Charlie Rose

AntonGrambihler  01/09/2011 10:49 AM Report

During the Nuremberg Trials Terrorists rose up against the British Mandate of Palestine.

These Terrorists call themselves Israel.

This Israel denies the Gentiles their RIGHT-OF-RETURN.

Is this what over 35 Million Gentiles died for?

worldwatcher  01/07/2011 10:48 AM Report

"Khalidi said that (what Zionists/Israelis call "the demographic bomb" of) the Palestinian birth rate and therefore Palestinian population soon outnumbering the Israeli Jewish population of Palestine as a whole (now often called Israel-Palestine) -- many say that the Palestinian population is already just/somewhat over 50%..."

IN FACT, ZIONIST JEWS CONSTANTLY OBSESS ABOUT THE *ARAB SEMITES* -- "TOO MANY PALESTINIANS" AND "THE 'AHRABS' ALL AROUND US", INCLUDING IN THE U.S. -- THE WAY ONCE ANTI-SEMITIC EASTERN EUROPEAN POPULATION SEGMENTS USED TO WORRY ABOUT "TOO MANY JEWS"!

worldwatcher  01/07/2011 10:26 AM Report

Cross-posted from:

Author David Grossman on his book “To the End of the Land”

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11241#comment_77695

worldwatcher 01/06/2011 08:27 AM

re BENEZRAA 01/04/2011 12:23 AM -- WHO CAN'T EVEN *SAY* "PALESTINIANS" (except when claiming that *European/Ashkenazi/foreign* Jewish invaders and settler-colonizers in Israel/Palestine are *really* the 'Palestinians' and therefore have more rights than the native people):

ISRAEL IS A RACIST JEWISH-SUPREMACIST STATE and political ZIONISM IS A RACIST IDEOLOGY *because* politically Zionist Jews invaded and subjugated the rights of the native people of Palestine -- the Palestinians -- under the rights of an invading, largely European, population employing a, otherwise completely ridiculous, political and Biblical (much of it having *no* archeological/scientific evidence) fundamentalism and even outright mythology/lies (foremostly, the "land without a people" claim) -- only possible because it was supported by racist imperialist Western powers who thought they could have an advantage (rather than the constant trouble it would inevitably bring those European powers) with a foreign European outpost in the middle of the Middle East.

To the Zionist/Israeli claim that, "Israel protects the European West from its Arab enemies in the Middle East", is often the rebuttal, "But, before Israel existed, the European West *HAD NO* Arab enemies in the Middle East."

------------------------------------------------------------

Again, see below (or online [From UK Indymedia and other online Web sources]):

worldwatcher 10/23/2010 12:41 PM

"20 Parallels of Zionism with Nazism"

And as parallel #20 shows, the Zionists -- as many anti-Zionists say -- literally, THEY LEARNED FROM THE NAZIS!

And, as anti-Zionist scholar and author Lenni Brenner wrote in one of his landmark books, EARLY ZIONISTS CERTAINLY *COLLABORATED* WITH THE NAZIS -- EVEN OFFERING TO FIGHT ON THE SIDE OF THE NAZIS, if the Nazis would have supported the Zionists *own* planned racist *Jewish*-supremacist state in Palestine.

------------------------------------------------------------

Also, again, quoting Albert Einstein: "It would be my greatest sadness to see Jews do to Palestine's Arabs MUCH of what Nazis did to Jews."

------------------------------------------------------------

Also, again, this is what a true anti-racist, and thus anti-Zionist, Jewish activist said about Zionism and Israel (see, "Reflections on Zionism from a Dissident Jew") -- author, TIM WISE:

"Surely it is not for this ignoble end, that six million died."

------------------------------------------------------------

Also, again, this is what GANDHI said about political Zionism:

"Surely it [ZIONISM] would be A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY."

------------------------------------------------------------

So, BENEZRAA, you can keep spouting and spinning Israeli/Zionist propaganda and (im)moral diversions all you want, but it still doesn't make it true.

BENEZRAA  01/06/2011 09:58 PM Report

THERE IS A SAYING, "A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS" ...

... and the picture to look at is the September 1, 2010 picture of

President Obama strolling [towards camera] on a long red carpet

leading Netanyahu and Mubarak [camera left] and Abbas and Abdulla

II [camera right]. In national terms, the USA is leading Israel,

Egypt, "Palestine" and Jordan forwards towards a "peace" agreement

scheduled to be made before August 31, 2011.

The current move by Abbas to push for the UN to recognize a State

of Palestine with well-defined boundaries is likely as much a part

of the Obama agenda for Middle East "peace" as was Obama's "shot

across the bow" at Israel, when on assuming the presidency of the

USA, Obama called for Israel to cease all "settlement" activity.

The "compromise" in the making will make no one happy and likely

will lead to war. World attitude and policy towards Israel has

been to contain Israel going back to modern Israel's origination.

The USA has been no exception in that regard, and the blueprint

for what "Palestine" may look like (once an agreement is forced)

was spelled out in the Rand Report of a few years ago.

Extremists on both sides like to paint Israel and Arabia with

extreme brushes and often drive media, politics, and wars.

For example, there are those, who see Netanyahu as an Israeli

right wing extremist. Israelis of all persuasions hope that he is

more than an American puppet.

Given security assurances, the majority of Israelis may support

the Obama policy and once again concede land for peace, though

this concession would be far riskier than the concession of Gaza.

Those, who want to destroy Israel, will say, "It is not Israel's

land to concede in the first place!" And, having said this, they

will want to wage a continued war of "liberation" against Israel

until Israel is altogether annihilated.

Gaza and Lebanon are still wild cards and jagged pieces to be put

into place in the jigsaw puzzle of the mideast "peace" process.

In the "sausage making" of politics, there is much sausage yet to

be made; the only question at this point, as war in the south with

Gaza and war in the north with Lebanon seem to be the current

sausages about to explode. Whether or not the Obama initiative

will precede and "provoke" such a war; or whether or not the

Obama initiative will ensue and be "made essential for middle east

peace" after such a war; or whether or not such a forced peace

plan would include heavy handed pre-emption of war in Gaza and in

Lebanon -- these are the spices of the sausage to be made.

So much for my own reading of the "tea leaves" and the "sausage

pan" pertaining to the current Abbas effort before the UN seeking

official UN recognition of a State of Palestine.

================================

With respect to the commentary of Professor Khalidi -- such

fertile commentary for responsa -- three ideas raise eyebrows.

Professor Khalidi stated that there is "only one power between the

Mediterranean and the Jordan". His view, his perspective, his

tunnel vision, his brilliant sin of omission reminds me of the

famous New Yorker cartoon depicting the geographical perspective

of the typical New Yorker looking westwards across the Hudson

River! Professor Khalidi -- there is an entire world of nations

of Islamic power stretching eastwards from the the Jordan all the

way across Arabia to Persia, Central Asia, into China; northwards

from Lebanon, Syria, and Turkey into Russia; southwards into the

Arabian peninsula and south and west across the entire African

continent! That it is Israel being pressed to give land for

"peace" is the greatest joke of history!

Professor Khalidi stated that it is fine with him, if Israel wants

to "sit pretty", because "the world won't stand for bad boy

Israel's behavior" and because sooner or later the only

alternative to a two-state solution would be for Israel to allow

equal status for the all the Arabs within Israeli territorial

"occupation". May I remind Professor Khalidi that there are more

than a million Muslim Arab Citizens of Israel, who are secure in

the practice of their faith, their businesses and employments,

their right to education, their right to vote, their right to

serve in Israeli government including as elected officials, even

to serve in the military? Please, show me anywhere in the Arab

world, where there is even remotely an equivalent!

Regarding the alleged horror of Israeli "occupation", may I remind

Professor Khalidi that Jordan first occupied the "West Bank" in

1948, preventing a State of Palestine, which existential right

Israel had agreed to in 1948"? At that time Israel was no larger

than the Gaza Strip is today, and grew larger only as a result of

United Arab aggression to annihilate the new State of Israel at

the time of it's tiny inception? May I remind Professor Khalidi

that Israel "occupied" the "West Bank" in 1967, when under

Egyptian and Syrian leadership, Jordan was on the brink of yet

aanother war of annihilation against Israel, flanked and in fact

prodded into war by Egypt, Syria, and the PLO?

Israel, ancestral homeland of the Jewish People, has been overrun

and occupied by one foreign nation after another for thousands of

years. Many Palestinians (Palestine is Israel by historical fact)

are likely descendants of Jews, such that the current warfare of

between the differing religious and linguistic cultures represents

an extra cruel twist on the theme of sibling warfare. If founded

in a mutual respect for life, a cessation of hostilities would be

an achievement of highest value.

If there is a State of Palestine to arise in the near future, the

greatest consideration before the world ought to be whether or not

the vast geo-political landscape of Arab and Muslim nations --

including the as yet hypothetical State of Palestine -- will not

only acknowledge Israel, but, will adopt policies of equal rights

and full protection for all persons. Persecution of non-Muslims

and Muslims alike is the character today of extreme Islam,

highlighted this week by the assassination of Salman Taseer,

Governor of Pakistan's Punjab Province; Governor Taseer was

assassinated because he sought to protect a Christian woman from

an horrendous death sentence; her alleged crime was "blasphemy"

[of Islam].

We in the West are privileged to live in nations that value free

speech even to the point that we protect repugnant speech; our

nations no longer establish their political structures on

exclusive religious doctrines, and it is exclusive religious

doctrines that enable "anti-blasphemy" laws. In the USA uniquely,

the legal system holds an accused individual to be "innocent

until proven guilty", a profound legal right even in the Western

world.

In Israel one-fifth of citizenry are not Jewish. Of that fifth

the majority are Muslims, who enjoy religious, political, and

economic freedom to an extent most do not have even in Muslim

countries. Jews do not enjoy similar freedoms, nor the right to

life in most Muslim countries, and nor do Peoples of other Faiths.

When the Israelis evacuated Gaza and gifted it to the Arabs (and

you may argue, whether or not it was Israel's to give or not, and

so arguing, you would miss the point), the Arabs destroyed any

vestige of Israeli presence (that vestige being empty Synagogue

structures) and would not and will not welcome or protect any

Jewish presence, let alone on the basis of equality.

The cross-border abduction and cruel captivity of Gilad Shalit is

the salient case in point.

For those quick to condemn Israel for having bulldozed it's

physical infrastructure in Gaza in advance of relinquishing Gaza

to the Arabs, please remember that it was the Arabs, who insisted

that Israel, at Israel's own expense, raze it's proud Gaza legacy.

Any sign, symbol, or actual Jewish life no longer exists in Gaza;

all is erased, as though it never was. In a spiritual sense one

could say that Jewish life in Gaza may as well have been cremated,

which along with suicide is a violation of Judaism.

The AL-AQSA Mosque and the entire AL-HARAM AL-SHARIF, overseen by

the WAQF, continue to flourish with Muslim religious life from

atop the Temple Mount, Israel's Holiest place. Yesterday, today,

and tomorrow, the Muslims of Israel and the World are secure in

the knowledge that they may live and worship freely under Israeli

protection, while even the Israeli Government does not even ask

for reciprocal respect from the world of Islam, and there is no

equivalent respect for Israel or Jews by Muslim nations.

Aluf Benn of Israeli newspaper HA'ARETZ commented on the political

shift of the Turks away from cordial relations with Israel. Why

should the Turks show respect for the Israeli Government, when the

Israeli Government shows no respect for itself or it's People?

Shame on Muslims, who refer to Jews [and Christians] as People of

the Book, then demand their annihilation. Shame on Muslims, who

show even less tolerance for other nations/faiths and persecute

them even to death, such as Hindus and Buddhists.

Shame on the United Nations, which in it's current "drunken

frenzy" encourages distorted, Israel-bashing double standards,

promoting and enabling murder, criminality, and JIHAD by Arabs.

As long as AL-HARAM AL-SHARIF is a place for the AL-AQSA Brigades

to throw rocks down upon the heads of Jews praying at the Western

Wall, the AL-AQSA Mosque is not deserving of status as a House of

Prayer.

worldwatcher  01/06/2011 06:32 AM Report

Further clarification:

"Israel will never seriously negotiate -- and therefore there will never be an internal [ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN] resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because Israel [THE GOVT OR THE SOCIETY] has no incentive to do so -- as long as Israel enjoys overwhelming military, economic, and political advantage -- and this in great part to the military, economic and political support of Israel's rich Uncle Sam -- or unless and until there is a tectonic change in the Middle East in any of those factors. When these factors, hugely in favor of the oppressor, are present, there is almost never any internal pressure [_*ALONE*_] that can bring down such an oppressive [here, IDEOLOGICALLY ZIONIST APARTHEID] system..."

[Khalidi said that (what Zionists/Israelis call the "demographic bomb" of) the Palestinian birth rate and therefore Palestinian population soon outnumbering the Israeli Jewish population of Palestine as a whole (now often called Israel-Palestine) -- many say that the Palestinian population is already just/somewhat over 50% -- will be what I call a tectonic shift -- because the Western world (at least, presumably, the people of the West) won't accept a Jewish minority oppressing a (I suppose clear/obvious) Palestinian majority.

But, keep in mind (as I said below and that is obvious to any historian) that Palestine used to be an overwhelmingly Palestinian Arab country -- even at the time of the immoral "Jewish partition" followed by self-declared statehood of "Israel" -- THE THEN NEW EUROPEAN *COLONIAL* NAME FOR MOST OF PALESTINE. Apartheid South Africa was (and is) an overwhelmingly black country and look how long it took -- many decades -- for the European West to force the abolition of that ideologically racist system, and only because it eventually became too much of an embarrassment to the white (much of it racist) European West that supported that system for decades -- EVEN WITHOUT A POWERFULLY FINANCED, ORGANIZATIONALLY PERVASIVE, ALWAYS THREATENING, POLITICAL LOBBY IN THE EUROPEAN WEST. Western white general racism and its identification with generally white European/Ashkenazi Israeli Jews -- the European Jewish mass invaders of Palestine over, with white gentile displaced guilt against, the rights of the native inhabitants -- generally supports the racist Zionist ideology and system as well -- ironically a racist system that many moral, adamantly anti-racist Jews (that we never hear about in our media) OPPOSE.

worldwatcher  01/05/2011 10:29 PM Report

Clarification:

Therefore -- as has been the case for decades -- ISRAEL WILL NEVER MISS AN OPPORTUNITY TO *DESTROY* AN OPPORTUNITY _FOR PEACE_.

--absent the Palestinian people just abjectly giving up, rolling over and 'playing dead': accepting whatever geographical scraps and political status Israel would relegate to them.

worldwatcher  01/05/2011 10:13 PM Report

I FORGOT TO MENTION RE:

"Second, why Rashid Khalidi thinks that it would have been morally fair that there should have been an ideologically Zionist/Jewish[-SUPREMACIST] state at the time of "the UN partition" (c'mon, it was essentially the British partition) on ~56% of the land, for, even with the huge influx of *European* Jews, still only ~30% of the population (up from originally ~6% of native Jews) -- relegating ~70% of the population (Palestinian Arabs) squeezed into only 45% (and actually even less) of the land -- is beyond me and I think any moral human being."

WHAT COUNTRY, LAND OR NATIVE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD WOULD HAVE, OR WOULD, WILLINGLY ACCEPT THIS:

A HUGE POPULATION OF *RACIST* (ESPECIALLY, ANTI-NON-EUROPEAN) FOREIGN INVADERS COME TO YOUR NATIVE LAND --

WITH THE EXPRESS INTENT TO TAKE OVER AS MUCH OF IT AS POSSIBLE --

THEY LIKEWISE ESTABLISH A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT --

THEY ECONOMICALLY DISENFRANCHISE AS MANY OF THE NATIVE INHABITANTS AS POSSIBLE AT AND OVER TIME --

THE U.N. GIVES THEM 56% OF THE LAND --

THE FOREIGN INVADERS DECLARE A STATE --

THEY IMMEDIATELY, PRETEXTUALLY, MILITARILY EXPAND TO ~80% OF THE LAND --

THEY TERRORISTICALLY -- SOMETIMES COMMITTING RUTHLESS MASSACRES AND RAZE ENTIRE VILLAGES TO MAKE THE POINT -- DRIVE OUT AND SCARE OUT OVER A MILLION OF THE NATIVE INHABITANTS IN THE FIRST **TWO** YEARS [OF THE NEXT 60 YEARS] ALONE!

WHAT COUNTRY/LAND AND PEOPLE IN *EUROPE* ITSELF WOULD HAVE EVER WILLINGLY ACCEPTED THAT WITHOUT FIGHTING BACK?

worldwatcher  01/05/2011 06:52 PM Report

(Arrrgh!) InfLection correction (from my previous post):

And then Khalidi, the "historian", says that "the Palestinians are divided" -- as opposed to "the Palestinians were _*DIVIDED*_." That's what European colonialists always *do*: try to and divide the native people...

worldwatcher  01/05/2011 06:50 PM Report

Infection correction (from my previous post):

And then Khalidi, the "historian", says that "the Palestinians are divided" -- as opposed to "the Palestinians were _*DIVIDED*_." That's what European colonialists always *do*: try to and divide the native people...

worldwatcher  01/05/2011 05:15 PM Report

First of all, Israel will never seriously negotiate -- and therefore there will never be an internal resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because Israel has no incentive to do so -- as long as Israel enjoys overwhelming military, economic, and political advantage -- and this in great part to the military, economic and political support of Israel's rich Uncle Sam -- or unless and until there is a tectonic change in the Middle East in any of those factors. When these factors, hugely in favor of the oppressor, are present, there is almost never any internal pressure that can bring down such an oppressive system -- change almost always requires external pressure [the North Vietnamese had external military weapons support against their French and later U.S. colonizers] -- international pressure -- and like then apartheid South Africa (as opposed to apartheid Israel), one economic change could be an international boycott, divestment & sanctions movement. It was and is the Palestinians who have never had a partner for peace, because Zionists/Israel has never wanted peace: Zionists/Israel wanted LAND -- MORE AND MORE OF IT at any Palestinian/Arab human cost that Israel could get away with. Therefore -- as has been the case for decades -- ISRAEL WILL NEVER MISS AN OPPORTUNITY TO *DESTROY* AN OPPORTUNITY.

Second, why Rashid Khalidi thinks that it would have been morally fair that there should have been an ideologically Zionist/Jewish state at the time of "the UN partition" (c'mon, it was essentially the British partition) on ~56% of the land, for, even with the huge influx of *European* Jews, still only ~30% of the population (up from originally ~6% of native Jews) -- relegating ~70% of the population (Palestinian Arabs) squeezed into only 45% (and actually even less) of the land -- is beyond me and I think any moral human being. But, I guess that the "Edward Said Professor" (Said who would have never agreed to such a thing) has to say those kinds of morally counterintuitive things in order to keep his Columbia University professorship, already always -- as was with Edward Said himself -- under attack by this country's hardcore Zionist Jews -- and to keep being invited back on the Charlie Rose Show. That's how the game is played, especially if you're a Palestinian who wants to be on TV in America, Canada, or the rest of the West.

And everyone knew -- foremostly the Zionists themselves -- that Zionist Jews would have never been satisfied with 'only' 56% -- and in fact they quickly move to pretextually and militarily seize ~80% -- and not even that was enough for them: they wanted more of Palestine and even parts of every neighboring country! Even at the time, there were prominent voices in the UK and, later, US governments that said this was manifestly unfair to the Palestinian people. However, in general, the Israelis have gotten and get Western support because Ashkenazi Jews are *WHITE* and European -- that, plus non-Jewish whites in the West can assuage and displace their collective 'guilt' -- vs. the Palestinians/Arabs who are non-European, and upon whom white Europeans can displace European guilt. But, as I would state it: THE TWO-STATE SOLUTION -- A FAILURE SINCE 1947.

And then Khalidi, the "historian", says that "the Palestinians are divided" -- as opposed to "the Palestinians *were* divided." That's what European colonialists always *do*: try to and divide the native people, and set up compradors and 'Uncle Toms' (like Mahmoud Abbas and the other leadership of the PA) in order to disrupt and try to destroy their resistance. (The other Palestinian Columbia University professor, Joseph Massad, is even worse!: he even denies the power and influence of the Israel lobby!!)

It has often been said that the Palestinians have the best moral case in the world, but, too often, the worst 'attorneys'. Khalidi and almost all the rarely few Palestinians that are allowed on national TV (including PBS) in the U.S. know a lot more than I do, scholastically and factoidally, about Palestine and Palestinian politics, but *I* -- and especially the Palestinians *not* allowed on national TV (including PBS) could represent and argue a much better case than Khalidi, who is confined to arguing/debating the *details* of the Palestinian situation, but not the moral and historical big picture. Khalidi, in recent years, has actually criticized the Palestinian leadership -- one that has been under great disadvantage from the start -- more than he has the Israeli, or American Zionist and neocon leadership, who has had ALL the advantages (military, economic and political) given to it by the West (first by the British and later by the U.S., but also by most of the other Western European countries -- including huge amounts by Germany, helping a once victimized and brutally oppressed people go victimize and brutally oppress yet another, so-called, "despised" people.

The biggest moral fact is that the Palestinians are AN -- YET ANOTHER -- INDIGENOUS PEOPLE WHO WERE AND ARE ENGAGED IN A RESISTANCE MOVEMENT AGAINST *RACIST* SETTLER-COLONIAL OPPRESSION BY A FOREIGN EUROPEAN INVADER CLAIMING OPPRESSION BACK IN EUROPE, BUT, IN TURN, OPPRESSING ANOTHER NON-EUROPEAN PEOPLE -- AS HAS HAPPENED SO MANY TIMES IN HISTORY IN THE NON-EUROPEAN WORLD. It's 'Cowboys and Indians' all over again -- ALONG WITH ITS MASSACRES AND ETHNIC CLEANSING OF THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE -- but this time from 1948 to the present -- BY THOSE CLAIMING *GOD'S* DIVINE RIGHT AND ANOTHER WHITE RACIST IDEOLOGY! -- IN OTHER WORDS, BY **HYPOCRITES**! -- AND THIS TIME BY THE WORLD'S GREATEST HYPOCRITES!

Third, how is it that Charlie doesn't understand that declaring a "nation-state" means *NOTHING* without SOVEREIGNTY!? A nation-state -- by definition -- is a geopolitical area and entity where a state and its government enjoy and exercise *SOVEREIGNTY*! (I could declare my home county to be my state, but that wouldn't really mean much.) And SOVEREIGNTY, among other things, means, as Khalidi said, unilateral jurisdictional authority -- and that some other government can't just come in at will (actually, willy-nilly, in Israel's case) and just take any "citizen" [actually, Gazan & West Bank Palestinians don't even have a citizenship] that another government (in this case, the settler-colonial entity, Israel) wants to. Aside from continuing to steal and build on any of those Palestinian's land and demolish any Palestinian homes that Israel really wants -- aside from setting up military checkpoints all over the place, even forcing pregnant Palestinian women on the way to a Palestinian hospital to give birth by the side of the road -- aside from run a 46-ft concrete wall on it anywhere Israel really wants to run it (as opposed to even the 1967 borders).

(Jeesh!: even when Charlie is not playing to U.S./Israeli propaganda -- as every TV/radio host in an American national broadcast network 'must' do to keep their lofty highly-paid jobs -- he can still be so *dense* sometimes for someone who undoubtedly thinks of himself as so smart and "educated" and as one of those talking heads members of the American intelligentsia.)

Anna  01/05/2011 04:48 PM Report

How to pronounce the name of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz?

The stress should be on the second syllable. Ha áretz.

If someone on the show were to put the stress on the last syllable in, say, The New Yorkér,

that would be pretty funny and not on the serious level of the Charlie Rose' show otherwise.

Fiorangela  01/05/2011 03:35 PM Report

Israeli logic:

Problem: Palestinians were promised statehood, 60+ years ago. The promise has not been fulfilled.

Law: United Nations actions that granted statehood to Israel also provided for statehood for Palestinians. That part of the UN action has not been fulfilled. Palestinians are not sovereign over their own lives, property, and institutions.

Solution: (per Aluf Benn): "re-launch the Syrian peace track and pull Syrian away from the Iranian orbit and closer towards the west . . .there is strong voice, especially among the Israeli security establishment which says the surest way around Israel’s strategic problems

is making peace with Syria."

?????

!!!!!

Israel identifies the wrong problem; no wonder it arrives at the wrong solution.

But then, the US identifies the wrong enemy and consequently arrives at the wrong (and costly and bloody and counterproductive) solution.

The greatest enemy to the American people is zionism, not terrurizm.

lyn117  01/05/2011 02:59 AM Report

Khalidi's brilliant and we should all be afraid Israel will attack Lebanon again, or "heaven forbid, Iran."

And if Aluf Benn thinks it's a possibility that Israel will make peace with Syria, you can be sure they won't give up the occupied Syrian territory let alone allow the Syrians who were forced out to return and rebuild their razed villages there.

Khalidi's incorrect if he thinks Israel has ever been a state with equal rights. Palestinians have never been accorded equal rights there. Israel has always accorded superior privilege to Jews.

NoPardonforMichaelMilken  01/04/2011 11:37 PM Report

Avigdor Lieberman rules Israel. That is why Bibi is powerless. Yisrael Beiteinu and Shas have pushed aside Likud. Labor is meaningless.

Lieberman's backers in Russia and the skills of military-enforced rule he learned in the former Soviet Union dictate policy in Israel now and well into the future.

robdverity  01/04/2011 08:07 PM Report

What a waste. Potemkin would be proud. Peace to be deserved has to be earned. Peace w/Syria? Total dissembling.

Israel wants settlements more than peace. Let them have them with their long term price. Their arrogance, grasping defines them.

The US demeans itself. Like W, Obama adm. should abandon ME peace efforts. It weakens our place in geopolitics - over and over and over. We're Israel's puppet.

charlizecourriers  01/04/2011 03:29 PM Report

Nut and yahoo.

REMant  01/04/2011 11:39 AM Report

Can Netanyahu ever be considered lame or a duck? Do you suppose he really wants to see Palestinian unity? Is a latte really $12 in Ramallah? What, pray tell, can it be in NYC?