Why Rashid Khalidi is Happy: The Obama Middle East Policy and the Palestinians
A few weeks ago, when discussing the Obama administration’s policy towards Israel, I linked to this 2008 Los Angeles Times report on how Rashid Khalidi and other supporters of the Palestinian cause regarded Barack Obama as their friend. Obama’s warm words at a going away party for Khalidi in 2003, when he was about to leave Chicago for New York City and a position at Columbia University, had “left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say.”
On Sunday’s Fareed Zakaria GPS on CNN, Khalidi was a guest along with Bret Stephens, the pro-Israel columnist from the Wall Street Journal and former editor of the Jerusalem Post. During the discussion, Zakaria asked whether or not it was “a shift for the — the United States to be suggesting that this stalled peace process [between Israel and the Palestinians] hurts America’s ability to pursue its interests.” What the administration is now saying, Khalidi responded, “is that Israel is a drag on the United States. It’s not a strategic asset, and this is a discursive shift of some significance.” (my emphasis) To put it a bit differently, Rashid Khalidi, who in 2008 worried that because of American politics Obama had to appear to be a supporter of Israel, now believes that Obama’s promise to move U.S. policy towards the Palestinian perspective is coming true.
Khalidi again emphasized his main point: “that Israel is not the strategic asset it was touted as during the Cold War” and that the U.S. had returned “…in effect, to the Eisenhower administration’s view of the Middle East as an area where the United States has problems, and Israel is, in some small way, one of those problems.” Clearly, all the boilerplate assurances coming from the Obama camp in the past few weeks — assuring Americans that the U.S. commitment to Israel as a major ally is as firm as ever — have not dissuaded Khalidi from reaching a quite different conclusion.
Khalidi’s perspective, of course, comes entirely from that of the Arab world and its perpetual narrative: that Israel alone is at fault for the failure to attain peace or a Palestinian state. He explained: “If Israel continues to act in a way that antagonizes opinion all over the Muslim world, all over the Arab world, and in other parts of the world, to tell you the truth. You go other places, people say, why is the United States supporting this crazy policy? Then it becomes a liability instead of an asset.”
The debate became sharp, as Stephens retorted that rather than moving a peace process forward, everything the Obama team has been doing is moving things in the opposite direction. As Stephens said, “It basically sends a signal to Israel that this administration is not reliable, there’s no longer a kind of a hug-me-close mentality, which has — which has, in fact, moved Israel to, for instance, remove its settlements, its settlers from Gaza.”
When Khalidi challenged Stephens by arguing that Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza was entirely due to a unilateral act by Sharon, Stephens pointed to the fact that Sharon “obtained a letter from Bush saying that in the event that Israel withdraws from Gaza, the Bush administration would not expect Israel to withdraw from all of the settlements that would accept the so-called realities …on the ground.” That letter was what led Israelis to accept Sharon’s act of withdrawal.
But to Khalidi, it has been “the American embrace of Israel” that had led to decades of standoff, and he is now pleased that at present, we seem to be going back to the Bush 41 years, when Secretary of State James Baker complained about Israel. As he so famously put it, “f… the Jews, they don’t vote for us anyway.” Khalidi also hoped that U.S. policy would make it clear, as he thought it once did, that Israel has to elect a different Prime Minister more amenable to US policy — or as some would put it, engage in an open policy of “regime change” in Israel as the major US goal.
Among other things, Khalidi is adamant that the U.S. must accept Hamas as part of the solution, and change its policy to include forcing Israel to accept them as a negotiating partner even though Hamas’s charter denies Israel the right to exist. As Khalidi sees things, “the United States can stop saying, this is a deal breaker if you include Hamas. You have to figure out a way to bring a Palestinian consensus to the table, and that includes, necessary and inevitably, Hamas.”
A full-length argument by Khalidi and Stephens is available in the new issue of Foreign Affairs, in which both analysts offer a more lengthy defense of their positions. Khalidi defends his position that “Washington’s overt bias toward Israel became a growing liability for the United States” since 1991, and Stephens argues that Obama’s “new tone on Israel” is self-defeating, given both the truth that “America remains an instinctively pro-Israel country,” and that any unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state without any final settlement agreement with Israel “would destroy the U.S.-Israel relationship.”
One thing is apparent: the gap between the two views is huge, and the Obama administration cannot straddle the differences, hoping for the best. In fact Stephens believes Obama has made things worse:
“Indeed, by turning up the heat as he did, the president may have accomplished the opposite of what he intended. Israelis are now increasingly convinced that the administration is hostile not just to Netanyahu but Israel itself. At the same time, Palestinians now have reason to hold out for concessions on Jerusalem that they never previously expected to get and which no Israeli government is ever likely to grant.”
That policy, of course, is precisely why Khalidi and the Palestinians see grounds for optimism. Khalidi is pleased that “the current Israeli government” is now “extremely uncomfortable,” and he continues to advocate not any compromise for his side, but rather, a U.S. policy that makes demands only on Israel, including what he calls “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,” and the “illegality of settlement in all occupied territories.” Not one word, as expected, about decades of Arab and Palestinian intransigence, rejectionist policies, and a continual unwillingness to accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state.
Friends of Israel should be deeply concerned that Israel’s sworn enemies now see hope in Obama’s policies, and are certain that contrary to administration assurances, the United States has embarked on a new policy that will put an end to the special relationship between the U.S. and Israel that has been in place since Harry S. Truman recognized Israel in May of 1948.
“…has not dissuaded Khalidi from reaching a quite different conclusion.”
Khalidi has got it right. The Obama administration perceives the Israelis as oppressors of their Palestinian victims. It should surprise nobody who was paying attention before the election. Radical leftism is inherently anti-Semitic. It requires Jews to be self hating. The same thing, it must be added, is also required of all who belong to any allegedly reactionary and bourgeois group. Still, the Jews get a little extra treatment because of their particular emphasis on accomplishment of one sort or another. Purely secular Jews like Howard Stern and the local orthodox Jewish rabbi both shun mediocrity. This makes them especially anti-egalitarian—and ultimately targets for elimination.
IF Khalidi, as well as other Israel haters were to dig a tad deeper, they would find that what they ultimately hoped would happen-a ‘distancing between the US and Israel-ain’t all that it is cracked up to be, as there ARE unintended consequences.
IF their goal is not only to distance the US from Israel, but to also impede an Israeli pre-emptive strike on Iran, they would do well to reconsider historical lessons to the contrary.
IN fact, EVERY time Israel felt its back totally up against the wall, having been abandoned by their ‘best friend’, Jerusalem threw caution to the wind and pre-empted. Consider: Israel’s preemtive strikes in 1967 AND in 1981, one against the Arab armies plotting against her, the other time against Iraq’s WMD program.
Therefore, while Jerusalem can often be ‘persuaded’ to hold its fire-it did so for 7 ! years against an onslaught of rocket fire onto it southern borders by PA Arabs, all in the name of illusory ‘peace’-history tells a clear story. Once Washington reveals its true Arab allegiances, then Jerusalem is NO longer constrained by diplomatic fallout, or any other ‘persuasive’ measure.
So, if Khalidi and company want Jerusalem to go the pre-emptive route, then surely they should egg Obama on. IF not,……..they should be careful what they wish for!
I hope you’re right. So far, Netanyahu has been quite a disappointment.
Terry, I agree, Bibi has been a disappointment-to say the least-though most should not be surprised at his heretofore tepid actions. He generally is great on the oratory, but lacks the spine to match.In fact, the Wye Accords are Exhibit Number One.
HOWEVER, that was then, this is now. There has NEVER been a time in Israel’s modern history where the fate of the entire nation, as well as that of Jewish history, rests on its leadership’s shoulders. So, IF it were a decision that Bibi had to make, which most Zionists would be loathe to accept, this time EVEN Bibi knows that he has to go for broke.
In a perverse twist of irony, it is better to have a leader at the helm who is a political animal, one who is very much concerned with his place in history, at the this juncture in time. NO one can rationally argue that Bibi, nor most of his cabinet, want to go down in infamy as the leaders who DESTROYED the Jewish homeland for a third time.
Therefore, they will pre-empt, they have NO other option. We can be assured that the Kirya is prepared.
I generally agree with you here, but surely the fate of the entire nation rested on Israel’s leaders’ shoulders in both the Six Day and Yom Kippur wars – particularly the latter where in the first few days it looked as if Israel might not be able to hold the north.
Ehud Barak as Minister of Defense is even more worrying – did you hear his defeatist speech this morning at the Memorial Day ceremony? This is a man who has been consistently wrong on every security decision. Netanyahu’s speech was at best lackluster, otherwise, aside from ceremonial events he can’t avoid, he’s been out-of-sight. I think our gov’t. is paralyzed, just does not know what to do.
Laura, while the six day war and 1973 war were indeed ‘wars for survival’, this time we are dealing with WMD assaults.Therefore, our reliance on our traditionally strong army will be tested like at no other time. Our fate will be for the most part held in the hands of the IDF technological wizards who have made many advances, most of which have come out of the MAMRAM army technological units.
Terry, I indeed heard Barak’s hallucinatory speech. It makes one both want to wretch, and wonder what type of crack he has been smoking. Seems like he was saying that ‘peace’ and security will ONLY be achieved if we are willing to take the ‘risks’ for it, as the world won’t stand by and let us do otherwise. In other words, our ! DM was shilling for the enemy, casting us as obstructionists.
Few outside of Israel understand what animates Barak-power, MORE power and leftist adulation. He will do anything to be patted on the back by Europhiles, Washington and his Arab ‘counterparts’. As far as Bibi is concerned, yes, he is mostly out of sight, except for ceremonial duties.
NEVERTHELESS, Bibi makes policy, not Barak-thank heavens. I truly believe-skeptic that I usually am, but not now-that he has been out of sight mainly due to the weighty nature of the decision he has already made. Further, I believe he is not willing to take the chance that one of our leftist jackals in the media will back him in the corner, thus getting him to give ‘anything’ away. It is better this way…….
it has less to do with spine than the ability to handle a situation where one of the parties is pathologically unstable and narcissistic. netenyahu has done very well in this horrible circumstance. he has put the lives of more than 7 milliion people ahead of his personal ego and for that alone he should be considered a very great leader. the united states is key to israel’s position in the world community. despite all of that, i have no doubt that if preemption is necessary, it will happen with or without the u.s.
The one thing everyone seems to be avoiding is that an attack by Israel would only buy time. I’ll support them if they do it as will most Sunni Arabs, at least secretly, but you can rest assured Obama and most of the world will condemn them for it. An attack may be necessary for Israel’s survival short term. Long term survival rests on nothing less than regime change in Iran and elsewhere. Including the United States.
Yes. Exactly.
Pursuing his agenda of Golf, Basketball and Jew Hating, hopped up on amphetamines while quietly clenching the Koran.
THe Koran… or any of his boyfriends who haven’t been Clinton Suicide -ed yet…
I watched that debate between Khalidid and Stephens on CNN. Khalidi is just too happy. He is a known anti-semite and has agitated for generations that it was allowable to murder Jewish children. The problem with him is that he is also stuck in a cold war-leftist pilospohy that also demonizes the United States. Go after his overall mentality and you find that he like his friend in the White House is an empty suit and is wearing no clothes.
I also hope you are right Adina.
I seem to be getting more and more pessimistic, especially with a lot of the ideals of “The land of the free and the home of the brave” being erroded from day to day
“the United States has embarked on a new policy that will put an end to the special relationship between the U.S. and Israel that has been in place since Harry S. Truman recognized Israel in May of 1948.”
A shared belief in God, His Word and His People form the cornerstone of the special relationship between the U.S. and Israel.
Barrack Obama does not have the power to overrule God.
Israel is much better off understanding their “ best friend” is a back stabber/spy, than living the lie that he is not.
The American people do not understand that if Israel,G-d forbid goes, the USA is right behind it: burkas baby!
What is actually ridiculous about Khalidi’s argument — and pathetic about those who support his ideas — is that backing the Arabs/Palestinians will get the U.S. absolutely nothing but an even worse position in the Mideast. The Islamists and other major anti-democratic and bigoted and intellectually primitive forces will have won a major victor against the U.S. The U.S., of course, would remain on their hit list.
Ridiculous, pathetic, and suicidal is the belief that if Israel disappears all our problems with radical Islam disappears also.
“we seem to be going back to the Bush 41 years, when Secretary of State James Baker complained about Israel. As he so famously put it, “f… the Jews, they don’t vote for us anyway.”
If Jews continue to support their own demise by supporting the leftists (Democrats) who support the Islamists it is only a matter of time until American conservatives (Republicans) abandon Israel. The belief that the destruction of Israel will quench the thirst for Islamist expansion will (too late) be proved wrong. It will have the opposite effect.
An Either-Or automatic support for Israel or for the Palestinians is a superficial perspective. The facts are: Israel exists and the Palestinian people exist. The question becomes, how does one deal with both realities without the dominant view that one or the other must cease to exist?
The next question is: what is the cause of Islamic fascism? Is it the I-P situation or does it have its origin in the internal infrastructure of the Islamic political, economic and societal system – that refuses to move out of a tribal authoritarian hierarchy and into a civic mode that empowers a middle class?
Obama, in my view, is a superficial, ignorant person who lacks the curiosity to examine these basic questions. His response is mechanical. He’s chosen the Either-Or answer of abandoning Israel as a reality and his justification is the equally simplistic response that the I-P situation is the cause of Islamic fascism.
I look only at the realities: Israel exists; the Palestinian people exist. How does one deal with this? I’m not going into the intellectually and morally shallow arguments of ‘who was here first’; and ‘look how the desert has bloomed’ but: how does one deal with the realities? By the way, Israel doesn’t recognize a Palestinian ‘state’; Hamas doesn’t recognize an Israeli state. Arafat in 1993 did recognize Israel. Jordan and Egypt recognize Israel.
Israel gave up Gaza because its aquifers had been damaged, its economic value had diminished and its loss served to make a positive world impression. Israel has no intention of giving up the W.Bank, not for its orthodox symbolism (Judea and Samaria) but for its vital aquifers.
I doubt if people understand the vital importance of water in the Middle East. The ecological reality of that area permits only what is known as a dry horticultural food production – impossible to support the massive increase in Israeli population and the modern lifestyle. Water is THE vital resource. Israel has no oil to use to import food and bottled water. The W.Bank aquifers are absolutely vital to Israel. There is no way they can cede control to the Palestinians.
http://www.think-israel.org/sherman.water.html
Israel cannot annex the W. Bank because its Muslim population would imbalance the Jewish majority in Israel. Therefore, it has to occupy the area – and make things so unpleasant that the occupants will leave – a ‘faint and hopeless wish’. Equally it is naive to consider that an occupied people with no rights of citizenship and no control over their economy, would not fight back against occupation.
Solution? A two-headed state, so to speak. The two, Israel and Palestine would each have sovereignty, up to a point, over their territories, with a legally EMBEDDED economy with each other. Palestine cannot separate as a free sovereign state. First, Israel cannot lose the aquifers and second, Iran would swallow Palestine in a nanosecond and use it as its imperialist base for expansion into Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia..never mind into Israel.
As for Islamic fascism it is due to the tribalism of the Islamic nations, that have remained politically embedded in a two-class structure where one tribe is almost hereditary and has all the power and authority and the rest of the population lack that power. In a population in the multimillions and an industrial economy, there MUST be a middle class, a civic non-hereditary class, that has full economic and political power.
Islamic fascism is a ‘diseased result’ of this repression. By diseased, I mean that its reaction to this dysfunctional structure is an idealistic utopian notion of ‘returning to the glory of ancient times’, a mythic virtuality, when everything was perfect. Violence against any and all is a vital part of this diseased state, as it seeks to cut out what IT perceives as the ‘obstacle to health’. Such obstacles include not only the West but also modernization, other Muslims who resist..and so on. This has NOTHING to do with the I-P situation.
Obama, who also resists and rejects the West (and America) – has a strong affinity for this perception, i.e., a utopian state ..where, as he himself said about his own election – the oceans will cease to rise and peace will exist on earth. Obama sees himself as the Messiah who will bring this utopia, and he is as indifferent to and vicious against any who reject Him, as is any Islamic fascist.
“The facts are: Israel exists and the Palestinian people exist.”
Wrong. The “Palestinian people” do not exist. They are what they have been for the last 40-something years: a fraud meant to mask as a one-to-one national struggle the desire of a nation with 22 states (the Arab nation) to rob a single nation (the Jewish nation) of their one and only state.
The facts are, these are the nations in the Middle East: Jews, Arabs, Turks, Persians and Kurds. I probably left some out, but “Iraqis”, “Syrians” and “Palestinians” aren’t of those – they’re colonial or post-colonial artificialities.
The “Palestinian nation” has no unique history, culture or language – it is nothing but the front-group, the poster-child, for the elimination of the Jewish State. The Arabs already have 22 states; their wish for the demise of the Jewish state is consummate greed, on a par with Obama wishing to destroy FOX News even though it’s the one and only dissenter in a sea of yes-networks.
The solution: One Jewish State, from the river to the sea, devoid of anyone who does not accept that it is the State of the Jews. Every nation has a right to an exclusivist state of its own, and so does the Jewish nation.
Thought provoking analysis, unusual here. I disagree profoundly with the take on Obama, who is a much more normal guy (for better or worse) than you guys credit him for. I assure you, no one with grand totalitarian/transformational ambitions plays golf thirty-two time a year.
You are of course wrong from your first sentence.
No record of a “palesteinian people” exists before the 1960s; it is the quintessential “big lie”.
Prior to 1948, any reference to “Palesteinians” was only in reference to Jews.
From a way of wisdom, a thousand ways of wisdom may be deduced; but if you miss-deduce along the way: nothing else holds true…
You are watching way too much cnnfoxmsnbccbsabcbbcetal…
Bruce, I’m not convinced by your comment. The fact that pre-1948, the Palestinian people, who DID exist, were defined geographically rather than by ethnicity and religion, does not negate their post-1948 narrowing down to a definition of Palestinians by ethnicity and religion. Furthermore, the pre-1948 reference to Palestinians, since it was geographic, DID include all the people who lived there, Jews, Muslims and Christians.
As such, the current Palestinians, are not longer defined geographically but ethnically and by religion and DO exist.
It is a gross error to ignore cultural and societal structures, and to merge, as I suspect you do, All Arabs as one. They are not; they differ by religious focus, and by local historical and cultural traditions that cannot, and are not, ever ignored. Therefore, a Jordanian is not an Egyptian is not a Syrian is not a Palestinian. Just as a Sunni is not a Shi’ite.
Sorry but my data base is from research not the TV news.
“the Palestinian people, who DID exist, were defined geographically rather than by ethnicity and religion,”
In other words: they weren’t a nation. So why should they have a state? Maybe I deserve to have a state all my own, even though I’m not a nation.
“Furthermore, the pre-1948 reference to Palestinians, since it was geographic, DID include all the people who lived there, Jews, Muslims and Christians.”
But only the Jews have a real connection to Palestine. Muslim Palestinians have no more an inherent connection to this land than a modern-day Greek descended from one of Alexander’s soldiers who happened to have settled in Palestine.
Israel is the State of the Jews, and of no other nation. I repeat, an exclusivist nation-state is the right of every nation. (So for example the French are entitled to an exclusivist French state where non-French are second-class. You don’t want to be second-class? Go to your own nation-state. Which you have a right to have if you belong to a real nation and not a fictional one like the “Palestinian nation”.)
I see next to zero evidence indicating that the vast majority of Palestinian Arabs have any interest whatsoever in living with Jews. They are vicious anti-Semites. A viable compromise cannot be reached in such circumstances. The Palestinian leaders are not honest brokers. They only wish to play the Israelis as fools.
Really? I see the opposite evidence – that a large proportion of Palestinians CAN ‘work with’ Jews. And the same with Israelis; a large proportion can work with Palestinians. I am excluding the settlers and orthodox Jews who refuse to work with arabs/Muslims. And I am excluding the Hamas and Hezbollah who refuse to work with Israelis. I’m talking about the mainstream Israeli and Palestinian.
I’m not proposing a single state solution, absolutely not, but a ‘two-headed’ state federation, with Israel and Palestine both politically sovereign but with a legal set of economic treaties that embed each one with the other, economically. Can you come up with a different solution?
I work from reality. Both Israel and the Palestinian people exist and no amount of rhetoric or even violence will make either disappear. I also conclude that Israel cannot release the W. Bank because of the aquifers; and that Palestine as a state cannot be left to its own defense because Iran would swallow it in a second for its own imperial purposes. Therefore, I propose that two-headed federation.
This means that Israel would militarily defend Palestine against attacks from, eg, Iran, and Palestine would work with Israel on the aquifers and other water solutions for both states. Each population would be a citizen of their own state, but mutual interests, such as food production, trade, etc, would be shared. I’d even suggest a single currency.
I’d say you need to do more research. When I taught a course on the Arab-Israeli Conflict long ago, I used the dual concepts of “self-identification” and “external recognition” as relevant to socio-cultural identity. The non-Jews living in the land never referred to themselves as “Palestinians”, despite living in Mandate Palestine. They were “Turks” or “Syrians” or simply “Arabs”. This simply reflected the “mixed multitude” then living in the land and the fact that huge numbers of them were *not* “always there” as claimed, but were only a generation or so (and sometimes only a few years) removed from surrounding Arab lands .
Those of us who studied Middle East history recall the numerous British “White Papers” that restricted Jewish immigration into the region west of the Jordan (Jews were expelled from *east* of the Jordan after Transjordan was established). But ARAB immigration was never restricted. So they migrated in from what today are Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and even the distant Maghreb. They did so for the simplest of reasons: economic opportunity provided by the growing Jewish population.
Palestinian identity emerged through a process of political socialization often focusing on what they were *not*: Even if their families originally came from those surrounding lands, and even if born in those “camps” that became towns, they were not deemed Lebanese or Syrian or Jordanian or Egyptian. Rejected by their nominal Arab “brothers” and in reaction to the Jewish nationalism that they failed to defeat, we saw the slow emergence of a wholly new identity – the “Palestinian”.
To Raymond in DC. Yes, pre-1948, Palestine was always an occupied territory rather than a nation, whether occupation was by the Turks or the British or..Therefore, people would identify themselves by their generic or ethnic heritage (Turk, arab), despite having lived in the Palestinian geographic area for generations.
We get that in sovereign nations as well, where citizens will identify themselves as Italian or Polish or..despite having lived here for generations.
The census population in the pre-1948 era was at least 700,000 and more, so the land wasn’t empty, as so many like to suggest. But what has happened is that, as the geographic identification has dissolved, for Palestine as a geographic identity no longer exists, the other identifications have also disappeared (Turk, arab)for the reasons you outline – the other nations don’t want them – and a Palestinian self-and-other identification has emerged.
“…narrowing down to a definition of Palestinians by ethnicity and religion.”
Ethnically they were Arabs and their religion was Islam. There was no other cultural difference between them and any other Arab Muslim in the Ottoman Empire other than geographical location and maybe local dialect. Prior to the end of WWI there was no sense of Palestinian nationhood. However I must admit that has changed and the new reality is they are “Palestinians” today and that has to be dealt with.
“The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism.
“For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa. While as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.” (PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein, March 31, 1977, interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw.)[The Palestinian leadership, including Ahmed Shukar and Yasir Arafat, has openly admitted Palestinian “peoplehood” is a fraud;
http://www.think-israel.org/ronen.hadriancurse.html
Carl, good to see that you accessed Tsafrir’s blog.
Tsafrir Ronen, was one of my dearest friends in Israel, and his sudden death last year at age 53 was not only a blow to his family and many friends, but to the ENTIRE nation.
Those who are interested in knowing who the modern day Zev Jabotinsky is, need look no further than Tsafrir Ronen. He was a commando with Sayeret Matkal, akin to US SEALS/Special Ops, a part of the elite General Staff commandos who participated in the raid on Entebbe, as well as many other deep, undercover missions.
Not only that, but he was Communications Director for PM Rabin, until he resigned his post after Rabin signed onto the Oslo (death) Accords, for which we are still paying in blood and treasure.
The reason I am mentioning this is because Tsafrir was also a prolific documentary film maker, having been CEO of the Israel History Channel. His last project before his death was ‘Hadrian’s Curse’,and Israel’s Channel 2 is interested in producing it when additional financing comes through for its documentary division.
I was part of this project from its inception, and suffice it to say, once the truth comes out about the nexus between Hadrian’s Curse and the fictitious PA narrative, the world will sit up and take notice, unable to deny how they all have been duped.
I urge all the readers who care to learn from history-not satisifed with revisionist ‘narratives’- to google Tsafrir Ronen, learn about this great Jewish patriot,a secular Jew who loved Zion like none other. Listen to his vast archive of radio interviews and judge for yourselves.
I actually believe that most Palestinian Arabs would be willing to work out some sort of agreement with the Jews—but they have no power! They are marginalized figures who dare not open their mouths. The wishes of the majority hold little sway over their thuggish leaders. Arab communities are not premised upon democratic values. Those with the bigger fists run the show. There is no such thing as brokering a legitimate agreement under such circumstances.
Yes, I agree that the leaders of the Palestinians are indeed ‘stuck on stupid’ and that means that the suggestion for that two-headed federation has to come from the outside and be put to the grassroots, to the people, rather than the ‘leaders’. Same thing in Israel – put it to the people not the orthodox or the govt.
Agreed, arab communities are not based within democracy but with tribal infrastructures. This is the basic cause of Islamic fascism- that tribal infrastructure. That has to end; with the multi-million populations and an industrial economy, a state requires a civic or democratic model with power in the non-hereditary middle class.
Actually, it was a good thing for the Jews to have left Israel a thousand plus years ago! Their basic infrastructure is very similar to that of the Islamic; after all the Islam religion is very close to that of Judaism, and even its axioms of ‘how to live’ (Jewish Halakhah and Islamic Hadiths) are so similar!
Both reject interaction with The Other, both reject helping or selling goods or land to The Other, both support lying to and killing The Other. It’s quite something to read both sets of rules. BUT – the Jews left the ME, moved West to Europe and were able to move out of tribalism and into a civic democratic form of the state. The arabs didn’t leave; they became trapped in tribalism – and that’s the major problem.
“…put it to the people not the orthodox or the govt.”
The Jewish citizens have clearly spoken in their elections and daily debates between themselves. They do not live under an orthodox rabbinical dictatorship! The government is not an alien entity imposed on them. On the contrary, it must constantly earn the respect and trust of the voters.
Agreed, David Thomson, but the Israeli govt is a difficult one because it operates by coalitions of many parties and perspectives. It’s not just two dominant parties. Therefore the orthodox rabbinaical view has a larger role in government than it does in everyday life.
You grossly exaggerate the importance of the orthodox Jewish leaders. They could completely disappear—and would make next to no difference whatsoever to the Palestinian leadership. The latter are viciously anti-Semitic! Jew hating underpins the entire existential foundation of their power structure.
“Those with the bigger fists run the show.”
That’s not just Hamas, Fatah, and nearby Hezbollah, but the vast majority of hundreds of millions of Arabs in the Middle East, and Iran’s out there too. But it’s probably wishful thinking to say most Palestinians would be willing to work out a deal with Israel even if they could.
ETAB: I got it! You talk till you believe your own BS; no, I do not believe even you actually believe that totally removed from actual world…You live in a world of “fool some of the people all of the time, and those are pretty good odds…
Excellent article. This is the time for all friends of Israel to declare theire friendship publicly. It is time to push back against the academic Marxists and the Left.
I agree. I wish there would be full page ads in the paper every day, and letters signed by 50 generals and admirals, etc. Every day to push back against this enormous tide of Jew-hating policay and media PR.
Obama just doesn’t care much what happens to Israel. He cares about his image, his power, and his narcissistic self. That should be obvious by now. He ignores our military except when he can make some kind of speech and have his picture taken with true heroes, he ignores the threat of Iran, BUT, he IS interested in transforming the country into heaven knows what!
I would guess that after Israel is nuked Obama will say it was a tragedy, but Israel deserved it. He will do nothing. However, if Israel strikes pre-emptively he will seek to harshly punish them and sever ties. Such is the leftist resentment and hatred of success and accomplishment, especially if its Jewish.
Ron writes: “The United States has embarked on a new policy that will put an end to the special relationship between the U.S. and Israel that has been in place since Harry S. Truman recognized Israel in May of 1948.”
This sentence would seem to be contradicted by your prior descriptions of George H W Bush’s positions, and Eisenhower’s as well. I would add Bill Clinton, who leaned hard on Israel to get to a two state solution and successfully undermined Netanyahu. And of course Jimmy Carter.
Actually George W. Bush, an ignorant man who gave Israel a blank check, is the anomaly. Regarding Israel, Obama is firmly in the policy tradition of Eisenhower, Carter, Bush 41 and Clinton. The operating template Obama is working from is the so-called “Clinton parameters.”
Obama’s parameters are summed up in this: “Death to the Jews.”
Christian Conservatives will never abandon Israel, regardless of the traitorous actions of the Schumers, Franks and Speilbergs of the world. Israel and the Jews are G-d’s Chosen. Period. We will stand with Israel no matter what. Go IDF!
The words of Rav Kook translated by R.Chanan Morrison
” Psalm 135: Deliverance from Powerful Enemies
It was never easy to be a Jew. Even now, with our own state and army, Israel’s ambassador to the UN recently exclaimed, “Thank God that the fate of Israel and of the Jewish people is not decided in this hall!”
With God’s help, the Jewish people have managed to survive throughout the centuries, despite numerous powerful and brutal enemies. Psalms 135 and 136 celebrate the nation’s Divine protection and deliverance (in the words of Mark Twain, ‘the secret of the Jew’s immortality’), starting with our escape from Egyptian subjugation and our triumph over the Canaanite nations.
“He smote many nations and slew mighty kings: Sichon, king of the Emorites, Og, king of Bashan, and all the kingdoms of Canaan.” (Psalm 135:10-11)
What was special about Sichon and Og that, out of all the Canaanite kings, they ‘merited’ to be explicitly mentioned?
Three Types of Power
We can classify the various forms of human prowess and strength into three basic categories. The people of Israel needed God’s assistance in overcoming all three, as they fought for their inheritance in the Land of Israel.
The first form of strength is the formidable spirit found in a cruel and ruthless leader. A fierce king is difficult to overcome. The Midrash says that King Sichon was like a sayach, a young, wild mule in the wilderness (Rosh Hashanah 3a). This refers to his brutally vicious nature, unlimited in its violent outbursts. The ancient despots of the world valued the power to rule by instilling fear and terror. Tyrants like Nebuchadnezzar, who would eat live rabbits, intentionally developed traits of violent cruelty and savagery, aware that these characteristics fortified their reign of terror.
The second form of strength is that of immense physical power. Og, king of Bashan, was a tremendous giant; he epitomized this form of power. The Torah states (Deut. 3:11) that Og was so tall, his bed needed to be nine cubits (13.5 feet) long.
And the third category of strength is the collective power that comes from many nations working together for a common cause. This was the military advantage of the Canaanite kings, who formed an alliance in order to fight against the Jewish people.
As the Israelites strove to inherit the Land of Israel, God subdued all of these forms of power before them. Neither the ruthless brutality of Sichon, nor the terrible physical strength of the giant Og, nor the collective power of all the Canaanite armies together, succeeded in thwarting the Divine plan of settling the people of Israel in their land.
This is a lesson for all generations. We need not fear our enemies’ cruelty, brute physical strength, or numerical superiority. Just as the Sichons, Ogs and other tyrants throughout history could not foil God’s plan, so too our current foes will fail to obstruct God’s promise to the Jewish people.
“There are many thoughts in a man’s heart; but the counsel of God will always stand.” (Proverbs 19:21)
(adapted from Olat Re’iyah vol. II, p. 83)
Wow ! ELEVEN stories on the front page about Israel and Jews.
Scott is correct, but W’s check wasn’t quite blank: he declined to give Israel the OK to attack Iran. Also, while W was declaring unyielding support for Israel, his sec. of state was making other noises.
Obama is obsessed with courting the dominant narrative, i.e., Israel is responsible for all the trouble in the Middle East, which is just another corollary of the grand unified theory of “America is the poison that makes the world sick”. With this kind of “leadership” abilities, he will forever be shaped by events rather than the other way around (the voting “present” habit). In the meantime, he is using the levers at his disposal to mess things up, as any other glorified idiot would, in typically counter-productive ways. It will take a lot of hard work on our part, and on the part of the Israeli citizenry as well, to repair whatever can still be repaired after this demolition derby.
Slim pickings: The only silver lining is the educative value of patiently reading what the monkey has typed, in hope of some happy day when we can read Shakespeare-by-happenstance. This diversion is the best opportunity in a long time for all the subversive actors, under the leadership of the mullah’s regime in modern Persia, to perform their magic.
Who is ever going to elect another noodle again after that?
There is an aphorism “Grow a backbone!”. Whatever its opposite is – is President Obama’s goal. Intuitively, most people cannot accept this opposite. Thus, things will be better since time is on the side of the Jews.
Etab, I found your narrative interesting until you revealed a little too much.
“Both reject interaction with The Other, both reject helping or selling goods or land to The Other, both support lying to and killing The Other.”
What nation on this planet hasn’t engaged in selfish actions, including lying and killing. That would be an accurate description of what happened in Europe during the first half of the 20th century.
You outwitted yourself with high sounding words. The current Muslim culture is not traditional Middle Eastern culture. It’s politics and ideology are modeled on European fascism. That is no surprise, considering the founders of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Baath Party were educated in the West.
There are two things to consider.
First, is the fact that the ancient laws of both peoples, the Jews and the Muslims, are related to their social/political mode of that era, which is tribalism. Tribalism sees ‘the Other’ as essentially not human, or, not human-like-us. These laws are found in the old texts of both peoples. This is not fascism; this is tribalism. This view of the Other continues to this day among both peoples among their orthodox.
Islamic fascism is, well, it’s fascist, and thus is indeed like the fascist states of WWII in Europe. But you don’t have to go to Europe for training! You can move into a fascist mode all by yourself, and I claim that this is what has happened to the Al Qaeda set, who envision a utopian Islamic state, with a ‘pure’ population of only Muslims; they think this will solve all their economic, social, political problems. Like all utopian visions, it remains a fiction.
Here is something completely off topic. Obama is gracing us with a visit today in L.A. Here are some of the particulars. Obama will fly in on AF1, jump on a helicopter, and fly to Exposition Center. This means that his helicopter had to be flown in on a C7 so that he could make the trip from the airport to the center. Well, so much for a carbon footprint and global warming. He has rejected a motorcade through the city, especially the part that voted for him overwhelmingly. Was he embarrassed to see some of the 12.6% unemployed in this State? Would they still be waving Obama signs? That aside, the reason he is here is for a fund raiser for Barbara Boxer. She is in real trouble polling only 43% in this Obama State. That means that even Alfred E. Newman of Mad Magazine could run and beat her with a majority of 57%. What is even more ludicrous is that this affair is a $17,600 a plate dinner (be sure to bring your whole family). Well so much for helping the little guy, lets get back to Obama’s well thought out plan for the Middle East.
Obama’s foreign policy consists of abandoning allies and appeasing enemies. In Israel’s case, this means sacrificing Israel to Palestinian terrorism and an Iranian nuclear strike once Iran is ready. Obama spent 20 years in Reverend Wrights Afro-Fascist church learning to hate Whites in general and Jews in particular, so the prospect of allowing another Holocaust is just fine with him. Israel had best look to herself for salvation, for she is very much alone. Many Americans may sympathize with her plight, but are utterly powerless to help her. And forget about support for Israel in the US Congress. The Democrats will do as Obama says, of that you may be sure.
As for the Palestinians, the notion that they would be satisfied with a state in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem is a lie, pure and simple. How do I know this? Because from 1949 until 1967 ALL of the West Bank, AND, the Gaza Strip AND East Jerusalem were under exclusive Arab control, and there was no peace. Just acts of war and terrorism punctuated by the occassional ceasefire. Neither did the Arabs create a Palestinian state and settle the refugees there although they could have done so easily and Israel could have done nothing to stop them. Neither the Palestinians, nor their Arab brothers, wanted such a state when they had the better part of 20 years to create it.
If you need any further proof that the Palestinians are not interested in existing peacefully alongside Jews, simply read the PLO charter and the Hamas covenant. English translations are available and both documents are quite clear that the Palestinians want all the land completely Judenrein, as the Europeans used to say.
Charles and Carl you are right but the miracle of Jewish survival and triumph has withstood all the destructive efforts of our enemies. The tyrant in the White House has contempt for America, Americans, and Jews. His desire is to wipe out not only Jews and Israel but the America of the founders who resist corruption such as his.
Maybe next time American Jews wont vote in overwhelming numbers for Obama?
Black Americans are upset that Obama is sucking up to Muslims and disregarding the Black constituency.
Played..
Sandra Rose: “NYT: Obama Reaching Out Quietly To Muslims, And Angering Black Politicians”
http://www.bookerrising.net/
This was an excellent site, thanks for sharing it with us.