The Day of the Dhimmi is Done -
Michael Lumish, PhD, proprietor. (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Does that sign really say free free Palestine?Why would one need to free that which is already free? BTW, the free part is called Israel. The other parts are run by Arabs, so it's no small wonder they're not free.
So why take it out on that beautiful couple?
Free Gaza from Hamas!Saying this probably makes me a 'racist,' though, I'm sure.The "pro-Palestinians" are no such thing. They simply hate Jews.The reaction to that couple proves this.Look at all their hate. The very sight of a couple of proud, public Jews drives them into a hate-filled frenzy. Can you imagine if this was directed at any other minority?Can you imagine, for instance, if it were Ku Klux Klan members screaming at African-Americans in Cleveland or St. Louis? Okay, this was Canada, so substitute whatever the equivalent is there. Still sayin'.It's time to recognize hate movements as hate movements.
Nope it doesn't make you a "racist" Jay.. It makes you right. The only problem is that the Palestinians themselves in Gaza WANT Hamas to rule. That is the saddest thing about this.
Yup, Volley. You know, people like you and I are smeared up, down, left, right and everywhere else, but the fact remains that we're actually more "pro-Palestinian" than those who take that label upon themselves. Because we want the stranglehold that that terrorist organization holds upon those people to end.For our own pro-Israel reasons, sure. But in the end, the result is all that matters.Ask the random not-Hamas-member in Gaza City, whose outcome they prefer? Our peaceful two state situation, or those who excuse and make endless apologies for endless wars that they'll never win?
Heh.. well I would not call myself "Pro-Palestinian" by any stretch. It's just that we want what most people want, that everyone should live a good life free of oppression. BUT, I would not say that Hamas has a "stranglehold" on the Palestinians. Why? Because the Palestinian polity in large part supports Hamas and their goals. I mean if there was an election tomorrow in Gaza.. according to Palestinian opinion polls (that are pretty reliable), Hamas would win. So there is that. As for this: Ask the random not-Hamas-member in Gaza City, whose outcome they prefer? Our peaceful two state situation, or those who excuse and make endless apologies for endless wars that they'll never win?I think you would get choice #2 since aside some Fatah folks, who MIGHT (but not for sure take #1) many of the "not Hamas" folks are worse than Hamas and are either Salafists connected to the IS or are Palestinian Islamic Jihad folks connected to Iran. Gaza is just a messed up situation. There is a reason that neither Egypt or Israel wanted to keep that territory. Interestingly enough, there are a growing number of voices within the IDF that are hoping Hamas can hold power, because what comes next might be far worse
Jay to add on to that... I honestly don't care one whit who rules the Palestinians as long as they don't shoot rockets or build tunnels to attack into Southern Israel and I would prefer someone who would want to make permanent peace. If the Palestinians want to be ruled by Hamas... then so be it, but, they need to understand that being ruled by Hamas comes with a whole bunch of consequences some of which include they get blockaded, and their government is too busy wasting it's money on weapons and tunnels (that would get absolutely hammered in round #2) instead of actually building infrastructure for their economy. But hey if that's what they want, then who am I to tell them otherwise?
Good to know so many of the UNRWA people working in Gaza, are, effectively, on the Hamas payroll.That helps.Free Gaza from UNRWA!And, then, Hamas.
More hummus! Less Hamas! :)
that will probably be called an Islamophobic hate crime soon.
I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to Michael Oren: No reason why he wouldn't know what he was talking about.http://nypost.com/2015/06/09/a-new-inside-account-of-obamas-israel-ire/Book out soon.
Except that this is NOT Oren's opinion.. It is Conservative Columnist John Podheretz' review of Oren's book - which does not mean that it is necessarily a wrong review, but Podheretz does have an agenda to his writing.I would be far more interested to see what Oren himself has to say, keeping in mind that he is coming from an establishment Right perspective. Let's read the book ourselves and THEN comment on what Oren said rather than rely on a political columnist who has a known bias to do that for us.
Indeed.But it is not impossible, considering that John Podheretz has read it, that he has a good sense of what Oren has to say.Being a conservative doesn't preclude him from having a brain. It will be interesting to read it for ourselves. Of course.
Right.. I agree But it is not impossible, considering that John Podheretz has read it, that he has a good sense of what Oren has to say.Being a conservative doesn't preclude him from having a brain. and I said as much by saying: It is Conservative Columnist John Podheretz' review of Oren's book - which does not mean that it is necessarily a wrong review, but Podheretz does have an agenda to his writing.I agree.... I just prefer to take what the author himself has to say (accounting for both the authors bias and my own) rather than take a review of the book as an accurate representation of what the author had to say.
I agree.But it is normal in the publishing world for books to be reviewed before they are available to buy. And it is normal for us to be interested in what the previews of a book are saying.Reading the book itself is the right way to find out what's in it, but taking note of the previews is also entirely natural. I will be interested to read it.
JPod did have a few lines of stating his own opinion, which may or may not be inferrable from Oren's book. However, most of the review is highlighting pieces of the book. It is possible that JPod's highlights are not representative of the book overall, but barring that, it would constitute an expression of what Oren wrote.
I suppose it's possible that every word Podheretz wrote is 100% wrong. Then I would expect American born perfectly fluent in English Michael Oren to correct him.
"Except that this is NOT Oren's opinion.. It is Conservative Columnist John Podheretz' review of Oren's book"This is stating the obvious. How is that different from any other review of a book?
Pollack at Breitbart, on Oren's book, writes in pertinent part:Breitbart News was shown an early version of the text, on the promise that we would not quote from it. Suffice to say that the Obama administration–and to a lesser extent Hillary Clinton, who was responsible for carrying out its foreign policy at the time–emerge looking ill-informed at best, thuggish at worst....Oren encounters an administration stacked with left-wing professors and their students, who are attempting a perilous experiment in American foreign relations, and who treat Israel, at best, as their guinea pig. He begins to worry that many of Obama’s public gestures of support for Israel are also attempts to constrain Israel in a bear hug, preventing it from acting on its own. And he frets about an erosion of support for Israel among American Jews, urged along by left-wing J Street.As a political observer, Oren’s instincts were misguided at first. He recalls his early admiration for Obama ... Yet he soon realizes something is amiss, and belatedly turns to Obama’s memoirs to discover possible motives ....Oren’s book warns that regardless who wins in 2016, there is a cohort of staffers in Washington who were educated by sixties radicals and who took The Israel Lobby seriously as a critique of U.S. foreign policy.They have a dim view of America, and an even darker view of Israel, that is impervious to the lessons of history.http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/06/10/ally-michael-orens-memoir-exposes-obama-administrations-abuse-of-israel/But some will argue it's all in Oren's imagination and has no basis in reality.
"Oren encounters an administration stacked with left-wing professors and their students, who are attempting a perilous experiment in American foreign relations, and who treat Israel, at best, as their guinea pig. He begins to worry that many of Obama’s public gestures of support for Israel are also attempts to constrain Israel in a bear hug, preventing it from acting on its own. And he frets about an erosion of support for Israel among American Jews, urged along by left-wing J Street."I've got to read this book and see if it measures up to that statement, which I find to be not a bad summation of Obama's foreign policy. I think his policy has been based on some unreal utopian view of the world, and the mistaken view that Israel is somehow a central problem to be resolved on the way to world peace. Like if we could just crack that problem everything else would fall into place. How many here think Obama's prime objective vis a vis Iran was to open diplomatic relations vs. stopping them from getting the bomb?
He seems to think, or at least act, as if he has the unique ability to outsmart the bad actors and hoodwink them into becoming peacemongers.He has claimed to be the smartest, which tells you all you need to know. That is why he lectures Jews, among others. Hubris does not mean smart, and many ideas from the smart crowd have dismal results in the end. If they had to live under the dictates they have for others, maybe they would understand better the disconnect and develop more sense about what happens in the real world.
Jeff.. I think his motivation was to open relations with Iran (and I have an issue with that). I believe that when oldschool says:He seems to think, or at least act, as if he has the unique ability to outsmart the bad actors and hoodwink them into becoming peacemongers. that he is on to something. I know, I know.. you are probably spitting up your drink thinking I am agreeing with oldschool about something, but, don't "toss it up yet". I don't agree with what he is saying but, I do believe that the President does think he can "outsmart" the Mullahs. I think he is taking the view that if he can get them "on board" they will cease their hegemonistic visions in the M.E. I think this is one of his failures. The Mullahs are far more savvy at this than the President, and his policies towards them are leading the region down a dangerous path. I think this is his greatest mistake. I don't think that the Republicans would do any better because I don't think they even have a coherent plan (or a plan with any specifics) but I have to say, I don't particularly like what I am seeing out of the White House on this issue.
I'm pretty sure the Republicans wouldn't have given the Iranian regime nuclear capability.That would probably count as a better plan.
And some will argue that everything Oren or his Conservative reviewers say is the gospel. The question is, what does Oren say? We don't know. We know what his Right Wing reviewers are saying, and for all we know they may be accurately portraying the book. BUT... until we read it, we simply don't know. We also have to remember where Oren is coming from. He was part of a Right Wing Israeli Administration that has ties to the American Republican Party. Does that make his perspective invalid? Certainly not, but when we read this we have to take that into account. Just as we have to take into account bias when the President's supporters review his policies and works. I am actually looking forward to reading Oren's book even if I might disagree with some of his conclusions. His Six Days of War is a marvelous book and if nothing else this one should be a good read even if one disagrees with its orientation.
VB, I respect you, but you have to understand that the term "right-winger" is not some magick talisman that will make intelligent and well-meaning people automatically turn away from what these people have to say.You are speaking with people, including me, who no longer share this sort-of gut-level, knee-jerk, reactionary dislike of those perceived to be elsewhere on the political spectrum.
Mike... may I please make a suggestion to you... How about instead of assuming what I believe and making a "gut-level", "knee-jerk" reaction to what I am saying (which is often times not an accurate assessment), you simply ask me. Like saying something like "Hey VB - what do you mean when you say "Right-Winger"? And then I would tell you. The term "Right Wing" to me is simply an identifier. The Likud Administration in Israel was and has been a Right Wing Administration and it has extensive ties to the American Republican Party. SO, when Oren writes, that should be kept in mind. Does that mean what Rightists have to say is something that people should automatically turn away from? No, not at all. It means though that when a judgement is made regarding a President who does not share the bias of the author, that is something that should be accounted for. That's all.. Nothing more, nothing less. Anyway.. all I am asking that you give me the same respect that you would like me to give to you.
You feel disrespected by me?
Yes I do... Why? Because you are not reading what I write in response to you and you don't actually ask me what I mean, you simply make assumptions regarding what you think I mean. See the conversation we just had this AM regarding pressuring the Palestinians. Did you even read what I wrote to you? If you did, you certainly didn't show it in your comments back. Rather you continued an with an interpretation of my remarks that were not close to resembling what I actually said, AND you completely blew off my questions to you. Is that respectful? Responding on point and actually taking the time to read a viewpoint is a sign of respect. Would you think I was being respectful if I simply argued with you without even reading what you write? I don't think so. Mike, respect is not just something where you say the occasional nice thing and then add "with all do respect". Respect is taking the time to fully engage with someone and to attempt to understand their P.O.V. It doesn't mean agreeing but it means treating them as you would like to be treated. I fully answer your posts because I respect what you have to say even if I vehemently disagree with it. Anyway, that is a long answer to a short question.
The reason why the people who are reviewing the Oren book are conservative leaning, is most likely because people on the left, especially those publications which support this president and this administration, might very well have a difficulty in facing up to some of the possible content. For reasons of their own partisanship.
That could be, or they may not have gotten advance copies. Who knows? I seriously doubt they didn't review because they feel they will have difficulties "facing up to some of the possible content". Because if they don't agree I am sure they will let it fly. No, there just aren't any reviews from that side of the aisle yet. Like I keep saying... Let's just read the book and decide for ourselves given what we know about the author, the subject and do we find his account 100% accurate or is it a partisan attempt to vilify the President. I don't know.. I haven't read it. But I will let you know when I do.
It's pretty evident that Oren is like most Israelis who believe Obama is not so great a friend as Obama supporters tend to believe. The latter have the audacity to question the mental capability of anyone that might see what Obama does and question his motives. There is simply no basis in reality to see Obama without a halo.And if Obama practices recrimination, the supporters will find a way to justify it. It is rather pathetic that so many of these people have lost the ability to do much besides going along, regurgitating the WH spin, even on things they know are wrong.Thankfully there are more Democratic and liberal voices that are sounding signals about where we are heading, to a place that Orwell warned about.
I am sure they would have got advance copies. That's how it works. Why should we suspect he wants to vilify the president?Why not presume he wants to give an accurate account of his time as ambassador?Presumably, if he was reported as only saying positive things about the president, he would, in certain quarters, be much more likely to be taken at face- value.It seems it is only the possibility that he has some rather worrying things to say, that make some people assume he has a hidden agenda. That seems like an incredibly cynical attitude. And, potentially deeply unfair on a man who, quite simply, might be telling the truth..It must, just on the law of averages, be possible that president Obama might not be always in the right. And that criticism of him, might, in some cases, be absolutely reasonable. Otherwise he would not be human.
The way so many of his supporters feel, and the way he acts, he is NOT human!In 2007, Oprah told us the was "the one."http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/08/oprah.obama/Some Democrats were not so easily manipulated. In early 2008, one said this:Watching Obama reminded me VERY strongly of watching Werner Erhard, the est leader, on stage in front of tens of thousands of people in the 80s (and on videotape of Erhard at the Hollywood Bowl in the 70s.) Obama has precisely the same kind of universal appeal, the same kind of declarative "making a difference" saving the world approach. He's even using many of the same words and the crowd ate it up.Well, daughter #3, Kyle, 17, didn't. But then she's hung out with transformational speakers since she was a kid, so she's had her shots against this stuff. She said, "A lot of people who were all excited were yelling and cheering over stuff that didn't really seem that exciting but everyone was really excited anyway no matter what he said, even though it didn't seem very inspiring to me."Because Obama is not saying what he is for, not laying out specifics, and not making genuine promises, but instead making powerful declarations, making himself the candidate with whom everything changes and NEVER SPECIFYING WHAT IN THE HELL THAT MEANS, people are free to, and they damn well are, projecting onto Obama all their hopes and dreams for a better future. He is their mother, their father, their lover, confessor, their priest, their shining city on a hill.http://www.groupnewsblog.net/2008/02/obama-cult-of-personality.htmlAfter his election, however, in a sign of things to come, he pretends to be Superman:http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/barackobama/ig/Barack-Obama-Pictures/Obama-and-Superman.-1j3.htmSome noticed. "Beware the Cult of Obama," in 2009, is filled with interesting quotes from worshipers:http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/beware-cult-obamaThere are so many examples. Flash forward to Barbara Walers, "We Thought He Was Going To Be The Next Messiah."http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/12/17/barbara_walters_on_obama_we_thought_he_was_going_to_be_the_next_messiah.htmlThe media was in the tank. Like Bob Scheiffer and others, they woke up after the fact!Too many are so wedded to this guy they take any criticism of him as personal insult, then tell us how we are the ones out of touch!
"people are free to, and they damn well are, projecting onto Obama all their hopes and dreams for a better future. He is their mother, their father, their lover, confessor, their priest, their shining city on a hill."oldshcool,I think many including myself noticed this, and it was one of those things that initially caused me concern about the Obama phenomenon. And I'm not saying necessarily that it's all about him, but all about those people. I did however, from the beginning, find him to be somewhat a stealth candidate. A registered Democrat, I didn't vote for Obama in the primary election for the nomination. Once in office, when choosing a Republican for his cabinet to show his bipartisanship he chose brainless Chuck Hagel who would let an Arab leader sell him a watch with the label "Longine."
(PART ONE) Ok.. let's actually look at those claims (and thank you for the links oldschool)... Two things here. The first is that when Republicans and Conservatives talk about "The One" quote they assign a religious meaning to that quote. BUT if you actually look at what Winfrey said it was nothing of a kind. Here is more context on Winfrey's quote: "I've never taken this kind of risk before nor felt compelled to stand up and speak out before because there wasn't anyone to to stand up and speak up for," Winfrey told thousands of people in Cedar Rapids Saturday evening."We need a president who can bring us all together," she said. "I know [Barack Obama] is the one.""These are dangerous times, you can feel it. We need a leader who shows us how to hope again in America as a force for peace," Winfrey told the enthusiastic crowd."I believe Barack Obama will bring statesmanship to the White House," she said. "He's a man who knows who we are and knows who we can be."This is a standard campaign speech and calling then Senator Obama simply means that he is the guy who can do the best job. Winfrey believed that the Sen. Obama could be a unifying force for Americans. Why is that so bad? It's pretty standard campaign rhetoric actually. The second thing about that is that Winfrey claimed that the President was this great unifier. But President Obama never referred to himself as "the One". Ok.. on to the next thing. I was a supporter of John Edwards early in the campaign. But when I realized he didn't have a chance I switched to Obama because I felt Hillary represented Washington insider politics and I felt that the country needed a change from the "Inside Baseball" of the Beltway. One of my deepest disappointments in President Obama is that he really has not been a transformational President. Don't get me wrong, I am happy I voted for him twice and considering that either McCain and (G-d Forbid) Palin lost that election, I am ok with that. BTW Jeff, I also disagreed with bringing in Hagel. I didn't vote for a Democratic President to see him play footsie with the Republicans particularly when their conduct bordered on seditious. There were a ton of qualified Democrats for the job, I thought he should have taken one of them.
Obama cultivated this "mania" religiously and through manipulation, while obscuring his connections both to big money and a progressivism that places ideology above facts, relies on grievance as a norm, and gives no quarter.There are so many examples one can raise. For all the bluster, he was the one that rejected public financing and raised $1 billion for his campaign. He abuses his presidential authority routinely and is opaque. The fabric of society is more perilous under his term. More liberals are confronting the reality all the time, understanding that it is not liberal, but resembles Animal Farm and 1984 rolled into one, nowhere moreso than on college campuses where he is most adored and the deceptions are the greatest.As I said in another comment, the approach is eerily like one used by The Troubadour to inform his merry followers.
(Part Two) After his election, however, in a sign of things to come, he pretends to be Superman:Wait.. The President claimed to be Superman? When did he do that?You mean striking a silly pose in front of a Superman Statue... Is that what you are complaining about? Really? Good Lord. That's a pretty funny shot. Why would he not do something like that? It's just funny. Sorry but I don't have that much of a stick up my ass that I can't see the humor there. Some noticed. "Beware the Cult of Obama," in 2009, is filled with interesting quotes from worshipers:http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/beware-cult-obamaDid you actually read your the article that you posted too? It includes these comments: Conservatives like to think they’re above this sort of thing. Their attitude is summed up by the subtitle of Jerome Corsi’s recent bestseller: Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality.But any conservative who thinks cultishness is exclusively a leftist phenomenon ought to take a good long look in the mirror. Because many of those who decry the “cult of Obama” are the same people who made a flight-suited action figure hero out of such common clay as George W. Bush.Peggy Noonan called Bush’s post-9/11 address to Congress “a God-touched moment and a God-touched speech.” Fred Barnes wrote that “the stage was set for Bush to be God’s agent of wrath.” National Review Online ran ads for the Bush “Top Gun” action figure, and an article about how wonderful it was to have a presidential superhero to complement your GI Joe collection.On Hardball, after the “Mission Accomplished” speech, G. Gordon Liddy got graphic enough to embarrass Judith Warner: “Here comes George Bush. You know, he’s in his flight suit, he’s striding across the deck, and he’s wearing his parachute harness…. and it makes the best of his manly characteristic… He has just won every woman’s vote in the United States of America!”Presidential cultishness can be found all across the political spectrum. It’s a pathology that needs to be rooted out, because when we swoon over the man who holds the office, we risk making the presidency far more powerful than it was ever intended to be.That article even from a Conservative source like Cato is fair. But it sort of defeats your point that only one side is subject to this and that the so-called "Cult of Obama" is unique. It is not. And taken in that light, it is hardly something worth getting too worked up about. But again, I am sure that you were deriding the Cult of personality around GW at the time. Right?As for the Barbara Walters quote: I never thought he was going to be the next messiah and I don't know anyone else who did. Let me ask you guys.. Does Rush Limbaugh speak for all Conservatives? How about Sean Hannity? Sarah Palin? I don't think so. So why does Barbara Walters speak for all Liberals?
Wait a minute... For all the bluster, he was the one that rejected public financing and raised $1 billion for his campaign. No.. Then Sen. Obama never hid anything regarding his funding. He was very open about rejecting public funding because he knew he had an edge over McCain there. President Obama is a Politician he took advantage of a situation and he should have. I have no beef with him there. The Republicans wiped out campaign finance reform, then they got stuck by their own sword. Oh Well... He abuses his presidential authority routinely and is opaque. You mean through the use of Executive Orders? President Obama has far less than Presidents Bush, Clinton, Nixon, Reagan or even Calvin Coolidge. So what is that again? http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.phpI just have to ask you what specifically do you mean when you say:The fabric of society is more perilous under his term.I really don't understand your point here and rather than make an assumption, I would ask that you explain what you mean. I think society is far better off now than it was under GW or Reagan.More liberals are confronting the reality all the time, understanding that it is not liberal, but resembles Animal Farm and 1984 rolled into one, nowhere moreso than on college campuses where he is most adored and the deceptions are the greatest.What "liberals" are you talking about? Do you mean Conservatives like yourself or do you mean "liberals" in the modern sense? I don't see a lot of fall off from the President's base. Again though it is all about metrics. In other words are people completely satisfied with the President? I know I am not. BUT would I support the opposition over him? Not on your life. I still think he is light years ahead of the Republicans on policy and action. But then again our points of reference are different so what you may see as "offensive" or "dangerous" (like the President posing in front of a Superman statue), I see as harmless fun. I don't see him comparing himself to Superman. I see him doing what many others (including myself) would do to have a little fun.
Just because you claim not to be manipulated like so many others, which is debatable, should you get a medal? Hooray, you were uncomfortable with Hagel!Even if there was a cult of personality with Bush, which was far less because of the bad media, why justify it under Obama? To the extent that Bush followers acted that way, it was derided. The manifestation under Obama is more prevalent and threatening to society and more liberals are showing concern.
You say:Just because you claim not to be manipulated like so many others, which is debatable, should you get a medal?No, it is NOT debatable. I am telling you what I believe. I know myself far better than you know me. So no it is not debatable. As for should I get a medal? No, not at all. It just proves how wrong you are in your generalizations. That's good enough. Even if there was a cult of personality with Bush, which was far less because of the bad media, why justify it under Obama?First off.. it was not "far less".. Again... maybe you should read your own links. I remember Hannity constantly saying that GW was the greatest President ever.. I mean come on. GW.. he is right up there with Hoover and James Buchanan. Second of all, no one is "justifying" it. It simply is a function of elected office in this country. Why should Obama be singled out for something that every single administration deals with? To the extent that Bush followers acted that way, it was derided.Derided? By who? You? I don't think so. Derided by Liberals (and I mean real Liberals not Conservatives like yourself who call yourselves Liberals)? Sure, but it was certainly NOT derided by Conservatives. You may have forgotten the years 2001-2009 but, I haven't. I listened to a lot of AM talk radio in those days and I NEVER heard Conservatives ripping on the President or anything about the Cult of Personality around him. The manifestation under Obama is more prevalent and threatening to society and more liberals are showing concern. Again, which "Liberals" are we talking about. Conservatives like yourself who call themselves "Classic Liberals" or Modern day "Liberals"?And again you keep eluding this question but what do you mean when you talk about the "fabric of society" and threats from the Obama administration? Can you please be specific. I don't want to make assumptions on what you are trying to say. I am really curious about this.
You ALWAYS have an excuse or some justification. Why so hesistant to acknowledge you are a yes-man for Obama, who will spin even in the face of clear evidence and facts? You sound like a combo of Earnest, Psaki and Harf.Just because you drone so much and try so hard does not make it any more compelling. It borders delusion. It actually gives you away as an apologist. Please be reminded that you were not the only one who lived through these experiences, even though you believe that only your distorted view is based in reality. Your schtick may impress people that have little grounding, but otherwise falls flat. One matter, campaign finance. The FACT is that McCain accepted and Obama rejected it. Obama was and is all about big money, pretending the opposite, and knew he had advantage. Principle be damned. Earlier, in 2007, at the start, he trashed Clinton's ties to lobbyists, yet had a stealth K Street Project.http://thehill.com/homenews/news/11487-obamas-k-street-projectI suppose you will need to satisfy your need to drone further, and maybe someone will read and reply, but I made the points I wanted and it will not be me.
I will add one more thing. You are no liberal, but a progressive, which is not liberal at all. Pretend all you like, but that does not make it so.Students for Justice in Palestine claim to be for justice, have you heard?
K - Why should we suspect he wants to vilify the president? I didn't say I suspected that Oren wanted to vilify the President. I said, I don't know what he wrote so let's just read the book and decide for ourselves whether we find his account 100% accurate or we find it is a partisan attempt to vilify the President. Not sure how that became "Why should we suspect he wants to vilify the President?". I have no idea what Oren said and/or why because I have not read this book. K, when you say:It must, just on the law of averages, be possible that president Obama might not be always in the right. And that criticism of him, might, in some cases, be absolutely reasonable. Otherwise he would not be human. I could not agree with you more. On some things I believe the President is absolutely right and on some things he is absolutely wrong and on some things he is both right and wrong to different degrees. I am going to ask you the same thing as I asked Mike. I am going to ask you please read what I write and don't assume what I am thinking. I am doing the same for your writing and would appreciate that open mind in return. Thanks.
I suppose what I am concerned about is this: If in the book, Oren has some very alarming things to say about the president ( and his administration), will people who very much support the president, be inclined to think Oren is lying , or distorting events, for political expediency? Or will they be fair- minded enough to choose to believe him? Ultimately, it will be up to them to make that choice, as it will be his word against the White House's. I'm guessing, most people would go with the White House. Possibly, regardless of what the truth might be.
Ok... Well I have a couple of things here. First off, look at the way you are framing your concern when you say:Or will they be fair- minded enough to choose to believe him?In turn couldn't one also say "will people be "fair-minded" enough to accept his political bias and see that he is viewing things through the lens of political opposition? That is the same statement just flipping the sides of the coin (so to speak) You are starting from a point of assuming no agenda at all. And that is your "jump off" point. Perhaps a more "fair-minded" approach would be to say, would they be "fair-minded" enough to research his claims to see whether they are true or false. I can only address that concern from my Point of View: If in the book, Oren has some very alarming things to say about the president ( and his administration), will people who very much support the president, be inclined to think Oren is lying , or distorting events, for political expediency?For my part, I cannot tell you because I haven't yet read what Oren has had to say and I don't know how I would take it. Of course, I would keep his bias and political affiliation in mind when reading it, but, I don't think that is enough for me to discount what he may say, even if it indeed so distressing. And you say: Ultimately, it will be up to them to make that choice, as it will be his word against the White House's. I'm guessing, most people would go with the White House. Possibly, regardless of what the truth might be. These sentences seem to assume that the White House is automatically lying. I won't make that assumption. Just as I won't make the assumption that Oren is distorting the truth. Personally, I think I would do what any "fair-minded" person would do, and research the claims made in the book. Particularly the ones of a distressing nature. One other thing to consider K is whether I think the same things are important as you do. For instance, you made the claim that President Obama's first phone call was to President Abbas. I looked that up.... That is actually not necessarily true. That was a claim made by the P.A. and Abbas' people but the White House has never verified it. His first four calls were to Israel, Egypt, the P.A. and Jordan and there has never been an order confirmed. So that is a false story because all you have to back up your claim is the claim of the Palestinian Authority and they are not exactly known for their truth telling abilities. BUT none of that matters because as a voter, I don't really care who he called first. I honestly don't I don't care if he called the Mullahs in Iran first (he didn't) as long as he represents policies I agree with and he gives Israel it's foreign aid and more support. So there is that too. My priorities are different than yours or Conservatives like Trudy or oldschool. So one should take that into concern. For instance, I may not agree with an interpretation of an interest. K - I can promise you this. I will read this book with an open mind and I will look into what is said. HOWEVER, The Presidents position on Israel is not my highest priority as a voter, so whether he is the next Jimmy Carter or the next Bill Clinton doesn't matter to me. I don't see a Republican on the horizon that I could vote for anywhere and while Hillary is not my favorite I believe she is light years ahead of anyone the Republicans will run.
"Ultimately, it will be up to them to make that choice, as it will be his word against the White House's. I'm guessing, most people would go with the White House. Possibly, regardless of what the truth might be. ""These sentences seem to assume that the White House is automatically lying".Sorry, but I don't interpret it that way. I think Kate is talking about the herd. I don't think that anyone in the White House is going to respond to any serious allegation that Michael Oren might put forth with "Gee wiz, that Michael Oren guy is right and we were wrong, mea culpa, mea culpa," do you?
Fair enough.. I read it the way I interpreted it because to me it seems like she is framing that the White House is lying (which is something they do a lot of, just like any President) BUT.. I see what you are saying as well. Yeah, the White House if anything will take the offense against Oren's most egregious claims. Then it will be up to us, after reading both sides to make a decision about the veracity of his claims. But then what do we do with that? Let's say he rips HRC (although Podheretz seems to think it is to a "lesser degree".. That won't change my mind about 2016. Because really I disagree with the Republicans on almost every issue. And really I plan on voting for Bernie Sanders in the Primary so....
My point is, no- one can know the truth except the people involved. The people who were present in the room when a particular conversation took place. Or the staff who were in agreement with what had been decided as policy. That is the nature of politics that happens behind closed doors. As much politics does. The White House, as anyone would expect, has an enormous well-oiled machine to put out information, true or not, and to counter any unwelcome information and allegations, whether true or not. Someone like Oren, and maybe particularly because he is an Israeli politician ( the least trusted breed of people on earth) will have nothing but his word. The odds are stacked against him in every way. No-one wants to believe Israeli politicians when they are telling the truth. How likely is it going to be that he doesn't find himself at a tremendous disadvantage trying to get his account believed? Trusted? It will be him against Obama, Kerry, Clinton, Jarret, etc etc. And huge swathes of the media, in America, and abroad. He probably doesn't stand a chance. That must be obvious. Put it this way, if I ( in the UK ) start hearing anyone on the BBC, for example, saying that they think it's likely that this book asks very serious questions about the actions and direction of the Obama administration, I will be totally shocked. It's not going to happen. Either the story will be buried or it will be made clear that Oren probably has an "agenda" and therefore cannot and should not be taken seriously. That is what will happen. As surely as night follows day. Are CNN going to believe him? The NYT? NBC? The Washington Post? HuffPo? The Guardian? Anyone think they are? Any time an Israeli politician is interviewed on British television, they are treated as if every word coming out of their mouth is a despicable lie. That isn't going to change. Obama knows exactly how to shrug this kind of thing off.And knows the media will let him. He has been more backed by media than any politician in memory. In Britain if the Prime Minister says anything, the immediate response from our media, including his own side if he is a Tory, is to assume it's a load of lies. We don't allow politicians to have that kind of power over the public imagination. We assume they are probably telling lies. It's cynical, but quite helpful. It reminds us that we need to be aware that politics is a game.Which it often is.What matters is how can you "win."
you made the claim that President Obama's first phone call was to President Abbas...That is actually not necessarily true. but the White House has never verified it...No, indeed, they have not.Why not?It was a story that had a tremendous impact.If it wasn't true, they should have refuted it, and proved the PA were lying.Instead, they let everyone believe that it was likely to be true.If, on the other hand, it was true; then they were not in a position to refute it.Interesting.
"My point is,..."k, Your point is very well-taken.
I love talking with you, Jon.You have to be the most obscurifying individual that I have ever come across.In truth, I do not much respect you and would prefer it if you went away.Nothing is ever straight with you.You are as slippery as an eel.I just do not find you honest.You wrote:"there is nothing to pressure the Palestinians with."This is the only thing that I am discussing with you and it is total nonsense.Ridiculous, absolute bullshit.And it is not up to me to demonstrate the obvious falsehood of the claim, but for the person who made the claim to demonstrate the truthfulness of it.It is your claim... prove it.You get how this works, right?It is not up to us to disprove your nonsense.It is up to you to demonstrate that it is true.You do know that, do you not?
Oh Mike.. and here I was thinking you were sincere in what you claimed. ;-)Oh well.... No worries Mike I will honor this: In truth, I do not much respect you and would prefer it if you went away. No problem. I get that you only want to distort what I was saying and couldn't answer my questions which were honest and sincere. I really was curious as to what you think we could do to pressure the Palestinians. The truth of this Mike.. is that you have no idea. You make claims that people should do things, but, you have no idea what you want them to do, you just want to complain. For you.. support for Israel is entirely negative and based on hate and fear. I get that. But it doesn't make it right. And Mike.. I am far more honest than you will ever be. I don't cut off quotes to make them sound like something else, as you just did above. I use full context to make my points. I would ask why you do that but honestly, I won't since I will honor your request and not click on your page anymore. So, no problem. I really hoped we could work it out. Oh well... Sorry that it couldn't be. Shalom man.
Go fuck yourself, Jon.You made a claim.You said "there is nothing to pressure the Palestinians with."The obvious implication of this is that everything is on the head of the Israeli Jews.So, you tell me, how is it that the Palestinian-Arabs, unique among all human people, are somehow immune to political pressure and that this explains Obama nurse-care for them.You come on here and yammer incessantly for 64 hours and you complain about being ill-treated, not listened to.Either answer the question or go away.Your act is getting boring.
The truth is, Jon, if you really had much in the way of integrity, you would have maintained The Progressive Zionist because you would have had something consistent to say.You would have stayed on message because you would have had something to say and you would have believed in it.I did respect you, but you come here and piss on my site?You are not engaging in honest discussion.And if you think that you are, you tell me how it is that, as you claim, "there is nothing to pressure the Palestinians with."You tell us how it is that the Obama administration only pressured the Jews because only the Jews are susceptible to it.
It's the WH spin and approach to pay lip service to actual Palestinian digressions, so of course that is what you will hear.And if you don't agree, it's just your imagination, no basis in reality, and you're just a deluded conservative, not fit to have a view compared to the intellectual prowess of the progressive mind.
If I can just make a brief observation, and note a fact we sometimes lose sight of - we're all ultimately in the same side here. We face the same enemies. Our enemies are not each other. Please kindly thank you, my friends. :)
Jay, you tell me,what the fuck does this mean?It is just not the version of the State that you, or the Republican Party, or Conservative Americans, or the Israeli Right might support...What is this chimera that VB is fighting?What is this insidious and alternative version of Israel that VB is hoping to stave off from the clutches of these heinous "right-wingers"?The guy has divided the Jewish population between "good Jews" (Democrats and Obama supporters) and "bad Jews" like the rest of us.As far as I am concerned the guy can go fuck himself.
Okay, all I'm saying is that we're swimming in a pool of sharks, ripping each other to pieces, while the antisemites are sitting back and tossing more bloody chunks of meat in our midst, hoping to do even more damage. Me, I'm all about focusing on tearing the Jew-haters' heads off, instead. That's all, no offense to anybody intended. And if that did happen, I apologize. I've just been changing my focus more toward fighting these creeps offline these days, and it's changed my perspective on the blogs a bit. I'm sorry we couldn't set aside our differences here. But we'll get there one day!
What are the differences?And between whom?Are there sides within the Jewish community, diaspora and Israeli? And, if so, what are those sides?Left versus Right?OK, let's start there.In terms of the Arab-Israel conflict, what does the Left stand for?What does the Right stand for?Or are those terms meaningless in regards this struggle?I have been exceedingly clear about where I stand.Israel should declare its final borders and remove the IDF to behind those borders.Is that a Left view or Right view and why?
Now, if unilateralism is a "right-wing" view, what makes it "right-wing" or "conservative" or "Likud" or "Republican" or "Orcish"?If unilateralism is, by definition, "right-wing" and thereby, according to people like Volleyboy1, evil and bad, does this mean we must throw ourselves upon the mercy of the Palestinian Authority?How many more decades do we want to plead with them to stop kicking us in the head?
All I can say is that when I have told volleyboy1 of a problem I see with Obama's foreign policy he has been quick to agree. Even with J Street he has admitted to me that he had a brief flirtation, but admitted he was a bit fooled and stopped his support. My opinion is that volleyboy1 just has a profound distaste for the political Right that in the end outstrips all other considerations. Anyway, that's my take.
P.S. I have trouble believing that he truly thinks that the PLO can't be pressured. Has anyone ever even tried? They get carte blanche from the world press. Their lies and fabrications are treated as truths from on high. The BBC and Guardian cannot crawl far enough up the Palestinian Arab leadership's collective ass.
Unilateralism is not right or left, it's just unilateralism. The question should be is something good or bad, right or wrong.
Kate asked about a tipping point with VB.I think it was the point where he said that he felt disrespected by me, despite the fact that I was hardly even in the conversation, that finally, really pissed me off.But the guy is just soooo beligerrent that it brings out the Dark Side of Mike.And, really, 42 comments in two days? I like the site to be active, but that's a little... much. It begins to feel like bullying after awhile.And I would still like to know what this means:"It is just not the version of the State that you, or the Republican Party, or Conservative Americans, or the Israeli Right might support..."He seems to have projected some sort-of nightmare scenario onto the consequences of the political thinking of his chosen enemies.I mean, if Naftali Bennet were to become PM, what does VB think would happen?The wholesale rounding up of Arabs?What would his perfect Israel look like in comparison to, say, Caroline Glick's?
Evil genocidal far right nazi loon Meir Kahane planned to offer arabs in Judea/Samaria a choice: become a loyal citizen, stay on as a resident alien without political rights, or leave with compensation. So that's the outer limit on the right. On the other hand moderate left is prepared to violently evict all Jews from any area their presence is deemed undesirable. Degree of moderation varying by the number of people thy are ready to 'cleanse'.
Also, Bennett might allow the sons of apes and pigs access to the Temple Mount. Imagine the inhumanity of having to suffer a Yahoodi dog praying next to the holy al Aqsa. The Left would never permit such an affront.
"It is just not the version of the State that you, or the Republican Party, or Conservative Americans, or the Israeli Right might support..."How about the kind of state Israelis support? Again, I support their sovereignty and independence as well as their ability to figure things out for themselves. The details are up to the voters as in other democracies.
I am trying to get at just what the fear is among the pro-Israel Jewish Left toward the pro-Israel Jewish Right.In broad terms, the fear that the Left has of the Right is that the Right would annex Judea and Samaria thereby subverting Israel, through demographic means, as either a democratic state or a Jewish one.That is not an illigetimate concern. However, there is something more, here.Much of the Left thinks that Israel is a fascist state or something akin.Many Jews on the Left think that Likud is fascistic. That is, many on the non-Jewish Left just think Israel is fascist, while their Jewish friends on the Left point the finger at Likudniks and Netanyahu and Lieberman and those kinda bad Jews.They seem to think that right-leaning Israelis are racist war-mongers, so it is not merely about annexation policy but about the moral nature of the country.At the same time they put plenty of daylight between themselves and those bad Jews in order to maintain a level of favor with their friends on the Left.