Sunday, July 27, 2008

The Guardian on Obama on Israel

The Guardian, like many other organs of the Far Left/Progressives, has sorrowfully accepted that a President Obama won't pursue all the policies they'd like him to. No one who tried to do that could ever be elected president of the United States (or prime minister of the UK, for that matter, but that's another story. Hint: After hounding Tony Blair out of office and installing a "better man", here's what they have to say about the new one. But I digress).

So, Obama, even if elected, probably won't try to impose an international boycott on Israel, even the Guardian understands that. But they haven't quite lost hope that perhaps he'll do something, anything, that they might be able to cheer, even as they admit that the auspices aren't so good. Just in case someone on his staff reads their leaders, however, they spelled out for him what's needed:
To deliver a two-state solution, Mr Obama will have to persuade Israel to halt all settlement construction, before handing back a viable West Bank - not one fragmented by settlements, exclusive roads for cars with Israeli number plates, nature reserves, military restricted areas and over 600 checkpoints, barriers and other closures.
What makes this statement so truly and authentically idiotic is that had the Palestinians agreed to the dictated terms of President Bill Clinton from December 24th 2000, which Israel agreed to, they would have been in the seventh year of their independence already, the settlements would have been gone, there would have been no exclusive roads for Israelis or any of the other things on that list... not to mention that as recently as September 2000 there weren't any roadblocks and barriers, because they are measures implemented by Israel after the Palestinians chose violence over statehood.

No one expects the Guardianistas to remember things that happened 2000 years ago: that's a trick of the Jews. But 2000 days ago? Is that really so hard?

Presedent Obama, President McCain, President Chomsky - whoever. The Israeli electorate has repeatedly said, most recently in the elections of 2006, that it's ready for the two-state solution, including the disbanding of most of the settlements etc etc.

So what does the Guardian say the Palestinians must do?
A genuine negotiator has to say unpalatable things to them as well, especially about the need to control militant groups. Israel is never going to accept a Palestinian state unless it can guarantee the security of the Israeli state first.
Yes, this is true. But it's hardly enough. There are those two sticky issues of Jerusalem, and the Palestinian demand for an Israeli acceptance of their Right of Return. Small things, not worthy of being mentioned in a Guardian leader, but still relevant to the matter, don't you think? And since there will be no peace until they are resolved, and there's nothing an American president can do to make them go away no matter what his name is or hers, it's hard to see why anyone expects his identity will change much around here.


Ibrahim Ibn Yusuf said...

had the Palestinians agreed to the dictated terms of President Bill Clinton from December 24th 2000, which Israel agreed to, they would have been in the seventh year of their independence already, the settlements would have been gone

No; under the Clinton parameters the settlements wouldn't have gone, they would have been annexed by Israel. This was, naturally, unacceptable to the Palestinians.

It's a land for peace swap. All of the peace for all of the land. Israel insisting on keeping part of the grabbed land is like if the Palestinians said "we'll stop suicide bombings, but we'll keep Qassam rocket launching."

not to mention that as recently as September 2000 there weren't any roadblocks and ba

Utterly false: "In the early 1990s, Israel began requiring permits of Palestinians entering Israel, and the first checkpoints appeared on West Bank roads." See here.

Actually, most of the checkpoints are between Palestinian cities and towns (not between the West Bank and Israel, where they would be justified), and are there to protect the settlers. The checkpoints boomed in the 90s because the settler population also did, as part of a Barak package of negotiating peace while building in the settlements like crazy.

the Palestinian demand for an Israeli acceptance of their Right of Return

Which is a just demand. The Palestinians were expelled 60 years ago and want to return. By comparison, the Jews left the same land on their own will 2,000 years ago and were granted that right.

Anonymous said...


Keep in mind that at election time, people choose. It's as simple as that.

You have your favorite. But so does everybody else. And, sure. Sometimes family arguments get so obnoxious people hate getting together at the holidays. Or? They drink themselves silly.

But one of the things about elections is that it smooths out individual behaviors, with a "common" winner.

In other words, the ballot boxes ended up giving you a "common sense" choice ... putting together the options, through the meat grinder of campaigning.

WHere things go astray ... And, starting with Richard Nixon, you'd see this. The journalists couldn't stand that he won! Let alone that he won, in 1972, in a landslide. (McGovern got top billing in only two American States.)

So, the press went after him.

And, Nixon's shortcomings are similar to Bush's. Both men are unable to use their pulpits effectively.

Richard Nixon was compared to a Used Car salesman. While Bill Clinton, pants around his ankles, got a lot of sympathy. And, it became clear the PEOPLE didn't want Ken Starr to win.

You could learn a lot about how democracies work, just from this.

While in Israel, to hamper Olmert's ability to defend himself, Mazuz stands there, ready to have the prime minister locked up for "obstruction of justice" if he dares say anything in self-defense.

Here, I think Israelis are delusional.

It's like the Haredi doing their "schtick," where real money in envelopes passes hands, even at the Jews most holy site; the Western Wall.

In case you haven't noticed that the Haredi took over. They are at the Western Wall 24/7. And, they are running a business.

Even when you hear a "seminary student, on a lark, found Obama's note ... because it flew out of the wall I suppose? On the wings of Jesus. It falls short of decency.

And, that's how the Israelis lose.

They are playing "CAMPAIGNING" all of the time! You didn't know that Olmert WON his prime minister's seat? It escaped your notice?

You don't see how a small DISHONEST segment of government is working to unseat Olmert, while not being forced into new elections ... which would dump quite a few seated "minister-terrorists" out of their prize seats?

I don't care.

Stay dumb.

Be my guest.

But people still talk about Nixon. And, no longwer with the same "campaigning venom." On the other hand, lots of Americans get a very bad taste when they see the crap that passes for news, that comes out of the media conglomerates. Where business is on a down turn.

Can you learn anything when your bottom line is sinking?

You should be able to learn from this! It's hardly in your favor to think you can ignore reality. Ya know.

As to Obama, he's running well. His trip to Europe (which no one asks "how did ya pay for it?" Those questions are only saved for Olmert. For some reason.) You can see what should pass your eyes as "very expensive" ... going past your eyes as if it's free.

Obama, by the way, has to accomplish a lot to win. He has to attract the hispanic voters. And, the blue collar white voters.

Jewish voters? Given how many Jewish folk who won the lottery when it came to "making a living" ... seem to have produced children who can't quite get out of bed to do the same. So they're "hippies." OR whatever it is that grabs them; like Global Warming. So they can go out into the streets and dance to drums. Like a bunch of wild indians.

IF they'll vote, however, Obama can surely count on them.

By the way, IF Obama wins ... it's very possible to protect him, that the party would do its utmost to surround him with enough talent, that he's not an embarrassment in office.

Olmert, by the way, is very competent. Too bad this doesn't bring him a better reputation. Instead, it's the police; and Mazuz, and the Haredi ... that are trying to pull him down. To punish him for Disengagement.

Yesterday, at a family get-together; an uncle, who is a physicist. And, who also worked (before he retired), at Harbor Hospital, said he has a friend. Also a physicist. Who calls himself "AN EX-ISRAELI." He spits in the general direction of Israel; calling everyone there dishonest. A bunch of gonuvim. Isn't that sad?

And, yes. With an Israeli, who came to Israel from Poland. And, who is now very happy being near Mudd, in the United States ... He said he heard of the "dual-citizenship" being offered, not just by Poland ... But Poland affects his family members. And, they are "looking into this." Because it's an exit ticket OUT.

You thought you'd lock everybody in?

It's really, really bad news when all you've got is name calling.

Time to fix the problems. And, stop thinking it's "okay to shoot at teenagers feet," and then lie about it.

You're surprised that Ehud Barak would do what he's doing? Gee. I'm not surprised.

And, I'm not surprised that Livni (who really doesn't speak English), blocked Olmert's choice for replacing Gillerman. Why? She wants a gender leg spreader who doesn't speak English, either. Should make an interesting addition to Israel's UN Mission.

Want to know what the Mission is like? READ: SHUT UP I'M TALKING ... by the Levey kid. A Canadian. Who got to work in NYC (as a diplomat. Because he's Canadian, and couldn't be hired in the USA).

Israel fudged the rules.

And, the book is sadly very funny.