tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4008006782907969381.post3216122388163100538..comments2024-01-01T01:47:59.449+02:00Comments on Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: Progressive Israel-Scolds Inadvertantly Support ConflictYaacovhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12835192312242961481noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4008006782907969381.post-56895709925932028772011-03-08T21:13:26.462+02:002011-03-08T21:13:26.462+02:00Christians blame what they think
is our god father...Christians blame what they think<br />is our god father. Afflict a Jew<br />never having arisen never will -<br />accepting exceptional Israel who<br />is faithful when we all arisen -<br />incarnates his son god sun light<br />for evildoers freed from guilts.<br />Our blood is on their hands. USA<br />overwhelms individual Jews lover<br />no fear confusion blood & money.<br />Muslims may have Islam revenging<br />just us and justice demands ours<br />exemption Israel chose dyan emet.<br />Sorting accounts settling begins.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4008006782907969381.post-80891939654756900392011-03-07T09:33:05.445+02:002011-03-07T09:33:05.445+02:00Indeed, Jews seem to have a knack for bringing the...Indeed, Jews seem to have a knack for bringing the world together....Barry Meislinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04795125774426217113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4008006782907969381.post-49938571043141910842011-03-07T06:50:39.081+02:002011-03-07T06:50:39.081+02:00As you say, Yaacov, there are several thousands Am...As you say, Yaacov, there are several thousands American Jews who have bought into the J-street/European leftist theory of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, but it is equally important to remember the several million who have not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4008006782907969381.post-70209171204731608662011-03-07T00:29:42.390+02:002011-03-07T00:29:42.390+02:00Nycerbarb
Blind Left is nice but I am quite conte...Nycerbarb<br /><br />Blind Left is nice but I am quite content with Yaacov's loony left. To be more precise I perceive that the loony right and the loony left meet and get along quite fine when it comes to that subject. Here is a piece in German describing recent events in Dresden where the anti-Nazi-good-ones expressed their dislike of Jews and/or Israel. Maybe Google translate gives you an idea of the unifying effect this one subject has. <br /><br />http://lizaswelt.net/2011/02/28/volksgemeinschaft-gegen-rechts/<br /><br />and somehow from afar those Palestinians the Israeli loony left buddies up to don't strike me as very left either. Good ol' Jew hating is on - come to think of it, how about brown left meets the brown right and they merge into Brownies when it comes to Zionists ?????<br /><br />I've been told brown alone doesn't signify Nazi-leanings in Anglo but for us "die Braunen" or they are quite "braun" gets across.Silkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16383345395827271854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4008006782907969381.post-16643834927222417672011-03-06T22:43:54.585+02:002011-03-06T22:43:54.585+02:00Silke -
"BTW "we" have to find oth...Silke -<br /><br />"BTW "we" have to find other labels than "left"."<br /><br />With homage to Bernard Henri Levi's book "Left in the Dark". how about "Dark Left," "Benighted Left," or "Blind Left"? I personally like "Blind Left."<br /><br />NycerbarbAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4008006782907969381.post-85485351055069349502011-03-06T12:57:52.982+02:002011-03-06T12:57:52.982+02:00Condi Rice condemned the building in East Jerusale...Condi Rice condemned the building in East Jerusalem as ‘unhelpful’. Obama condemns it as illegitimate. These are two decidedly different worldviews. One is political while the other is legalistic. It’s rather difficult to tell what he means by this, perhaps more a matter of civil than criminal law.<br /><br />Re. comparing Resolution 1544 (demolitions in Rafah) vs. the Resolution on settlements:<br />Cunningham's remarks after failing to veto the resolution were balanced:<br />JAMES CUNNINGHAM (United States) said that the Government of Israel had expressed its deep regret for the deaths. The United States had urged the Israeli Government to exercise maximum restraint. That Government, as well as those of neighboring States, must strive to provide the best conditions on the ground to halt the violence. <br /><br />He said that Palestinian terrorists had been smuggling weapons through Gaza and that the Palestinian Authority had not taken sufficient action to halt those activities. <br />http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/pressrels/2004/sc8098.html<br /><br />The 4 paragraph UN version of Rice’s remarks here:<br />http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10178.doc.htm<br /><br />The full 8 paragraphs without achieving the same balance as Cunningham:<br />http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/susanriceunstmtisraelisettlements.htm<br /><br />T34Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4008006782907969381.post-9729751037393842582011-03-06T12:54:33.168+02:002011-03-06T12:54:33.168+02:00RK
Blogger doesn't really "swallow"...RK<br /><br />Blogger doesn't really "swallow" comments if you "caress" it a bit if what I experience is the same RK "suffers" from.<br /><br />I use Safari. When I get the "swallow window" I click on open address, enlarge the comment box until the return to previous page arrow shows up click on it and voilà there's the comment still waiting to be posted. I type in a new Word Verification and send it off. I can't remember it having played the same trick with the same comment on me twice.<br /><br />--------<br /><br />As to the subject of the thread:<br /><br />If a mediator, let alone a powerful one, demands a pre-condition of one party and none of the other, he has weighted the negotiation scales in one direction. This is such 101 stuff for mediators that It blows my mind that there are still people who want to argue it out of existence. Obama may have done it out of ineptitude but since he was a community organizer in Chicago that throws a curious light on what he achieved or not achieved there.<br /><br />And as to Obama's poll numbers being low with the Palestinians, of course they are, he promised them a pre-negotiation candy for naught and couldn't deliver. Would I like somebody who has so blatantly demonstrated to be a weak horse? <br />(the other day I heard a talk with John Kornblum who was American ambassador to Berlin when Reagan called for the wall to be teared down and he told that they had made sure with the Russians that they wouldn't be too angry about that one - that's my idea of how stuff is supposed to be handled)<br /><br />ON the other hand Obama, just regarding that one incidence he created a perfect example of a Lose-Lose-situtation which should be taught as a warning in negotiator-school for centuries to come.<br /><br />As to the Remnick piece on Haaretz I suspect there are some money interests involved - there has been a family quarrel at the German share holder of Haaretz, maybe Remnick is trying to make CondéNast look good to them or whomever else with money to spare one can please by making Haaretz look angelic.<br /><br />Why does the Remnick-piece stink for me? He never ever mentions Uri Blau. A decent reporter would have at least alluded to it. Since he did not I suspect he wrote a puff piece that reeks of him doing somebody a favour.<br /><br />And no I won't supply quotes, I think that you RK are intelligent enough to read the thing in a different light provided you want toSilkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16383345395827271854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4008006782907969381.post-57745150000184991762011-03-06T11:13:16.344+02:002011-03-06T11:13:16.344+02:00because...[Haaretz] lacks empathy with the Israeli...<i>because...[Haaretz] lacks empathy with the Israeli side of the story.....</i><br /><br />Empathy? <br /><br />Haaretz lies and misrepresents consistently and deviously.<br /><br />And proudly.<br /><br />It's what makes them such a cherished source of "the news".<br /><br />File under: "Things you do for love" (?)<br /><br />P.S. Sometimes they do actually tell the truth. Go figure.Barry Meislinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04795125774426217113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4008006782907969381.post-19259802814428687282011-03-06T10:03:58.545+02:002011-03-06T10:03:58.545+02:00Quite OT, but this is how the Britons officially &...Quite OT, but this is how the Britons officially 'felt' about the Mandate for Palestine and their part in it:<br /><br />http://www.ismi.emory.edu/Articles/TerminationOfTheMandate.pdf<br />(via My Right Word)<br /><br />Its quite interesting how the British ignored some basic facts, just to appear impartial in their 'benevolent' rule.<br /><br />Regards, AndréAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4008006782907969381.post-43534570674701679002011-03-06T09:17:51.233+02:002011-03-06T09:17:51.233+02:00RK -
You're right that Bush was wrong when he...RK -<br /><br />You're right that Bush was wrong when he assumed the Palestinians would vote for some form of peace prosperity freedom and other nice things, if only given the chance. Over the coming months the proposition will be tested in Egypt and Tunisia, too, maybe. On the other hand, you have to give him credit for insisting the Palestinians desist from terror,and helping them set up mechanisms to limit it. None of the other self appointed meddlers ever came close to that.Yaacovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12835192312242961481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4008006782907969381.post-89432123922424843742011-03-06T09:02:04.836+02:002011-03-06T09:02:04.836+02:00RK -
for whatever reason, my system here (run by ...RK -<br /><br />for whatever reason, my system here (run by Google) sometimes doesn't like you. However, so far as I can see, whenever you write a comment it reaches me, whether it gets published or not. So rather than write and re-write, if your comment disappears drop me a line and I'll pull it out of the spam column and back into the comments section. (You need to tell me, because I read the comments thru my mail account, not from the blog interface, and so don't know what gets knocked of).<br /><br />To our discussion, while you're right that some of it is standard 'pox on both their houses' boilerplate, Obama seems decidedly on the left of that. Anyway, no matter what they say or do, the reality will always be stronger.And the reality is that there is no remote consensus among the Palestinians, not to mention the Arabs in general, that the Jews have a right to a state in the Levant; because of that, the goal isn't partition and a 2-state resolution of the conflict, because that - as Yossie Beilin articulated so well - would mean a historic victory for Zionism.<br /><br />I don't know if there's anything the "international community" or POTUS can do about this, but the obvious fact is that over the past 100 years, they've never done anything right if the goal was to reconcile the Arabs with the Jews. If they had there would be peace. But there isn't. (Sometimes there are long periods of lack of war, however).<br /><br />So long as the international consensus refuses to accept the fundamentals, they won't be able to bring peace. The Jews and Arabs might be able to some day, regardless of what everyone else thinks or does, or they might not, but the meddlers will remain ineffective for a s long as they refuse to identify the problem.<br /><br />Rabbi Tony is probably a right-wing fellow from Teaneck or some such place.Yaacovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12835192312242961481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4008006782907969381.post-28326998876791968742011-03-06T07:41:08.280+02:002011-03-06T07:41:08.280+02:00If you read Ernest Sternberg's "Purificat...If you read Ernest Sternberg's "Purificationism" article you will note how Jutner uses a lot of the Purificationist hot-button terms : "social justice", "economic justice" "indigenous people's rights", etc. Left wing extremists seem to like regurgitating their favorite slogans. A friend of mine found in a used book store here in Israel a book from 1965 which has photos of various famous people but with balloons around them having them saying funny things. One shows a meeting of the Israel Communist Party and the speaker at the podium is saying: "proletariate....capialist exploitation.....revolution....neocolonialism...<br />proletariate....capitalist exploitation.....revolution....neocolonialism...<br />proletariate....capitalist exploitation.....revolution....neocolonialism...blah, blah, blah"<br />So we see they (the Far Left) really haven't changed their sloganeering habits as they have shifted from Marxism-Communism to Purificationism.<br /><br />BTW, there is also something else that this book shows that hasn't changed. There is a photo of people getting off an airpland. The first down the stairs is Moshe Dayan and the second is Shimon Peres. The balloon around Peres says "hey, this is not fair, I always should be first". He certainly hasn't changed over the decades.Y. Ben-Davidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4008006782907969381.post-6113058206732413652011-03-06T07:30:51.945+02:002011-03-06T07:30:51.945+02:00You'd also have criticized the numerous statem...You'd also have criticized the numerous statements where Bush used the same sort of mealy-mouthed rhetoric you're accusing Obama of making. (Here, have a f'rinstance [link to Jan 10, 2008 speech removed, since it's preventing me from posting]). The same goes for Rice's regular statements condemning construction projects in East Jerusalem. (Which shows Obama's push for a settlement freeze was simply a change in tactics from the previous administration, not worldview.) If Obama's been singling out Israel as "the" barrier to peace, then it's apparently escaped the notice of the Palestinians, among whom Obama's approval rating remains below 10% the last time I checked. (Lower than Bush's!)<br /><br />One of the more ridiculous arguments you see in the blogosphere (which, to your credit, I haven't seen you make) is that Obama's pro-Israel moves (vetoing the Security Council resolution, increased security cooperation, etc.) are driven by political pressures, while his other actions reveal his true convictions. Ordinarily I would just direct people who make such arguments to Popper, but I bring it up to point out that the Bush administration failed to veto Security Council Resolution 1544, which also singled Israel out. Apparently the burdens of proof are different for Democratic Presidents.<br /><br />Since your characterization of Remnick's views is based on even vaguer evidence -- this argument from silence plus guilt by associations -- I don't see how I could respond to it even if I wanted to.RKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4008006782907969381.post-86010401304987537072011-03-06T07:28:17.780+02:002011-03-06T07:28:17.780+02:00You'd also have criticized the numerous statem...You'd also have criticized the numerous statements where Bush made the same sorts of "false equivalences" you're accusing Obama of making. (Here, have a <a href="http://www.cfr.org/israel/president-bush-discusses-israeli-palestinian-peace-process-january-2008/p15242" rel="nofollow">f'rinstance</a>). The same goes for Rice's regular statements condemning construction projects in East Jerusalem. (Which shows Obama's push for a settlement freeze was simply a change in tactics from the previous administration, not worldview.) If Obama's been singling out Israel as "the" barrier to peace, then it's apparently escaped the notice of the Palestinians, among whom Obama's approval rating remains below 10% the last time I checked. (Lower than Bush's!)RKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4008006782907969381.post-58674072708785996312011-03-06T07:26:49.757+02:002011-03-06T07:26:49.757+02:00To answer your question, yes, I'm saying it is...To answer your question, yes, I'm saying it isn't so. I think Obama subscribes to the same "both sides are responsible" view that's characterized basically every U.S. administration. That's why I'm glad you brought up Bush's 2002 speech, which is now best remembered for foolishly promoting Palestinian elections. If you judged Bush by the same standards you judge Obama, you would have savaged him for failing to recognize the level of popular support Hamas possessed.RKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4008006782907969381.post-27790096697265576102011-03-06T07:26:14.384+02:002011-03-06T07:26:14.384+02:00To answer your question, yes, I'm saying it is...To answer your question, yes, I'm saying it isn't so. I think Obama subscribes to the same "both sides are responsible" view that's characterized basically every U.S. administration. That's why I'm glad you brought up Bush's 2002 speech, which is now best remembered for foolishly promoting Palestinian elections. If you judged Bush by the same standards you judge Obama, you would have savaged him for failing to recognize the level of popular support Hamas possessed. You'd also have criticized the numerous statements where Bush made the same sorts of "false equivalences" you're accusing Obama of making. (Here, have a <a href="http://www.cfr.org/israel/president-bush-discusses-israeli-palestinian-peace-process-january-2008/p15242" rel="nofollow">f'rinstance</a>). The same goes for Rice's regular statements condemning construction projects in East Jerusalem. (Which shows Obama's push for a settlement freeze was simply a change in tactics from the previous administration, not worldview.) If Obama's been singling out Israel as "the" barrier to peace, then it's apparently escaped the notice of the Palestinians, among whom Obama's approval rating remains below 10% the last time I checked. (Lower than Bush's!)RKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4008006782907969381.post-85286756745281711202011-03-06T07:22:43.687+02:002011-03-06T07:22:43.687+02:00GAH. Comment eaten again. The paragraphs below wer...GAH. Comment eaten again. The paragraphs below were retyped hastily from memory, so sorry for the lack of clarity.<br /><br />No quotes, as I expected. I just wanted to establish that your characterization of Obama's and Remnick's views wasn't one you read out of their words; it was one you had to read into their silence.RKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4008006782907969381.post-50227379457008631962011-03-06T07:19:06.049+02:002011-03-06T07:19:06.049+02:00GAH. Comment eaten again. Paragraphs below retyped...GAH. Comment eaten again. Paragraphs below retyped hastily from memory, sorry for awkwardness of language.<br /><br />No quotes, as I expected. I just wanted to establish that your characterization of Obama's and Remnick's views wasn't one you read out of their words; it was one you had to read into their silence.<br /><br />To answer your question, yes, I'm saying it isn't so. I think Obama subscribes to the same "both sides are responsible" view that's characterized basically every U.S. administration. That's why I'm glad you brought up Bush's 2002 speech, which is now best remembered for foolishly promoting Palestinian elections. If you judged Bush by the same standards you judge Obama, you would have savaged him for failing to recognize the level of popular support Hamas possessed. You'd also have criticized the numerous statements where Bush made the same sorts of "false equivalences" you're accusing Obama of making. (Here, have a <a href="http://www.cfr.org/israel/president-bush-discusses-israeli-palestinian-peace-process-january-2008/p15242" rel="nofollow">f'rinstance</a>). The same goes for Rice's regular condemnations of construction projects in East Jerusalem. (Which shows Obama's push for a settlement freeze was simply a change in tactics from the previous administration, not worldview.) If, as you say, Obama's been singling out Israel as "the" barrier to peace, then it's apparently escaped the notice of the Palestinians, among whom Obama's approval rating remains below 10% the last time I checked. (Lower than Bush's!)<br /><br />(cont.)RKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4008006782907969381.post-75408447838448410192011-03-06T06:39:47.134+02:002011-03-06T06:39:47.134+02:00Incidentally, what to make of people repeatedly fa...Incidentally, what to make of people repeatedly failing to realize Rabbi Jutner is satire? Is it evidence of the kookiness of the far-left, or the totally inaccurate picture right-wingers have of left-wing opinion on Israel?<br /><br />By the way, if Jutner's supposed to be based on Tony Judt, it's kind of in bad taste now that the man has passed away.RKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4008006782907969381.post-82293309245846907552011-03-06T06:32:52.256+02:002011-03-06T06:32:52.256+02:00Yaacov:
First of all, no quotes, as I expected. S...Yaacov:<br /><br />First of all, no quotes, as I expected. So at the most, the positions you're ascribing to Obama can't be read out of his words; they have to be read in to his silence.<br /><br />To answer your question, no, I don't see any evidence that Obama or Remnick think Israelis are "the" obstacle to peace. I think Obama subscribes to the conventional "pox on both their houses" view that U.S. administrations have always espoused. That's why I'm glad you brought up Bush's 2002 speech, best remembered today for foolishly promoting Palestinian elections. If you were really judging Bush by the same standards you're applying to Obama, you would've savaged him for failing to realize the level of popular support Hamas commanded. You would also have taken him to task for the several speeches in which he made the same "false equivalences" you're accusing Obama of making (here's a <a href="http://www.cfr.org/israel/president-bush-discusses-israeli-palestinian-peace-process-january-2008/p15242" rel="nofollow">f'rinstance</a>). The same goes for Rice's standard condemnations of construction projects in East Jerusalem. (When Obama actually pushed for a settlement freeze, that was a difference in tactics, not of worldview.) If Obama has singled out Israel as "the" barrier to peace, it's evidently escaped the notice of the Palestinians, whose approval of Obama is still under 10% the last time I checked. (Even lower than Bush's in 2008!)<br /><br />Finally, there's the wearyingly common notion (which, to be fair, I've never seen you endorse) that Obama's pro-Israel moves -- increased security cooperation, vetoing the anti-settlement resolution, etc. -- are all the result of political pressure, while his other actions reveal his true convictions. I'd ordinarily just refer those who make this argument to Popper, but I bring it up to note that Bush didn't veto resolutions that singled out Israel for criticism, like Security Council Resolution 1544.<br /><br />Since your description of Remnick's views is apparently based on even weaker evidence -- an argument from silence plus guilt by association -- I don't see how I could respond, even if I wanted to.RKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4008006782907969381.post-52295092522971395692011-03-06T06:16:42.191+02:002011-03-06T06:16:42.191+02:00I.Barr
i believe the good rabbi is speaking with...I.Barr <br /><br />i believe the good rabbi is speaking with tongue planted firmly in jewish cheekAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4008006782907969381.post-64078383920423091812011-03-06T05:56:30.513+02:002011-03-06T05:56:30.513+02:00Tony Jutner is a typical self hating Jew. He wants...Tony Jutner is a typical self hating Jew. He wants rights for the Palestinians, but not for his brothers, the Jews. He lives in America, far away from suicide bombers and missiles. As much asd he is concerned let the Jews swim. If there is another Holocaust it is them Jews not us the good Jews in America like Soros a convicted fellon and a Nazi collaborator who proclaim being atheist and not Jewish....So this Jutner is nothing but a promoter of anti Semitism against Israeli Jews hoping that he will be recognized as a "good Jew". We met similar characters in the Holocaust. These were Jews who did not hesitate to surrender other Jews to the Gestapo. Ask Soros.I.Barrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11743442237856415807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4008006782907969381.post-79015569939797718442011-03-06T03:11:06.475+02:002011-03-06T03:11:06.475+02:00This is a misleading article in that it calls for ...This is a misleading article in that it calls for pro-israel ziocrats to be represented at an anti-zionist meeting. One year ago during the J Street meeting, I told J Street that it had 2 choices. Be pro-israel and thus be a second Aipac, or be anti-israel and embrace NewJudaism, with its pillars of Social Justice, Economic Justice, and Rights of Return of Endogenous Peoples, especially the Palestinians. J Street has made the latter choice, giving anti-zionism a firm footholds in the American Jewish mainstream. The acceptance of BDS, the support by Soros, and the support of the Goldstone Report, which historically denies illegitimate entities the "right of self defence" are all concrete steps to enshrining anti-zionsim as the Jewish mainstream. It is completely inappropriate to have israeli representatives when our goal is to seek justice for Palestine. Rather, we should invite delegates from Turkey, Iran, and the Muslim Brotherhood, who are not as burdened by domestic considerations as is president Obama as 2012 approachesRabbi Tony Jutnernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4008006782907969381.post-12854222710111182012011-03-06T00:28:38.226+02:002011-03-06T00:28:38.226+02:00somehow I read a lot of glee in this Goldberg-Post...somehow I read a lot of glee in this Goldberg-Post<br /><br />http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/03/is-netanyahu-breaking-toward-the-center/72016/<br /><br />is that maybe owed to a high due to too much JStreet righteous triumphalism?<br /><br />Merkel's speaker on radio denied that she'd use the language ascribed to her btw.Silkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16383345395827271854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4008006782907969381.post-25943044745989291732011-03-05T22:03:12.653+02:002011-03-05T22:03:12.653+02:00RK,
I don't think it would be any problem to ...RK,<br /><br />I don't think it would be any problem to find lots of appropriate quotes from the J-Street gang. I'm not however going to waste any time on doing so. As for Obama, let's turn your question on its head: When George Bush thought, back in 2002, that the Palestinians were refraining from negotiating in good faith, he gave a famous speech describing what they had to do. (He was much castigated for it at the time - June 24th 2002). <br /><br />When Obama wanted to set the track for negotiations, he likewise gave a speech, in Cairo (how ironic in retrospect). In that speech he had specific actions for Israel to take, and mealy-mouthed platitudes for the Palestinians. He then followed up with many months of clear actions: Israel had to stop all settlement activity, including in places the Palestinians had already ceded, while the Palestinians had to... humm, I can't quite remember what they had to do. Come to the talks, perhaps. Pretty please with sugar on top. So far as any of us know there has never been a demand that the Palestinians desist from teaching their school children that the Jews have no history in Palestine, say, or that a Palestinian leader face his people and say, in Arabic, that there won't be a right of return, or anything of the sort.<br /><br />Remnick, like the rest of the media, supported Obama in his maliciousness (and in retrospect, in his stupidity, if you pardon me for the harsh but justified language).<br /><br />Yet I think you know all this perfectly well. So my question to you, for a second time this week: are you perhaps saying it isn't so? Can you find a shred of evidence that Remnick, or Obama, or J-Street, or almost anyone else from the political mainstream and left in the US, or anyone to the left of Gert Wilders in Europe, who has taken any action since September 2000 that would plausibly indicate they understand that the true obstacle to peace are the Palestinians?Yaacovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12835192312242961481noreply@blogger.com