.

The Slater Polmanic asked me what I thought of Obama’s speech soon after. Well…　

I thought Obama’s speech today was absolutely sublime and monumental .

Seminal. And most importantly perhaps, teachable .　

And in that light , I share with you the following………..

　

　

The Tone and the Music

By URI AVNERY

One man spoke to the world, and the world listened.

He walked onto the stage in Cairo, alone, without hosts and without aides, and delivered a sermon to an audience of billions. Egyptians and Americans, Israelis and Palestinians, Jews and Arabs, Sunnis and Shiites, Copts and Maronites – and they all listened attentively.

He unfolded before them the map of a new world, a different world, whose values and laws he spelled out in simple and clear language - a mixture of idealism and practical politics, vision and pragmatism.

Barack Hussein Obama – as he took pains to call himself – is the most powerful man on earth. Every word he utters is a political fact.

* * *

“A HISTORIC SPEECH”, pronounced commentators in a hundred languages. I prefer another adjective:

The speech was right.

Every word was in its place, every sentence precise, every tone in harmony. The masterpiece of a man bringing a new message to the world.

From the very first word, every listener in the hall and in the world felt the honesty of the man, that his heart and his tongue were in harmony, that this is not a politician of the old familiar sort – hypocritical, sanctimonious, calculating. His body language was speaking, and so were his facial expressions

That’s why the speech was so important. The new moral integrity and the sense of honesty increased the impact of the revolutionary content.

* * *

AND A REVOLUTIONARY speech it certainly was.

In 55 minutes, it not only wiped away the eight years of George W. Bush, but also much of the preceding decades, from World War II on.

The American ship has turned – not with the sluggishness everyone would have expected, but with the agility of a speedboat.

That is much more than a political change. It touches the roots of the American national consciousness. The President spoke to hundreds of million US citizens no less than to a billion Muslims.

The American culture is based on the myth of the Wild West, with its Good Guys and Bad Guys, violent justice, dueling under the midday sun. Since the American nation is composed of immigrants from all over the world, its unity seems to require a threatening, world-encompassing evil enemy, like the Nazis and the Japs, or the Commies. After the collapse of the Soviet empire, this role was taken over by Islam.

Cruel, fanatical, bloodthirsty Islam; Islam as the religion of murder and destruction; an Islam lusting for the blood of women and children. This enemy captured the imagination of the masses and supplied material for television and cinema. It provided lecture topics for learned professors and fresh inspiration for popular writers. The White House was occupied by a moron who declared a world-wide “War on Terrorism”.

When Obama is now uprooting this myth, he is revolutionizing American culture. He wipes away the picture of one enemy, without painting another in its place. He preaches against the violent, adversary attitude itself, and starts to work to replace it with a culture of partnership between nations, civilizations and religions.

I see Obama as the first great messenger of the 21st century. He is the son of a new era, where the economy is global and the whole of humanity faces the danger to the very existence of life on the planet Earth. An era where the Internet connects a boy in New Zealand with a girl in Namibia in real time, where a disease in a small Mexican village spreads all over the globe within days.

This world needs a world law, a world order, a world democracy. That’s why this speech really was historic: Obama outlined the basic contours of a world constitution.

* * *

WHILE OBAMA proclaims the 21st century, the government of Israel is returning to the 19th.

That was the century when a narrow, egocentric, aggressive nationalism took root in many countries. A century that sanctified the belligerent nation which oppresses minorities and subdues neighbors. The century that gave birth to modern anti-Semitism and to its response – modern Zionism.

Obama’s vision is not anti-national. He spoke with pride about the American nation. But his nationalism is of another sort: an inclusive, multi-cultural and non-sexist nationalism, which includes all the citizens of a country and respects other nations.

This is the nationalism of the 21st century, which is inexorably striving towards supranational, regional and world-wide structures.

Compared to this, how miserable is the mental world of the Israeli Right! How miserable is the violent, fanatical-religious world of the settlers, the chauvinist ghetto of Netanyahu, Lieberman and Barak, the racist-fascist closed-in world of their Kahanist allies!

One has to understand this moral and spiritual dimension of Obama’s speech before considering its political implications. Not only in the political sphere are Obama and Netanyahu on a collision course. The underlying collision is between two mental worlds which are as distinct from each other as the sun and the moon.

In Obama’s mental world, there is no place for the Israeli Right or its equivalents elsewhere. Not for their terminology, not for their “values”, and still less for their actions.

* * *

IN THE political sphere, too, a huge gap has opened up between the governments of Israel and the USA.

During the last few years, successive Israeli governments have ridden the wave of Islamophobia that has spread throughout the West. The Islamic world was considered the deadly enemy, America was galloping grimly towards the Clash of Civilizations, every Muslim was a potential terrorist.

Israel’s right-wing leaders could rejoice. After all, the Palestinians are Arabs, the Arabs are Muslims, the Muslims are Terrorists – so that Israel was assured a central place in the war of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness.

That was a Garden of Eden for racist demagogues. Avigdor Lieberman could advocate the expulsion of the Arabs from Israel, Ellie Yishai could enact laws for the revocation of the citizenship of non-Jews. Obscure Members of the Knesset could grab headlines with bills that might have been conceived in Nuremberg.

This Garden of Eden is no more. Whether the implications will become clear quickly or slowly - the direction is obvious. If we continue on our path, we will become a leper colony.

* * *

THE TONE makes the music – and this applies also to the President’s words on Israel and Palestine. He spoke at length about the Holocaust – honest and courageous words, full of empathy and compassion, which were received by the Egyptians in silence but with respect. He stressed Israel’s right to exist. And without pausing, he spoke about the suffering of the Palestinian refugees, the intolerable situation of the Palestinians in Gaza, Palestinian aspirations for a state of their own.

He spoke respectfully about Hamas. Not anymore as a “terrorist organization”, but as a part of the Palestinian people. He demanded that they recognize Israel and stop violence, but also hinted that he would welcome a Palestinian unity government.

The political message was clear and unequivocal: the Two-State Solution will be put into practice. He himself will see to that. Settlement activity must cease. Unlike his predecessors, he did not stop at speaking about “Palestinians”, but uttered the decisive word: “Palestine” – the name of a state and a territory.

And no less important: the Iran war has been struck from the agenda. The dialogue with Tehran, as a part of the new world, is not limited in time. As from now, no one can even dream about an American OK for an Israeli attack.

* * *

HOW DID official Israel respond? The first reaction was denial. “An unimportant speech”. “There was nothing new”. The establishment commentators picked out a few pro-Israeli sentences from the text and ignored all the others. And after all, “these are just words. So he talked. Nothing will come out of it.”

That is nonsense. The words of the President of the United States are more than just words. They are political facts. They change the perceptions of hundreds of millions. The Muslim public listened. The American public listened. It may take some time for the message to sink in. But after this speech, the pro-Israel lobby will never be the same as it was before. The era of “foile shtik” (Yiddish for sneaky tricks) is over. The sly dishonesty of a Shimon Peres, the guileful deceits of an Ehud Olmert, the sweet talking of a Bibi Netanyahu – all these belong to the past.

The Israeli people must now decide: whether to follow the right-wing government towards an inevitable collision with Washington, as the Jews did 1940 years ago when they followed the Zealots into a suicidal war on Rome – or to join Obama’s march towards a new world.

Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. He is a contributor to CounterPunch's book The Politics of Anti-Semitism.

<link>

.

I remember your reply. I was still trying to digest the "layers" and quite surprised that he had touched so many sub-themes. That Hitchens should sort of distill it down to the hijab and along the way make some kind of case for Guantanamo by restricting himself to some bureaucratic standards afforded the detainees, is nothing short of an exercise in distorted and trying-oh-so-hard profundity. So what would Hitchens have had him delete or rephrase? The hijab is a form of a religious respect-symbol no different from the yarmulke. Should we deny Jews that need or the Sikhs their turban?

Thank you for your link content...it says much of how I view that speech. The enormity of what Obama is trying to accomplish is I feel, sometimes lost, on even the supposedly more astute.

LOL

The only thing new in Obama's speech was the attitude of the listeners.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

There's not a single thing he said that hasn't been said before by every previous US administration. Even the part about the Israeli settlements not being "legitimate."

I'm all for his "new approach" whatever it is, but I have no faith that the extremist Arabs like Hamas or Al Qaeda will give a damn. He is probably going to be as disappointed as all the other US presidents have been.

I hope not.

I see you're feeling conciliatory today. It is always a good day when TT has a moderate view on the ME.

But I must point out something that you did not elaborate on when you wrote:

There's not a single thing he said that hasn't been said before by every previous US administration. Even the part about the Israeli settlements not being "legitimate."

It's not what he said but how he said it. What I mean is that Obama wasnt pussyfooting when he referred to the stop in settlements building....unlike the previous presidents and more so the immediate previous. It is not by accident that high level spokesmen for the Israeli govt. started to leak out "understandings" that were given in private and orally that something called "natural growth" (whatever that is) was acceptable.

We shall see what Bibi has to say today. But my hope is that Obama follows thru on the new approach that what is said behind closed doors is also said in public...at least the most important in substance.

I've always had a moderate view of the ME.

You just don't get it because you are so far out on the left wing, that even the middle of the road looks far right to you.

Before you congratulate yourself too much on Obama's remarks about Israel; they were surrounded with at least 10 or 12 extremely strong admonitions as to what the Arabs need to do to clean up their act. 10 to 1 ain't bad.

In any case, the whole flap about settlements is BS anyway. Those which even Israel acknowledges are illegal will be the first to go in any settlement. Those around East Jerusalem which were Jewish towns before they were cleansed by the Jordanians in 1948 will remain with Israel. Most of the border settlements are right up against Israel and it's unlikely that most of them will be abandoned. None of the main settlements has expanded outward anyway, so no new land has been built on for quite a while now. Once Israeli checkpoints are removed, the rest of the West Bank will be 95% contiguous - not a Bantustan in sight. Arafat knew that perfectly well too.

Netanyahu believes that the current hard-line on the settlements is a ploy to get Arab and Muslim support for stuff like Pakistan and Afghanistan. What's really interesting is that he thinks that Axelrod and Emmanuel are actually behind it. What? Obama's chief Zionists are trying to squeeze Israel? What happens to all the dual loyalty arguments? LOL

Anyway, Mitchell is there right now to assure Israel that everything is kopecetic and not to pay too much attention to all the buzz about the settlements, even while they go about figuring out just how exactly to deal with this thorny issue.

Again - the settlements are a side issue that the Arabs have been raising in order to get concessions from Israel before any actual negotiating takes place. Israel won't give up its security willy-nilly, so some sort of compromise is needed. Obviously, that's what Obama's about.

And then there's Hamas with that pesky charter again. I see that today 4 Hamas fighters and horses equipped with suicide vests were killed by Israeli soldiers during an unsuccessful bid to take Israeli prisoners. I suppose they will declare the cease-fire to have been broken by Israel. Whether or not they increase rocket attacks is the big question now.

I wish Obama good-luck and Godspeed. He's going to need it.

I've always had a moderate view of the ME.

I'll just let other regulars to the forum decide that glorious self-assessment.

You just don't get it because you are so far out on the left wing, that even the middle of the road looks far right to you.

Oh I think I get it. I was a firm supporter of the concept of Israel (still am but as in it's original form with reparations). My change was based on just the sheer injustice of continued denial and subjugation of Palestinians for all these past years. Have you been on both sides philosophically?

Before you congratulate yourself too much on Obama's remarks about Israel; they were surrounded with at least 10 or 12 extremely strong admonitions as to what the Arabs need to do to clean up their act. 10 to 1 ain't bad.

Dont know where you got the 10-12 admonitions of the Palestinians from (in that speech). Maybe you can list them for us.

In any case, the whole flap about settlements is BS anyway. Those which even Israel acknowledges are illegal will be the first to go in any settlement. Those around East Jerusalem which were Jewish towns before they were cleansed by the Jordanians in 1948 will remain with Israel etc etc etc.

I see you are privy to inside information? Do 1967 borders mean anything to you?

Netanyahu believes that the current hard-line on the settlements is a ploy to get Arab and Muslim support for stuff like Pakistan and Afghanistan. What's really interesting is that he thinks that Axelrod and Emmanuel are actually behind it.

I read Haaretz today which mentioned this. Since when is it that Netanyahu's musings leaked by his unnamed aides become the final world on the intentions of American foreign policy. Its funny that Emmanuel is mentioned . I have always thought him to be an "Israeli insider" in Washington. If anything he may well be cut off from the real descision making on this issue and watched very closely

Anyway, Mitchell is there right now to assure Israel that everything is kopecetic and not to pay too much attention to all the buzz about the settlements, even while they go about figuring out just how exactly to deal with this thorny issue.

Yes he is there. So you think he has greater voice than Clinton's statement of a couple of days ago? Paraphrase her..."what part of "no" dont you understand"...no new buildings in the settlements. We'll see.

Again - the settlements are a side issue that the Arabs have been raising in order to get concessions from Israel before any actual negotiating takes place. Israel won't give up its security willy-nilly, so some sort of compromise is needed. Obviously, that's what Obama's about.

What side issue? The settlements are built on Palestinian territory. Who asked Israel to give up their nuclear weaponry (security) or their airforce or their military. They make even get an ironclad security arrangement with us when its all said and done. This security thing is more obsfucation.

And then there's Hamas with that pesky charter again. I see that today 4 Hamas fighters and horses equipped with suicide vests were killed by Israeli soldiers during an unsuccessful bid to take Israeli prisoners. I suppose they will declare the cease-fire to have been broken by Israel. Whether or not they increase rocket attacks is the big question now.

Did not know there were horses equipped with suicide vests (a chuckle perhaps, no?). Do you think that just maybe those shot had no operational connection with Hamas? I have not followed the event too closely.

I wish Obama good-luck and Godspeed. He's going to need it.

I agree.

Oh I think I get it. I was a firm supporter of the concept of Israel (still am but as in it's original form with reparations). My change was based on just the sheer injustice of continued denial and subjugation of Palestinians for all these past years. Have you been on both sides philosophically?

So you were a firm supporter of the "concept" of Israel in its "original form with reparations" whatever the hell that might mean. Have you also been a firm supporter of the Arab's unwillingness to allow a Jewish State to exist in Israel for at least the last 60 years, or have you conveniently left that part of the equation out of what you laughingly call your "thinking" on the issue? According to you, the Palestinians are suffering simply because Israel is a nasty racist state.

Dont know where you got the 10-12 admonitions of the Palestinians from (in that speech). Maybe you can list them for us.

Sorry. I actually counted 14.

1.. . "I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire.

2. "al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with."

3. "The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer."

4. "Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed – more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction – or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews – is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve."

5. "Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed."

6. "It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered."

7. "Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist."

8. ". .the Arab States must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state; to recognize Israel's legitimacy; and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past."

9. (concerning Iran) "But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America's interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path."

10. (concerning democracy) "Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people."

11. "you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy."

12. "Among some Muslims there is a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of another's. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld – whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. And fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.

13. ". . .but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

14. "But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century, and in too many Muslim communities there remains underinvestment in these areas.

I see you are privy to inside information? Do 1967 borders mean anything to you?

No more than they did to the drafters of UN Res. 242.

<link>

Granted it's Wikipedia, but it's a pretty good overview nonetheless.

Since when is it that Netanyahu's musings leaked by his unnamed aides become the final world on the intentions of American foreign policy. Its funny that Emmanuel is mentioned . I have always thought him to be an "Israeli insider" in Washington. If anything he may well be cut off from the real descision making on this issue and watched very closely

Careful there, you may be slipping into paranoid mode. LOL. And who said anything about a "final word." I just thought that it was interesting that he thinks the administration's Zionists are behind it. According to you and your like they are all out to get all they can for Israel all the time.

(About Mitchell) Yes he is there. So you think he has greater voice than Clinton's statement of a couple of days ago? Paraphrase her..."what part of "no" dont you understand"...no new buildings in the settlements. We'll see.

Mitchell is the guy tasked with working out arrangements, not Clinton. I fully believe that we will be seeing a US "clarification" of this matter any day now. At any rate, I fully support a call to end settlement activity subject to the opening of peace talks. For awhile anyway. Still, we'll see what actually goes down after Netanyahu's speech next Sunday. I still consider the settlements to be a side issue in actual fact even though it's certainly the Arab's favorite rallying cry.

What side issue? The settlements are built on Palestinian territory. Who asked Israel to give up their nuclear weaponry (security) or their airforce or their military. They make even get an ironclad security arrangement with us when its all said and done. This security thing is more obsfucation.

Israel's security, especially vis-a-vis a potentially hostile state on her borders can not be discussed in Nuclear terms. What good is a Nuclear deterrent when using it would obviously doom yourself? Your main problem is that you are incapable of seeing Israel as anything but hostile and never, I repeat, never seem to ever deal with the problem of terrorism and suicide bombers. It's all Israel's fault. Israel is powerful indeed, so? Just look at the problems they have with Hamas and Hezbollah and the reaction on the part of dummies like you when they finally defend themselves - you piss all over them for being powerful. I suppose the US will send in troops against the Arabs, huh? Of what earthly use are nuclear weapons against bus bombings.The security "thing" was never an obfuscation, it is very real.

As for "Palestinian territory," what territory is that? As far as I know, the Palestinians never formed a state so technically, they have no territory. Historically, the West Bank was part of Jordan, but Jordan washed her hands of it. Technically, the land was part of the British Mandate but never part of any Palestinian state. I firmly support a Palestinian state. I wish the Palestinians did too. Even as recently as 1967, Arafat rejected the idea of a Palestinian state which he did again in 2000, and today, Hamas rejects it too, unless it totally supercedes Israel.
.
Did not know there were horses equipped with suicide vests (a chuckle perhaps, no?). Do you think that just maybe those shot had no operational connection with Hamas? I have not followed the event too closely.

The claim is that they belonged to another faction, but only ignoramuses believe that anyone would carry out such a attack without at least the tacit approval of Hamas. If that is not the case, then Israel has even bigger problems as far as making peace and so do the Arabs.
And I don't think suicide vests on horses or people deserve any kind of chuckle.

I see that you are still conflating the Palestinians with what ails the Muslim world at large. Your 14 points are really 4 (5 - 8) and even these are repetitive to provide a sum total of 2 points where Obama referred directly to Palestinian responsibilities in the process going forward.

Nice try.

The rest of your post is a regurgitation of your past rants.

Mitchell works for Clinton...enough said.

Re: Emmanuel and others....it is not for nothing that Sharon said in a cabinet meeting "Dont worry about the Americans" or Olmert could get access to Bush at a fundraiser to have Condi change her UN vote. You dont think some of us are naive do you? If I were Israel I would do the same if so many were so willing.

It was your phraseology that was humorous not the suicide vest (or night vision goggles).

Have you also been a firm supporter of the Arab's unwillingness to allow a Jewish State to exist in Israel for at least the last 60 years, or have you conveniently left that part of the equation out of what you laughingly call your "thinking" on the issue?

22 Arab States have singed the peace initiative to recognize Israel as per the 1967 borders and normalize relations with Israel. Israel have rejected the offer.

According to you, the Palestinians are suffering simply because Israel is a nasty racist state.

According to history as well.

I still consider the settlements to be a side issue in actual fact even though it's certainly the Arab's favorite rallying cry.

Whether it's the occupation or the settlements, Israeli apologists do like to refer to Palestinian suffering a side issue in general. It's consistent with the dehumanizing of non Jews.

Your main problem is that you are incapable of seeing Israel as anything but hostile and never, I repeat, never seem to ever deal with the problem of terrorism and suicide bombers.

That's because the problem of terrorism and suicide bombers exists as a consequence of the occupation, not in spite of it. Iraq had no problems with terrorism and suicide bombers until the UN Invaded, so yes, it is Israel's fault. Israel holds all the cards and could end this conflict tomorrow if it wanted to. It chooses to prolong the conflict because it does not want to pay the price of territory.

If you want to talk Hezbollah, that one is simple. Al Israel need to do is stay o the Israeli side of the border and leave Lebanon alone. Problem solved.

Hamas have backed a 2 state solution and said they would support the Arab peace initiative. Give the Palestinians their own state if you want to end the conflict.

The security "thing" is indeed an obfuscation, because Israel knows how to solve it. They just don;t want to pay the price.

As for "Palestinian territory," what territory is that?

The land from Jordan to the sea, including the West Bank. has always be regarded as Palestine. Not Jordan. Israel was always part of Palestine. And Jordan did not washed her hands of the West Bank.

Palestinians do support a Palestinian state. What ever gave you the idea they didn't?

Even as recently as 1967, Arafat rejected the idea of a Palestinian state which he did again in 2000, and today, Hamas rejects it too, unless it totally supercedes Israel.

Now there's a sleazy case of cherry picking if ever saw one. How disingenuous of you to use the term “as recently as 1967” when Camp David, Taba and Oslo have since taken place. At Oslo, Arafat publicly recognized Israel.

The claim is that they belonged to another faction, but only ignoramuses believe that anyone would carry out such a attack without at least the tacit approval of Hamas.

Did the 19 hijackers who carried out 911 had tacit approval of the Bush administration? Cut the conspiracy crap Ted.

I see that you are still conflating the Palestinians with what ails the Muslim world at large. Your 14 points are really 4 (5 - 8) and even these are repetitive to provide a sum total of 2 points where Obama referred directly to Palestinian responsibilities in the process going forward.

Nice try.

LOL. That's your answer? I'm firmly of the belief that what ails the Muslim world at large is really the same thing that ails the Palestinians, a basic inability to come to terms with the mores and customs of the rest of the world. For the Palestinians in particular, it's the Jews. Also, in my original post I believe I stated that Obama's remarks were meant not only for the Palestinians.

The rest of your post is a regurgitation of your past rants.

The only one doing any "ranting" here is you.

Mitchell works for Clinton...enough said.

Well, maybe you think it's enough.

Re: Emmanuel and others....it is not for nothing that Sharon said in a cabinet meeting "Dont worry about the Americans" or Olmert could get access to Bush at a fundraiser to have Condi change her UN vote. You dont think some of us are naive do you? If I were Israel I would do the same if so many were so willing.

I must say that I have asked numerous times for the actual link to this supposed quote by Sharon but have never gotten it. Nor, for that matter, have I ever gotten a response to the many proofs I have previously submitted to show how many of the supposed quotes you guys use are just plain bogus. Anyway if the Obama "Zionists" are on board for a settlement freeze, what does that do to your arguments?

Just for the hell of it, though, let's say that Sharon's quote is accurate. What exactly does that prove to your tortured "mind?" All I can see is that Israel and the US are on the same page. Not really strange for two close allies.

Oh sorry. I forgot about AIPAC and the congressional brainwashing machine. LOL

For you and those who think like you, the only answers are conspiracies.

LOL

See. You're an idiot.

Reality, facts, true history, none of that even comes close to breaking through the fossilized channels of your propagandized brain.

Nor, for that matter, have I ever gotten a response to the many proofs I have previously submitted to show how many of the supposed quotes you guys use are just plain bogus.

But that's just it Ted, you haven't supplied proofs at all. You've just given your standard, juvenile response that the quotes came from Arab propaganda web sites.

All I can see is that Israel and the US are on the same page. Not really strange for two close allies.

Israel is not now nor has Israel ever been a US ally. No alliance treaty exists between Israel & the US.

Not a fact that AIPAC broadcasts, neither the MSM ... but in '67, after the 6 Day War and the Israeli seizure of Palestinian lands, LBJ offered Israel an alliance treaty. Israel refused, because all alliance treaties have, inter al, 2 requirements: that all signatory nations state clearly & precisely where their national borders lay; and that any signatory initiating military actions against a non-signatory must inform in advance all the other signatories to the alliance treaty.

Israel has always refused to accept these 2 standard requirements of any alliance.

See. You're an idiot.

Your standard response when you can't think of a cogent argument. You're so predictable Ted.

Reality, facts, true history, none of that even comes close to breaking through the fossilized channels of your propagandized brain.

You also tend to lash out with insults when you're run out of talking points.

As I said Ted, you're way to predictable.

Talking points? I can talk until I'm blue in the face and it makes no never mind. LOL

Whatever arguments I make you come back with the same lame BS in the above post not to mention total refusal to even acknowledge them.

You are an idiot, plain and simple. That's the most obvious point on these boards.

And yes, if you want any of your arguments to be taken seriously, they had better not come from propaganda sites of any kind.

Unfortunately, you believe propaganda to be truth.

As I said: You're an idiot.

I'm still waiting for a link to Sharon's statement about owning America.

LOL

Ted,

You are one pathetic puppy. All that huffing and puffing and nothing to say.

Here's your Sharon statement.

On October 3, 2001, I.A.P. News reported that according to Israel Radio (in Hebrew) Kol Yisrael an acrimonious argument erupted during the Israeli cabinet weekly session last week between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his foreign Minister Shimon Peres. Peres warned Sharon that refusing to heed incessant American requests for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger Israeli interests and "turn the US against us. "Sharon reportedly yelled at Peres, saying "don't worry about American pressure, we the Jewish people control America."

Ted, you are playing games again. I am quite aware about the contentious nature of that quote. The Chicago Tribune columnist who noted it in a column was pilloried because she took a report from a Palestinian news agency which reported a Israel Radio broadcast as a source for that item (in Hebrew). I have even seen a purported denial from that station on a pro Israel site which was in the forefront of the anti-quote fight. It is however interesting to note that it took about two years for them to elicit a firm denial from Israel Radio. I wonder why it took so long on such an "important matter.

In other words, there is much contention on the subject.

If there are other quotes much more verifiable that were made by very senior US govt. officials on the question of Israeli influence on American politics (which was the nature of the debating point), I shall be happy to make the same case using those.

Let me know. Otherwise stop the screeching please.