Charlie Rose

spellettieri  06/19/2009 04:54 PM Report

Tartufe,

A Jewish state is racist?? How ridiculous. I suppose the Islamic Republic of Iran or the Islamic Kingdom of Saudi is ok though? Once again more double standards and lies. The Palestinian people, or at least their leaders, have never really wanted peace because they will not make any compromises. They want all the land and no Jews are allowed. This has been the case from the beginning and continues with their rejection of peace plans and embracing of terror.

JMM  05/25/2009 05:47 PM Report

Thanks, Tartufe. I'll have to do some Googling myself, to find out the UN's involvement and dealings towards the Jewish and Palestinian populations. Thanks for starting the process for me.

tartufe  05/25/2009 12:35 PM Report

JMM - no scholar of Israel. Shamelessly Googled and found a 1952(?) agreement between W. Germany and Israel. To wit:

"West Germany paid Israel a sum of 3 billion marks over the next fourteen years; 450 million marks were paid to the World Jewish Congress. The payments were made to the State of Israel as the heir to those victims who had no surviving family. The money was invested in the country's infrastructure and played an important role in establishing the economy of the new state. The reparations would become a decisive part of Israel's income, comprising as high as 87.5% of the state income in 1956."

modestman  05/24/2009 04:37 PM Report

Lally Weymouth is a moron. Salam Fayyad and Mahmoud Abbas are impressive people? Only Newsweek journalists would say such a stupid thing. And then she repeats the completely discredited fairytale version of the 1948 War. Seven Arab states invaded Israel? First off, there were only 7 Arab states that existed at the time, two of which had no regular armies (Saudi Arabia and Yemen). Lebanon never crossed into Palestine while Iraq and Transjordan (the strongest force) never crossed into the areas allocated for Israel, but rather fought the Yishuv only on land that was supposed to be designated for a Palestinian state. It’s worth considering the fact that the Jewish Agency and Transjordan had cut a deal before the UN vote to split up the West Bank and abort the birth of a Palestinian state. The only serious invasion of the Israel — as laid out by UN 181 — was by Egypt, but the most serious fighting by far was Jordanian fighting against Israeli offenses (again, on land not allocated for Israel). That much is not disputed in serious histories of that war.

Bret Stephens is interesting. The notion that because UN 181 calls Israel a “Jewish state,” Arabs are now obligated to recognize Israel as a Jewish state surpasses cynicism. UN 181 is a General Assembly resolution. What, then, do we make of the countless General Assembly resolutions affirming a two state settlement based on the 1967 borders or of the fact that UNGA 3379 — which a majority supported — labeled Zionism as racism? What about the fact that UN General Assembly resolution 194 affirms the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes? What is one to make of the 2004 World Court ruling which condemned as illegal Israel’s wall, settlements, and occupation of the West Bank and ALL of East Jerusalem? Can you think of another state in the world that is obligated to recognize the ethnic composition and supremacy of another state? I read an apt analogy recently, probably from MondoWeiss, saying that this demand is similar to asking African Americans to recognize the United States as a white state in the 1950s.

Rashid Khalidi was a complete disappointment. Virtually every time he was pushed he conceded and he almost never called anyone out for their nonsense (of which there was plenty).

Lastly, on Iran…the discussion, as elsewhere, was silly and devoid of serious analysis.

JMM  05/24/2009 11:23 AM Report

Tartufe ... I don’t ask questions unless I want to know the answer, but as I am only a news junkie about certain subjects, I’ll appeal to you for help. I really do want to know what the UN countries did do for the rest of the Middle East in return for creating or re-creating a country in their midst. Anti-Semitism is often the first example that comes up with hate crimes and violence (these days). I don’t know how it rates in comparison to the Catholic Inquisition or other ethnic genocides. I’ve learned that Pagans and Gnostics aren’t fond of the Jewish version of God, but I sort of doubt they are behind the violence as they were a minority and often faced death themselves. I’ve heard that money has a lot to do with anti-Semitism, and that makes me wonder about all of the Jewish ghettos. I certainly did learn about what has happened to Jews throughout history. As for the headlines I mentioned, I did read that other geographical areas were rejected by the Jews, but I find it hard to believe that other countries (not the US here) whose citizens and/or leaders were responsible for the need of re-creating a homeland would just give away someone else’s land without paying (a good price?) for it. Unless they acted just like colonial lords, or it was war, which is what I expect you might tell me. (But it was the UN!)

If you told me that’s true, it’s just like Ireland or any other African colony, and if you didn’t think there could be any peace in the Middle East with the negotiations and parties as is, I’d say back up and get the parties responsible for the need in the first place to step in and foot the bill of compromise ... to the Palestinians. Payments from Russia, Hungary, Germany, England, and so on. Restorations for past abuses do happen continually, as with First Nations and other aboriginals, and as was the case with some family suits. Countries pay corporations for damage done to the factories that were building weapons that were for use against them, as well as for business lost due to unsafe materials banned at their borders. So if it hasn’t been done, why not get those countries to participate in a solution?

However, if payments ... maybe like semi-trucks full of cash disappearing ... were made back then, then who to? What authors and books would you suggest for the most accurate picture of what did happen then and since?

tartufe  05/22/2009 03:06 PM Report

Nice post Greenscorpio81 05/22/2009 01:02 AM.

spellettieri  05/22/2009 12:14 PM Report

NoPardonforMichaelMilken ,

Ok well I don't claim that Lieberman is the best or the worst Israel has to offer. I do agree with him that citizens of a state should pledge an allegiance to the country to which they belong. Israeli Arabs receive all the benefits of Israeli public works, but do little to contribute to the society. They typically call for Israel's destruction all the while using Israeli hospitals, road, schools etc. You cant have it both ways!

As for comparisons of Lieberman and Hamas, well that is just ridiculous. Hamas preach anti-semitism, have fired thousands of rockets at civilian targets, celebrate the death of innocent people and call for the destruction of Israel. There is just no comparison and the fact that you are trying to make a comparison only highlights the fact that the pro-Palestinian crowd is looking for an evil counter-party to Hamas in order to claim that Israeli's can be just as racist. Its nonsense.

Finally, to disregard the issue of anti-semitism is very naive. I agree that not all critiques of Israel have anti-semitic motivations, however many of these critics are anti-semites. My point is that many of the so-called "partners" in the peace process continue to make disgusting anti-semitic overtures and this is wrong and wont foster peace.

Greenscorpio81  05/22/2009 01:02 AM Report

I cannot say I am surprised, but I love how a presentation on Israel & the Occupied Territors, there are 3 pro-israel commentators and one Palestinian. Beyond that, its not even that the 3 pro-israel commentators are just your average, run-of-the-mill pro-israel biased commentators of the U.S. mainstream media. 2 of them, Bret Stephens and Lally Weymouth, as so overwhelming biased towards Israel they sound like they work for Netanyahu. This entire discussion is like 5-1 tilted towards Israel. However, I guess I should be thankful to the Charlie Rose program, because on any other mainstream U.S. news network, there would not even BE a palestian prospective in the discussion. It would be just pro-israeli commentators sitting around agreeing with each other.

And i know I am asking a lot, but could these discussion please tone down the shrill hysterics over Iran and its alleged yet completely unproven nuclear weapons program? I know that everyone and his dog has purposefully forgotten the December 2007 NIE report which brought a firm grip back on reality when it said that there was NO Iranian nuclear weapons program, despite the fact that everyone evenly remotely pro-Israel deliberately ignored the report cause it didnt solve their geopolitical purposes. I would not be so surprised if the Iranians truly were seeking nuclear weapons, not only considering the fact that they are militarily surrounded by the US who has been trying to either undermine, control, or destroy them since the 1950s, but also considering that the Israeli regime seems hellbent on an illegal war of aggression against Iran in the near future (a type of war that Israel is quite familiar with).

And I love this ridiculous idea that a weaponized Iran is going to begin a nuclear arms race in the region. Who exactly is going to build nuclear weapons? The Saudis, Jordanians, Egyptians, gulf states? The states who are completely propped up by the US govt, owe their security and military armaments to the US govt, cannot make a military move without US govt approval, and would easily fall apart without the financial and military support of the US Govt? THESE are the countries that are going to SOMEHOW build nuclear arsenals under the nose of a US govt hostile to the idea? The idea is so laughably ridiculous it would be hysterical if it was not at the epicenter of the Washington consensus.

And to those who complain that Saudi Arabia and Egypt, etc are so much worse and more racist and so undemocratic? Hmmmmm have u asked your government why it has been backing these horrible governments, financing their tyranny, and training the very state security forces which terrorize their populations? The fact is, everyone knows that these "moderate" Arab states are horrible and freely admit it. However, the problem is here is that those same people bend over backwards to say how wonderful and democratic and fantastic Israel is, no matter how obviously fraudulent those claims are. Israel cannot be leading a decades-long, illegal and brutal occupation of Palestinian lands and still come of as a democratic darling. Having the IDF use Palestnian civilians as human shields (as reported by both international and ISRAELI human rights groups)just makes them look even worse.

NoPardonforMichaelMilken  05/22/2009 12:55 AM Report

spellettieri,

Do you wish to assert that Avigdor Lieberman and his American mouthpiece, Lally Weymouth, represent the best of Israel, the Jewish State, or Judaism worldwide?

Could it not be possible to separate Israel and the form of Neoconservative practiced by Mr. Lieberman and Ms. Weymouth?

How do you believe that Mr. Lieberman differs from his foes in Hamas and Hezbollah? Or do you endorse Mr. Lieberman's Neoconservative desire to fight Conservative Muslims like those in Hamas and Hezbollah with loyalty oaths and demands for blind obedience?

Is it possible for Israel to exist, as it deserves to be a vital part of the world, without repeated claims, as per Neoconservative Americans such as Abe Foxman, Norman Podhoretz, and Jeffrey Goldberg, of endless victimhood and cries of antisemitism?

Can you, personally, outline your views about Israel, a fine nation, without resorting to retorts of antisemitism against any and all who are to question you or take a position counter to your own?

spellettieri  05/21/2009 08:25 PM Report

Very interesting issue that arose in the interview, which was namely whether the obstacle to peace is the 1967 or 1948 war? I think clearly the issue of settlements is a "first stop" for the Arabs on the road to forcing Israel back to the 1948 borders and then finally to the destruction of Israel altogether.

If the Arabs cannot even accept Israel as a Jewish state and continue their anti-semitic rhetoric, then clearly taking the settlements down will not secure peace. It is a sad double standard when Israel is called a racist state for being Jewish, while its regional neighbors like Saudi and Iran are Islamic republics and kingdoms.

Furthermore, Khalidi's argument about the demographich bomb awaiting Israel is a complete myth and non-sequitur. There is a Jewish majority in Israel proper and that is all that really matters if the goal is to create borders around the '67 lines. The fact that there are millions of Palestinians in the territories (those statistics are highly suspect btw)is irrelevant to this issue.

NoPardonforMichaelMilken  05/21/2009 06:32 PM Report

Seems Lally Dearest has literally been begging her Georgetown chums to attack Iran. When that fails, Lally Dearest has chosen to use her late-Mum's business to further her Neoconservative yearnings and badger Arab leaders who dare to disagree with her D.C.-Manhattan-Hamptons-London-Paris-Five-Star-Servants-Only View of the Middle East.

Let's review Lally Dearest's two-prong, six-question attack on King Abdullah of Jordan on June 22, 2008.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/19/AR2008061903151_pf.html

First, Lally Dearest started the interview with this three-question attack against King Abdullah:

Lally Dearest, Question: "Is [the] Annapolis [peace process] dead?"

King Abdullah, Answer: "I'm actually very concerned since President Bush's visit to the region, to Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. I think the peace process has lost credibility in people's minds in this area. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been in the region and is working very closely with the Israelis and the Palestinians to move the process forward. . . . We're all very pessimistic at this stage."

Lally Dearest, Question: "Do you view Iran as the number one threat in this region?"

King Abdullah, Answer: "I think the lack of peace [between Israel and the Palestinians] is the major threat. I don't see the ability of creating a two-state solution beyond 2008, 2009. [And] I think this is really the last chance. If this fails, I think this is going to be the major threat for the Middle East: Are we going to go for another 60 years of "fortress Israel," or are we going to have a neighborhood where Israel is actually incorporated? That is our major challenge, and I am very concerned that the clock is ticking and that the door is closing on all of us."

Lally Dearest, Question: "But aren't you concerned that Iran is a threat both to your country and to other countries in the region?"

King Abdullah, Answer: "Iran poses issues to certain countries, although I have noticed over the past month or so that the dynamics have changed quite dramatically, and for the first time I think maybe I can say that Iran is less of a threat. But if the peace process doesn't move forward, then I think that extremism will continue to advance over the moderate stands that a lot of countries take. We've reached a crossroads, and I'm not too sure what direction we're heading in."

Four Internet screen pages later, Lally Dearest resumed her offensive against King Abdullah to close the interview.

Lally Dearest, Question: "So you're not in favor of military action against Iran?"

King Abdullah, Answer: "I am not in favor of military action against Iran. I think you'd be playing with Pandora's box."

Lally Dearest, Question: "So you're willing to live with a nuclear Iran?"

King Abdullah, Answer: "What do we mean by nuclear Iran? Some people are saying they have a nuclear weapons program, and some people are saying they don't. The latest American intelligence estimate released a couple of months ago was that their nuclear program has diminished or stopped. Now the British-Israeli view of that is not as positive as the American one, so I've been told."

Lally Dearest, Question: "The American view was that the military program was diminishing in 2003, but not that it had stopped."

King Abdullah, Answer: "I think that you need to engage with the Iranians. A military strike in Iran today will only solicit a reaction from Iran and Iranian proxies, and I don't think that we can live with any more conflicts in this part of the world."

Charlie, care to explain the reason for your ABSENCE of LOGICAL QUERY as to the basis for Lally Dearest's position?

Or, instead, Charlie, will you simply rush to the bank to cash the latest contribution to your production efforts in the adverse economic times?

NoPardonforMichaelMilken  05/21/2009 06:21 PM Report

Seems Lally Dearest preferred that her late-Mum remain silent and now ignored about her marvelous life. Perhaps Lally Dearest realized who really had the literary talent in the family and that it's Mum, not Lally Dearest, with The New York Times Best Seller AND the appropriate kudos for her divine effort.

Charlie, why didn't you ask Lally Dearest about her evident jealousy?

http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2008/04/07/2008-04-07_katharine_grahams_daughter_wants_nothing.html ?print=1&page=all

Katharine Graham's daughter wants nothing to do with biopic

Sunday, April 6th 2008, 8:57 PM

Katharine Graham Hulton/Getty

Katharine Graham

Execs at HBO couldn't be more proud of the biopic they're making about the late Washington Post publisher Katharine Graham. But some of her survivors wish the network would just drop it.

Graham's daughter, columnist Lally Weymouth, bristled when someone brought up the film at a party a few months ago.

"I want nothing to do with it," Weymouth declared.

When fellow guest Charlie Rose suggested the movie would turn out better if she cooperated, she said: "Nothing doing. I didn't even want my mother to write her own book," the 1998 memoir, "Personal History."

Some wonder what Weymouth's beef is.

Lally Dearest's beef, as per the Mortimer's News, can be spelled with five letters:

M-O-N-E-Y (with a healthy dash of JEALOUSY on the side)

NoPardonforMichaelMilken  05/21/2009 06:17 PM Report

Charlie, darling, why didn't you ask Lally Dearest about her recent question-and-answer conversation with her close, personal friend and ideological ally, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, that appeared in the March 1, 2009 edition of The Washington Post?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/26/AR2009022602806_pf.html

A few samples of Lally Dearest's chat Mr. Lieberman that Charlie willfully chose to ignore:

Lally Dearest, Question: "But people in the United States think you are a racist. What do you say to those people?"

Lieberman, Answer: "I think they don't understand our reality. We say the left wing in Israel and the United States is in shock that we were so successful."

RACISM is REALITY is Lieberman's Israel.

Lieberman, in response to a question by Lally Dearest regarding his mandate to implement a loyalty oath for all Israelis, including Arabs and Orthodox Jews:

"We take all our examples from Europe or the United States. For example the pledge [of allegiance]. When I suggested the exact procedure like in the United States for the pledge, everybody here says you're a racist, you're a fascist. Why? It's the same as in the United States."

Lally Dearest, Question: "It's not. No one makes you recite the pledge."

Lieberman, Answer: ". . . I understand that in school every child . . ."

Lally Dearest, Question: "It's not mandatory. You don't have to say it if you don't feel like it. No one's going to kick you out of the country if you don't."

Lieberman, Answer: "I agree with this. We don't have a proposal to kick people out of the country. But I think the country must demand from the citizens real responsibility. It's a crazy thing in Israel that a minister doesn't agree to our anthem. I can't imagine it."

Lieberman MANDATES a BLIND LOYALTY OATH in ISRAEL.

Charlie, darling, you remained silent. Clearly, Lally Dearest and her financial connections told you to obey and you did so. Good show, Charlie! Good show!

tartufe  05/21/2009 10:11 AM Report

Example of brutalization of our young. Ironically, the ones that off themselves are probably the good ones - sensitive to engaging in and witnessing senseless human slaughter.

"Post-War Suicides May Exceed Combat Deaths, U.S. Says

Insel echoed a Rand Corporation study published last month that found about 20 percent of returning U.S. soldiers have post- traumatic stress disorder or depression, and only half of them receive treatment.

Avram Goldstein

"The number of suicides among veterans of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may exceed the combat death toll because of inadequate mental health care, the U.S. government's top psychiatric researcher said."

NoPardonforMichaelMilken  05/21/2009 01:09 AM Report

Lally Weymouth, I've typed it once and I'll type it again, is the most spoiled brat in Washington, New York, Paris, London, and Hong Kong.

Mothers and fathers, if you placate your children and fail to discipline them, you wind up with a bitter, vindictive, spiteful, minor little character like Lally Weymouth.

That, and a weakened bank account, a litany of psychiatry bills, and a pounding headache.

NoPardonforMichaelMilken  05/21/2009 12:56 AM Report

Avigdor Lieberman.

The Face of Israel.

The Face of Likud.

The Tony Scalia Meets Dick Cheney of the Bibi What A Yahoo Regime of Terror.

tartufe  05/20/2009 06:10 PM Report

"Israeli Soldiers Testify to War Crimes

The PulsePosted March 19, 2009 - 10:01am "During Operation Cast Lead, Israeli forces killed Palestinian civilians under permissive rules of engagement and intentionally destroyed their property, say soldiers who fought in the offensive," Ha'aretz reported today.

At a lecture at a pre-military academy Israeli soldiers and officers gave personal accounts of murder and brutality.

Ofer Shelah in Ma'ariv:

"For the first time since the end of Operation Cast Lead, testimonies have come to the fore of soldiers and officers from different units that took part in the operation. The testimonies . . . paint a harsh picture, very different from the IDF reports: Killing people who were clearly identified as innocent, driving families out of their homes to the open area where a policy was in force according to which whoever remained in the area was not an innocent person and could be shot, acts of vandalism and destroying property and humanitarian supplies, and an atmosphere in which the combatants understood that all this was permitted, and would not be investigated."

It's easy to see why Israel is our ally, as we love to brutalize our young as well. We're both equal parts chicken shit, we with our CS drone missiles.

Surely Beelzebub slobberingly awaits us both.

Israel is a baby burning bunch of bastards. A cowardice beyond redemption as we are. We're each hell on wheels when we have a techno-advantage. Israel tanks and planes etc,

tartufe  05/20/2009 05:46 PM Report

". . . a democratic nation . . . ." A contraire, a "Jewish" state cannot be a democratic state.

Or no longer a Jewish state. A la the demographic time bomb.

ShalomFreedman  05/20/2009 07:54 AM Report

Before the operation in Gaza the Palestinians had bombarded southern Israel for eight years. This came after Israel voluntarily and one- sidedly withdrew from Gaza, removed the eight-thousand Jews living there. The Palestinians boasted that there would be thousands of Israeli soldiers killed if Israel dared move against them. They had stockpiled large numbers of rockets and other weapons. However when Israel did move, Hamas decided to play a different game. They hid behind the civilian population. They had always put their rocket- launchers among civilian facilities but here their 'fighters' went one stop further and actually went into civilian clothes in hiding. Nonetheless they continued firing rockets into Israel. Israel responded not in the way the Palestinians hoped but with the intention of saving the lives of their own soldiers. The civilian casualties which resulted are painful and unfortunate. But they came because the Palestinians continued to fire from places where civilians were. Israel has a strict code instructing soldiers how to act in relation to enemy civilians, and whenever possible protect their lives. Israel can be hated for winning, the way the United States is often hated for causing large casualties to the other side when receiving few on its own. But that fails to see the fundamental distinction between a democratic nation working to preserve lives whenever possible and a cynical terror group willing to sacrifice its own civilians in order to protect its 'fighters'

Those who ignorant of the total situation the motivation of both sides should perhaps study the realities of the conflict in a deeper way.

tartufe  05/20/2009 02:06 AM Report

JMM - pardon the skepticism (it comes natural). Are you pandering here? Your sign-off query seems so disingenuous and even counter common sense it comes off as an attempt at too crafty by half. To wit: "Was there a pay-off by the large group of UN countries, and if so, who got it?"

The Palestinians come to mind first. They're really getting a pay-off. The US is likewise getting paid-off in perineal Arab hatred. Reparations are on-going. We pay Israel billions - so they too are receiving pay-offs from us - annually.

Are you talking reparations? By the UN?

Reparations like for Blacks, American Indians? Rwandans? Darfurians? Palestinians? Genocidians everywhere?

You cite "many incidents of violence toward Jews . . . ."

The broader and more natural query unasked is, "Why?"

Is it the parochially stupid christian charge of Christ-killer? Or is it a pentup rage against historical Jewish mercantilism?

With all your studies, did they all omit a discussion as to why?

JMM  05/20/2009 12:43 AM Report

I have a question about the history of the creation of Israel. Here is the background to what prompts this question.

I went through a 100 year record of European and US news and made notes of all sorts, and one item I tracked was the amount of hate crimes toward and the killings of minorities. There were many incidents of violence toward Jews besides the atrocity of WWII. In fact, the records start with one in January 1900, the Odessa anti-Jewish riots. Then it’s April 1901 and it’s in Budapest. In 1903, the Russian Czar ordered a slaughter of Jews, and forbid them from owning property, and then the Czar rejected US protests about it. In 1905, there is a mob of 50,000 in Odessa who killed 1000 Jews – they shot the men, but stabbed, strangled, cut to pieces Jewish women and children. So, unfortunately, that type of violence has been a fairly constant occurrence. (I’m not Jewish ... I tracked the same for African Americans and women and Indians and Gandhi.)

I also read the headlines about the British proposal to help the Jews create Israel. It is very easy to understand why the Jews would want to have their own homeland. And so finally, after being in the works for decades, and really a necessity after WWII, the British, the US, and the UN finally gave it to them.

At the same time, I read the relationships between Europe and the US and the Middle Eastern Arab countries ... especially the deals they made regarding oil.

What I don’t see is where all those countries who treated the Jews in such a contemptible way, thereby creating the continual crisis, compensated the Jews and the residents of the land that then turned around to re-become Israel. I’ll forego the example of what we’d feel like if that kind of violence or upheaval happened to us. I want to know what the countries who perpetuated the crises did in way of compensation. Was there a pay-off by the large group of UN countries, and if so, who got it?

tartufe  05/20/2009 12:07 AM Report

"2) The policy of Israel, in peace and in war is to attack military forces, and to protect the lives of enemy civlians. No Army has a more scrupulous policy in showing concern for the lives of civilians of the other side, than does Israel's."

Latest large-scale incursion 1300 Pal civilians killed, 400+ children. Many fire-bombed in schools.

A lovely non-race of people.

ShalomFreedman  05/19/2009 10:29 PM Report

The ill-informed persistently comment on this site.

So a few facts.

1) The Arab population of Israel has increased fivefold since its founding. Their economic and social conditions are far superior to those generally prevalent in the Arab world.

2) The policy of Israel, in peace and in war is to attack military forces, and to protect the lives of enemy civlians. No Army has a more scrupulous policy in showing concern for the lives of civilians of the other side, than does Israel's.

3) The Jewish people are not a 'race' despite many racists claims in this regard. As with all the major religions Jews come from diverse ethnic and racial groups. Anyone who walks the streets of Israel will see Jews who are white, black, yellow and every other shade humanity takes.

4) Israel was founded to be a refuge and home to the Jewish people who for two - thousand years suffered in exile and homelessness, and never abandoned their dream of returning to their historical homeland. There is one small Jewish state in the world. When the United Nations called for partition in 1947 it called for a Jewish state and an Arab state to live side- by- side. The Arabs rejected the partition and initiated a war in which they lost what would have been a good part of their territory. To this day the heart of the conflict is in the refusal of many in the Arab world to recognize and live in peace with the Jewish state. Hamas the Palestinian organization ruling in Gaza insists it will never recognize Israel and will continue to work for its destruction.

5) Despite its being under constant threat and attack the state of Israel has developed in the past sixty years into a decent democratic state one which has already made considerable contribution to the medical scientific and cultural well- being of mankind.

AntonGrambihler  05/19/2009 09:17 PM Report

Does Israel really Exist?

Since Israel has never abided by the conditions of the UN resolution which authorized the taking of Palestine land and giving it to Terrorists, does it really exist?

tartufe  05/19/2009 04:40 PM Report

A study in fanciful parallelisms: Jews expell Arabs from Israel and declare it a Jewish state.

A parallel? Non-Jews expell Jews from NYC and declare it a non-Jewish city.

Christopher  05/19/2009 02:21 PM Report

I believe khalid corectly surmises the disconnect between arab leaders and their populations(I think their populations are much more anti semetic than their leaders). Also, I think that Bret's remarks about Israel's supreme concern is Iran, not Palestine. But I just want to make one remark; I am amazed at how peaceful West Bank Palestinians are; despite the explusion of Palestinians from East Jerusalem, despite no settlement freeze in the West Bank. I think that Israel has to stop the settlements. It has to stop, period. In this case they really have no legitimacy.

Also, the Palestinians have got to get their act together. Hamas has gotta go. I think the next Palestinian election is so critical. Great discussion, it should have went the hour. Just a remark, I really appreciated Bret's participation at this. I thought he contrasted well Khalid, I would liked to see the both of them go "all out".

ShalomFreedman  05/19/2009 02:16 PM Report

I was very happy to see that Charlie Rose balanced this discussion by bringing Bret Stephens to the table. Rashid Khalidi had difficulty getting away with the kinds of 'stretchers' he often inserts in the discussion. For instance he spoke about the clock-ticking and the dramatic urgency of the Palestinian question, and Stephens pointed out that this same dramatic - urgency and clock- ticking and 'last opportunity' has been felt countless times through the past sixty years. Stephens also made the critical point that Israel was founded as a Jewish state, that this was the condition on which it was recognized by the U.N. It is odd that no one thinks of calling any of the twenty or more Arab states 'racist' even though many of them have suppressed and expelled minorities. Israel is a majority Jewish state and the majority of its people strongly demand that it remain so. This is why the issue of recognition of it as such is a condition for real recognition by the Arab regimes. The Arabs who would like a peace treaty to mean Israel immediately takes in millions of Arab refugees and becomes then another Arab state are not real partners for peace. I think Stephens and Weymouth were also right in pointing out that the real clock ticking in the Middle East is the Iranian nuclear one. A nuclear Iran will mean a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, and a greater likelihood of nuclear war, and nuclear terror. Stopping Iran should be the first priority of the Obama Administration. My own sense is that President Obama will not be fooled by the Iranians and will not be strung along indefinitely and ultimately fecklessly, the way the Bush Administration was.

REMant  05/19/2009 01:41 PM Report

A magnificent discussion that unfortunately was likely seen by only a handful of ppl in Washington, because WHUT, the Howard university station which normally airs Charlie Rose at 11 pm did not have the broadcast. A transmitter signal, yes. The broadcast, no. WETA, the larger PBS station in the area, did not air it until midnight, because it, in its usual unwisdom, decided that it would be better to rerun a 3-hr program on the Kennedy's, which ran until then. Because this kind of thing is the norm with both of these stations, I doubt many ppl ever try to watch in the first place. I have never seen worse public broadcasting stations in the US, WETA especially. But this is Washington, where everyone lives down to expectations. Now, it is my feeling that WETA does not deserve any more money to correct this situation, but I think WHUT probably does need new equipment and/or additional staff, and so I have decided to use what moral capital I may have here to appeal to some of the very fine foundations, which support the show, to see what they can do about getting it in front of ppl on a consistent basis, when and where it may actually be needed most. Thank you.

tartufe  05/19/2009 01:01 PM Report

Doesn’t a “Jewish” state translate to (Jimmie Carter’s) “Apartheid?”

Netanyahu will filet Osama after having bled him upside-down fully koshered for his first black mutton meal. In short, he will (along with the Jewish lobby) play the youngster Obama like a fiddle.

This meeting will queer any subsequent meeting with Iran, as the Iranians will sense (know) that Obama is now a compromised puppet of Netanyahu’s.

It will mock and render as the rank hypocrisy it is, Obama’s touted speech to the Arab world.

If nukes are the issue, why are those of Israel, Pakistan, India, N. Korea, Russia, USA an equal ball-busting stalemate producer in world affairs? Childish remarks should not decide military policy. MAD works for the rest of the world to date, why is it presumed that it wont work with Iran?

As to proliferation, if other states (Egypt, Syria, yadda, yadda) want a rationale to go nuclear, they already have at least six examples cited above. Iran’s supposed to be a final straw magic toppler of some kind? Only in the rationalizations promulgated in the Jewish-American orthodoxy. Excuses are ready-made in the two with the arrogance and might-makes-right mentality - namely US and Israel. Us and our surrogate extension of us (US).

Our good and best friend and ally is still promoting for the US to do what they would like to have done - and they would hold our coat.

We are doing just fine making enemies. Israel gets it and wants to help us in every way it can.

Captain Obama your ship of fools is running aground.