Sunday, September 30, 2012

Is This True or is it False?

Mike L.
The Jewish colonialists who began to invade Palestine at the end the 19th century perpetrated a deliberate ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian indigenous peasantry who had been living on their land for centuries; the policy was deliberately designed to cleanse the area of the Jewish State of its Arab population, and in the course of the War of Independence they carried out the planned deportation of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.
Ultimately, how we view the conflict depends, at least in part, on the degree to which we agree with the above. It's taken from a piece by Erez Tadmor and Erel Segal called Nakba Nonsense. I am not familiar with either of these writers, nor have I read more than a few pages of the piece, itself, but the above quote strikes me as a very good example of what we typically call the "Palestinian Narrative."

It is certainly the case that large numbers of progressives, and progressive Jews, (pretending to be liberals) believe the above.  But it is either true or it is not true.  Or it is largely true or largely false.  If you are a Jewish supporter of Israel and you think that the above is largely true then you have a serious dilemma on your hands.  It means that the country that you support was born out of sin and that the anti-Zionists are essentially correct.  If Israel was born from the deliberate and pre-conceived ethnic cleansing of the local Arabs (they did not yet self-identify as "Palestinians") then Israel is pretty much everything that its worst critics say that it is.

If, on the other hand, the above is largely false (which it is) then it is incumbent upon supporters of the Jewish state of Israel to make it clear that it is false.  We need to stand up and remind people, particularly progressive-left detractors of the Jewish state of Israel, that the Arabs launched a genocidal war against the Jews in November of 1947 directly after the Holocaust.  If some Palestinians were kicked out of Israel at the time it was because the Israelis, unlike their dhimmitudenous Jewish counterparts elsewhere, believed in self-defense and were hell-bent on parrying Arab rapiers.

Our friend Daniel Bielak likes to say that we just need to tell the truth and while I recognize that "truth" is not so easily conveyed or understood, he is essentially correct.  We do need to tell the truth.  Let the historical record serve as a parry to Arab and progressive anti-Israel propaganda.  If the progressive-left actually stands for social justice, as they claim, then they need to stand with the Jews of the Middle East who remain under perpetual assault.  If, however, the progressive-left stands with the Arab Palestinians, which is more and more the case, this can only mean that they do not stand for social justice because it is the Palestinian national movement, itself, that absolutely refuses to accept a state in peace next to the Jewish one.

Almost entirely ignoring the history of the Jewish people under the boot of Muslim imperialism, progressives (under the influence of Arab and Soviet propaganda) are convincing themselves that Israel is a racist state that is oppressing the "indigenous" Arab population.  In this way they, much like the Nazis before them, paint the Jewish people as aggressors who must be stopped for the good of all humanity.

The progressive movement is, thus, playing an exceedingly dangerous game with the lives of Jewish people in the Middle East.  The Jews are a tiny minority in this world and we have seen very well what can happen when enough people convince themselves that we are the source of the world's problems.  Every time some progressives says that "Zionists" control the American media or government they are, in essence, repeating exactly the same kind of slander that the Nazis pointed at the Jews prior to the Final Solution.  Every time some progressive tells the world that the "Zionists" are oppressing the poor, "indigenous" Palestinians they are laying a stone of hatred toward the Jewish people, a stone that paves a trail to anti-Jewish slaughter.

If sometime in the future we get something that resembles another Holocaust it will be the Jews of the Middle East who will pay the biggest price.  Any future scenario involving large numbers of Jewish dead will be the result of Arab or Persian violence.  And if that day comes do not look to progressives for sympathy.

They will be the first to tell us that the violence against us is the richly deserved outcome of Jewish crimes.  If they tell one another that we are guilty as sin now, would you expect them to change their tune after the slaughter?  Paul Berman has noted that it was during the Second Terror War (intifada), in which over 1,000 Israelis were slaughtered and in which Israeli society endured the death-toll equivalent of a 9/11 every two weeks for several years, that progressive accusations against the Jews of the Middle East reached its highest pitch of hysteria.

Don't expect anything different the next time the Arabs or the Palestinians go on an anti-Jewish killing spree.

You won't get it.


  1. I've never heard a Jew saying that's the way it went down.

    1. Mondoweiss is just crawling with Jews who believe that the above is either entirely true or largely true.

      But not just Mondoweiss. There are any number of "mainstream" progressive Jews on places like dkos or the huffpost or the UK Guardian who give us some version of the above or who, at the very least, consider the Jews as primarily the guilty party in the conflict.

      But you knew that already.

    2. Then, of course, there are the J-Street people and the Jewish Voice for Peace people and the various Israeli-left NGOs and people like Glenn Greenwald and Peter Beinart, the now deceased Tony Judt, and Judith Butler and Norman Finkelstein and Shlomo Sand and Gilad Atzmon and Avi Shlaim and Noam Chomsky and... on and on and on.

      Of course, not each and every one of them agrees with everything above, but the obvious point is that they all hold Israel guilty and the Arabs essentially innocent.

  2. Antony Loewenstein, Philip Weiss, Ilan Pappe ...

    1. Right, let me rephrase that. I've never heard a Jew that can reasonably identified as a mainstream progressive, liberal, or pretending to be liberal, saying that's the way it went down. I'm primarily looking at this within the context of US politics. Neither Loewenstein nor Pappe would apply. And Weiss is hardly mainstream.

    2. It is a common occurrence on many college campuses where this occurs, in the USA and Europe especially.

  3. Mike

    I met Erez Tadmor at a private meeting earlier this year in Jerusalem, with Ronen Shoval.

    Ronen is Chairman and founder of Im Tirtzu. Erez is Head of the policy division and founder of Im Tirtzu movement.

    They are a couple of fantastic guys. Ronen is a brilliant orator and will go far politically

    I also met Matan, though not with these two. I met him at TA uni with Im Tirtzu students.I don't know his exact position in the group.

    Im Tirtzu is now heavily intertwined with Shinui Kivun. I've met with their leadership several times both here and in Israel.

    I owe you an email Mike, but I don't seem to get the time to physically get down to doing it.

  4. I wish a few of you guys would do some commenting on J-Wire. We need some good input. We now have a couple of Americans posting.

    There are a few items receiving attention at the moment too

    1. Thanks Shirl.

      I'll give it a look.

    2. Mike it just occured to me that I have the booklet "Nakba Nonsense.". It was given to me by Ronen and Erez.

  5. It's False and so is your premise about J-Street and Beinart. They are not the same as JVP (self-haters that they are) and Finkelstein or Pappe or Schlaim or any of those others.

    This the problem with your analysis. It is plain wrong. J-Street supports a fair Two State Solution along the lines of what are proposed by Shalom Achshav and other mainstream (and notice the use of the word "mainstream") Israeli Jewish Peace activists). JVP and the other useful idiots support a One State Solution as proposed by Palestinian Leftists.

    Beinart for the record may underestimate the Palestinian hatred of Israel but, he too is an advocate of Two-States with NO Palestinian RoR. Chomsky, Finkelstein and others support the "faux Two State" approach, Beinart supports a REAL Two State Solution.

    You simply don't understand or know the issue if you conflate those groups. The National Union and the hard Right of Likud (the Feiglin wing if you will) ARE NOT the arbiters of what a Zionist is, no matter what they say.

    JVP and their hard left cohorts (including allies from the Ron Paul, Stormfront hard Right), are nothing but "white noise". If you want to make the simple point that there are the elements of the Left that are anti-Semitic... then yeah, we know that. To claim those elements are predominant or even a strong majority, would be wrong.

    If you think the 3% of Jews that follow the JVP and their idiot revisionist historians are important, you are sorely mistaken. 70% (according to Gallup) of American Jews are going to vote for President Obama. I would bet you by the time the train wreck that is the Romney/Ryan campaign gets done and panders just a bit more to the "Crazy Right".... that % will be closer to 72-73%. At the same time, only 6% of American Jews claim Israel is their first priority when voting and only another 9% claim it for the top two.

    ANYWAY, 70% + of American Jews are going to vote for the President, and over 95% support Israel in some form or another existing as the National Homeland and State of the Jewish People. SO are most American Jews also "Dhimmi's" in your mind? Are you actually going to make that case?

    The plain facts are that we are NOT going to turn out for Mittens because 1. We are American citizens and the Republican plan of Tax Cuts for the wealthiest Americans (while raising taxes on the Middle Class), Right Wing social engineering (end the ACA, Civil Rights for the LGBT community and so forth) and environmental destruction goes against the interests of Jewish Americans, and Americans in general.

    As far as Israel is concerned. Most American Jews don't see it the way you and your cohorts here do. We look at all the things President Obama has done for us, and for Israel in much different light than you do and we like what we see. AT LEAST... we like it more than we see what the Republicans have traditionally done and what Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan propose.

    SO because of that are we deluded and dhimmi's? If you are talking about the dirtbag self-haters of JVP. Ok, sure. If you are talking about anyone else in the 95% here or 45% in Israel (People in Meretz, Kadima, Yesh Atid, Atzmaout, and Avodah.. then you would be incredibly wrong.

    OH and since Mike you are supporting Romney... What is he going to do differently than Obama? He already changed up on J'Slem. He already said he would support Egypt (and the ruling M/B) as long as they supported American interests in the MENA (the treaty being one of those "interests"). SO what is your alternative going to do.

    OH RIGHT, he told us. He is going to "kick the can down the road" and let someone else deal. Yep, great example of leadership there. You guys should be proud.

    1. "70% + of American Jews are going to vote for the President, and over 95% support Israel in some form or another existing as the National Homeland and State of the Jewish People. "

      Now there's a contradiction in terms if I ever heard one.!

      How can American Jews vote for Obama and support Israel?

      Thank G-d, us rational thinking Jews, don't think like the majority of Jews in the USA. Putting it frankly, those of us elsewhere in the Diaspora are worried about the way you think.

    2. Shirl,

      There is virtually no difference between the policies of Obama related to Israel and the policies of his challenger. Not on Israel's security directly. Not on Iran. Not on trade. Not on aid. If Obama was truly anti-Israel, American Jews would take notice. He's not. You need not worry.

    3. Not only that but Ehud Barak AND Shimon Peres have called the President an "exceptional friend".

      BUT... Remember Shirl that we are Americans NOT Israelis. Romney, Ryan and Co. represent things that are completely antithetical to the political beliefs of most American Jews. I mean they stand for anti-Civil rights for the Gay Community and minority communities (just witness Voter Suppression efforts), they stand for turning our social safety net into a voucher system, they have voted against veterans benefits AND fair pay for women... SO, really what is there to vote for there.

      ALSO, they simply are offering no alternative to what President Obama is offering and rather according to Mitt Romney their plan is to "kick the can down the road", and I mean that literally. The Republican plan is to simply do nothing and see what happens. What is that? Is that a solution?

    4. To suggest there is no difference between the candidates is absurd. Because America is pro-Israel does not mean that there are not significant differences. Look at the the Cairo speech and Romney's in Israel that took the Palestinians on. As Romney said, until the Palestinians and Arabs come to desire peace, there will be none. Would Obama ever say such things that any realist knows is true? Instead, he asked Jews to search their souls.

      It's silly to act as if American support for Israel started and ended with Obama. Much of the policy and funding preceded him. So why get carried away, as if he spent his life championing Israel and the Zionist cause. I think it's more accurate to say that he came from what can be considered an anti-Israel milieu.

      There are alternatives to what Obama is doing, as well, and it involves the way that soft power and public diplomacy are used, with respect to the Palestinians and the greater Muslim world. Such as at the UN in relations to the OIC and the move to criminalize any expression offensive to Islam. The USA has enhanced these efforts when it should not have. The USA also chooses both who to support or not support. The actual liberals fall into the latter category, forgotten when we should always be championing their cause.

      There are many other examples of alternatives. But these debates are more about interpreting every detail as proof positive that the partisan opponents have evil designs against humanity, contrasted with the pure virtue of the proponents. Thus, perhaps it's best to kick the can down the road until enough decide if they really want to fix what's wrong.

    5. That's nothing but strawman arguments oldschool. Nobody ever said there aren't alternatives. Nor that American support for Israel started and ended with Obama. The 5 presidents that preceded Obama failed to get the Isrealis and the Palestinians to agree on much of anything that ended up going anywhere. Obama at least matched that record.

      The question is how things would be different under Romney. Kick the can down the road would yield identical results to what has happened the last 40 years. Unless both sides they want peace at the same time, it is never going to happen.

    6. No strawmen at all. That is a specious allegation.

      More with the infamous..."No one says."

      I was responding to this:

      ALSO, they simply are offering no alternative to what President Obama is offering

      Guess someone DID say!

      Further, pro-Obama blogs give the impression that Obama has outdone every other president, here and in almost all other aspects. You would also see that Congress's contributions are downplayed, if not ignored.

      To take a line of argument that you like to employ: How do you know that things would the same under Romney? Isn't kicking the can actually different than what Obama wants to do? Which way is it? Are they the same or not? How do you know this would "yield identical results to what has happened the last 40 years?"

      Once more, the two examples I mentioned are shoved under the carpet. Do you think we have acted wisely toward the OIC or the Muslim liberals?

      Do you disagree that Obama came from what can be considered an anti-Israel milieu?

      It sounds to me like you doubt the Israelis would jump at the opportunity for a real peace, and Israeli intransigence is what deters the Palestinians or makes them fill their children with unadulterated hatred for Jews. Do you disagree with what Romney said, that the reason there is no peace is because the Palestinians have not decided they want it?

    7. They won't be different, if you ask me, but I'd beg to differ that that is indeed the question.

      What about asking Jews to search their souls for peace? What about saying things like "[t]he future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," in the immediate wake of organized terrorist attacks upon US embassies?

      Whoever said it should?

      Talk about answering the wrong questions...

      What was the reason for saying things like this in the first place, is what I would say is the question.

      I agree that the Republicans wouldn't do anything different, materially, but at least they wouldn't give such ammunition in the form of quotes like the former to the obstructionists in the PA, and the latter to those seeking to introduce anti-blasphemy laws in the UN.

    8. No, it IS exactly a straw man argument, because NO ONE said there are no alternatives. Only that Romney isn't offering any. And he isn't. Unless you consider kicking the can down the road a better alternative. I don't.

      I don't agree that Obama comes from an anti-Israel milieu.

      I don't doubt at all that Israelis would jump at the chance at peace. You want to think of me as someone who blames Israel for the conflict, go ahead. I don't really give a shit.

    9. In my opinion, you personalize things here which shouldn't be personalized, Stuart. And in doing so, you're using that as an easy way out of addressing the other issues he brings up.

      I don't see where oldschool said you blame Israel for the conflict. Just that when others do so, they mostly tend to come from the left these days. Is this really something you dispute?

    10. Addendum - after re-reading, I can now see where you'd take offense at the last paragraph, but that still leaves the other questions.

    11. I think I did respond to most of the questions Jay. I don't feel much obligation to defend bloggers who have made claims that I haven't made. I don't think Obama has been great in making progress with regards to a settlement. But neither was Clinton. Neither was Bush. I think the US position should be that of a mediator. And when a mediator is successful, both sides go home unhappy. But the deal gets done. Which is why Bush the elder was almost successful. Neither side thought his team was being fair. I would be ecstatic with a settlement that neither Israel nor the Palestinians were happy with.

      The only claim I've disputed is that Romney will be better. I've seen nothing that would support that claim.

    12. Actually, Stuart, I don't play straw man games. However, I cannot prevent you from seeing it as you like. The examples I offered are alternative approaches that Romney and others would offer.

      The assertion was made that there were no alternatives, and I provided two.

      As I indicated below in another response, your framing of what Romney said is out of context. So who is engaging in straw men? He said he would try to "move things along," and explained why in all likelihood the situation would remain mostly static until the Palestinians changed their political position committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel. We see this in their rhetoric, filled with Jew hatred. Do you believe this evidences their underlying intent?

      Again, I ask you the following:How do you know that things would be the same under Romney? Isn't "kicking the can" actually different than what Obama wants to do, which is to be so proactive that he inserted the major precondition, an obstacle to negotiations? Which way is it then, are they the same or not? And how do you know this would "yield identical results to what has happened the last 40 years?"

      You like to criticize others for speaking without knowing, yet you like to speculate as if you know yourself. From your responses, I am far from unconvinced that you comply with the standards you place on others.

      As in the past, you try to put words in my mouth. Where did I say that I thought of you "as someone who blames Israel for the conflict?" Talk about a straw man!

      Finally, I believe that the milieu at Occidental, Columbia and Harvard, and the professors and friends of Obama during these years, and the subsequent years at the Univ. of Chicago, were and are anti-Israel, or at least heavily weighted toward the Palestinian narrative. I wonder how strong Obama's support for Israel would be if he was not the American President, but some other political representative.

    13. Fair enough, Stuart. I agree with you on Romney.

      I do think the two questions I asked are at least somewhat relevant, however. There is at least something to be said for those questioning why the president (who I voted for in 08, and will be voting for again in five weeks, because I just don't agree with any of the current Republican Party's domestic issues) making inexplicable unforced errors like those.

    14. Stuart, your view of mediation is wacky.

      A mediator helps both sides create an environment where they can speak and be heard, but cannot force the sides to agree to anything unless they choose.

      A successful mediator or mediation does NOT mean both sides go home unhappy. Indeed, when the sides are unhappy they are less likely to follow through.

    15. In the real world, oldschool, that is not what mediators do. They push, force, coerce, by whatever means possible, both sides into giving up more than they want to. When there is little common ground, there is no other way.

    16. That is inaccurate. The type of mediation you describe can only occur when there is some other authority that will decide unless the parties do. A good mediator finds the common ground and opportunities that arise out of conflict, but the parties do the heavy lifting. Mediation of international disputes do not get resolved by coercion, but by consensus.

    17. Been involved in a lot of international mediated disputes? Me either. But well over a hundred domestically. I'm only telling you what I've observed. It's negotiation. Both sides have to give up something they want. That is not consensus, except in the totality. You're right about the heavy lifting. Which are the concessions. Which neither side are happy with. Mediators make that happen.

    18. Actually, a mediator has no effective ability to coerce disputants unless there is an adjudicator behind the curtain.

      When a party chooses to forego a more preferred position, or to accept a limitation, it involves consensus. Mediations on the international level are based on consensus, which is a foundational principle of the international system. For example, a state must agree to allow the ICJ to have jurisdiction, or which provisions of a treaty it will be subject to.

      Without an enforcement mechanism, such as a Security Council mandate, a mediator has no power except to ensure the process is a fair one to allow the parties to speak and be heard, which can be a benefit by itself.

      These are interest based mediations, where solutions are reached by the parties because it is in their interest to do so. They may give up something as they determine their interests, but it is a voluntary and knowing decision, free of coercion, and that is a crucial distinction to a mediated settlement reached only to avoid the decision resting in someone else's hands.

  6. I disagree fully. "Kicking the can down the road" will only exacerbate the problem. At some point Israel is going to have to face the demographic reality of the Occupation and what that is doing to the State.

    Likewise, at some point the Palestinians are going to have face up to the reality that Israel simply is not going to disappear or allow itself to disappear. BUT those things can't happen without face to face negotiations brokered by a third party who has the power to back up agreements, and that third party would be the U.S.

    Now as to other points... Not sure where there is a problem with the Cairo Speech. It was a new President trying a different path to resolve a problem. The President clearly told the Palestinians there that they have to have responsibility for their actions (stop terror) and have to accept the existence of Israel. Asking people to look down deep and try to find solutions is not particularly insulting, particularly when the people he is asking are dealing from a position of relative strength.

    SO you say this:

    "It's silly to act as if American support for Israel started and ended with Obama. Much of the policy and funding preceded him."

    No one says anything did start with Obama. Why would you even introduce that concept? America for the most part with some exceptions (Reagan, Eisenhower, Bush I) has been a staunch ally and friend to Israel. However, where much of the policy proceeding President Obama was in place, not all of it - particularly around Iron Dome funding, unprecedented levels of security cooperation (according to DM Barak, and President Peres both ex-PM's) and support at the U.N. where the U.S. has stood firmly against Palestinian unilateral efforts at statehood.

    As for this:

    So why get carried away, as if he spent his life championing Israel and the Zionist cause. I think it's more accurate to say that he came from what can be considered an anti-Israel milieu.

    Again, no one says he has spent his life "championing Israel and the Zionist cause". Again, not sure where you get that. I will say though that he has done a great job supporting Israel and the Zionist cause while in office.

    The fact of the matter is that Romney has no coherent plan for anything whether it be foreign policy or domestic policy. His speech about Jerusalem was all fine and good and then he immediately turned around and said (paraphrasing): "Well, I am not actually going to do that (move the embassy) right away". I mean the ink wasn't even dry (so to speak) on his promise. Romney offers nothing new or innovative or even anything that remotely resembles leadership on this issue or any other.

    1. Tell it to the Palestinian leadership. How do you propose to get them to stop preaching Jew hatred? Obama's way, so far, seems to have achieved next to nothing. For example, the USA, under Obama, turned the settlement issue into a matter of intransigence when it never had to be. That alone needlessly set back the process.

      I did not say I had a problem with the Cairo speech, which is another matter. I said, when compared to Romney's speech, it shows there is a difference between the two.

      I think the suggestion for Jews to search their souls was arrogant. As if Jews do not already do this, ad nauseum? As if Jews have not made huge efforts in support of peace?

      Do you disagree that Obama came from what can be considered an anti-Israel milieu?

      I find it a bit funny that you say, "No one says" when you and others constantly make him out to be virtually infallible in his vision and leadership on this and almost every other issue. Have you looked at your web site and diaries? Look at the incessant ranting over at Daily Kos. It is purely a partisan thing as I see it. And when you are not saying how great Obama is, you are demonstrating how evil Romney the Mormon and Republicans are.

      If you cannot see this, perhaps you might take a step back and let the dust settle. It is obvious as day. Look at your last remark:

      Romney offers nothing new or innovative or even anything that remotely resembles leadership on this issue or any other.

      Too absolute for my taste to be considered accurate or reliable. It is not an isolated statement, either.

      I do not believe that Obama has done such a "great" job supporting Israel and the Zionist cause while in office. And I think time will expose the deficiencies, among others the action concerning the OIC and inaction concerning liberal Muslims, both of which you neglected to address.

    2. To answer...

      For example, the USA, under Obama, turned the settlement issue into a matter of intransigence when it never had to be. That alone needlessly set back the process.

      No... the settlements have and will always be an issue. That has been a long standing Palestinian demand, the President in trying to be fair brought it to the table in this formalized instance. AND honestly, it is an issue that would have to be dealt with. The process was not going to go anywhere with the Israelis constantly building. Does that make it their fault that the process fell apart? No. It takes "Two to Tango" and in this latest round this one is on both sides (NOTE, I said "this latest round").

      Could the President have handled it better? Yes, he could have. He should have back channeled more than he did. However, he seems to have learned from that, and I think he has done a very nice job from that.

      I said, when compared to Romney's speech, it shows there is a difference between the two.

      You know what, I will modify my response to Stuart - you're right. Romney and the President don't have identical plans. The President fully supports a workable two State solution and active security for the State of Israel to deal with an issue that is vital to Israel's long term survival as a nation. Mitt Romney suggests "kicking the can down the road". So, yes they are different. In Cairo, the President acted and spoke like a statesman and diplomat. In Jerusalem, Romney spoke like the exact opposite.

      I think the suggestion for Jews to search their souls was arrogant. As if Jews do not already do this, ad nauseum? As if Jews have not made huge efforts in support of peace?

      I don't see it that way at all. Asking the Israelis to look at what they really want is reasonable and not at all arrogant. I would ask them (us) the same thing. What does Israel want to do to end this conflict? What can Israel do realistically to end this conflict? President Obama told the Palestinians the same thing.

      As for supporting the President... Yes, I am a partisan. I make no bones about it. Never have. I think President Obama has done a lot of good things despite having an obstructionist congress more interested in demonstrating the failure of government than actually getting things done to help the average American.

      And speaking of DKos, I have written criticisms of the President. BUT, at this point I see nothing productive that could come from that with the election coming up. Because as critical as I may be regarding some of the things he has done, the other side is so much worse. I simply don't have that much of a need to criticize the President in the middle of a tough election.

      Now, since you are objecting to the claim of Mitt Romney NOT offering anything new or innovative to help solve this issue, please tell me exactly what is wrong with my claim. What has Mitt offered up that is new or innovative or in any way seems like leadership on the issue? If you are going to tell me that my claim is not accurate or reliable, then tell me why it is not accurate or reliable.

      As for your last paragraph, that is a matter of personal perception. Obviously our perceptions differ. For all that happens around this, I think the President has done a darn fine job and I don't think that the solution that Mitt and the Republicans propose... "Kick the can down the road" is either reasonable, or even particularly sane. It sure as heck is not leadership.

    3. The settlements were not a condition precedent to come to the table before Obama made them one. That is a fact.

      Sometimes being a leader is to say what needs saying. I think Romney's message needs to be repeated more often because it is time to stop treating the Palestinians and Arabs different than we treat everyone else. Do you disagree that the Palestinian and Arab lack of productivity is based on their own decisions? Or that they do not want to see peace for political reasons?

      Obama's admonition was arrogant because if the Palestinians are against making peace there will be no peace, no matter what the Jews do, and Obama implied they have not done enough, which I believe is both wrong and presumptuous. Especially after Obama's mistake on the settlement issue.

      Should the Jews just leave and let the Palestinians have all of the Mandated territory because then they will be satisfied? The truth is, for the Palestinian leadership, that is what will be required. Why not own up to it? Why not criticize Obama? It is not his place to sermonize to Jews when it is not their actions that are primarily responsible? Or do you disagree about their fundamental desire for peace based on a permanent and durable two state solution? If so, what "soul searching" and action would satisfy Israel's adversaries?

      As a partisan, at any opportunity you take Romney out of context. You are not alone. But that does not make it right, or productive. In this matter, he said:

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

      You move things along the best way you can. That does NOT mean doing nothing, despite what you express. It means trying to take advantage of conditions that present themselves, even making initiatives, understanding the situation will not change if Palestine means Israel. It is realistic. Yet here you misrepresent what he was saying. Inaccurate and unreliable.

      One could look at things Obama has said, too. For example, calling the death of the Ambassador and others a "bump in the road." But that is equally unfair, a tactic of partisans in their obsession over every matter, no matter how small, to make the other side look bad.

      I showed how your absolute statement about Romney was not accurate or reliable. I think that being honest about Palestinian intentions contradicts your claim. I think standing up for Muslim liberals, compared to now, would be a more innovative and successful approach. I think Obama's actions with the OIC are a huge mistake that will make things worse rather than better.

      Unlike others, I do not blame everything on Obama. In some instances, I oppose him from farther on the Left than those of you that like to call me a Republican, which shows the lack of astuteness typical of partisans. I will not hesitate, however, to speak when I see Democrats engage in hero worship, which I have seen way too much, especially when the "damn fine job" is merely average, but inflated or degraded by political gamesmanship that plays a zero sum game.

      That about says what I intended.

  7. Just a little something that may give some people who have had none some pause for thought:

    Muslim Brotherhood preacher: "If anyone tells you that he is liberal, tell him directly that he is infidel."

    (As always on Jihad Watch, includes link to the original article (in this case, in the Egypt Independent))