Attacking Al Jazeera in Palestine

-


This is video of Palestinian thugs pounding on the door and according to reports vandalizing Al Jazeera‘s Ramallah bureau before going after a person with a camera.
Disturbing. The Palestine Papers, if they are valid, show how unaligned the peace negotiations process has been.
But attacking Al Jazeera is not the answer — and whoever unleashed this group to deploy violence is an enemy of a healthy civil society.
– Steve Clemons
Ed note: h/t to Max Blumenthal

Comments

92 comments on “Attacking Al Jazeera in Palestine

  1. nadine says:

    Erekat never said he was giving up the right of return in 2008 and now he certainly is denying having said it.
    “Speculating” Olmert wanted a deal desperately in 2008 is like speculating that Obama intends to run for reelection in 2012.

    Reply

  2. jdledell says:

    “Olmert would have been more desperate than ever to close the deal”
    Nadine – This is speculation on your part. All I can tell you is actually what Erekat said (which is consistent with what was in the released Palestine Papers). Did Olmert tell you he never got such an offer on refugees from Abbas?
    Sure Hamas is trying to make hay out of the concessions made by Abbas. However, the revelations are being met with a big yawn on the West Bank. If you think the Palestinians have not prepared their people for concessions you should go visit the settlement. I’ve mentioned before statements by Ayalon, Begin, Danon, Atias, Mofaz and others assuring the settlers that Israeli sovereignty would remain over their settlements. On my last visit to Eli, Begin was very forceful in stating that the Ariel corrider would be extended to include Eli and Shilo.
    The Knesset as currently constituted would NEVER sanction an agreement that gives the Palestinians more than 60% of the west bank, essentially Areas A&B. Likud, Shas and YB politicians are pretty candid about that.

    Reply

  3. nadine says:

    “After Rice suggested moving 5 million Palestinian refugees in South America don’t you think Abbas and Erekat understood trying to move 5 million refugees to Israel was a lost cause. ” (jdledell)
    What I think is that Abbas and Erekat understand that they are about to be condemned as traitors (Hamas is already on the case) because these Palestine Papers portray them as having yielded on the right of return.
    Which only proves the point (I’ve made it repeatedly) that the PA has never done anything to prepare the Palestinians for the compromises needed for peace; just the opposite. It’s now official policy not only to insist on the full “right of return” of 5 million Palestinian refugees to Israel but to insist that the Jewish presence is wholly illegitimate anywhere in Palestine, including the part that is Israel.
    As Barry Rubin points out (I trust him because he is factual, logical and his predictions come true), Olmert and Livni were desperate for a deal; if the Palestinians had suddenly yielded on such a major point, without even getting an Israeli concession in return! Olmert would have been more desperate than ever to close the deal. We certainly would have heard lots of leaks from the Israeli side about the breakthrough that had occurred.
    And that’s not what happened. So Barry Rubin makes sense to me.

    Reply

  4. Carroll says:

    Speaking of Egypt, it’s a good example of why the US and Israel are so resented by people of the ME for more than just military aggression.
    Several years ago I read a column by Tom Freidmen
    in the NYT that didn’t really make sense to me. He was saying that Egyptians were ‘celebrating’ in the streets over a new cooperative deal with Israel…part of his flat earth delusions I guess.
    Anyway it seemed off to me so I did some research.
    The London and other overseas papers were telling a different story, saying Egyptians were ‘rioting’, not celebrating.
    What had happened is the old GATT (General Agreement on Trades and Tariffs) had ended meaning new agreements on tariffs and tax free imports to countries would have to be redone.
    The US did this for overseas markets by creating Free Trade I-Zones in different countries that gave them access to import their goods into the US.
    What the US had done in the case of Egypt was to make Egyptian goods imports into the US from the FTZones or qualified Industrial Zones (QIZ’s) dependent on using a % of Israeli goods as stated below in the agreement:
    “Egypt

    Reply

  5. Carroll says:

    Things are moving..sowly, but moving all the same.
    News Source on January 26, 2011
    The latest announcement of diplomatic recognition of Palestine means that governments representing 304 million out of South America

    Reply

  6. jdledell says:

    Nadine – If you brushed up on your arabic and got over to Israel and the West Bank most of what was in the Palestine Papers would not be a surprise. At Sari Nusseibeh’s seminars at Al Quds University much of this was discussed especially when Saeb Erekat was the guest speaker.
    You are crazy if you think the Palestinians don’t understand the right of return implications to Israel. It’s their one negotiating weapon and they drag it out whenever they need to increase their clout. I’ve heard Erekat use numbers in the 50,000 to 100,000 range as a way to finesse the issue.
    My reading and writing of arabic is poor but conversational I can keep up and I doubt whether I heard Erekat incorrectly. If I did, others in the room did also. I don’t understand your love affair with Rubin. I know he does not trust or like Palestinians but I think it colors his opinions far, far too much. After Rice suggested moving 5 million Palestinian refugees in South America don’t you think Abbas and Erekat understood trying to move 5 million refugees to Israel was a lost cause.

    Reply

  7. nadine says:

    jd, read what Barry Rubin writes:
    Do you really believe that suddenly, for no apparent reason, and no big Israeli concession the Palestinian negotiators tossed away their demand for a “Right of Return” for millions of Palestinians and accepted a mere 100,000 being let into Israel? And if you don’t believe it, how can you think that these papers are authentic?
    Do you believe that this could have happened without the U.S. government knowing about it? And if so why didn’t it factor into U.S. policy at all? Indeed, anyone who understands Israeli politics would comprehend that if given such an offer Olmert and Livni–desperate to survive politically–would have made a deal.
    Only someone who believes that Israel has no interest in peace–which is what the Guardian and al-Jazira think–could conceive that these leaders would just walk away after the PA made an offer that was light years’ better than anything ever hinted at before. Only those who demonize Israel could believe that Livni was advocating expelling Arab citizens of Israel as if she were no different from Meir Kahane.
    Do you not realize that this is a disaster for hopes of peace since no Palestinian negotiator in future would dare to offer any concession at all? And that’s even if more radical forces don’t sweep away those held responsible for “treason.”?
    In its defense the Guardian published an article by Jonathan Freedland entitled, “The Palestine papers have broken a taboo. Now the arguments for peace can be open. The papers show how much ground Palestinian negotiators were willing to concede. This isn’t craven. It’s admirable.”
    You might admire it but how many Palestinians are admiring it? And doesn’t it matter more what they think about their own leadership? Does Hamas admire it? Does the Fatah leadership admire it? And of course, most of them will believe that this is what happened. I don’t.
    Don’t justify this by saying it helps advance peace. It doesn’t. Quite the opposite.
    http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2011/01/coming-soon-from-those-wonderful-people.html

    Reply

  8. nadine says:

    “You complain about the Palestinians not accepting ceding Maale Adumim and Ariel to Israel. Maybe if Israel offered my deal it would be more acceptable to let Israel keep these two large settlements. Lets keep working on options and trade-offs and maybe something clicks. ”
    Nah, jd, this is just not remotely close to reality. We’re not talking about negotiations. The Palestinians refuse to negotiate.
    We’re talking about a version of events presented by an openly pro-Hamas al Jazeera that is designed to make the PA look bad, look too forthcoming – i.e. so they look like traitors to the Arab world while the Israel-bashers in the West say “See, the Palestinians were forthcoming, so it’s all Israel’s fault”. And even in this version of events, almost certainly skewed, the Palestinians are far less forthcoming than you claim they are ready to be in reality right now!
    You can’t base peace on fantasies like this.
    As for the Palestinian street, did you notice that the PA has been suppressing protests in support of Tunisia? They are afraid of the contagion spreading.

    Reply

  9. jdledell says:

    Nadine – Yes Abbas and company are scrambling but so what. The Palestinian street is reasonably quiet and what has been revealed is generally what most west bank residents expected was really going on in the negotiations.
    You complain about the Palestinians not accepting ceding Maale Adumim and Ariel to Israel. Maybe if Israel offered my deal it would be more acceptable to let Israel keep these two large settlements. Lets keep working on options and trade-offs and maybe something clicks.
    When borders are negotiated between states there are certain risks. It’s true when Kosovo broke away, as well as southern Sudan. The former overseer does NOT continue to call all the shots. The Palestinians volutarily are going to give up heavy weapons – that is enough. You can trust but verify but not exert absolute control.
    As far as right of return – the Palestinian Papers clearly state that no significant return to Israel is possible and now the only barrier is negotiating some token return, like I outlined.
    When the Olmert negotiations the two parties were about 4% of the land off from each other. That is a bridgeable distance if Netanyahu relents on going back to square one and only provide his ludicrous “economic Peace”.

    Reply

  10. nadine says:

    Hi jd, in theory your points might make a workable deal. But did you notice that even in the “Palestine Papers,” which a shaken Saeb Erekat is loudly crying are full of falsifications designed to make him look bad, i.e. which depict him as far more generous to Israel than he ever was in reality (& Barry Rubin, who followed the negotiations as closely as anyone, supports him on this point, certainly support from a surprising quarter), what the Palestinian offer does not begin to come close to the terms you have outlined?
    Just for example, they said no to giving Israel Maale Adumim, Ariel, Har Homa, and the Christian and Armenian quarters of the Old City. Remember, the terms in the Palestine Paper are designed to make Abbas and Erekat look like traitors to the cause who gave away the store, and yet the terms in the Palestine Papers cede far less to Israel than your terms do!
    And as for Palestine being demiliterized, that’s a joke, right? It will go the way of UN Res 1701 that was supposed to keep Hizbullah from rearming. And let’s not even get started with the “right of return”.
    I think your terms have a basic reality problem. But thanks for sharing.

    Reply

  11. jdledell says:

    Two additional points that got left off on my copy and paste battle with captcha.
    15 – Jewish settlers left in Palestinian territory will have dual citizenship for themselves and their decendants. They will not lose their Israeli benefits and have the right to move back to Israel as they wish. However, in Palestine they are subject to Palestinian laws and taxes. Israel will pay Palestine for the land such settlers currently occupy. Any future expansion of land will have to be purchased by the settlers from Palestine.
    16 – I don’t think the swap of territory in the area of the triangle is worth the effort and complications that it would entail.
    17 – The right of return would be limited to 10,000 per year for 5 years.

    Reply

  12. jdledell says:

    Nadine

    Reply

  13. Paul Norheim says:

    But what the hell did I do to deserve the latest Google ad at TWN:
    “RECLAIM YOUR BRAIN”?!!

    Reply

  14. Paul Norheim says:

    “I see a constant flow of pro-israel “advertizing” here, due to
    Steve’s uncontrollable Google generated marketing tool.”
    POA, when my photos where published here recently, there
    were frequent ads on my TWN screen for cheap phone calls
    from Norway to Ethiopia.
    Right now I was reading a commentary at the Guardian
    about the protests in Egypt. Below the article, they tried to
    seduce me with cheap holiday flights to Egypt and Tunisia.
    A weekend in Cairo? Tunis? Beirut? Alger? Saana? Amman?
    I have to admit that I wouldn’t mind going there, if I had the
    time and money. What’s happening in the Middle East right
    now is far more interesting than Obama’s State Of The Union
    speech.

    Reply

  15. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Nadine – I’m getting very tired of you twisting my words to fit your world view”
    Don’t feel special, she does it to everyone. Without resorting to such tactics she would have nothing to say.

    Reply

  16. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Keep giving the Palestinians whatever they ask for….”
    This wretched bigot Nadine is completely detached from reality. To say that the Palestinians have, to this point, been “given everything they asked for” is so disingenuous that she has to KNOW that she is just typing pure GARBAGE.
    What type of person so willingly and unabashedly presents themselves as being so lacking in honesty or character?

    Reply

  17. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “….anyway, none of the people you’re hinting at call me “anti-Semitic.”"
    I doubt many here bother to read enough of your over-gaseous contributions to draw a firm conclusion about what you are, other than an unmittigated bore.
    Nadine hasn’t attacked you because you’re one of the few people here that doesn’t have the good sense to be repulsed by her.

    Reply

  18. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “This is the guy who thinks I work for the Mossad because I know computer programming”
    I have NEVER claimed you were Mossad. You know, you’ve already established that you’re a lying piece of shit. You need not be so prolific in demonstrating that fact.

    Reply

  19. rc says:

    “All I would like is for people to know what I was trying to say, that Palestinians are living under tyranny and that their rights are being violated. All I want is some sympathy for Palestinians,” (Helen Thomas: Thrown to the wolves, 29 Dec 2010)
    http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2010/12/20101229124751864918.html

    Reply

  20. rc says:

    January 25, 2011
    Palestine Papers Reveal Israel Not Interested In Any Deal
    Amjad Atallah: Leak shows Obama less willing to insist on ’67 borders than Bush
    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=6141
    Negotiating with good faith?
    “Honesty; a sincere intention to deal fairly with others.
    Good faith is an abstract and comprehensive term that encompasses a sincere belief or motive without any malice or the desire to defraud others. It derives from the translation of the Latin term bona fide, and courts use the two terms interchangeably. …
    Good faith n. honest intent to act without taking an unfair advantage over another person or to fulfill a promise to act, even when some legal technicality is not fulfilled. The term is applied to all kinds of transactions.”
    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Good+faith+negotiation
    Back to the UN is the only way forward.

    Reply

  21. nadine says:

    “Do you know who Najib Mikati is? He is no more pro-Syrian than Saad Hariri, was Saad Hariri

    Reply

  22. nadine says:

    jd, if you’ve been reading Barry Rubin, you know what he has been recommending: managing the de facto situation, since a deal is not on the cards, esp. not now with the radicals in ascendance.
    It’s hard to see what you recommend, jd. Keep giving the Palestinians whatever they ask for, paying them until they say yes to some deal which they understand you want far more than they do? Restore Jerusalem to pre 1967 status, bulldoze a trench through the middle of the city along the line of the old no-man’s land, deport every Jew from East Jerusalem and the West Bank? And if that’s not enough, what else would you give? Allow a million Palestinians to move into Israel? Where’s your red line? Do you have one?

    Reply

  23. Bill Pearlman says:

    Only here is Hezbollah the good guys.

    Reply

  24. jdledell says:

    “Do you still recommend an unconditional Israel pullout?”
    Nadine – I’m getting very tired of you twisting my words to fit your world view. I have NEVER advocated an unconditional pullout. I was against it in Lebanon, Gaza as well as the west bank.
    I’ll give you the same criticism I give Caroline Glick, Barry Rubin etc. They all bitch about how bad others are or how terrible they are handling the situation but rarely do they put themselves on the line and say what they would do. For example Lebanon – what exactly should Obama have done that would make any difference in the end result? Go in with the 82nd Airborne? Send in the B-2′s what?
    As far as Totten goes – here is a very good analysis by one of his readers Barney Stinson
    “A few corrections on Lebanon, Michael:
    First: 11 ministers resigned from parliament and President Suleiman called for parliamentary consultations to nominate a new PM

    Reply

  25. JohnH says:

    Ah, Michael Totten, predictable opinion seen through a Zionist lens.

    Reply

  26. nadine says:

    JohnH, your comments are clueless as usual. Michael Totten, who lived in Lebanon for quite a while, comments
    “Lebanon Heats Up
    Lebanese Sunnis are blocking roads and burning tires to protest what they say is a coup d

    Reply

  27. DonS says:

    “Southern Baptist Leader Leaves Interfaith Coalition On Mosques After Complaints From Religious Right”
    http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/25/richard-land-muslims/
    What’s a Firster to do? The coalitions was started by the Anti-defamation League.

    Reply

  28. JohnH says:

    More Zionist hasbara nonsense. Hezbollah has about a dozen seats, 10% of the Lebanese Parliament.
    Booting Hariri was not a coup, but a constitutional change of government, with Hezbollah being a small, but significant part of the new ruling coalition, along with Christians, Druze, Sunnis and Shi’a.

    Reply

  29. JohnH says:

    Ah yes, Nadine’s scale–are they with us or against us?
    So Nadine thinks that it’s fine that Israel attacked the USS Liberty, because Israel is “our friend.” And, it’s perfectly fine if Israel kills American citizens, like Furkan Dogan or Rachel Corey, because Israel is “our friend.”
    With friends like Nadine’s, who needs enemies? And who would want to live in a world where “our friends” are free to kill us? I’d much prefer to live in a world where all are judged equally, “friends” and enemies judged on the same scale when they commit crimes.

    Reply

  30. nadine says:

    “An American government that will put all of its resources into preventing the construction of apartment buildings in east Jerusalem can barely be roused to prevent the construction of an Islamist-dominated state in a country of tremendous strategic significance.” (Barry Rubin)
    http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2011/01/this-is-most-important-story-lebanon.html
    Did anybody notice that Hariri met with Obama in DC just last week, and Obama backed him? The AFP reported “US President Barack Obama threw his full support behind embattled Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri on Wednesday as Hezbollah toppled his unity government during a White House visit.”
    Now Hariri is out and Hizbullah owns Lebanon. Iran owns Hizbullah. Ergo, Iran owns Lebanon.
    So what did Obama do? Nothing. So full American support is worth – nothing. Friend and foe alike can see it.
    Does Obama actually want to destroy American power and influence? It’s hard to see what he would be doing differently if he did. He’s turning American decline into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
    Barry Rubin notes
    “And where is the United States? Asleep. Determined to prove that it doesn

    Reply

  31. nadine says:

    “”The right thinks that all countries should be compared on one scale.”
    This is one of the most naive statements you have ever written. You are saying that the right doesn’t measure countries by the extent to which they do or do not serve American interests?” (Dan Kervick)
    Dan, you’re comparing apples and fish. Everybody does calculations for their own interests – just look at Obama as he throws you & yours under the bus – but this is not to be confused with a sober assessment of a country similar to the one Freedom House tries to make – how free is it? how corrupt is it? does it respect property rights? how much are human rights respected in it?
    The corollary ought to be that the US allies itself with, and lends support to democracies and countries which score higher, while it considers other countries less friendly, though it may have to do business with them.
    But that’s the exact opposite of what the Left thinks is right. The Left thinks you improve matters by pummeling your friends and coddling your enemies to show how even-handed you are.
    This is what comes of judging every country by their own scale while refusing to judge all countries on one scale. Dictatorships come out better on their own scale than democracies do (they are much less self-critical), so obviously the US has to correct the mistake of liking democracies better than dictatorships. Thus we get an American ambassador returned to Syria in exchange for nothing.

    Reply

  32. nadine says:

    “Israel can be a LOT more aggressive in giving the west bank back to the Palestinians. ” (jdledell)
    Well, that’s true, but somebody has to think what happens the day after. Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that Israel pulls out of the West Bank, and the result is Gaza on steroids: Fatah falls to Hamas after a short bloody internecine war with about about 5000 casualties that the international papers make no fuss over; Fayyad is kept on as a figurehead to collect Western donations; soon Iranian Revolutionary guards and Iranian long-range missiles are seen openly on the West Bank, which becomes an Islamist theocracy like Gaza is now, much to the distress of the West Bankers. Naturally, all PA-signed agreements and recognition of Israel are reneged on by the new Hamas government.
    As in Gaza, the UN declares that Israel is still occupying the West Bank and is still totally responsible for any human suffering there. Meantime, Palestinian TV calls for genocide of the Jews and predicts Israel will soon be destroyed. The Judean hills bristle with missiles, Mortars, rockets and missiles are launched daily into Netanya and other Israeli cities, though not yet enough to spark a full-scale reprisal.
    Go with me here. You have to admit it’s entirely plausible, considering what we see daily in Lebanon and Gaza.
    Do you still recommend an unconditional Israel pullout?

    Reply

  33. DonS says:

    Questions, you addressed me, with yourself as an example, so I responded as best I could. Not trying to get into the whole WW, nadine thing, but I don’t subscribe to their good and pure motives (that should be clear by my use of propagandists, though with nuances of course). Forget the whole ‘recruit’ thing, though I don’t think the idea behind that perhaps inadequate word is too strong.
    As to indecisiveness, I agree, neither virtue nor vice absolutely. All relative yada, yada.
    Ok, tofu. (my wife was a primary natural foods doyen in the east (US!), so I go either way.
    So, whaddaya think? Questions doesn’t get labeled “anti-Semitic” because _________________________________________________
    _______________________________________________, in 50 words or less. (do it for yourself; I gave you my view)
    If being “anti-Semitic” is a bad trait of impliedly bad people, all the rest of us must be bad, huh? Why should I have respect for that opinion?
    It’s a load of crap, and the Firsters can shove it, as they say here, where the sun don’t shine. You might remember that I lost much family in WWII. I don’t need to advertise it; I don’t need to wail and guilt trip about it. And I sure don’t need to support Israel’s racism because of it.

    Reply

  34. questions says:

    I think you probably have a few things out of joint because of the insistence on the “firster” language. There are significant differences between W/W’s and nadine’s positions in terms of argument structure, what each thinks is reasonable, and why each thinks that we’re where we are. The two have superficial similarities, but only superficial. If you insist on “firsterness”, you miss the differences in viewpoint.
    Second, “recruit” is pretty loaded language and a little silly in this context.
    As for my indecisiveness, in complex situations every decision is a probability choice not a certitude, so being indecisive is perhaps a virtue and not a vice. And decisiveness under great uncertainty is then the height of foolishness.
    Policy is a continuum in many circumstances, rather than an absolute point, and it might be better to find similarities or adjacent points instead of insisting on absolutes. If you’re wedded to name-calling you don’t do so well on a continuum, though. You’ll locate yourself on one side, your enemy will be on the other, and you won’t find anything at all you can do together as neither of you will budge.
    We should be asking some basic questions regarding US I/P issues. What actually is security? When and how and under what circumstances can Israel be declared “secure”? This one has yet to be settled. Without defining “security” we will never know what it means for Israel to be secure.
    What concrete steps can either side be reasonably expected to take, given domestic pressures, reputational concerns, legal obligations and so on?
    Who in the region can be counted on to support amelioration, and who is giving destabilizing help? What can be done about this?
    What historical narrative is a reasonable one to hold to in all of this? nadine tells a different narrative from jdleddell, and that difference is significant. Historical narratives are the basis for the negotiations, and there isn’t even any basic agreement about the series of events that have led to the current situation.
    So both sides stand at opposite ends of the alley shouting epithets based on a read of the narrative that simply doesn’t square with the other read. Find an impartial historian to tell the tale. Agree on the facts, agree to disagree on some of the significance. Get really granular.
    Because each side demonizes the other, each assumes its own veracity, morality, the legitimacy of its own suspicions, there is not a lot to bring to a table. Think about some of the paranoid sentiments that float around here. As if there were organized efforts to destroy, rather than fairly normal political processes that simply aren’t leading in the direction someone wants.
    I find some of the explanatory mechanisms on all sides a little kooky, to be honest.
    Maybe Steve could arrange a Scalia-like seminar on the domestic political structures of both sides such that we’d have a better take on why the policy has evolved into its present form. I’m big on domestic pressures, re-election concerns, reputational concerns, and market failures as explanatory mechanisms. Maybe it’s time to naturalize I/P issues instead of pathologizing them. We might get somewhere with an organic tale.
    Once you start asking concrete questions about very specific steps, once you need “granular” (I hate that word, too) knowledge, it’s kind of hard for us anonymous posters to have much to say at all. We are left with wishes, hopes and dreams.
    So I wish that the kind of wheeling and dealing it takes to settle land disputes and mutual hatreds would get done. And I dream a little dream of peace.
    And I’d bet that all the people you call “firsters” would be just as happy with no more deaths, bulldozed homes, knocked over olive trees, walls, exploding bodies, rockets, or racists. It’s just that the path to that status is less clear for some than it is for others because that word “security” is such a loaded term.
    So let’s all figure out what “security” means for MKs, for re-election in Israel, for the W/B, and for Gaza.
    Let’s all figure out what state building means.
    Let’s figure out who the actual people are who might be able to live out the policy that might end up imposed on people in I/P.
    And let’s think through in calm terms the electoral concerns in all countries involved. It’s fascinating stuff, this popular election thing.
    And please don’t call me red meat. Thanks! Soft tofu I can deal with.

    Reply

  35. jdledell says:

    Nadine – Cut the crap. Israel is not fighting for it’s life. The threats from Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinians are aggrevating not existential. No one is going to believe that Israel is some fragile weakling. In biblical terms it could smite it’s enemies with ease. It has proved so numerous times.
    Israel can be a LOT more aggressive in giving the west bank back to the Palestinians. Stateless is stateless – it cannot be covered up by economic improvements. Lebanon is wrong in it’s treatment of Palestinian refugees and so is Israel.
    Your agruments are getting weaker and more ludicrous every day.

    Reply

  36. jdledell says:

    Nadine – Cut the crap. Israel is not fighting for it’s life. The threats from Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinians are aggrevating not existential. No one is going to believe that Israel is some fragile weakling. In biblical terms it could smite it’s enemies with ease. It has proved so numerous times.
    Israel can be a LOT more aggressive in giving the west bank back to the Palestinians. Stateless is stateless – it cannot be covered up by economic improvements. Lebanon is wrong in it’s treatment of Palestinian refugees and so is Israel.
    Your agruments are getting weaker and more ludicrous every day.

    Reply

  37. Dan Kervick says:

    Thanks you for your definition of “bashing” Nadine. But what I am looking for is Rubin’s definition of “bashing”. I want to know what she is accusing Steve of; not what you would be accusing Steve of if you used her words.
    “The right thinks that all countries should be compared on one scale.”
    This is one of the most naive statements you have ever written. You are saying that the right doesn’t measure countries by the extent to which they do or do not serve American interests?

    Reply

  38. DonS says:

    “And near as I can tell, none of the people you call “firsters” (ugh, I hate that term, but I suppose like school vouchers, guns, conservatives, and graphs in economics, it’ll be part of my world. It’s a shame.), anyway, none of the people you’re hinting at call me “anti-Semitic.”"
    Questions, here’s my take, FWIW (I would whisper it in your ear but the net isn’t conducive to that). Your approach comes across to some as, well, indecisive, especially in foreign affairs. I myself recently addressed the importance [to some] of jumping into the fray where one feels strongly enough. You have strongly defended your approach, as you are ably good at. And you well know others have attacked it in strong terms that there is no need to recapitulate.
    Let’s just say your ‘openness’ to argument can be seen as ‘persuadable’; and you often present in that way. The Firsters here need all the help they can get and you look like a potential recruit. At the very least your position, or at least non-position, makes you a convenient foil as an interlocutory audience.
    I’m not in any way trying to diminish you; the Firsters, IMO, are not interested in discussion aimed at problem solving. That’s not what propagandists do. It’s all about selling the message. You just happen to be red meat.

    Reply

  39. nadine says:

    “Nadine – This is utter nonsense and you know it. Does Israel really want to use Uganda or Saudia Arabia as it’s measuring stick? Using another anaolgy, should Israel as a major league team be compared with some high school team?
    As a first world democracy Israel should be measured against similarly situated democracies. ” (jdledell)
    Not when Israel is fighting for its life against third world dictatorships and terrorists. Not out of context, as if Israel lived in a quiet corner of Benelux. And especially not much more harshly than, say, America is judged in similar circumstances in Afghanistan.
    It’s all very well to use the democracy standard INTERNALLY; but what the Left habitually does is apply the extra-severe democracy standard to Israel while ignoring or excusing Hamas, PIJ, Fatah, etc, or worse, believing whatever Hamas says as if Hamas were another first-world democracy with a good track record for accuracy, instead of religious fanatics who have long track record of lying for Allah. Not to mention the fact that Hamas’ entire strategy is a war crime, which somehow also gets overlooked or covered by the occasional “tsk, tsk”.
    But thanks for illustrating my point, jd.

    Reply

  40. DonS says:

    “As a first world democracy Israel should be measured against similarly situated democracies. ”
    jdledell, I’ve tried this quite obvious and rational point several times; it’s a non-starter for those who believe that Israel is sui generis. They deny that Israel is making it’s own rules and make silly points like this, paraphrased ‘since when has the loser in an aggressive war (in the 20th century mind you) not been free to hold the ‘losers’ stateless and in subjugation.’ Even East Timor gained independence for gosh sakes. ( I patiently await the exegesis on East Timor . . .)

    Reply

  41. JohnH says:

    Actually, Nadine, the “left” thinks that all countries should be compared on one scale–based on international law. It is Israel that flaunts the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty, the Geneva Conventions, and numerous UNSC resolutions.
    Nadine’s allegations are classic nonsense: Israel Firsters hold their country to be above the law, free to violate any standards they don’t like, while demanding that others behave according to the law.

    Reply

  42. Pahlavan says:

    I hope Steve is ignoring his critic

    Reply

  43. jdledell says:

    “The right thinks that all countries should be compared on one scale; the left thinks that every country should have its own scale, according to its own standards.”
    Nadine – This is utter nonsense and you know it. Does Israel really want to use Uganda or Saudia Arabia as it’s measuring stick? Using another anaolgy, should Israel as a major league team be compared with some high school team?
    As a first world democracy Israel should be measured against similarly situated democracies.

    Reply

  44. nadine says:

    “What you need to get into your heads is that the vast bulk of focus and criticism of Israel is due to the fact that it is the ONLY modern first world democracy that has held another people under occupation and STATELESS for 43 years” (jdledell)
    So the charge is not that the Palestinians are stateless, but Israel is doing it?
    Hey, perfect example of the double standard – the West Bankers are doing great by every measure compared to the Palestinians in Lebanon (now there is a system that really deserves the name “apartheid”), but the Lebanese, not being a modern first world democracy (actually they have come close at times, but have been abandoned now by the very people who claim to care) are immune from criticism.
    Besides, the Israelis have tried repeatedly to give back most of the West Bank, starting in 1967. Jordan wouldn’t negotiate, then Jordan washed its hands, and the Palestinians absolutely positively do NOT want a state unless they can get one without prejudicing the jihad against Israel. Which is rationally an extremely unattractive prospect for Israel, not to mention being the recipe for a major war.

    Reply

  45. nadine says:

    DonS, Rep. King is referring to the Saudi proselytization program, which they have spent many billions on for the last 30 years all over the world: when immigrants to America are ready to build a mosque, instead of having to renting some storefront, they get a nice mosque for free. Great deal, right? But they get a Wahabbi imam along with the mosque, whose mortgage they don’t control.
    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/12/expert-saudis-have-radicalized-80-of-us-mosques.html

    Reply

  46. JohnH says:

    Nadine is right, “bashing is incessant, unfair, one-sided criticism, esp. the kind of criticism that applies completely different standards to one side than the other.”
    Exactly how she treats the Palestinian side. She has never seen an Israeli atrocity she didn’t like. Yet the slightest criticism of Israel draws her outrage, as does any resistance by Palestinians.
    Definition of a bigot: “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.”

    Reply

  47. questions says:

    DonS,
    Potential counter-example — I, for one, criticize Israel, Israel’s policies, Israel’s national psyche; I’ve called the place conducive to racism, hardened, fucked, cruel, nasty, wicked, I’ve feared for the souls of Israelis (try that while being a confirmed atheist), I’ve been sickened….
    And near as I can tell, none of the people you call “firsters” (ugh, I hate that term, but I suppose like school vouchers, guns, conservatives, and graphs in economics, it’ll be part of my world. It’s a shame.), anyway, none of the people you’re hinting at call me “anti-Semitic.”
    So, I’m not sure you’re categories are quite up to snuff on this one.
    Peter King is not up to snuff! But the real treat will be Bachmann’s STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS tonight! I think she’s going to run. It’s pretty freaky that someone with her range of talents could really be thinking about it. But Palin/Bachmann, or Bachmann/Palin is better than T-Paw/Gingrich! Hmmm. Let me think about that. Geeze, hope Obama does ok!
    ***
    And by the way, not at all to forgive the racism/bigotry or general nastiness of the anti-Muslim right, but I think that thinking about uncertainty and its effects on policy-makers coupled with opportunism and its effects on policy-makers goes a long way towards explaining some King’s crazee. The precautionary principle is useless for environmentalism, completely immoral for consumer goods, but damned fine for mosques. That’s a hard set of ideas to keep in a single head for very long. Perhaps these people will all go loopy.
    ****
    nadine, if you find the piece from the NYT op ed page, toss in a link. I tried several key word searches and nothing brought it up. It was within the past week or so, and it really did have a couple of funny examples of ads that popped up because of g-mail key words.

    Reply

  48. nadine says:

    “Is “bashing” just a synonym for “criticizing”? Maybe Rubin can write another column where she explains more clearly what she means, and why it is important.” (Dan Kervick)
    I can answer you right now. Bashing is incessant, unfair, one-sided criticism, esp. the kind of criticism that applies completely different standards to one side than the other.
    The is a fundamental difference between left and right concerning proper methods of criticism. The right thinks that all countries should be compared on one scale; the left thinks that every country should have its own scale, according to its own standards. So dictatorships are judged okay if they are not currently conducting mass executions, but democracies are harshly criticized if somebody thinks they are cutting corners on due process.
    Israel gets an extra-severe version of the democracy scale, while its enemies get an extra-lax version of the dictatorship scale.
    This gets you bashing. This is an important point, Dan: what you think of as proper judgment, I (& other conservatives) consider bashing out of the gate.
    Demonization occurs when you add in the false charges of the Palestinian propaganda machine’s atrocity-of-the-day production, which invents charges against Israel which are accepted as fact despite improbability, lack of evidence or hard evidence to the contrary. For example, take that woman who died last week in Bil’in whose death certificate reads “inhalation of teargas according to the family” – is that supposed to be a medical opinion? She was 500 meters from the teargas, and people don’t just die of teargas inhalation on that low scale. Hey, being Palestinian means you never have to prove it; it’s always up to the Israelis to disprove it. Newspapers all over the world reported as fact that she died of teargas. Ditto the “innocent peaceniks” on the Mavi Marmara despite video of them bashing the Israeli commandos with iron bars and the fractured skulls and bones of the commandos.
    In my own opinion, Steve stays in the genteel fp left-wing bashing camp, but he’s continually holding the door open for the demonizers with hand-wringing like “why did they shoot so many in the head?”. And the demonizers have a fun time on TWN, with nary a scolding. Along with the brazen anti-Semites like Carroll. Did you catch it yesterday when she insinuated that Jews were responsible for the Holocaust?

    Reply

  49. nadine says:

    “POA,
    Many internet ads are based on the user’s clicking history, not on site-dependent content.
    If you’re seeing pro-Israeli ads, it might be because of what you personally click on” (questions)
    I admire the attempt, but don’t try to confuse POA’s paranoia with facts. This is the guy who thinks I work for the Mossad because I know computer programming. All you will do is convince him that you are part of the grand conspiracy.

    Reply

  50. DonS says:

    I wonder if the Israel Firsters among the commenters are aware of Rep. Peter King’s war on Muslims. He claims 80% of mosques in the US are controlled by radical immans:
    http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/25/king-radical-mosques/
    I wonder if the Israel Firsters among the commenters are willing to condemn this sort of undocumented criticism as bigotry, along with the similar performances of Rep Gohmert, Rep. West . . . ? Ir do they only have eyes for perceived slights of Israel. How far right do you have to be to make the transition from conservative on I/P affairs to mindless, Muslim baiting, neocon wackjob? Can one ever be so far right, sit in the US Congress, and be a neocon wackjob? It would be good to hear from the Israel Firsters since they seem so convinced and practiced in smelling out bigots and quasi-bigots.
    I suspect they’ve never seen hard criticism of Israel that hasn’t been anti-Semitic; nor a hard criticism of Islam that hasn’t borne some essential truth.

    Reply

  51. questions says:

    POA,
    Many internet ads are based on the user’s clicking history, not on site-dependent content.
    If you’re seeing pro-Israeli ads, it might be because of what you personally click on.
    There are spies everywhere on the internet and they scan e-mail for words that trigger ads, they scan cookies, they scan clicks…all to target advertising.
    There was an NYT op-ed the other day about this — a writer musing on the ads that follow her around and the odd phrases in e-mails that trigger ads. I can’t find it, but it’s pretty recent. There were a couple of funny examples, but I don’t remember them.

    Reply

  52. PissedOffAmerican says:

    I see J-Street has begrudgingly supported the upcoming proposed UN Resolution condemning continued settlement expansion.
    What good is J-Street, if, as a so called “left”, or “moderate” advocate for Israel, if they do not forcefully oppose the actions, policies, and rhetoric of the far right wing Israelis? J-Street, to be effective, needs to show themselves as Jews of conscience who are willing to have the courage to assume strong positions in opposition to what Israel is rapidly becoming. So far all I’ve seen from them is tepid and muted snorts, administered underneath the media radar. So far, the organization is worthless, completely drowned out and overpowered by the hasbarists and AIPAC. Is the requisite qualification for Jewish opposition to Israeli policy a complete and utter lack of gonads?
    And why is the traffic and commentary so meager at The Palestine Note??? The perfect venue for debate, with some extremely knowledgable contributers, and one is hard pressed to find an essay that has instigated comments or debate. Why isn’t it linked to on this site, or promoted more forcefully??
    I see a constant flow of pro-israel “advertizing” here, due to Steve’s uncontrollable Google generated marketing tool. How is that part and parcel with “Israel bashing”??? Its actually kind of a bummer. Is the pursuit of funding for this blog so important that ANY kind of marketing is allowed here, even that that flies in the face of Steve’s purported beliefs and opinions? I have NEVER seen any pro-Palestinian, or pro-peace marketing ads here.
    What the hell Steve,obviously you have attracted the ire of the Israel Firster scum, and its doubtful they will let up until they’ve ruined you, and closed as many doors to you as they can. So why not pull out all the stops and fight back??? Fuck em, you’re on their enemy list now. Give ‘em hell.

    Reply

  53. JohnH says:

    If Nadine wants to confuse Antisemitism with criticism of Israeli behavior, then she is making the term so broad that the smear losses all potency and meaning. And so, Nadine and her ilk are well on the way to making the term a quaint anachronism, like filibusterer (which used to be the name for an adventurer who engaged in a private military action in a foreign country.)
    Keep it up, Nadine. Your desperation is making your efforts ever more counterproductive!

    Reply

  54. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Nadine, wigwag & Pearlman – There is no question that some of the focus on Israel is due to anti-semitism”
    And will become more so if Israel continues on its current path of legislating national bigotry. And with Jews line Nadine or wig-wag openly using racist slurs, generalizations, and stereotyping to describe Arabs and Muslims, the resurgence of anti-semitism is inevitable. Are you the only Jew reading this blog that is offended by the hateful propaganda and non-stop bigotry displayed by the hasbarist Nadine? Are you the only Jew reading this blog that recognizes how Nadine is actually working AGAINST Israel’s best interests, and how she actually nurtures anti-semitism with her despicable spew?

    Reply

  55. jdledell says:

    “When you have profound, deep and lasting bias against Israel, that singles it out for treatment meted to no other nation on earth, that obsesses over it and demonizes it, are
    we supposed to think Israel is being picked on because its name begins with an “I”?”
    Nadine, wigwag & Pearlman – There is no question that some of the focus on Israel is due to anti-semitism. However, in no way shape or form is that true of Steve Clemons or most of the people who disagree with Israel’s political path.
    What you need to get into your heads is that the vast bulk of focus and criticism of Israel is due to the fact that it is the ONLY modern first world democracy that has held another people under occupation and STATELESS for 43 years. Until that goes away, the focus and criticism will become more widespread and intense.

    Reply

  56. Dan Kervick says:

    Danin takes the easy path of blaming the media, and his own narrative suffers from the regrettably common fallacy of characterizing Israeli offers not to annex the spoils of aggression as “concessions”.
    Where is the United States government in all of this? Why have they left the Palestinians all alone to negotiate their people’s ransom with highwaymen? Is there a single stalwart American leader left who is willing to defend law and principle?
    Or are we now governed entirely by decadent, post-civilization opportunists, who recognize only the rule by shakedown.

    Reply

  57. questions says:

    “The Palestine Papers — more than 1,600 internal Palestinian documents summarizing negotiations with Israel over the past decade — are no “Palestinian WikiLeaks” aimed at bringing transparency and good government to the Palestinian Authority. Rather, they are a direct attack on the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), its negotiators, and the very idea of negotiating peace with Israel. ”
    The author: “Robert M. Danin is the Eni Enrico Mattei senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. From April 2008 until June 2010, he headed the Jerusalem mission of Quartet representative Tony Blair. Prior to that, he served for 20 years at the U.S. State Department and National Security Council in a variety of senior Middle East positions.”
    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/24/nastyleaks

    Reply

  58. Paul Norheim says:

    “Paul, that exactly what she is saying, and she is right.”
    Can you confirm this, Nadine?
    We now hear that Pearlman agrees that Steve Clemons
    “obsesses over and demonizes Israel”, because it is filled with
    Jews, and not with Muslims.”
    And you, Nadine, can confirm that that’s what you’re saying?
    And WigWag agrees?

    Reply

  59. Bill Pearlman says:

    BTW, these can’t be hamas guys. When they do something like this they take the other guy up on the roof and throw them off and watch them go splat. that’s the hamas way.

    Reply

  60. Bill Pearlman says:

    Paul, that exactly what she is saying, and she is right.
    And Carroll. If something is true its not slander or libel. For example, saying that you have an obsession about Jews and are an out and out jew baiting anti-semite isn’ slander or libel. Its factual.

    Reply

  61. Dan Kervick says:

    Is “bashing” just a synonym for “criticizing”? Maybe Rubin can write another column where she explains more clearly what she means, and why it is important.

    Reply

  62. Carroll says:

    “this is just another nasty attempt to delegitimize anyone who strongly criticizes the Israeli”..PN
    Of course it is. There is no difference between those like Rubin and some who post here.
    I haven’t counted and I don’t read all their comments, but I bet that you will find very few, if any, comments by them on here in which they have not worked in a smear of someone plus insults to Muslims, Europeans, etc — regardless of what the subject is– whether it be the leader of some country or event under discussion or a US public figure or dem or repub policy or anyone who writes even objectively about Israel and Palestine.
    If we had the same libel and slander laws as Europe Clemons and Walt and a bunch of other Israel bashers/anti semites would be very rich and the publishers of some ‘pro’ Israel writers would be bankrupt.
    Actually 10 years ago the ADL lost a court case in California and had to pay a 10 million settlement to a couple they sued in behalf of a Jewish neighbor who accused them of some type of anti semitism.
    Maybe the Israel bashers should contact that couple’s lawyer.

    Reply

  63. Paul Norheim says:

    “When you have profound, deep and lasting bias against
    Israel, that singles it out for treatment meted to no other
    nation on earth, that obsesses over it and demonizes it, are
    we supposed to think Israel is being picked on because its
    name begins with an “I”?”
    Are you saying, Nadine, that Steve Clemons “obsesses over
    and demonizes Israel”? And are you also saying that he does
    so because it is “filled with Jews, and not Muslims”?

    Reply

  64. Paul Norheim says:

    The “Israel-bashing” concept is utterly ridiculous. If I had
    been deeply involved in issues related to, say, Burma, and
    wrote dozens of posts harshly criticizing the Burmese
    leadership, would someone then – except for the Burmese
    leadership and its supporters – have accused me of being
    a “Burma-basher”, demonizing Burma? Would anyone at
    the Washington Note make demands that I made equal
    efforts to criticize North Korea, Iran, China, or Russia -
    and if I didn’t do so, this was a prove that I was biased and
    hated the Burmese people?
    Does the Washington Post or the Neocons elsewhere
    accuse anyone of being “Burma-bashers” and insinuate
    that they hate the Burmese people?
    Nope. But a dozen articles criticizing the Israeli
    government qualifies for being labeled an anti-Semite or
    Israel-basher.

    Reply

  65. nadine says:

    “Jennifer Rubin suggests in her column today that Israel-bashing and anti-Semitism “often overlap”.”
    Of course they do. When you have profound, deep and lasting bias against Israel, that singles it out for treatment meted to no other nation on earth, that obsesses over it and demonizes it, are we supposed to think Israel is being picked on because its name begins with an “I”? Are we supposed to really believe its treatment wouldn’t have been radically different from the beginning if it was filled with Muslims and not Jews? Wouldn’t you judge it by entirely different standards if it was full of Muslims, standards like you use for say, Lebanon? Well, what do you call that?
    The problem with you is that you have really convinced yourself the only way to be fair is to employ massive double standards: fairness through unfairness, so to speak.

    Reply

  66. Paul Norheim says:

    Jennifer Rubin suggests in her column today that Israel-
    bashing and anti-Semitism “often overlap”.
    And that obnoxious zone where these two positions
    “overlap” is precisely where Rubin suggests that Steve
    Clemons resides.
    And everyone here notice that you, WigWag and Pearlman
    during the last months have intensified your efforts to
    delegitimize your host and others here – by insinuations,
    name calling, ad hominem attacks, and threats. The
    resulting toxic atmosphere is an obstacle to anything
    resembling a free exchange of ideas. And this toxic and
    partisan atmosphere is also the reason why I comment as
    little as possible here.

    Reply

  67. nadine says:

    “”That’s not how it works in autocracy – unless the thugs are quite sure they have permission of the authorities. Because if the autocrat decides to prove how clean his own hands are, then the thugs are toast.
    Now yopu sound like a 9/11 Truther.” (Dan Kervick)
    Not at all, frankly that’s a silly thing to say.
    My point simply describes the ordinary order of business in an autocracy: really freelance violence is not likely to occur, because it will be suppressed with extreme prejudice if the autocrat doesn’t like it. In that kind of place, you don’t do it without being sure it’s okay with the authorities. In a free society where accused vigilantes have rights, a different calculation holds.
    It’s the same reason mob neighborhoods tend to be quite safe from freelance burglaries and muggings. The muggers know the mobsters won’t bother to go to the police.

    Reply

  68. nadine says:

    So? Steve is miffed at being called an Israel-basher, so Jen Rubin lists seven articles which qualify him for the title. She didn’t spend that long looking, either, or she could have found three times as many. So how did she “smear” him? By quoting him accurately?
    Of course it’s a free exchange of ideas. She’s not trying to make Steve Clemons shut up.
    Which is frankly, more than you can about the usual “liberal” reaction to conservative ideas, which the TWN reaction to any conservative opinions give a good sample of. ‘Shut up, you bigot, he explained’ seems to be the usual response.

    Reply

  69. Paul Norheim says:

    Steve, did you see that Jennifer Rubin continues her smear campaign against you?
    Rubin does not withdraw her accusations, but targets you specifically in her
    newest column at the Washington Post. She also quotes someone (approvingly) saying that Israel-
    bashing and anti-Semtisim” “often overlaps.”
    Quotes:
    “I will explain why and why I will not be deterred, as I said in my introduction to this blog,
    in “calling things by their proper name.”"
    “But the letter is more than misguided. It does precisely what Israel’s foes on the world
    stage aim to do — single out Israel, hold it to a different standard than all other
    countries, vilify it and diplomatically isolate the Jewish state. That is by definition at the
    very least “Israel bashing.”"
    “In testimony last April special envoy for anti-Semitism Hannah Rosenthal explained: “At
    the U.N., anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiment often overlap. United Nations’ bodies
    long have shown a bias toward condemning Israel at a rate much higher than any other
    country. We continue to press for Israel to be treated fairly at the U.N. and in other
    international organizations.” It is for this reason that presidents of both parties have
    repeatedly vetoed U.N. resolutions singling out Israel for condemnation.
    What else is Israel bashing? I think these examples would qualify:….”
    And then she links to 7- seven – articles at the Washington Note (the interview with
    Hamas leader Khaled Meshal, the Khruschev/Netanyahu comparison, the Chas Freeman
    case etc…), to “prove” that Steve Clemons is an “Israel-basher” (anti-Semite).
    Read more here:
    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-turn/2011/01/israel_bashers_indeed.html#more
    She ends her column by stating: “They have every right to their opinions, but in the free
    exchange of ideas others have every right to reveal what those opinions are.”
    —————————————-
    Of course it’s rubbish to claim that Jennifer Rubin is involved in a “free exchange of ideas” here, as
    this is just another nasty attempt to delegitimize anyone who strongly criticizes the Israeli
    government – and EXCLUDE them from the free exchange of ideas.

    Reply

  70. Paul Norheim says:

    Sorry, my last comment was messed up. I’ll try to post a
    proper version below…

    Reply

  71. Paul Norheim says:

    Steve, did you see that Jennifer Rubin continues her smear campaign?
    Rubin does not withdraw her accusations, but targets Steve Clemons specifically in her
    newest column at the Washington Post. She she also says that “Israel-bashing” and “anti-
    Semtisim” is often overlapping.
    Quotes:
    “I will explain why and why I will not be deterred, as I said in my introduction to this blog,
    in “calling things by their proper name.”"
    “But the letter is more than misguided. It does precisely what Israel’s foes on the world
    stage aim to do — single out Israel, hold it to a different standard than all other
    countries, vilify it and diplomatically isolate the Jewish state. That is by definition at the
    very least “Israel bashing.”"
    “In testimony last April special envoy for anti-Semitism Hannah Rosenthal explained: “At
    the U.N., anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiment often overlap. United Nations’ bodies
    long have shown a bias toward condemning Israel at a rate much higher than any other
    country. We continue to press for Israel to be treated fairly at the U.N. and in other
    international organizations.” It is for this reason that presidents of both parties have
    repeatedly vetoed U.N. resolutions singling out Israel for condemnation.
    What else is Israel bashing? I think these examples would qualify:”
    And then she links to 7- seven – articles at the Washington Note (the interview with
    Hamas leader Khaled Meshal, the Khruschev/Netanyahu comparison, the Chas Freeman
    case etc…), to “prove” that Steve Clemons is an “Israel-basher” (anti-Semite).
    Read more here:
    Steve, did you see that Jennifer Rubin continues her smear campaign?
    Rubin does not withdraw her accusations, but targets Steve Clemons specifically in her
    newest column at the Washington Post. She she also says that “Israel-bashing” and “anti-
    Semtisim” is often overlapping.
    Quotes:
    “I will explain why and why I will not be deterred, as I said in my introduction to this blog,
    in “calling things by their proper name.”"
    “But the letter is more than misguided. It does precisely what Israel’s foes on the world
    stage aim to do — single out Israel, hold it to a different standard than all other
    countries, vilify it and diplomatically isolate the Jewish state. That is by definition at the
    very least “Israel bashing.”"
    “In testimony last April special envoy for anti-Semitism Hannah Rosenthal explained: “At
    the U.N., anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiment often overlap. United Nations’ bodies
    long have shown a bias toward condemning Israel at a rate much higher than any other
    country. We continue to press for Israel to be treated fairly at the U.N. and in other
    international organizations.” It is for this reason that presidents of both parties have
    repeatedly vetoed U.N. resolutions singling out Israel for condemnation.
    What else is Israel bashing? I think these examples would qualify:”
    And then she links to 7- seven – articles at the Washington Note (the interview with
    Hamas leader Khaled Meshal, the Khruschev/Netanyahu comparison, the Chas Freeman
    case etc…), to “prove” that Steve Clemons is an “Israel-basher” (anti-Semite).
    Read more here:
    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-turn/2011/01/israel_bashers_indeed.html#more
    She ends her column by stating: “They have every right to their opinions, but in the free
    exchange of ideas others have every right to reveal what those opinions are.”
    Of course it’s rubbish to claim that she is involved in a “free exchange of ideas” here, as
    this is just another nasty attempt to delegitimize anyone who criticizes the Israeli
    government – and EXCLUDE them from the free exchange of ideas.
    She ends her column by stating: “They have every right to their opinions, but in the free
    exchange of ideas others have every right to reveal what those opinions are.”
    Of course it’s rubbish to claim that she is involved in a “free exchange of ideas” here, as
    this is just another nasty attempt to delegitimize anyone who criticizes the Israeli
    government – and EXCLUDE them from the free exchange of ideas.

    Reply

  72. Carroll says:

    Someone recently, wig I believe, attempted to slur Ambassador John G. Dean.
    It so happens that years ago when I was first researching Israel-US involvements I found Dean’s oral history and papers at the Carter Presidential Library. Recently I tired to re access them but for whatever reason they were inaccessible at the Library. Nevertheless, you can find them at various places by googling if so interested. And Dean has written a book called “Danger Zones” available at amazon.
    Everyone, and I mean everyone, has nothing but the highest regard for Dean..from other diplomats to the military he interfaced with…everyone except the Jews and Israelis. He has a fascinating history and life, from a fully assimilated German Jew, disdainful of the zionist movement, to a American life in Kansas to Ambassador and career diplomat.
    His experiences are well worth reading…particulary his post in Lebanon where Israel tried to have him assassinated.
    US Envoy Writes of Israeli Threats
    Barbara Crossette
    March 31, 2009 |This article appeared in the April 13, 2009 edition of The Nation.
    In the wake of the accusation by Chas Freeman that his nomination to lead the National Intelligence Council was derailed by an “Israeli lobby,” a forthcoming memoir by another distinguished ambassador adds stunning new charges to the debate. The ambassador, John Gunther Dean, writes that over the years he not only came under pressure from pro-Israeli groups and officials in Washington but also was the target of an Israeli-inspired assassination attempt in 1980 in Lebanon, where he had opened links to the Palestine Liberation Organization.
    Dean’s suspicions that Israeli agents may have also been involved in the mysterious plane crash in 1988 that killed Pakistan’s president, General Mohammed Zia ul Haq, led finally to a decision in Washington to declare him mentally unfit, which forced his resignation from the foreign service after a thirty-year career. After he left public service, he was rehabilitated by the State Department, given a distinguished service medal and eventually encouraged to write his memoirs. Now 82, Dean sees the subsequent positive attention he has received as proof that the insanity charge (he calls it Stalinist) was phony, a supposition later confirmed by a former head of the department’s medical service.
    Dean, whose memoir is titled Danger Zones: A Diplomat’s Fight for America’s Interests, was American ambassador in Lebanon in August 1980 when a three-car convoy carrying him and his family was attacked near Beirut.
    “I was the target of an assassination attempt by terrorists using automatic rifles and antitank weapons that had been made in the United States and shipped to Israel,” he wrote. “Weapons financed and given by the United States to Israel were used in an attempt to kill an American diplomat!” After the event, conspiracy theories abounded in the Middle East about who could have planned the attack, and why. Lebanon was a dangerously factionalized country.
    The State Department investigated, Dean said, but he was never told what the conclusion was. He wrote that he “worked the telephone for three weeks” and met only official silence in Washington. By then Dean had learned from weapons experts in the United States and Lebanon that the guns and ammunition used in the attack had been given by Israelis to a Christian militia allied with them.
    “I know as surely as I know anything that Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, was somehow involved in the attack,” Dean wrote, describing how he had been under sharp criticism from Israeli politicians and media for his contacts with Palestinians. “Undoubtedly using a proxy, our ally Israel had tried to kill me.”
    Dean’s memoir, to be published in May for the Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training Memoir Series by New Academia Publishing under its Vellum imprint, has been read and approved for publication by the State Department with only very minor changes, none affecting Dean’s major points. Its underlying theme is that American diplomacy should be pursued in American interests, not those of another country, however friendly. A Jew whose family fled the Holocaust, Dean resented what he saw as an assumption, including by some in Congress, that he would promote Israel’s interests in his ambassadorial work.
    Dean, a fluent French speaker who began his long diplomatic career opening American missions in newly independent West African nations in the early 1960s, served later in Vietnam (where he described himself as a “loyal dissenter”) and was ambassador in Cambodia (where he carried out the American flag as the Khmer Rouge advanced), Denmark, Lebanon, Thailand (where Chas Freeman was his deputy) and India. He takes credit for averting bloodshed in Laos in the 1970s by negotiating a coalition government shared by communist and noncommunist parties.
    He was sometimes a disputatious diplomat not afraid to contradict superiors, and he often took–and still holds–contrarian views. He always believed, for example, that the United States should have attempted to negotiate with the Khmer Rouge rather than let the country be overrun by their brutal horror.
    As ambassador in India in the 1980s he supported then-Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s policy of seeking some kind of neutral coalition in Afghanistan that would keep the American- and Pakistani-armed mujahedeen from establishing a fundamentalist Islamic state. For several years after the Soviet withdrawal, India continued to back Najibullah, a thuggish communist security chief whom the retreating Soviet troops left behind. After the mujahedeen moved toward Kabul, Najibullah refused a United Nations offer of safe passage to India. He was slaughtered and left hanging on a lamppost.
    It was in the midst of this Soviet endgame in Afghanistan that Dean fell afoul of the State Department for the last time. After the death of General Zia in August 1988, in a plane crash that also killed the American ambassador in Pakistan, Arnold Raphel, Dean was told in New Delhi by high-ranking officials that Mossad was a possible instigator of the accident, in which the plane’s pilot and co-pilot were apparently disabled or otherwise lost control. There was also some suspicion that elements of India’s Research and Analysis Wing, its equivalent of the CIA, may have played a part. India and Israel were alarmed by Pakistan’s work on a nuclear weapon–the “Islamic bomb.”
    Dean was so concerned about these reports, and the attempt by the State Department to block a full FBI investigation of the crash in Pakistan, that he decided to return to Washington for direct consultations. Instead of the meetings he was promised, he was told his service in India was over. He was sent into virtual house arrest in Switzerland at a home belonging to the family of his French wife, Martine Duphenieux. Six weeks later, he was allowed to return to New Delhi to pack his belongings and return to Washington, where he resigned.
    Suddenly his health record was cleared and his security clearance restored. He was presented with the Distinguished Service Award and received a warm letter of praise from Secretary of State George Shultz. “Years later,” he wrote in his memoir, “I learned who had ordered the bogus diagnosis of mental incapacity against me. It was the same man who had so effusively praised me once I was gone–George Shultz.”
    Asked in a telephone conversation last week from his home in Paris why Shultz had done this to him, Dean would say only, “He was forced to.”

    Reply

  73. Carroll says:

    Someone recently, wig I believe, attempted to slur Ambassador John G. Dean.
    It so happens that years ago when I was first researching Israel-US involvements I found Dean’s oral history and papers at the Carter Presidential Library. Recently I tired to re access them but for whatever reason they were inaccessible at the Library. Nevertheless, you can find them at various places by googling if so interested. And Dean has written a book called “Danger Zones” available at amazon.
    Everyone, and I mean everyone, has nothing but the highest regard for Dean..from other diplomats to the military he interfaced with…everyone except the Jews and Israelis. He has a fascinating history and life, from a fully assimilated German Jew, disdainful of the zionist movement, to a American life in Kansas to Ambassador and career diplomat.
    His experiences are well worth reading…particulary his post in Lebanon where Israel tried to have him assassinated.
    US Envoy Writes of Israeli Threats
    Barbara Crossette
    March 31, 2009 |This article appeared in the April 13, 2009 edition of The Nation.
    In the wake of the accusation by Chas Freeman that his nomination to lead the National Intelligence Council was derailed by an “Israeli lobby,” a forthcoming memoir by another distinguished ambassador adds stunning new charges to the debate. The ambassador, John Gunther Dean, writes that over the years he not only came under pressure from pro-Israeli groups and officials in Washington but also was the target of an Israeli-inspired assassination attempt in 1980 in Lebanon, where he had opened links to the Palestine Liberation Organization.
    Dean’s suspicions that Israeli agents may have also been involved in the mysterious plane crash in 1988 that killed Pakistan’s president, General Mohammed Zia ul Haq, led finally to a decision in Washington to declare him mentally unfit, which forced his resignation from the foreign service after a thirty-year career. After he left public service, he was rehabilitated by the State Department, given a distinguished service medal and eventually encouraged to write his memoirs. Now 82, Dean sees the subsequent positive attention he has received as proof that the insanity charge (he calls it Stalinist) was phony, a supposition later confirmed by a former head of the department’s medical service.
    Dean, whose memoir is titled Danger Zones: A Diplomat’s Fight for America’s Interests, was American ambassador in Lebanon in August 1980 when a three-car convoy carrying him and his family was attacked near Beirut.
    “I was the target of an assassination attempt by terrorists using automatic rifles and antitank weapons that had been made in the United States and shipped to Israel,” he wrote. “Weapons financed and given by the United States to Israel were used in an attempt to kill an American diplomat!” After the event, conspiracy theories abounded in the Middle East about who could have planned the attack, and why. Lebanon was a dangerously factionalized country.
    The State Department investigated, Dean said, but he was never told what the conclusion was. He wrote that he “worked the telephone for three weeks” and met only official silence in Washington. By then Dean had learned from weapons experts in the United States and Lebanon that the guns and ammunition used in the attack had been given by Israelis to a Christian militia allied with them.
    “I know as surely as I know anything that Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, was somehow involved in the attack,” Dean wrote, describing how he had been under sharp criticism from Israeli politicians and media for his contacts with Palestinians. “Undoubtedly using a proxy, our ally Israel had tried to kill me.”
    Dean’s memoir, to be published in May for the Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training Memoir Series by New Academia Publishing under its Vellum imprint, has been read and approved for publication by the State Department with only very minor changes, none affecting Dean’s major points. Its underlying theme is that American diplomacy should be pursued in American interests, not those of another country, however friendly. A Jew whose family fled the Holocaust, Dean resented what he saw as an assumption, including by some in Congress, that he would promote Israel’s interests in his ambassadorial work.
    Dean, a fluent French speaker who began his long diplomatic career opening American missions in newly independent West African nations in the early 1960s, served later in Vietnam (where he described himself as a “loyal dissenter”) and was ambassador in Cambodia (where he carried out the American flag as the Khmer Rouge advanced), Denmark, Lebanon, Thailand (where Chas Freeman was his deputy) and India. He takes credit for averting bloodshed in Laos in the 1970s by negotiating a coalition government shared by communist and noncommunist parties.
    He was sometimes a disputatious diplomat not afraid to contradict superiors, and he often took–and still holds–contrarian views. He always believed, for example, that the United States should have attempted to negotiate with the Khmer Rouge rather than let the country be overrun by their brutal horror.
    As ambassador in India in the 1980s he supported then-Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s policy of seeking some kind of neutral coalition in Afghanistan that would keep the American- and Pakistani-armed mujahedeen from establishing a fundamentalist Islamic state. For several years after the Soviet withdrawal, India continued to back Najibullah, a thuggish communist security chief whom the retreating Soviet troops left behind. After the mujahedeen moved toward Kabul, Najibullah refused a United Nations offer of safe passage to India. He was slaughtered and left hanging on a lamppost.
    It was in the midst of this Soviet endgame in Afghanistan that Dean fell afoul of the State Department for the last time. After the death of General Zia in August 1988, in a plane crash that also killed the American ambassador in Pakistan, Arnold Raphel, Dean was told in New Delhi by high-ranking officials that Mossad was a possible instigator of the accident, in which the plane’s pilot and co-pilot were apparently disabled or otherwise lost control. There was also some suspicion that elements of India’s Research and Analysis Wing, its equivalent of the CIA, may have played a part. India and Israel were alarmed by Pakistan’s work on a nuclear weapon–the “Islamic bomb.”
    Dean was so concerned about these reports, and the attempt by the State Department to block a full FBI investigation of the crash in Pakistan, that he decided to return to Washington for direct consultations. Instead of the meetings he was promised, he was told his service in India was over. He was sent into virtual house arrest in Switzerland at a home belonging to the family of his French wife, Martine Duphenieux. Six weeks later, he was allowed to return to New Delhi to pack his belongings and return to Washington, where he resigned.
    Suddenly his health record was cleared and his security clearance restored. He was presented with the Distinguished Service Award and received a warm letter of praise from Secretary of State George Shultz. “Years later,” he wrote in his memoir, “I learned who had ordered the bogus diagnosis of mental incapacity against me. It was the same man who had so effusively praised me once I was gone–George Shultz.”
    Asked in a telephone conversation last week from his home in Paris why Shultz had done this to him, Dean would say only, “He was forced to.”

    Reply

  74. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Yes, those good old Palestinians sure are ready to govern themselves”
    Well, what do you expect from people that you have described as “ignorant”, “docile”, and “uneducated”?? Talk to Nadine, she understands your language. In fact, she summarized for you, designating them as simply “ragheads”.
    Now, I can just imagine your response if someone here called you a “kike”. Or opined that you Jews are just money grubbing tightwads with big noses.
    But thats different, isn’t it? I mean hey, everyone knows the Jews are superior genetically, right? Isn’t that what the Israeli legislators are saying by proposing a system of laws that enforce national bigotry, Wiggie??
    Fact is that the Israelis work hard to make sure the Palestinians CAN’T govern themselves. The Israelis nurture division amongst the Palestinians. From using puppets like Abbas, to almost certainly staging false flag assasinations, the Israelis pretty much guarantee that the Palestinians are going for each other’s throats.
    You are loathsome. And the nation you are loyal to is working hard to catch up with you. If you don’t understand what Carroll meant by pointing out Israel’s inevitable own self-destruction, than you are a damned fool.
    Prove us right, Wiggie. Its easy. You, Nadine, and those like you, (obnoxious, overbearing, arrogant, racist, far right wing Jews), only need keep talking and setting an example. Only an idiot could fail to learn to be disgusted and repulsed by you, and by what Israel is becoming.

    Reply

  75. Carroll says:

    Posted by WigWag, Jan 24 2011, 9:47PM – Link
    Yes, those good old Palestinians sure are ready to govern themselves.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    That is a very strange statement about ‘other people” coming from a Jewish person.
    The Palestines, if we believe British (and American) records during the British mandate, were getting along fairly well and peacefully. Self governing themselves locally, even under the British mandate, thru a system of community representatives to the British, until the influx of Jews, including the terrorist gangs from England.
    And your people have failed despite every advantage given the Jewish state by the world– advantages Palestine has not been given–to build or maintain an actual democratic or even civilized society and have in fact created an apartheid state?
    I don’t think anyone in the world would think it anything but absurd for you to comment on any other people’s ability to govern themselves considering the state of your own country.

    Reply

  76. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “”Palestinian civil society” thanks for that one, best laugh of the day”
    Does this jackass have anything to say, or is this the best he’s got?
    Egads, what a fine example these people set of what it means to “support” Israel, eh? Yeah, they’re doin’ the Jews proud, aren’t they?

    Reply

  77. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “That’s not how it works in autocracy – unless the thugs are quite sure they have permission of the authorities”
    Ah, this shameless bigot hasbarist Nadine is finally beginning to be honest about the relationship the settlers enjoy with the Knesset and the IDF.

    Reply

  78. JohnH says:

    The frantic posting the hasbara crowd is a pretty good indication of Israeli desperation.
    In fact, I’m enjoying this “cesspool of hasbara trash.” Bring it on! The higher the fevered pitch, the more desperate and incoherent they are.
    The Zionist narrative is definitely beginning to unravel. Can the Zionist entity be far behind?

    Reply

  79. PissedOffAmerican says:

    What a fuckin’ waste of time and bandwidth.
    These threads have become a cesspool of hasbara trash. The foul stench of misinformation and bigotry is unmistakable. And Nadine’s smarmy disrespect that she directs towards Steve is despicable. Too bad, this used to be a decent place to hangout and swap opinions.
    I see that Israel has once again investigated its own actions, and arrived at the conclusion that attacking peaceful protestors on the high seas, in international waters, is an “act of defense”. Of course, the rest of the planet KNOWS this latest “investigation” is bullshit. Just as they will know that these pieces of crap in Washington DC, (who will endorse this “investigative report”), also KNOW that it is bullshit. Which, of course, forces the rest of the planet to arrive at the same conclusion that I long ago arrived at, that Israel has our governing body by the balls, and that our Congress is little more than a bunch of bloodsucking liars that are bought off, intimidated, threatened, blackmailed, and bribed by the Israelis. Owned; lock, stock, and barrel.
    Is there anyone here that seriously thinks the rest of the global community is unable to see what is blatantly paraded in front of them? Our “leaders” should be ashamed of themselves for staging such a embarrasingly pathetic charade of mediation. Were we what we claim to be, we would be denouncing this latest ridiculous “investigation” for what it is; Israeli manufactured toilet paper.
    No doubt, this duplicitous witch Clinton will find a way to express satisfaction with the “investigation”, and this spineless coward Obama will simply avoid commenting about it. I mean, whats the big deal, all the IDF did was execute an American citizen who was lying prone and helpless on the deck of a ship that posed ABSOLUTELY NO THREAT TO THE ISRAELIS.
    Also, still waiting for a link that demonstrates this Pearlman yahoo actually has contributed anything worth reading.

    Reply

  80. Carroll says:

    Slightly OT, but important enough to get maxiumn notice by readers of TWN.
    The Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa has now concluded it’s study and spoken on Apartheid status of Israel.
    http://www.hsrc.ac.za/Media_Release-378.phtml
    The Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa (HSRC) has released a study indicating that Israel is practicing both colonialism and apartheid in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT).
    The interim report, which will form part of a discussion at an upcoming HSRC conference on the subject, on 13 and 14 June in Cape Town, serves as a document to be finalised later this year.
    The HSRC commissioned an international team of scholars and practitioners of international public law from South Africa, the United Kingdom, Israel and the West Bank to conduct the study. The resulting 300-page draft, titled Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid?: A re-assessment of Israel’s practices in the occupied Palestinian territories under international law, represents 15 months of research and constitutes an exhaustive review of Israel’s practices in the OPT according to definitions of colonialism and apartheid provided by international law. The project was suggested originally by the January 2007 report by eminent South African jurist John Dugard.
    Regarding apartheid, the team found that Israel’s laws and policies in the OPT fit the definition of apartheid in the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid.
    Israeli law conveys privileges to Jewish settlers and disadvantages Palestinians in the same territory on the basis of their respective identities, which function in this case as racialised identities in the sense provided by international law.
    Israel’s practices are corollary to five of the six ‘inhuman acts’ listed by the Convention. A policy of apartheid is especially indicated by Israel’s demarcation of geographic

    Reply

  81. Dan Kervick says:

    “That’s not how it works in autocracy – unless the thugs are quite sure they have permission of the authorities. Because if the autocrat decides to prove how clean his own hands are, then the thugs are toast.
    Now yopu sound like a 9/11 Truther.

    Reply

  82. Dan Kervick says:

    ” … many Palestinians could be heard chanting.”
    How many?

    Reply

  83. WigWag says:

    In the truth is stranger than fiction department, according to witnesses, during the Fatah demonstrations today against Al Jazeera, many Palestinians could be heard chanting,
    “Al-Jazeera are spies,” and “Al-Jazeera equals Israel.”
    The demonstrators also burned an Israeli flag with the words Al Jazeera written on it.
    Yes, those good old Palestinians sure are ready to govern themselves. Their ruling party, Fatah, sure is a sophisticated bunch.
    But as I said earlier, at least the Fatah faithful didn’t stoop to the level of Hamas. As far as is known, no Al Jazeera reporters were thrown of the roof.
    Thank goodness for small favors.
    http://www.theatlantic.com/jeffrey-goldberg/

    Reply

  84. JohnH says:

    They could also have been “unleashed” by Israel, which is not happy with Al Jazeera, either. Or, since we know that the PA is largely an Israeli subsidiary, it could have been a joint effort.

    Reply

  85. nadine says:

    “Why assume they were “unleashed”? Couldn’t they just be a bunch of angry, self-appointed vigilantes?” (Dan Kervick)
    That’s not how it works in autocracy – unless the thugs are quite sure they have permission of the authorities. Because if the autocrat decides to prove how clean his own hands are, then the thugs are toast.

    Reply

  86. JohnH says:

    The Palestine Papers mean that the sclerotic, corrupt PA is toast, which is why they sent their thugs on a visit to kill the messenger.
    But the papers are not kind to Israel, either. They quote Tzipi Livni as saying:
    “Israel takes more land [so] that the Palestinian state will be impossible . . . the Israel policy is to take more and more land day after day and that at the end of the day we

    Reply

  87. Dan Kervick says:

    Why assume they were “unleashed”? Couldn’t they just be a bunch of angry, self-appointed vigilantes?
    Anyway, Al Jazeera is really earning some serious merit for independence for breaking this story, as well as for the coverage they have been giving to the uprisings in Tunisia, Algeria and Yemen.

    Reply

  88. WigWag says:

    “But attacking Al Jazeera is not the answer — and whoever unleashed this group to deploy violence is an enemy of a healthy civil society.” (Steve Clemons)
    I think we can safely assume that the people attacking Al Jazeera were not affiliated with Hamas. After all, Hamas prefers to deal with their opponents by throwing them of the rooves of buildings.

    Reply

  89. Carroll says:

    Do we have any absolute as to how accurate the Palestine Papers are?
    The Guardian says they are verified, the BBC says they are not.
    Whichever, it has always been clear that the PA either can’t or doesn’t act aggressively for the best interest interest of Palestine’s people…whether because of it’s leadership’s personal and political dependence on US influence or threats in the region or for some other reason.
    I would guess just about anyone could have stirred the Al Jazeera bash..for any purpose…intrigue always intrigue…always many people behind the curtains…to make certain Palestine stays in disarray.

    Reply

  90. Bill Pearlman says:

    “Palestinian civil society” thanks for that one, best laugh of the day.

    Reply

  91. nadine says:

    “But attacking Al Jazeera is not the answer — and whoever unleashed this group to deploy violence is an enemy of a healthy civil society.” (Steve Clemons)
    That would be the PA authorities, acting according to usual form. But kudos! Steve, you criticized the PA, at least implicitly.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *