hawai'i Spam is a staple. One can even get it at
McDonald's for breakfast. Talk about starting the day off right!

So while I share your distaste for Spam, some people actually not
only don't want to heave at the thought of it, they're willing to
put it on their palates first thing in the AM, which really takes
guts in every sense of the word.

On topic: a lot of email spam comes out of Israel. I'd have to
find the article I read about it, but I think it might have come out
of an Israeli source, Ynet or Ha'aretz. And I'm too lazy to do
anything of the sort.

So Obama -- you beat that Bibi down and get the boy to behave,
if for nothing else than to stop me getting emails like "Your
swell will show her your passion."

wigwag, not trying to be unfair, but I just don't believe Obama constructed the kind of mondo “litmus test” that you and some others see, although he may have been throwing down a mini-gauntlet. Using your own words, the man (Obama) would have to be clueless to intend a test of his own clout: “the Obama Administration made the construction of 20 apartments in East Jerusalem a litmus test knowing that it would lose him even more support from Congress, from the American Jewish community and from the tens of millions of American Christians who support Israel.” To me this argues for an interpretation considerably short of “litmus test”. Maybe trial balloon; not to say he isn't aware that some need to be broken if any 'progress' is possible.

I could quibble that while you and I might see the halting of settlement expansion as a relatively easy condition, it remains perhaps the sine qua non of the radical Israeli right, which we know is disproportionately powerful. So in that sense, the test is for Bibi; is he willing to confront his radicals? The Israeli support or opposition for radical positions ebbs and flows with the degree of 'circle the wagon' mentality that corresponds to increased tensions. Quite often, 'moderate' Israelis endorse land for peace by good margins, and overall have zero tolerance for the settlers. You don't hear so much about that these days.

WigWag,

I think Tony Karon has the right reading of which side decided to ratchet up the pressure on this issue:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1912278,00.html

Obama is just returning to standard operating procedure on preparations for the two-state solution and existing Israeli Road Map commitments, and has the whole world behind him. But Netanyahu has apparently decided to make a stand on Jerusalem. Israel understands that no country in the world accepts the legitimacy of its Basic Law for Jerusalem. But based on an article today in Haaretz, Netanyahu seems to think he is a big man for defying the world on this issue:

"In my previous term [as premier], I built thousands of apartments in the Har Homa neighborhood of Jerusalem, defying the entire world," Netanyahu added. "Therefore, it is clear that I will not capitulate in this case - especially when we are talking about a mere 20 apartments."

Some Israelis may find his stand emotionally satisfying, at least temporarily. But they are just going to have to get used to the fact that the years of Bush administration fudging and weakness and half-considered winks are over, and that the US is now back in line with everyone else in the world.

The Obama administration brought up this issue of the Irving Moskowitz East Jerusalem projects in a regular working meeting with Michael Oren. Israeli sources then decided to leak the discussion and blow it up into an issue to make a stand on. But the notion that Netanyahu was "surprised" last weekend by Oren's conveyance of this position, since Ehud Barak was told the same thing when he visited Washington last month.

Nadine,

You're ignoring a number of very important facts which are apparently not convenient for the political axe you are grinding.

1. Saying that the Shepherd's Hotel is just "meters" from the Hebrew University is the same bogus argument that the settlers use in the West Bank every time they set up an outpost to a settlement in a predominantly Palestinian area. It's the way the settlement movement expands the Jewish territorial foothold in the West Bank, and now as you clearly demonstrate, it's the way they try to justify expanding further into Palestinian areas of East Jerusalem. In the West Bank they say--hey, this outpost is just meters from the settlement of [fill in the name of the settlement here]. So it's really part of the settlement, just as you say, this new construction in East Jerusalem is just "meters" from Hebrew University (which by the way is my alma mater), so it's really just part of the Jewish neighborhood of French Hill. This is how the Israeli settler movement uses dishonest rhetoric to mask the ongoing expansion of Israeli/Jewish control over land in the struggle for control between maximalist Israelis and Palestinians.

2. You ignore the proper context in which this construction is occurring. As Ir Amim (an Israeli NGO which works to make Jerusalem a more viable and equitable city for all its inhabitants) has written:

"The plan [for this constuction] does not exist in a vacuum. Rather, it is part and parcel of a surge in settlement activity in Sheikh Jarrah in recent months and years. This surge includes:

-the displacement of Palestinians families in the Shimon Ha-Tzadik area of Sheikh Jarrah
-the promotion of a town plan for the construction of a new Jewish neighborhood/settlement in the Shimon Ha-Tzadik area;
-the leasing of the Mufti's Grove site to the Ateret Cohanim settler organization (currently pending before the Israeli Supreme Court), and
efforts to approve the construction of a headquarters building for Amana - the major organ of the West Bank settler movement - to be located across the street from the Israeli National Police Headquarters in Sheikh Jarrah.

"If put into effect, these plans would create a contiguous swathe of right-wing Jewish housing cutting through Sheikh Jarrah and severing areas beyond it from the Old City and historic basin."

3. There was an informal understanding between the Bush administration and the Sharon and Olmert governments that was never formalized into an agreement. The reason for this is that Bush wanted to keep settlement construction within certain limits that were never clearly defined, while managing the conflict in an effort to prevent major flare-ups.

There is a categorical difference between a policy understanding between an administration and a foreign government, and a treaty or other formal agreement between two countries. The latter is clearly intended to be binding on both countries no matter who is in power in either. The former is simply a function of the policy approach of those particular governments.

Obama is no longer trying to simply manage the conflict as Bush was. He is trying to solve it, not manage it. That calls for a different policy approach with regard to settlement contruction. To gain reciprocal confidence building actions from the Arab side, Obama needs Israel to show good faith that it intends to negotiate a final status deal that will result in a contiguous Palestinian state in the West Bank, free of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory, with Palestinian sovereignty over Palestinian neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, and Israei sovereignty over Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem.

To continue to build new Jewish housing in predominantly Palestinian areas of East Jerusalem is without question--to any fair minded observer-- to prejudice where the boundaries will be drawn in determining what parts of Jerusalem will fall under Israeli sovereignty and which will fall under Palestinian sovereignty.

Nadine, everything in East Jerusalem is just a few hundred meters from everything else. But that doesn't change the fact that this new construction is an attempt to extend Jewish control--and Israeli sovereignty--further in East Jerusalem.

4. You tried to challenge my view by asking what is my position: "Arabs should be allowed to buy land from Jews in Jerusalem but not vice-versa? That all neighborhoods must be strictly segregated?"

Arabs are in fact NOT ALLOWED to buy land in West Jerusalem--or the Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem. The land is owned by the Israel Lands Authority and by law can only be sold to Jews. Your argument simply doesn't hold water. On top of that, there's a long history of egregious discrimination in Israel's granting of construction permits to Palestinians in PALESTINIAN neighborhoods of East Jerusalem--which are rarely granted--while Israel grants a great many such permits to Jews to build in Jerusalem.

Your segregation point is another plainly bogus argument. Of course it's desirable when Arabs and Jews live together in places like Haifa. But there is no land struggle and sovereignty fight going on over Haifa. It's indisputably part of Israel. There is such a struggle going on over territory in Jerusalem, specifically in East Jerusalem which is adjacent to and geographically continuous with the West Bank--where the struggle is waged by Israeli maximalists through settlements and land confiscation/expropriation and other settler encroachments on private Palestinian land.

After the sovereignty issue is settled in Jerusalem in fair and mutually acceptable peace accord, I have no problem with Jews wanting to live in Palestinian areas of Jerusalem under a Palestinian state, and neither does Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, as he recently said. That of course assumes that they are buying land there with no ulterior motives of sabotaging the peace agreement by provoking conflict with their Palestinian neighbors.

5. Lastly with regard to the Saudis: I don't agree with your interpretation of the Saudis or the Arab League Peace initiative. But this isn't the place to get into a full-dress argument about that. With regard to what the Saudis said to Obama: Laura Rozen offers one report. There are others: The Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot reported that "The Saudi king replied, according to a source in the US administration, that he was prepared to make those gestures only after Israel were to announce a cessation of construction in the settlements."

The Saudis have a well-founded concern that if they give a conditional offer to begin normalization IF Israel freezes settlements, AND make that offer PUBLIC, Netanyahu will pocket the concession and claim that he has frozen settlement construction, but under a definition that is clearly not acceptable to anyone on the Arab side. When there are people like you who will claim that every attempt to expand Israeli territorial control in Palestinian areas of East Jerusalem isn't anything of the kind, it's clear why the Saudis were unwilling to make any such conditional offer public. As a Zionist and a Jew, I have to say--the Saudis are entirely justified in their fears about Netanyahu.

Having worked for the Prime Minister of Israel during the Egyptian-Israeli negotiations, I would suggest that you take press reports with a rather large grain of salt (including the press report I myself cited). Much of what's happening with diplomacy needs to stay behind the scenes while it's in process, and government officials put out all kinds of cover stories for various self-interested reasons.

But this much is clear: if I were an Arab leader, I wouldn't offer Bibi doodly squat until and unless I knew he was for real. So far, he's given every indication that his commitment to a two-state solution is little more than rhetoric that won't be matched by Israel's conduct on the ground. Moreover, Netanyahu committed to a 2-state solution in which he announced up front that all of Jerusalem--East and West--will remain under eternal Israeli sovereignty. That's a non-starter for a peace negotiation. Of course Netanyahu might ultimately agree to share Jerusalem despite his slogans, but there's no indication that given his current governing coalition he has any intention of doing so. If and when his right-wing coalition falls and he brings in Kadima into the government as an equal patner with Likud (plus Labor), he might begin to have some credibility on this and other issues.

Crush Diebold and those 'swing votes' become irrelevant. Become a ball breaker, and smile while you shake their hands....

"The Obama administration brought up this issue of the Irving Moskowitz East Jerusalem projects in a regular working meeting with Michael Oren. Israeli sources then decided to leak the discussion and blow it up into an issue to make a stand on. But the notion that Netanyahu was "surprised" last weekend by Oren's conveyance of this position, since Ehud Barak was told the same thing when he visited Washington last month."
(Dan Kervick)

That's not the way most outlets are reporting it. It has been reported almost everywhere that Oren was summoned by the State Department after Abbas complained about the renovation of the Moskowitz owned property.

Regardless of how it happened, the whole imbroglio is a plus for Netanyahu and a minus for Obama. It wins Netanyahu support from the vast majority of Israelis; it makes America's Jewish Israeli supporters (mot of whom voted for Obama and the Democrats down the line) even more reluctant to sit on their hands; it enrages many millions of Christian supporters of Israel who have their own ambitions for the future of Jerusalem; and it makes Democratic fundraisers nervous at just the time that funds should start rolling into Democratic Party coffers from big donors who happen to care a great deal about Israel.

Obama's job in pushing a two state solution is hard enough. Naturally Netanyahu who doesn't support a two state solution isn't going to offer Obama any help.

The last thing Obama needs is self-inflicted wounds. But his administration seems to be the master of self inflicted wounds. From the nomination of cabinet secretaries, to his domestic agenda, to his bone-headed moves on health care reform to foreign policy; the Obama Administration is beginning to look alot like the keystone cops.

Critics of Israel should enjoy the pressure Obama is putting on Netanyahu now and they're welcome to enjoy the small amounts of additional pressure he's likely to apply in the future.

But if they are under the misapprehension that any of this is likely to improve the situation faced by the Palestinians I am afraid they will be sorely disappointed.

israelis support ethnic cleansing certain areas of jerusalem... that is what you appear to be saying... i don't see how this is a win for israel, but perhaps it's a win for netanyahu who would like to give new meaning to 'ethnic cleansing'..

Steve seems still preoccupied with his prognostication during the campaign that Obama is too inexperienced to be president, hence the Khruschev analogy (i.e. the inexperienced Kennedy is Obama).

I am in favor of more U.S. pressure on Israel to stop building settlements. However I don't know what "costs" Steve wishes to impose. His piece here is notably thin on specifics. It also somewhat contradicts his defense of Vice President Biden, the man of great experience in this administration, who indicated that if Israel felt threated than an attack on Iran's nuclear weapons development would be appropriate. Aren't the settlements part of Israel's (admittedly short-sighted) security policy? Aren't they intended partly as a buffer between Israel and its adversaries?

Thanks.

1. The point is that the location Obama picked a fight over is not some outlying settlement, it is in the middle of Jerusalem, in a spot which is going to stay in Israel unless Obama now favors dividing Jerusalem along the pre-67 lines, something he said he opposed during the campaign. He could not have picked a spot more condusive to maximizing Israeli support for Bibi saying NO, or for convincing American supporters of Israel (who are mostly not Jewish btw) that Obama is pro-Palestinian. That's why I said that it was an idiotic fight for Obama to pick.

2. This particular plot of land is not even a new aquisition, since my understanding is that the Husseinis sold it to a Jewish businessman in the 1980s. What you say of the ILA is only partly true, as it doesn't own all the land in West Jerusalem, nor does it forbid Arabs to buy. It forbids non-citizens of Israel and non-Jewish foreigners, which does include the residents of East Jerusalem, who have Israeli ID cards but not citizenship.

I understand there is a land push in Jerusalem, but it goes two ways.

This article in Haaretz notes that dozens of Palestinian families have moved into French Hill and Pisgat Ze'ev, some renting, some buying, and that a proposed amendment to the ILA in the Knesset would allow Israeli apt owners to take ownership and sell to whomever http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1101682.html. Meanwhile the law of the PA makes it a capital crime to sell to Jews, charming upholders of human rights that they are.

3. Yes, there was only an "informal agreement", but it was a written informal agreement between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Israel. Everybody understands that policy shifts when a new administration comes into office, but what Obama does not seem to get is that by saying "Agreement? What agreement? I don't remember no stinkin' agreement!" the credibility he is trashing is that of the President, which is now his own. Now in the next breath he tells Bibi, "Take a big risk for peace. You can trust me, I will support you." Yeah, right.

"Obama is no longer trying to simply manage the conflict as Bush was. He is trying to solve it, not manage it."
A very frightening statement if true. Unfortunately, judging by his behavior so far, I think you are correct. However, reality is already intruding itself upon Obama's delusions of grandeur and will continue to to do.

4. I'm glad you have no problem with Jews eventually living in Palestine. However the Palestinian leadership (Fayyad's moderate English lies aside) has a big problem, which is which all the negotiations to date have been for a Jew-free Palestine. Abu Mazen and Erekat both confirm that not a single Jew can stay in Palestine, but of course Arabs have a right to live everywhere. Meanwhile Fatah honchos Dahlan and Natsheh have announced that while the PA may have recognized Israel, Fatah never did and anybody who doesn't believe in armed resistance (aka terrorism) is a "collaborator" (another death sentence in the PA).

And then of course there is Hamas. We know where they stand and there is that little matter of the unfinished Palestinian civil war.

If Fatah and Hamas don't recognize Israel, then even Haifa is not "indisputably" a part of Israel, now is it? Fatah and Hamas don't think Jews have a right to live anywhere, which is why making land concessions for peace when there is no partner for peace - not even a single Palestinian ruler - is suicidal lunacy. Abu Mazen openly says that his plan is to wait for Obama to make Israel give him things for free.

5. Spin it however you like, all reports agree that Obama went to the Saudis really expecting to get cooperation and they gave him bubkis.

I forgot to the post the link for Dahlan and Natsheh's remarks: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1248277865155&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

So, who you gonna believe, this racist lyin' wretch Nadine, or the following people?

http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=62&docid=4324

Abusing Jerusalem to Assail Peace: the Case of the Shepherd's Hotel - July 2009

Produced by Lara Friedman, Director of Policy and Government Relations, Americans for Peace Now, and attorney Daniel Seidemann, Ir Amim (Israel)

Q: What does this current controversy in Jerusalem mean for peace?
The current project is a direct challenge to President Barack Obama and his effort to launch negotiations that can lead to Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Arab peace. If Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu sees sense and finds a way to back down and cancel/freeze this project, the chances for a serious peace process, with a credible result, may very well improve. Alternatively, Netanyahu and others may well have decided to do everything possible to use this project to deal a fatal blow not only to Obama’s efforts but to the two-state solution. If they succeed, it will be Israelis as much as the Palestinians who suffer.

Q: Where would this new settlement be?
The site in question is the former Shepherd’s Hotel, located in the heart of the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah. The site is not connected to any other Israeli settlement construction – if implemented, this would mean the establishment of a new settler foothold in this area.

While the site itself is isolated from any other settlement, the plan does not exist in a vacuum. Rather, it is part and parcel of a surge in settlement activity in Sheikh Jarrah in recent months and years. This surge includes:

• the displacement of Palestinians families in the Shimon Ha-Tzadik area of Sheikh Jarrah
• the promotion of a town plan for the construction of a new Jewish neighborhood/settlement in the Shimon Ha-Tzadik area
• the leasing of the Mufti's Grove site to the Ateret Cohanim settler organization (currently pending before the Israeli Supreme Court), and
• efforts to approve the construction of a headquarters building for Amana - the major organ of the West Bank settler movement - to be located across the street from the Israeli National Police Headquarters in Sheikh Jarrah.

If put into effect, these plans would create a contiguous swathe of right-wing Jewish housing cutting through Sheikh Jarrah and severing areas beyond it from the Old City and historic basin.

Q: Why is news of this project causing so much controversy?
The messages Prime Minister Netanyahu and Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat are sending to President Obama with the project’s approval, and with their very public defiant defense of the project, are clear: “We will do whatever we want, regardless of any other considerations” and “we view settlement activities in Jerusalem as a trump card that we can play at any time." It is a clear statement that while mouthing support for the two-state solution, Netanyahu and his government are determined to do everything possible on the ground to undermine any chances for a viable peace process or peace agreement.

The controversy is being framed in the Israeli press as a political showdown between Netanyahu and Obama. Some columnists are spinning it as a trap cleverly set by Netanyahu for Obama to walk into. Others are framing it as a bold diplomatic offensive by Netanyahu, designed to re-assert Israeli strength in the bilateral relationship. Still others are calling it what it is: a transparent ploy Netanyahu is using to try to end US pressure regarding settlements and outposts, and to mobilize support for his government – from Israelis and American Jews alike. For more on this see Nahum Barnea’s analysis in the July 20th issue of Yedioth Ahronoth.

Q: What is the impact of this controversy on the Palestinians and in the Arab world?
In terms of what this controversy means for other stakeholders in the peace process, the impacts are also clear. For Abbas and the Palestinians, the approval is a slap in the face. It further discredits President Abbas and the PA – something that is nearly certain to benefit Palestinian extremists, who will be able to position themselves as the only true defenders of Palestinian and Muslim interests in Jerusalem.

At the same time, actions like this approval will only reinforce and increase Arab distrust of Israel and the peace process President Obama is trying to catalyze, making it even harder to convince the Arab states to deliver the sort of early normalization steps that the US views as critical to the process. Israel and the US have for some time been complaining about Arab unwillingness to promise any normalization in advance of an actual settlement freeze. The Shepherd’s Hotel debacle offers a very good example of why, perhaps, Arab leaders are reluctant to "pony up" until it is clear that there won't be continual embarrassments and setbacks.

continues....

http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=62&docid=4324

I predicted earlier on this thread that rather than ratcheting up the conflict between Obama and Bibi, both sides would engage in face-saving backpedaling.

I leave to the reader to say if this qualifies as 'face saving backpedaling':

US dispels fears over Israel sanctions
By JPOST.COM STAFF

The US State Department rebuffed speculation that the administration of President Barack Obama was considering imposing economic sanctions against Israel in order to prevent it from continuing to build settlements in the West Bank.

Spokesman Phillip Crowley told reporters on Thursday that remarks made by deputy spokesman Robert Woods earlier this week had been "misinterpreted."

Asked at a press briefing on Tuesday whether the US was considering putting financial pressure on Israel to get it to comply with US demands, Wood said: "It's premature to talk about that."

"What we're trying to do," he said, "is to create an environment which makes it conducive for talks to go forward."

Crowley however, said that "We are not contemplating such action."

Addressing the administration's special Middle East envoy, who was currently making his way to Syria, Crowley said that "clearly, this is why George Mitchell is in the region today talking to all of the parties that we believe what they need to do is to set conditions, to resume negotiations so that all of these issues can be resolved through peaceful negotiations."

AP contributed to this report.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1248277879561&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

"Yes, there was only an "informal agreement"..blablahblah...."

So, we had to point out that you were LYING about "signed agreements" and read your bullshit attempts to deny you were lying before you finally admit that there was "only an informal agreement"?

See, heres the deal, Nadine. If you have to defend an assertion by lying, it is probably not worth defending. Most of us learn that as youngsters. You apparently didn't learn that lesson.

Be sure to read the Peace Now piece in its entirety. It certainly underscores how this wretch Nadine has all the lies and talking points down pat, and it iviscerates her propaganda garbage point by point.

http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=62&docid=4324

"Regardless of how it happened, the whole imbroglio is a plus for Netanyahu and a minus for Obama."

Maybe in Israel, WigWag. But this episode has been a plus for Obama in Russia, Europe, the rest of the Middle East and the UN. His reputation as a guy who means business has been enhanced.

"That's not the way most outlets are reporting it. It has been reported almost everywhere that Oren was summoned by the State Department after Abbas complained about the renovation of the Moskowitz owned property."

Those reports appear to be false. There was no summoning. The Obama administration had already confirmed back in June that the settlement freeze included all settlements beyond the armistice line. Netanyahu decided to turn a routine meeting with Oren, in which that message was conveyed again, into a big fuss. Here is some analysis and background:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1245184902559&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1248277865537&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

And also a report in IMRA:

"[Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA: IMRA has learned that the exchange with Israel's ambassador took place during a meeting on Friday and not the Sabbath, as one might conclude from reports that the meeting took place "over the weekend". The source of the confusion was that the story originated in Israel and since most businesses are closed on Friday, Friday is frequently included by Israelis within the term "weekend". IMRA further learned that the meeting was not apparently a special meeting but instead a regular "working meeting" held between Ambassador Oren and State Department officials during the course of which the Jerusalem construction was raised by the Americans."

Nadine:

"The point is that the location Obama picked a fight over is not some outlying settlement, it is in the middle of Jerusalem, in a spot which is going to stay in Israel unless Obama now favors dividing Jerusalem along the pre-67 lines, something he said he opposed during the campaign."

Nadine, this was addressed above. You don't appear to have paid close attention to what Obama did and did not oppose during his camapign, and what he and his campaign said last summer about what they did and didn't mean by the "undivided Jerusalem" comment.

Having read the dialog, I side with nadine.

Obama is on a losing trajectory to a non-defined conclusion, and I'm surprised that POA disagrees and that DanK is so enthralled by "a guy who means business."

The facts show on so many issues (I/P - Jerusalem, Iraq, NAFTA, domestic repression, gay marriage, job security, etc.) that Obama means Business not business. And now he's even managed to get himself in deep kimchee on health care, too. Go figure.

What strategy would you advocate Don?

Dan, as you no doubt realize, Obama is very deep into support for the Lobby. Why did a candidate so popular and one so benefited by grass-roots internet funds get so deep into the Israeli lobby, to the extent that he has been silent to Israeli atrocities and thereby forfeited any right to be an honest broker on I/P? Face it, the man has no principles.

Actually there is little to broker, is there. The west bank, in violation of the UN and the World Court, has been taken over by half a million Jews (many from the US) in Israeli settlements, and so any State of Palestine is now a farce, a state which would be composed of isolated Bantustans and completely nonviable. So it is currently hopeless, and to pretend otherwise is to futilely extend a thirty year impasse. Therefore the Palestinians fight, as they have done for fifty years, and as they should. Fight, and have more babies than the Israelis, and eventually they will succeed in a one-state solution.

My strategy would be to dump the Lobby, force Israelis out of the settlements, assist a right of return and give the Palestinians a fair shake in line with multiple UN resolutions, which is why I'm not a politician.

Meanwhile I reserve the right to rail against non-principled politicians, of which lately there is no shortage. If a JFK were to attempt to write a Profiles in Courage about the current crop there would be few candidates, including Paul, Kucinich and Feingold. What do you think?

Dan, Obama's campaign positions evolved a bit and wound up squishy, but he did say more than once that he did not favor Jerusalem divided by walls the way it was pre 67.

I remember being quite amused by his support for "undivided Jerusalem" in the speech to AIPAC because it was (& remains) my belief that Obama didn't even understand what he was saying. I think he didn't know that "undivided Jerusalem" is code for full Israeli sovereignty over the whole city. In seeming to take such a position, he was taking a position to the right of George W Bush! So naturally had to back off that one fast.

"But this episode has been a plus for Obama in Russia, Europe, the rest of the Middle East and the UN. His reputation as a guy who means business has been enhanced."

So, you think Obama "means business" and it's not just empty bluster? He's going to lean on Bibi hard and get that total settlement freeze, including all current and future construction outside the Green Line? Well, time will tell on that score pretty quickly, don't you think?

Did you miss the "not to worry, there will be no sanctions" announcement from the US State Dept?

Don, this account of "bantustans" is farcical and is completely belied by Saeb Erekat himself, who as the main PA negotiator ought to know. Erekat says that Olmert offered territory equivalent to 100% of the WB, basically the same deal as Taba, 95%+ with the remainder in land swaps. Erekat isn't saying that the Israeli offers get worse over time; on the contrary, he explicitly says they get better and better so the Palestinians should be in no hurry to accept.

And they are not in any hurry. Olmert's offers were met by demands for a complete withdrawal to the June 4, 1967 lines (turning 500,000 Israelis into refugees because OF COURSE Palestine must be delivered Jew-free) plus the "right of return" (to Israel!) plus $140 billion dollars. This is called a receding horizon.

No, from their behavior, the Palestinians feel protected and comfortable. No hurry at all.

Farcical? Israeli controls forty percent of the west bank, with limited road access and twenty foot concrete walls.

Israel and apartheid
Neil Berry | Arab News 8 July 2009

. . .The other day, at the London launch of Ben White’s book, “Israeli Apartheid”, which details Israel’s apartheid-style subjugation of the Palestinians, an Israeli couple repeatedly sought to shout the author down, denouncing him as a liar. . . .White points out that, for all the differences between Israel and apartheid South Africa, the similarities are unmistakable. In the South Africa of old the legal system “consolidated and enforced dispossession” by securing the “best land control over natural resources for one group at the expense of another,” and exactly the same applies to the Israeli legal system.

What is also true is that the discriminatory laws, commissions of inquiry, spot fines, pass books, police raids, location permits, removal vans, bulldozers etc., that defined South African apartheid now find striking parallels in the humiliations routinely visited on Palestinians.

Consider above all the stark resemblance between the sealed-off, ostensibly autonomous, reservations that were known in South Africa as “Bantustans” and the vicious system of segregation to which Palestinians are subject in the occupied territories. In 1984, Desmond Tutu noted that Bantustans were “arbitrarily carved up” pieces of land with “no territorial integrity or any hope of economic viability” intended to give a “semblance of morality to something that had been described as evil.” Tutu’s account of “fragmented and discontinuous” settlements in “unproductive and marginal” parts of the country with no control over “natural resources or access to territorial waters” could equally be a description of conditions in the West Bank. . . .
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=124357&d=8&m=7&y=2009

nadine, I withdraw my support of your position. I should have had more faith in POA. Me bad.

Paul,
The text of the Bush-Sharon accord can be found here http://www.bitterlemons.org/docs/bushletter.html

Since it is not a formally ratified treaty, Obama is not legally required to abide by it, but he damages the credibility of the Presidency by denying its existence. He might want to write such an accord with some world leader one day. Who will value such an accord if this accord carries no weight at all, if the signed policy letters of the President of the United States can be brushed off as if they never existed?

The proper diplomatic form of repudiating an agreement is to acknowledge it but say it needs reinterpretation due to changing circumstances. Obama has no foreign policy experience, and it shows.

Geez if the poor Palestinians are suffering so much, you'd think they would be anxious to strike a deal that would free them of the Israeli presence once and for all.

The bewailing and the behavior don't match at all. But then the bewailing and reality don't match well either. Michael Totten notes:

Earlier this year in Jerusalem, Palestinian journalist Khaled Abu Toameh told me how much the West Bank surprises visitors now. “The other day,” he said, “someone came for the first time ever to this part of the world, and he called me and asked me to take him to Ramallah. So I drove him to downtown Ramallah, and we stopped there. The man was shocked. He said, ‘Where are the refugee camps? Where are the mud houses? Where’s the poverty?’ I said, ‘Why are you asking me these questions?’ He said, ‘I’m shocked. Look how nice it is.’ ” http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2009/07/what-the-west-b.php

don bacon is more fickle then i thought...

nadine, i hope you don't represent the ordinary israeli, because you are doing them a real disservice with your bullshit talking points here..wigwag and questions look good next to you...

Paul,
The text of the Bush-Sharon accord can be found here
http://www.bitterlemons.org/docs/bushletter.html

Since it is not a formally ratified treaty, Obama is not legally
required to abide by it..." (Nadine)
---------------------------------------------------

Exactly. And that was our point when we asked you about that
"signed agreement."

As Doni Remba said above:

"There was an informal understanding between the Bush
administration and the Sharon and Olmert governments that
was never formalized into an agreement. The reason for this is
that Bush wanted to keep settlement construction within certain
limits that were never clearly defined, while managing the
conflict in an effort to prevent major flare-ups.

There is a categorical difference between a policy understanding
between an administration and a foreign government, and a
treaty or other formal agreement between two countries. The
latter is clearly intended to be binding on both countries no
matter who is in power in either. The former is simply a
function of the policy approach of those particular
governments."

“My strategy would be to dump the Lobby, force Israelis out of the settlements, assist a right of return and give the Palestinians a fair shake in line with multiple UN resolutions, which is why I'm not a politician.”

And how is it that you think you would accomplish those things, Don? With you magic Cloak of Power?

I think some of you guys are desperately afraid Obama might actually accomplish something, because that would destroy the dogmatic foundations of your religion of purity and powerlessness.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/world/middleeast/24gaza.html?hp

"Seven months after Israel started a fierce three-week military campaign here to stop rockets from being fired on its southern communities, Hamas has suspended its use of rockets and shifted focus to winning support at home and abroad through cultural initiatives and public relations."

Interesting shift. Making a virtue of necessity, or really altering the status quo? Either way, it's a far better way to go, as far as I'm concerned at least.

"Interesting shift. Making a virtue of necessity, or really altering the status quo? Either way, it's a far better way to go, as far as I'm concerned at least."

The main thing that has changed in the past seven months is that increasing numbers of Palestinians now perceive that, with the change in Washington, there is at least a glimmer hope of achieving a Palestinian state through politics.

So long as we had a president who was utterly uninterested in doing anything serious about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, desperate armed conflict was the only path open.

"I think some of you guys are desperately afraid Obama might actually accomplish something..."

Actually, Dan, for myself, I am just looking at his performance thus far. Lots of rhetoric, no results. FISA, torture, prosecutions, legal positions, all across the board, he's talked tough when he needed votes, yet delivered absolutely NOTHING, except the same old shit that we got from Bush and company.

In regards to Israel, I feel safe in assuming that the very near future will find me saying...

"See, Dan, I told ya so."

Without the support of the Democratic majority, he can't do squat about Israel. And as Reid a number of others have made painfully clear, he does not have the support of the Democratic majority. It suprises me that you cannot see how hamstrung he is by this simple and obvious fact.

Netanyahu would not be exhibiting this arrogance if he was not confident of his position, and sure that he was not jeopordizing the gravy train Israel is riding on the backs of the American taxpayer. The recent increase in promised aid to Israel says far more about Obama's ability to dictate policy to Israel than his hardline posturing about settlements does.

Obama took on one of the most powerful interest groups when he called for a freeze on the settlements, and even moreso when he called for an actual peaceful settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli nightmare. The Jewish place in the Democratic Party was, when I was younger, a major plus for America's Civil Rights movement. My hope is that J-Street will help bring that aspect of the spirit of the American Jewish community back to the forefront. It is not out of the question, I don't think.

I agree with Steve Clemons that Obama has to smack Bibi down, all the while with a smile, and having been a college student during JFK's administration, I find the Bibi-Niki analogy more to the point than not.

Dan: "And how is it that you think you would accomplish those things, Don? With you magic Cloak of Power?"

If the mightiest country on earth can't exercise an overbearing influence on a country the size of New Jersey, with a million less people than NJ, and force it to comply with numerous UN resolutions, it's only because its leaders have been totally corrupted on the issue for many years.

Recently in Gaza, for example, Obama has been silent on the destruction of the city and many of its people, the recent kidnapping by Israel of a prominent US citizen, and the repression of Gazans. Every time Gazans sit down for a meal, they face a depressing reality. The selection of foods available to them is dictated almost entirely by a harsh policy imposed by the Israeli government, which, as of late, has even refused to allow such innocuous-seeming foods as pumpkins, pasta or beans to cross the border.

The situation in the west bank is similar. Palestinians workers passing Israeli checkpoints are limited in the meager meals they are allowed to carry with them to Israeli work sites. And this type of cruel behavior, with which the US is an accomplice, didn't originate in Israel -- the US has used it too, most recently in Iraq under Clinton.

Israel has been allowed to act illegally, immorally and repressively for years because the US has supported its terrible policies, not because the US has lacked a "magic cloak."

I thought you knew these things, Dan. What has blinded you recently?

i think their is an element of hope.. it might be another false hope as don bacon and poa articulate, but as questions notes in his 8:30am post, change is possible.. it needs 2 sides to work, but more importantly it needs some leadership from the usa....it remains to be seen who exactly obama is serving...

Don Bacon:

"I thought you knew these things, Dan. What has blinded you recently?"

Pissed Off American:

“In regards to Israel, I feel safe in assuming that the very near future will find me saying...
“ "See, Dan, I told ya so." “

OK, I have bitten my tongue for months around here about some things, but I’ve really had enough of this. Excuse me in advance if these rude comments aren’t very articulate, but I’m goddamned mad.

Don and POA, let me ask you this: You guys both write a lot of stuff on this blog. Why? To whom are your comments addressed? Who are you trying to influence with your words? What are you actually trying to accomplish? I ask these questions because generally all I see is incoherent rage and undisciplined sputtering, without any mature political purpose discernible behind the words – especially in the case of POA. You rage on about inevitable doom and failure as though being a loser is something to be proud of; and offer no genuinely constructive suggestions or approaches. You present no strategic arguments that are useful in persuading anybody outside the tiny clique of Raimondo-Paul-Counterpunch gadflies who already agree with you, but who huddled together all by their miserable little selves haven’t the slightest chance of delivering any kind of change. It all seems incredibly pointless and self-indulgent.

There are political realities in the United States that any politician who actually bothers to try to attain and hold power is going to have deal with. In fact, you guys and several others here constantly remind us of those political realities, and how impressive is the influence of the all-powerful lobby. And yet you offer no serious recommendations for countering that power. And any person who endeavors to take action that has even a small chance of being effective against some of that power, in the world that actually exists, is ridiculed and attacked.

That’s why people like you and Nadine perversely end up on the same side. You guys are the enablers of the people you claim to oppose. You seem to be on a personal mission to destroy the reputations and undermine the morale of every single person who actually has the gumption to try to accomplish anything, and who endeavors to wrestle with the political system and culture as it is, not as they would like it to be. I know why Nadine promotes failure: because she is fighting for Israel Uber Alles. But what’s your excuse? Do you promote failure just so you can brag later about how smart you were to predict it? You’re approach is stupid, and a heavy anchor around people trying to changes US policy in the Middle East.

Guess what? Any politician who doesn’t want to get laughed out of Washington, or ridden out on a rail, is going to have do some things that you two losers aren’t going to like, and will have to make some compromises that offend your delicate sense of impotent purity. That’s the country we live in. Grow up and deal with it.

And Ron Paul??? That’s courage? Getting elected over and over again by a bunch of radical libertarian yahoos to “speak his mind” but accomplish 100% of ZERO?! If Paul had half a clue, or was actually serious about accomplishing anything, he would figure out how to build and participate in a coalition with a chance of prevailing on at least one major issue. Instead, he is a self-indulgent and bumbling flake, a little guy who is content to be the leader of a little army of flakes.

Worse, people like you, POA, constantly heap discredit on the causes you support with your immature and boorish tirades. Just about every post you write actively damages the Palestinian cause. You have the emotional disposition and outlook of a 12-year old, and anyone who stumbles by here and has the misfortune to read your juvenile insult streams must immediately conclude that the Palestinian cause attracts only ugly and incompetent nitwits.

And you’ve got a lot of nerve calling everyone in the universe who doesn’t meet with your approval a “piece of shit” and “despicable”. Who the hell are you, Mother Fucking Theresa? What kind of person degrades and dehumanizes large masses of humanity as “pieces of shit”? And what are you actually accomplishing for anyone? Bupkus.

In my book, guys like you – and some of the other Aipac-obsessed titty babies who post here - are the Lobby’s number one bitches. You never stop whining and making excuses. The Lobby is everywhere; the Lobby runs everything; the Lobby is too powerful to be resisted; every effort to lift a finger is evidence of evil complicity with the Lobby. It’s embarrassing. Have some freaking dignity!

I decline to accept the inevitability of failure, or make emotionally protective excuses for it in advance. I can tell you that Aipac doesn’t run MY life. I believe sound policy can prevail, as long as people take the time to frame arguments that have even half a chance of persuading people. And I would rather go down looking like a gullible fool, supporting an iffy and imperfect effort, than playing it safe with your brand of free-riding cowardice, and all your sideline catcalls and raspberries. You guys bring nothing to the table. Your attitudes are childish.

Maybe you guys would have more respect for me if joined your stupid fellowship of the miserable, cried incessantly about how we will never win, picked my scabs, threw hissy fits about the obvious, barked like an abused dog at everyone who walked by, and made fun of the people who are trying. But I wouldn’t have any respect for myself.

Dan Kervick: "In fact, you guys and several others here constantly remind us of those political realities, and how impressive is the influence of the all-powerful lobby. And yet you offer no serious recommendations for countering that power."

Dan, the first step in the process of change is to recognize and analyze the problem -- to get to the reality of the matter.

"Let us settle ourselves, and work and wedge our feet downward through the mud and slush of opinion, and prejudice, and tradition, and delusion, and appearance, that alluvion which covers the globe, through Paris and London, through New York and Boston and Concord, through church and state, through poetry and philosophy and religion, till we come to a hard bottom and rocks in place, which we can call reality, and say, This is, and no mistake; . ."--Henry David Thoreau, Walden

Then, and only then, when the matter is completely understood, when the cruel, self-serving and abusive practices of corrupted politicians and others are in the spotlight, when we have come to Thoreau's "hard bottom" of political realities, only then can wrongful practices be changed.

In other words, truth and reality will "counter that power" and the solution -- right actions -- will be simple and obvious. It's no mystery -- people just need to do the right thing and not the wrong thing. How difficult is that?

One of my true political heroes, Mr. Dan Kervick, said it best a couple of years ago:

"In my many discussions with neoliberal Dems over the past several months and years, perhaps the thing that frustrates me the most is the blissful naivete of many of these neoliberals. Frankly, it appears to me that they simply don't understand the nature of the world and country they live in, and don't understand the very unpleasant and aggressive forces that drive US engagement in the world - and the engagement of other countries as well. The underlying global commercial and financial rackets that propel the assassinations, coups, subversion, wars, extortion, torture, disinformation, exploitation and thievery that are the stock in trade of all of the worlds great powers - including the US - cannot penetrate their childlike faith in the exceptional wonderfulness of their country. They are always willing to accept that all manner of mistakes have been made, but they refuse to examine the violent, greedy and systematic ugliness beneath it all. Their "exceptionalist" self-image, and impossibly rosy and fanciful view of American history and motives, render them incapable of formulating a realistic critique of US society and foreign policy. And since they don't understand the world, they cannot devise a compelling strategy for changing it."--Dan Kervick

So let us never stop trying to "understand the nature of the world and country [we] live in", and let us not be "blissfully naive" nor "refuse to examine the violent, greedy and systematic ugliness beneath it all" -- let us get to the reality of it, and then the solutions will come easily.

Don't you agree, Dan?

Regarding POA, with whom I have been lumped, he has in the past called me an asshole but has never accorded me the higher appellation of piece of shit. Maybe someday I will be so anally honored. In the meantime I consider POA usually to be an astute observer and I enjoy his comments.

And now back to our regularly-scheduled program.

Obama is a great speaker. People extol his marvelous choice of venues (Cairo, etc.) and his supposed wonderful choice of words (although in most cases he is merely repeating Bush-43).

But Obama is not so great on performance, whether it be Iraq, Afghanistan, or Israel. He has himself so deeply embedded into his oft-professed love for Israel, and his accompanying disdain for Palestinians, that his new-found bluster is no longer taken seriously even by Israelis.

news report from Examiner.com:

Obama anger stimulates Israeli settlement expansion.

Obama’s attempt to freeze building for Jews in Judea and Samaria appears to be backfiring according to a real estate agency report, which finds a boom in new home sales in Maaleh Adumim (located several minutes east of Jerusalem) further increasing the number of Jews living in the West Bank. The price of a three-bedroom apartment in Maaleh Adumin was $215,000 before Obama’s campaign against Israel. The price for the same unit now is $244,000. The city’s mayor Benny Kashriel said that all 450 apartments under construction are almost sold out. Maaleh Adumim resident and American native Beth Gordon, who has been discussing buying property for her children, laughed at President Obama’s description of her city as a (mere) settlement. . . .

dan 2:08pm post..good post.. i agree with much of what you have to say..

"So let us never stop trying to "understand the nature of the world and country [we] live in", and let us not be "blissfully naive" nor "refuse to examine the violent, greedy and systematic ugliness beneath it all" -- let us get to the reality of it, and then the solutions will come easily."

No, they won't come easily Don. We can talk and understand all we want about the nature of imperialism, militarism and the rest, and in the end it won't help get one single Palestinian his land back. Understanding accomplishes nothing alone. Only action does. In this world, large and frequently ruthless actors dominate the scene, and making something happens requires influencing their behavior, not acting out fantasy agendas on a fantasy world where they don't exist, or just talking among ourselves about how unhappy we are that the world is run by the powerful.

No person with my view or your view of the underlying nature of the United States and its imperial power is ever going to be elected President of the United States - at least not in this century. It's just not going to happen. So let's take those fantasies off the table.

Obama was elected president of the American empire, not webmaster of Electronic Intifada. What are you guys looking for? The second coming is not at hand.

It's not about having a "rosy" view of anything. Sometimes you have to support the imperfect to prevent the far worse. In the ongoing dispute, you have to ask yourself who are you going to weaken and who are you going to enable? Obama or Netanyahu? Because if Obama is not able to restart some sort of peace process, and lead some sort of powerful international bloc toward a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, then we are going to be right back to Israel finishing the job of pushing the Palestinians completely out of Palestine.

I understand why people like Nadine are all over Obama's back. That's because it is their aim to weaken Obama, to damage his reputation, to harp on his failures and inadequacies, to portray his successes as small failures and his small failures as big failures, all so that people will repose no confidence in him and abandon him. They see he is trying to build a coalition with the political oomph to effect various kinds of change in the face of some very powerful forces who are resistant to that change. They fear that coalition and its potential for success and so they are trying to destroy it.

Why are you helping them?

Sometimes you need to pick a side in these things, even if the side you pick doesn't exhibit all the virtues and perfections that characterize your private utopia.

But if you've got an alternate plan, let's hear it.

Dan, the pro-Israel lobbies have an inordinate influence on US
foreign policy. We're in a war, Iraq, because of that influence and
the influence of the military/ industrial complex, some of it with
direct ties to Israel.

Bill and Kathy Christison, both former CIA stationed in the
Middle East, have written extensively about how closely Israel is
tied to the military / industrial complex.

Christian Zionists represent a huge voting block, which pro-
Israel US Jews cannot provide. Pro-Israel US Jews however,
provide a lot of financial support for candidates who support
Israel.

All one has to do is watch Congress, presidential candidates and
members of the executive branch pay fealty to AIPAC (numerous
videos online) to know that the pro-Israel lobbies control US
policy in the Middle East.

Or just listen to what comes out of Hillary Clinton's mouth.

To say anything otherwise is disingenuous.

The money we spend on Iraq and on Afghanistan /Pakistan is
directly affecting our daily lives.

Again, find out, and tell everyone you know, how much the wars
are costing your community -- National Priorities Project:

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/

If, as Israel wants us to, we put sanctions, a blockade, attack
Iran or allow Israel to use airspace we control to attack Iran, WW
III will commence.

Dan, YOU KNOW ALL THIS.

Why should Israel be allowed this power? Why shouldn't Israel, if
she is indeed a client state of the US, tell a US president what to
do?

I do not believe that we should be attacking each other on the
board, and especially so personally. Cut out the name-calling.

And Dan, honestly, my pool is closing on Sunday due to city
budget cuts. This means no more hour long lap swims in an
outdoor, Olympic-size, pool, but it will also mean that I will
have two little kids bouncing off the walls because there is just
about nothing one can do outside in Phoenix in the summer that
doesn't involve water.

So the wars, one straight-out for Israel/ military industrial
complex, have truly and directly affected my life. I'm going to
have to chain the kids to the dogs, and if the economy keeps
going south, feed them all stale bread and water. But that's all
they get anyway ;-)

I'm pissed Dan -- I tried my hardest to stop these wars.

And I didn't piss into the wind Dan, I produced a TV and radio
news/ interview show for 4 1/2 years.

We had Ron Paul on the show a few times. Why don't you listen
to what he has to say?

What is wrong with the Bill of Rights? What would prefer in its
place -- the "Patriot" Act?

You can contact Steve for my email address if you'd like.

"I understand why people like Nadine are all over Obama's back. That's because it is their aim to weaken Obama, to damage his reputation, to harp on his failures and inadequacies, to portray his successes as small failures and his small failures as big failures, all so that people will repose no confidence in him and abandon him."

You do me too much honor. This is like saying that if I predict that the sun will rise tomorrow, I am working to help make it rise. I am merely pointing out the foolishness of Obama's moves. I cannot weaken him. He is managing that all by himself.

For those of you still hoping for some massive confrontation between Obama and Bibi Netanyahu, don't get your hopes up. Barack Obama does not do confrontation. Especially when it will cost him support in Congress and public opinion. Expect him to quietly push Mideast peace processing onto the back burner. He has no attention to give it anyway, if he is to save his healthcare campaign.

Outraged American, I know all that stuff. I've read about it and argued about it and blogged about it throughout the entire Bush administration. It's old hat. The question is, "What next?". What is to be done?

You think Israel shouldn't have so much influence over us. Well, they do. What do you plan to do about it? Get Ron Paul elected? Make Cynthia McKinney Secretary of State? You must know how ridiculous these notions are. And even if Ron Paul was president, what could he do without a broad coalition of support? A president isn't a dictator with unlimited power who can just say, "I hereby declare a Palestinian state" and get it done.

As for my personal political feelings about Ron Paul? Ron Paul is a radical libertarian. I'm not. I'm a social democrat. Since Paul hates government and doesn't want the government to actually do anything, he has no real legislative agenda. He is thus free to say whatever he wants and engage in zero legislative horse-trading without worrying about the complexities of a comprehensive agenda. His words go nowhere. He accomplishes nothing. He participates in no coalition that wields any real power. He is a party of one. I guess a few folks down in Texas like it that way.

95% of complaining about the Lobby is a waste of time. It's not that most the complaints aren't true. It's just that they are tired, well-known and utterly ineffective if not coupled with political action. Anti-Lobbyism has become a fetishized political religion among some that now takes the place of real political action. And it has also become a lazy all-purpose excuse for everything that goes wrong and everything one doesn't like about US foreign policy. People like POA seem convinced that everyone who says anything he disagrees with is some kind of Aipac Manchurian candidate. This is a psychological and political dead-end.

Dan, buzz off with your criticisms. So long as I am allowed to comment here I will do so, in my own fashion, whether you approve or not, your criticisms as you descend into slavish Obamaphilia notwithstanding.

Obama was elected president of the American empire? Obama works for me, and you, and he is an unruly servant. Our job is to bring his faults to light and discuss them. His job is to do the right thing and obey the law, which would earn him my support.

Did you know that in the US a total of nineteen (19) national emergencies have been declared by Bush-43, and that Obama has renewed every one of them that have required renewal (by law) prior to their anniversary?

Here's the first "national emergency" that Obama renewed:
Cote d'Ivoire – "Because the situation in or in relation to Côte d'Ivoire continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, the national emergency declared on February 7, 2006, and the measures adopted on that date to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond February 7, 2009."

The others are equally foolish. Change? No way, Jose.

George W. Bush was also elected president, but I don't recall you supporting him. Obama has continued, and even escalated, Bush's imperial imperatives.

If you think for one second that Obama has started some sort of peace process anywhere in the world then you have overlooked the facts, as well as his administration's rhetoric. His administration is prolonging the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, attacked Pakistan and continues to threaten Iran based on falsehoods. On I/P nobody should seriously believe that Israel's chief ally and war accomplice could be any kind of peace broker, given Obama's ass-kissing rhetoric at AIPAC, and anyhow peace is impossible given the settlements which have been allowed to be established and continue to be allowed. Jimmy Carter: "The desire of leaders in Israel to occupy and colonize the land in the West Bank, that's been the key problem." I dare Obama to say that.

Do you think that the appointment of Dennis Ross was a real step forward, Dan? According to Aaron David Miller, a member of the Ross-led US negotiating team in 1999-2000, under Ross they frequently acted as "Israel's lawyer", and their policy of "no surprises" (meaning all US proposals were first reviewed by Israel), led to a lack of negotiating flexibility and independence.

Where's the evidence that Obama has done the right things?

same bs tactics from nadine.. no surprises their...

dan, i commend you on your comments which probably include me to a certain extent.. i have always respected your views and have even greater respect for your saying what you have today...i have always liked ron paul for many of his views, but can't disagree with anything you've articulated on him here today either... and, i think all of what you've said needs to be said, so thanks..

Thanks ... It's appreciated.

Dan, very few Americans know about the power of the pro-Israel
lobbies. They have no idea how those lobbies have directly
affected their lives in both blood and treasure.

Ron Paul wants the government to stop putting us into wars. He
wants an audit of the Federal Reserve. He wants the
government to step out of people's lives unless it's going to be
helpful. NO WIRE-TAPPING, NO SNOOPING ON EMAILS OR
MEDICAL RECORDS, you name it, in the name of Israel's War on
Islam.

Paul wants to go back to more localized government, which
makes sense e.g., my state Arizona, does not have the same
needs as the state of Alaska. Except that we need their ice. But
not their Paliins.

While Paul himself cannot effect change, he can and does, lead a
movement, The Campaign for Liberty, that is attempting to unite
Americans of all political stripes to demand change.

Real change, not the BS Obama promised.

Beyond that, we should not have a two-party system. The
archaic and asinine rules surrounding ballot access almost
guarantee that a two party system is all we're going to have,
which in turn guarantees corruption.

Gee, I guess I blew it by not kneeling at the Kervick alter.

You don't like me bringing up Reid, or the fact that Obama has delivered mostly rhetoric, and failed us miserably in regards to FISA, the rule of law, torture prosecutions, disintangling us from Iraq, and a myriad of other ways?

TOUGH SHIT, GENIUS. You're madder than hell because I'm not sharing your optimism, and dare say so? Well excuuuuse me.

I think this blog has gone to your head, Kervick, and too many people are stroking your ego.

Look, you think Obama can make headway on Isr/Pal while people like Reid, and many others, are working to undermine him, fine. But don't expect me to share your uncharacteristically shallow and unfounded optimism.

As far as the rest of your rant, go fuck yourself. It seems the deep analytical thought you are so fond of applying to these issues has forcefully evicted the brain cells that used to house your common sense.

Yes, I have some knee pads, but I use them when laying baseboard, not when reading Dan Kervick.

"People like POA seem convinced that everyone who says anything he disagrees with is some kind of Aipac Manchurian candidate"

Oh shove it, Dan. You're now feeding from Questions' bale of straw?

Pull the corn cob out of your ass, its not doing you any favors.

Setting the Record Straight: Palestinians Can’t Really Live in West Jerusalem

- Lara Friedman - 20/07/2009

The author is Director of Policy and Government Relations, Americans for Peace Now

Yesterday, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu argued passionately in the Israeli cabinet meeting that Israelis have the right to live anywhere in Jerusalem. In his enthusiasm to defend this latest Irving Moskowitz project (the same Irving Moskowitz who was a key player in Netanyahu’s Hasmonean Tunnel debacle), Netanyahu gushed:

“This has been the policy of all Israeli governments and I would like to say that it is indeed being implemented because in recent years hundreds of apartments in Jewish neighborhoods and in the western part of the city have been purchased by - or rented to - Arab residents and we did not interfere. This says that there is no ban on Arabs buying apartments in the western part of the city and there is no ban on Jews buying or building apartments in the eastern part of the city.”

The problem with this argument is that it isn’t true. Israeli lawyer and Jerusalem expert Daniel Seidemann sets the record straight with the following points:

- Most of West Jerusalem is off-limits to Palestinian residents of Jerusalem in terms of their ability to purchase property. This is because most of West Jerusalem, like most of Israel, is “State Land” (in all, 93% of land in Israel is “state land”). Under Israeli law, to qualify to purchase property on “state land” the purchaser must either be a citizen of Israel (Palestinian Jerusalemites are legal residents if the city, not citizens of Israel) or legally entitled to citizenship under the law of return (i.e. Jewish). This means an Israeli or a Jew from anywhere in the world can purchase such property in West Jerusalem, but not a Palestinian resident of the city. (Technically, by the way, these are actually not purchases but long-term leases.)

- With respect to private land in West Jerusalem, legally there are no limitations on Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem purchasing in such areas. Similarly, there are no legal limitations on Palestinian residents of Jerusalem renting in West Jerusalem. However, Danny (who is extremely familiar with East Jerusalem and its residents) does not know of a single case of a Palestinian resident of Jerusalem residing in West Jerusalem, either through purchase or rental of property. (This is distinct from Arab citizens of Israel, a small number of who do live in West Jerusalem). The reasons for this are social, cultural, and economic, and as far as State Lands go, legal.

- In addition, it should be emphasized that the ban on purchase of property on “State Lands” by Palestinian residents of Jerusalem extends to East Jerusalem. Not only are Palestinian Jerusalemites barred from purchasing property in most of West Jerusalem, but they are also barred from purchasing property in the 35% of East Jerusalem that Israel has expropriated as “state land” since 1967, and on which Israel’s East Jerusalem settlements have been built. This means that in more than 1/3 of East Jerusalem, Israelis and Jews from anywhere in the world have a right to buy property in Israeli settlements, but not Palestinian residents of Jerusalem, including the very residents whose land was expropriated to build these settlements.

- A small number of Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem have rented apartments in some East Jerusalem settlements (principally French Hill, Pisgat Zeev, and Neve Yaacov - all settlements that are so far “east” that they are increasingly less attractive to Israelis). This does not appear to reflect any political agenda to move to these areas, but rather is a byproduct of the severe housing shortage that exists in Palestinian neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. And it should be noted that these are short-term rentals from their Israeli owners (as opposed to formal leases by the titular land owner, the government of Israel, to Palestinians).

http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=195&fld=606&docid=4323

"Real change, not the BS Obama promised."

I'm sorry Outraged American. But I don't support the kinds of radical free market economic changes that Ron Paul wants to bring. I think we need more government involvement in the economy, not less; more public investment, not less; more regulation of the market, not less; and more government intervention and options in health care, not less. Not that it matters, since Ron Paul probably couldn't deliver a change of socks to his local post office, much less a significant change of national policy to the whole country.

Well perhaps Ron Paul couldn't deliver a change of socks, but let the record show that Barack Obama hasn't delivered anything except staying in Iraq, escalation in Afghanistan, continued and expanded Pentagon corporate welfare, failure to change NAFTA (which he attacked Hillary Clinton on in the nomination campaign), more of Bush's domestic repression including indefinite detention, failures on mortgage assistance and economic stimulation, and more to the point of this diary, a complete lack of control of the I/P situation. Oh yes, he delivered some fine speeches.

I'm still trying to figure out why Kervick has caved on presidential responsibility. A job opportunity perhaps? Come on Dan, you can tell us. Why are you kissing up to Obama like he sucks up to Israel?

Job opportunity? You have to be kidding, Don. You seriously overestimate me. I am not personally acquainted with a single person who works in government. I don't even know my town selectmen. Nor do I have any training in or knowledge of government work. And I loathe the city of Washington. Who do you imagine would hire me to do that kind of job?

Don, is Jimmy Carter someone you currently trust on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Did you watch the video Steve posted on the 21st? Observe his demeanor, his approach. Is he skeptical and concerned? Sure. Is he lambasting and weakening Obama on Israel and Palestine, and preaching hopelessness and defeatism? Absolutely not. Having been president and the head of a major political party, maybe he under fewer illusions about what it actually takes in this country to rise to a position of influence, and then to get anything done on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Its comical, actually. Kervick throws a hissy fit because I don't think Obama can leap the hurtles that Reid and a number of others are putting in his path. These are powerful Democrats in our government, that have publically and openly told Obama to back off on Israel, and keep the heat on the Palestinians.

Then, Kervick, in the midst of his hissy fit, says....

"A president isn't a dictator with unlimited power who can just say, "I hereby declare a Palestinian state" and get it done"

So, oh brilliant and slobbered over TWN mentor, if Obama "isn't a dictator", and can't declare "abra cadabra, no more settlement expansion", what makes you think he can prevail over Reid's efforts to undermine his alleged "hardline" with Israel.

I don't get it, oh wise one, what are you basing your optimism on? His history of instituting "change" in regards to past Bush policies?

If you do pull that corncob out, may I suggest you replace it with a cork?

Since when did Harry Reid get so powerful? Who is more popular in this country right now POA, Barack Obama or Harry Reid?

How about in the world? I just saw a Pew poll that says the US reputation has improved in every one of the 15 or so countries polled - every country except Israel, where it has tanked. But I guess that's because Barack Obama has spent six months slavishly sucking up to Israel.

Have you guys thought for even a second about what it would really mean if Obama had set his mind to making himself wildly popular in Israel. Do you doubt he could have done it? Instead he's being pummeled all over that country, treated to a feast of racial epithets from spitting-mad Jewish bigots and denounced by the usual suspects in this country as "anti-Israel".

And what does it get him? Support in many parts of the world. But nothing but contempt from you predictable losers.

Meanwhile, how's your brilliant master plan to change the world going POA? Have all the pieces of shit been reformed and transformed by your ingenious insults and invective?

ROFLMAO!!! And you're changing the world, Dan? Hows YOUR master plan working out?

As far as Reid goes, he's just a pipsqueek in Washington, and Obama doesn't need him, right?

And you acuse ME of not being politically realistic?

As I stated above, EVEN IF Obama's intent is sincere, he can get NO WHERE if Congress and the Democratic leadership oppose him.

Which argument are you pushing, Dan, that Obama is omnipotently able to buck Israel with large scale Democratic opposition in Israel, or that "he is not a dictator", and can't just snap his fingers and stop settlement expansion? You can't have it both ways.

Dan. We are still being wiretapped. We have prosecuted no one for torture. The fuckers that LIED us into Iraq are not being investigated. The Plame affair is being purposely buried. Across the board, Obama is continuing the Bush administration's concealment of the truth and lack of accountability. Signing statements are continuing at an alarming pace. NONE of Obama's promised deadlines are being pursued. War is actually being ESCALATED.

And no, I am not "miserable", oh great one. I have a life outside this blog, and post here because I have fun doing it. I suspect you post here for the same reason. Perhaps my negative take on things offends you, but I am sincere, and my political predictions since 9/11 have been remarkably on the mark. Personally, I think if you trust someone that has managed to slime, sleaze, and con his way into the White House, you are a damned fool.

As far as "pieces of shit go", which I regularly call our politicians, I will ask you to consider something. Imagine, if you will, the actual number of Congressman and Senators in our government that are involved in scandal or are being investigated criminally. Now, apply a percentage to that number using the full amount of Congressman and Senators as your 100% mark. If we were to play the numbers game I describe, do you imagine the percentage of felons, thieves, embezzlers, blackmailers, adulterers, scumbags, molesters, and perverts might well be above that of the general population?

Oh please-see the huge bonuses being given out at Goldman
Sachs after the bailout? That's change we can believe in, huh?
Huge change given out to the people who screwed us, I guess it
would be appropriate to call it "chump change."

It was under Clinton #1 that the Glass Stegall act was KOed. It
was under Clinton that out-of-control media conglomeration
was allowed (1996 Telecommunications act) which has led to a
real dumbing down of the news to its present pathetic state
where the Iraq war gets what 2% of news time and Michael
Jackson's kids get the 98% left.

I don't believe in all of what Ron Paul thinks, probably about half
of it. I actually think that he and Nader should meet halfway,
because they both speak truth to the utterly corrupt two party
system and to USRael imperialism, which at this point is joined at
the pocketbook. Our pocketbook.

However, Ron Paul has rebirthed, if you will, some of the spirit
of the brave men and women who founded this country, and
brought that spirit to a new generation. He reminds the young
that there is such a thing called the "Bill of Rights."

I have a few former interns in their late teens/ early 20s who
worked on the Paul campaign -- these are kids who would have
been at Woodstock had they been more than a gleam in their
grandpa's eye in 1968 -- they're savvy enough to realize that
personal liberty without government intrusion is a good thing.

Paul makes horse sense about a lot of things, and that, very old
American asset, is sadly and completely missing from the Pelosi,
Reids, and Limbaughs of the present day, all of whom are in the
pocket of big Pharma, etc. Although one could make the case
that Big Pharma is in Limbaugh's pocket given his alleged intake
of Viagra and Oxycontin

Paul's Campaign for Liberty can't change everything, but it can
help bring us back to reality and some sort of old time American
values, as horridly imperfect as they were.

One doesn't spend more than one has. One doesn't launch wars.
One minds one's own business and not have Big Brother
watching and recording every single thing every American does,
purportedly because of one tragic day in September of 2001.

Let's face it: we've become a nation of ninnies. But even then,
Obama's nanny state is a nanny state for corporations.

Even this health care plan doesn't make sense. The only thing
that does is single payer, but the Dems are on the take too from
the "health" industry, so we're just going to get some stupid,
pseudo nationalized health care if we get anything at all.

The federal government is not a good thing when it's left
unchecked, which it is now. Communities know their own needs
and can sort out local issues for themselves. States know their
own needs and ditto.

Again, I don't believe in all that Paul says at all, but we had him
on our show two or three times and he made a lot of sense. We
had on Mike Gravel and Kucinich, and they made sense too. Not
all of what any of the three said, but a good portion.

Those three and Nader, made much more sense than Joe "I am a
Zionist" Biden's ramblings or any of the other bought and sold
candidates in the last election.

And one of the many things that working on the show made me
realize, because I had to cover everything from the horrific
amount of rapes in Congo to the Al-Hariman case (and Obama's
justice department is worse than Cheney's according to many
lawyers dealing with illegal wiretapping cases) is that to a huge
extent, governments cause trouble and a lot of time DO NOT
work for the benefit of the governed.

Kervick, quit with the ad hominems, will you? Resorting to personal attacks, which you ironically criticize POA for, only indicate a lack of substance to your arguments, and besides they are not nearly as colorful as POA's.

Or I could say, yah, yah, you're a "predictable loser" too, but I won't.

Kervick: "Since when did Harry Reid get so powerful? "
news report:
The Senate will not vote on health care legislation before leaving for its summer recess on Aug. 8, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said on Thursday. The Senate is giving up on moving comprehensive healthcare legislation this summer. It means that President Obama’s goal of getting to a vote by the August recess is now out of reach.

Kervick: "How about in the world?"
The Pew Global Report:
. . .for the most part, opinions of the U.S. among Muslims in the Middle East remain largely unfavorable, despite some positive movement in the numbers in Jordan and Egypt. Animosity toward the U.S., however, continues to run deep and unabated in Turkey, the Palestinian territories and Pakistan.

Kervick: "Have you guys thought for even a second about what it would really mean if Obama had set his mind to making himself wildly popular in Israel."
Well, thank god for small blessings. He only gives Israel 99% of what it wants so he is pilloried by Israelis. Big deal. Peace in Palestine requires more than that, and who cares about Israeli popular opinion when in much of the Muslim world animosity toward the US continues to run deep and unabated.

On Ron Paul. Unwavering conviction, and a steadfast loyalty to longheld beliefs and policy advocations, despite their lack of political popularity. Its called integrity, and its called true patriotism. One does not have to respect his policy advocations in order to respect his integrity and personal conviction.

Yes, its a political reality that you must posture, cow-tow, lie, and con to win favor in Washington. But because its a reality doesn't mean we have to condone, abet, or ignore it.

Kervick also brought up McKinney. Personally, I think McKinney as a politician is a dismal failure. I've NEVER liked her, nor felt she had the diplomatic skills to be a competent politician. My posting on McKinney had little to do with HER, and everything to do with THIS ADMINISTRATION, and its insincere posturing in regards to a "hardline" with Israel. We had an ex American Congresswoman kidnapped illegally, and detained illegally. If ever there was an opening to begin a strong effort to distance ourselves from Israeli policies, that was it. The same can be said about the Tristan Anderson affair. There is no other country on the globe that could manage to avoid criticism, censure, and media attention for two such blatant criminal acts. The Tristan Anderson affair had TREMENDOUS potential to underscore the plight of the Palestinians, and to open the discourse on our complicit and abetting relationship with Israel. What other country can shoot an American citizen in the head and recieve no media attention? Or kidnap an ex Congresswoman on the high seas? How did Obama react to these two affairs? With silence.

Then, of course, there is Obama's silence during and after the Cast Lead bloodbath. A silence, I might add, that was simultaneous with our Congress' very loud and public support of "Israel's right to defend itself", and a HUGE arms and munitions shipments to Israel, which included white phosphorous and cluster munitions. And as Hillary is tepidly decrying settlement expansion, and Netanyahu and Lieberman are telling us to fuck off, the House votes to INCREASE aid to Israel.

Yeah, right, "change" is coming. Its all going to be lubricated by Kervick's ridiculous and unfounded optimism. Thats Kervick's "master plan", and he's gonna change the world with it.

Hows THAT working out for you, you condescending jackass? Snap your fingers, and click your heels three times, Dan; Obama rides to the rescue, valiantly galloping his prancing steed past Congress as they feebly try to wrest the reins from the omnipotent White Knight.

Yeah right.

"Hows THAT working out for you, you condescending jackass?"

POA describes Dan Kervick as a condescending jackass; that's rich.

How exactly would you describe yourself, POA?

My guess is that there are many people who come to the Washington Note specifically to read Dan Kervick's comments. As often as not they're as interesting or more interesting than the posts. Although he agrees with you far more often than he agrees with me, his comments are almost always well thought out, constructive, entertaining, well written and erudite.

But don't worry, POA, I am sure that there are many people who come to the Washington Note to read your comments too.

The problem is they're all cretins.

http://www.aipac.org/Publications/SourceMaterialsCongressionalAction/ReidLettertoObama.pdf

Heres one of Reid's letters to Obama. Do you see any criticism of Israel in that letter? Read it carefully, especially the second to the last paragraph. Reflect on what Reid is saying in that paragraph. Does someone writing about the "historic kingdom of Israel, which was established more than three thousand years ago", and the "continuation of the Jewish state" sound to you like someone that is going to support a hard line with Israel, and a halt to settlement expansion?

Of course, in Dan's fantasy world, Obama doesn't need Reid's support.

(I apologise to Dan for these postings, that don't reflect the fawning admiration (for his astute political analysis) that he so obviously feels entitled to.)

dan kervick, do yourself a favour and go back to ignore mode, or maybe you already have? confronting these 2 directly isn't worth it..

HA!!! Amazing how quick Wig-wag is to jump in any corner bearing the "insult POA banner".

Dan finds himself in wonderful company. I'm sure Nadine is grinning ear to ear as well, reading Dan's online snit of condescending derision.

Quite telling, however, how any substantive rebuttal to my argument about Reid's impedimentary efforts are lacking in both of their commentaries. Dan seems to think it is sufficient just to stupidly seek to marginalize the power Reid enjoys in the halls of Washington, and Wig-wag simply attaches himself to Dan's coattails with an equally shallow bit of blather. Any minute now we can expect Varanazi to show up, suddenly in full agreement with Dan's latest bit of TWN pontification.

Yes, Wig-wag, everyone agreeing with or following my posting is a "cretin". But I'll take 'em, wig-wag, because the alternative is having a bunch of lying sack of shit racists like Nadine and her ilk in agreement with me, such as you are so lucky to enjoy.

Oh, and I see pimples has jumped in with his typical astute analysis. Tell me, pimples, do you agree with Dan's assertion of Reid's political impotetence, or are you just going to join Wig-wag in donning your Kervick Fan Club kneepads?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz... predictable poa...

at a certain point ''most'' people will rise above their animosity or hostility to acknowledge they're speaking with real people behind the screen names.. treating others with a certain level of human decency or respect is something i am a full participant even if i fall of the rails occasionally... i am happy to agree with wigwag on this issue of basic tolerance and consideration for others here at twn.. obviously you see it differently...

A repost from above.

So what does a 95% positive vote from the Democrats tell us, considering that it was done simultaneously with Netanyahu and Lieberman telling Obama to shove it, Israel kidnapping an ex Congresswomen, shooting an American citizen in the head, and every reputable human rights organization on the planet accusing Israel of war crimes committed during Operation Cast Lead??

Of course, to Dan's way of thinking, its just chicken soup.

https://www.njdc.org/blog/post/HouseGOPVoteAgainstIsrael071009

Over Half of House GOP Voted against Aid to Israel, 95% of Dems Support
Aaron Keyak — July 10, 2009

Today, Ira N. Forman, CEO of the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC), released the following statement:

NJDC applauds the Democratic leadership and the 95% of House Democrats for standing by Israel and supporting a strong U.S. – Israel relationship. We wish we could say the same for the House Republicans, but they were unable to muster a majority in support of this important aid.

Last night over half of House Republicans voted against $2.2 billion in aid to Israel. Such votes clearly don’t support a strong and secure Israel. The House GOP is continuing a disturbing trend of returning to their isolationist roots and a lack of an enlightened foreign policy. We remember in 2007, 164 House Republicans rebuffed the pro-Israel community and voted against billions in aid to Israel. Here they go again.

https://www.njdc.org/blog/post/HouseGOPVoteAgainstIsrael071009

And, uh, Pimples, I suggest you avoid the topic of "predictability" of commentary.

And, if anything is "obvious", its that you have no rebuttal to my assertions of Reid's part in this, and you dare not address Dan's remarkably disingenuous assertion of Reid's political impotence. Did you see me attacking Dan before he launched his hissy fit? Do you really think me telling Dan that I may in the future tell him "I told you so" warranted his tirade?

I don't "owe" anyone civility. I've picked my online demeanor, and I make no apologies for it. It make no mistake, it IS an "online demeanor". (Unlike Dan, Nadine, questions, Wig-wag, etc, I see no need to express a conflicting view by implying a knowledge of offline behaviours or personnas I know nothing about, such as Dan's asinine insinuation that Don or I live a "misetrable existence", or Wig-wag's ridiculous psycho-analytic musings about penis size and function.) It is designed to incite, and it does so magnificently. I have my reasons, and occassionally, if you pay attention, those reasons are obvious. This is one of those occassions. But I don't imagine you have the experience, the wisdom, or the common sense to recognize it.

Still at it I see.

Even monkeys learn by repetition so that must be the thoery here. All us monkeys trying to train the other monkeys.

It's entirely pointless you know, an indulgence for those who like Kervick who want to play amateur analyst and a frustration outlet for those like POA (and occasionally myself) and a game and challenge for those like Paul who want to monkey with the Nadine's and wiggies attitudes and agenda and a job for Israel for the Nadines and wiggies.

At some point it will become apparent whether or not Obama intends to carry out his words on Israel-I-P ..that point is probably not far off.
Then we can tell whose examination of the clues available was most correct.

I am in the 50-50, maybe he will and maybe he won't. When he does or doesn't shortly take action then there will be something concrete to argue over.

"At some point it will become apparent whether or not Obama intends to carry out his words on Israel-I-P ..that point is probably not far off.
Then we can tell whose examination of the clues available was most correct."

Fair enough. So how long would you give it? A month? Three months?

Carroll, never mind monkeys, if it walks like a duck, etc. it must be a duck.

Blogging, like any other kind of political analysis, normally consists of looking at the evidence and trying to determine the truth of what actually happened, a learning experience. It is not an attempt to predict the future, although the past actions of the duck are a pretty good indicator of how the duck will act in the future.

Trying to guess what the president will do and hoping that he does specific things are both exercises in futility. Understanding what he has done (and presuming that his behavior won't change much) is a more sensible exercise and that is what we are about here, so your 50-50 musings on who can guess the future the best are irrelevant.

Well, I suppose I’ve already gotten most of what I needed to get off my chest. Now that I’m a little calmer, maybe I can just say a few things that clarify where I’m coming from on these issues.

I don’t think there are a lot of illusions here about how national politics and politicians work. People in high political office have to make a thousand different compromises and compacts to get into a position of major government responsibility. Their options are severely limited by the coalitions they have built and the commitments they have made, by the elite constituencies that sustain their political careers, and by the existing power structure of the social and economic order they have inherited. That’s the political world – not just in America but everywhere else, I imagine.

People who engage in political debate with the goal of being useful take different stances toward this fundamental political reality, and what they choose to say about it. Some are content to stand entirely outside the system of power and government, and give full expression to the very large gap that often exists between the social world that actually exists and the world as they would like it to be, and are content to express how angry they are over the size of that gap. They try to get others to feel the same level of anger. They emphasize the corruption of everything on the inside and the purity of what is outside. They are probably right much of the time.

I used to do a lot more of that than I do now. A lot of things about the American system of government and American way of life are not my cup of tea. But increasingly, I don’t find that kind of discourse very useful or effective – at least not in public forums. It just hits up against a brick wall, and then slides down into the dirt.

Anyway, my alienation and disaffection are my own business, and parading them out before everyone in emotional diatribes doesn’t seem to accomplish much, other than to give me a cheap buzz of temporary relief, followed by a hangover of feelings of futility. I also have come to recognize that my own personal ideals are just not the same as other people’s ideals, and it seems narcissistic to whine all the time about why the world won’t revolve around my personal preferences. It turns out that a lot of Americans just *like* rootin’-tootin’ economic individualism, guns and booze, buccaneer lifestyles and laissez faire cowboy freedoms. That’s not me, but I guess I just have to deal with it, and stop dreaming of some kind of peaceful, communal Scandinavia in the New World as a model for the whole country. I try to focus now on issues where there is a possibility for a broader consensus.

I don’t write as much stuff on blogs as I used to, and I try to stick to topics and venues where there is at least a small chance that I can influence people’s opinions, especially if some of the people who read that blog might be in a position to make a difference. I try to avoid simply feeding the co-dependent urge to bitch. That’s why I still come to Steve’s blog. I have tended to limit my discussion recently to a few issues in US foreign policy, particularly our policies in the Middle East and Russia. Sometimes I talk about big macroeconomic issues, although frankly, my knowledge of economics and how the world’s financial and commercial systems are put together is very limited.

I have commented here many times about what I do and don’t like about the policies I post about. But I am more inclined now just to push around the edges, instead of venting about all the evils of power and empire. Since it appears that nobody in a position to do anything about it is planning on dismantling the empire anytime soon, what is the use? Rome wasn’t un-built in a day. I push where I can for a greater role for international cooperation and governance, and diminished reliance on unilateral uses of US power, and hope that over time that will lead to an erosion of imperial forms of action and to a more expansive realization of genuine international governance.

We all have to make judgments about how we can be most effective. As I said, I increasingly try to rely on arguments that might appeal to people who are actually in a position of responsibility. We also all have to decide when berating the half-a-loafers is a constructive way of pushing for a full-loaf, and when it is only likely to empower the people who are working to ensure no loaf at all. There is no single uniform answer to this kind of question.

If people see this approach as kow-towing and sucking up, and a compromise of integrity, then so be it. The form of integrity that consists in being a voice in the wilderness, raging against everything and accomplishing nothing, answering only to one’s personal vision or muse, and speaking truth to power even when power isn’t listening and has no reason to give a shit – that kind of integrity doesn’t attract me much. These days, I’m more likely to be drawn to the semi-corrupt government official who at least managed to push through a lot of red tape and get a bridge built than a whole army of Chomsky Jeremiahs who stand outside the walls railing against how evil everything is.

Personally, I’m not self-employed. I work for a large corporation, which means I have several bosses, and know all about the world of kow-towing, speaking selectively, sucking up and sucking it up. The way I see it, those things are just an inevitable part of any large organization or common group effort.

Now on Israel: The United States has an extremely close relationship with Israel, for a variety of historical, cultural and demographic reasons. That is a fact of life. It’s good for those of us who pay attention to this relationship to point out cases where the relationship pushes the country into policies that are harmful, and to try to persuade people to go in another direction. And sometimes it even works. But if anybody is waiting for some viable American politician to go tell Israel to screw off, you are going to wait until hell freezes over.

In the meantime, during the pre-frozen hell age of men, there night be some chance of ameliorating the worst aspects of Israeli behavior, and even ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and getting a Palestinian state. In the context of the American political system, given the power structure as it is actually constituted, taking even the limited steps that Obama has taken requires some guts and fortitude. Obama is running the risk of being crushed for taking these risks, as I think you guys recognize. So I am inclined to support him, recognizing that it is almost impossible to imagine a viable American politician doing more at the preset time. If current US policy is isolating Netanyahu, and adhering to the principle of a settlement freeze as a prelude to some kind of peace process, as difficult and uphill as the political chances of success might be, then I think that policy should be supported.

On this whole Aipac thing, I repeat my claim that the obsession with Aipac can be destructive. It’s not always liberating and informative to rage against Aipac. It’s frequently a self-limiting excuse, and demoralizing. One way people try to prevail over you is to convince you that their power is irresistible. They will try to rub your face in their power at every turn. But rubbing one’s *own* face in another’s power, and talking oneself into a belief in the irresistibility and omnipresence of one’s opponents’ power, even arguing with others over why your understanding of your own powerlessness and subordination is superior to the other person’s ignorant belief in the possibility of resisting it, is enfeebling and undignified. I choose to believe in my capacity to accomplish something, and that the role of The Lobby isn’t spectacular in the grand scheme of things. Maybe I’m wrong. But I find it more empowering than the contrary belief.

Obsession with Aipac and friends can also easily discredit one’s arguments. Some of the discourse here about Aipac and “The Lobby” has the feeling of a paranoid conspiracy theory. Claims are frequently made that suggest people believe there are Aipac spies around every corner and Aipac provocateurs in every discussion. That kind of crying wolf and paranoia can make people look like fools. It’s the same things as when Israelis argue that everything Israel has ever done wrong is a big Arab conspiracy; that the Pope is the head of a secret army to wipe out the Jews, etc. It’s crazy talk. And once you have people running around chasing their own paranoid shadows, they’re licked. Who is going to take your argument seriously when you say, “We need to stop Israeli colonization of the West Bank” if your next sentence is some variation on, “And we need to stop Aipac from sapping and impurifying our precious bodily fluids.”

It’s useful to point out when a politician has taken money from, or made commitments to, some foreign policy lobby; just as it is useful in the health care debate to point out how much cash Max Baucus has taken from the health care industry. But if you start wildly throwing around suspicions and charges, and are not able to back them up with real evidence, it weakens your position, and makes it look reckless, irrational and defensive.

The issue of which discourses are spontaneous expressions of support, and which are organized lobbying efforts is also generally irrelevant. They key question is whether the positions advanced are right or wrong, true or false, not who is making them. Suppose a user came to The Washington Note and wrote, “Please let me introduce myself. I am a professional propagandist and public relations expert paid by the Israeli government to visit blogs of influence and present arguments in support of the Israeli government’s positions. Here is my argument for the position that the United States should support Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem.” So the writer is a propagandist. In the end, what does that matter? If the propagandist presents a good argument, a disinterested reader will just say, “Hey, this Israeli hack makes a lot of sense.” If they give a bad argument, it will be effectively refuted by other readers and will have no effect. Identifying who someone is and what his motivations are doesn’t eliminate the need to refute his arguments, and doesn’t count as a refutation in itself.

The TWN reader Samuel Burke once suggested that he sees himself as part of the “anti-Zionist movement”. I have expressed my feelings about Zionism and other forms of nationalism. But that’s a side issue for me, not something that amounts to a cause. And frankly, I have found that anytime one goes near something that styles itself an “anti-Zionist” movement or some-such thing, you end of running into a bunch of nutbags. These kinds of orientations and causes are a magnet for extremists, nationalist “patriot” groups, bigots and conspiracy kooks. So no thanks on the anti-Zionist movement. Where I see people – Zionists or otherwise - pushing the US into foreign policies that I believe are harmful to most Americans, and that generate dangerous levels of anti-American hostility or unnecessary risk of violent conflict, then I will argue against them. Otherwise the Zionists can do their thing.

Now, POA is right. I can be a condescending snob. But POA, your consistent bullying, incivility and verbal violence have, in my opinion, severely damaged the overall quality and credibility of the discussion on the Washington Note. Maybe this makes me a snob, but I find it consistently embarrassing to have my comments appearing in the same comments section as yours. Your temperament is so juvenile and odious, your characterizations of other human beings so ugly and dehumanizing, that whenever you and I are on the same side of some issue, I feel it makes my own views look worse by association.

One of the key arguments of the pro-Israel community is that opposition to Israel or Israeli policies is rooted in sheer malice. They have gotten tremendous mileage out of this argument. A lot of politicians seem to live in a pathological fear of such charges. So I think that people opposed to Israeli policies have to be particularly disciplined in the way we conduct ourselves. In a sense we are all ambassadors for the positions we espouse, and people will make judgments about those positions, fairly or unfairly, based on our temperament, decorum and associates. But POA, your comments are so uniformly malicious, indecent and aggressive that they cast opposition to Israel in an extremely negative light. Frankly, you are an albatross around our necks. At least that’s the way I see it. Others might have a different perspective.

Do you think many respectable politicians can afford to be associated with this kind of viciousness and hatred? Maybe Steve will set me straight, but I wonder if people have told him that they could not post on his site because they cannot afford to be associated with the hate and nastiness.

Now I suppose I should acknowledge that some of my disagreements with the people I have criticized just comes down to real differences in values; not merely differences in tactics and approach.

I’m an uptight New Englander. I am personally conservative and fairly sober in my way of life. I’m a bit of a prig. I hate guns, wars and violence. I am instinctively distrustful of military people, even though I also try to be appreciative of those who are just doing a necessary job honorably. I am also attracted by deeply egalitarian and community-based ways of life that a lot of libertarian-spirited folks would find collectivist or socialistic. What I liked about Obama was his message of social and community responsibility, and the need for collective action and cooperation, public investment and civic obligation.

I am also not an isolationist. Nor am I anti-globalist or a big promoter of economic nationalism, national sovereignty and national independence. I am an old-fashioned one-worlder internationalist, in favor of expanding global governance; promoting economic and social interdependence, not independence; promoting a consciousness of global community and diminishing attachments to national communities; and expanding the scope and rule of international law and order. Needless to say, these are things I hope will happen gradually over time. No major party candidate in the United States is going to get elected by espousing an anti-nationalist agenda of “one-worldism in our lifetime”. But I think we can get the country to take common-sensible and practical steps of building global institutions for governance and cooperation, as needed.

I do expect that over time we are going to see Obama move the country in a progressive direction – that is, a direction that *I* regard as progressive, not a direction that Ron Paul, Justin Raimondo, Pat Buchanan or Murray Rothbard regard as progressive. Obama is clearly a cautious and deliberate politician who organizes his steps on a long-term internal schedule. Over time, I expect we will see most of the damage done by Bush undone. But it is not Obama’s style to just start signing a bunch of papers, making declarations, cancelling the past with a stroke of a pen, and emitting executive dictates and directives. Clearly, he prefers an approach in which strategic changes are prepared through a process of orderly review, and clear institutional and public communication, so that when the decisions are made they are demonstrably well-considered, and backed by a strong consensus of elite and popular consensus. Whether this turns out to be effective and succeeds in cajoling the establishment in a significantly more progressive direction, or just stalls out in a rehash of 90’s-style neoliberalism, is something that will be more apparent after four years, and maybe eight years.

Don Bacon, I’m sorry I got emotional and ran you together with POA. You are different people with different approaches. What ticked me off, I suppose, was the idea that I am blind to what is wrong and inadequate about this country and government. I’m not blind. But I just don’t find it very useful to constantly indulge all of my emotions and perceptions about everything negative. I do think there is a role for building morale and “accentuating the positive”, even if that means one runs the risk of looking like a sucker who doesn’t see any of the negative things. I especially think that is important when there are people actively trying to destroy important I support by spreading the story of failure, corruption and incompetence.

Dan, I used to be an uptight New Englander too, and then I came to the West where people tend to be more direct and at the same time more tolerant of others. You need a vacation; come on out.

Example: I was sitting on a hot pool below a waterfall in Colorado last week when another guy, who had already mentioned that he had two sons who attended West Point, made the remark that the US was in Afghanistan defending freedom. I said, I disagree with you, the US is not defending freedom in Afghhanistan. He said (basically) you're right, I exaggerated, and we went on from there and had a fine conversion in which we agreed with each other on almost everything (and you know what a lefty I am). At no point did we call each other names.

Now you got upset at what I wrote, and you called me some names. You now say that you got upset because your views are different from, say me and POA, on how strongly ones' views should be expressed. Well, that's just tough, isn't it. If POA makes your views look worse by association perhaps you should modify your views.

Prior to your descent into Obamaphilia (I like that phrase!) you were a lot more critical of the government, so are we supposed to be sensitive somehow to your changing moods? Change of life, maybe?

You seem particularly upset with POA's extreme writing, and I have defended him. He's pretty up-front about it. The name Pissed-Off-American should give you a clue. Again, you don't like his style, and that too is just tough. It doesn't seem to bother Steve (quite the opposite) and it's his blog, isn't it. To me, POA is an astute and colorful writer. I enjoy reading his comments. He reminds me of Edward Abbey, who said: "I know my own nation best. That's why I despise it the most. And I know and love my own people, too, the swine. I'm a patriot. A dangerous man." That's POA. A dangerous man, not only to you but principally to the corrupted bastards that routinely screw the American people for their own benefit.

See, Dan, this is a nation of different people, with different views, and different ways of expressing them, and they all have first amendment rights. All of them. You don't seem to understand that, but you're still a young pup (compared to me) so someday, someday soon I hope, you will understand it. God bless America.

"Now, POA is right. I can be a condescending snob. But POA, your consistent bullying, incivility and verbal violence have, in my opinion, severely damaged the overall quality and credibility of the discussion on the Washington Note. Maybe this makes me a snob, but I find it consistently embarrassing to have my comments appearing in the same comments section as yours"

Go fuck yourself, you narcissistic ass.

Kervick just set a record on the use of the word "I" in a single posting. I must say I find his self infatuation somewhat obscene. He's right, he should be embarrassed.

And it sure was a longwinded avoidance of offering substantive rebuttal to my assertions about the roadblocks Harry Reid is placing in Obama's path.

Oh give me a break with the First Amendment Don. You act like I called the speech police on you guys. Nobody is physically preventing you from writing anything you want. But if POA has a right to write whatever he wants here, then I and others have an equal right to say when we think his speech is uncivil, boorish, detrimental, counterproductive, vulgar, obnoxious, rude or stupid.

You seem to think I should be utterly intolerant of any representations made by the Obama administration, but cheerfully tolerant of bullying, aggression, dehumanization and boorishness when it happens right here in front of us. Well, I have decided I am not tolerant of people being called "disgusting", "repulsive", "pieces of shit" and the rest. Certain standards of civility and humanity should be preserved in a public forum, even when arguing with people with whom you profoundly disagree. I am only ashamed that I didn't call out this childish and reprehensible behavior earlier.

We all have constitutional rights to lots of things that no decent person would do. I could call some person I meet on the street a fat, ugly, boil on the butt of humanity, and probably couldn't be arrested for it. But if you heard me say such a thing to a person would you be tolerant because, you know, we're all different people, with different views, and different ways of expressing them, yada, yada?

My fundamental attitudes about the country haven't changed. What has changed are my views about what kinds of speech and behavior are constructive and effective, and which kinds are idle, self-indulgent and counterproductive.

"Clearly, he prefers an approach in which strategic changes are prepared through a process of orderly review, and clear institutional and public communication, so that when the decisions are made they are demonstrably well-considered, and backed by a strong consensus of elite and popular consensus"

What a bunch of unmittigated horseshit. Obama is burying crimes, hoping they remain buried, because it is not politically expedient for him to pursue the letter of the law. He also realizes that an indictment of the Bush criminals will likely result in indictments of powerful democratic leaders as well. And his promises of "transparency" have become painfully exposed as empty rhetoric.

I never thought I would read such disingenuous foolishness from Kervick.

And after his 5:08 posting, he wants to talk about being "self indulgent"??? Thats a laugh.

Thank You Dan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dan, regarding the First, you didn't merely criticize POA's speech, you absurdly stated that POA has caused damages with his speech: ". . .severely damaged the overall quality and credibility of the discussion on the Washington Note" -- which is an assessment you are not in a position to make. Your ego trip is over, Dan.

Concerning your "views about what kinds of speech and behavior are constructive and effective, and which kinds are idle, self-indulgent and counterproductive," we've heard them. Now please shut up on it. You're tiresome. Even boring old Harry Reid, the Democratic obstructionist and the pride of Searchlight Nevada, is more interesting.

"At some point it will become apparent whether or not Obama intends to carry out his words on Israel-I-P"

It doesn't matter what Obama "intends". He can't follow through on intent if the Democratic majority doesn't play along. And there is strong and irrefutable evidence that the Democratic majority is not sympathetic to Obama's so called "hardline" with Israel. As Dan pointed out, in one of his more schizophrenic and self opposing moments, Obama is not a dictator, (regardless of the fact he is continuing Bush's policy of using signing statements to AVOID making decisions that are "backed by a strong consensus of elite and popular consensus").

If common sense conclusions about tomorrow, based on examinations of yesterday, offend and embarrass Dan's sensitivities, then I imagine he'll suffer immeasurably when Netanyahu cashes the next check while casually flipping Obama the bird, because that is EXACTLY what is going to happen.

"But it is not Obama’s style to just start signing a bunch of papers, making declarations, cancelling the past with a stroke of a pen, and emitting executive dictates and directives"

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/07/democrats_scold.html

Democrats scold Obama on signing statements

President Obama is taking a hit from fellow Democrats on another issue -- the use of signing statements on bills passed by Congress.

In a letter today to Obama, four senior House Democrats scolded him, saying he is being too much like former President George W. Bush in using the statements to ignore legislation he thinks oversteps the Constitution, the Associated Press reports.

The House members said they were "surprised" and "chagrined" by Obama's statement in June accompanying a war spending bill that he would ignore restrictions placed on aid provided to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. The letter was signed by Representatives David Obey of Wisconsin; chairman of the House Appropriations Committee; Barney Frank of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee; and Nita Lowey and Gregory Meeks of New York, who chair subcommittees on those panels.

Congressional Democrats were harshly critical of Bush's signing statements, which they argued violated the constitutional separation of powers. Critics contended Bush used such statements to expand his power, particularly on national security, by ignoring the intent or certain provisions of bills properly passed by Congress. (Charlie Savage, then with the Globe, won the 2007 Pulitzer Prize for national reporting for documenting Bush's actions."

continues...

"you absurdly stated that POA has caused damages with his speech: ". . .severely damaged the overall quality and credibility of the discussion on the Washington Note" -- which is an assessment you are not in a position to make."

It's an assessment and value judgment I am entitled to offer, Don, after long experience of participating on this site. If other participants don't see it the same way, they can disagree with me.

"Now please shut up on it. You're tiresome."

That's so intolerant Don. Didn't you hear about my First Amendment rights? I guess when you're older you'll understand them.

I'm with Dan: name-calling does not serve any comment section
well, and especially this one. We can discuss our differences
without verbal assaults.

POA, I think you are a very decent person and you're antiwar it
seems and I'm virulently antiwar, so what causes war to go
forward, by which I mean, what causes people to enlist in
militaries during time of nationalist fervor? Hatred, often
generated by lies on the part of the government or religious
groups.

How do we stop the state/ religion sponsored hatred? By
addressing each other civilly and exchanging information in a
civilized manner.

The internet has broadened all of our horizons. Let's use it not
to judge and criticize each other, but to work together to stop
the big or little differences that tear us apart.

BTW: Don, there used to be a bumper-sticker "Welcome to
Arizona, now go home." Hey Buddy, you "uptight New
Englanders" (and I went to school in MA -- the school used to
have to lock-up the towers during finals so people didn't throw
themselves off and commit suicide) need to JUST GO BACK and
leave us Westerners alone.

We're running out of water here and soon we'll be forced to
DRINK YOUR URINE.

Either that or kill you and drink your blood ;-)

"And after his 5:08 posting, he wants to talk about being "self indulgent"??? Thats a laugh."

You're right POA. My 5:08 was too long-winded. But it represents about a year's worth of tongue-biting.

dan kervick... thanks.. i live on the westcoast, not that it matters, and am quite capable of saying whatever is on my mind in a way that could go head to head with poa anytime... i agree strongly with your views in the 5:08pm post and am glad you've articulated them...it seems poa is unable or unwilling to acknowledge any of it.. he's still trying to pick himself up from the knock out punch you delivered earlier... to top it all off, you have the audacity to share some of your weaknesses, something poa wouldn't be caught dead doing... i really appreciate your comments here... lol to your 9:17pm.. ain't that the truth~!

"Over time, I expect we will see most of the damage done by Bush undone"

Obama's Disappointing Secrecy

by Benjamin H. Friedman

Benjamin H. Friedman is a research fellow in defense and homeland security studies at the Cato Institute.

He promised openness. Instead, like Bush's, his administration wants the power to keep Congress in the dark on some intelligence activities.

The Obama administration promised an "unprecedented level of openness in government."

The White House website says that citizens have a right to know what their government is doing and that accountability makes government more effective. That's absolutely right. In some areas, such as the liberalization of policy on Freedom of Information Act requests, the administration has embraced this principle.

Disappointingly though, the administration's commitment to openness and accountability does not extend to intelligence activities.

We need a national refresher on the theory of democratic government, which tells us that secret government is always undemocratic and generally unwise.
The administration recently threatened to veto the intelligence authorization bill, the annual legislation that funds the Central Intelligence Agency.

The trouble with the bill, according to the administration, is a requirement that intelligence officials brief some secret intelligence activities to Congress's full intelligence committees rather than just the "gang of eight" (each party's leader in each house and the chairmen and ranking members of those committees). The administration wants to keep the power to determine whom it briefs.

This veto threat, and its implicit plea to shut up and trust the executive branch, comes at an awkward time. It arrives just as we have learned about more secret, possibly illegal, doings that the Bush administration launched as part of its panicked reaction to the Sept. 11 attacks.

continues....

Thursday July 23, 2009 13:24 EDT

New report contradicts central Obama claim for preventive detention

An important new report (.pdf) was released today by Human Rights First regarding the overwhelming success of the U.S. Government in obtaining convictions in federal court against accused Terrorists. The Report squarely contradicts the central claim of the Obama administration as to why preventive detention is needed: namely, that certain Terrorist suspects who are "too dangerous to release" -- whether those already at Guantanamo or those we might detain in the future -- cannot be tried in federal courts. This new data-intensive analysis -- written by two independent former federal prosecutors and current partners with Akin, Gump: Richard B. Zabel and James J. Benjamin, Jr. -- documents that "federal courts are continuing to build on their proven track records of serving as an effective and fair tool for incapacitating terrorists."

continues....

More Obama Secrecy -- This Time On Cheney's Plame Interview
By Zachary Roth - July 2, 2009, 2:46PM
Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised at this point. But the latest example of the Obama administration mimicking the Bushies in opting for secrecy over openness feels like one of the most infuriating yet.

The Justice Department is declining to release Dick Cheney's interview with federal investigators looking into the Valerie Plame leak, arguing -- as it did under President Bush -- that doing so would discourage future high-level officials from cooperating with criminal investigations.

The good-government group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington had filed a lawsuit seeking to have the interview released.

CREW points out in a press release that Cheney was never promised confidentiality in the investigation. And its executive director, Melanie Sloan, notes:

It is astonishing that a top Department of Justice political appointee is suggesting other high-level appointees are unlikely to cooperate with legitimate law enforcement investigations. What is wrong with this picture?

It's really hard to see how this stance jibes with the president's much-hyped claim, upon taking office, that his administration would privilege transparency. In several previous instances where the Obama-ites have opted for secrecy -- such as the controversy over photos that show detainee abuse -- there was at least an argument to be made that the path of openness would endanger American troops or otherwise threaten national security.

In this case, no such argument can be made.

OK, POA, you can have the last word on this thread. And Don, if you want to have at it one more time, go ahead. I'm not going to respond.

"How do we stop the state/ religion sponsored hatred? By addressing each other civilly and exchanging information in a
civilized manner"

Hmm, how's that working out for us this last decade? Been in a "free speech zone" lately?

And what is this ridiculous delusion that Kervick is now bandying about our posts here influencing events? He seems to be sayin. "My posts have an effect, yours don't". Well, screw 'im. I doubt EITHER of us are instituting change. But I can tell you one thing, a whole shitload of people reading this blog had never heard of Peace Now, APN, or bothered to actually visit the AIPAC website. I DO believe I have AT LEAST made a difference there, in a very small way. My bet? He won't own up to it, but I bet Kervick doesn't even bother to examine the links I provide daily. He's too fuckin' in love with himself to actually consider that this crass and blunt carpenter in Central Cal might actually be a fairly astute observer of events, and that common sense can often times trump deep analytical mental masturbation.

Read this thread through, carefully. See any substantive rebuttals to my post that originally put a burr in his jock strap?

Kervick can go to hell. I've lived far long enough to recognize a self obsessed and condescending intellectual bore when I see one, and Kervick, despite his obvious intelligence, is about as boring and priggish as they come. I HOPE I embarrass the shit out of him when I post. His self infatuation deserves such a gift, and I intend to give generously to the cause.

Oh, I see Kervick is checking out, having had never offered ANY substantive counter to my argument about the Democratic majority's role in all this. Ironic, ain't it? He offers ONLY ad hominem on a thread devoted to him decrying ad hominem.

Oh well.

U.S. Senate supports Israel's Gaza incursion

Thu Jan 8, 2009

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate voiced strong support on Thursday for Israel's battle against Hamas militants in Gaza, while urging a ceasefire that would prevent Hamas from launching any more rockets into Israel.

The chamber agreed on a voice vote to the non-binding resolution co-sponsored by Democratic and Republican party leaders in the chamber.

"When we pass this resolution, the United States Senate will strengthen our historic bond with the state of Israel, by reaffirming Israel's inalienable right to defend against attacks from Gaza, as well as our support for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said before the vote.

Noting that Israel was bent on halting Hamas rocket fire into its southern towns, Reid said: "I ask any of my colleagues to imagine that happening here in the United States. Rockets and mortars coming from Toronto in Canada, into Buffalo New York. How would we as a country react?"

Co-sponsor and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican said before the vote: "The Israelis ... are responding exactly the same way we would."

The House was expected to pass a similar resolution.

continues....

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5075JG20090108

Never mind that it was Israel that breached the cease fire. Never mind that white phosphorous was being used on civilian non combatants. Never mind that the IDF consistently acts in a viciously racist manner when conducting incursions into Gaza.

Even today, when the full extent of Israel's war crimes and atrocities are being exposed, Obama is mute, and the Democratic majority continues to fund Israel.

And the prime issue is settlements? What about war crimes and atrocities?

Dan's gone but I've found some of his past quotes from Mister Suckup All-For-Obama that live on. I like the earliest one best.

"The settlement freeze call has weirdly been turned by Obama’s supporters into an end in itself, and a sign of Obama’s “getting tough” with Israel, as though a freeze would itself constitute a major turning point and the key to peace. But it is only a very minimal first step. And Obama doesn’t even seem to want to push very hard on the freeze. How in the world can he be prepared to engage in the much bolder action that would be required to create a viable Palestinian state?"--Dan Kervick, June 9, 2009

"I am not an unreasonable man. In the domestic sphere, I am able to swallow all the neoliberal Rubinites, because at least we got a few lefties in the cabinet like Hilda Solis and Jared Bernstein. But on foreign policy the left has been stiffed, dissed, locked out, humiliated. Millions of people who voted for Obama, and who were particularly responsible for helping him secure the Democratic nomination, got nothing, not even a token appointment. We are zero; a black band on the political spectrum. We don't count; we don't matter. George Mitchell seemed mildly promising, not from the left but at least a reasonable man. But he is clearly going to be smothered by a broad agenda that is a continuation of Bush, modified only by the least attractive features of Clintonism."--Dan Kervick, Jan 29, 2009

"Fuck off. Do you think I am going to send Obama another $100 as a reward for his cowardly silence on the devastation in Gaza? Enjoy your damned inauguration party. Have fun dancing and gorging yourself while the world's dispossessed and miserable are trampled underfoot. I do not regret helping elect Obama, because he will be far better than McCain would have been. But I am extremely disappointed in the choices and decisions Obama has already made in the foreign policy sphere. And I see no reason to support decadent and wasteful indulgences like an inauguration blow-out. And if Obama stupidly sinks his administration by wading into another Vietnam-like quagmire in Afghanistan, don't come running to me for more money in 2012. I'll be supporting a more progressive alternative."--Dan Kervick, Jan 3, 2009

Dan -- such language. "Fuck off" to Obama? And what about that "more progressive alternative" -- Ron Paul?

POA, I took an enormous pay cut to be a producer on an
independent TV/ radio news show that broadcast across the US.
Enormous pay cut. We can effect change, but yapping on this
board isn't going to do it.

I would suggest that we all work in our communities to educate
our fellow citizens about how US foreign policy affects their daily
lives, plus hold "our" Congressional whores feet to the fire.

Honestly, take a picture of a dying Iraqi/ Palestinian/ Afghan/
Pakistani kid and a horrifically wounded US GI with you
everywhere and wear "provocative" T-shirts like "Give Peace A
Chance" -- there are a lot at TheHungerSite.com, including one
that quotes Washington's farewell address.

When some thug or sweet old lady questions you in the grocery
store, show them the picture of the dying child/ US GI, tell them
how much the wars are costing THEM daily, and give them the
numbers of your mutual congress whores.

Outrage in this country is going to have to start from the ground
up.

The Democrats are equally if not more complicit in so many wars
of the last hundred years. Obama is expanding the war into
Pakistan, in search of whom?

Oh, and POA and anyone else who wants to hear an amazing
analysis of the 9/11 attacks done by an economics professor at
the State University of New York (Buffalo) here it is from a really
great website informationclearinghouse.info.

This is a must listen to all who do or do not question the official
narrative of Sept. 11, 2001:

How much insider trading occurred in the days leading up to
9/11? How compromised is the evidence against alleged
hijackers because of serious authentication problems with a key
Dulles Airport videotape? To what extent does the testimony of
more than five hundred firefighters differ from official reports of
what happened at the World Trade Center buildings that day?
How inseparably connected are Western covert operations to al-
Qaeda? How is Islamophobia used to sustain US imperialism?

Paul Zarembka is a professor of economics at the State
University of New York at Buffalo. Since 1977, he has been the
general editor for Research in Political Economy. He has
authored Toward a Theory of Economic Development, edited
Frontiers in Econometrics, and co-edited Essays in Modern
Capital Theory.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article23122.htm

OA, I don't really choose to discuss 9/11 here for two reasons. First, you have to be a total fuckin' idiot to buy into the "official version" of what occurred on September 11, 2001. And who wants to argue with idiots?

And second, if you bring up the amazing and glaring holes in the official narrative, you open the door for the obviously maniacal claims that are designed to place the whole ball of wax in the laps of the tinfoil hat crowd.

The only "truth" we can count on about 9/11 is that we will never know the truth.

But it is kinda encouraging that the questions are becoming more mainstream, and widely asked. Even if we never know the truth, at least it will be widely accepted that we were not given the truth. Thats a small consolation, but I suspect its the best we will get.

Gee, Don, is that the same "Dan Kervick" that has been posting on this thread???

OMG, we better call an exorcist.

BTW, Don, touche. You can cover my back anytime.

Army term -- I've got your six. Were you in? Twelve o'clock is straight ahead, etc.

POA, this is why I've been astounded by Kervick and asking him what caused the change. Job opportunity? He says no. Change of life (men have it too)? No answer.

I've blogged with this guy on various sites for five years or more and he's been a dependable voice on the left. I meant it when I wrote that he was a true hero of mine in politics. Now he's gone bonkers, verbally punching out guys who used to talk like he did, and suddenly sucking up to a president, a weak unprincipled man, whom he recently decried as fostering "a broad agenda that is a continuation of Bush, modified only by the least attractive features of Clintonism." Which is pretty accurate.

Anyhow, we'll carry on without him. Probably some form of political PTSD.

"Honestly, take a picture of a dying Iraqi/ Palestinian/ Afghan/ Pakistani kid and a horrifically wounded US GI with you everywhere and wear "provocative" T-shirts like "Give Peace A Chance""

A couple of years ago the contractor I work with sent me out to a house in the San Joaquin farmlands to measure for a remodel. Upon arriving at the house, I was delighted to see an 1800s farmhouse that was still being upkept and utilized as a residence. Unbeknownst to me, the residents were direct discendents of the original homesteaders, and were one of the oldest farming families in the San Joaguin Valley.

Anyway, I was greeted at the door by the current matriarch of the family, and her daughter, a young girl in her mid twenties or so. I measured for the remodel, picked their brains on what their design ideas were, and bid them goodbye.

Upon arriving home, I discovered that was wearing my "Impeach Cheney" ball cap. I don't know if you're familiar with the Central California region, but it is quite the California enclave of redneck conservativism, PARTICULARLY in the farming community.

I made a point, as the job progressed, to avoid wearing that hat, and avoided engaging in political discourse, convinced that she and her daughter were undoubtedly unsympathetic to my political opinions.

Imagine my suprise, weeks later, when she was thanking me for my contributions to her successfully completed remodel, hearing her say....

"By the way, Laura and I really, really, really, liked your hat".

Hey, I marched in an anti-war parade in San Diego a few years ago with our Smedley Butler Society banner, back when we foolishly thought such demonstrations might matter, and the Dump Cheney tee-shirt that one of our fellow marchers wore got a favorable comment from one of the cops on our parade detail. In San Diego! A cop! Go figure. There are good people everywhere.

In an earlier post I compared POA to a cretin. I apologize.

Comparing POA to a cretin is an insult to cretins everywhere.

"Upon arriving home, I discovered that I was wearing my "Impeach Cheney" ball cap. I don't know if you're familiar with the Central California region, but it is quite the California enclave of redneck conservativism, PARTICULARLY in the farming community."

That's a great story, POA. I wonder how she would have reacted to your "I hate Mexican Truckers" tee shirt.

Posted by Don Bacon, Jul 25 2009, 4:05PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Did you see the word "guess" in my comment? No you didn't.
Did I say based on examination of the clues? Yes I did.

Do I have to do my 50-50 by the numbers for you?

No.1 It's OBVIOUS what Obama WANTS to do.
No.2 It's not YET obvious how far Israel
will go to ruin Obama's plan.
No.3 It's OBVIOUS Obama wants to avoid a hot
hot war with Iran/more ME turmoil.
No.4 It's OBVIOUS Israel wants to get it
on with Iran and force the US hand.
No.5 It's OBVIOUS Israel is batshit crazy, not
obvious YET if they are suicidal enough to
to keep defying the US adm and take on Iran.
No 6 Depends on HOW batshit crazy/suicidal
he and advisors think Israel really is as
to exactly Obama will do TO Israel.
No.7 If he backs Israel into corner he has to
be ready to PREVENT them from carrying
out some distraction like setting fire
to the ME which would be the larger problem.

Therefore I am 50-50 on exactly what he will do. I imagine his adm is going thru a lot of 50-50's on what course they should take because of the Iran angle for Israel,given Israel's habit of setting fire to something to recreate another holocuast threat to the Jews production. In short Obama has to be ready not only to punish Israel but to SIT ON THEM so they can't blow something up to take the heat off I-P. Unlike some I do not think congress or the Jewish groups are going to have much effect on Obama's I-P edict. They are mostly contained and their loudness is mostly noise.

But is Obama PREPARED TO SIT ON ISRAEL,which is where the politics would really ramp up, if he puts a hurting on them over the settlements? ..that's the 50-50-maybe in exactly what he will or won't do.

If I were to GUESS Obama's future actions, BASED ON HIS PAST behavior, since I don't have
access to his innermost thoughts...I would GUESS that he will proceed slowly in incremental steps to sanction Israel. WHETHER OR NOT he will have an Eisenhower moment when he realizes all it's producing in return is more jive and shuck from
Israel remains to be seen.

Correction: There are good people almost everywhere.

Why should Mexican truckers be driving on our roads? Have you
ever BEEN to Mexico, much less driven there?

It is possible to not be a "racist" and oppose illegal immigration.

It is possible, should one live in Central Mexico, i.e., California,
Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, not to want to import the traffic
non-laws of Mexico proper into your state.

For instance, in Mexico there are signs everywhere saying "Alto"
which should mean "Stop" but so far I have never seen anyone
except for non-Mexicans obey those signs in Mexico.

I know I have to pay extra to get auto insurance coverage if an
un-insured or under-insured driver (read illegal immigrant or
just some poor person, in which case my heart goes out to them)
hits my car.

Why would I want to import more dangerous drivers into my
state?

Guest worker program and an end to NAFTA. But if you want
people to really be racist flood their states with people who
could not pass a US state's driver's license exam to save their
lives.

"That's a great story, POA. I wonder how she would have reacted to your "I hate Mexican Truckers" tee shirt"

Geez, Wig-wag is going to see if he can make a bigger ass of himself than Dan did.

Have at it, wiggie. I'm confident you're up to the task.

poa - when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging..

palestinians will never accept a jewish state. They want an arab majority in israel through return of refugees.

All this pressure on israel will do nothing because palestinians have refused for israel to be a jewish state.

The original UN plan was for all of jerusalem to be an open city. Palestinians have no right to east jerusalem control just as israel has no right to east jerusalem control. It was meant to be an open city. So jews should be able to live in east jerusalem as well. Shouldn't jews be able to build in the jewish quarter in the old city which is across from the green line?

Jews were across the green line far before 1967. Across the green line doesn't mean all the land is palestinian. It was meant to be negotiated. So this myth that east jerusalem is the palestinian capital is a myth.

Also Netanyahu isn't running for president in the u.s. His constituency in israel doesn't favor Obama's plans. Obama has a 6 percent approval rating among israeli jews.

You could say Obama was the wrong president for the middle east. Bill Clinton could get the trust of all sides. With Obama's background with Wright he will never be able to get the trust of all sides.

The israeli government couldn't even enforce a freeze if it wanted too. It could dismantle settlements like in gaza and have the army watch over an area but it can't enfore a freeze.

How can you have a building freeze on the same population as washington dc.

I read this freeze won't even involve private contractors.

You can't have a freeze with a physical population of over 500,000 people over the green line. It 's impossible to enforce a freeze on 500,000 people. You either have to knock down settlements or do nothing. They will just use private contractors.

You need to build new schools, and other new facilities that comes with a population that grows even without new people moving there.

I don't understand how you could logistically enforce a freeze over a wide area like this. You can you say ok keep on living there but stay static.

Obama has been all over the map on the middle east.

In 2006 he was for the lebanon war when he was gearing up to be a presidential candidate.

In 2004 he was against the israeli security barrier but then in 2006 on a trip to israel he was for it then in 2008 he said after the aipac speech he was against the wall.

The real problem is Iran. Iran is now supplying Hamas with rockets that can hit tel avivi, israel's only international airport and dimona. Iran brings in weapons through sudan up through the tunnels into gaza.

Nothing is being done about the shiite surge in the middle east.

We are leaving iraq to iran. Maliki is nothing more than an iranian puppet. Then you have assad in syria and hezbollah in lebanon. You will have a shiite power crescent from iran to the med sea.

Hezbollah views northern israel towns as occupied palestinian land.

There will never be some grand deal in the middle east. Israel and Hezbollah will always be enemies. This idea that you can solve the middle east problem is a joke. The status quo will go on and on and on. It doesn't matter who the u.s president is.

The most hypocritical part though is that u.s and soldiers throughout the EU are fighting the pashtuns in another continent and israel is bashed for trying to stop rockets on israeli schools and markets. There is no UN investigation when civilians die in afghanistan. And all these groups like human rights watch are obsessed with Israel. And the UN human rights council that the U.S just joined is obsessed with Israel.

"The most hypocritical part though is that u.s and soldiers throughout the EU are fighting the pashtuns in another continent and israel is bashed for trying to stop rockets on israeli schools and markets. There is no UN investigation when civilians die in afghanistan. And all these groups like human rights watch are obsessed with Israel. And the UN human rights council that the U.S just joined is obsessed with Israel"

I agree with this. Its not like the United States is saintly in its deeds. We have killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq. We are as bloodthirsty and our crimes and atrocities are just as heinious. The leaders of BOTH nations should be tried before the Hague.

"when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging"

Thanks, Pimples. I was wondering why Dan crawled out of here. But he needn't of worried, the quotes Don provided so completely iviscerated what little on-topic comment Dan offered on this thread, that there wasn't much left to bury.

Will the real Dan Kervick stand up? I think the COMPLETELY POLAR stances underscored by Dan's past comments, (quoted by Don), compared to his recent comments, (entered into this thread), perfectly illustrate my contention that Dan tends to compose this stuff just to feed his own self infatuation, rather than out of some sort of political wisdom or conviction. Much like Obama, Dan figures if it sounds smart, and fits the moment, what the hell, go for it; image is everything.

As far as you go....don't you realize how self belittling it is to chime in on the heels of Wig-wag making such an asinine and disconnected comment? Have you no pride, pimples? Why are you commenting on this thread, if not out of some sort of perverse and petty desire to "pile on" POA? Wheres your comments on the topic, or your rebuttals to my opinions on the impedimentary effect that Reid and the Democratic majority may have on Obama's alleged desire to halt settlement expansion.

Now, we'll see if you have enough sense to follow your own advice. Somehow, I doubt it.

i think poa stands for pissed off ass, but it could be pos which is what your pile of posts amount to here..

Hmmm. My doubt was on solid footing, it seems.

As usual, Pimple's comments here have as much substance as .... does.

But, uh, unlike Dan, at least he's consistent.

have the last word pos..

Folks -- too many violations of my basic principles regarding posting comments.

I like to write about Middle East issues -- but every time I do, I don't want or need to see a storm of highly personal, ad hominem attacks between posters here. Stick to the issues -- stay out of the personal.

I wrote this some time ago to guide people:

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2007/12/comments_on_thi/

There is so much over the line above that I don't want to get into it. Some of you have written to express some remorse about this -- and others have been ridiculously mean to people on this blog.

This is my blog - my perch -- which I share. Please maintain a posture on this blog that is open to ideas, discussion and general inquiry.

There is a great diversity of views out there -- and I have enough to do in writing my own posts and doing other parts of my job that I don't want to play hall monitor.

But please take this warning to heart -- and improve your game. What I see above is not impressive.

I am shutting down the comments on this item from any further posts.

Steve Clemons