“ADA, and thus started Bush I descent to one-termhood.
He took a risk and should be proud. He's the only Bush who will have at least a few enlightened accomplishments in the history books.”
ladcrp on Jul 26, 2010 at 14:49:43
“Jimmy Carter tells a story about Bush I coming to Plains after Carter had won the election in 76. Bush was there to ask Carter to keep him on as CIA director. He practically begged to keep the job telling Carter he was a "Company Guy" had no Agenda of his own, would march to the whistler's tune. He left Plains, and of course Carter did not give him the Job (maybe he should have). Carter described as a man essentially without any real beliefs. He had no oral compass.
It fits with his 80 campaign aganst RR when he rightfully called it Voodoo Economics, but when RR picked him to be VP there was a great HERLOCK cartoon the next day showing Bush flat on the ground repeatedly kissing RR's shoes and saying Y,TY, TY, TY , TY.....
He and his family stand for one thing Greed & Power Period.
“You have plenty of time seeing your posts to other Israel boards.
The fact is, you just don't have good arguments anymore.
Neither did South Africa.”
datamonist on Jul 28, 2010 at 07:05:47
“S. Africa is not even REMOTELY comparable to Israel. S. Africa had a 90% black MAJORITY that had absolutely no political power whatsoever. Now THAT's apartheid. Israel has a Jewish Majority and gives many rights to its Arab minority population. While not completely equal, it is not even remotely comparable to apartheid S. Africa. People bandy about the "apartheid" word which was unfortunately used liberally by the worst Pres. ever Jimmy Carter but these two are like the night and day.”
forbiddenplanet on Jul 26, 2010 at 18:36:52
“Its true! I'm all washed up. :(
What a left hook with the "neither did S. Africa"!”
Maya Bhullar on Jul 26, 2010 at 14:33:43
“Okay so here is an article about what is happening to 'democracy' in Israel. The article we are responding to is basically propaganda, however the sad thing is how dissent is being surpressed in Israel. I am tired of people saying Israel is a democracy--no it isn't. Isn't what is being used to fuel the current paranoia in Israel a deep fear of democracy--the fear that Palestinians will outnumber Israelis. Anyway, here is a really troubling article about what is happening to dissent: http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/articles/europe/1342-criminalizing-arab-political-activity-in-israel”
“According to Zeev Maoz, in "Defending the Holy Land" and, Benny Morris, and most Israeli historians, Israel started every war with the "possible exception of 1948" (even '48 is historically in doubt). The acquisition in contention today was June 67. No respected scholar or historian disputes that Israel started this war with a GOAL of land acquisition. The internal documents are well indexed in their work.
You can't make Israel's own history disappear with English propaganda directed toward an American audience.”
enderM on Jul 26, 2010 at 18:08:48
“I'm surprised you would use Benny Morris to boost your views...benny morris, who, while speaking about his first book, said:
"They assumed that, when he described Israeli actions as cruel or as atrocities, he was condemning them. In fact, he writes, he not only fails to condemn, but in many cases supports Israeli actions during 1948."
He goes on to say:
"I always doubted the intentions of the Palestinians. The events of Camp David and what followed in their wake turned the doubt into certainty. When the Palestinians rejected the proposal of [prime minister Ehud] Barak in July 2000 and the Clinton proposal in December 2000, I understood that they are unwilling to accept the two-state solution. They want it all. "
""I don't see the suicide bombings as isolated acts. They express the deep will of the Palestinian people. That is what the majority of the Palestinians want."
According to The Economist: "Mr Morris also said, in an interview that stunned his supporters, that Israel was justified in uprooting the Palestinian 'fifth column' once the Arabs had attacked the infant state, and that the number executed or massacred—some 800, on his reckoning—was 'peanuts' compared with, say, the massacres in Bosnia in the 1990s."
“Unlike ANY of these other nations that the author directs your attention to...
ISRAEL has become a major issue "on the ground' in both live wars the U.S. is engaged in. It is also among the top THREE issues in our VITAL relationships with dozens of allies in the Middle East, Africa and Asia.
Does not Israel CARE about it's only ally? It's only financial and military sponsor? Don't they understand the risks Americans take everyday by having 1 billion people eye our sponsorship of Israel's crimes suspiciously. It is a recruiting tool against Americans.
But, do pro-Israel authors EVER thank us for taking this risk or even acknowledge it? No.
They pretend it's ONLY a "human rights" issue when it is much more. It is a United States National Security issue.
"It's either two-states now or ONE non-"Jewish" non-theocracy later"”
hellothereandhere on Jul 27, 2010 at 14:11:32
“-Direct talks: we know what President Abbas wants to negotiate, we don't know yet what Prime Minister Netanyahu wants to negotiate. With the direct talks, we'll see if it is some Bantustan States or if it is serious.
-NATO patrolling would be a good solution for the Border surveillance.”
Vlady on Jul 26, 2010 at 13:24:09
“Unlike this one, the first version was completely on target.”
Vlady on Jul 26, 2010 at 13:03:16
“You exhibit a peculiar ability to dislike true part of yours. Your first version was inadvertently correct.”
“It's either two-states now or ONE non-"Jewish" theocracy later. I think most Israelis are understanding of this concept, yet no one really looks-out beyond 20 years in strategy.
It's a good test of human behavior, long v. short term thinking.
The only problem with the two-state solution is it doesn't address Apartheid in theocratic Israel for the 25% Arabs who have lived there for generations. There's an unspoken hope that "they'll leave". But, that will just lead to incentives created for this goal, which will be the next human rights crisis after the two-states are developed, like Jim Crow laws getting turned up on the Israeli citizens of Arab descent.
The two-state package should include reforms IN ISRAEL, a constitution drafted, and fundamental rights established. That will leave the door open to one-state rights within both new nations. The borders have the possibility of being lines which both cross with ease, because both parties have interests across the boundary. Israel certainly does in Jerusalem. That should be a good incentive to make both nations "alike" in their rights and freedoms.”
Fractal122635 on Jul 28, 2010 at 17:40:54
“Where do you come up with "Apartheid". That phrase is so obscenely and objectively wrong as to bear no intellectual (or factual merit).
Why do you think those Arabs chose to remain in Israel? They enjoy full citizenship and rights that no one else in the Arab world enjoys.
“Why do the facts need to be "damned" to criticize Israel. Israel supplies us with NEW FACTS every week. Like the imprisonment of the Arab man for consensual sex. (Apartheid).
Israel is a democracy and that's a "fact". Nice argument. It is not a democracy as we now know based on the three crisis you had with your "Supreme Court". The U.S. hasn't had one such crisis where our Supreme Court was ignored. Then again, we have a constitution. You failed to draft one as was mandated in your independence document.
Religious discrimination is totally LEGAL is Israel, on the books.
"Since the 1967 war, Israel, unlike many nations victorious in battles of self-defense, has withdrawn from lands it seized." Lie. It's the source of your daily Geneva Convention violations. It also wasn't self-defense. Read Benny Morris. Israel started this war. Their goal was the violation of the Geneva Conventions on obtaining land through war. That was the plan before a gun was shot.
You even try to change the subject in your own article to other nations, not mentioning the BILLIONS in annual aid Israel gets from the U.S. to continue its occupation. You don't mention what PROBLEMS our alliance with Israel causes the United States in Arab and Muslin nations, like Iraq and Afghanistan, where we just lost more soldiers in the last TWO WEEKS than Israel lost in "rocket attacks" in TWENTY YEARS.
You need perspective. Don't attack your critics. Renew yourself.”
forbiddenplanet on Jul 26, 2010 at 12:35:02
“So many misconceptions, so little time.”
winta on Jul 26, 2010 at 12:11:30
“You are factually deficient. Instead you use revisionist lies.”
smorgans on Jul 26, 2010 at 12:06:24
“Bringing up other nations is one of the main points in the argument. As Elton John said directly referring to this, "you can't cherry pick your consciense." If you have issues with Israel, which is a democracy regardless of issues with their Supreme Court (bc maybe the US hasn't had a problem with our SC, but we certainly eliminated habeus corpus, a cornerstone of our democracy) doesn't mean they're not a democracy. If you have issues with Israel bc of their treatment of Palestinians, why is your criticism only on Israel? Why??? Why don't you talk about Jordan or Lebanon? Is it a lack on knowledge or indifference? David Harris seems to think it's indifference and I agree. I love how you bring up Afghanistan to denounce Israel. Afghanistan, a country the US went to war with and is now occupying with no end in sight. I think you're a cornerstone of the new anti-Israel = legitimize terror against her and just get rid of her.
Double standards abound!”
“This sounded like a ONE-STATE SOLUTION up until the last paragraph discussing returning to the proper Israeli borders.
So, I guess it's a one-state philosophy of total equality, no theocratic Israel, with a separate creation of Palestine? The only reason they advocate two-states at all is so they can continue the theocracy and special privilege in one of those two states!
“You must not feel responsible for your government the way I do. Perhaps I believe all the propaganda that our government is of and by the People. That being the case if we do thing that offend others, those others have every right to voluntarily chose to do business with us. It's a free market concept really and if they decide that....what, I should curse the wind?
I respect free choice, that's why my answer was yes and yes. The outcome might be bad in the short term but it might be much better in the long.
I know that's true of Israel, had we stopped them in 67-77, these settlements wouldn't be an "intractable" issue today.
We blew it”
tehixe on Jul 26, 2010 at 13:03:19
“It's not a straw man, it's an analogy to illustrate the point. The point is, if you're not actually liable, it's not fair to hold you responsible. What you suggest is punishing people who didn't do anything wrong, in order to punish people who did. It's like jailing a criminal's children or parents in order to punish him. Even if it works, it's not right.
I also think it's unrealistic to suggest that the BDS movement will work. There are just as many people fanatically in favor of Israel as fanatically against. They will split the difference of people in the middle, and the movement will never gain the overwhelming majority it would need to work.
And I think you may be placing more credit than is due on the South African Apartheid movement. You seem to be saying, it worked before, therefore it will work again. However, it has not worked again on Iran or North Korea, making a hole in your argument you could drive a tank through. The assumption that it will work now because it worked before is not exactly a solid one, given successive history.
But whether it will work is beside the point. The ends don't justify the means. It's wrong if the means are wrong, even if the ends are justified.”
tehixe on Jul 26, 2010 at 12:15:21
“You are confusing the lawful exercise of free choice with the ethical thing to do. They are not the same thing. Just because it's not illegal doesn't make it right.
The concept of moral blameworthiness includes the concept of agency -- you can only be worthy of blame if some action on your part caused the action you are being blamed for. If you are a dissident, if you actively do not support your government's policies, are you personally blameworthy for those policies? If you exercise your franchise to try and stop them, do you deserve the punishment for those policies?
What if the Hague tried to hold you, and only you, liable for the crimes of the Bush administration? Would you shrug your shoulders and admit responsibility, because the government is by and of the people? If it's not justifiable against you and only you, how could it be justifiable against everyone? Ethically, we'd all be in the same boat as people who opposed the decision.
I'm not willing to equate lawful and moral. I'm not willing to let injustice happen to me, and pass it off as acceptable just because there's no way to stop it. Injustice is wrong, the ends don't justify the means if the means are unjust. That is, in fact, a core principal behind the Bill of Rights, namely the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments. I think it's unamerican to claim that morality of the means is irrelevant if the ends are OK.”
“Iran has no external problems. Israel does with all it's neighbors. External and Internal is a major difference.
ISRAEL has BOTH. That's why it's trouble. Internal arab citizens. External occupied land. Israel is a mess. We'll help reorganize it soon.”
Philipwx on Jul 26, 2010 at 04:00:50
“'Iran has no external problems' .... you really have to be joking with this inane comment.”
barrycourage on Jul 26, 2010 at 03:38:36
“Iran's internal human rights issues, according to Amnesty International:
"Impunity, arbitrary arrest, torture and other ill-treatment, as well as the use of the death penalty remain prevalent. Some sectors of society – including ethnic minorities – continue to face widespread discrimination, while the situation for other groups – notably some religious minorities – has significantly worsened. Those seen as dissenting from stated or unstated official policies face severe restrictions on their rights to freedom of belief, expression, association and assembly. Women continue to face discrimination - both in law and practice. Impunity for human rights abuses is widespread."
How can you say "external and internal is a major difference" when your complaints are always about internal civil rights issues? You can't hold Iran and Israel to different standards about their internal behavior and still claim to be humanitarian.
And you can't just glibly criticize Israel's relationships with her neighbors in a vague generalization.
At one time, Israel's neighbors vowed to drive it into the sea--solely on the basis of anti-Semitism. That has changed quite a bit. But Israel still has the right to defend itself against aggression. If a country attacks Israel directly, Israel will defend itself. If a country gives aid and comfort to terorist groups that attack Israel, it will take necessary action to remove the terrorist threat.
“no one reads Hareetz in Israel. There are two versions.
The most popular papers in Israel do not criticize Bibi and leadership as you think. The press was pleased after Flotilla and Gaza War. He went UP in polls TWICE because the press LIFTED him up...”
Garnet Scarabin on Jul 26, 2010 at 02:59:45
“Indeed. A majority of Haaretz readers are ex-pat Israeli's and the English speaking world. It's not a major news source within Israel itself. Call my research informal, but it's based upon friends who currently live within Israel (both Israeli and not) and the Israeli ex-pat that I'm dating.”
“You were vocal and outspoken against Apartheid Israel until someone hacked your identity or stole your picture?
This was immediately after another Pro-Apartheid website was publishing your comments that you made to Huff Po on another website, as you told us.
“No. My point was the arab "reps" have NO RIGHTS derived from their constituents. Israel is different than other democracies. They can only do in the Knesset what they're allowed. If you overstep, you get stripped.
It's not a democracy. It's a show.
Ratify a constitution and we'll talk...”
Mortifyd on Jul 26, 2010 at 02:32:35
“I'm sorry, show me again where you are an expert in British based government systems and their ins and outs? They don't have to follow our rules in THEIR country. You aren't making a case, just pushing talking points. Explain how they are being disenfranchised in the context of how their system is designed, not in contrast to your misunderstanding of ours.”